User talk:Tom Radulovich

Archives:

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Have a barnstar for your work to the Sierra Madre del Sur article - Pheonix 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

Hi Tom Radulovich, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! œ ^™ 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to put up articles on here, we need contributors for Africa!† Encyclopædius 07:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I listed a few on User:Skysmith/Missing articles about Locations - Africa; is that the best spot to do so?

Falkland Islands

Hi,

I saw a number of edits you made on Falklands topics. There seems to have been a problem with the edit as it introduced an error in wikisyntax. I did try and fix it but I'm having one of those days and couldn't see the problem. So I ended up reverting to the last version.

I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind explaining what the change means - to a layman it seems strange to label the Falklands as "tropical". W C M_email 17:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – there are a few different biogeographic schemes in use to classify places. The principal one used on wikipedia is Biogeographic realms. In that system, which includes both flora and fauna, the Falklands are part of the Patagonian grasslands ecoregion, which is part of the Neotropical realm, a realm that includes the rest of South America. In that system there is a separate Antarctic realm which includes Antarctica and some subantarctic islands like South Georgia, but not the Falklands, so it's not accurate to say that the Falklands is in the Antarctic realm, aka Antarctic ecozone. A similar scheme used in botany is Floristic kingdoms, which are similar to the biogeographic realms, but with slightly different boundaries, particularly in the temperate southern hemisphere. In that system, the Falklands and Patagonia are part of the Antarctic Floristic Kingdom, which includes some other temperate-zone areas of South America, Australia, and New Zealand, based on the presence of the temperate-climate Antarctic flora. So what I was trying to explain is that in the biogeographic realm system the Falklands are part of the Patagonian grasslands ecoregion and Neotropical realm, but in the Floral Kingdoms system the Falklands and Patagonia are part of the Antarctic Floristic Kingdom.Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. I don't know what has gone wrong but if you can fix your edit, feel free to revert back to your version. I helped get Falkland Islands to FA status so I like to try and keep it neat and tidy. W C M_email 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoregion stuff

Hi Tom. You might be interested in this list:

Draft:List of ecoregions in Europe

It's a draft I made, covering all ecoregions within Europe. I have also collected several images for ecoregions here on WikiCommons. Also for pages that has not been written yet. RhinoMind (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will check it out. Some of the European ecoregion articles still need infoboxes, maps, and images; perhaps what you have collected here can be used to expand those articles, or start the missing ones. Tom Radulovich (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanpur

Hey i am from this city. Thanks sir for creating a Wikipedia page for my city back in 2004. Hope you will be fine. Stay preventive from the coronavirus. And if you can, please help me in updating the article. I a new Wikipedian. HeroNumberZero (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am a new Wikipedian. (sorry for grammatical mistakes in previous one) HeroNumberZero (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are very welcome. It has been a while since I looked at Burhanpur, but I will have another look.Tom Radulovich (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for all your work on Australian ecoregions - specially the tying in the IBRA context with it all, much appreciated !! JarrahTree 05:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Most of the articles are still rather thin; please help make them better articles if you're game.Tom Radulovich (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hahah that exhibits a knowledge of this place in fewer words than most... the most complicated is the marine of the variety, it is in 3 dimensions - headache beyond headache JarrahTree 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Plain Woodlands

G'day. I see that you have categorized Cumberland Plain Woodland under Temperate forests, when the plain doesn't even have forests to start with (it is a grassy, dry woodland area with an open canopy). Whilst the region doesn't have a Mediterranean climate per se, its shrubby and dry woodland area is reminiscent of the Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub and as well as Temperate grasslands. And such woodlands do not need to have a Mediterranean climate either way, to posses Mediterranean-style woodland areas, as some oceanic and humid subtropical climates near the Mediterranean sea feature Maquis shrubland.

For the record, the Eastern Australian temperate forests cover the forests in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney and those in the Royal National Park south of Sydney, which are well outside of the Cumberland Plain. Now they tremendously feature pockets of temperate and subtropical forests, whereas the Cumberland Plain does not.

Here are some image examples of the natural vegetation of the Cumberland Plain: image one, image two, image three, image four, image five. Now compare these to the temperate forests in the Royal National Park in southern Sydney and Blue Mountains National Park west of Sydney. You can clearly see how dry and scrubby the Cumberland Plain Woodland is for "temperate forests" and how it certainly can't be grouped with the actual neighbouring temperate forests in the vicinity.

