User talk:Gderrin/Archive 3

Eucalyptus marginata[edit]

Hi I noticed my addition to jarrah description (largest trees) was deleted. Is there a problem with the information. These trees has been identified by WA park and wildlife for years. They have been carefully measured with specialist equipment with images to match. I would like to re add the information as I believe it is important to share the size exceptional specimens can attain. Cheers Panthera88 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page stalker - you really need to get a very clear and thorough explanation of what WP:RS means - this is an online encyclopedia with standards for referencing - and not addition of imformation that might be personally important to someone - if it is not supported by clear and publicly available reliable sources, it is WP:OR and not suitable. JarrahTree 14:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panthera88: The information about the size of Eucalyptus marginata was added by User:Thyacine. This seems to suggest Sockpuppetry. (My apologies if I have misinterpreted something here.) Irrespectively, the reference cited (Western Australia Giant Trees), interesting as it is, is a self-published source and not acceptable to Wikipedia. Similar information from the same self-published source added to the pages about Eucalyptus patens, E. diversicolor, E. gomphocephala, E. jacksonii and Corymbia calophylla is not reliable and will be reverted. Gderrin (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gderrin Thanks for feedback. When I first created an account I wanted to change it (misspelling) back it didn’t work so I created a new account but the original seems to show up too? I understand about the WP:OR. In this instance this is the only source. Many tree volumes published have only been measured once. The General Sherman the worlds biggest tree to my knowledge has only been measured 3 times in 90 years. If I use a different source ie National Register of Big Trees would that be an acceptable alternative? Cheers Panthera88 (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panthera88: Thanks for the explantation of the multiple usernames - I understand. If by "National Register of Big Trees" you mean this site, it is not an acceptable alternative. It is another dot-com apparently self-published by Derek McIntosh. Information on subjects like the "world's biggest tree" may be in the Guinness World Records, but even that is generally not accepted as a reliable source. (See WP:RSPSRC.) I do not want to discourage you - I appreciate your interest in eucalypts, but it is important (especially on this subject) to use information from reliable sources. The guidelines on the page WP:RS describe and explain the meaning of "reliable sources". Please feel free to respond here, or to ask for help at The Teahouse and most importantly, keep editing! Gderrin (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elaeocarpus, thanks, shortcut[edit]

@Gderrin: Hello and thanks for your improving the Elaeocarpus page. Jts1882 alerted me to a shortcut. There is a template, Template:Format species list that takes a list like a copied one from POWO and turns it into a WP list. May I demonstrate on the species list of Elaeocarpus some suggestions for improvement. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunswicknic: Hello Brunswicknic. Thanks muchly. Although I have almost finished the Elaeocarpus list, there are other species lists I would like to work on (e.g. Teucrium) and any help with shortcuts would be appreciated. I've had a look at the template, and if I understand it correctly, it would also allow the author name(s) to be included, but synonyms would have to be deleted if I were to use the list at POWO? Also a bit tricky to keep articles already written but not in the list, that would need to be redirected to a new name? Gderrin (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Synonyms, &c., yes they require separate treatment, same with the geography and vernacular names on some lists. What I do is take section to my sandbox, put in the new list and then add the "extras" back manually or in separate section, see Memecylon#A list of Memecylon species for an example of what I prefer to do. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunswicknic: That's great. I will definitely do that next time. Thanks again. Gderrin (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: It's a big list and with all the redlinks it's a bit much on the page. I know we can do Collapsible Section/List, I just have learn/re-acquaint myself with the coding. Thanks for your contributions here and on WP generally. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunswicknic: Agreed, but the article also needs a lot of work in other areas. I'm happy to do a clean up, add better refs and create a separate "List of Ealaeocarpus species" unless you're a glutton for punishment! Also planning to expand the Australian species' pages. Gderrin (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: No, I am enjoying new pages too much at the moment, between you and me (not like anybody else can see this) I am 3 species away from the end of the list of firewood taxa in Pauline Dy Phon Plants used in Cambodia. After this I can't make up my mind to work on PNG taxa, keep on Cambodian taxa, and then there are the redlinked taxa and botanists in articles I have created. So, your proposal sounds real good to me. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ochna arborea[edit]

Hello Gderrin, I'm not sure if this move from Elaeocarpus integrifolius Lam. should have taken place. This species is an endemic of Mauritius, not southern African. I believe it is the synonym Elaeocarpus integrifolius Sieber ex C.Presl you were thinking of. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Hello Declangi. Thanks - indeed you are correct. My bad. I will fix. Gderrin (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic categorization[edit]

