User talk:Peter coxhead: Difference between revisions

Line 69: Line 69:

:I’m afraid I don’t know much about these fern species – I just adjusted the <em>scientific name</em> to the one used in World Ferns, i.e. ”Microsorum scolopendria” rather than ”Phymatosorus scolopendria”. However, see the World Ferns entries – go [https://www.worldplants.de/world-ferns/ferns-and-lycophytes-list here] and search for the scientific names ”Microsorum scolopendria” and ”Microsorum grossum”.

:These entries say that ”M. scolopendria” and ”M. grossum” have been confused. Only the latter is given as occurring in Hawaii. World Ferns supports your view that some of the information in the ”M. scolopendria” article actually refers to ”M. grossum”. So do make changes (with references of course, which can include World Ferns). [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead#top|talk]]) 22:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:I believe you are correct. Palmer (Hawai’i’s Ferns and Fern Allies, 2008, p. 205) states that “In many publication and checklists reviewing Hawaiian ferns ”P. grossus” has been identified incorrectly as ”P. scolopendria” (Burm.f.) Pic.Serm., a closely related, smaller, mostly epiphytic fern with thinner rhizomes, larger scales, and only five or fewer lobe pairs. ”Phymatosorus scolopendria” has not been collected in the wild in Hawai’i.” I feel fairly comfortable saying that ”M. spectrum” is native, ”M. grossum” invasive since the early 20th Century, and ”M. scolopendria” not present in the islands. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 02:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

== Ref style etc. ==

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
31

This page has archives. Sections older than 42 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

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!

I now have a TUSC account!

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. —

Hey thank you for editing .
My friend

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

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.

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!

Recenty when I was changing the article Laojieella into a redirect and that started with a page blanking then editing but I had to look up a spelling and you edited it when I got back to editing mode, just saying these days I blank my own pages since I screw up, a lot so please don’t be too suspicious of until I go on for over one day without doing anything. Zhenghecaris (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhenghecaris: Yes, I saw and understood your final action. I think it’s better not to blank a page as a first step – in this case I would go straight to the redirect. However, if you do blank a page first, you need to give an explanation in the edit comment, so other editors know what you are doing. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok Zhenghecaris (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter! I’m thinking of replacing the old range maps (mostly for the spider families) I hand-drew in 2006 🙂 I think we can do better nowadays. Check out this first example at Oxyopidae, and let me know what you think. These are created from iNaturalist data. Of course that will miss any area where there are no iNat contributors adding observations… but going by country via WSC will have other issues (and is hard to get correct). I’ll only be able to do these for the more common taxa this way though. Sarefo (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the example for Ctenidae. There are some rare species in Australia for example (eg. Bengalla), of which no observations exist. But just making the entirety of Australia green is also not real… so we’re trading detail (actual areas within countries show, eg the desert in Australia), while areas with rare species don’t. Sarefo (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarefo: I agree that many of the older range maps need improving, but I’m very doubtful about the use of iNaturalist data. It’s not a reliable source; as you know, few spiders can be firmly identified from photographs, which is how iNaturalist works. It’s not a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something, check this map at Ctenidae. I think this might work. It gives the country data in blue. But that might be “Russia”, when it has only been found in some tiny part of Russia. And it gives “iNaturalist hotspots” in green, which gives places where there are ample observations. I think that strikes the right balance, so viewers can quickly get an idea and make a judgment. what do you think? the range data iNaturalist uses is quite reliable. It uses only Research Grade observations (that have been confirmed by others), and models on top of it. I looked at a few, and I think this is the best we can get. The only problem with the iNat range maps is that they are too conservative, leaving out a lot of actually valid ranges. Sarefo (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, we’re talking family level IDs here, not species level. I’m very active on iNaturalist, there are lots of legit spider experts there. I can vouch for the quality of the iNat family level distribution map (apart from it missing out on a lot of locations that *should* show up on the map). Sarefo (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarefo: yes, ok for family level, I’m sure. I do agree that the map at Ctenidae strikes the right balance.

