Talk:Eucalyptus deglupta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganbl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obakes95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Northern hemisphere

Hi, There seems to be a mistake on the opening paragraph of this topic. The article states "It is the only Eucalyptus species found naturally in the Northern Hemisphere. Its natural distribution spans New Britain, New Guinea, Ceram, Sulawesi and Mindanao." All these locations are in the Southern Hemisphere!!!

Also, "Ceram" (an island that is part of Indonesia) is currently spelled "Seram".

Thanks, Guidamay (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Mindanao is in the northern hemisphere (see map) and part of the natural distribution of the species in Sulawesi (formerly the Celebes) is in the northern hemisphere as well. I've changed Ceram to Seram.--Melburnian (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eucalyptus deglupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928042535/http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/SEA/Products/AFDbases/AF/asp/SpeciesInfo.asp?SpID=770 to http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/SEA/Products/AFDbases/AF/asp/SpeciesInfo.asp?SpID=770

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Color of wood

To add to this article: is the wood also multicolored, or just the bark? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Deglupta is not an infinitive

The source writes (Brown, 1956, p. 716): "L. deglubo, -uptus, peel off, husk, shell". The second form is actually a perfect participle, that can not be translated as an infinitive. It is merely a misinterpretation, to consider that the translation refers to the second word (degluptus). Wimpus (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

First off let me say thank you for addressing this here instead of reverting edits. Your point about the grammar here seems perfectly valid, though perhaps not terribly important in the context of an etymology. Does the change in case change the meaning or the reason for borrowing that Latin word in a way I don't understand?

Instead of deleting the content, as you did, I would encourage you to alter the content to reflect the appropriate Latin grammar. Generally, when you come across content in an article that shares accurate substance (ie. the Latin meaning) but has mistakes (ie the grammatical case of the Latin word) it's almost always more appropriate to clean up and correct the mistakes than to delete the content. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I could have replaced it with a perfect participle (Brown mentions on p. 5: "The perfect participle, but not always the present participle of a Latin verb is given."), but I do stress that it is clearly the responsibility of the editor that adds the etymological information, to do this accurately. Wimpus (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If the information is useful and correct in its primary meaning (which is the case here as I understand it: the meaning is correct but there are grammatical errors) you should simply correct the grammar. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)