User talk:Look2See1/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Scientific name"

Hi Look2See1 - just a note: please don't add "scientific name" to the lede of species articles named for the common name. The standard format is "bold common name, followed by scientific name in brackets and italics" - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Lead_section. Also, the IUCN link (if there is one) should by preference go into the taxobox (see e.g. current Valley and ridge salamander) and not under 'external links'. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for animals' Manual of Style requirements Elmidae, I won't do scientific name on fauna articles.

Sorry I don't know how to do the IUCN template in a taxo box. Almost all the IUCN listed fauna species articles I've come across have the IUCN link(s) under 'external links' and not in preferable taxo box nor even as an inline reference. I have been cleaning them up there (leaving under external links) with current 'accessed date' (if I checked) & adding missing 'IUCN Red List' as ref. source for the specific species link, but am not including IUCN's 'species last revised/reviewed' status dates as see no precedent. Am also correcting the 'IUCN general homepage/search engine' link (all flora/fauna) that are usually mislabeled, with an old year's dates misused as 'accessed/downloaded dates,' and do seem to belong under 'external links'…? My understanding is that the general flora/fauna IUCN homepage/searchpage is defacto in the current month/year. Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, look at the source of Valley and ridge salamander [1]. Fifth line from the top, "| status_ref " - that's the IUCN link as an inline reference, using the "cite journal" template, as is current usage. This goes to the species' individual entry on the IUCN page - sending the reader to the front page is not very useful :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Elmidae, you have lost me. I have been clarifying the IUCN specific species' individual entry link from the front search engine page. The numerous circa 2006-2009 references (non-inline) misidentify the "ever-current" 'front page/IUCN general homepage/search engine' as a "2006/09 IUCN" species specific webpage, which is not useful and is misleading. Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms, linked to above re how to start an article titled at an English name, is an essay, and is not agreed policy or guidance, and there's no need to follow it. Style varies among WikiProjects; personally I find the advice at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Lead_section inconsistent and unhelpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Melaleucas not trees

Hello Look2See1,

Thanks for your edit to List of Melaleuca species. You appear to know more about categories than I do - however, it does not seem correct to include List of Melaleuca species in a "List of Trees". You originally added that category in September 2010 when few of the Melaleuca articles were written. I removed it a few weeks ago because only a (fairly small) percentage of melaleucas can be classified as "trees". Perhaps the ones you're familiar with (maybe the U.S. or Canada?) are trees but most are actually shrubs - some very low shrubs at that. Melaleuca apodocephala, for example, grows to a height of 2 inches (4cm) max! As I said, perhaps you know more about categories than I do - maybe if one in a list of 500 plants is a tree then it's okay to include all in a list of trees. Seems strange to me though. Gderrin (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Botanical authorities do not follow the pattern used in zoology

Hi, you have been adding categories such as Category:Taxa named by John Torrey, Category:Taxa named by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle when that is not considered to be the case in botanical nomenclature. For example, Purshia DC. ex Poir. was named by Poiret in 1816, and although De Candolle named it again in an 1818 publication, his name is illegitimate. There was an earlier manuscript of De Candolle's which Poiret used as a basis, but that is not a validly published name. Purshia stansburyana (Torr.) Henrickson was called Cowania stansburyana by John Torrey. In zoology there is a pattern similar to what you have done, that the person who first gave a name, any name, to a taxon, is listed ever after, even if they blundered badly on the taxonomy, but that is not how botanical nomenclature works. If the species name is wrong, then the taxon assignment is wrong, so it cannot be said that the person named the taxon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I endorse Sminthopsis84's point. Actually, I'm not sure of the value of these categories; is the idea to have one for every person who named a taxon? Or just the "major" people? If so, how are they selected?

If these categories are to be used, it would be better to name them as per the "Taxa described in" categories. Firstly, "first scientifically described by", which seems to be the meaning of a category like Plants described in 1753, works for both the botanical and zoological codes, which treat names somewhat differently; secondly, it's better to separate names under different codes, as per "Animals described in ..." and "Plants described in ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment that if only "major people" are to be so treated, the notion that certain people's opinions count more than those of others is inflammatory in botanical nomenclature, which has fought long and hard against it in, for example, overturning the Kew Rule. I would oppose such an approach to categorization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Wherever you are getting this information from, it is way off the mark. I can't even begin to imagine a source that could produce this edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And after looking at the genus Calliandra generally, I conclude that you are tossing all the species in that genus into Category:Taxa named by George Bentham. No, George Bentham did not name all of the species in the genus!! Please remind yourself of what taxon means. (Bentham also didn't claim that he himself was a taxon, as this edit suggests; in fact, I'm quite sure that he would have been horrified by the suggestion.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Neither did John Torrey name Torreya after himself as suggested here. Gderrin (talk)