For species, all I can say is that for some spiders when I have compared the British NBN Atlas distribution map, which is based on datasets provided by organizations, not individuals, with the iNaturalist distribution map, I have found discrepancies. Outside the British Isles, compare the iNaturalist distribution map for Lyssomanes viridis with the World Spider Catalog’s opinion that it is only found in the US. An earlier version of Lyssomanes viridis said, based on iNaturalist, that “The species’ native range extends through much of North America and Central America”, which I changed to use only the WSC range. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi peter!

I’m working on a biology assignment and am working on expanding the information on marginalized native Hawaiian plants . My assigned plant is microsorum grossum. Im reaching out because I think m. Scolopendria may have been misidentified. I live in hawaii and am very familiar with this plant. Here are a few sources I got my information from that has led me to believe the information written on M. Scolopendria actually belongs to M. grossum.

I wanted to know your thoughts since you have worked on this page recently.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44076063?casa_token=nX6IYKsxtKIAAAAA%3AJRkTCysV2VJntlJNsEBQe5uhbBzwiWYA5LieBFaglwqSSQ496zS22zkeiMY-NpNaf8qdu9vef87SiIPg4rVZvI1iYQdMBxIPC5U6Y57Gby48HJK9kl6U&seq=1

https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/5229/1777

https://ethnobotany.org/home/education/our-favorite-plants/the-scented-hawaiian-lauae-microsorum-spectrum-and-microsorum-grossum-puanani-anderson-fung.html Roxzib (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I don’t know much about these fern species – I just adjusted the scientific name to the one used in World Ferns, i.e. Microsorum scolopendria rather than Phymatosorus scolopendria. However, see the World Ferns entries – go here and search for the scientific names Microsorum scolopendria and Microsorum grossum.

These entries say that M. scolopendria and M. grossum have been confused. Only the latter is given as occurring in Hawaii. World Ferns supports your view that some of the information in the M. scolopendria article actually refers to M. grossum. So do make changes (with references of course, which can include World Ferns). Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct. Palmer (Hawai’i’s Ferns and Fern Allies, 2008, p. 205) states that “In many publication and checklists reviewing Hawaiian ferns P. grossus has been identified incorrectly as P. scolopendria (Burm.f.) Pic.Serm., a closely related, smaller, mostly epiphytic fern with thinner rhizomes, larger scales, and only five or fewer lobe pairs. Phymatosorus scolopendria has not been collected in the wild in Hawai’i.” I feel fairly comfortable saying that M. spectrum is native, M. grossum invasive since the early 20th Century, and M. scolopendria not present in the islands. Choess (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we could add a section to the Wikiproject Spiders page, outlining best practices for spider articles, including a consistent reference style? My experience is that most people are just copying a random other spider article as a template, hence the “NMBE” ref and the inline refs. Sarefo (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good idea to me, but would need to say it’s for articles without an established reference style, to avoid looking as though we are trying to over-rule WP:CITEVARNO, which wouldn’t be allowed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is that most spider articles are not maintained, and clearly made by people pasting existing articles as templates, usually with a wild mix of reference styles (“:0”, unnamed, named inline). I sincerely think that working towards a unified clean style for all these unmaintained articles will be strongly beneficial for future editors. It can’t be that we’ll be stuck with this mess forever because of overly rigid rules that might not fully apply to this specific situation? It’s a different thing for pages that are clearly written by one person that actually established their own style, of course. There are very few of these I’d say, after having touched *a lot* of spider articles over the last months. Mostly it’s the same content I left around 20 years ago. Sarefo (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the aggressive editor recently was that I did not realize she’s an extremely experienced editor; I thought she’s just some random person who pasted a messy spider article as a template, and tried to help by cleaning up and expanding the article. So that seems to be a special case, inshallah. Sarefo (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarefo: As I noted before, I have moved refs to the reflist, almost always without any objections. I give an edit summary like “tidying refs”. But if an editor does object, which is definitely unusual in my experience, then you have to give way if they persist, because if it goes to WP:ANI, then WP:CITEVARNO will prevail. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply