User talk:Peter coxhead

Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Lists of Salticidae species

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination). Thanks!

Mail message sent

Hello, Peter coxhead. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Photo Removal

I'm new to all this but eager to make positive contributions. I just want to thank you for all the work you do here. You've removed several of my photos recently but I see that your reasoning is sound. Soryy to make more work for you. I'll try to be more pertinent and concise in the future. Thanks!

ARBECR

WP:ARBECR, non EC editors may only make edit requests in the topic area, also see notices I made at editors talk page. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: strictly speaking you are, of course, right, but the non-EC editor made an entirely sensible suggestion, and should not simply be reverted without a careful explanation. We shouldn't discourage well intentioned newbies. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I placed the talk page notices as required, including the "friendly" version as well as the official version, I pointed out WP:ARBECR as well in the revert and that is standard practice in the topic area. All such editors are allowed to do is make edit requests and how to do that is explained, more than that is not necessary. I am not specifically asserting that any particular editor is not well intentioned but experience suggests that a large proportion of editors with very few edits do not make helpful contributions in this topic area and it is best that they edit in a less fraught topic area first.

This matter has been discussed several times in different places, admnin boards, ARCAs and so on, and it is consistently upheld. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Erigeron greenei

I have your problem plant species page watchlisted. Erigeron greenei is intended as a replacement name for Erigeron angustatus Greene (1884/5) (non Erigeron angustatus Fries ex Nyman (1879)). IPNI has BHL links for both, but diverges from POWO in the authorship/names that the IPNI taxon links to. I don't think the authorship on IPNI for either is correct. The later name is Erigeron angustatus (A.Gray) Greene on POWO, which is correct (Greene cites Gray as providing the basionym Erigeron inornatus var. angustatus). The earlier name on IPNI goes to Erigeron acris subsp. angustatus (Hartm.) Fr. on POWO. Nyman (as cited on IPNI) appears to be citing Fries's name as a synonym of E. acre, and not providing a validation of anything that (was or) wasn't validly published by Fries. I'm not sure what Hartm. may or may not have validly published; IPNI doesn't have a record for Erigeron acris subsp. angustatus or any other angustatus published by Hartm.

Basically, Nyman appears to be a red herring. Hartman (or possibly Fries) may have validly published an E. angustatus at species rank. If they did so, a replacement name would be needed for Greene's species. It seems that botanists in California want to recognize it at species rank. Given the screwiness in authorship on IPNI, and how the IPNI records are linked to POWO, I don't think POWO is authoritative for treating the California taxon as a variety. Plantdrew (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I agree with the analysis, and indeed I had already e-mailed IPNI and PoWO along exactly these lines before I read your comments above. PoWO is correct as far as I can tell in regarding Erigeron greenei as a superfluous name and IPNI is messed up. The article should be at either Erigeron angustatus (A.Gray) Greene or Erigeron reductus var. angustatus (A.Gray) G.L.Nesom. Calflora is inconsistent. Here it accepts E. reductus var. angustatus, whereas here it treats E. greenei as the correct name for E. angustatus. I'm not clear which of these two should be used, only that Erigeron greenei is wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at what I have written at Erigeron greenei#Taxonomy (rather selective use of sources!). I await a response from IPNI and PoWO before doing anything more. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable discussion of the issue. Plantdrew (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Dipluridae species

Hello Peter,

If it's alright, I'd just like to seek your advice on the aforementioned article. I've noticed that this page doesn't have any content that isn't included in Dipluridae and the Dipluridae species pages, which makes it a bit redundant. I'm not too familiar with the process for content forks and don't want to step on any toes, but based on the discussion here it seems like the absence of any unique information in this article would be a solid basis for deleting or merging the article. Should I do so?

Thank you in advance. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A good question. I've never liked the overall organization of spider articles, which often seem to have repeated lists, leading to redundancy and the consequent problems of inconsistency when some are updated and not others. I don't think there should ever be lists of species by family. The right approach seems to me to be strictly hierarchical: a list of genera at the family article, and a list of species at the genus article. The only exception is when such a list would seriously imbalance an article (generally only likely for species) when there would be a separate list article with a {{Main}} link to it in the parent taxon article.

When I first joined WikiProject Spiders, I did make this point, and was told that the reason for the organization was that initially there were very few editors interested in spiders, and so few genus articles, so there was a case for dealing with species lists by the family. This isn't the case now, and if it were just down to me, I would delete all the "species by family" articles.

So I would strongly support you if you did nominate List of Dipluridae species for deletion, once it was clear that the species were listed once elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

All the species are listed elsewhere in their respective genus pages for extant genera, and in the family page for extinct genera. At the moment, none of the genera have enough species to seriously imbalance their articles. Should I use PROD or AfD? Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mediocre.marsupial: I think I would go for AfD, because I hope that agreement to delete there could be used to support faster deletion of other redundant spider lists. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I've nominated it for AfD here. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in there if you have time. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about adding some dates to plant names

I was seeing so much of that among the cacti that I fell into the trap of thinking that it must be a new policy. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: no problem; good to see you back around. This has been an issue lately; see e.g. User talk:Tom Radulovich#Dates with botanical authorities – again. Policy remains clear, but some editors clearly strongly disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. The policy is sound, I'd say, until the IBC proceeds in that direction. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)