Talk:Disepalum plagioneurum
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Requested move 5 April 2020
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No Consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Polyalthia pingpienensis → Disepalum plagioneurum – Name has changed. This species is now included in Disepalum,[1] together with a number of other species previously placed in the genus Polyalthia. The taxonbar and speciesbox have been updated.
– Roy Bateman (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Roy Bateman (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 10:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose moral support, this title has stood for 13 years, but ~20 edits later there is no substantial content. The underlying taxonomic issue appears to be that Polyalthia pingpienensis has been lumped into Disepalum plagioneurum (which does not yet have an article). The IUCN and Flora of China recognize Polyalthia pingpienensis as a separate species, but are less up to date than POWO. I'm not sure what POWO's basis for lumping is, but it doesn't really matter. In order to best preserve Wikipedia page history, there should be a new article for Disepalum plagioneurum and Polyalthia pingpienensis should redirect there. This article (Polyalthia pingpienensis ) was generated by a bot that created articles on IUCN recognized and listed species. The single most salient fact in the article is the IUCN status, which does not apply to the broader taxon concept of Disepalum plagioneurum. @Roy Bateman:, would you like to expand Disepalum plagioneurum with something along the lines of "is a species of plant in the Annonaceae family. It is found in China and northern Viet Nam.", or shall I?Plantdrew (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Polbot once created articles from every IUCN listed taxon. There are many Polbot created articles on IUCN taxa that aren't really currently recognized by taxonomic authorities. There's a whiff of politics in de-recognizing IUCN listed taxa, but only a whiff as the IUCN has no legal authority (empassioned conservation biologists might argue over how strong that whiff is). As it boils down, Polbot created articles for "rare" taxa that weren't generally recognized back in 2007, and in 2020 Wikipedia still lacks articles for the more common taxa into which the "rare" ones were lumped. If a Polbot created IUCN article hasn't had any meaningful expansion, and is lumped, I think the appropriate approach is to redirect the Polbot title and create a new article at the lumped title, preserving the Polbot initiated history in the redirect, rather than attaching the Polbot history to the lumped title via a move. Plantdrew (talk)
- Thanks Plantdrew - points above taken. I appear to have 'opened a can of worms' with my interest in genera, found here in Vietnam, with species that have been moved from the genus Polyalthia. I actually know nothing about this one - only that it is a species being moved into the genus. I will shortly start a discussion at Talk:Polyalthia and would appreciate your comments there. Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Polbot once created articles from every IUCN listed taxon. There are many Polbot created articles on IUCN taxa that aren't really currently recognized by taxonomic authorities. There's a whiff of politics in de-recognizing IUCN listed taxa, but only a whiff as the IUCN has no legal authority (empassioned conservation biologists might argue over how strong that whiff is). As it boils down, Polbot created articles for "rare" taxa that weren't generally recognized back in 2007, and in 2020 Wikipedia still lacks articles for the more common taxa into which the "rare" ones were lumped. If a Polbot created IUCN article hasn't had any meaningful expansion, and is lumped, I think the appropriate approach is to redirect the Polbot title and create a new article at the lumped title, preserving the Polbot initiated history in the redirect, rather than attaching the Polbot history to the lumped title via a move. Plantdrew (talk)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.