Talk:List of Little Picacho Wilderness flora

Starting Talk:

Little Picacho Wash--March 25, 2008[edit]

The lower section of the Little Picacho Wash has impenetrable cliffs north and south, or at least not easily navigable. The wash does not allow easy access from south-to-north until between 1 to 1.2 miles upstream, and even then ridges, and side washes must by navigated.Mmcannis (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting species[edit]

This lower section of Little Picacho Wash is composed of a cemented, or "moderately cemented" Tertiary, or Quaternary "conglomerate-alluvium"; (on the upper bench it forms a good hiking shelf). The north side of the wash, the upper bench which extends about 0.5 miles (+ or -) has a pine-like plant with a central dull yellowish flower; the "tree" is about 2.5 feet in height, about 3.5 feet broad. Beginning to bloom now, on March 25, 2008. The plant is almost certainly: Desert Fir/ Desert fir, the Peucephyllum, Peucephyllum schottii--Mmcannis (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

Please explain how this article does not violate WP:NOR. There is no citation, a single editor, and this suggests that it is based on personal observation. I will assume good faith at this point, but absent any evidence of it not being original research, I'll nominate it for deletion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-line references[edit]

I've started some in-line references to various species. I'll next check books: hiking, Sonoran Desert, or Colorado Desert featuring books, sources. (also removed the Deletion Flag)...Mmcannis (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that it is original research, but you are hoping to back it up with references? Some of the references don't even mention the species. One of them is a photograph of unknown provenance, and I am assuming that you are asserting the identification.

Even if you had published this list yourself in a reliable source, it would not be original research for Wikipedia. But as it is, a small number of the species listed have references that may or may not indicate their occurrence in the area. This is the wrong approach. You would be better off seeking to publish you list (perhaps here), and then you can cite it. Or alternately, change the name to Documented flora of the Little Picacho Wilderness and only include those species for which you have reliable sources. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a botany journal, and I don't see your current approach being sustainable.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Little Picacho Wilderness flora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]