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!

Philodendron Garden Party

You're invited to the Philodendron Garden Party!, which seeks to create and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the genus Philodendron from April 15 to May 31. Feel free to share ideas and results!

Happy editing and happy gardening! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We Should Change "Total group Vertebrata/Craniata" to "Total group Vertebrata" in The Chordata Taxobox

So User:Mlvluu continued changing it again and again, until he got blocked. I got blocked too for edit warring by the same admin, when Mlvluu did that but I didn't. But weirdly, the same admin added "Total group Vertebrata/Craniata" back. I said that it should be reverted to the admin but he didn't answer, he just doesn't care. So what should we do? If I change it, I can get blocked again. Jako96 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96: the more I look into this, the less sure I am about what to do, other than knowing that "Total group Vertebrata/Craniata" is wrong. The problem is that almost all the major taxonomic sources use different schemes. Given that the taxobox is including extinct taxa, the Paleobiology Database's approach might seem relevant. It treats Craniata, Olfactores and Vertebrata as some of the separate children of Chordata. Some taxonomic databases equate Craniata and Vertebrata (e.g. ITIS); others treat Craniata as including Vertebrata (e.g. NCBI Taxonomy Browser). Our articles on these taxa seem to me to be insufficiently neutral, since they do not adequately report the very different schemes in sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles should be developed, yeah. But now, we should revert this uncited edit. Jako96 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting it. Jako96 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. By the way, NCBI's Craniata is technically monotypic. Because "Craniata sp." is not a formal taxon. So they still treat them as synonyms. But yes, we should report different schemes, really. Jako96 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opocunonia

Your edits here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opocunonia&diff=1019237589&oldid=1019234287

left an errant ref tag. I moved the entired unused named reference to the talk page in a new {{refideas}} section.

Thanks 176.108.139.1 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

autotaxobox

This edit. Did you really mean to do that? For whatever reason, the new version of Module:Autotaxobox requires Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy which is, a defunct experiment. Why now, are you bringing it to life?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why your module had 140k transclusion. There is another discussion on using the automated taxobox system on other wikipedias and generally translating articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#The_translation_tool_doesn't_translate_articles_between_English_and_French_Wikipedia_properly_for_species_articles,_how_can_we_fix_it?. — Jts1882 | talk 18:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At line 12, Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy is required but the only use of that module is at line 278 which is commented out. That being the case, I have removed both lines. If that somehow breaks sommat, revert me.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: thanks for fixing that. I hadn't noticed when I edited the sandbox version that it had this difference from the live version. I've no idea why. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]