Hello, just a friendly reminder to always categorize endemic species under their respective categories, for example, Elaeocarpus munroi should be in Endemic flora of India and Goodenia granitica should be in Endemic flora of Western Australia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pladica (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pladica: I am happy to leave that to you. Gderrin (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more botanists[edit]

I have actually been working on adding bios for a few of the red links in the "List of Botanists by botanical abbreviation" article (or whatever it is called). For instance, I recently added Edward Whittall and Anna B. Nickels. Nickels was particularly interesting; I thought it was too long to include in the article, but in the biographical article I drew most of the info from, you'll find an account of hers about a day trip into the Mexican mountains to collect cactus that is pretty amusing. Regards, Brianyoumans (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianyoumans: Interesting articles indeed! Keep up the great work. All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rainforest key[edit]

Hi Gderrin. Just a heads up about the old RFK that used to be found at trin[dot]org[dot]au As you probably know it has been superseded, but yesterday I noticed that the domain is once again working but it brings up a rather sinister-looking page. There are probably many articles that still contain references and links to that old URL (particularly Australian ones) and I've started searching for them and replacing them with an updated link to the current RFK.Junglenut (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: Hello Junglenut. Thanks. Not exactly sure what you mean about "trin[dot]org[dot]au" or "sinister-looking page" but any help with updating links would be greatly appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Ah, ok. I've seen your name a lot in edits of pages, and since I mostly work on Australian rainforest flora I assumed you were familiar with it too. Anyway, the Australian Rain Forest Key (RFK) v.6 was hosted on that site I mentioned. It is now up to v.8 and hosted on a different site. I don't want to type the old URL without the brackets because it will be displayed as a link. Junglenut (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: I guess I regularly come across this material indirectly, just by searching the name of a species (eg. Elaeocarpus carolinae). However I can see that some earlier articles I wrote, such has Vanda hindsii now have broken links to the old "Trin keys" site, and that this is the new link. Bit of a pain to go searching for articles with similar link rot. I think that for the moment, I will not worry. If some kind person makes the repair, I'll thank them. If it's tagged "deadref", I'll make the repair myself. There are more important jobs to do. (I will fix the Vanda article though.) Gderrin (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Yes that link is current for Australian orchids, but the Australian rainforest key (which only covers species that occur in rainforest, and is what my initial message is about) is now at https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/intro/index.html. If you've not done anything with those taxa, all good :) — Junglenut (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elaeocarpus dentatus[edit]

Hello Gderrin,

Wondering what your opinion is on creating articles for the described variants Elaeocarpus dentatus var. dentatus and Elaeocarpus dentatus var. obovatus and making Elaeocarpus dentatus describe both variants - not just E. dentatus var. dentatus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elaeocarpus_dentatus#Creating_the_variety_pages

Thanks - Beeveria (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeveria: Hmmm...I guess. I can see problems though. The varieties are not mentioned anywhere that I can find except the New Zealand Organisms Register and New Zealand Plant Conservation Network - nothing in Plants of the World Online and no source that I can find for Cheeseman's paper describing Elaeocarpus dentatus var. obovatus. To my mind, it would be more important to clean up the E. dentatus page first. There should, in my opinion, be at least a little about the taxonomic history of the species (eg. that it was originally described in 1776 as Dicera dentata.) Since it is a species that interests you, why not concentrate on the page you already have and improve it to A-Class or better? The variety articles may be little better than stubs. Gderrin (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it may be best to just include more on the varieties on the page itself and taxonomy is definitely something it's missing - Thanks! Beeveria (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dracophyllum (formerly Beeveria) here, just to say that a Taxonomy section has been added. Might get around to buffing the rest later. Cheers Draco phyllum 09:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Dracophyllum arboreum in the genus[edit]

Sorry to bother you again Gderrin but I am in the process of writing Dracophyllum arboreum and, given your experience, I wanted to ask about the whether the sectioning done here > https://archive.org/details/transactions-and-proceedings-royal-society-new-zealand-80-001-017/mode/2up? is the same kind of thing to what is in Banksia marginata? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeveria (talk • contribs)

@Beeveria: Not a bother at all! I hope I have understood your question. If by "sectioning" you mean placing the species of Dracophyllum into subgenera as section as was done here - no, I don't think so. I can't find any papers on that subject for Dracophyllum. It's more important I think, to get the taxonomy correct. Dracophyllum arboreum was first formally described in 1902 by Leonard Cockayne in the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute.^[1] Let me know if I have anything wrong. Good luck with the article. And let me know if you want any help. Gderrin (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Thanks for your reply, the paper on separating Dracophyllum into subgenera is the one above (archive.org etc) - I have added it to D. arboreum now let me know your thoughts on the article as is. I also found this huge thesis on Dracophyllum > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/950 which I might have a look at in a sec. Beeveria (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeveria: Looks fine to me. Keep going. Lots of other kiwi species (including lots of dracophyllums) need articles. More like this one would be great! Gderrin (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin Thank you so much! I'll work more on Dracophyllum Beeveria (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cockayne, Leonard (1902). "A Short Account of the Plant-covering of Chatham Island". Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. 34: 318. Retrieved 22 April 2021.