Here is a descrption of the Cumberland Plain Woodland from a NSW government website:

_{^{"...typically comprises an open tree canopy, a near-continuous groundcover dominated by grasses and herbs, sometimes with layers of shrubs and/or small trees. Shrubs may sometimes occur in locally dense stands. Less disturbed stands of the community may have a woodland or forest structure. Small trees or saplings may dominate the community in relatively high densities after partial or total clearing, and the groundcover may be relatively sparse, especially where densities of trees or shrubs are high. The community also includes ‘derived’ native grasslands which result from removal of the woody strata from the woodlands and forests."}}

I'd understand that maybe for climatic reasons, the Woodland cannot be grouped under Med forests, but it certainly shouldn't be placed under "temperate forests" (as per description above). I hope you have a perspective on this. Thanks. – 203.221.127.71 (talk), 08:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the IBRA classifies each of the bioregions by biome:[1]. The entire Syney Basin bioregion, which includes the Cumberland subregion, is classed as temperate broadleaf and mixed forest (IBRA uses the terms 'ecoregion' and 'biome' interchangably, while in the WWF scheme biomes are biomes and ecoregions are one or more bioregions, but the schemes are otherwise well-synched). All of eastern NSW and southern Victoria, from the Dividing Range to the sea, is classed as temperate broadleaf and mixed forest, along with portions of the western slope. I have been sticking with the IBRA and WWF classifications for my edits to ecoregion and bioregion articles.

Why the two authorities classify Cumberland subregion as they do is something they could best answer. I'd offer that ecoregions and bioregions are large, landscape-sized units that have one predominant plant community, but may include others. Forest regions (the ones near me, for example) have areas of grassland or shrubland resulting from historic disturbances or the underlying soil conditions. Grassland regions may have enclaves of forest or woodland. Some temperate forest ecoregions also have sclerophyllous trees, particularly if they are adjacent to mediterranean-climate regions (known in Europe as 'submediterranean' forests) or semi-arid regions.

The ecoregion and bioregion delineations are based on the ultimate (or natural, or climax) vegetation – what would occur there without human disturbance. Many areas have been extensively disturbed, and some for a very long time. In many forest ecoregions - humid, dry, and Mediterranean - there now extensive areas of anthropogenic grasslands, savanna, and scrub. I hope that helps. Since the Cumberland Plain Woodlands is neither an ecoregion or bioregion, perhaps the article can do without a biome category if you think it just creates confusion. Tom Radulovich (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I am aware that the whole Sydney region is grouped under Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests classification and I've seen these biome maps many times. But I had always thought its categorisations are too generic and are rather linked or conflated with the climate of the region. So oceanic and mild humid subtropical equates "temperate broadleaf", Med climate is "Mediterranean forests" and semi-arid will naturally be "temperate savannah". That isn't always the case as climate and vegetation don't always match. I understand that you were following the main source, but at times the official sources just don't get everything correct themselves.

Sydney's vegetation is originally grassy woodland with sparse sclerophyll trees and shrubs, hence "Cumberland plain" (source). When the plain was first discovered and observed by Europeans in the late 1790s, it was described as "a fine timbered country, perfectly clear of bush, through which you might, generally speaking, drive a gig in all directions, without any impediment in the shape of rocks, scrubs, or close forest" (source).

About the biome category, I personally think "Mediterranean woodlands/scrubland" is more fitting because the name at least includes the words "woodlands and scrubs" (appropriate for the Cumberland Plain), and the core definition of Mediterranean forests would cover sclerophyllous vegetation. This is something that "temperate forests" doesn't do, nor define. So "Mediterranean" just seems the closest thing right now. And one reason why most of Sydney (not just the Cumberland plain) cannot be Temperate broadleaf & mixed forest is because it is predominantly covered by (sclerophyllous) eucalyptus, grevillea, melalueca, acacia and casuarina trees. Whereas 'mixed forests' would generally feature conifers, ficus, beeches, birches, oaks and/or other 'mixed' species including many other deciduous trees. If anything, Tasmania and NZ have regions with 'true' mixed forests and can be rightly placed under "temperate broadleaf & mixed forests". Even if you disagree, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Cheers. – 203.221.127.71 (talk), 08:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Ecoregion importance scale

Are all ecoregion articles presumed to be of "middle" importance for the Ecoregions Wikiproject? Is it possible that some WWF-designated regions are of high or low importance? (Great work, by the way, filling the regions out). Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. I was following the assessment criteria here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions/Assessment, which say that articles on ecoregions ought to be mid-importance. It seems a reasonable default for primary ecoregion articles, although it's somewhat mechanical. It also seems reasonable that certain ecoregions might be of higher or lower importance. Are there some criteria you'd suggest for distinguishing higher or lower importance? We could add those to the guidance for the WikiProject. In WWF's conservation assessments (Africa, Indo-Pacific, and so on) they use a "globally outstanding – regionally outstanding – bioregionally outstanding – locally important" scale, based on both species richness and endemism. I don't know whether they have done such an ecoregion-level assessement for all the continents, although there is the Global 200. Tom Radulovich (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance scale is really about the level of readership/pageviews. At other Wikiprojects I have found that most articles get hardly any pageviews, some get some pageviews, and a few get lots. Given that it is WikiProject Ecoregions, it is best that all ecoregion articles are at least Mid-importance, but if some are extra-popular with the readers, they certainly can be High-importance. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your continued etc...

