User talk:Gderrin/Archive 1

photos...
PS: Anything else you see in flower take a snap of...I am in Sydney and have uploaded a stack of local flora to wikimedia commons over the years.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Balanophora fungosa has been accepted
 Balanophora fungosa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Gderrin help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

DYK for Lomatia tinctoria
Harrias talk 12:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Telopea aspera
The DYK project (nominate) 16:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

mistakes
For future reference, you can't delete a page; only admins have page-deletion privileges. Even if it's a page that you created, you don't have deletion privileges for it. You can, however, add to it, which will tag it as "userspace page whose deletion is requested by the person who created it".

Anyway, I cleaned up the McMahon pages -- merged them, in fact. Good work; keep up your articles on notable flautists! DS (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Darwinia oxylepis) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Darwinia oxylepis, Gderrin!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Great start. You might double check the conservation status, as the ref states it meets IUCN endangered criteria, but doesn't appear to have been formally assessed by the IUCN."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for Balanophora fungosa
Harrias talk 13:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ed Gaston (February 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ed Gaston and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Gderrin Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Gderrin reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Format at Lists of botanists by author abbreviation
Hi, always good to see additional entries to these lists. Just to note that what may look like two hyphens in an entry such as "L.Preiss – Ludwig Preiss (1811–1883)" should actually be two n-dashes. If you're not sure how to produce these, just copy a line above and edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * And my good wishes too; keep up the good work! By the way, you don't need to wait for others to assess a new article on its talk page. All of yours that I've seen are at least "Start" class and some may be "C". I don't know about the WikiProject Australia assessment, but you should definitely put on the talk pages of articles you create at this standard. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Plant ratings
I have no problem with you rating them yourself. Start ratings are usually for short well-referenced articles.--Grahame (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Johnsonia pubescens) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Johnsonia pubescens, Gderrin!

Wikipedia editor Reedman72 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Great article!"

To reply, leave a comment on Reedman72's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Autopatrolled
Hi Gderrin, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Calectasia grandiflora
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Patersonia sericea
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Johnsonia pubescens
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Melaleuca trichophylla
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Calectasia cyanea
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Message from Skydrake
Hello Gderrin,

Thank you for your useful comments on my edit to Calectasia cyanea.

I am not in fact an expert on botanology by any stretch of the imagination, which I understand is a field of interest to you, however I do claim a modest ability in languages which is why I thought it appropriate to amend the etymology of the word 'cyaneus' when reading up on the 'Star of Bethlehem'. You are of course correct to note that although the word 'cyan' is still currently in use in various languages to describe said color, its archaic origin may not be a given, which is why I will need to insert the historical reference.

In the case of ancient Greek, the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, 1819 (Oxford University Press) is the authority still in use in most academic context, and although no specific botanical use for the word is referenced, I do believe that the color reference is the reason Barrett and Dixon cared to explain its meaning & attribute the word to Latin as a result of the '-us' suffix, a common misconception with non-linguists and therefore innocent in its inception.

I am unfortunately no expert in wiki edits either, so please feel free to amend anything I have added here to render it more user-friendly or even legible as the case may be!

My best wishes, please accept my admiration for your knowledge and interest in such a worthy topic.

Demetrios 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Melaleuca wilsonii
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Melaleuca monantha
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Melaleuca monantha, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Melaleuca monatha. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Melaleuca monatha is a spelling mistake. The plant's name is Melaleuca monantha. I have requested the deletion of Melaleuca monatha explaining the reason on its Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Ravenshoe cafe explosion
Thanks for the thanks. I have updated Ravenshoe, Queensland again as another person is now listed as critical. Giving the ages of those on the list, unfortunately I expect more deaths. Three are aged 69, 75 & 82!. Reminds me of the Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire here in Sydney. Initially 3 dead kept gradually rising to a final 11.

• Video of the explosion is quite shocking. See here. It's just luck there weren't more badly burned. 220  of  Borg 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Melaeuca/Callistemon articles
I notice that you have recently pseudo-duplicated a lot of the Callistemon articles as Melaleuca articles. The taxonomy of Calistemon is controversial, but since we try to stick to APGIII we really shouldn't be using it. However you should never duplicate articles as you have done. Where an article exists under the Callistemon name, then we'll need to have it moved to the Melaleuca article, rather than creating duplicate articles about the same species under different names. We can't have both articles in existence at the same time, it gets too messy. I've reverted your changes to those articles. Don't take that personally, it's just a way to keep things tidy until we can get consensus on moving them. In the meantime, can you please check to see if a Callistemon article already exists for these species, and add your contributions there? Please keep up the good work. We need more knowledgable Australian plant editors on Wikpedia.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning the comments you left on my talk paget:


 * Please read WP:MERGING, WP:ARTICLE TITLES and WP:STATUSQUO. Simply put, an article should be named according to the most common, unambiguous name of the subject. In the case of your species articles, we already have articles on the precise subject that your articles cover. The precise subject that you are writing on already has a status quo common name. If you want to write on that subject, you need to accept community consensus and write on it under that name. Just because you and I disagree does not give us the right to change that without even discussing it. By creating new articles on exactly the same subject as existing articles you are changing the title under which the subject is discussed. That may not be your intent, but it is what you are doing. Somebody seeking information on "Melaleuca X" will now need to find and read two articles to obtain all the information that Wikipedia has on that very narrow subject. You can not just go and create another article on exactly the same subject because you don't like the current name. I'm sure that you agree that if all editors did that it would be chaos.


 * I am sorry that my deletions removed your work, however your articles will inevitably and rapidly be merged with the existing articles no matter what. They are different articles on exactly the same subject spelled different ways and only one can exist. Whether I deleted your article or it was merged, your article was going to cease to exist. You can reinstate the article if you like, but that will just force me to request a speedy merger, since it is unambiguously an article on an existing subject. That will mean a little extra work for me and a lot of extra work for other editors, will have the same result, and will be solely because you chose to write under another name because you don't like the consensus name that the subject is currently included under. I can't imagine you would wish to do that, but you are free to do so if you wish.


 * Your material contains very good information and is well written and should be included. However it should be included in the existing articles as per WP:ARTICLE TITLES. If you believe that the Callistemon titles should not be used, a belief that I share, then propose a move of the existing article to the new name. However you can not just decide that, since you don't like the current name, you will create a new article on exactly the same subject under your preferred title. Aside from all the other issues raised above, in several cases you removed the existing redirect of that title. As a result somebody searching information on "Melaluca X" will only find your material, rather than the community consensus article. While I believe that your article is in most cases better than the existing article, it still makes it impossible for readers to find the existing article, and that runs counter to the whole point of Wikipedia: making it easy for people to find information.


 * I didn't delete your articles per se. I deleted the most recent articles to maintain the status quo subject title. That, of course, meant that your articles were deleted, but that wasn't a criticism of your work.


 * Once again, I encourage you not to take this personally and please continue with your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how long you've been here, but it can take a while to get the hang of how things are done. Wikipedia is a community project and stuff happens through consensus. A lot of the time we don't agree with the consensus, but we have to accept it. We should also keep in mind that our main goal is to provide readers with all the information they need on a subject. If our edits make it harder for readers to find all the information they want then we probably shouldn't make them.  Mark Marathon (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your latest comments, the brief response is: I agree wholeheartedly. If you want to propose a move of the Callistemon articles to Melaleuca I will support it fully, or I will propose the move when I get time. In the meantime I encourage you to merge/add your edits into the existing Melaleuca articles. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you have redirected these pages. It's a move that I agree with, but you probably should have put it up for discussion first over at WikiProject Australian biota. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
No problem, mate :)

Alchez (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Your draft article, Draft:Ed Gaston


Hello, Gderrin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ed Gaston".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Eremophila maculata
As you guessed, I was working on the assumption that the image label was correct. You're quite right, it's a far superior image and the one we should use. Once again, thanks for all the good work on the Australian flora articles. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hakea cucullata
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your relentless surge forward on oz botany
A happy new year and good on ya! JarrahTree 07:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it is inspiring to have someone who presses on, we have too many fly by night types these days, I keep meaning to fill up gastrolobium the way you are going with eremophila, if only I could find my copy of the monograph... but hey, my attention span with things is not focused these hot days... JarrahTree 07:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * looking at your rather nebulous regional descriptions in the eremophila arts realise that Regions_of_Western_Australia and IBRA and a lack of a good article on floristic regions (apart from Beard's Eremaean Province sort of thing), you have caught the big state's otherwise previously well covered for things like that for what it is, short of a good section either in regions of wa, or the ibra wa regions easy to hand. Southwest Australia you should have a short look at, but there is a need for better, as central western australia?  nah. JarrahTree 23:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * also interesting to see chinnocks mono doesnt technically exist in any public library here in wa (typical), only http://henrietta.slwa.wa.gov.au/search/?searchtype=X&SORT=D&searcharg=chinnock+eremophila&searchscope=2&submit.x=31&submit.y=19#.VpWjrlJpaxo which alerts me to the problem of poverty or emu being given to more than any one type. you had any problems with that?  you might have come across a clue or two? JarrahTree 01:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

reply
hahah - It's sometimes a bit hard to follow what you mean but I think there are 3 parts haha -  yeah bit too cryptic at the best of times, anyone who has 89% edit summary as  add has to have a problem somewhere, :)  (me)

1. Distributions: I think you mean I need to work out a better way of describing distributions. (deleted) Anyway, I'll work on that. (Knowing someone is actually reading the stuff I write is an inspiration. I'll try harder.)


 * Sorry, please accept my apologies, it wasnt so much that you had to sort out what to do, it was more a case of we should have more amenable and easily referrable to regions of all the various ways of looking at wa - I hope that the regions of wa article might get a new section that has eco/floral regions/provinces - something like a comparison of beards 1992 rather sketchy/ against the IBRA / any other (I just came across 5 new maps in geological literature this am that are as interesting as well)

2. Chinnock's monograph: (deleted)


 * Broke I am, At least the gastrolobium monograph is downloadable as a pdf... not single copy in the public library system, typical, only all unis and govt depts

3. Poverty bush/emubush: (deleted)


 * I have a copy of the w.a. book somewhere... will try to find it.

All the best to you - stay cool.


 * thanks same to you..

BTW - looking forward to going west in spring to get some eremophila pics!


 * If you come west in real life, let us know, and either a meetup with fellow interested wikipedians, or at least a lunch in the city...

cheers for the mo, sorry about ambiguity in previous cryptics, hopefully more understanable here. JarrahTree 08:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ah hahaha, we have a dead x trail in the front drive, if you have a spare5k, probably enough to get it fixed and usable, in its good day\s did the trip to murwiliiumbah and around tasmania, and over the nullarbor 4 times, but now in sad state... so it goes. JarrahTree 13:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

update: Solved the distribution item - see the edit at Eucalyptus_abdita. Florabase specifically identifies the IBRA regions for distribution, so if your item is in florabase, gazump to people who specify 'woopwoop' region if it is not same as florabase IBRA designation, can be ignored. Not only that, it identifies the older rougher beard regions. So the articles that have nebulous somewhere near wyalkatchem and near boddington can be cleaned up! To a standard regional identification from inside florabase. what a relief. JarrahTree 01:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Conospermum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Subfamilies in taxoboxes
Hi, I noticed you added subfamilies to a number of plant taxoboxes. As per Template:Taxobox/doc, this is appropriate only if there is some strong reason to do so; it's not clear to me that this is the case for the Ericaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

