Banksia spinulosa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 2, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 14, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Hairpin Banksia spike (pictured) contains over 1,000 individual flowers around a central woody axis?

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Banksia: Plants Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.BanksiaWikipedia:WikiProject BanksiaTemplate:WikiProject BanksiaBanksia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance). Australia: Biota Low‑importance Banksia spinulosa 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• There is a form sold as Banksia (spinulosa) cunninghamii variant, propagated by Bournda Plants of Tura Beach on the NSW south coast. Dave says the plants reach 70cm after 4 years and have black-styled gold inflorescences. The form came from David Shiels of Wakiti Nursery in Victoria, who got it from Alf Salkin. However it has a white undersurface (not brownish) and has a couple of serrations close to the tip of the leaf, typical of Banksia spinulosa spinulosa (which I suspect it actually is).

Call this para either POV or original research. It needs to be re written suggest something like

• There is a form sold as Banksia (spinulosa) cunninghamii variant, propagated by Bournda Plants of Tura Beach on the NSW south coast. The plants reach 70cm after 4 years and have black-styled gold inflorescences. The form came from David Shiels of Wakiti Nursery in Victoria, who got it from Alf Salkin. It has a white undersurface (not brownish) and has a couple of serrations close to the tip of the leaf, typical of Banksia spinulosa spinulosa.

Actually I will put this in its place Gnangarra 12:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to article cultivar, "a cultivar is a cultivated plant that has received a name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants". I checked against an article by Margaret Sedgely and there are only six Banksia cultivars, and none of them are spinulosa. The cultivar article goes on to say that "cultivar" has a different meaning to the legal term "plant variety". Variety (plant) states that "Recognition of a cultivated plant as a "variety" provides its breeder with some legal protection, so-called plant breeders' rights."

I suspect the terminology in the article needs to be changed to indicate that we're talking about varieties not cultivars. Hesperian 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret's article needs updating: You have a point, cultivars currently under PBR (and whose names should be capitalised and with double ""s instead of ' 's) are: "Birthday Candles", "BCO1" (which is actually "Cherry Candles"), as well as "Rollercoaster", "Pygmy Possum", "Yellow Wings", "Giant Candles" and the 3 "Waite - " cultivars. Others are registered wtih ACRA and most are not registered anywhere. I will look further into it. cheers Cas Liber 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a gardener's point of view, any selected variety is a cultivar, whether or not it has been formally registered with a plant registry. Most cultivars go through some period of trial before they are released for distribution or sale. Most cultivars are propagated asexually to preserve their unique features. In some cases a cultivar may be bred over several generations to stabilize its characteristics in a sexually reproducing population. Bob (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Loosen up"? Gosh, thanks for the advice. Finally, four and a half years after I wrote the above, I can release the tension over this vexed issue that has been ruining my life. Maybe these headaches will stop, and I can finally get some sleep. :-P Hesperian 05:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a gardener, I find this article frustrating because it provides no information about what temperatures the plant tolerates or whether it is grown under glass in England. Not a clue about hardiness, aside from its Australian origin and the reputation of the genus Banksia. Bob (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd guess they'd be frost hardy down to -10C or so, but maybe not for protracted periods. I am not sure what I am able to add from a reliable source but will see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I liked the version with blockquotes better... Any thoughts? Circeus 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No preference from me; I'll revert. Hesperian 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. block quotes good...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, [APNI] has it as a species, George has it as a variety and the debate goes on...I'm musing on how to put it here as it has implications for how the article develops.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APNI has a page for every published taxon, regardless of whether current or not. In fact, APNI scrupulously avoids stating whether or not a taxon is current. Rather, it states what others have said about it. In this case, the APNI record for B. cunninghamii says that George (1981), George (1999) and CHAH (2005) all consider it a synonym of B. s. var. cunninghamii.

the ANBG offer a simplified service called WIN that sits on top of APNI, and does stick its neck out by saying what is current and what is not (and gets it wrong sometimes: it mishandles misapplications awfully). WIN says that B. cunninghamii is not current.

When it comes to adopting a name for title and discussion purposes, I would be inclined to follow George (1999), which is still the most recent arrangement. But of course we have to include discussion of Thiele and Ladiges' promotion, and the fact that the NSW herbarium[1] and possibly others have maintained it at species rank.

Hesperian 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, Circeus, (Gnangarra?,)

I fixed up a whole lot of broken refs last night, but in the process clobbered some page numbers. Didn't realise until too late what Cas was trying to do.

Until now we have never bothered to provide page numbers in references, partly because it's hard to do in the current system. There's a school of thought that page numbers are unnecessary because most sources have indices. I can see their point but am learning towards getting into the habit of including page numbers.

I think Cas's way of doing things - shifting into a separate bibliography only those sources for which page numbers are cited - was a bit confusing (it confused me):

==References==
1 ^abc George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
2. ^Harden (2002), p. 100.
3. ^ibid, p. 150.
4. ^Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

 ==Texts cited==
* Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0. 

I think we either need to stick to a single list:

==References==
1 ^abc George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
2. ^Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0. p. 100.
3. ^ibid. p. 150.
4. ^Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

or else we need to put all sources in a separate bibliography, even those that don't cite page numbers.

==References==
1 ^abc George (1999).
2. ^Harden (2002). p. 100.
3. ^ibid. p. 150.
4. ^Taylor & Hopper (1988).
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

 ==Bibliography==
* George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
* Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0. 
* Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.

I think I slightly prefer keeping them all in one list, as separating them is a bit redundant where we cite a lot of sources only once each. What do you guys think?

Hesperian 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frig I missed this. Anyway, unlike several other FACs, much of the material comes from a few pages within a certain text (generally the species description) so for the banksias I am happy with things in a single list (though this hasn't worked out like this on other FAs). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll retrofit it to the other Banksia FAs later. Hesperian 05:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: I agree citing page numbers even when the index is pretty straightforward (such as is the case in most floras) is always a good idea, if only because if makes later fact-checking faster. Splitting the references, however, is only truly useful if you have to cite many places in several books (e.g. Ine of Wessex), and I actually advocate against it where it is not the case (e.g. Tchad is unnecessarily split IMHO, but at least its not linked from notes to refs, which I believe is actually worse.) Partial split (e.g. Lion), when only a few books (or even only one) are split is also possible (and generally the most sensible option). Circeus 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the Lion approach. I think we can all agree on citing page numbers wherever possible, and keeping it in one list? I had a crack at this elsewhere last night, and it seems to work okay. Hesperian 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion is a bit of an extreme case (only a few refs are split), but there are cases where the system does work rather well (especially with mid-size reference sections). Circeus 03:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some format fiddling to eliminate CS1 citation errors and noticed that the article needs an update to reflect the elevation of Banksia neoanglica to species level. Choess (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and another paper is coming out very soon that will require more fiddling....sigh. The frustrating thing is that the national herbarium still has Banksia cunninghamii as subspecies (whereas NSW has elevated this to species level), which needs to be split out and another one more new taxon and I think some others in the pipeline. I might ring to get a timeline on all these...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Banksia spinulosa/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Substituted at 11:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia spinulosa. 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/20080414152918/http://asgap.org.au/banksSG/banksiasg-5-1.pdf to http://asgap.org.au/banksSG/banksiasg-5-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia spinulosa. 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/20070927215212/http://www.botanicus.org/title.asp?barcode=31753003013338 to http://www.botanicus.org/title.asp?barcode=31753003013338

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One day....this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]