just a note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West,_Western_Australia is the disambig that is not a disambig - in view of the size of western australia, some regions regions have up to 6 or more possible variations of boundary - just in case you hadnt encountered it... thanks for continued work on oz regions - appreciated JarrahTree 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm planning to do some work on the Southwest Australia article to distinguish some of the biogeographic definitions of the region and its sub-regions (Beard, IBRA, WWF, CI, etc.). It currently centers on CI's 'hotspot' definition, which is not necessarily the most important one. Tom Radulovich (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there is also the rather perplexed Regions of Western Australia to give a handle on the issues, if it still exists, we live in perplexing times JarrahTree 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoregions

Good work on the ecoregions articles. I was thinking of working on some myself, but I was wondering if there was a list somewhere of approved ecoregions? Abductive (reasoning) 00:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And we'd love more editors on the ecoregion project; there's lots to do! The definitive list, as devised by the WWF and their partners, is here: List of terrestrial ecoregions (WWF). North America has two other official ecoregion schemes. There are also Lists of ecoregions by country, and lists attached to the biogeographic realm articles if you have a particular geographic interest. There are a few dozen ecoregion articles yet to be written. All of the primary ecoregion articles are ranked mid-importance or higher on the project's importance scale, so improving mid-importance and high-importance stubs is also great way to contribute. The project also has very few good articles, and could use reviewers and editors willing to improve them. I'm happy to answer any questions.Tom Radulovich (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a spreadsheet of the ecoregions to use as a checklist. It has some useful Wiki info for each ecoregion, like the Wikidata link (if any), the map file name (if any), pointers to the foreign wiki articles, known redlinks, etc. The original core list was from the Nature Conservancy site (here). Is there a way to upload this Excel file to my userpage or the Project Ecoregion page? Other editors might find it useful. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the excel2wiki converter (Wikipedia:Tools#Excel) to convert an excel table to this wikitable: List of ecoregions in Australia#WWF ecoregions and IBRA bioregions. It was pretty straightforward even though I'm not very technical. I did have to wikify the links manually.Tom Radulovich (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see you guys over at the Wikiproject talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Ecoregions "Open Tasks" Suggestion

Happy New Year! I see that we are getting close to having articles for all of the WWF terrestrial ecoregions. I have drafts for the remaining 10 redlinks and am looking to post them in the next couple of days, along with a round of maps. Would you mind if I updated the "Open Tasks" section at Wikiproject Ecoregions? I'd like to suggest some of the obvious next steps - de-stubbing, separate articles for the Redirects that deserve them, updating conservation statuses, minimum datasets for Wikidata, marine/freshwater articles, etc. Would that be OK with you? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds like a great plan. Thanks for all of your work on the articles, and happy new year to you as well!

west oz coast

there are many holes in the info regarding 'sections' of the coast, probably the longest in any single jurisdiction on the planet, I am not sure - the regions of wa (9 admin) hardly do justice to the regional variations in the biogreography as you will find - and few if anyoz eds have had the courage to go into the 3 dimensional nature of the maritime ecoregions in Integrated_Marine_and_Coastal_Regionalisation_of_Australia - and even as only few have delved into the IBRA JarrahTree 05:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WA is indeed wonderfully biodiverse, and it's a challenge to represent that complexity in these articles. The marine coastal and shelf bioregions are more straightforward, since they vertically integrate the seafloor and neritic biota. The continental slope and deep sea bioregions are a bigger puzzle since the pelagic and benthic regions aren't vertically aligned. Also, the continental shelf edge makes a sensible biogeographic boundary, but the EEZ boundary is entirely political and makes no biogeographic sense. It's also harder to find much written about deep ocean biogeography, while the coastal regions are better documented. So for the time being I'm content leaving the deep sea for others to sort out.

What do you think of renaming "Category:Pilbara coastline of Western Australia" to "Category:Pilbara Coast"? There are already categories named Ningaloo Coast, Batavia Coast, and Turquoise Coast (Western Australia). Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to the proposed change - and thanks for your understanding of the issues - it is reassuring that someone after all this time is dealing with the issues. JarrahTree 01:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there has been a tendency for very lazy eds to create stubs x found in australia - with no qualifying state or region identified, similarly even such a tendency of x in western australia - leaves a very large physical range to be potentially found. As a result, the 9 administratively created 'regions' have been utilised. The considerable issues of who calls what leaves the 'south west' of western australia a minefield - as shown in the regions of wa article. Even the botanists and others over 120 years have determined more south wests than people have breakfasts in the week. There was an attempt to show that in an attempt to identify the range of south wests - at least pilbara and kimberley are straight forward and sort of make sense. More problematic is the north west/gascoyne confusion. And so it goes, there are quite a few tricks to encounter.JarrahTree 01:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former biosphere preserves?

Why did you put Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in the category Former biosphere reserves of the United States? Why "former"? It hasn't changed that I know of. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US government withdrew 17 protected areas from the world network of biosphere reserves in 2017. Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest was one of them: [2], [3]. Tom Radulovich (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here’s a chezburgr

Engie (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Engie (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean_forests,_woodlands,_and_scrub#Degradation

Hey I noticed you are passionate about this topic and I added an image into section on #Degradation (back from 'fatherland' of exYUgoslavia), but you might want to organize photos to be more directly tied to sections? I did not want to stir things much in a long page.

Also consider checking out https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ExPatYUGOdiasporas :-)

Keep up the good work! --Zblace (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel/laurissilva (the so-called evergreen broad leaf forest of Madeira, Azores and Canary islands)

I would suggest you to read the basic definitions of laurel/laurissilva (the so-called evergreen broad leaf forest of Madeira, Azores and Canary islands), on wikipedia and not only. It is mainly a subtropical type of forest. Why is that? The species composition is very old dating back to the Tertiary period (in Madeira the laurissilva was estimated to be around 1,8 million years old) when subtropical forests were dominant in southern europe and because it are not Mediterranean or Deciduous temperate forests. Broad leaf is the opposite of Mediterranean and differentiates it from both conifer and small hard leaf Mmediterranean vegetation and evergreen is the opposite of deciduous, because the leaf cover is permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.94.20.23 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying about the characteristics of laurisilva, how they're distinct from Mediterranean sclerophyll and temperate deciduous forests. That understanding is reflected in the two ecoregion articles (which I substantially wrote) which you have recently started editing, as well as the laurel forest article.

However all of Wikipedia's articles about WWF/DMEER-defined ecoregions reference the biomes used by WWF and DMEER. That system classifies the Azores and Madeira ecoregions as temperate broadleaf and mixed forests. That biome is broad enough to include warm-temperate to subtropical evergreen forests in Macaronesia, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, as well as semi-decidous or deciduous forests in colder temperate climates. The WWF scheme was developed over many years by some very qualified people, has a lot of research informing it, and is widely used by researchers and NGOs, which is why the Ecoregions wikiproject used it as the basis for these articles. The consensus at the Ecoregions WikiProject was that it's better to use a consistent set of ecoregions and biomes than to have everyone invent their own – and fight about them.Tom Radulovich (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok

there are some really weird definitions of south west australia - but hell, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Western_Woodlands is well out of the range - experiencing in real life it is so obvious... JarrahTree 10:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK to answer myself:

The transitional Coolgardie, Hampton, and Yalgoo regions are generally drier than the rest of the Southwest. They considered part of Southwest Australia by the WWF, but are considered part of the Central Australian or Eremaean Region by the Western Australian Herbarium - and the historic context is that the wwf must be the only lot to get into such stuff... all locally produced attempts to compartmentalise the environmental contexts, by rainfall, vegetation type and all tended to leave out the transitional regions... city based western australians associate 'south west' as a rainfall and vegetation indicated region, many would say that it has a boundary in the wheatbelt... JarrahTree 02:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WWF scheme was developed over many years by some very qualified people, has a lot of research informing it - er, not apparently from local perspectives, in this case... JarrahTree 02:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to disparage your work in any way, it is very important and valuable, but as you have experienced (from items on your talk page) there are points where the 'mapping' may have a few small hiccups between the reality and the lines in the map - what is pertinent in the australian scheme - is that there is room for updates/modifications - the very title of the australian regionalism mapping is Interim - in view of a range of issues in relation to the state of the ecologies of the regions, to offer a fixed ahistorical understanding of the western australian environment is in itself a major fallacy that will be undone over time by various changes. Not your problem, not the wwf ultimately, something that an even closer examination (not just the west oz herbarium or similar authorities in the australian context) would explicate a more complex array of circumstances that will undo such 'neat' ideas. JarrahTree 02:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to the major issue with the lead paragraph of southwest australia - not true - it is simply one of a number of definitions - and the lack of explanation that the wwf definition is not necessarily the same as understood currently or historically by on the ground botanists, geographers and all the rest is a major fault of the lead para - JarrahTree 02:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your question whether to include the transitional areas (Coolgardie, Yalgoo, and Hampton bioregions) in the scope of the article or exclude them altogether? I favor including them in the article's scope, with the caveat that they're transitional. The Great Western Woodlands is basically the Coolgardie bioregion, albeit with a fancier name. It corresponds to Beard's Southwest Interzone. IBRA doesn't define Southwest Australia per se, but includes Yalgoo, Coolgardie, and Hampton within of the Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub biome. Definitions of the Southwest Australia Floristic Province vary as well. Many include Yalgoo and Coolgardie [4] [5] [6] [7] while others exclude it [8].Tom Radulovich (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that as long as there is adequate flagging that the wwf definition in itself is not reflective of what can be read online and in hard copy (not necessarily online) material as can be found at trove say - https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=southwest%20australia - the joy of such items as south west australia and north west australia is that there are numerous 'claims to authority' that are in reality as partial as what they try to determine against. JarrahTree 06:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be open street map localised maps - for new article about national parks/protected areas - as the yellow large maps of the state render location and context somewhat bizarredly. If we can have osm for towns and other smaller areas in the larger state, then there should be the resource of protected areas somewhere... JarrahTree 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond my technical ability, but sounds like a fine idea. You may be able to access the polygon data from the UNEP-IUCN database - https://www.protectedplanet.net/

