lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Calanthe

message: I have encountered some confusion relating to the taxonomy of C. triplicata. Most recent sources, (such as This website) that I can find refer to the Australian Calanthe as C. australasica, citing a name change. However I can find no mention in Wikipedia of Calanthe australasica and the page for Calanthe triplicata includes Australia in its distribution.
There is definite evidence of the two different species; an image search for "Calanthe triplicata" brings up two different flower types, one where the hypochile is yellow and one where the hypochile is red. I am familiar with only the yellow-hypochile variety from where I live on the mid-north NSW coast.
My query is this: Do both red- and yellow-hypochile forms occur in Australia, are they different species or just subspecies, and should Wikipedia reflect this likely species difference between Australasia and Africa?
Orchid On A Twig (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Calanthe australasica is a synonym of Calanthe triplicata. Gderrin (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Calanthe triplicata'' vs. ''Calante australasica'' 

message: Named for one of the wives in the Greek legend of Damon and Calanthe? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming
Talk:Rhizanthella

message: Parking some refs until I (or someone else) can create a stub.  Also need to work a mention into this article on the genus. 
* 
* Mark Alwin Clements, David L. Jones (July 2020) "Notes on Australasian Orchids 6: A new species of Rhizanthella (Diurideae, subtribe Prasophyllinae) from Eastern Australia" Lankesteriana 20(2): 221–227 Abstract: ResearchGate; full text: ; DOI: 10.15517/lank.v20i2.43271 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagic (talk • contribs) 25 September 2020 (UTC)
:: (Good grief I forgot to sign. I seem to do that when switching back-and-forth between source and visual. Or maybe it’s the bullet list that causes me to forget context.) Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:00 Sat 26, AEST) 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I hope you approve of the changes I've made to the article and will update the Rhizanthella species articles and write new ones for R. johnstonii and R. omissa (unless you get there first). I'll update this one (Distribution and Habitat) after writing the others. Gderrin (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, @Gderrin! The species list and other improvements look great. I find Wikimedia can be ... difficult at times, so it's nice to stumble into a subject area like this that has helpful and experienced watchers. I did the stub for R. speciosa, which is a bit uncharacteristic for me since I tend to let things brew for a while. I wasn’t planning to tackle R. johnstonii and R. omissa, so go wild with those if you feel so inclined.  Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:33 Sat 26, AEST) 23:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm - might take a few days. These things are so different from anything else. I have plenty of sources but getting the wording right.... Starting with R. gardneri. Good luck with your work and thanks for your support. Gderrin (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New species R. speciosa
Talk:Aplectrum

message: While the species may have a globally secure conservation status, it is threatened or endangered across large parts of the range:
Aplectrum hyemale (Muhl. ex Willd.) Nutt. is listed as a Division 2 (Regionally Rare) taxon in The New England Plant Conservation Program’s Flora Conservanda: New England.  Although considered globally secure (G5), this species is rare throughout much of its range from southern Canada (Quebec and Ontario), to Georgia, and west to Oklahoma and Minnesota, with only Virginia and North Carolina listing the species as secure.  In New England, the species is known from five current occurrences (one in Vermont, four in Massachusetts) with populations generally consisting of only a few individuals. Aplectrum hyemale is presumed extirpated from at least one state, Connecticut, and is listed as critically imperiled (S1) in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.  
From The New England Plant Conservation Program (NEPCoP) of the New England Wild 
Flower Society: http://www.newenglandwild.org/docs/pdf/aplectrumhyemale.pdf
The indication that the plan is globally secure is confusing, because most of the material I have seen in the US indicates that it is endangered and protected by law. This makes sense in light of the regionally threatened status of the plant, but if that information is not included, it will create confusion when people visit the page after hearing about the endangered nature of the plant. 
I am not really sure how to deal with conservation status policies / edits, so I'll just leave this here for the knowledgeable to sort out.
--24.72.250.111 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status 