Another update, the sectioning I was using was from 1956 and there is a cladistic analysis from 2010. This I sorted out a while ago. Cheers Draco phyllum 09:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About: Goodenia stirlingii - "Stirling, James (1852 - 1905)" - J.Stirl.[edit]

Hi Gderrin. It would appear that the specific epithet "stirlingii" refers to one of those James Stirling-s that doesn't have an article yet. He does have an IPNI standard abbreviation. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shirt58: Yep. 'Fraid so. That's why I linked to the ANBG page. It might be possible to dig up some information on this James Stirling. According to this page, Mount Stirling was named after him. (Deadlinked ref. unfortunately) I've been able to dig up this paper by him - according to the ANBG article, there are others. (There's a difference in the date of his death.) Gderrin (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review help[edit]

Hi Gdderin. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :)Sparklingkull (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well done[edit]

It couldnt happen to a nicer person! Surviving the travails of the english wikipedia community, to intrepidly improve the field of material about the plants of oz - well done, and thanks JarrahTree 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JarrahTree. Thanks mate. Gderrin (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

barn stars are never enough! trust you are safe and away from the plague! JarrahTree 07:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and looking for receiving your review today![edit]

Thank you very much for your valuable sharing and I fixed the things you advised. I would appreciate it and looking to receive your review today. Thanks again, Gderrin (talk)! Camorange (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is awesome![edit]

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic help, Gderrin (talk). It's really great for me! Thanks a lot! Camorange (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Plantae Barnstar
		After thousands of articles, I'm amazed that you don't have one of these already.

Thank you (TheAwesomeAtom). Gderrin (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

I appreciate your welcome. I will go to that edit and correct the grammar, etc that you have cited. At least the ones that I can figure out how you want it to read. If you find any other mistakes, would you please just correct them or tell me how you want them corrected, not delete the entire edit. I appreciate your help so much.

Regarding Plantdrew, I followed the wiki instructions by notifying Plantdrew on their talk page using the wiki template provided, I have not accused them or reported them yet. The definition for edit war "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree" definitely applies in this case. And also from the Edit Warring help page "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Plantdrew has changed edits deleting similar mentions from other editors on 8 different occasions. See below list

Thanks again for your help - 98.26.118.255 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-ew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

It appears the other editor has corrected everything except it's vs its and the wording meme tourism. What other wording would you like me to use instead of meme tourism ? - 98.26.118.255 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

	40,000+ edits
	Congratulations on your 40,000th edit (and more). You are a great contributor to the representation of Australian plants on Wikipedia. The image is your second upload to Commons (in case you've forgotten). Oronsay (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

threat by soil degradation and overlinking[edit]

Hi. Your revert appears a little puzzling: We are talking about immediate threats to the species in question. And you really think these weren't relevant enough to be linked? Come on. -- Kku (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku: Hello Kku - thanks for your interest in Eucalyptus alligatrix. Of course soil degradation is important and relevant, but so is ringbarking, weed invasion and grazing by livestock. Most, if not all readers of this article, will know what is meant by all of these words and phrases. On the other hand, they may not know what "coppice" and "pedicel" mean, and probably will not know where Eildon, Jamieson and the other places mentioned in the distribution are - that's why they are linked. As mentioned in the guidelines on linking, "Everyday words understood by most readers in context are usually not linked". Gderrin (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Soil degradation" is certainly NOT an everyday word. Just ask around and see which ideas if any on the topic you'll find. Besides, we are talking about a phenomenon that has global significance. Thus, I do not find your argument entirely convincing. -- Kku (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku: Actually "soil degradation' is not a word, but I understand your meaning. I also agree with you, - "soil retrogression and degradation" is important and has global significance. Weed invasion, ringbarking, grazing by livestock on native vegetation and inappropriate fire regimes are also of global importance. That does not justify a link for every word and phrase. I'm not sure what would be achieved by my "asking around", but soil conservation is an important issue in my country. At the national level, protecting Australia's soil is a major issue for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and at the state level the Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales is entirely devoted to the issue. The soil degradation article is valuable and well written, but linking to it from articles like this one, is not going to increase the number of people who read it. As a matter of fact, E. alligatrix is not threatened by soil degradation - it is only one of the factors affecting the small, isolated population of the subspecies limaensis. Gderrin (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed[edit]

