User talk:Gcopenhaver1

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pollen et Spores.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Libby norman (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gcopenhaver1, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hello, Gcopenhaver1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Clinanthus elwesii.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

I've added standard things that finish off an article on a species. I've added categories, linked the article to articles on the species on versions of Wikipedia in other languages, added a taxonbar template connecting to various lists of species, upgraded a citation by linking it to the article's DOI and marked the article for the attention of the plants working group by putting a tag on the talk page. Hope that's all OK–you can view my changes in the article history if you want to see what I've done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Blythwood (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Thanks for your changes! The Taxon bar looks easy and like something I can do on the next page I create. I can also easily add doi tags (that's cool, I didn't know you could do that). I'm a little more leery on Categories just because I'm not sure what categories to apply to which articles. I have no idea how to do the link to other languages thing. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Blythwood: Hmm..I tried adding a Taxon bar to my newest page Stenomesson leucanthum but it didn't seem to work. Not sure what I'm doing wrong (probably many things). Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

No worries, it seems worth explaining if you're planning to create a lot of species articles.
A taxon bar pulls its information from Wikidata, Wikipedia's sister project that holds structured data (like EOL IDs). So it's invisible until that connection is made.
You can just put the taxobar in the article when creating it and then leave someone else to make that connection in time–it is a bit fiddly-and this is completely fine. If you want to make the taxobar load yourself, you can go to Wikidata, find your species through the search bar, go to the list of species and languages at top right of the entry and add "en[glish]" and the name of your article. I've added this link for Stenomesson leucanthum on Wikidata as an example, and you will see that the taxobar on your article is activated (this may happen after a short time, normally minutes but sometimes a few hours). This also adds a link to articles on the same species on other languages, if there are any. (There are other ways to do it-I'm covering the most modern system, and obviously this gets more complicated if there's a species naming dispute or if the species is only recently described. In this case I tend to leave it, although obviously if you know what links to make you can make them.) Feel free to contact me if you want more help with this (or indeed anything else!). Blythwood (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurauia avellana, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Blythwood (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurauia glabra, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Blythwood (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurauia copelandii, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Blythwood (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Very cool. Thanks for the explanation of how to add the Taxobar myself. You're right - it is a little fiddly but once you get the hang of it it's super easy and I've done it now for two of my latest page creations! Also I found a cool tool to generate doi-linked refernece (https://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py). Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Blythwood: Hi - quick question. If an image is licensed under the Creative Commons, is it safe to assume it is OK to use for wikipedia? Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay.It depends on the type of CC licence! See here. If you want to upload an image this is the best link; you may also find Flickr2Commons useful if you want to add images from Flickr. I know this tool can search for images appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and this from the NIH which allows searching by license as well, but I haven't used either. Blythwood (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Annona haematantha.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @Hughesdarren: Thanks! Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Blythwood: Hi - I have another question. I'd like to create a page for Annona sericea. When I checked to see if there was an existing page Wikipedia redirects me to the Genus level Annona page. I'd like to get rid of that redirect so that I can create the species page but I don't know how. Do you have advice? Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

• Yes-put in the title that redirects (e.g. Annona sericea) and look at the top of the page you come to, where it says "redirected from Annona sericea". Click on that link and you can go to a page where you can overwrite the redirect with your article. By the way, if generally you want to ask for help from anyone who's around right now, you can put a help request on your talk page (details on the "Stuck?" section of that link). Blythwood (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Diclinanona.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work; thanks for creating this. I've made a few minor tweaks which can be seen here, such as splitting a sentence which seemed to be a bit confusing due to all the information it contained, adding a stub template as the article is rather short, and making a few spacing tweaks. These are all minor, however; certainly nothing to worry about. Please let me know if you object to anything I did with the article or if you have any questions.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SkyGazer 512}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Fusaea decurrens.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good stub article; don't forget to populate the Talk Page tags as well. Well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: Thanks. I've never populated Talk page tags. Can you give me an example of how it is done?

Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Gcopenhaver1: It is very easy. Just find a similar article to yours and copy its talk page tags. If you go into the talk page of this article you will see it is just one simple tag. If you are unsure of classification or importance of the article, just leave blank (e.g. importance=). Once you have at least the main talk page tag, you have a link back to the main category (e.g. WP plants for your article). As you become more familiar with an area, you will find more specific and detailed talk page tags that you can also paste in. Often, if I create a new article I leave the first message/sentence on the talk page saying why I made the article and if I have any concerns/issues. Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: Great! Thanks for the explanation. I'll give it a go. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Gcopenhaver1: You are writing nice quality technical articles (infobox, referencing etc.) in a great topic, so learning these few extra tools is worth it. Best. Britishfinance (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Fusaea longifolia.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good stub! Well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hexalobus bussei.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Could you fix the DAB link to petiole, please. There are two uses of this term on wiki. Thanks

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nick Moyes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nick Moyes (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC) @Nick Moyes: Good catch - done. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

You're welcome. Did you know there's an optional setting in Preferences>Gadgets that allows you highlight DAB pages in orange? It's so useful! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Monodora undulata.

User:Hughesdarren while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren:

Thanks!

Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Gcopenhaver1, thanks for adding exceedingly well-sourced plant articles to the encyclopedia. But might I ask you not to actively work against the convention observed in taxonomic articles on Wikipedia, that monotypic taxa do not get separate articles for the species and the parent taxa? I don't mind combining those when they happen to have been created by accident (and I'm sure Plantdrew and other editors don't mind either), but is a little annoying when you undo this deliberately, as here [1]. There really is no benefit in having separate genus articles when they contain literally no material that is not also present in the species article. As in any large corpus of organized data, there is a need to stick to some rules of organization, and this happens to be one that is observed in thousands of articles. Thank you! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I wasn't aware that was the convention (thanks for explaining), and I'm happy to comply. I certainly wasn't trying to actively work against anything or to be annoying. I guess my (uninformed) reasoning was that while the genus is monotypic now, it might not always be so, so separating the genus and species descriptions would make things easier for a future writer. Also, in this case I had included some information in the genus description, such as the Greek basis of the genus name, that was lost when the two articles were combined. Nonetheless, as I said, I'm happy to work with whatever the convention is. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Gcopenhaver1: Argh, I seem to have had my Unjustified Aggressiveness turned on - sorry about that. I believe I may have had you confused with another editor who vociferously objected to this arrangement, and went into some lengthy edit wars over it. Apologies :) - The point about future additional species is a valid one, but I believe the thinking is that a split is easier to engineer than a lump under these circumstances, and the genus-level setup also allows for some laziness by just adding mention of further species without necessarily creating new articles, if desired. - Please feel free to port the Greek etymology out of the edit history, or I can do it if you prefer. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: No worries. I'm glad to have learned the convention. Despite having created a number of (hopefully well-sourced) articles, I'm still quite new to the Wikipedia community, and the plant article community in particular. I can see both sides of the "lumping" versus "splitting" conversation and I'm happy to go with what the community is doing now. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Elmidae: I fear, despite my best efforts, I may have made another error when creating a monotypic page - please see Duckeanthus grandiflorus. I realize now I should have named the page only after the genus (not the binomial), but I'm not sure that's what's giving the error at the top of the page "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 156: attempt to index a nil value." Clearly I've done something wrong, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Any help would be appreciated. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Seems the header line in the template (Lua code) was lost at some point in the edit; I pasted it back in and it looks fine now. I've also moved the article to the genus name. All good :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

@Elmidae: Thanks for helping so quickly! I'm still not sure why it happened (or what a Lua code is for that matter), but hopefully it won't happen again. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

It's this line at the very top of the template: "{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}" I've deleted that a few times by accident - that template editing interface tends to load in two or three jumps, and suddenly your mouse is somewhere it shouldn't be :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Despite your prior kind help, I appear to have done the exact same thing when creating Mischogyne elliotiana. I'm getting the same Lua code error. When I created the page it noted that there was no parent genus (Mischogyne), so I clicked on the pencil symbol and followed the instructions for entering one. I entered rank, link (left blank) and parent. I pressed preview, it seemed to look OK, so I pressed publish and viola the Lua code error. You had suggested that when this happened last time I had inadvertently deleted top line. I went back to the Duckeanthus page to see if I could follow what you did to fix it last time, but I still can't see that line (I'm sure I'm just being dense). Can you help again, and tell me what I'm doing wrong to keep causing this? Also, please note that in this case M. elliotiana is not monotypic and I plan to create other Mischogyne species pages and eventually a genus page. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Mischogyne is missing the code "{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}" that should appear at the beginning of the template. There are a couple different places you can click (in preview mode) that will lead you to creating the template, but they don't all work the same way (which is probably something that should be fixed). For a non-monotypic genus, there will be a message "Missing taxonomy template (fix):" (where (fix) is a link that takes you to a a mostly completed version of the template that just needs to have rank and parent filled in). The red pencil icon can also be clicked to create a taxonomy template, but it takes a two extra small steps. The first place you arriving after clicking the red pencil is a page asking if you want to create the taxonomy template. If you click the prominent link "Start the Template:Taxonomy/XXXX page" it will take you to a completely blank version of the taxonomy template opened in edit mode. There will be a link "click here to reset" in a pale blue box. Clicking that link will fill in the code required for all taxonomy templates. My guess is that you have clicked the red pencil, then clicked "Start the Template:Taxonomy/Michogyne page", but didn't "click here to reset" to fill in the necessary code. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Thanks. I think you are correct - I do not recall clicking the "click here to reset" text. I'll be sure to do that next time. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

You're welcome. There's another potential pitfall when creating templates for monotypic genera (I couldn't remember precisely what it was when I wrote earlier). In preview mode, there will be two prominent red-links for the missing template on the Genus and Species line of the taxobox. The red-links will take you to a blank template that you will then have to "click here to reset" to fill in the code. As with creating taxonomy templates for non-monotypic genera there will also be a red pencil icon and a "Missing taxonomy template (fix):" message. The "(fix)" link in "Missing taxonomy template (fix):" will always be the most straightforward way to create the taxonomy template.

I'd be happy to create any necessary taxonomy templates in support of future articles you want to write. Just let me know if you want assistance. Plantdrew (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my previous explanation isn't quite right and I hope I'm not confusing you. The difference in taxonomy template creation behavior isn't due to monotypic/polytypic genera, but in using {{Automatic taxobox}} {used for non-monotypic genera) vs. {{Speciesbox}} (used for species in polytypic genera, and the only species in a monotypic genus). You used {{Speciesbox}} for Mischogyne elliotiana, which was entirely appropriate (genus is polytypic, but didn't have a taxonomy template yet). In preview mode, Automatic Taxobox doesn't show prominent red-links to the missing taxonomy template, but Speciesbox does. You clicked on a prominent red link in a Speciesbox preview to create the Mischogyne taxonomy template. There should have been a "click here to reset" message after that.Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Thanks again for the careful follow up. I think my error was in not clicking the "click here to reset". Hopefully next time it will go smoother, but if not, I'll come back to you. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

We are always lucky to have experts come and help us edit in the sciences (especially one of your credentials, my goodness!). WP:Plants and WP:Genetics are both tough projects because we need so many new articles (look at the list of missing Bulbophyllum articles if you dare) and because the accepted taxonomy is constantly changing. It looks like you are doing fabulous work so far and like you are getting hooked into the right groups and resources to help you handle the particular challenges of writing for Wikipedia.

You might very well be interested in WikiProject Genetics as well. It's not the most active place at the moment but we are in the process of merging it with some other projects and redesigning it. There are more details on the talk page and you can take a look at the draft if you like--it should be linked there.