message: This page needs to be renamed Aplectrum after the genus name. It is a recommendation of WikiProject Plant to name articles after the genus if that genus is monotypic, because the genus is often better known than the binomial species name. Currently "Aplectrum" redirects here, but it needs to be the other way round.Oeropium (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If you ever come across any more like that, you can go ahead and move :-) If the target of the move has more than one edit, you can request the move at WP:RM or alert me on my talk page. Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming needed
Talk:Microtis (plant)

message: Kew gives M. parviflora as a synonym of M. unifolia but both are described as separate species by the herbaria in N.S.W. Victoria and South Australia as well as by the Orchid Society of New Zealand. Bates notes: "Garay and Sweet (1974) gave ‘’M. parviflora’’ as a synonym of ‘’M. unifolia’’ but they were referring to Asian plants and this treatment has never been accepted in Australia or New Zealand."Gderrin (talk)
:WCSP has an enough errors that it should not be considered the ultimate authority on plant names (although it's usually an authoritative source). IF WCSP's synonymy is based on a 1974 paper, it's worth reconsidering that in light of more recent locally relevant sources that reject the synonymy. I'm going to redirect M. unifolia to the genus for now, but it should be deserving of an article if anybody is inclined to write one. Plantdrew (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  parviflora and unifolia synonymous?
Talk:Rhyncholaelia

message: I have removed the categorization by Erik9bot of the subject page as an article "lacking sources."  I have also included a link to the Kew monocot checklist page for Rhyncholaelia and a quotation of the The Rhyncholaelia page no longer lacks sources.   Jay L09 (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:× Laeliocattleya

message: Circa 2009, a user added the horticultural trade abbreviations for orchid genera in the lead of many, many articles about orchids.
This is actually useful, as these abbreviations are extremely common, especially on tags attached to orchids people (eg non-orchidophiles) may have bought, and now want to know more about.
Unfortunately, the reference used in support of these (usually single sentence) additions is now dead. There is, however, a new (2017) list of these abbreviations from the same source, the Royal Hort Soc website, in the form of a PDF file.
I made changes (replacing the dead link, and using the cite web template with additional information) to two articles on specific orchid genera ... before I realised the scale of the problem.
At first glance, the original editor was very thorough ... many orchid genera articles have this now-dead link in them.
Short of checking every orchid genera on Wikipedia ... is there any way to streamline the process of replacing the old refs with new ones (including the additional citation information I have filled in via the cite web template)? Prime Lemur (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links in many orchid genera articles
Talk:Chiloglottis

message: Now that most of the species of Chiloglottis have an article, I propose to remove the journal name and year of description from the species list and add the state(s) where each species occurs. Seems to me that would make it easier for a reader to identify the possible species located in a particular state. The journal name and year of description is in the respective article. Gderrin (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list
Talk:Corallorhiza

message: "Corallorhiza" appears to be more commonly used than "Corallorrhiza."  How was the latter determined to be preferred?  References to the first spelling are found in Encarta and The American Heritage dictionary references to Coralroot.  The only reputable reference with the second spelling is from "The Orchid Lady's Illustrated Encyclopedia."  Although in that reference both spellings are given specific author/date references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruber76 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I reverted all occurences of "Corallorrhiza" in the article to "Corallorhiza" (with one r), because this latter is the conserved name. The spelling with 2 r's is listed by the GRIN Database as an alternative spelling only (See ). This article needs to be renamed "Corallorhiza" with a redirect from "Corallorrhiza".Oeropium (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corallorrhiza was the original spelling of this very old (1755) name. The more logical spelling of Corallorhiza occurs as early as 1760. Both versions can be found widely scattered throughout the literature. A proposal was made with respect to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to "conserve" the junior synonym, and this was, I think, accepted. (See: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Appendix IIIA, Nomina Generica Conservanda et Rejicienda.) So, Corallorhiza is now the proper spelling if I read the code correctly. By the way, as far as I know, there is no way to change the article's name. Instead, one must create a new article with the proper spelling, move the information there from the old article, and convert the old one into a redirect. If someone will confirm my interpretation of the Code, I'll be happy to make the needed change. (I'd rather not do so unless we're quite positive about the taxonomy.) Tim Ross·talk 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just move it? First Corallorhiza must be deleted.--BerndH (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a problem. I believe the existing "Corallorhiza", which is now a redirect page, can just be used as the new page if we agree on the change. The existing "Corallorrhiza" page can then be used as the needed redirect. Great! No pages need to be added or deleted. Tim Ross·talk 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed. ENeville (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred spelling
Talk:Drakaea

message: Richard Dawkins describes a "Drakaea fitzgeraldii" in his book, "Climbing mount improbable" (Chapter 8, figure 8.3). Should it be added as a species ?
Wentu (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per FloraBase  "Drakaea fitzgeraldii Schltr. is more recently known as Drakaea livida J.Drumm" --Melburnian (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species to be added 

message: The ID of Orchid hammer (Western Australia).jpg has been questioned . It looks like a Drakaea species to me, but I am no orchid expert. --Melburnian (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo ID query

message: I hope nobody will mind if I move the image of the leaves of Drakaea isolata to the page about that species.  Gderrin (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of leaves of Drakaea isolata
Talk:Dendrobium cunninghamii

message: David Jones and Mark Clements changed the name of this specis from Dendrobium cunninghamii to Winika cunninghamii but the change has not been accepted by the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families nor by the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. I propose merge the contents of this article with Dendrobium cunninghamii. Gderrin (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with ''Dendrobium cunninghamii''
Talk:Dockrillia

message: The name Dockrillia is regarded by all the authorities mentioned in this article and by the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families as a synonym of Dendrobium, except by David Jones. Gderrin (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Dendrobium''
Talk:Lycaste

message: I was going thru this article to add the Species section. The original editor broke species into taxonomic sections. There appears to be an ongoing dispute between Oakeley's taxonomic sections of Lycaste and Fowlie's.
I came to this realisation when I went to add Lycaste schilleriana to the list of species ... and could not find which of Oakeley's sections it belonged in: it seems everyone I could find places it in Fowlie's Section Lycaste.
I think the discussion of (taxonomic) sections has value, but don't think the species list should be split by section.
Any feedback and/or suggestions? Prime Lemur (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with Lycaste sections
Talk:Catasetum maculatum

message: There is nothing on this page at all! Add something or delete it Pennywisepeter 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this from the page because it did not seem to belong--
Apparently this is some kind of Orchid. Can't be sure though. The previous two sentences have no place in the article about the Catasetum orchids, and so none in this particular species, Catasetum maculatum, for the picture is of a species of Cattleya orchid. Who knows why somebody felt compelled to insert both here!
So there seems to be doubt about the factual basis of the illustration. Milkfish (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Anacamptis pyramidalis

message: hello fellow wikipedians 
#I introduced rounding for the conversion from metres to feet, as I it seems silly to be over-precise in cases like this.
#Other sources than [ref 2] give 1900m or 2000m maximum altitude. I made a preliminary edit; if there are no objections I shall make a further change, and add respectable source(s), in due course. 
-- jw (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altitude
Talk:Dactylorhiza fuchsii

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Dactylorhiza fuchsii Mariazell 01.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Dactylorhiza fuchsii Mariazell 01.JPG]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Isn't is so that e.g. Dactylorhiza baltica flowers are near identical or totally identical (given variation) with Dactylorhiza fuchsii here, and sole difference and possibility to determine species without special equipment is looking at leaves? One of them has spots, or more spots, other has lesser or fewer... D. baltica has more, but smaller and D. fuchsii has bigger? Anyways, flowers are just pretty, but full picture would be more useful. BirgittaMTh (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture with leaves would be better
Talk:Grammatophyllum speciosum

message: The sentence about the root bundles should be worked into either one of the existing, or a new paragaraph.
D Erikson 05:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done JoJan 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: giant orchid
Talk:Kima Greggs

message: I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Redirecting articles on %5Bmostly%5D minor The Wire characters about either redirecting this article to List of The Wire characters or turning it into a stub. If anyone is following this article I hope you can weigh in there. 61.18.156.43 (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect this article to [[List of The Wire characters]] 