It's customary to place a "citation needed" tag on sentences that you feel are lacking a citation, not remove the material, especially material that is not at all controversial. Also, please make an effort to find the citation first. Removal of uncited information ia a very last resort, and I will have to ask you to refrain from doing it again in cases such as Zanthoxylum ovalifolium. Abductive (reasoning) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - sorted now. Gderrin (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boronia hippopala/us[edit]

See the taxonbar now at Boronia hippopala, showing the databases using the IPNI-approved spelling. It is pretty clearly an error in Latin by the authors which the ICNafp requires to be corrected. I'll fix the article later if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I don't get it! Which authors? Neither Boronia hippopala nor B. hippopalus is mentioned in Duretto's Taxon (2020) paper. In his original paper in Muelleria (2003), Duretto gave the spelling B. hippopala. I can't find the incorrect spelling anywhere, other than in PoWO and IPNI. Unless I have a very different understanding of English from you, the correct spelling, according to both Duretto and the Code, is B. hippopala. The other issue is that after "Former species", you have "Species no longer placed in Boronia include Boronia acanthoclada". Are you intending to create new Cyanothamnus articles with redirects from the old names? Nevertheless, I do appreciate the work you've done in updating the species list, incorporating the conclusions of the Taxon paper. Thank you. Gderrin (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duretto gave the spelling of the epithet as hippopala as though it were an adjective agreeing with Boronia. However, if as IPNI says, it's derived from hippo and palus, palus isn't an adjective but a noun (as Stearn's Botanical Latin says on p. 460 in my edition – the normal adjective used from palus is palustris.) There's no adjective palus from which the feminine pala could be derived. Art. 60.1 of the ICNafp says "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standardizations imposed by [list] 60.8 (terminations)". Art. 32.2 says "Names of species or infraspecific taxa are validly published even when their epithets were published with an improper Latin or transcribed Greek termination but otherwise in accordance with this Code; they are to be changed to accord with [ref to articles giving the rules]". Thus, on this analysis, the termination is wrong, and is required to be standardized. Hence IPNI corrected the epithet to hippopalus, which all the Kew databases and Tropicos use. The form hippopala can more neutrally be described as an orthographical variant, so it's better to change to this, I think.

On the second issue, well, all the articles do need moving to Cyanothamnus at some point; the evidence that Boronia needs to be split seems clear in both doi:10.1002/tax.12242 (the authors of which are all Australian) and the Appelhans paper. I suppose I'll get round to it eventually if no-one else does first. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for your detailed explanation. Sure looks wrong, but I agree with you that apparently Boronia hippopalus is correct. I'm happy to change the name of the article with an explanation. I confess that normally I'd object to changing the source from APC to PoWO, but since Marco Duretto is an authority on Boronia, having named many of them and the APC is slow to update, I'm comfortable with the change. I'm happy to do the necessary updates and redirects. We may be able to get back to APC in a year or five! Gderrin (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only using PoWO for the species lists because it seems to have mainly been updated for the recent changes to Rutaceae classification (at least as far as this summary – can't expect any changes in the very new 2021 paper yet). Where sources like Duretto et al. or Appelhans et al. differ from PoWO in regard to genera, I'm using them, but the problem can be that only older sources have comprehensive species lists.

I'll very happily leave you to move the relevant Boronia articles to Cyanothamnus! :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work moving all those articles to Cyanothamnus! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrodia agnicellus[edit]

Unless I'm missing something? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: Hello YorkshireExpat. That was a definite brain fade. Sorry. I reverted your edit, added a note to the same effect at the bottom of the list, and added Gastrodia agnicellus to the species list, all quite carefully and deliberately! Now have a headache from banging my head on the desk. Gderrin (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: No worries. Please don't bang it too hard! YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtaceae genera[edit]

Hi, this paper, with all Australian editors, merges a lot of Myrtaceae genera native to Australia into Melaleuca:

