User talk:Peter coxhead

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 42 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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 remove this notice 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!

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Brachyura

The problem with this is that both Brachyura and Anomura are crabs, and while the former redirects to crab, the tags {{Brachyura-stub}}, {{Anomura-stub}}, and {{Crab-stub}}, are all unique and have distinct categories associated with them. When running the Species Helper tool, it looks to find the lowest level stub tag it can, and with your change to the taxonomy template, it now finds the crab stub tag and not the Brachyura stub tag. This is incorrect. This is why I had previously edited the taxonomy template; the underlying redirect gets the user to where they need to go, while allowing the tagging to happen properly. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: the reason I made the change is that the link in a taxon's taxonomy template and the title of the taxon's article must match for the taxobox to be displayed correctly in the taxon's article. At Crab, the lowest level, Brachyura, is now displayed in bold, as it should be as the target of the taxobox. If Template:Taxonomy/Brachyura doesn't have |link=Crab|Brachyura but just |link=Brachyura, then the Wikimedia software doesn't detect that the last taxon in the taxobox at Crab is a self-redirect, and shows it as a normal link, which then goes back to itself, which is wrong.

This is explained (briefly) at WP:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#link. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the issue is that Brachyura and crab should not be the same article. Meh. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: meh indeed. If English names are to be used, I guess Brachyura = "True crab" is the best that could be done, with "Crab" as a disambiguation page. It's not an area in which I edit, but I strongly doubt there would be a consensus for this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm gonna have some fun converting a bunch of crab-stub tags to the correct smaller category..... UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I know what I can do... make stub template for each of the Sections under Brachyura, but with the stubs all pointing to the Brachyura category. Duh! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weingartia

I updated the Weingartia and Rebutia pages and redirected the species pages. Some of the redirects are not correct for synonyms because they are now legitimate species. Just want someone to check in case there are any issues or if I missed something. --Cs california (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california: I've been rather involved in a discussion about how to handle stem-group taxa, but I won't forget about these genera. (I had noticed the quite radical changes to the circumscription of Rebutia. I grow or have grown 9 cacti labelled as Rebutia species or cultivars, but I've discovered that 6 of them are now Aylostera and 1 is a Weingartia. The other 2 are varieties or cultivars of Rebutia minuscula. This assumes, of course, that the labels were correct when I acquired them, which with cacti should not be assumed!) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]