Talk:Hultholia

Hultholia

So it seems that someone wants an article on Hultholia. Apparently both an old name and a new one. This article (as Caesalpinia mimosoides) has been largely cut'n'pasted into a new one at Hultholia (which I've left in place for now - edit: PRehse has tidied it to a redirect). This change has been disputed and discussion should take place here about the merits of this. Possibly a move/split/merge/redirect should be formally tagged and discussed, but it is often possible to reach a reasonable consensus without formal processes. I take no position on the merits and don't know enough to comment on the naming, but a few things spring to mind: cut'n'paste followed by blanking to a redirect is not usually the right approach, articles can be moved/renamed which maintains history properly (this would now require admin intervention); "moving" a species article to a genus article seems a but jarring, consider the intended hierarchy of artcles; most importantly, the way forward following a significant change and revert is to discuss, not edit-war. Lithopsian (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - got confused with the copy-paste order. Should be a bold redirect from Hultholia. And yes changes from that should be discussed.PRehse (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is murky, but I suspect that I made the Hultholia article before I realized that it was monotypic. I should have had an admin move Caesalpinia mimosoides to Hultholia (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic taxa). Anyway, the correct name is Hultholia. The rationale given for reverting the redirect was that the species is listed in The Plant List as Caesalpinia mimosoides. But a cursory glance at that webpage reveals that it hasn't been updated since 2013 and it is based on information that was mined from ILDIS in 2010. The current classification is based on taxonomic revisions published in 2016 and 2017 (the taxobox on the Hultholia page contains links to these references, though you'll have to go back into the history, now, to see them). These papers represent the currently accepted classification and supersede the outdated information in The Plant List. So my vote is to move Caesalpinia mimosoides to Hultholia. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinayraj contacted me about this and I looked up sources for him and found that there has indeed been the above mentioned changes in placement and that the changes have been agreed upon by the Legume working group. I agree that the article needs an update in taxonomy - the way to do it is indeed to move the old article to the new name so that the history is retained. Also it helps to include all references and include a note on the taxonomic history so that the context is clear. Shyamal (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is it agreed that the name has changed and a move is needed? Should the move really be to Hultholia, or to Hultholia mimosoides? Lithopsian (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Monotypic_taxa it would be at Hultholia. Shyamal (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would admit it was a haste edit from me. Caesalpinia mimosoides is common around my place and we are all very familiar. I have a lot of photos of the plant at Commons. While doing that edit what came immediately to my was a communication with a researcher on 27/01/2016.

That goes -> (My name is E**G**, and I just finished a doctorate on the Systematics and Evolution of the Caesalpinia group (Leguminosae). I am currently looking for photos for an upcoming publication in the scientific journal of Systematic Botany. My colleagues and I noticed your magnificent and high quality photos of Caesalpinia mimosoides in Wikicommons, which show all the key morphological characteristics of this species. We would like to ask your official permission to use these photos for the scientific publication. We know the files are licensed under the Creative Commons license, but we prefer to ask for official permission anyways, directly to the author. We would also like to acknowledge you as our source in the article, so I would need to know your official (real) name! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask (my email is e**.*@*.ca) . And again, might I congratulate you on your high-quality botanical photos, we wish more people would share such good photos on the web. )

So I should say it was hard wired in my mind as the name and species Caesalpinia mimosoides is beyond dispute. But I should have checked before the edit. And I would say I am open for correction anytime. Please someone do the reverts. Thank you all.--Vinayaraj (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on to your hats! I've made the move. We are now at Hulthonia. Redirects are all clean, but the article will need tidying to reflect the new name. Lithopsian (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank to Shyamal, we are now at the right place: Hultholia. Lithopsian (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]