Talk:Podosphaera fuliginea

Requested move 10 August 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. It appears that one or more editors plan to make further study. If this causes anyone's opinion to change they should feel free to open up a new move discussion later. The genus Podosphaera seems to be agreed but the species name is still in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaerotheca fuliginea [presently at Podosphaera fuliginea] → Podosphaera xanthii – This was taxonomically reclassified way back in 2000–2001, along with the entire genus (see multiple sources in the /sandbox version of the article). Specifically:

Talk:Sphaerotheca fuliginea/sandbox needs to ~~replace~~ merge with the content of ~~Sphaerotheca fuliginea (with a history merge)~~ Podosphaera fuliginea ideally after someone from WP:FUNGI does a sanity check on my fairly extensive work on it (or, otherwise, if no one objects);
~~Sphaerotheca fuliginea~~ Podosphaera fuliginea should then be moved over the redirect at Podosphaera xanthii.
The resulting redirects from Sphaerotheca fuliginea and Podosphaera fuliginea should be tagged with {{R from alternative scientific name|fungus}}
References to Sphaerotheca fuliginea and S. fuliginea (and Podosphaera fuliginea and P. fuliginea) should be replaced in other articles with the new name, ideally. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, to account for mid-RM move to Podosphaera fuliginea. 01:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Use the current scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a misunderstanding.

...but do not support ~~your~~ practice of moving pages during the formal page move process discussion, or of requesting a history merge of your three edits of your sandbox copy of an article edited by no one else for 18 months. It is either useless processing, or so complicating that I don't follow what ~~you've~~ done, or both. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "moving pages during the formal page move process discussion" do you mean? I have no such "practice"; the only thing similar to such a situation I can think of is me reverting someone else who was trying to move a page still under rename discussion (and I was not alone in that, even if the page has been temporarily protected as the "WP:WRONGVERSION"); my practice is the opposite of what you suggest, and my sandboxing of this article so that its text does not controvert the name under discussion and bias the discussion is further evidence of this. A history merge wouldn't be necessary, I suppose, if the sandbox copy is pasted in over the extant text, a long as there aren't intervening edits to the actual article. I asked for a history merge because at another recent RM where I'd done sandboxing to support the move (the same one just mentioned), the closing admin overwrote the extant page with my sandbox copy, and thus clobbered several years of original page history, which another admin ended up having to fix. I'm asking for the merge out of caution, not for some other reason you may be imagining, and that is not "useless processing". Objecting to an alleged lack of caution in following "move process" while in the same breath objecting to caution as being "useless processing" is self-contradictory, twice over. How can some sandboxing be "so complicated that [you] don't follow what [has been] done", if you feel you understood it enough to raise such objections? I think I should remind you to address content not contributor, especially when your (incorrectly informed) opinion about me as a contributor is clearly affecting what you're saying about the content under discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this: " 11:51, 11 August 2015‎ Casliber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,626 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Casliber moved page Sphaerotheca fuliginea to Podosphaera fuliginea over redirect: current name)". It looks like you did the move 14 hours after listing the RM.

Why does the proposal current page not match the current article title?

