User talk:Peter coxhead

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

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Peter coxhead. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Peter coxhead. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Type species

Hi Peter, seasons greetings!. I am plodding my way through the Cyprinidae and trying to give all taxa Automatic taxoboxes and Speciesboxes. In the course of this I am trying to give the type species for each polytypic genus. I have an issue with the genus Semiplotus because Catalog of Fishes gives the type species as Cyprinion semiplotum, which is not listed in Fishbase as a species within Semiplotus. Does this mean that Semiplotus has had a new type species designated? Is it now a genus without a type species (therefore invalid)? Or is Semiplotus now a synonym of Cyprinion? Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm much less knowledgeable about the ICZN than the ICN, so you need to ask someone expert in the zoological code. For a plant, it would definitely matter that the type species was moved to another genus (e.g. when the type species of Meconopsis, Meconopsis cantabrica, was moved to Papaver, the genus Meconopsis needed another name – however this was so drastic that Meconopsis was conserved by act of a botanical congress). So I would expect that to keep the genus Semiplotus requires a new type species, but, as I say, I'm not sure about zoological nomenclature, and reading across from one code to the other is dangerous! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggesting asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Trying to think of an editor who has commented with some authority on taxonomic matters, I came up with Faendalimas, but can't now remember in what context. Plantdrew also seems knowledgeable on the taxonomy of many groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

hi @Peter coxhead and Quetzal1964: I saw this question on @Plantdrew:'s page and answered there. Thanks for the ping. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please describe the vandalism you found

Peter, please describe the vandalism you found. I took a screenshot after my final edit at 2:53 p.m. today and it matches the current edit exactly, with the subgenus listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenOpus (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@GardenOpus: sorry, not sure what you are referring to. (Please add new comments at the end of this page.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Peter coxhead. AfC submissions Random submission Extremely backlogged 2373 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: thanks for both invitations. My interest is firmly in creating new articles (particularly about plants and spiders). As is the way of Wikipedia editing, I've been distracted into side paths, and seem to have ended up as the only editor currently maintaining the automated taxobox system. So I'm afraid I have neither the time nor inclination to take on anything else. Happy New Year! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No Problem Peter. Thanks for the response and have a Happy New Year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Witzany spam

Hi Peter, happy new year. I see that you reverted an edit on Elephantidae. It was one of many spam links by 83.215.123.233 who has a long history of adding citations to Witzany. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! Thanks for the information. Sadly, recently the proportion of vandalism and pointless edits on my watchlist is higher than I have known since I started editing Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert on my edit to Wall crab spider

I would like to suggest that a serious page reorganisation needs to take place as follows: "Wall crab spider" should redirect to a new page "Crab spiders" which would essentially be a disambiguation page comprising the section headed <"Crab spider" as a name in common use> (possibly expanded?) to be found under the page for Thomisidae (and removed from the Thomisidae page). The current content of "Wall crab spider" should be transferred to the Selenopidae page and needs to be expanded and brought up to date (which I am happy to do).

Bodhileaf (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bodhileaf: I agree entirely that "wall crab spider" doesn't make a good article title; it fails the precision test of WP:AT while not being at all common ("wall crab spider" doesn't show up at all in a Google ngram). So I will move "Wall crab spider" to "Selenopidae" now.

I would always prefer spider families to be at the Latin name, but it does seem that "crab spider" is a commonly used term for the Thomisidae, so I think that a wider discussion would be needed if "crab spider" were to be moved to "Thomisidae".

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)