🌿Welcome edit

I don't bite. I also do not have all the answers, but I will do my best to answer questions if you have them. If you think I am wrong, I am open to being convinced otherwise by logically supported, evidence based, succinct reasons. And as I state on my user page if you have a plant from the Southern Rocky Mountains or surrounding countryside that needs an article I will give it a higher priority on my list of things to edit. —🌿MtBotany

Schedonorus to Lolium edit

Wanted your advice on whether Schedonorus (arundinaceus, pratensis, giganteus and if there are any others) should be moved to Lolium, in line with WOPO. In Festuca gigantea there is a 10 year old discussion about doing just this. It looks like a complicated change, though, and I'm not sure how to tackle it. E Wusk (talk)

@E Wusk: Since POWO, WFO, and World Plants all agree on Schedonorus being synonymous with Lolium I think that there will be broad agreement with the move. I start a new topic on a relevant talk page like Talk:Lolium requesting comment on the proposed move and also post one to WT:PLANTS announcing the discussion. If no one comments at all I'll assume that there is no objection after a month. Then I just start knocking out one page after another after making sure the genus page and list of species is reasonably correct. Add a little bit to the Taxonomy section, or start it if absent, briefly talking about the history of various classifications. With that in hand I'll try to move the page myself and if it does not move post for technical help in the uncontroversial moves page.
I'm about to do Cupressus macnabiana to Hesperocyparis macnabiana and recently moved Hesperocyparis bakeri, as examples. The talk about the move seems to have settled down. The last one I completed was Mahonia to Berberis. 🌿MtBotany (talk)) 18:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll give it a go as you suggest. E Wusk (talk)
@E Wusk: I look forward to seeing the edits. I just finished my first edit of Cupressus macnabiana to prepare it for the move. I always take the opportunity to do a small amount of cleaning up of any article I'm preparing to move as long as I'm there. Make sure all the synonyms are correctly spelled by copying them directly out of Plants of the World Online, etc. I also personally like to see if I can find some of the papers where names were first published to see if there is anything of interest. In the one I just did I found information about who suggested the name and why, a good find. I did not go through all the synonyms because I just wanted to get the basics done. Since I could not move the page myself I posted a notice at Technical Requests with links to the discussions. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter edit

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer   Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter edit

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to   Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noccaea fendleri edit

Would you be interested in creating an article for Noccaea fendleri? A lot of the literature pre-2014 refers to it as Noccaea montana, which is now considered to be an exclusively European species. I created the N. montana article years ago by splitting some content from another Wikipedia article where the western North American species was getting mixed-up with another European species due to them sharing the vernacular name "alpine pennywort". The result is that N. montana is really about N. fendleri; I'm not sure that there is anything in the N. montana article that is really worth salvaging aside from maybe the range map. Plantdrew (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Plantdrew I can and I'm happy to do. I'll start a draft today since the information at N. montana is not worth saving. I'll probably have a page ready by the end of the week. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Juniperus scopulorum edit

On 20 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Juniperus scopulorum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mule deer sometimes prefer the flavor of one Rocky Mountain juniper tree, like "ice cream", over another? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Juniperus scopulorum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Juniperus scopulorum), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Anchusa officinalis edit

On 30 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anchusa officinalis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English herbalist Nicholas Culpeper claimed that eating alkanet leaves would make a person's spit deadly to serpents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anchusa officinalis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anchusa officinalis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024 edit

Hello MtBotany,

 
New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

 

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Hesperocyparis guadalupensis edit

On 5 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hesperocyparis guadalupensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that saving the Guadalupe cypress included the help of 40 Judas goats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hesperocyparis guadalupensis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hesperocyparis guadalupensis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter edit

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive edit

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
 
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Synonyms edit

There's always been an issue over listing synonyms in a species taxobox when the species has infrataxa. At Linnaea borealis, the reference given supports only the two listed here. If there is to be a combined list, i.e. synonyms of the species itself plus its infrataxa, then references for all of them need to be given. At Solidago virgaurea, each synonym says what it is of; I prefer the style at Prunus mahaleb. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply