Flag for Taxon: Impatiens falcifer
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| morten | Impatiens falcifer |
Missing e in falcifera |
Nov. 14, 2023 00:45:23 +0000 | schoenitz |
spelling has been corrected |
Comments
Made I. falcifera: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1509565-Impatiens-falcifera, and
drafted the swap: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/134473
Before committing, please take a look to see if I messed up.
@schoenitz Don't forget to add the taxon relationship and checklists before committing.
Can you take a look please if this is OK? I tried to do the taxon relationship(s?) in a way that makes sense to me, but I don't know what this is meant to do. And I have no idea how/where to even start looking w/r/t checklists. I thought they were relevant to places - am I meant to canvas every place where a taxon may occur and update the place checklists manually? All just for fixing a spelling mistake? Help please.
@schoenitz The taxon relationship is correct.
Yes, if you are creating a new taxon in vascular plants (or any other species), it's best practice to add as much information as you can, and taxon relationships are a must. Extra information includes adding the species to checklists, and adding any synonyms noted from the source, in this case POWO. And if you can add a placeholder photo from either Flickr or Wikimedia Commons, that's certainly encouraged, too.
I committed the swap and resolved this flag now because this to-do list appears to be well in excess of a simple correction of a name, where there is a one-to-one relationship between the old and new taxon. This isn't a completely new taxon for iNaturalist. If something is actually missing here, feel free to unresolve or add a new flag. This one's done as far as I'm concerned.
I have to say I am a bit taken aback here. If I swap a single taxon over to a new single taxon at the same taxon level, then the entirety of associated data (photos, checklists, names, whatever) are moved to the new taxon. Why call for this laundry list of busy work?
It's not busy work. If the old taxon already has all the photos, check lists and names, then great. If not, they are missing from the new taxon after the swap. It's basic curation. If there are pieces missing, there will be new flags or at the very least, the community will not benefit fully from the new taxon's existence.
It's just not a new taxon though. I fixed a spelling error. It wasn't my goal to suss out what was missing from the old taxon and add it to the new one. Let there be new flags if anybody notices anything amiss.
Thanks for all the extra work for other curators!
That response honestly doesn't seem warranted. Aside from the sarcasm, I didn't create work that wouldn't have been needed without fixing the spelling error.
In response to @kitty12 - "Thanks for all the extra work for other curators!" this should not be necessary for a correction of a typo of the species name. The fact that this extra work is required is because the implementation and support for a typo correction is unnecessary complex. In this case I fully understand the frustration by @schoenitz, as there is no taxonomic change here, but the addition of the letter "a" at the end.
This unnecessary extra work should be eliminated and a change request addressed to appropriate iNat staff.
Perhaps another approach is to assign the correction to the curator that added the misspelled name in the first place?
I hope @schoenitz won't be deterred from taking on a typo correction in the future, as we need all curators at the ready.
@morton you are correct. It should be easier to correct a simple spelling error, except by the original curator. But it is not, at the moment.
Correct name is Impatiens falcifera
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:374080-1