 | This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 10 months and 11 days. |
 | This user contributes with Twinkle. |
|
Wikipedia editor
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plantdrew. |
I'm a botanist/organismal biologist. I'm particularly interested in edible plants, and all the complications that arise with regards to both common names and scientific names for those. I fix various errors or unfortunate phrasings on Wikipedia (mostly in plant related articles) when I come across them, and try to contribute to articles related to my hobbies. Internet identities aren't necessarily unique or centralized; I am not the same person as the Twitter user who goes by Plantdrew.
I think my favorite article at present is Urena lobata. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Is it a profound statement about inclusionism/deletionism? Commentary on the (non)-value of stubs? Is it perhaps the most meta article on Wikipedia?
Amusing Polbot fail: Spruceanthus theobromae's natural habitat is plantations . It is threatened by habitat loss.
ceb:Mordellistena pallipes is better developed than Mordellistena pallipes, as it includes the range (an area that is inhabited by many English speakers).
Watchlist of talk pages with WikiProject Tree of life banner.
((R from species to genus))
image_size
User scripts:
User:William Avery/taxoboxalyzer
User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js
((Format species list))
((Make cite iucn))
((R avoided double redirect)), ((NASTRO comment))
Rants
I guess I could setup my institutional credentials on my home computer to be able to access more paywalled articles, but I edit most at home, and being forced to bypass paywalls helps with awareness of FUTON bias (I've confused myself. Paywells aren't FUTON.) Citations behind a paywall are not prohibited on Wikipedia, but aren't great for most readers.
Fairly urgent to-do:point out the dab terms in Mycetophilinae to Estopedist1; (insect), (genus), (fly) and mostly (gnat). Must check incoming links on moving dab term in order to standardize other dab terms (especially for red links that aren't linked from any dab page).
[1] Youtube as a source. Doesn't seem appropriate (with the exception of articles about a viral Youtube video). Lots of taxa with crap external links from circa 2007. Youtube, .com, angelfire/geocitie, databases included in taxonbar. Wikipedia is not the place for SEO juice, but there are a lot of articles on niche topics with garbage links that have persisted for years.
Bot that fixes double redirects may be doing more harm than good? (inspired by vinegar eel). Redirects left after a moving may require changes in rcats. Ill-advised merges that are reverted often end up with redirects misdirected. Sometimes the bot edit conflicts with me, which isn't helpful to me (although seems to be operating slower these days). Has a cleanup category for double redirects been tried? No need for bot if editors can keep up with it. Are double redirects necessarily even a problem that needs to be fixed in 2021?
Redirects are "broken" (not really) when they are inconsistent titles. Alternative capitalization, non-standard dab terms. Standardizing disambiguation is probably the heart of FOOTIE insistence on piping team names (which are usually ambiguous). Plantdrew (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:PROD. Why is there not a similar process for redirects? There are more garbage redirects than articles. If I was an admin (and if admins were still able to rampantly exercise personal discretion in deleting), there's a lot I would nuke outright, but I'm not going to bother taking to the RFD process. ((Rsa)) populates a category of redirects that are usually ambiguous.
((Wikinews)) should never be used to link to a single Wikinews article (perhaps appropriate to link to a Wikinews category). They're almost all junk and mostly date back to pre-2007. I removed from bigfoot (a sighting was a hoax, what a surprise), zander (some swimmers got bit by a fish) and Utahraptor (a $2500 replica was stolen and recovered). Most Wikinews articles based on reporting by actual journalists. Neanderthal does have a decent interview by a Wikinews editor (but it's getting less recent). wikinews:Wikinews attends Christy Carlson Romano concert Sesame Place apparently had a Wikinews editor give a concert ticket to a photographer, with no results.
EOL reliabilit; EOL calls Callitriche truncata a tree (and so did Wikipedia)
FFS Talk:Ivory_Coast#Requested_move_26_January_2022; apparently closed as a ~~vote with basically non of the opposes doing anything other than bleating COMMONNAME (OK, some sources were provided that show news organization will still publish articles that call it Ivory Coast, but supporters had corpus analyses). The west Africa country probably shows up in the news more than FYROM and Swaziland; are there any other country title wheres en.wiki is so resolute in opposing a form of the official name? COMMONNAME needs evidence; it's not just a matter of linking a Wikpedia shortcut to "support" your preference (for an unecyclopedic title). Oops, according to a titling superstar at Talk:Schutzstaffel#Requested_move_28_March_2022, Wikipedia doesn't use encyclopedic titles. I'm not sure why feces isn't titled poop.
POWO has a problem with omitting original authorities and citing combing authorities without parentheses. I'm finding this with Asteraceae (most obviously in monotypic genera). Probably some bug with prior important from GCD. Note newly found examples below:
Inspired by. Wikipedia has too many articles. The editor base doesn't keep up with the increase in articles. Wikipedia has a bunch of useless processes (stub sorting, short descriptions) that soak up editor efforts. I consider species to be notable, but species articles aren't getting expanded. Redirecting existing species articles would be yet another sponge of editor efforts
almost one year from RFC before mass creation was added to policy. WP:Popularculture had a link to RFC for a minute in 2018, but doesn't now. Every RFC at VPP ought to result in immediate updates to policy, and that should link back to the RFC. (if a discussion take place at VPP, does that now make a guideline a policy).
MASSCREATE requests:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syagrus atricolor; SPECIESOUTCOMES fail. probably created by Alextejthompson (cf. Syagrus cinerascens), with "observed by" in the initial version. Over about a week in late July/early August 2016, Alextejthompson made a large number of terrible insect articles.
Why we don't create redirects from species to genera: Monamphiura isn't accepted and has a bunch of redirects from species (with no rcats). Mess for TOL editors to clean up (by creating articles or tagging with ((R avoided double redirect)). Deletionist/"curationist"/"mergist" treatment of species that sanctions creating new redirects is not helpful
