User talk:Plantdrew

Happy New Year!

Plantdrew,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Abishe:, thank you for the New Year's wishes, and Happy New Year to you too. Plantdrew (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you planning on doing the automatic taxobox conversion update this year? I was looking forward to it. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate:, I'm planning on it. I've just been very busy over the holidays. I hope to do it tomorrow, but I might not have time before the 3rd. I had been hoping to get fungi under 1000 manual taxoboxes before I did the update, but I guess that isn't going to happen (on the other hand, I wasn't expecting insects to go under 2000, which you have accomplished, and I was more interested in getting the total transclusion count for manual taxoboxes under 10,000 than I was in getting fungi under 1000, and you've brought the total under 10,000 as well). Plantdrew (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

My goal was to hit the 98% marker before the end of the year. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Patience. I always enjoy these updates and appreciate the effort involved. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Giant-rhubarb has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 18 § Giant-rhubarb until a consensus is reached. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Delivered on behalf of User:CJDinoFan who was unable to do so

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to organism articles

MossOnALogTalk 22:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. 01:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Plantae Barnstar
		Thank you for your help on the Kalanchoe marnieriana, Hermann Johannes Heinrich Jacobsen, and Julien Marnier-Lapostolle articles. Wil540 art (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and thank you for creating those articles. Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to create redirects with an "x" for "×", as the Wikimedia software can handle people typing it. Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, you recently rated Gigamachilis as a stub. It has been expanded considerably since, and I respectfully request you to reassess it.

Regards TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 15:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@TrueMoriarty: done. But you can reassess articles you have expanded yourself. Plantdrew (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 08:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the fixes for this. CoL, and WoRMS both changed their entries within two days of the Archinitocrella and Abnitocrella pages being started. I didn't fix anything because I had drafted a letter to the person at worms but his email address was invalid, so the email failed to send, and it was when I came back to fix everything I found it had already been done: both for the pages and WoRMs, and CoL. Very pleasing. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Plantdrew (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you tagged Telinga oculus for a history merge, but the editors claim that Mycalesis oculus "changed based on Aduse-Poku, K., Brattström, O., Kodandaramaiah, U., Lees, D.C., Brakefield, P.M., & Wahlberg, N. 2015. Systematics and historical biogeography of the old world butterfly subtribe Mycalesina (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae" I could not verify with the claimed source which is free to read, but I did just skim read. In fact it say the currently circumscribed subgenera Telinga and Henotesia, which include taxa occurring in and outside the Malagasy region in some treatments [21–23] are incorrect.

However I recognise your expertise in this area is way beyond mine so just wanted to verify your happy with the change as if I had seen it based on the claim I would have reverted? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Same goes for Telinga davisoni. KylieTastic (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic:, maybe it is best to just revert to the titles that were copied from, since the editor copy-pasting didn't add any sources that support placing the species in Telinga. The Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India appears to be the most recent source in the articles, and it doesn't place the species in Telinga.

The relevant bit in Aduse-Poku et al. is "We also confirm that H. oculus is most closely related to Satyrus adolphei (type species of Telinga, Moore, 1880)", but that doesn't mean they recognize Telinga as a genus and there is nothing about davisoni there.

Presumably there is some recent publication that does place the species in Telinga, but it's not cited anywhere.

Taxonomic database coverage for Lepidoptera is terrible (the only organisms with worse coverage are microscopic things most people haven't heard of). It is worth noting that iNaturalist does have them in Telinga, but iNaturalist isn't necessarily transparent about their sources. Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My reading of Aduse-Poku et al. (2016) is that they revise genus Telinga, including oculus and adolphei (which have been variably placed in Heteropsis and Mycalesis) and excluding non-Asian forms. The quoted sentence above that the "currently circumscribed subgenera Telinga and Henotesia ... are incorrect" is based on their phylogeny and the reason for revising Telinga (both content and rank).

This treatment is accepted in Markku Savela's website, but not at the page linked in the Telinga oculus article (see Telinga). Markku Savela is a lepidopterist and his site seems very reliable for Lepidoptera in my experience. However, he explicitly requests that the site is not used for taxonomic referencing ("Don't do it!").

The treatment is also accepted on nymphalidae.net, which I think can be used as the secondary source confirming Aduse-Poku et al. (2016). Then we can also cite Markku Savela's website as we are not relying on it as the taxonomic reference.

It's not accepted by the Global Lepidoptera Index (successor to Lepindex) but the updates there are inconsistent. Some groups are treated very well and others not at all.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

My reading was that they never call Telinga a genus, only a subgenus. But I might have missed something. Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

After exactly 5 years of me trying, we have all converted 99% of transcluded manual taxoboxes to the automated system. It started to get annoying at around the 15,000 mark. Even though less than 2,500 articles remain in the articlespace, they are too much of a pain for me to attempt in large numbers. If I see one that is easy to convert, I will do it, but I expect my activity to drop after this. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate:, thank you for all your work on this over years. I'm not sure I believe you; you've quit and restarted before. But best wishes for your future endeavours.

I'm getting close to being done with it myself (getting to 0 manual taxoboxes is not a goal of mine). I'm planning on posting a brief stats update when the transclusions in article space drop below the transclusions in all other name spaces (currently 2491 articles, 2457 others), and a final stats update in at the beginning of July.

