Talk:Acacia bivenosa

Plants Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Northern Territory / Queensland / Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Acacia bivenosa 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 Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	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 Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland, or the State Library of Western Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Indigenous names[edit]

According to MOS:FOREIGN, Foreign words should be used sparingly. and Where possible, non-English should be marked up using the appropriate..... Given than Indigenous names are not foreign then they really should stay. Thanks for clearing that up Mark! Hughesdarren (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign" here means "words that have not been assimilated into English". Are murrurpa, murrurbaor, morama, mururru and mururr used in Australian English as English words, in the way that, say, "kookaburra" is? I think not. So they should be marked up as non-English words for the benefit of screen readers, if nothing else.

Are they sufficiently notable to pass WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Can it be shown that they are widely used in reliable sources? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of that definition of foreign I'm seeing in MOS:FOREIGN is Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor.. The words are italised so that is not a problem. Can you point me to where it says in the MOS that foreign means: "words that have not been assimilated into English"? Hughesdarren (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I don't believe this information should be in the article, but if it is, it doesn't belong in Taxonomy – it has nothing to do with taxonomy I follow sources that think it notable and it is everything to do with taxonomy, ie. a scheme of classification. — cygnis insignis 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]