going well
167 out of 220, youre almost there, in a manner of speaking. astonishing work. JarrahTree 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC) ✅ JarrahTree 00:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bolivia
interesting there being unique flora to the region ... something red is an ....anthus while the linked page has an ....antus. I should google this myself, but I have enough side tracks ... Dave Rave (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.✅
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

dont forget
to give off wiki advance warning august is looking like one s of a month... JarrahTree 23:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC) still bloody cold in the wild west, and the cretins have surrounded... JarrahTree 11:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC) The Boranup sand patch and forest do have a place - see my recents JarrahTree 08:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate - I'd already linked Boranup. Was there something else you wanted me to add? Interesting article BTW. Gderrin (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you have such a straight forward life with all of this, here I am wandering crazily like a head trying to find the chook in my massive forest checking for wildfires, and you just move on so well, have a good day ! JarrahTree 00:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thnx v much re sw link in mellies - much appreciate thethought. cheers JarrahTree 13:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries - thnx for the thnx! All done now. I've been pinged for using Wiktionary as an etymology ref. Fixing that will take much more work. Gderrin (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * inneresting the sea of red in the grasses (re eds), and its still bloody raining here JarrahTree 01:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC) I understand the rain message (sorry to hear) but the rest is too cryptic for this dummy. Gderrin (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * nothing dummy about you sir, my tyop! - the sea of red in Amphibromus,Amphipogon,Austrostipa,Rytidosperma - nothing like monocots bring out the avoidance tendencies in the plant editing persons :)  JarrahTree 00:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get to monocots one day - wait a minute...... aren't orchids monocots? Grasses can wait - too hard for this bloke and they give me hayfever.  By the way Gastrolobium species aren't even red! Gderrin (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed over 70 of the critters untouched - must find my copy of the monograph... JarrahTree 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have it up and running- are you aware of chandler or others doing revisions since 2002 ??? there were some parts of the monograph that feel in process JarrahTree 12:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * sheesh, prepared to do a disused grain silo survey of victoria and south australia ? I think I have done my dash with wheat, give me a good crop of gastrolobium and a eremophila to fill the boot ... sigh JarrahTree 09:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Caladenia
Hello, I notice you just created Caladenia longicauda subsp. borealis. Checking on Caladenia longicauda, it strikes me that all but your subsp. are named Verticordia longicauda subsp. something. I have no knowledge of Australian orchids, but I think these subspecies names may need to be updated. Perhaps this is something you want to consider doing. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Gderrin, first recognition and thank for your perfect labeled Diuris.

A short message to the theme "type species" of Diuris. I used the following source: page 79.

Unfortunately I can not verify the cited source. Do you have the opportunity to check these source? Regards. Orchi (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Could you have a look here please: Unidentified Diuris]. Maybe you can help.

Hello
hello poppy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacko.wacko (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bartramia
Hedwig first described and named Bartramia in Descriptio et adumbratio microscopico-analytica muscorum frondosorum, but the starting date for taxonomy for mosses (excluding Sphagnum) has been set as 1801 with the publication of Species Muscorum Frondosorum (in contrast to the starting date of 1753 for most other plants.) Nomen ambiguum (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Gderrin, first all the best for you in 2017!!

Could you please check this change:

I have not a good opinion. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Orchi, what a nice person you are! Thank you, and all the best to you too.


 * Of course it's nonsense and there's no mention of Caleana or Flying Duck Orchid on the reference used. (Somehow, I forgot to add Caleana to my watchlist. Lucky to have your "eagle eye".) It is the only edit made by User:Dadashova bahar - maybe they thought the image they found is of the Flying Duck. I am reasonably certain the flower on the page used as a reference is Ophrys sphegodes, commonly known as the khari bulbul or early spider orchid. I'll revert the edit and send a nice message to the editor. Gderrin (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Gderrin, thanks for your check and correction. Regards. Orchi (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Caladenia curtisepala
Hello Gderrin,

may it be that the synonym is Petalochilus curtisepalus?

Best regards. Orchi (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Thank you. Fixed now. Gderrin (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

smells like
generic introduction,. leading into a specific text and then a bit of hohum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthorrhoea_australis watcha think? am I unfair in my analysis ? JarrahTree 23:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello JarrahTree - great to hear from you. Just about anything would be an improvement to Xanthorrhoea_australis, even a bad smell! Good refs at, and.  One of my books says:(for NSW) "southern highlands, (eg. Bundanoon), southern blue mountains (eg. Wombeyan Caves), coast from Nowra to Vic, SA, Tas. Gderrin (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that JarrahTree 00:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

gastro
Pity, I cannot find much on trove about chandler and crisp to actually have/start an art about them - it seem a limited publication range for adequate WP:N JarrahTree 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters that there isn't much info. The Bible says "In most cases recognising an author by linking their name to a species as an authority is a form of notability, and any requests for deletion should be directed to this section."Gderrin (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * just an idea re the list of eremophilla plant list - Brown and Buirchell have 89 common names in their index on page 334 - and your list has 188/220 with 95 common names - what of the crazy idea of turning it into  a dynamic list... your opinion counts... it would then be searchable against the improbably limited knowledge the average punter has of any of the common names.. just an idea.. JarrahTree 09:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello JarrahTree. Sounds interesting. If you mean a separate list of eremophia common names linked to the respective page, I'm happy with that and prepared to do it. Have I understood correctly? Three possible problems might be:
 * not all eremophilas have a common name;
 * some of the common names given by Brown and Buirchell are similar (eg. "spotted poverty bush"/ "spotted emu bush"/ "spotted eremophila"; "Broom bush"/ "Broombush")
 * other sources have other common names (eg. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney gives Bignonia Emu-bush, Creek Wilga, Eurah, Bignonia Emubush for E. bignoniiflora).
 * Those problems do not seem to have bothered Brown and Buirchell though.


 * A good reason for doing it would be that it would include common names not listed at List of Eremophila (plant) species because subspecies have different commons name (eg. E. arachnoides subsp. arachnoides/ E. arachnoides subsp. arachnoides and several others). It might also be appropriate for other genera - eg. Brown, Dixon et al. have a unique common name for all the orchids of the south-west. Your thoughts? Gderrin (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasnt expecting your volunteering - I was thinking of the dynamic lists like I had at mining articles like Mineral_fields_of_Western_Australia (which needs checking and updating) - where the sort facility is there for the diff columns. I just thought it takes the list into another dimension, and even with the issues that you point out (yes they do complicate things) I was hoping the capacity to have extra sortable columns might give more amenity (and the possible inclusion of a column of alternative common names as well? - just ideas... the orchid list sounds like a good idea - thanks for your reply JarrahTree 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Capisco! Yeah why not. Big job? I've never done a table like that but it's worth a try. Gderrin (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * gracias! if you are interested - with the eremophilas as is - it is simply inserting some formating so that the columns get started - my main problems to date is to make sure the top of the table is working right... or otherwise a whole new list fresh might be just as easy- all depends...

I keep meaning to make sure I reverse engineer carefully when I create new ones - otherwise it is just a repetitious addition of the - and | and so on... JarrahTree 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

orchids... you lucky person, such an uninterfered and quiet and delicate editing area, if only... JarrahTree 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ssssh - sleeping dogs. Gderrin (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

ohh, for the simple life... a spare gastrolbium here, an eremophila there.. must relate the chaos offline sometime :)  JarrahTree 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)  I prefer the quiet life surrounded by Pterostylis and Caladenia. Gderrin (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move discussion
Hi. You recently moved David L. Jones to David L. Jones (electronics engineer). This has prompted a discussion of a move to yet another name. Would you care to join the discussion at Talk:David L. Jones (electronics engineer) ? Jeh (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

