Talk:Kensington Bushland Reserve

Australia: Western Australia / Perth / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Kensington Bushland Reserve 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Mid-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.

Bassendean dunes

I don't really think the Bassendean dunes should be linked to the town of Bassendean. The sand dunes of WA are important geological features and should not be conflated with the town from which they got (?) their name. I propose undoing the link to the town and awaiting the enthusiasm of an article writer. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the state of the western australian editing community is that is not a wise move, the likelihood of a west australian editor having the slightest interest or skillset in raising the sufficient information on the geomorphology of the swan coastal plane is equivalent to levels of improbability in the range and realm that the late douglas adams used to make out of london telephone numbers JarrahTree 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spelling: Bassendean. For ecology and phytogeography, a starting place might Beard's Plant life of Western Australia, Lambers [ed] Plant life on the sandplains, and there is some work on biogeographic regionalisation as articles. cygnis insignis 08:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate query: why are the species lists collapsed to a show/hide function? cygnis insignis 03:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: Because there are so many species and I tend to prefer short looking articles. (So that you just see the nitty gritty.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC) However, if it bothers you, make them visible, but please retain the three columns and the numbering in the visible lists, as I think the compression and the numbering are useful and important. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious if you thought the pros outweigh the cons, sensitivity to errors is one downside. I thought it was a nav box at first glance, finding a list of species in the article was a nice surprise. cygnis insignis 11:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties

I think it is always useful to link to a species. Hence, for me, it is preferable to write Dianella revoluta var. divaricata, rather than Dianella revoluta var. divaricata. (There is an argument that in this case, the species above links to the article Dianella revoluta, but I prefer all species linked.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought any option could be confusing, not knowing your preference I chose one when removing some stray brackets. If the species article mentioned the varieties then i would create a redirect, so a redlink might prompt some one to add that. ————

If you think it merits it then create a redlink, but for me, I don't think varieties merit their own articles and if mentioned should be part of the species article, so my preference is to link to the species. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources think it notable to identify varieties, so we should too. The links are created now, and another common name. — cygnis insignis 09:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph needs editing

@Perth beanfeaster:
"Friends of the Jirdarup Bushland continue to identify new species. In September 2022, a large patch of bunny orchids Eriochilus were found by the weeding team. This brings to 25 the total number of orchids identified since 2000."
The list of species gives (81) Eriochilus dilatatus subsp. dilatatus
In order to justify this paragraph, the species found by the weeding team should be a different species. MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this problem, the paragraph currently would be considered "original research" something forbidden to editors of wikipedia. For it to stay, there needs to be a reference (citation) given. MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]