Finally, I'd like to extend my offer of assistance for anything you might need here in Wikipedia. I may not always be the right person to answer your questions, but I can likely help you find the person who is. A good bet, if you are working on botany, would be either Plantdrew or NessieVL. Both are fantastic editors who work on taxon/species articles all the time, including plant articles. And of course, as I said, you have my offer of help as well. Thank you for your contributions so far, and I hope things continue to go smoothly for you! Prometheus720 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prometheus720: Thanks for the kind message. I'll definitely take you up on your offer of advice if I need help (which I'm sure I will since I'm still quite new to contributing to Wikipedia). I also took a look at WikiProject Genetics (thanks for the suggestion). It looks quite interesting so I plan to add myself and watch what's going on there for a bit and maybe contribute as well. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

@Gcopenhaver1: Hi, I noticed that you usually don't use edit summaries whenever you edit pages. You have been doing a lot of really good work, but it really helps people to know what you did with each edit. That makes it easier for people to see how you have changed or improved a page, and helps them to understand what might still need to be done. Just a few words like "Added section on blahblah" or "Added sources" will suffice. That will help people who watch pages that you edit know what you are doing. Otherwise they have to actually click on your edit and go line by line. Edit summaries save everyone time in the long run.

It's something you probably aren't used to and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem so far, so don't fret, but it's a very important aspect of editing a Wiki. It would be best to leave some kind of summaries going forward. Again, thanks very much for your wonderful contributions! Happy editing! :) Prometheus720 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prometheus720: Thanks for the advice! I wasn't really aware of edit summaries - I guess I knew they were there, but I didn't know that the Wikipedia culture was to use them for each edit. I'm happy to comply. I've essentially exclusively been beefing up very sparse stubs that I had created earlier when I was just beginning to create articles. Hopefully, since I was editing pages I had originally created I haven't created too much of a mess by not including edit summaries, but I'll certainly do that going forward.

Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

That's pretty much exactly the case. It definitely isn't a big deal right now, but it does also help people who patrol pages to know whether to check out your edit or not to see if it's a good one. And if/when you move beyond such pages, it will be more important to use edit summaries.

This is totally, utterly unrelated to edit summaries but I thought I should notify you. WikiProject Genetics has been moved as part of a merger process. Several of the biology projects were going inactive or dormant and we merged them. So far we have kept the old page and all of its resources, just in a new location. It is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics, or you can continue to use the old shortcut WP:GEN. The new parent project, Wikiproject Molecular Biology now encompasses the fields/projects ofmolecular and cellular biology, biophysics, genetics, and computational biology. The shortcut for the parent project is WP:MOLBIO, and that is the talk page which should be used for all of its projects going forward.

It is very possible that WP:Plants will do something similar with its subprojects (view them in the cladogram at WP:ToL) in the future, although I'm not sure that has much to do with the taxa that you have been working with.

Let me know if you have any questions about these or other issues on Wikipedia. I know it is a world apart from academia and it can be a learning curve, so if you need anything at all, I'm only a message away. Good luck, and good editing! Prometheus720 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annona acuminata, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Petiole, Calyx and Peduncle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annona sericea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caruncle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On taxon pages, the external link to GBIF is automatically added via Wikidata in the taxonbar at the bottom of the page. The links in the taxonbar are a succinct way to link to a bunch of external websites at once, so duplicating them in a separate external links section isn't necessary. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prometheus720: - Hi. I created an article about a (living) botanist (Yvonne Chuan Fang Su) because she is the authority (in the Latin binomial sense) for a species (Pseuduvaria bruneiensis) that I also wrote an article on. I also added her to the Wikipedia List of botanists by author abbreviation (W–Z). A wikipedian has now left a notability flag on the Su article. I think the value of having an article for a botanist who is named as an authority for a species is clear, but I'm hoping you might provide some guidance on how best to respond (and hopefully remove) to the notability flag. Thanks for any help you can provide. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

I'm not sure you can do much about it. Su probably doesn't meet the notability criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. However, Wikipedia does have many articles on taxonomic authorities that don't meet the notability criteria for academics (Norio Tanaka has been flagged as non-notable for 6 years). There was a lengthy discussion earlier this year at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive_10#Notability of taxonomists that didn't really reach any solid conclusions (although there was a strong sentiment that not every taxonomic authority is notable). In my opinion, notability criteria for academics are a little too strict, at least when compared to sporting figures, where playing in a single major league game establishes notability. There was some media coverage last year of the fact that Wikipedia lacked an article on Donna Strickland prior to her being announced as Nobel prize winner (a draft article about her had previously rejected as not establishing her notability).Plantdrew (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I was aware of the notability criteria (which I think she satisfies under #1), but had not seen the discussion you linked (thanks). Personally, I do not agree with much of what was said in that discussion. I was particularly disturbed by the mockery of taxonomists (which sounded like bullying) and a pretty poor understanding of what it takes to formally describe and name a species (at least in plants). As a professional plant scientist I find articles on botanical authorities very helpful and I'm a bit sad to see that the general zeitgeist for wikipedia notability for academics appears to be more driven by popularity and citations than utility (I think that's mistake). Having said that, I'm not possessive of the article and if someone sees it as more damaging (for reasons that elude me) than helpful I guess that's for the wikiverse to decide. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver[reply]

Well, I don't think the article is likely to be deleted (contrary to what the flag says). Norio Tanaka's article hasn't been deleted, and has been flagged for a long time. Since 2010, only 4 articles about botanists have been deleted. I do think that the sourcing for Su's article is rather skimpy. If there were additional sources, I'd remove the notability flag myself (though I recognize that additional sources may be hard to come by). I'd say the zeitgest for academic notability is mostly driven by not wanting to have students writing articles about their professors to curry their favor (or the professors writing about themselves); but the notability standards do go far than they need to to achieve that outcome. Plantdrew (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I revised this article, mentioning the principal aspects of his career that prove incontestable notability to the lede paragraph and standardizing the article to our usual pattern. . Please look at the changes I have made, and, if you do any further scientific bios--and I certainly hope that you will, please follow the pattern. Emphasising the key elements helps discourage those who do not understand WP:PROF from trying to delete articles on notable scientists.

@DGG: David, thanks for the edits. Is it possible to retain the material in the last section entitled Legacy? It seems noteworthy to me that he founded a scholarship. Also, in the lead paragraph would it be possible to retain the phrase "he teaches" - in reading published interviews with him it appears that teaching is quite important to him and he has won several teaching awards, so that aspect of his professional life seems notable. Thanks again. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Almost all professors teach as a matter of course. That his teaching is impt is already in the article in the GSA award--I will make it a little more prominent. All it takes t found a scholarship is a hundred thousand dollars, so it's hardly significant philanthropy. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'l ltake another look. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: David, first and foremost, thanks again for taking time to review and edit the article. I hope you won’t find it too pushy if I offer some different opinions. I think if he gave that amount it would be notable. According to the National Philanthropic Trust (https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/) the average “high net worth donor” (defined as annual income of greater than $200K) gave $29,269 in 2017. So if Dr. Hawley gave $100K (which is only guess), that would be significantly higher (3X) than an average gift. As for teaching, it is true that all professors teach, but the point is that his dedication to teaching, even among professors, was (is) noteworthy. The analogy I’d make is that you could say that since all basketball players score points it isn’t worth mentioning that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Wilt Chamberland are noteworthy for their scoring. In the end , my point isn't to be protective of what I originally wrote, just to present a balance biography. You can consider my opinions as you see fit.Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Hawley is , as I said extraordinarily notable. He is an elected member of one of the 3 very most prestigeous scientific societies in the world, the US national academy of sciences, which by itself is enough to prove notability by our standards--and by the standards of everyone else in science also. He is a Fellow of AAAS, and being and elected fellow of this organization is almost as important as being a member of NAS. and also, all by itself even if there were nothing else, is enough to prove notability by our standards. He is also President of the GSA, the major US national scientific specialist society in his field, and that too, all by itself even if there were nothing else, is enough to prove notability by our standards. Another way WP and everyone in science looks at notability for scientists is to prove their influence on their field by their high number of citations. For our standards 2 primary research papers that each received 100 or more citations isenough to show notability ; he has written 22 such papers. Quite apart from the high honors he has received, such a record all by itself would show notability by our standard. He is also notable as a co-author of 4 major books in his field, 2 standard treatises known to everyone in the field, one advanced general book, and one well received semi-popular book (and a 5, a major textbook, coming in 2020), He is notable because of his scientific work. His scientific work is the important part of the article, and needs considerable expansion, which I will start.

