User talk:Tulsi Bhagat
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:
- Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
- Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
- Have a look at Done and to do.
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!
Hello @Tulsi Bhagat: Why are you adding unnested categories, such as Acmispon on Acmispon denticulatus and Lotus on various pages? There is consensus on WS to reduce not increase the number of categories found at the end of taxon pages unless they have real use. The problem with your categories is there are links already available on the main taxon pages and so they are of no obvious use. Editors unilaterally creating there own categories and category families has been a persistent problem here and just adds to complexity without functionality. Admins/Crats have been busy taking them down. In addition, the category Lotus (genus) actually refers to two distinct genera so is not correct and confusing. I think you need to stop doing this for now and take your ideas to the Village Pump and explain to the community why you think these types of categories are a good idea. If you want to experiment use the Sandbox. I will leave your categories on the pages for now so that you have a link as examples for your discussion. I must stress that you should not add more of these types of categories until after there has been a VP discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Your Page Edits
Sorry to bother you again. However, this is important, this sort of page is unacceptable Acmispon argophyllus most importantly you must not have a taxon page whose data refers to another combination. In addition, you need to be careful making changes without references. The main Lotus taxon page has an number of references that indicate the breakup of this genus with species allocated to other genera. Maybe you need to work through the recircumpscrition or have you I cannot tell? One of the reasons that I have left this alone for now is that not all secondary authorities agree! Please can we discuss this here before you carry on. I have made a few roll backs to alleviate confusion, but am willing to help believe me. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If you do a Google Scholar search, for example for Lotus dendroideus you will get the needed papers, for example Brouillet, L., 2008. The taxonomy of North American loti (Fabaceae: Loteae): New names in Acmispon and Hosackia. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 2(1): 387-394. JSTOR Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this help?
Hello @Tulsi Bhagat: I have been working through Acmispon and Lotus using the references on the taxon pages. The pages are fairly basic content, but fitting more or less to the accepted standards on WS. Feel free to use them for your botanic contributions. Non-plant editors have their own formats. Hope this helps. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)