I've checked some of these, and so far, as far as I can see, APC doesn't accept the mergers, although all are accepted by PoWO, and most by APweb here. So I'm hesitating as to what to do. Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Peter coxhead: Long story, short. I basically started this WP journey with Melaleuca and bought Lyndley Craven's monograph. Craven considered Callistemon a synonym of Melaleuca. (More to the story here.) I believed at the time, that since I was using Craven's monograph, I should follow Craven's taxonomy. Two problems now - the Australian Plant Census and most Australian herbaria do not agree with Craven (now deceased) and new species of Callistemon have been described with no equivalent in Melaleuca. (eg. Callistemon purpurascens - the only Callistemon accepted by POWO!).^[1] I have the "feeling" that most Australian botanists consider Callistemon to be distinct from Melaleuca, agree with Udovicic and Spencer,^[2] and would be even more strongly opposed to merging Beaufortia and the others. (Makes me wonder - on what basis does POWO decide to go with Craven and not the APC?) Gderrin (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been a bit slow in getting back to this thread (distracted by a technical issue over italicization). (Just as a side point, PoWO doesn't "accept" Callistemon purpurascens; it treats it as "unplaced", which is its usual practice when it doesn't accept the genus but there's no published name in the genus it wants to use.) PoWO, in general, seems to side with "lumpers" rather than "splitters", so its treatment of these genera isn't too surprising. Anyway, provided that APC is referenced, I agree that it's better to leave these genera as they are. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Douglas, Steven M. (2015). "Callistemon purpurascens (Myrtaceae) : a new (etc.)". Telopea. 18. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
^ Udovicic, Frank; Spencer, Roger D. (2012). "New combinations in Callistemon (Myrtaceae)". Muelleria. 30 (1): 23–25. Retrieved 29 September 2021.

@Peter coxhead: No drama - thanks for the reply. Gderrin (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

I got impressed with your work Bursaria reevesii. Happy editing Onmyway22 talk 09:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Daviesia devito[edit]

On 2 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daviesia devito, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that devito and schwarzenegger are two Australian peas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daviesia devito. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daviesia devito), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Daviesia schwarzenegger[edit]

On 2 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daviesia schwarzenegger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that devito and schwarzenegger are two Australian peas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daviesia devito. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daviesia schwarzenegger), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baeckia[edit]

Jeez, nice spot of the reclassification of the Baeckia species. Thanks for moving all of those over. We are all counting down to the day when COVID arrives en masse in WA and making the most of a hot summer. Hope all is well. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate - all well. I'm also counting to when I can visit again. Planning to photo hundred of species! Gderrin (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy fix of my edit[edit]

In the article herbaceous plants I was going to make some fixes to my "unreverted" edit in a hour before, then you came did a whooping 12... 12 edits, so quickly. thanks for helping me with that, 100% it was unexpected. I was considering a barnstar actually. Dawn Lim (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi Gderrin. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great thing[edit]

about olivacea is that it can be pruned and shaped, is a quick grower and have had it as a from of hedge at a few of our places - and neighbours have used it as well..

JarrahTree 10:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that JarrahTree - prompted me to add a bit more about the use of Grevillea olivacea in the garden. Gderrin (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message[edit]

Hi Gderrin,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Hughesdarren submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Gderrin for his efforts in creating a plethora of articles on Australian flora. He has consistently and patiently improved articles and taken them from miserable stubs to start class and beyond especially for the Australian Biota project. He also contributed a mass of photographs from all over Australia on all sorts of plants. He is incredibly polite and patient with more aggressive editors and I've enjoyed all of my interactions with him. His solid editing skills, depth of knowledge, relentless work ethic and ability to engage with others make his a thoroughly deserved recipient of this award. A calm, polite and helpful article builder. Seconded by JarrahTree and Cas Liber.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Gderrin

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning August 27, 2022

Consistent and patient in creating a plethora of articles on Australian flora especially for the Australian Biota project. Contributed a mass of varied plant photographs from all over Australia. Polite and patient with solid editing skills, depth of knowledge, relentless work ethic and the ability to calmly engage with others.

Recognized for

being a calm, polite and helpful article builder.

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks, especially to Hughesdarren, JarrahTree and Casliber. Very much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved mate. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fully agree, couldnt happen to a more deservingly persistent editor !!! JarrahTree 13:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Congrats and fully deserved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to all of the above. He has assisted me and many other editors greatly and his patience and knowledge immeasurable. A more than well deserved award, long overdue. Allthingsnative

Board of Trustees election[edit]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus rhodantha[edit]

Hi Geoff, I've just been through a GA review of another article and think I have a bit of a handle on how it all works. Anyway, I was thinking on nominating Eucalyptus rhodantha which appears to tick all the boxes of a GA. As do many other Eucalyt articles. What do you reckon? I've got reports this week, then travelling (to Sydney) the next week but the week after I will have some time on my hands and will probably do it then. How did your trip go? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reports! You lucky fella. I’m in the Stirling Range today. I’m not real good doing W. stuff on a phone, but your suggestion sound good to me. I’ll be home soon - will do more then. All the best to you. G. Gderrin (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geoff, I've hit a roadblock on the GA review of E rhodantha, I'm way out of my deth with th taxonomy stuff. Could you please take a look and help me out? the revieeer has made a bunch of suggestions on the talk page but I'm at a loss of where to go. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. Just need a day or 2 to catch up on family stuff. Been watching your great work. Gderrin (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davies horrida and mates[edit]

I have a real problem of getting a handle on the differences between horrida and others, is there any easy way to separate them? JarrahTree 11:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I wish! The article, especially the excellent image, are helpful though. There is also a key on page 11 of Michael Crisp's (et. al.) monograph. Gderrin (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clue - I saw you uploading the other davies and they look all the same - thanks for the crisp mono page number... JarrahTree 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OSM maps[edit]

They are a bit temperamental when first added to an article, sometimes they don't show up in preview at all, other times the zoom needs adjusting for them to work. The Moora one works fine for me but I'm not surprised that it might not necessarily show up for you. Hope you don't mind me reverting you. Calistemon (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: No drama at all, but it still does not work for me, although all the others I've looked at (about 30) appear fine. A pity - one of my favourite towns - spent a few days there 2 months ago. (Note the gallery!) Gderrin (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I remember seeing your image File:St James church.jpg back in 2019! Quite liked it. Have you tried enlarging the map (top right hand corner) to see if it works in the full version? I have put the map in User:Calistemon/sandbox, which is my testing ground for maps where I have the same issue you are having right now, not displaying. Is it visible for you there? Calistemon (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: 1. Yes - it looks all blue. 2. Yep - works in your sandbox. Sorry I can't help because I don't know the trick (of inserting a map in the infobox). Thanks for your work on this. I don't really need a map - I go there every year I can! Gderrin (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, wildflower hunting, judging by your userpage and the fact that the 2019 phots were taken in September (Spring). Hope you had a chance to get up to Coalseam Conservation Park, not too much further north and my favorite place! Calistemon (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - got it in one. CCP a bit far north. I'll get there one year though. Maps up now - thanks, although it doesn't seem to enlarge properly. Gderrin (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stapf[edit]

I am not an expert on botany, but Stapf points to a disambiguation. I thought it to be logical to use Stapf.. Inwind (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inwind: sorry, but no, no, no! "Stapf" is the standard botanical abbreviation for Otto Stapf (1857-1933) in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) – see the entry. His article is at Otto Stapf (botanist). There is no abbreviation "Stapf." – it would only be used for a longer name with the end omitted. Where [[Stapf]] occurs as a botanical authority, it should be replaced by [[Otto Stapf (botanist)|Stapf]], and the redirect at Stapf. deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about my ignorance. Have corrected the Stapf.s. Inwind (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inwind: Heck - that's no problem. Not ignorance at all! Gderrin (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur R. Penfold[edit]

Hey, it looks like IPNI has fixed his middle name! Go us!

https://ipni.org/?q=A.R.Penfold

Regards, Brianyoumans (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Gderrin,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~~~~

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year to you Gderrin - have a super 2023 and thanks for all your efforts and assistance. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia on the topic of native plants of Australia. We are blessed to have you. Cheers. jengod (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

I very much appreciate your copyright work and wanted to thank you for highlighting the CC-BY-NC license. The resource I used listed it initially under NC and then under a straight BY license. The collection page on the ALA website lists the collection under BY-NC but the image details page at https://images.ala.org.au/image/details?imageId=6c94549c-e576-4e74-8b43-9131e9f33f6d again lists a straight CC-BY with no NC component. I understand if the situation is to fuzzy for commons to accept and that makes perfect sense. But just as a bit of advice from you to me, how would you go about parsing that? I'd like to make sure I have the tools to properly work in this area. Thanks for your time and any wisdom you have for me. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at user's Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Austrocallerya megasperma[edit]

Nice image you found, but I'm concerned about the copyright. The Atlas of Living Australia labels it with an acceptable copyright status for Commons, but says it came from here, which at "Use of images" doesn't allow commercial use, which means that images at the Australian Plant Image Index can't be uploaded to Commons. It would be good to get this discrepancy clarified, because there are other images at the ALA that would be useful, some derived from the APII. Can you shed any light on this? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Click on "Data resource" on the ALA file → https://collections.ala.org.au/public/show/dr413 (Sorry, but I don't see where it says "it came from here".) I think all the originally copyright images in the APII were uploaded by the ANBG to the ALA in 2018. Gderrin (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at [1], there's a URL at the "References" row, namely https://canbr.gov.au/photo/apii/id/a/3571. This in turn says the image source is the APII, which does not allow commercial use. So are we sure that when the APII image was uploaded to the ALA, this restriction was explicitly relaxed? I hope so! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Here's a clue: the image at https://canbr.gov.au/photo/apii/id/a/3571 but it's not the same as the one at the ALA. It's smaller. When the Australian National Botanic Gardens uploaded the image to the ALA, they (she) uploaded an original, derived from a slide that belonged to Muarray Fagg. Still not convinced? The lovely (but busy) Anna Monro (anna.monro@environment.gov.au) will confirm. Gderrin (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am convinced, thanks. If I seem over-cautious it's because I've had issues with picky editors at Commons in the past whose general rule seems to be "if an image appears in more than one place with different copyright statements, apply the most restrictive". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonbar paras[edit]

It's a good question as to how many synonyms to include in a taxonbar. The basionym according to Wikidata will be added automatically if not included; I prefer to do so explicitly because Wikidata isn't always right and we don't control it. My personal test for the rest of the synonyms is whether any 'major' taxonomic database gives that name as accepted or whether it's used as the article name in some other wiki. Others seem to take the view that any synonym with a Wikidata entry should be listed. Maybe this should be discussed at WT:PLANTS? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: In the case of Austrocallerya australis, the basionym is added correctly. The other Wikidata links add no value to the article. Perhaps those who suggest any synonym with a Wikidata entry should be listed, might have a go at Dendrobium. I'm comfortable with discussions, but frankly have more important things to do (plant articles to write). Gderrin (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for a quick sanity check?[edit]

Apologies for asking for guidance, but you've been a bit of a spirit guide for me since I'm both not Australian and new to editing botanical articles and you have a wealth of experience. I've done quite a few new images at this point and am really enjoying the work flow. During my overnight shift at work earlier I got back into it again and stumbled on to a species that wasn't listed anywhere at all I eventually discovered it was an older, now seemingly unused synonym. The article was a stub verging on sub-stub and I just redirected the page to the current species name, whose article does include taxonomic history and the old name. Is that a good edit, or should I have left the synonym as its own article? --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: Thanks for your work, especially for adding images to plant articles. It would be good if you could remember to remove "image needed" from the Talk Page though.

About Corymbia dolichocarpa - it's curious that it's listed as a synonym by the authorities I've checked, but is still at Plantnet (N.S.W. Herbarium). It probably would have been better to signal your intention to redirect on the Talk Page of Corymbia dolichocarpa first, but I doubt you would have had any argument for keeping it. There does need to be a note on the Corymbia clarksoniana page. I'll look after that. Gderrin (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure I do that with the image needed tags. Thank you for helping me improve my work! --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subtaxa with relinked species[edit]

As part of my efforts to get a handle on the completeness of species coverage, I came across a number of subspecies that don't have an article on their species. Many of these were created by you. For example, Caladenia bryceana, C. caesarea, C. exilis, C. hirta, C. leptochila, C. nana, C. pendens, C. pholcoidea, C. remota, C. reptans, and C. uliginosa all have articles on some of their subspecies. I mention this here only to give you a chance to create them if you would prefer. Otherwise I may get around to making stubs on them eventually. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Abductive: Thanks for that. I created the subspecies pages in my early days of editing and should have also written the species pages. I'll get to that today. I would think that only a stub is necessary, since the subspecies articles are start class, although they need some work. I'll also look after that.

Re: your work on species coverage, I wonder whether you have considered articles that use the Australian Plant Census as an authority? There'd be a few thousand of those. Gderrin (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look. There are 24,345 accepted species on APC. 2,225 of these are not on PoWO. Of these, there are 545 articles on Wikipedia that are on species that are not in PoWO, but presumably include mosses, ferns and liverworts, and some hybrids and orthographic variants. Abductive (reasoning) 05:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: Thanks for your work. The APC does not have pages for synonyms or orthographic variants, but includes them under accepted names. It does have pages for accepted hybrid names. (The Australian Plant Name Index has a page for every name, synonym and the like.) At least some of the 545 would be of genera and species that are accepted by the APC and by all Australian herbaria, but not by PoWO. That would include species of Calothamnus, Conothamnus, Beaufortia, Regelia and Eremaea that PoWO places in Melaleuca. The Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria only meets occasionally to update accepted species. Perhaps a proportion of the 2,225 in APC are in PoWO under a different (new?) name, such as some species of Leucopogon that PoWO includes in Styphelia.