You may have noticed in many WP articles many people 's bios claim them to be philanthropists based upon trivial charities. They are being gradually removed, unless they are actually significant. W

There's something more general. When articles on highly notable people dwqell on minor matters, it diminishes the encyclopedic purpose of showing how notable they are. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goniothalamus sawtehii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burmese people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per MOS:DUPLINK, we don't repeat wikilinks within a taxobox, although it's generally accepted that the wikilink to an authority can be in both the taxobox and the article text. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: It says "duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader" so it seems that there is some degree of flexibility in this guidance and that embedded lists of species synonyms could fall under this.Gcopenhaver1 talk 12:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is usually taken to apply to 'target' members of the list, should these occur more than once. The authorities are only a minor component of the lists, and the entries are close together – it's not like, say, a table with information and images in some of the cells. But, yes, there's definitely flexibility, but if you look at the overwhelming practice in taxoboxes (and because I monitor the taxobox error-tracking categories and correct errors most days I do, unfortunately, end up looking at a lot of taxoboxes), it's not to repeat the wikilinks for the authorities. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: In the spirit of conversation (not argumentation) my take is that this particular guidance is meant to promote utility by making articles more readable, with the underlying assumption that an over-proliferation of links diminishes the reading experience. As a general rule I agree. However, I also think that taxoboxes are a bit different. They aren't read as narrative text in the way that the main article is - often when referring to the taxobox a reader is looking for a specific nugget of information and having to hunt for links elsewhere actually interferes with utility. Botanical synonyms are a good example - often the reader isn't interested in the entire list, but rather a singular items within the list and having the links directly associated with that particular item is quite helpful (at least in my experience). Tangentially, while I appreciate that authorities may be "only minor components" for many readers, for folks like me who are interested at both the botanical level AND the history of science level, they are invaluable resources.Gcopenhaver1 talk 18:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

Hello Gcopenhaver1, I noticed this edit to Dacryodes laxa and want to make a couple of notes. Firstly, the article had been using list-defined references. There isn't really a need to move references out of these lists. The general principle is "retain existing style", WP:CITEVAR has more details. Secondly, the IUCN status system was changed to IUCN 3.1. However the IUCN assessment for that species has not been updated since 1998 and is still IUCN 2.3 ("LR/lc" status). IUCN does bury the version under the Assessment Information section on those pages, so it can be a little hard to find. But anything before 2001 is likely an earlier version than 3.1. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Thanks for the comments. I wouldn't move refs just for the sake of moving, but in this case I was adding several refs as well and was striving for consistency. You bring up a good point about the IUCN status. I agree that 2001 was when 3.1 was introduced, but IUCN itself has now "retrofitted" many (all?) prior assessments into the the 3.1 style. So, if you go the IUCN page and plug in Dacryodes laxa you will see that even though it was assessed in 1998 it is now listed as LC on the 3.1 graphical scale rather than LR/lc on the 2.3 graphical scale. As such it seems better to reflect the reflect the actual status IUCN is currently listing AND provide the assessment ref which shows the appropriate assessment date - that seems to convey the maximum amount of accurate information to a reader (at least in my humble opinion).Gcopenhaver1 talk 11:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chaetosciadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: You've helped me a couple times in the past so I'm hoping you might lend a hand again. I've been writing a series of botanical articles and virtually all have gone very smoothly. Recently I wrote one Pseuduvaria philippinensis and an editor put a couple of flags "factual accuracy" and "excessive detail" on it. This article is very similar in form to many others that I've written over a few years that haven't been similarly flagged. While I appreciate the editors input, from looking at their user page they don't seem to have a botanical background. Is there anything that might be done about the flags? Gcopenhaver1 talk 20:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the tags. I don't think either were justified. I don't see any reason why there should be concerns about factual accuracy. The description section does contain a lot of detail, but it's the level of detail I think every article about an organism should ultimately have (although very few currently have good descriptions). You consistently produce articles with detailed descriptions and do an excellent job of substituting botanical jargon in your sources with plain English (e.g. "papery to leathery leaves" instead of "papyraceous to coriaceous"). (frankly, I take the idea that Wikipedia is written for a "general audience" with a grain of salt; avoiding jargon is good, but the reality is that the general population reading Wikipedia is composed of individuals who have their own specialized interests; I'm not particularly interested in sports, military history or video games, and article on these topics often have more detail than I care about, but for people who are especially interested in these topics, the detail is probably appropriate).