Speciesbox

Hi, it was probably a simple mistake at Ocotea porphyria, but just to note that {{Speciesbox}} is used for species, which then uses the genus taxonomy template, so only in very, very exceptional circumstances is it necessary to construct a taxonomy template for a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not attached to the particular infobox, so feel free to replace it if you see fit. I can request a speedy delete of the corresponding taxonomy template.Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We generally just put unneeded taxoboxes into Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. They get deleted in a batch every now and then. But I see that this one was deleted very speedily. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also while you are at it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avon_Wheatbelt - the Jarrah Forest is not south of the region either... its to the west only... JarrahTree 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which bioregion do you think is south of Avon Wheatbelt?

there are multiple maps and confluences of the jarrah/karri, wheatbelt, warren and other things, In the end I would hazard a guess that there might be a bioregion between the wheatbelt and the southern ocean, it could be anything, but then something as simple as 'south west' western australia is not straight forward from all the material that I have dealt with over x years, and I find the WWF designation unbelievably problematic, maybe I stay out, apart from the administrative regions... JarrahTree 02:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeland surveys (I think the maps might be older ones): -

Payne, A. L; Western Australia. Agriculture Western Australia (1997), An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone-Yalgoo-Paynes Find area, Western Australia, Dept. of Agriculture, ISBN 978-0-7307-0008-1

Not ecoregions per se - but the land system reports are loaded with very useful material

The ones that I really liked were: -

Payne, A. L; Schoknecht, N. R. (Noel R.); Western Australia. Dept. of Agriculture and Food (2011), Land systems of the Kimberley Region, Western Australia, Dept. of Agriculture and Food, ISBN 978-0-9806315-6-2

Godden, P. T. (Paul Terence); Payne, A. L; MacDonagh, A. F. (Alan Francis); Western Australia. Agriculture Western Australia; Western Australia. Dept. of Land Administration. Pastoral and Rangeland Information Services (1997), Land systems of the Sandstone-Yalgoo-Paynes Find Rangeland survey : map to accompany Agriculture Western Australia Technical bulletin no. 90, Agriculture Western Australia, ISBN 978-0-7307-0008-1

Like the mines department has almost everything online as pdfs, but the land departments seem to have had their older maps scanned (national library) and no pdfs of the texts JarrahTree 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

adding

Please, if you really think they deserve biota=yes, its just that little bit of biota-importance=low would be very helpful, as the project a few years ago had thousands of found where the total disinterest in the simply addition, had left the project with a very big hole for assessment - so thanks for the tagging, just a small extra bit would be much appreciated... JarrahTree 04:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help... JarrahTree 05:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox marine ecoregion (coordinates?)

