These are the archives of my talk page:
To the end 2013   Jan 2014 to the end of 2014
Jan 2015 to the end of 2015   Dec 2015 to Dec 2017
Dec 2017 to Oct 2020   Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023
Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023   Dec 2023 to Nov 2024
The archives are searchable:


Your editions about redirects

edit

Hi AndyBoorman, I'd like to raise a concern that has been causing me some concern regarding redirects and some recent edits you've made, but this last issue was just the thing.

When I request the redirect removals and deletions, my intention is to facilitate the correct moving and renaming of articles and the proper use of valid or updated names according to the most current taxonomic regulations. However, if there is one thing that I didn't think was right on your part, it was that, for example, in the article Nicoteba trinervia in this case the redirect was recycled instead of being completely removed to create a completely new article.

Recycling a redirect, as happened with Nicoteba trinervia, can open the door for other users to modify the page inappropriately, turning it back into a redirect without any justification, which can cause confusion in the community and will affect the consistency of related pages. I have not even been able to do it completely well thanks to this modus operandi.

  • I prefer to keep the edit history intact wherever possible. My error with the redirects does not embarrass me. The taxon page is robust. Other editors are free to edit, as the project does not belong to any one individual. Andyboorman (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply


Considering that removing the redirection before making a move or name change is a more solid practice and aligned with the policies and objectives of the project, this way you avoid duplicating information unnecessarily to put it in the redirection as you do, and in fact that is my point. By removing the redirection of Weberocereus glaber, in order to move and change the name of the page Selenicereus glaber to Weberocereus glaber. Basically what you do by recycling redirects to create articles is to taint their history, I've proceeded to put the redirection removal template again.