IPNI names
The IPNI lists all names, whether synonyms or not. In the nature of taxonomy, most of the species names for well-established genera are synonyms. It is absolutely not a source of "accepted" species. For accepted species, you need to use a reliable secondary source like the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (best for those families it covers) or The Plant List (often poor when determining the status of names in Tropicos). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Peter - another lesson learned. Apart from my getting the number of species wrong, I think the other edits I made were okay. Pity the whole lot was reverted. Gderrin (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Re "the whole lot was reverted" – yes, that was my mistake, and then I undid the reversion and only reverted the number of species – see this diff. Apologies for the muddle. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please create
Category:Corybas Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC) ✅

T.E.Hunt death date
Hi, as the IPNI doesn't have a death date for "T.E.Hunt" and the list of botanists by author abbreviation is sourced to the IPNI, there should be a separate reference for it until it gets into the IPNI. If you have a reference, I suggest e-mailing IPNI at ipnifeedback@ipni.org with the information – my experience is that they are quick to update their database. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peter - I have done that. Reference is: Council of the Heads of Australian Herbaria. Gderrin (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

currently wandering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Strategy_2017 am interested if you had an interest in providing feedback to the process - if so let me know, not offended if you are not interested - cheers JarrahTree 08:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Not so much a matter of interest - more of innovative thinking which is in short supply here. I am attracted to new ideas but rarely able to have them myself. Definitely a classical musician who has to follow the notes. No jazz! Thanks for asking though. Gderrin (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems about that and I know where that is coming from and it is in the scope to acknowledge and understand the response - thanks JarrahTree 02:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well well well - I divert my attention and you have more less created the whole of the eremophila list - and been to the uk and Kew, wow- you dont miss a beat... JarrahTree 07:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * also very interested in what you think of edit to eremophila main article - is it detracting from the sense of the main article by adding the list? your opinion appreciated JarrahTree 08:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, great to hear from you. I think your edit is valuable - might look better as columns tho'. Hope you don't mind. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have made an effort to give distinct common names to all the eremophilas - unlike Australian orchid species which have all been given a unique common name by the inimitable David Jones. However, as is always the case, other common names are used. Gderrin (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You were in Perth as well - you really get about - next time youre here give a call !!! JarrahTree 10:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Sure will - thanks for the invite. Gderrin (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case I think there might be benefit to identify the emu ones as well ... thanks JarrahTree 08:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Yep - good idea. Gderrin (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia pauciflora
--IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Banksia serrata
Ok, this is at Featured article candidates/Banksia serrata/archive1 so keep an eye out for fixes. Maybe later we'll buff Melaleuca quinquenervia too for the main page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Cas. I think I've covered everything I can for B. serrata (maybe a couple of links in the lead?). M. quinquenervia needs work. I'm looking forward to spring and some better pics. for this sp. Gderrin (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

important notes
Hello Gderrin, pleas have a look here: your talk in commons. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello @ Orchi . Sorry to have made so many mistakes and that you've done so much work on (especially Pterostylis) images that I should not have uploaded. I understand better now and look forward to adding lots of my own images of orchids from W.A. and N.S.W. soon. All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Gratulation
Hello Gderrin,

for all accepted species of Pterostylis you have created a complete article.

I think it is a great work for WP. Gratulation und the best greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Good work
I just finished a manual search of most genera in kingdom Plantae for a project I am working on outside Wikipedia (during which I corrected a few misleading links and interacted with you once). I could not help but notice how many detailed articles there were on Australian species, thanks to you. Hopefully one day the Balkans will be as well-covered. I am looking forward to crossing paths some time in the future! Inatan (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello @ Inatan Thanks for the message. Sorry - Balkans a bit too far but a visit to Kew Gardens in London last week suggests to me that beautiful plants are found there. I'll stick to W.A. and N.S.W. for the time being. Gderrin (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Gderrin,

with great joy I have seen, that you have uploaded wonderful pictures of orchids of your homeland again. Thanks and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Orchi - more joy to come when I sort about 2,000 images from Western Australia. Gderrin (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ....I think, you had a wonderful and successful time. Orchi (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing more of your images Gnangarra 11:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Prasophyllum viretrum or Prasophyllum vitreum
Dear Gderrin, could you check the correct name please. The Australian pages say Prasophyllum viretrum. KEW an MBG say Prasophyllum vitreum.

Do you have the possibility to read the original description? Best regards. Orchi (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Orchi,
 * Interesting!


 * I do not have the original paper (I will try to get it at the university) but I think it is P. viretrum. (Viretrum means "turf" in Latin.) I think there are some other mistakes in the Kew list, some of which I noted here. I will send Kew a message next week. Thanks for your fantastic work. Gderrin (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Gderrin,


 * That is a very good way. I am looking forward to KEW's response. ;-) Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Orchi


 * I have just heard back from Kew. They have corrected Prasophyllum viretum and most of the other changes that I suggested. I will make a note on Talk:Prasophyllum. All the best to you - thanks for your great work on the Wikimedia Commons orchid and Wikispecies orchid pages. Gderrin (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Gderrin,


 * ....just I corrected Commons and Wikispecies according to your knowledge!!! :-) Orchi (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S....maybe you could inform MBG too (Prasophyllum viretum).


 * Hello Orchi


 * Thanks for the corrections to Commons and Wikispecies, but I am still confused about two things. When I asked why Kew uses Prasophyllum exile when no species by that name has been published (P. exilis), Rafaël Govaerts told me "It does not matter how it was published. You have to change it. (See ICN)." How do I do that!!! I also do not know what you mean by "inform MBG". Vicflora already uses P. viretrum. Gderrin (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Gderrin,


 * a) Prasophyllum exile or Prasophyllum exilis. I will ask in Wikispecies two taxonomy experts: User:Franz Xaver and User:Thiotrix. By the way IPNI says Prasophyllum exilis ("IPNI is the product of a collaboration between The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and .....")


 * Hello Gderrin, the specific epithet (when adjectival) has to agree grammatically with the gender of the generic name. (Article 23.5). If a new taxon name is published with incorrect ending (that happens very often), the epithet has to be corrected, but without change of author or date. (Article 32.2). As Prasophyllum is neuter, the correct epithet is exile. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you Thiotrix - now I understand. So the Wikipedia article should be P. exile. I will advise APNI. Your help much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too late for me! Thiotrix already gave the correct answer. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks anyway Franz Xaver - appreciate your interest.Gderrin (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * b) "inform MBG" means: inform the "Missouri Botanical Garden". The "Missouri Botanical Garden" has copied the misspelled name Prasophyllum vitreum from KEW


 * Regards. Orchi (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Silly me! I thought the M. in MBG was for Melbourne. I will advise MBG of the 5 changes in WCSP. Thanks Orchi. Gderrin (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Having contacted TPL, I am advised by Rafaël Govaerts that "tpl is unfortunately no longer maintained so best to continue using WCSP". Gderrin (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC) No response from Missouri. Gderrin (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, further development of what was TPL will take place World Flora Online. I'm not sure when it will officially launch. There's a lot of it that's not publicly searchable (they've "solved" problems inherited from TPL by hiding the records entirely). Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks Plantdrew. Perhaps someone might update WP:Plants to help dummies like me! World Flora Online looks useful but still has the mistakes in Prasophyllum recently corrected by WCSP, and lists Prasophyllum exilis while WCSP lists P. exile. Gderrin (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