I'm starting in on the marine ecoregions, and I'm having trouble getting the coordinates parameter to work in the template for the marine ecoregion infobox. The Coord (and coord) templates throw a punctuation error. Have you had this problem? Here's the article I'm working on: Guianan marine ecoregion. What am I doing wrong? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking that on; I began outlining australian marine ecoregions a few months back. You may not be doing anything wrong. I copied the template from the terrestrial ecoregions template, and modified some of the fields and colors, but may have messed it up in the copying. I'm not great with templates but will see if I can find someone more knowledgeable to have a look at it.Tom Radulovich (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your continued work on Mexican biogeography. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing, and for the kind note. Tom Radulovich (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lepidoptera of Mozambique

Many categories such as Category:Moths of Mozambique were upmerged on the grounds that moths are not restricted by country boundaries. See eg 2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon. Lepidoptera have similar qualities and could be regarded as recreation of deleted categories. Oculi (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sassandra River

Hi,
I've been trying to find sources for the claim that the Sassandra River is formed by the confluence of Tienba and Gouan/Bafing sud. The sources I found that were not derived from Wikipedia disagree on whether Férédougouba/Bagbé, Tienba or even Boa is the main source of Sassandra, but they all agree that the name Sassandra is used already from the confluence of these three rivers, if not further upstream. I collected them at sv:Diskussion:Sassandra (vattendrag) -- I don't expect that you read Swedish, but Google Translate seems to do a decent job and the sources are in English or French. Now, I can't claim that it's an exhaustive search, especially not of printed materials, so I wonder if you might remember what sources you used when you wrote the article in 2006. It's long ago, so I understand if you don't.

Thank you in advance, Essin (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the Mediterranean Basin

I don't think we're supposed to use Category:Flora of the Mediterranean Basin as it's not in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Abductive (reasoning) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a more defensible category than some non-WGSRPD ones. On my bookshelf, I have three identification guides covering the Mediterranean flora, most notably Blamey, Marjorie & Grey-Wilson, Christopher (1993), Mediterranean Wild Flowers, HarperCollins. So there definitely is a concept of "flora of the Mediterranean basin". The problem is that it doesn't fit into the WGSRPD hierarchy, as it's includes parts of three of the eight botanical continents. (There's also the issue that Portugal may or may not be included, depending on whether the Iberian peninsula as a whole is considered as bordering the Mediterranean.) As long as the appropriate WGSRPD categories are also included, I tend to think it's probably ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be useful it would need to be applied to ~5,000 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (obviously) with Peter. The WGSRPD 'botanical countries', with a few exceptions, use national or state boundaries. Nation-states, with the exception of some island countries, aren't biogeographic regions. Categories that use recognized biogeographic boundaries can be useful alongside the WGSRPD boundaries as a tool for understanding plant distributions, centers of endemism, conservation, and so on. It doesn't create any confusion, and I can't see any harm in using them too. Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Abductive's comment applies: if it's not used consistently, then it's not really useful. There are many more articles that should be in this category. This is a problem with non-WGSRPD categories; they tend to be used by relatively few editors, leading to inconsistency.

Also the subcategories of Category:Flora of the Mediterranean Basin should include many more categories; basically all the WGSRPD units surrounding the Mediterranean. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could make a list article? If it was confined to truly endemic Mediterranean flora it might be a start on the way to applying the category to a large number of articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: I'm not aware of a source for "truly endemic Mediterranean flora", which would be needed for such a list to be created. The Med-Checklist database doesn't include monocots, is relatively old, and can't as far as I can see be searched for endemics. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the book you mentioned above? As for endemism, I think some of Wikipedia's existing "Flora of ..." articles make an effort to list only endemics or near endemics. My suspicion is that readers want it that way. Abductive (reasoning) 16:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not Endemic flora of the Mediterranean Basin, but I agree that it's most useful for plants which are widely distributed around the Mediterranean region, but not widespread outside the Mediterranean region. If a Mediterranean plant has a much narrower range - it's endemic to Crete, for example - then the more specific category should be used instead.Tom Radulovich (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates with botanical authorities

As per the examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template and at Template:Taxobox/doc, dates are not used with authorities in plant articles (except in special cases, e.g. when there are issues over priority). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That dates aren't used in those examples isn't an argument that dates aren't useful, and should be actively deleted from articles. The dates are relevant, objective, and reliably sourced. Many editors have already included them in many plant articles. Other plant databases, including the ones used as references here, consistently include them. Wikipedia articles about animals do too.

Prohibiting them from the taxobox would mean re-listing the synonyms again somewhere in the article and including the dates. That might make sense if annotating with dates made the taxobox too clunky, but it's only six characters.