I look forward to your comments and, as always, I appreciate your work and dedication to the project. AbeCK (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that the taxa are disputed. At least one authoritative source accepts Weberocereus glaber and the other Selenicereus glaber. All the relevant sources are on the Reference Sections. It is totally unacceptable to edit out the Reference section to reflect only one taxonomic opinion.
WS can not take sides in a taxonomic dispute over names by unilaterally removing one over another. It amounts to original research, which is a big no no on all wikis. The correct procedure is to create two taxon pages for both names with comment explaining the dilemma. Likewise it would not be acceptable to unilaterally edit Weberocereus to leave only those species accepted by Korotkova et al. (2021).
In addition, I hardly ever delete out redirects, as I think it loses data.
I was leaving it up to you to complete the changes. Sorry if you misunderstood. BTW IMHO the circumscription of Cactaceae is still work in progress even given the outstanding work by Korotkova et al.
Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi again, Andy, thanks you for your response. While I recognize the effort and sources you’ve cited regarding 'Weberocereus glaber, Weberocereus genus and related taxa, I must say I still hold some reservations about that taxonomic decision. The ambiguity surrounding these species and Weberocereus genus highlights the complexity and variability within the field. You did well to place the "disputed taxon" templates on those taxons; we should do that again if a situation like this happens again, which is appreciated, it was just going to attract attention for that very reason.
That being said, I would also like to kindly request that you avoid and stop overwriting edit histories by creating new articles out of redirects (or at least, in editions I make) cause I'm not agree with that modus operandi of yours. While I understand the intention, this practice risks fragmenting a historical context and might lead to unwarranted or superficial edits from other contributors, but personally, I often salvage meaningful content from edited histories, although admittedly, in the vast majority of cases, records in histories tend to have mere superficial, aesthetic and innocuous editions, without mentioning additions and expansions of these, not to mention that several of them, contains sources and info that are obsolete. Many times, histories changes are futile and insignificant (unless there is an edition war for example). Wikispecies should aim for neutrality, particularly in taxonomic disputes, by maintaining comprehensive reference lists and clear notes on differing opinions. This last request is aimed at ensuring that, among all the scientific names that a taxon may have, whatever it may be, only one scientific name of all can be the accepted one, and that should be clear from the start about that (unless the taxon is currently under discussion like this), anyway, greets. AbeCK (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@AbeCK: I suggest not blanking and going for a delete request for controversial taxa. I added all of the basic information from Korotkova et al. as a project in 2021/22, so all the pages are on my Watchlist. If I delete an edit history it is in error and not a deliberate act for which I apologise.
I agree that one taxon one name is an aim mandated by the acts, but in reality, fortunately very rarely, it is still an aim. Hence the disputed tag on WS, as we can not favour one taxonomic opinion over another. This most often requires the use of two taxon pages, not one with copious notes. To ignore this is to indulge in original research. As you can see I always add notes and comprehensive references to disputed taxa, although I may not do so instantly. It is up to the reader to decide and not WS to steer. If you had done this for Weberocereus/Selenicereus I would not have felt the need to get involved in re-editing those 2021 pages. It seemed to me that you were going to simply follow Korotkova ignoring the other references in the lists. Apologies for any offence.
I contacted Kew in 2021 about Hylocereeae and particularly the species we are discussing. Firstly They did not think that the team had fully dealt with the original 2017 taxonomic problems in their 2018 revision. Secondly They did not think their phylogenetic arguments were sufficient on their own given other phylogenies, morphology and so on. I reiterate, in spite of Korotkova et al., there is still ongoing unresolved taxonomic discussion in Cactaceae in that community of experts. I am definitely not an expert, but in my experience everyone who enthusiastically grows cacti and succulents is! All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your feedback, I will try take it into greater consideration moving forward. However, I must admit that I do not always have the most up-to-date articles on plants readily available—not because they are incorrect, but because it can be challenging to establish the validity of a single accepted scientific name. In such cases, I believe the best approach is to opt for a prudent and neutral solution, such as applying a "disputed or unresolved taxon" template when discrepancies like this one arise, like on Ismaelia carinata or Ismelia. Besides, unfortunately, I am not yet familiar with how to apply this template effectively.
In general, I compare information from various updated taxonomic databases, such as GBIF, POWO, CoL, World Plants, WFO, and even NCBI or iNaturalist, to guide changes to scientific names. Nonetheless, I appreciate your perspective on this matter and your willingness to address it. I also extend my apologies for any inconvenience caused during this dispute and another ones in the past.
I am grateful to collaborate with an editor like you, and I am committed to starting 2025 on the right note. The world of the Cactaceae family, as you likely know, is one of the most complex to study, filled with nuances. For example, I have been seriously considering whether if I should edit and modify Corynopuntia here in WS or not. At this point, I am uncertain whether it is a synonym for another genus or an accepted one.
On the other hand, I insist that, at least in the edits I make, you desist and stop modifying the redirects as if they were new articles, this in order to change the names when necessary since it is more viable and feasible, due to the reasons stated previously.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you are not an expert, which applies to me as well. The important thing is that, as a community, we can contribute to knowledge in the best way possible, regards, @Andyboorman. AbeCK (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@AbeCK: Corynopuntia can now be considered as part of the synonymy of Grusonia now that Corynopuntia nigrispina has been synonymised by the description of Grusonia nigrispina (D.Donati) M.H.J.van der Meer, Cact. Phantast. 2023(1)-1: 1 (2023). I had to leave the taxon page for Corynopuntia just for that one species, but the redirects and so on can now be made. Majure et al. had dealt with all species of Corynopuntia except for C. nigrispina in their 2018 paper. It has taken the beast part of 5 years to tidy up this taxonomic oversight.
This situation occurs occasionally and is worth looking out for, as it is not acceptable to delete or ignore the anomalous taxon. Some authorities have started to transfer the affect taxa using the ined. tag, whilst waiting for the tidying up to be dealt with. This is unfortunate as an ined. taxon is still illegal under the acts. Another messy but unavoidable taxonomic situation. I think we ought to bring this situation to the Pump for discussion. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply