User talk:Gderrin

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hi, I see that you worked on Corunastylis. This genus was not accepted in the last major revision of orchid taxonomy by Chase et al. (2015) doi:10.1111/boj.12234 and does not appear to be accepted now by any of the major taxonomic databases. The APC entry here says "Corunastylis is included in the circumscription of Genoplesium in SA and NSW", but it appears not in the rest of Australia. So the genus has an odd status, it seems. I'm not quite sure what to do about the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter,

I think the problem is at least partly that the APC is not regularly updated - only when the heads of the Australian herbaria meet every couple of years. There is a similar problem with several other genera, including Leucopogon/Styphelia and Micromyrtus/Corynanthera. There are so many other Australian species that do not have articles, and so many new species descriptions every month, I'm inclined to leave things as they are for the time being. Perfection here is probably impossible. I've also redirected many of the Corunastylis articles to Genoplesium already and there is a note about Genoplesium in the taxonomy section of the Corunastylis article. I'd appreciate your opinion on this. (I'll bring the species list in Genoplesium up to date.) Gderrin (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be very odd would be to have some Corunastylis species at this genus and some at Genoplesium purely depending on what Australian state they occur in. I'm inclined to redirect Corunastylis to Genoplesium, moving the note about the possible recognition of Corunastylis to Genoplesium and then list all the species at that genus. But I would accept the reverse, i.e. keeping Corunastylis with all the species in APC regardless of whether some states put them in Genoplesium. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd accept redirecting Corunastylis to Genoplesium, but only after redirecting each Corunastylis species to the respective Genoplesium article, because sources outside Wikipedia refer to species of Corunastylis. Corunastylis is no longer accepted by the NSW Herbarium, SA flora and the NZPCN are probably dated. I will get to it, but the changes will take a few days. Gderrin (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove Trichoglottis quadriga. http://novataxa.blogspot.com/2023/08/trichoglottiq.html?m=1 New species, bruh, that's why Plants of the World Online has not added it yet.KungfuMantis (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KungfuMantis: Thanks for your interest in orchids. The main reason I made that change is that Wikipedia requires references. (WP:REFB) The reference you cited (above) is not a reliable source, (WP:RS) but a self-published blog ("pskhun"). I have updated the Trichoglottis species list since you added, and I removed Trichoglottis quadriga. You may notice that new species have been added by Plants of the World Online, and others removed. The name Trichoglottis quadriga has been published,^[1] but the fact that a name has been published does not mean that it is an accepted species. For example, the Trichoglottis names T. appendiculifera, T bataanensis, T. bicruris, T. brachiata, T. breviracema and many others have been published, but not accepted.

I hope you understand, but I'm happy to discuss further here, if you're interested. Gderrin (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, the one you provided is probably a synonym, which is true because they are not accepted. If you want me to have reliable sources, then sure, here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373449265_Trichoglottis_quadriga_Orchidaceae_Epidendroideae_Vandeae_Aeridinae_a_new_species_from_Central_Highlands_of_Sri_Lanka

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/185CEB06-FFC8-FF98-FF25-FAFF10FF956C KungfuMantis (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 I listed are published by reliable sources, but they are not accepted by Plants of the World Online. It might be a good idea for you to ask elsewhere, such as here. Gderrin (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC) It might also be a good idea to be patient. T. quadriga is not the only new species of Trichoglottis to be described. Trichoglottis najibii from Indonesia is also newly described,^[1] and Plants of the World Online is regularly updated. New species may be added to the list very soon. Gderrin (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KungfuMantis: Trichoglottis najibii and Trichoglottis quadriga are now listed at Plants of the World Online, and are now included in the list of species at Trichoglottis. Gderrin (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the height to 2.5m with a reference. Much respect for all your work, btw. BAPhilp (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Styphelia clelandii. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SamX:,

I should have realised that. (You got me just in time, because I was going to do similar changes the same way!) Gderrin (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Have you moved any other pages this way? — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamX: I don't think so. I recently moved some Astroloma pages the correct way. I really can't explain my stupidity this time. Gderrin (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all have brain farts sometimes. Hope you have a pleasant evening :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, g'day from the steamy west (currently 35.8 according to BOM) - I have been processing some of the orchids of oz in my data/short descrip thing that I correlate the two (reason of no brain or gaseous production needed) and what has appeared in the data is: species of orchid endemic to Australia ((or western australia where it was clearly wa only))(I was beginning to see purple at 'species of plant' - along with billions of others hardly helpful) - are you ok with that? should it be better expressed, or is that ok for data description and short descrip - I am interested in your opinion on this.. JarrahTree 05:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JarrahTree,

I am having trouble understanding what you mean. (Probably because of my being brain-dead from editing List of Caladenia species over the last few days.) If you mean do I object to changing "Species of orchid" to "Species of orchid endemic to Australia", or "Species of orchid endemic to Western Australia" - not at all. I'll leave it up to others (including you) to decide what goes at the top of the article. There may be a problem with "species of orchid endemic to the Australian Capital Territory" (- there's only one). Gderrin (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply

When in doubt or multiple states (or a territory) the default is planned as Australia. Thanks for replying in the affirmative. It is appreciated - at least it is checked. Thank you.

Also when I am sufficiently alert - I am also changing 'native' to 'endemic' in the texts.

Very impressed by your updating, well done! JarrahTree 07:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year Geoff. Hope all is well. Doing a bit of work on Eucalyptus diversicolor and have two references contradicting each each as to the etymology. Does Sharr have anything to say about the origin of diversicolor? Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Darren - thanks, and the same to you and yours. All good. Seen your great work on E. gomphocephala and E. diversifolia. Not at home at the moment, so no books, but will check out George/Sharr in a day or two. All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Geoff. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gderrin. Why did you revert all of my edits on this page, including additional references? Do you not think it was an improvement?  Junglenut |Talk  21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page you quoted in your edit summary, it seems you have misunderstood the meaning of the term "citation style". It refers to the way a citation is formatted and the information it contains, and it has nothing to do with the placement of a reference within the source code of a wiki page. If you look at the paragraphs just above WP:CITEVAR, you'll see these styles, such as ASA, Bluebook, Vancouver and others, mentioned and linked. I did not alter the citation style.

Please acknowledge your understanding of this by reverting your last edit. I had other edits planned for this page but I won't touch it until this is sorted. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Junglenut: and thank you for your work.

Citation style is defined at WP:CITESTYLE - "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." Other styles are acceptable, such as the styles you've quoted, but WP:CITEVAR indicates "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style ..." The style used in Flindersia brayleyana has been consistent since references were first added to it on 12 July 2016.

Further down the WP:CITEVAR section, under To be avoided, is "changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."

I do appreciate your work, and look forward to your improvements to the Flindersia brayleyana article, and others. Gderrin (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Palmeria indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Neofabricia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gderrin,

I noticed you recently removed the Atherosperma -> Atherosperma moschatum redirect, as it's no longer monotypic in POWO. However, I can't find any indication of this on POWO or in broader literature searches, so I'm confused. Are the subspecies being treated as multiple taxa, or am I missing something? Cheers, Pademelon1 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pademelon1:,

I've not had a lot of practice at merging pages, and I hope I've done this correctly. Atherosperma is monotypic - only one species - Atherosperma moschatum (with 2 subspecies). So I wanted the article Atherosperma to be a redirect to Atherosperma moschatum. This is a relatively recent change at PoWO, because another Wikipedia editor advised them of the error. (See [[1]]) I hadn't included a reference to Plants of the World Online in the merged article - fixed now.

Please let me know if there is still confusion. And thanks for your work. Gderrin (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I think I understand now, thanks; The POWO error played a trick on us all which needed to be rectified. Unfortunately the redirect should be the other way around - that's why I got confused in the first place! I'm not that well-versed in redirects, but will try to sort it out tomorrow. Also, I just had a peek, and you have an impressive contribution list, so thank you for your efforts! Pademelon1 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gderrin, I have reverted an edit you made on this article, in which you replaced two references. Firstly, there was nothing wrong with the existing references, and secondly, the new ones cited "Australian Plant Census" as the publisher. The APC is a database, it can't be a publisher. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Junglenut:

The problem with using the APNI is that it includes synonyms. In many cases (eg. Banksia spinulosa) synonyms are included (eg. Sirmuellera spinulosa^[1] Banksia denticulata,^[2] Banksia collina,^[3] and Banksia denticulata.^[4]) The APNI is not a list of accepted species - it lists all names that have been used for any particular taxon. ("APNI does not recommend any particular taxonomy or nomenclature. For a listing of currently accepted scientific names for the Australian vascular flora, please use the Australian Plant Census (APC) link above.") Your references (e.g (https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/rest/name/apni/90315) do not link to any authority. (Both the APNI and the APC are databases.) Gderrin (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You overwrote my last message - I assume that was accidental. I repeat, there is nothing wrong with the reference I provided. It shows the red tick next to "APC", also in red, and they are linked to the actual APC page. I have to assume now that you didn't look at the page before removing the reference.  Junglenut |Talk  01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: so you are relying on the red APC tick to show that the name is an accepted one? In which case the obvious reference is APC itself. Why use an indirect reference instead of a direct one? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead As a former web designer, I tend to look at web pages in terms of the user experience, in other words the utility, functionality and clarity of a given page and how a visitor reacts to it. I consider the APNI site to be very poorly designed, often with numerous links on a page that lead to what would appear to the casual user as unrelated pages. The APC pages are particularly poor - there is a large dismissible notice at the top stating that this is an accepted name (which seems odd, since the visitor wasn't expecting anything other than that), followed by a large search field (which again to the casual user might suggest to them that they have not reached the page they were expecting). Only after that, at the very bottom of the screen does the taxon name appear. You and I will know what the page is telling us, but for anyone not familiar with the website's format (which, lets face it, is far more than 99% of the world) it is confusing. The pages I choose to link to present the information clearly and unambiguously, without distractions. If a visitor is familiar with the site, they will know that the red tick is a sign of an accepted taxon. If they are not familiar with the site, then the page they see from my link is likely to be enough for them, as it gives clear and precise information.  Junglenut |Talk  00:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: I used to teach an undergraduate module on information and the web, and I share your concern over the design of these two websites, but it doesn't affect the issue of reliability. Can readers be absolutely sure that the red APC tick is up-to-date? Not unless they go to the APC website, which is the ultimate source and so should be the main reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I have to strongly disagree with that - do you really believe that these pages are manually updated after checking the APC list? This is one database - or more likely an integrated set of databases - and the information provided on these pages is drawn from that one set of databases. If there is an APC tick on the pages I link to, it is therefore de facto citing APC, but with a far better presentation. We always assume a certain level of trust when using any source, be it APC, POWO or whoever.  Junglenut |Talk  00:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: "We always assume a certain level of trust when using any source, be it APC, POWO or whoever" – but in this case we don't need to trust that APNI correctly displays APC, we can, and therefore should, cite it directly. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As I see you have mentioned in Eremophila anomala that category Category:Eremophila (plant) with different view name can be added. But Check Wiki Project shows error for using duplicate category. Your opinion?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hello Aadirulez8 and thanks for your work,

I'm not sure what you mean by "Check Wiki Project". The category "Eremophila (plant)" has not been challenged since 2007. If you can suggest a better category to include all 220 species, it would be appreciated.

Hi Gderrin,

It's Wikipedia Project, to fix mainly linting related issues. Here you can find it Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia. It is mainly done by cleaning up Wikipedia content with different kinds of syntax issue. I have less knowledge in the Plant article you have mentioned, you can read the project and may be contribute to Wikipedia on the domain you have knowledge about.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk)

@ Hello again Aadirulez8

Thanks very much for the link. I think the problems is with the WikiProject Check Wikipedia. I think it reports the same problem with articles on plants in many other genera, including Andersonia, Apostasia, Bartramia, Beaufortia, Eremaea, Johnsonia, Liparis, Microtis, Palmeria, Quoya, Scaevola, Senna, Trachoma and Tropidia as well as with articles on plants in Eremophila. Any help with solving the conundrum would be much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For cleanup at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conospermum_paniculatum - I got confused by what I thought was the placement of the scott river in the jarrah forest, cheers. JarrahTree 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]