Talk:Vittadinia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 19 January 2015

Plants Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Vittadinia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Recent species list additions

I've reverted the recent changes ot his article because they are mostly unreferenced, and I have some concerns about the accuracy. For example, they list Vittadinia triloba as coming only from New Zealand, when it is also an Australian native. It lists Vittadinia chamissonis as a species, when it seems to be a synonym, ditto for Vittadinia remyi. I don't have the time right now to go through the edits with a fine tooth comb, but when 3 out of 3 changes that I did check are questionable, I think it worth being a bit cautious. The taxonomy of the Asters generally, and this tribe especially, is notoriously controversial, so we need to discuss this a bit more and make sure we have a consistent source for all these changes. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Everything was duly referenced at the head of the list. All the info came from reputable sources, i.e. Global Compositae Checklist and Atlas of Living Australia. There may be a few errors, but these can be fixed without negating the entire half hour I spent improving this page.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon: like Joseph Laferriere, I don't understand why you claim that the changes were "mostly unreferenced" when a full list of references was provided for the species list. Given the varying sources it would probably be better to reference some of the species individually, but the changes were not unreferenced, and the Global Compositae Checklist seems a good starting point for accepted names. You cite GRIN for names being synonyms. Did you look at the revision date? For Vittadinia chamissonis as a synonym the revision date is given as 1994. GRIN is notoriously out of date in many areas and is not a reliable source, particularly outside the US. Your reversion should be undone and then some individual species can be worked on a bit more. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed seen errors in the GCC, so I double-check anything that looks suspicious. In the case of Vittadinia chamissonis, it was indeed on the GCC but I had to scrounge around search for some other reference to it. I did indeed find something. I forget just where, but I can retrace my steps if need be.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon:Peter coxheadI must also express my chagrin that I received a threatening letter accusing me of edit warring. I did one reversion, but you did two, so which one of us is violating policy?Joseph Laferriere (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reasoned explanation as to why the changes by User:Joseph Laferriere were not, overall, an improvement, I will restore them. We can then discuss whether any individual changes should be undone or further changes made. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :I have indeed seen errors in the GCC, so I double-check anything that looks suspicious. In the case of ''Vittadinia chamissonis,'' it was indeed on the GCC but I had to scrounge around search for some other reference to it. I did indeed find something. I forget just where, but I can retrace my steps if need be.[[User:Joseph Laferriere|Joseph Laferriere]] ([[User talk:Joseph Laferriere|talk]]) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 :{{ping|Mark Marathon}}[[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]]I must also express my chagrin that I received a threatening letter accusing me of edit warring. I did one reversion, but you did two, so which one of us is violating policy?[[User:Joseph Laferriere|Joseph Laferriere]] ([[User talk:Joseph Laferriere|talk]]) 21:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
+::In the absence of any reasoned explanation as to why the changes by [[User:Joseph Laferriere]] were not, overall, an improvement, I will restore them. We can then discuss whether any individual changes should be undone or further changes made. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)