Talk:Melaleuca lasiandra: Difference between revisions

Plants Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Start‑class Low‑importance

Melaleuca lasiandra 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat'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.

Ok, you are both claiming that Brophy supports your preferred derivation for the binomial. Can one or both of you quote precisely what Brophy says on this matter so we can settle this. The source can't agree with both derivations. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpus you did indeed make an edit which cited Brophy as the source for your derivation. Regardless of what you may think that andros means, Brophy is RS and you are not. If Brophy says it means "small and pink" then that is what goes into the article unless you can find another reliable source that says otherwise. And even then we just put both versions into the article and let the reader decide. You can not remove reliably sources material regardless of how wrong you believe it to be. If you believe that Brophy is not RS, then discuss it on the article talk page and get consensus or take it to the RS noticeboard and get consensus there. It matters not one whit whether you believe this is a genitive case, a book case or an open-and-shut case. If it is supported by a reliable source, it stays in the article. If your derivation is not supported by a RS it can't go into the article. That's the whole story.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]