Archives

Archive 1

if you are able to enable Rater - you might find a way to work on article talk pages - the evaluation that Rater offers has its limitations, but nevertheless it is a very useful guide.

give it a go! it can be very helpful. JarrahTree 10:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junglenut,

Thanks very much for your painstaking work updating references on plant articles. Much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm on holidays ATM so I have had a lot of time for it. Will be back at work next week and the pace will slow down, but the list is now half the size it used to be :) −  Junglenut | talk  03:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! BTW, check out what I've done here. If you agree with the method, it might save you some work? Gderrin (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was trying to work out how to do that! Now I know ;) −  Junglenut | talk  04:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junglenut,

More thanks from me.

I'm curious about the notes you've added to the articles Dendrobium toressae and Bulbophyllum gracillimum. For D. toressae I think you meant "extra 'r'" (not extra 's') - I changed that to extra 'r'.

I'm confused about the note on B. gracillimum. The ATROK reference is about Cirrhopetalum gracillimum, a synonym of Bulbophyllum gracillimum. Seems to me that the spelling is correct. What do you mean about "(an extra "i")"?

I agree with you about the note you've added to Bulbophyllum lilianae ATROK has misspelled Adelopetalum lilianae. Something's gone wrong with the "references" section though. Gderrin (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for heads up on that, the ref list is fixed now.

The spelling mistakes occur on the ATROK website, not on Wikipedia, and it includes the wrong spelling in the URLs for the factsheets that have been cited in the references. I've been in touch with Frank Zich who heads up the keys projects for rainforest plants (in general) and rainforest orchids, and hopefully they will be corrected on ATROK, at which time the URLs in the references will need to be updated as well. I hope that explains it properly? —  Junglenut | talk  07:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thanks for fixing my spelling! :-D —  Junglenut | talk  07:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: My mind is a soggy mess at the moment. I've just realised that I didn't answer your question re Cirrhopetalum gracillimum. On ATROK it is spelled gracilliimum, with a double "i" after the double"l". —  Junglenut | talk  07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No drama - but I think I must be cross-eyed because I don't see Cirrhopetalum gracilliimum anywhere. And no, I haven't tucked into the red ...not yet anyway. Gderrin (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake is in the URL, i.e. the address of the page, and also in the full listing of all species, and that's why the reference will have to be updated because it will become a dead link. The title on the actual factsheet spells it correctly ;) —  Junglenut | talk  08:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - I see! Thanks as always. Gderrin (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junglenut,

Thanks for your work on this list. I don't know how the earlier stuff got under my radar. There's similar stuff at Elaeocarpus grandis, but maybe eliminating redlinks in the list is more important than fretting over it. (I guess you know that APNI lists all names (like Elaeocarpus baeuerlenii and E. concinnus) whereas the APC only lists accepted names.) All the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Ficus species, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ficus variegata.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Syzygium branderhorstii. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment re Atherton Tableland. You removed a lot of citation-needed tags throughout the article in favour of a tag at the top of the article. Generally, we aim to do the exact opposite, replacing whole-of-article tags with more specific ones in the appropriate places in the article. See Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. Specific tags are more likely to attract a fix than whole-of-article tags as people perceive it as easier to do a small fix ("I'm sure I can find a source for that paragraph"). Whole-of-article tagging tends to demotivate people, thinking "gosh, that looks like too much work, it's all too hard, I'll just move on". So if your intention is to encourage people to improve the article, try to tag the specific problems in the specific spots and hope for small improvements. Kerry (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Selaginella longipinna. User:Clovermoss, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Moss is awesome :) Thanks for writing an article about a plant in the spike moss family.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Clovermoss}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: Thanks - I have a couple more planned

Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  09:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Atractocarpus merikin. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for writing the article! Keep writing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Pittosporum ferrugineum is a lovely page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Piper interruptum is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Xanthostemon chrysanthus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamX, thanks for that. I've only recently installed it and haven't actually used it yet. Now I think I'll just remove it and carry on as always ;)  Junglenut |Talk  05:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut,

Just a note that if you create a category and then realize that it's a mistake, you don't need to take it to WP:CFD, you can just tag it for speedy deletion CSD G7 as the category creator. In this case, you removed all of the contents so it could also be tagged as an empty category CSD C1. Might be a little quicker. Thank you for all your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thanks. The category only ever had one taxon in it, an article I was working on, and I changed that article once I realised the mistake. I do agree, however, with the suggestion that the existing category be merged into the new one as it matches the title of article about the botanist.  Junglenut |Talk  01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the Cupaniopsis flagelliformis article. Great work! Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI junglenut.net is showing a blank page atm. BAPhilp (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BAPhilp If you're looking for the information about browser addons, I am no longer maintaining them. The addons for Chrome have been removed as I don't have time to update them. My addons for Firefox can be found here  Junglenut |Talk  06:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, and thanks for your work! BAPhilp (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Aglaia ferruginea, beautiful. The images you uploaded, and the gallery layout, is a model for how a gallery should be done. Thanks! Wikishovel (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Rhaphidophora australasica. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Christine Melanie Wilmot-Dear 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!} 07:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Lepiderema sericolignis. Another editor, Dcotos, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dcotos (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you moved {{cookbook}} to the bottom of the page on Aleurites moluccanus, citing the template's documentation. I checked the doc, and it doesn't appear to say that the template must be placed in an external links section—rather, it just says that it shouldn't be the sole link in that section. I think it's more helpful to place the template in the relevant article section, where it's more likely to be seen, which is why I've been placing templates there. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kittycataclysm. In the second sentence in that paragraph, the documentation says to place it "at the top of the last section on the page" rather than creating an external links section just to accomodate the template. As there is already an external links section on the page, and it is the last section on the page, that's where it should go. All templates like this have the same instruction - note the Commons and Wikispecies templates that are in the same section. Having said that, I totally agree with you about noticeability. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cordyline manners-suttoniae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Manners-Sutton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Hypsophila halleyana. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junglenut, Commons works just as well as Commonscategory to create a box link. I only discovered this recently. Thanks Rogermccart (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rogermccart, the basic 'commons' template will take you to the gallery page in the category, if there is one, but if there is no gallery page it will link to the category; the 'commonscat' template will always point to the category. I prefer to use the latter because when I'm following one of those links I want to see all the images in the category, not just the few that someone has chosen to put in the gallery, and I assume other people would want the same. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  04:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks for the clarification. I'll follow your advice, Roger Rogermccart (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junglenut. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Buchanania lanzan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: @Junglenut, Abductive, and Plantdrew: *Long version* OK: so it was initially described as B. lanzan by Spreng. sometime in C19, then in different genera / in the same genus but with different specific epithets / and so on until 1996, and according to https://www.ipni.org/n/20008347-1 ... oh, but wait, I missed something. As of 2024 - https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:773749-1 - , appears to be accepted as a synonym of Glycosmis cochinchinensis which WP:REDIRECTs to Buchanania cochinchinensis and now I'm very much confused. *Short version*: to Talk:Buchanania cochinchinensis, please.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC). Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Buchanania lanzan Spreng. is currently accepted by PoWO. And it is in Anacardiaceae. Ideally, the redirect would be deleted to make a redlink and encourage article creation, as it cannot redirect to itself and the present target is wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 10:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. B. cochinchinesis does not occur in India (per POWO and Tropicos); the sections on uses and significance in Buddhism are largely sourced to Indian references (the Sayadaw reference used extensively in the Buddhism section identifies rājāyatana as B. latifolia, which POWO treats as a syonym of B. lanzan). I should be able to take a look at the 1996 description of B. cochinchinensis in the library tomorrow.

At any rate, I'm not sure that deleting B. lanzan really helps anything. I'd suggest just moving the article back to B. lanzan, while supressing the creation of a redirect for B. cochinchinensis. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew:, POWO has Buchanania cochinchinensis (Lour.) as a synonym of Glycosmis cochinchinensis which is in the Rutaceae. What plant or multiple plants are being talked about in the existing Buchanania cochinchinensis article? Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive:, the article is mostly about the anacard that POWO is now accepting as B. lanzan (but POWO was treating B. lanzan as a synonym of B. cochinchinensis for awhile). Several of the sources relevant for botany (but not necessarily taxonomy) treat their subject as an anacard, Buchanania cochinchinensis with B. lanzan listed as a synonym. The many religious sources aren't at all relevant for taxonomy. The Taxonomy section is largely about (now) Glycosmis cochinchinensis, but the list of "multiple other genera" is a mix of genera with synonyms of both B. lanzan and G. cochinchinensis. I believe B. cochinchinensis would be a superfluous name if it is taken to include B. lanzan. Plantdrew (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your old website? : https://web.archive.org/web/20211206150004/https://junglenut.net/ ? 49.182.76.228 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junglenut. Thank you for your work on Syzygium graveolens. Another editor, Netherzone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junglenut, many thanks for your efforts improving all those plant articles. On Myrmecophyte, however, I note that it is normal per MOS:OVERLINK to link once in the lead, once in body text, and if appropriate also in tables and images. On spacing, articles are much easier to maintain if blank lines are left between headings, images, and text; these do not affect presentation in browsers. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for your comment. I see in MOS:REPEATLINK it says "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence [...] do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there". The meaning of 'contextually important' seems to be to be rather vague and open to interpretation, I don't link more than once in any case. With respect to the newlines, I agree with you about keeping the source clear and easy to maintain, and I did remove some between headings and images – I see you've replaced them already. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, speaking of keeping the source easy to maintain - I very much prefer placing references in a list at the end of the page rather than embedding them in the content. I shy away from editing articles that are cluttered up with refs, but Myrmecophyte is quite clean and neat. Just sayin' :)  Junglenut |Talk  21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. I revision deleted many edits at Strangler fig, per your request. It seemed like the requested range was over extensive. If you had reasons to start the deletion range so early, please re-request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. You wrote:

 … the sources cited in the article all state the the habitat of the species is rainforest, and you have not provided any source that says the species occurs outside of rainforest. I understand that you may have a personal view on the overuse of the term, but that does not justify its removal—in fact that kind of editing is expressly forbidden here, as I'm sure you know. If you have a source which states that the species occurs in other types of forests then please add it to the article as a reference, but at the same time do not remove 'rainforest', i.e. just add the additional forest type. I will now revert your edit, again. Please keep in mind the principles of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in your work.

I respectfully suggest that WP:NPOV applies to you as well (I don’t understand why you invoked WP:NOR). I can assure you that I will continue to make edits to the sloppy use of “rainforest” (which appears to have mystical qualities to some, especially in Queensland it seems) and may suggest a better edit to the article Epicharis parasitica: to answer your assertion, Plants of the World Online states that it “grows primarily in the wet tropical biome”. Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, I'm sure you know that POWO always uses very broad definitions for habitats on the species pages, which is why it is not used as a reference for the habitat. I am asking you to provide references that specifically support your assumption that Epicharis parasitica occurs outside rainforest. Until then, we must stick to the provided sources. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has slapped an ugly tag on your List of Freycinetia species for having only one source. To avoid this, all one has to do is add a sentence about the taxonomy (or some other aspect) of the genus with a second source. Examples; "Many of these species are rare endemics on islands in the Malesia biogeographical region.^[2]" or "Speciation in this genus often involves allopolyploidization.^[2]" -- Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abductive, I was thinking about doing something like that. I appreciate your assistance. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  11:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junglenut,

Thanks for your work. I want to explain why I have reverted some of your changes to plant articles where you have changed the Category "Taxa named by ...". I've had this discussion before with User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. I agree with User talk:Peter coxhead here and here that the problem lies in that there isn't a clear and precise definition of what "Category:Taxa named by ..." is supposed to mean. In the meantime, perhaps it would be preferable to take "Category:Taxa named by ..." as meaning "Category:Taxa originally described by...". After all, the original author sometimes gave a long description in a journal article, and the later author merely changed the name. Gderrin (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no clear definition, then all contributing authors should be added. IMO, a set of categories called 'Taxa described by ...' would be a solution and quite distinct from 'Taxa named by ...'.≍ Junglenut ≍ Talk 22:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of (mostly) genera named by Peter Gordon Wilson, and I have added "Category named by Peter Gordon Wilson" to them.Gderrin (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]