I'm about halfway through the gastropods, going article by article. Then I plan to do a final pass through fungi, beetles and lepidoptera. I haven't worked really at all on conodonts or mites, so I'll check those out too. There might be a few articles in other places I skipped because they were at the wrong title for monotypy and I didn't have page mover rights when I last looked at them.

After that, I'm going to be done with it. I'm not interested in spending much time dealing with fossils with uncertain placement, incorrect assertions of monotypy that require new articles to be written, synonyms that need articles for the accepted names, or complicated merges. And those situations cover most of the remaining manual taxoboxes. Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not leaving Wikipedia, but I am done with these taxoboxes. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't read you as intending to leave Wikipedia entirely this time. I'm certainly ready to be done with taxoboxes. I've been at it for a little over nine years, and I think I'll probably be able to wrap my efforts up in no more than two months. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the plant manual taxoboxes among others. There are currently ~82, but they are all problematic in some respect. Citrus taxonomy is a complete mess, so I ignore citrus articles. There are articles on species that PoWO and other taxonomic databases either don't include or regard as "unplaced". Then there are extinct plant taxa, which can be tricky because paleobiology sources quite often use different classification systems. So I agree that a target of 0 for plants is not desirable (although it works for spiders). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a number of articles with manual taxoboxes, like Pinidae, about Chase & Reveal taxon names that don't appear to have been widely taken up. Personally I don't think they should have their own articles, since they mostly correspond to taxa with more established names for which we already have articles, but I'm not quite sure what the best solution is. Any thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, in principle, I'd be fine with redirecting them. Are there any besides Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal, Cycadidae, Ginkgoidae, and Pinidae? There is also Cupressidae, but I don't know if that is a Chase & Reveal taxon (and it conflicts with the classification presented in Pinidae, although Template:Taxonomy/Pinidae exists and has only Pinales as a child which is consistent with the classification represented by having a Cupressidae article).

• Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal is getting just barely over 1 page view/day. The other get more, but I suspect a lot of that is due to inclusion in Template:Acrogymnospermae classification for Cycadidae, Ginkgoidae and Pinidae, or being displayed in automatic taxoboxes for Pinidae and Cupressidae. At least as an interim step, I think unlink them all from templates and see what happens to page views (I'm not sure if the Cupressidae/Pinidae split is widely supported). Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't realized what an utter mess the classification material is in articles like Gymnosperm. The systems in the taxobox, in the Classification section and in the cladogram are inconsistent. De-linking in Template:Acrogymnospermae classification is certainly a good first step. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

One of the things I find problematic about navboxes is the lack of referencing. I've had run-ins with the editor that created Template:Acrogymnospermae classification in the past over synthesizing classifications or cladograms from different sources. I'm tempted to replace the existing content with the draft at User:Peter coxhead/sandbox which is based on the latest complete system I've found (Yang et al., 2022 doi:10.1016/j.pld.2022.05.003). I'm not sure about going down to genera. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Plantdrew. 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.

Jonah Ginsburg (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey Plantdrew, let me know if the email didn't go through. Thanks, Jonah Ginsburg (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: The reason why I am sending you this message is because User:ScrubbedFalcon closed the discussion as merge, I 100% disagree with it. I have created an against the merge section on the page Talk:Ferrero SpA, with multiple reasons of why I am against it. Catfurball (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Catfurball:, I'm utterly mystified why you are contacting me about this. I supppose I might have done some Wikignome type edits on one of those articles, but I have no memory of having done so. I do have an interest in food related articles, but that doesn't really extend to food manufacturing companies. Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Manduk pami has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 13 § Manduk pami until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Plantdrew, this seems very curious to me. If someone searches on "Cirripedia" they are taken automatically to "Barnacle" ... where they won't see the categories? Are the categories not meant to be seen by ordinary readers? The only way to get to the categories in this system is for someone to click on the link in "(Redirected from Cirripedia)", which does seem a bit roundabout, and I can't believe any normal readers would do such a thing. I presume some decision has been made in policy circles here, but I don't see the logic in it. Surely the categories are required where the taxobox is shown, even if they're also in a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:; barnacle is not a taxon that was described by one taxonomist in a particular year; Cirripedia is. Aside from birds and mammals, where article titles are almost always vernacular names, "named by"/"described in year" categories are frequently on scientific name redirects, not vernacular name titles.

I question the value of the "named by"/"described in year" categories in general, but I suspect if there is anybody interested those categories, they are likely to be browsing the categories themselves, not generally arriving at them from articles with vernacular name titles. Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well if the categories are trivial then it hardly matters. I'm not sure I see the relevance of whether "Barnacle" is a taxon; the point here is that Barnacle-the-article is functioning as the taxon's home, since Cirripedia redirects to it, so it is where folks will see the taxobox, the description of the taxon, and I'd have thought that would mean also any ancillary information like categories which go with the taxon, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:, if you want to add the categories back to the barnacle article, I won't object. But I think, per WP:INCOMPATIBLE, that they belong on the taxon name redirects first, and on the target of the redirects second (if at all). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm not a cats person. I quite see that for formal reasons the cats are needed on the redirect, but as normal folks won't go there, I'll take up your suggestion of adding them to the target article now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)