Talk:Anigozanthos preissii

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Anigozanthos preissii 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	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, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Plants 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Occurrence data versus range map

I think it would be appropriate to supply an alternative map (perhaps a range map) before rolling back an occurrence data map which, after all, is based on authoritative sources, Australasian Virtual Herbarium, a map which would be improved with the deletion of the specimens collected in NSW.

The map supplied was that shown at the right

MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice how wrong it was. Get a broad consensus for whatever you want to call this click-click contribution, maybe at the plant project or reliable sources noticeboard. I do note you have further modified your assertions, why I don't know, but if I convinced you the source was flawed for obvious reasons that was at too great a cost to my time and patience to try any more, "… an alternative map (perhaps a range map)"? For the section of the taxobox with the parameter: range_map = ??? Sorry, something snapped in my head, what is the question? cygnis insignis 00:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The data are from a respected source. I believe it is appropriate for you to leave the map which is properly sourced until its replacement with a range map, even if that range map (as in Macrozamia riedlei) were to ignore half the data without giving an adequate reason for the exclusion of those points, something which is utterly contrary to good scientific practice. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC) For an appropriate way to argue for the exclusion of points, see Commons discussion on range map for Macrozamia riedlei MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every "range map" is drawn from occurrence data. Thus, occurrence data maps supplied (including the one here) are useful approximations to any range map that will be made (from occurrence data whether it is just PERTH data or includes specimens collected in WA but held by other equally reputable herbaria) and therefore should stay until replacement. Note that are many species which occur in WA and in other states, e.g., Ficus coronulata. In its case, the AVH occurrence data map seems an excellent approximation to a range map, with no points appearing as obvious outliers. MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]