Talk:Eucalyptus marginata

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Eucalyptus marginata is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Toodyaypedia

This article is within the scope of WikiTown Toodyaypedia, and is the target of a QRpedia link. Statistics are available.ToodyaypediaWikipedia:ToodyaypediaTemplate:ToodyaypediaToodyaypedia articles

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

earlier comments

I suggest moving (copy-paste) this to Jarrah (which is currently a disambiguation page) and creating a new Jarrah (disambiguation) page. None of the other Jarrah articles on the disambig page claim or attempt to claim ownership of Jarrah. Jarrah (the tree) is by far the most notable subject of the 4 listed. Comments? -- Moondyne 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But copy-paste is considered bad form because it wipes out the article history. It would be better to move Jarrah to Jarrah (disambiguation), then ask an admin to move Jarrah (tree) to Jarrah. User:Hesperian 03:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RM has a big backlog at the moment and I just went through a recent issue renaming another article and got told to be bold unless it's controversial (and I don't believe this is). I wanted a second opinion before proceeding though. Edit history would stay with Jarrah (tree) (which becomes a redirect), which could be noted in the Jarrah talk page. -- Moondyne 03:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consider it done.--nixie 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with Moondyne's 'notability' criteria. As west australians (in lower case) we consider the tree the most immediate to our concerns. (And in the disambig in lower case?) "wassalam aleikum" to the other jarrahs!

As for ownership - the cultural relativity isse is another one again.

Our friends "over there" who dominate wiki know of a coffee with that label (and here we get into a similar issue with the java disambig and redirect wars, " our friends over there" havent even heard of java the island! only the coffee or the programming language). I do think we should be more careful in our evalutation of notability. Nevertheless, it's been done - so be it!User:SatuSuro 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically disagree. Of the people who search for "Java" in this encyclopaedia, the breakup of intentions might be something like:

Java the computer technology, 50%
Java the island, 40%
any other meaning for Java, 10%

The even spread of intended meanings makes a disambiguation page the most appropriate page to put at Java. Contrast this with the intentions of people who search for "Jarrah" in this encyclopaedia, which probably breaks up something like:

Jarrah the tree/timber, 96%
Jarrah the record label, 2%;
Jarrah the coffee, 1%
any other meaning for Jarrah, 1%;

The heavy skew towards a particular meaning makes the positioning of the tree article at Jarrah entirely appropriate. User:Hesperian 04:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well argued - even if only from "might" and conjecture...

If ony we had interactions like that in some of the other disambig arguments, life would be so much easier. Point taken, and well said! It is a real pity wikipedia didnt have some sort of tabulation software that might verify Hesperian's point!User:SatuSuro 04:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right that it is conjecture. Even though there is no real basis to the figures, but I don't think you would seriously argue the overall point, i.e. that "Java" has an even spread of meanings whereas "Jarrah" does not. It is a pity this information about disambiguations isn't being collected / made available, isn't it? User:Hesperian 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

principal hardwood?

it is the principal hardwood tree harvested in Australia for timber.

I find this hard to believe, I think even Eucalyptus regnans would beat out Jarrah, let alone the vast amounts harvested in Indonesia. Is there a reference for this? njh 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the principal native hardwood timber of Western Australia (ToddBrittain 31/7/08)

Vast amounts harvested in Indonesia are, by definition, not harvested in Australia, so this point is irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diction?

I haven't done the edit, because I wanted the discussion first.

English is wonderfully rich in dialects.

The main one(s) where Jarrah grows would spell the colour "grey" not "gray", and would call them sleepers not crossties. Anyone agree with me that (pace our friends over there) we should "naturalise" the diction of this article? TIA. Callophylla 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ! Here in WA they have always been called 'Sleepers'. 'Crossties' is a foreign description. It is most important to use the vernacular of the local timber industry when describing them.(ToddBrittain 31/7/08)

Actually I disagree. However, you apparently have Wikipedia policy behind you. --Ptcamn 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QR code installed

{{Toodyaypedia article}} QR code in place Elrebe56 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds in 1802

Eucalyptus marginata was first formally described in 1802 by James Edward Smith, whose description was published in Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. Smith noted that his specimens had grown from seeds brought from Port Jackson...

I’m dying to know how seeds from a tree endemic to SW WA got to Port Jackson in 1802. Whaling ships? Matthew Flinders? Convict ships stopping in SW WA on their way to Sydney? MBG02 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]