One could make an argument about consistency with many existing articles. However most of WP's articles on plants are rather poor, and missing lots of relevant information and citations that would make them good articles. I hope we can all work together to include more relevant, factual, and reliably-sourced information, not remove appropriate content from articles which are mostly pretty scant at present. Let's not move Wikipedia's plant articles towards the lowest common denominator, but rather try to put them on par with the better resources on plants out there. Perhaps the consistency question is better one of how to format the dates; I have been using parentheses, following Plants of the World Online, and using small text consistent with that for the authority. I'm happy to discuss how to best format the relevant information, but disagree that deleting this information is doing anything to improve Wikipedia. Tom Radulovich (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello Tom Radulovich!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rungwe dwarf galago‎

At least for mammals, we try not to have species articles if they aren't accepted by the secondary sources, such as IUCN or the ASM MDD. The 2014 journal article announcing it should be a species hasn't been followed up; it's still undescribed and has not appeared in other sources. This should remain a redirect until such time as the status changes. I'd commented out its info in the relevant template and in the genus article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication dates with botanical authorities

Hi, if you think we should include publication dates with botanical authorities, please raise this at WT:PLANTS and seek a revised consensus. At present, the consensus is that, with the possible exception of paleobotany, we do not use dates, as per the ICNafp. See e.g. Template:Taxobox/doc#Authorities and the example taxoboxes higher up in this documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason that I can see that a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia should list the dates of publication of any of the synonyms in the text if they are not in the taxobox, as you suggest above, unless they are needed in a discussion about priority, conservation of names, etc.

The argument against putting the dates in taxoboxes is consistency and following the agreed consensus. By all means raise the issue at WT:PLANTS to see whether this is still the consensus, but until the consensus changes, please follow it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endemic flora of the Cape Provinces

I commend the changes you've made to make better use of this category. It really shows the importance of the Cape Provices to floral diversity. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems like a particlularly useful category since it contains the entire Cape floristic province/kingdom. You are are of course welcome to join the project – POWO wouldn't complete my search query since there more than 10,000 plants endemic to the Cape Provinces, so it will take some time to find and categorize them here. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution categories and monotypic genera

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Distribution categorization of monotypic genera and species redirects, where I've opened a discussion on how to handle such categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I think you should request WP:PMR. I would support you in the request. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I will look into it. Is it an area where more help is needed? Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any amount of special permission work helps reduce the effort admins have to supply. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Tom Radulovich. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for publication dates in plant taxoboxes

I happened to see the comments about dates in taxoboxes here, if you want to open a discussion about dates being in taxoboxes for plants I would support it either being optional or being the same standard as Animalia going forward. I think that it is useful information that ought to be in Wikipedia's plant articles. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't prioritized opening the discussion, but will let you know when I do. Tom Radulovich (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I too have not made this a top priority. My perception is I only want to take on so many questions of changes at one time and finish what I am working on before I start a new one. One of us will get to it in good time. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude vs. elevation

I guess it must be some British vs. American English thing, but describing the habitat of a plant using the word "altitude" is absolutely standard in British English. See for example the entries in Plants of the World Online. See also the entry in the Cambridge Dictionary. So I'm not sure that you are always justified in changing from "altitude" to "elevation". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says "The term elevation is mainly used when referring to points on the Earth's surface, while altitude or geopotential height is used for points above the surface, such as an aircraft in flight or a spacecraft in orbit, and depth is used for points below the surface." I understand the terms in this way, but I am well aware that many use the terms interchangably. I wouldn't claim that using altitude for points on the earth's surface is wrong, but that elevation is the better term. Tom Radulovich (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Tom Radulovich! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:56, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Tom Radulovich for collecting 10 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justicia genistiformis

Hi there - it seems there is something more to this taxon. There is a taxon Tyloglossa genistiformis Nees (Tyloglossa being a synonym for Justicia) that is currently under review. Also, this rather mysterious record [9]. I don't quite know how to interpret these, but it seems to me that the situation is more complex than "taxon does not exist", and I would suggest removing the PROD and perhaps booting it over to WikiProject Plants for an opinion. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed to my satisfaction that it is Tyloglossa genistiformis Nees. It's covered in a 2015 masters thesis by Rodolph Delfino Sartin. That states that the new combination Justicia genistiformis (Nees) Sartin & Kameyama was to be published in a forthcoming paper, but I don't find any evidence that the paper forthcame. Kew Herbarium seem to have jumped the gun on labelling their specimen - I might have referred to this as "Justicia" genistiformis. You can also find the species placed in Ecbolium and Adhatoda - I'm not sure about Rhytiglossa genistifolia per that Kew Herbarium sheet.

On the rule of thumb that the most reliable source is a recent monograph this is a valid species, but perhaps not a valid name. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deprodded for now. Let's continue at the article talk page? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's a good suggestion. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "endemic"

In my experience of the use of the term "endemic", a taxon found widely in Northern America would not be said to be endemic. Could a taxon be said to be endemic to Eurasia? The notion of a restricted range seems a core part of the definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted to a continent or a biogeographic realm is still a restricted range; it's not unusual to refer to Australian endemics, for example. It is useful to know if a genus, family, etc. is restricted to a single continent or biogeographic region, since endemism at the genus or family level is an important criterion for defining those larger biogeographic regions. I understand the reasoning behind not placing genera and larger taxa in multiple geographic categories, as that might imply that the included species are present throughout each of them.Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaea

As Linnaea is back to a monotypic genus, I suppose Linnaea borealis should be merged in with it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan. I first wanted to get all the other genera and species sorted into their accepted names. Tom Radulovich (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in plant names

Hello, I've been absent from wikipedia for a while and am surprised to see you adding dates to plant names in a style I associated with the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Can you tell me if that is the norm in wikipedia now? Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the norm. There's been no agreement to change the guidance/examples at Template:Taxobox/doc#Authorities. I'm certainly not the only editor that removes dates when present in the authorities for ICNafp names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors don't add the dates, and some seem to object to their presence in taxoboxes. I find them useful information which completes the taxonomic story, so I follow the convention used by Plants of the World Online and World Flora Online (dates in parentheses). For editors that do include dates in articles on plants, parentheses after the authority is the most common style. Articles on animals most often use a comma rather than parentheses. Tom Radulovich (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, dates after authorities is not the style in PoWO or WFO. The date is part of the reference to the protologue. As an example, just because I was looking at it, Coelogyne breviscapa in PoWO doesn't have "Lindl. (1854)". Look also at the list of synonyms in this entry. The first synonym is clearly "Coelogyne angustifolia Wight" – this is the linked term; no date. Then afterwards comes a reference to the protologue: "Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5: t. 1641 (1851), nom. illeg." The date is part of the protologue reference, not the authority. The WFO entry is just the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Tropicos entry, for a different plant taxonomic database. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with adding dates to a flexible database like wikipedia is that publication dates are a day, not a year, and can be difficult to track without considerable investigation. See, e.g., proposal 040 for the upcoming nomenclature sessions at XX International Botanical Congress in Madrid in July which proposes that when a publication lists a date range, that the last day of that range be taken as the actual publication date for sorting out questions of priority. If it is difficult to be authoritative here then it's best avoided, but more importantly wikipedia should follow the established codes of nomenclature, not set a new path. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages

It would be great if you could see the advantage of Rater as a talk page device

or otherwise see fit to add the frame - otherwise there is a horrible lot of red messages

Trust all is well, thanks. JarrahTree 14:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudopanax arboreus

Hi there, back in 2023 you moved the page Pseudopanax arboreus to Neopanax arboreus. I've moved it back based on what I can tell is currently the preferred name, but I'd love to understand if I've missed something. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Plants Wikiproject has been using Plants of the World Online as the definitive reference for accepted species names. Tom Radulovich (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting. Is there a reason why this reference is considered definitive? There seems to be an overwhelming consensus for Pseudopanax arboreus outside of this database and GBIF, especially among New Zealand sources. Prosperosity (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO is build on the same IPNI/World Checklist of Vascular Plants database used by World Flora Online and GBIF. POWO is typically updated with current taxonomic articles more frequently than WFO or GBIF, but they generally follow suit. POWO, WFO, and GBIF all accept Neopanax arboreus. Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the WikiProject Plants Stub-to-Start Drive

Hello Tom Radulovich! I would like to invite you to join the WikiProject Plants Stub-to-Start Drive where we focus efforts on upgrading Stub-class plant species articles to Start-class. The instructions are straightforward and located on the page for the drive. If you wish to participate, you can join on the sign-up page, or feel free to ask for assistance on the talk page any time. Thank you for your contributions and for your interest in plant articles on Wikipedia! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates with botanical authorities – again

Hello. I see that @Peter coxhead has brought up your insistence on placing dates within botanical authorities three times: #Dates with botanical authorities on 11 June 2023, #Publication dates with botanical authorities on 25 September 2023, and, as well as with @Sminthopsis84 on 30 May 2024, at #Dates in plant names. On 5 December 2023, at #Support for publication dates in plant taxoboxes, @MtBotany made a comment agreeing with your view. Bottom line is that although your viewpoint is allowed, it does not mean that your current continued practice of placing dates in botanical authorities is not only against current consensus but is disruptive. As has been mentioned to you, bring this up at the WikiProject Plants page, and stop making these edits. Some editors have more patience than I do. Consistently having to change what you have done based on your own viewpoint is time consuming to others, and what you are continuing to do is to exhibit, as defined at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, "...a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia... [which has] extended over a long time on many articles." You are still doing this, and most recently, in many, including Woodwardia radicans, and in Kenopleurum and Siculosciadium which you created today. Please stop. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those reading: If you view the latest version of any articles linked above and do not see the dates that Tom has added, they may have been removed. Check the history. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]