"if you feel you understood it enough to raise such objections" I honestly do not understand, and do not agree that a level of understanding is prerequisite for raising concerns/objections. The article edit history says ~~you~~ moved the page. The move log contains no entries. The nomination doesn't match the title. Surely, it should not be this hard to read and understand? Perhaps there is a simple explanation that ~~you~~ can explain? I see no history to merge, but perhaps this is due to some confusion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one realisation, you are not Casliber (talk · contribs). Maybe it is a question for Casliber. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC). All the the mistaken "you"s ~~struck~~. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: No worries; we all mis-read usernames sometimes. :-) Current page does not match the sandbox draft because all the new sources cited use the current, post-reclassification name. It would be incautious and borderline original research to go in and write all kinds of stuff about Podosphaera xanthii, but say that it's about Sphaerotheca fuliginea when the sources don't actually use that name, until this concludes in favor of going with the sources who say these are merged genera (and in this case a merged species). I'm not a subject-matter expert, and considered that there might be (for all I know) something that came out this very month reversing that taxonomic reassessment. Based on the sources I can find through journal searches, the majority position in sources is for treating these as synonymous, and one source wants to merge even further, but newer sources after it are not going with that further re-assessment. This caution is needed, I feel, because this isn't just a species rename, but a merger of what were considered previously to be separate species. If the merger is valid (as seems to be the case) everything written about both now applies to the merged species, but if it's not and my research was faulty, then material written about them separately does not apply cross-wise and has to be differentiated. I solicited factchecking from WT:FUNGI and so far no concerns appear to be raised, but I've seen a proposed merger like this get rejected by later literature before in another field, thus the caution. (Then again, this does date to 2000, so maybe I'm being paranoid; it was that ca. 2008 source, wanting to merge further, that gave me pause). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This warrants further discussion. Why did Casliber move it to "Podosphaera fuliginea" and not the proposed "Podosphaera xanthii" and what is the difference between the two, both in terms of accuracy and what it is commonly called in sources (if indeed they are the same thing)? I will also note that SMc's draft can no longer be histmerged in, due to parallel histories, though at the time of the nomination they could have been, so it was not an inherently flawed suggestion. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the histmerge, no worries; I can work my material in after we settle the name; my only concern was merging in P. xanthii material with S. fuliginea material if that didn't turn out to be warranted; not preserving my precious sandbox edits or something. Ha ha.
  More sourcing: The top five pages of Google Scholar search results for "Podosphaera fuliginea" mostly shows this name being used from the 1920s to around 2000. The one source that looks like "2013" is actually just the Braun, et al. material from 2001 already cited in the sandbox, and proposing the merge to P. xanthii to begin with [1]. A 2005 source (Félix-Gastélum, et al. [2]) says "Podosphaera (sect. Sphaerotheca) xanthii (formerly known as Sphaerotheca fusca and S. fuliginea)" (i.e., what Braun, et al., said, and what the newer source in the sandbox also says; note also the fusca merger suggested there). A 2005 hit [3] doesn't mention fuliginea (at least not in the abstract), so it's not clear why Google included it, unless the site is providing keywords for junior synonyms, which seems likely (see next item). A 2009 source (Fan, et al. [4]) says "after inoculating Sphaerotheca fuliginea" and the page also mentions Podosphaera in the site's keyword sidebar, but not in the paper abstract, so appears to be a false match. Hansen 2009 [5] gives "Sphaerotheca fuliginea [Podosphaera fuliginea]" (i.e., gives P. fuliginea as a junior synonym of S. fuliginea, which other sources in turn give as merged into P. xanthii). Same with Glawe & Jack (2003) [6]. Chen, et al. (2008) [7] gives P. xanthii, and mentions P fuliginea neither in the abstract nor the two-page PDF preview. By page 6 of the search results, I found some post-2000 papers referring to P. fuliginea, but they seem to be citing 1990s sources for it. From what I can see with the materials at hand, Casliber's move appears to have corrected the genus to the current one, but preserved a specific epithet that is about 15 years obsolete. My guess would be that Casliber didn't know this discussion was open, did know the genera had merged (I'd posted about this at WT:FUNGI and WT:BOTANY recently), but hasn't yet seen that some of the species have been merged and renamed. Guess I'll just ask him: Casliber. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's weird is that index fungorum is showing P. fuliginea as current name. Mycobank's gone all weird and I had trouble figuring out which one they thought was current....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you see this you'll see that they've equated it to P. fusca. In any case the origianl combination using xanthi is 1845. This postdates fuliginea, which is 1819, which means that fuliginea has priority. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy that. How certain are we about the P. fusca to P. xanthii / P. fuliginea merger? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I wiill read this when I get the energy. I've been really drained IRL so generally do enjoyable things on wiki before chores. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.