message: While the current version of this article includes no information claiming real-world notability, the article subject likely has enough coverage available that such a claim could be made. The following sources, suggested by User:Premeditated Chaos, may be useful:        . 61.18.156.43 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your stubification. Having a plot summary is in line with other FA-level character articles. See Allen Walker, Bernard Quatermass, Jill Valentine, just for some randomly selected examples (ctrl+F "character" at the main WP:FA page for more). Also, adding the notability tag is a bit absurd given that notability has clearly been established. Per WP:NEXIST, sources don't have to be in the article to establish notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for cleanup
Talk:Liutprand, King of the Lombards

message: This is the text on the Papal states that I removed from the article. It would do better to add this text there.  
:...which would endure from 752 to 1798; restored 1800-1808; and restored again in 1814 at a reduced size until the unification of Italy in 1870; and even beyond as the Prisoners in the Vatican from 1870 until 1929 when a Concordat with Mussolini was reached (the Lateran treaties) in which after nearly 60 years the Italian State was recognized by the Vatican-in return for which the Italian
State recognized the independence of Vatican City.
I tried to edit this some as the text was a run on. There is too much here. If you wanted you could just add this back in:
:...which would endure from 752 (with interruptions in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries) to emerge in its current form as Vatican City.
imars 07:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Anacamptis morio

message: I've re-instated the version that includes reference to the British Isles. It is not "local pov" to include such statements of fact. The way forward is to expand the article with a fuller list, if appropriate, to include details of other locations. Very many articles in this encyclopedia have a USA or UK bias and the expectation is that they should be expanded to counter the bias, rather than have content removed. This is true also of geographical biases as when terms like British Isles are used. CarterBar (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Local POV makes for a bad article, and scientific botanic distribution and data is normally per island (as each island developed differently).  CarterBar, we've gone over this exact same argument before - plants are not scientifically talked about in terms of the British Isles, and the only references are books by authors that try to show a "unified" view.  As there are no references to show that this data is relevant for the British Isles, I removed the localised POV that depended on unreferenced data.  --Bardcom (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you simply cannot eliminate facts in the way you have done here. If you are unhappy with these facts then put a cite on them, that seems to be the normal way forward, or better still find a reference yourself. I find this concept of "localised POV" very strange indeed! CarterBar (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, reading the difference between your edit and the one before it we have -
as it was - 
 flowers from late April to June in the British Isles, and as early as February in other countries, such as France. 
as you prefer - 
 In Europe, it flowers from February to July
So if the original facts were correct you've introduced an error. CarterBar (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No error.  France is part of Europe...  --Bardcom (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: When did Orchis morio become Anacamptis Morio and why?  What is the authority?  It does not look at all like A. pyrimidalis.  O. mascula, to which it is compared in the article has not changed genus, as far as I know.Peterjhbill (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution
Talk:Cephalanthera rubra

message: I've removed Waterfront Business Park, Fleet, Hampshire from the sites list for this species as it's unreferenced and I've never heard of the species being found there, although that doesn't mean it isn't, of course. The editor adding this has no other contributions. If any knows of a reference for it, feel free to add it back in. It's not in Rand & Mundell's County rare Rare Plants Register, which is the definitive source on Hampshire's rare plants. SP-KP (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unreference location 
Talk:Ophrys insectifera

message: Hi, can anyone assist? I can't work out why the images in this article don't appear to the left of the species box? Even if you specify 'left' they appear left and below the species box, next to the references. The pictures logically belong in the 'Description' section. I tried making a multiple image box, but it also appears at the bottom of the article, next to the references. When I compare to other articles, Cypripedium calceolus and European robin both have pictures to the left of the species box..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Positioning of images

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Ophrys insectifera - Niitvälja2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 14, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-09-14. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Himantoglossum hircinum

message: I want to remove the specific location information, or at least reduce it. Articles about orchids aren't usually this specific about locations and I'm concerned that it may lead plunderers straight to them. Orchids are attractive and sometimes coveted plants. 1 location for each country may be sensible, or only information about France, where it's a common species? I want to seek concensus on this.Regularuk (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific location details