In the future, don't be afraid to remove maintenance tags yourself (but do pay attention to them and consider whether they indicate ways the article can be approved). There's some guidance at Help:Maintenance template removal and Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. I think maintenance tagging is fading in popularity; I rarely see new plant articles with maintenance tags, but there are many older articles with tags that have been there for many years (see here; I don't pay much attention to it, but it currently includes 11,368 of 99,879 plant articles, and when I first noticed it I'd say it was around 12-13,000 out of 60,000). Maintenance tags don't get acted on much; there's more than enough improvement needed in any subject area to keep knowledgeable editors busy without trying to clean up maintenance tags. Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gcopenhaver1

Thank you for creating Uvariopsis congensis.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in these two Australasian genera. A couple of things to note:

• 1. My understanding is that there is consensus we only acknowledge the describing/publishing author(s) in the categories of plant articles. For example, in the case of Myoporum bontioides, it was named, described and published by Siebold and Zuccarini (as Polycoelium bontioides) - the name was only changed to M. bontioides (not described by) Asa Gray. So the only authors included in the categories for that article should be Philipp Franz von Siebold and Joseph Gerhard Zuccarini. Following this principle, the only "named by" category for Myoporum is Georg Forster and for Pimelea is Joseph Gaertner. If we were to do otherwise, some articles would have a large number of such categories.
• 2. In the case of the genus Pimelea, the original description was by Gaertner, based on a description by Banks and Solander, as is clear from the original description in De fructibus et seminibus plantarum and in the "Taxonomy and naming" section of the article. I hope you will understand if I replace the original inclusion of "Sol.". Banks and Solander worked closely together on the east coast of Australia in 1770, and both should be given credit for their contributions, although both names were later changed by others. Gderrin (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on #1. Regarding #2, my understanding is that Wikipedia discourages scholarly interpretation and instead supports facts that can be supported by secondary sources. In this case a very reputable secondary source, Plants of the World Online hosted by Kew Gardens, lists the authority as "Banks ex Gaertn.". A second reputable source, The Catalogue of Life, lists it as "Banks ex Sol." but neither lists the "Sol. & Banks ex Gaertn." currently listed on the Wikipedia entry. Gcopenhaver1 talk 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The Australian Plant Census is a no less reliable source than PoWO or CoL. (See Appropriate citations) Since both Solander and Banks are referred to in De fructibus et seminibus plantarum, I have asked Rafaël Govaerts to change the entry in PoWO. Gderrin (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already have a reply from Rafaël Govaerts, who writes: "[H]e (Gaertner) mentions it is in the Solander herbarium but that is not ascription of the name". That is a curious answer, since there is no mention of "Banks" in Georg Forster's description of Myoporum in Florulae insularum Australium. Nevertheless, the APC is a reliable source. Gderrin (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa Eileen Adelaide Bruce indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:Yup...I had a typo (my bad). I meant to create "Taxa named by Eileen Adelaide Bruce", but somehow deleted the "named by" part. Please go ahead and delete this category page. I have created the appropriate one and populated it with a link and will populate it with more in the future.

Hi Gcopenhaver1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingenuity -

Thank you for granting me autopatrolled user rights! I'll take a look at those tools you suggested and also think about becoming a new page patroller (I'll carefully review the material on the page you pointed to). Thanks again!

-cheers

GPC Gcopenhaver1 talk 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Georg Carl Wilhelm Vatke indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]