Talk:Bulbophyllum

The Bulbophyllum Project
I did a very quick estimate of the unclassified Bulbophyllum articles. Out of 16540 total articles with no listed importance, between 1850 and 2000 are species of Bulbophyllum. That's like around 10-12 percent of all the articles. The vast majority of these plants are stubs, and while each single plant is likely of low importance itself, as a whole the genus Bulbophyllum seems to interest people and the huge quantity of articles makes this a special case.

I'm willing to work with someone on this project. As it is, I don't feel that I have the means to do it by myself. I've learned a little bit about botanical research in working on the plants project for the past few months, but I'm not really equipped to dig deep and get really good information.

However, I have access to my university (and will for some time) and its resources, and I think that if 2-4 people came together and developed a systematic approach to expanding these articles and cleaning them up, it would go by pretty quickly. I'd estimate it could be done in a month of good work (even on and off), and perhaps less than that.

Please throw me a line if you are at all interested in this project. I'll likely be posting in the larger plant project as well to collect more support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup time
I propose to clean up this page using the headings at Plants/Template. Significantly, the lists under "extreme vegetative and floral forms" "new species ...discovered every year" and "Conservation status" are not referenced and the articles listed are all, or nearly all stubs. I suggest these lists are of little use and should be removed, especially since the List of Bulbophyllum species seems to be accurate and up to date. Also hoping might assist.Gderrin (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, . I think that a short list of the most important species should remain, just 5 or so that are relevant. I also think that a reformatting of the page based on that template page would be good. I am busy with school ATM but I would be happy to assist in a week or so. I can write up a rough rework and we can edit it together. (From I think. Forgot to sign?) Gderrin (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that - good suggestion. I've already done a bit of a clean up but would appreciate any help. Also with List of Bulbophyllum species - most of the common names seem to be inventions or attempted translations of the binomial and also should be lower case, except where a proper noun. Gderrin (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

synonymous genera
Hi, I'm working on updating all the genera now synonymous with Bulbophyllum (per Pridgeon 2014). Do I need to add merged-from and merged-to for each genus? I'm not sure if that's really unnecessary, since the pages for most of the genera are just simple descriptions of the range plus a list of species. Nicholaswei (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just starting on that myself. Shall we duel to see who gets the privilege? Can I suggest it probably would be be better to use WCSP or POWO Gderrin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Haha, I would love to, but it's midnight where I am which means I should probably get to bed soon. If there's still some more to do later, I'll definitely help out. And I'll keep WCSP/POWO in mind. :) Nicholaswei (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It turns out there are several genera that got lumped with Bulbophyllum recently; do you think it might be better to simply state the genera that are now synonymous with Bulbophyllum, or should all their species be written out like they are for Drymoda? That seems like it might get sort of clunky.
 * I'm not in favour of "padding" articles with material that few, if any readers will look at, but Bulbophyllum is now an even larger genus with those additional genera. The Pridgeon book Genera Orchidacearum and the Chase paper are certainly important sources and if you're prepared to read and digest(!) them, the Wikipedia article is ripe for expanding to "Good Article" status or better. Gderrin (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)