fyi
Prasophyllum brevilabre and Prasophyllum diversiflorum - aka the same JarrahTree 23:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you say so JarrahTree - both are listed at WCSP, APNI and Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria. Gderrin (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * When i looked this am they seemed to have the same common name, maybe me... JarrahTree 05:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not real strong on common names. The ones I've used are from the references I used to write the articles. The two species do look a bit similar - the main differences are the shape of the dorsal sepal, the length of the labellum and the joined/separated lateral sepals. Good images here (brevilabre) and here (diversiflorum. Thanks for your interest. Gderrin (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * NP - it seemed as though as there are so few actual 'what links here' for a vast amount of the orchid articles, that the parallel universe of commons names looked like an extra possibility... no big deal JarrahTree 08:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I cannot think of a classical connection... but somewhere in the recesses there is a sound bugof Its a long way dum de dum to rock and roll... makes me think not of bagpipers without the snares, but the common name issues with prasophyllum being sorted, in between everythng else JarrahTree 01:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken category redirect
Hi. I'm sure this was a mistake, but I can't tell what you were trying to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Russ. Yep, stupid mistake, Thought I was in Commons! Gderrin (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's still there. Should it be deleted, or revised? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - blanked now. Gderrin (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Diuris alba
....sorry for half the work. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Kunzea
Hi Gderrin, Thanks for the notice. To be honest I can't remember that edit at all; looks like I made a mess of things... I'm very happy to go along with whatever you've put. Ericoides (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Best regards
Dear Gderrin,

thanks for your great work here!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year 2018.

I hope, we have further many fun in our doing here in a good and friendly atmosphere.

All the best for you.

Orchi (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Catchy hooks....
Damn it's hard thinking of hooky hooks for DYK...was really scratching my head but came up with a bit of a lame one for those two persoonias.....sigh. I keep half an eye on the new plant articles, but ping me if you can think of a clever hook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll try! Not a strength but.... Have we had a DYK for "snottygobble"? Gderrin (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..let me look...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia procumbens
Vanamonde (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia adenantha
Alex Shih (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia chamaepeuce
Alex Shih (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Prasophyllum petilum
"When first described in 1991, the Tarengo Leek Orchid was known only from its type locality at the Hall Cemetery in the ACT." Was in reference 6 "Tarengo leek orchid profile". New South Wales Government Office of Environment and Heritage. Retrieved 16 October 2017. "National recovery plan for the Tarengo leek orchid." This reference may be suspect as you say the first description was 1988.
 * regards Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perfectly correct. My bad. (The orchid was collected by Jones and Clements in the Hall cemetery in 1988 and described by Jones and Bates in 1991.) Gderrin (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia elliptica
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia saccata
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Genoplesium littorale
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures
Hello Gderrin, thanks for the large number pictures by you. By the way a little info for you about cropped photos. There is running a semibot in Commons, who destroys the complete articles with one picture only. (as rule). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC) large number

Thanks Orchi. I will watch to see if the bot causes problems for our pages. Gderrin (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Microtis media
I notice that you have edited Microtis media. It seems pretty clear that most sources now recognize Microtis media subsp. densiflora as the species Microtis densiflora – see for example the databases linked from the taxonbar in that article. So the question is what is the status of Microtis media subsp. media? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WCSP has made the corrections - the two subspecies are the autonym and densiflora. (Also corrected the distribution of Microtis parviflora.) Gderrin (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to see that sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Caladenia gertrudae
I don't usually do much on Australian plants, as there are other very competent editors, including you, who focus on them. When I do, I've looked at APC to see the "accepted" name, since APNI, like IPNI, just lists names that are in the literature. However, I see that APC doesn't include Caladenia gertrudae. Is this an error, do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Nope - APC is just very incomplete. Gderrin (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * IPNI now has Caladenia gertrudiae here, although the names of which it's the basionym haven't (yet) been changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. (Glad I didn't ask WCSP to change to C. gertrudae.) Gderrin (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The derived names have now also been changed. So at least IPNI and WCSP agree. So what should the article say? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)