I'm working on the redlinked caladenia articles, but each takes a couple of hours. Gderrin (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of the 545 there are 46 Leucopogon, 41 Calothamnus, 30 Lechenaultia, 22 Beaufortia, 19 Olearia, 16 Eremaea, 14 Eucalyptus, 9 Babingtonia, 9 Dysoxylum, 7 Acacia, 7 Corunastylis, 7 Velleia, 62 genera with 2 to 6 articles, and 144 genera with 1 article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your revert in rainforest[edit]

With [2] you are definitely removing a link immediately related to the ecology of the rainforest itself and not in any way cleaning up overlinking. Please think about it for a while. Topsoil and organic components are part of what makes a rainforest a rainforest. -- Kku (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on Kku's talk page Gderrin (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your revert on Sarcochilus[edit]

[3] is also a little less than helpful, don't you think? Sarcochilus, it says, grows on leaf litter. Leaf litter is effectively the substrate for the plant. How come you think this would not be relevant? Soil biology should not be neglected in botanical articles. -- Kku (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on Kku's talk page Gderrin (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely reaction. I have three things which I find notable at this point: 1. Whoever thinks he/she knows well enough what exactly a forest floor is, what complexity is hidden in it, is very probably deceiving him/herself. 2. By erasing such links you are not only giving in to an empiric finding on hyperlink click rates, you are actively supporting non-clickability, i.e. you actively trying to control readers' curiosity. I don't think that was what your article meant to convey. As for readability 3.: I am used to reading two- or three-colored texts and do not find them disturbing in any way. I would suppose that this goes for most www-experienced users. -- Kku (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point. Links are to aid understanding. (MOS:OL) Can you give a reason why any reader might be motivated to click on a leaf litter link? The readers you describe at 1. and 2. (above), will certainly not click on it (or on forest floor). It's easy to give a reason why a reader might click on monopodial or resupinate in the Sarcochilus article. Gderrin (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect; Your opinion of associative thinking or reasoning appears to be rather low. Show me one interested reader who proceeds further than the introductory summary paragraph and prove to me that all they want is to just read more of what is already mentioned. I personally only read on, when I am looking for context. Could it be that you are still clinging to barebone paper-encyclopedic style that effectively forbade ramification into too much detail just out of space limitations? In any case, I wasn't crosslinking to any unrelated detail, but instead to immediate biological, i.e. knowledge domain - specific context. I would be very astonished if this is in any way not obvious to you. Maybe you want to demonstrate to me the intentions and curiosities of any knowledge seeker who arrives at a lemma like the aformentioned Sarcolichus. It would certainly substantial predictive skills to come up with a good idea what is interesting to this reader in question and what isn't. I for one find it rather disturbing when people tell me they can sort of read other peoples minds. -- Kku (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

grassland overlinking?[edit]

Excuse me for asking: but is this (pars pro toto) a crusade? We are, after all, talking about the biotopes of the plants I tried to link here. You could at least have the civility of talking back to me on that matter, before you go and simply undo everything without a substantial ''botanical'' explanation. -- Kku (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kku: and thanks for asking. I believe I did give a substantial reason for reverting the "grassland" link in both the Lechenaultia and Baeckea frutescens articles, the first two I reverted. But you seem to have paid no attention. As I tried to explain in the edit summary of each of those articles, linking "grassland" does not contribute to an understanding of those articles. I suggest that no reader of any of those articles would click on a link to grassland. It would not help that reader to understand Lechenaultia, Baeckea frutescens or any other plant article. Please read the link (MOS:OL). Grassland, woodland and forest are "everyday words, understood by most readers in context". Linking them does not help someone understand an article about a plant species. By the way - we've been here before and you didn't answer my question there. Gderrin (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a) You did not give me substantially more than a few minutes, I think, while I wasn't looking at the main WP window. b) a longer, more detailed reply is now attached to the previous discussion. c) what you appear to ignore is just the fact that in the biological context, grassland, woodland, etc. are not "everyday" words, because they do carry a substantial bio/ecological connotation and strong relationship with the organisms they provide a biotope for, the food chains that are specific to the biotope, and so on and so forth. If you cannot see that, you can well go ahead and insist. Meanwhile, however, you should definitely start working on your systems thinking. -- Kku (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku: - on 23 March this year, you linked the words forest floor in several hundred Wikipedia articles. In the month prior to that, the Forest floor article was clicked on 69 times per day, and in the month after 23 March, the phrase was clicked 63 times per day. That suggests readers are not clicking on the links you add. If you think words and phrases like forest floor, leaf litter, woodland, grassland and forest are important, please improve the articles about them. You would be making a valuable contribution to this project. Gderrin (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxa named by Henry Charles Andrews has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Taxa named by Henry Charles Andrews has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Cockayne-1] Cockayne, Leonard (1902). "A Short Account of the Plant-covering of Chatham Island". Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. 34: 318. Retrieved 22 April 2021.

[Telopea-2] Douglas, Steven M. (2015). "Callistemon purpurascens (Myrtaceae) : a new (etc.)". Telopea. 18. Retrieved 29 September 2021.

[Muelleria-3] Udovicic, Frank; Spencer, Roger D. (2012). "New combinations in Callistemon (Myrtaceae)". Muelleria. 30 (1): 23–25. Retrieved 29 September 2021.

[1]

[1]

[2]