User talk:Roy Bateman

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon Page Format[edit]

Hello I see that you have created Xeropspermum this name is not spelt correctly it should be Xerospermum and ought to be deleted for this reason. In addition, it does not at all follow current format or content guidelines for a taxon page. Have a look through Help Section and similar pages. Also look at Sapindus it is a fairly basic page and easy to understand how we generally set pages up in WS. If you wish to experiment please use the Sandbox rather than a taxon page. I suggest you correct the errors using the correct name and be careful, as the number of accepted species has not been resolved! Fell free to contact an admin and have a look through the Community Portal section on the left. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy - I agree - not sure how to delete page Roy Bateman (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Place {{Delete}} at the top of the page and it will become a candidate for speedy deletion. Page deletes can only be performed by somebody with administration rights who will review your request and act upon it. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to Xerospermum to help you. Your template was a major problem so have a look at my edit. Hope this helps regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Andy: yes indeed that helps and will attempt to get the hang of this - quite a number of genera to master here - and I am not a botanist I'm afraid. 14.173.79.231 03:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pachystrobilus[edit]

Hello Combinations in Pachystrobilus are synonyms within Strobilanthes according to the more up to date COL. We need to find a journal article that indicates who is right or wrong. TPL is at least 5 years out of date now of course and I trust it as a secondary source far less than I used to. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article that refers to Strobilanthes warburgii Terao ex J.R.Benn. (2003) directly is Bennett, J.R. & Scotland, R.W., 2003. A revision of Strobilanthes (Acanthaceae) in Java. Kew Bulletin 58(1): 1-82. Here on JSTOR. The paper also makes Pachystrobilus syn. nov. Seems that TPL is incorrect. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Andy: I confess I was somewhat nervous about the inconsistency (I'm not really a botanist, just trying to find out what we have here in VietNam!). I was tempted to say that we need an Acanthaceae expert, but wouldn't be surprised if we may be seeing different opinions here. Quite agree about the need to find a journal article, but unless there is compelling molecular evidence from a wide sample base, I'm not sure if we would get a clear "right or wrong". The species I am interested in is P/S. involucratus which may be monotypic. The Bennett & Scotland paper refers to other Indonesian spp. (based on morphology only it seems?) which indeed remain Strobilanthes: I would have thought that P. hirsutus/S. warbugii was a separate case (TPL says 'unresolved', but the B&S paper perhaps makes this record out of date). I remember having a discussion with User:Plantdrew about what to do when databases differ, and was under the impression that WP (and presumably WS) tended to default to TPL, but agree it dates to March 2012 and refers to IPNI (2005). I couldn't find a reference in COL, which is 'newly updated' but it appears to have always 'defaulted' to Strobilanthes. I think that, unless there is a compelling paper that says otherwise, it would be good to have an entry for Pachystrobilus (there are links from elsewhere) - perhaps putting a note that there is a database conflict - as I have tried to do in En:Pachystrobilus. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Andyboorman - I have made changes and note (as above) on the relevant pages and set-up a redirect page on En:WP ... suggest that, if the 'compelling journal paper' turns up or TPL changes, we can simply switch-over content with the redirect pages: but not quite sure what is most appropriate here in WS.
Would it be OK to copy this conversation to the relevant talk pages? Roy Bateman (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would only copy a brief synopsis to the relevant talk pages, but that would be a good idea. I do not think that in this case we need to add a {{Disputed}} tag to the pages. Incidentally, I can no longer default to TPL as it was last updated in 2013. whereas COL and also WCSP are updated every few months. It is annoying that neither TPL and COL have references which makes it more difficult and requires cross checking for difficult taxa. I have edited your edits, if that makes sense, to get rid of in text citations which we do not use on WS and this has given you a template for COL to use in the future. It is rare, but not uncommon, in botany to find two "names" being used for the same taxon. That is just a fact of life and makes the insistence on "one name one taxon" a bit difficult. Now if this taxon is found only or mainly in Vietnam then local usage should have weight, however, if it found more extensively then you will have to take a wider view. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Andy - will do. Roy Bateman (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lindernia[edit]

I noticed your note on this page. Please feel free to take the information to WP. I do not usually edit on WP, as I have had difficulties with some editors dislike of peer reviewed papers in favour of standard texts and online sources. I will relook at the taxa involved, in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I share your irritation about the editors who dislike peer reviewed papers - I suppose being zelous about WP policy on "primary sources"! As a non specialist, I do assume sites such as POWO are authoratative ... Roy Bateman (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In research peer reviewed papers are primary sources and all others sources secondary. However, POWO and the like are authoritative in my opinion and they do change if required. Andyboorman (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roy_Bateman&oldid=9363849"