![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Additional drawing:
image:Manitoba_maple_keys.jpg
This page should be moved to Box elder, which is a much more common name than "Manitoba Maple". SCHZMO ✍ 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Manitoba Maple → Acer negundo – Two common names that both have equal common usage; "Manitoba Maple" tends to be used in Canada, while "Box elder" tends to be used in the U.S. Thus the article should have the scientific name because neither common name is more common than the other. SCHZMO ✍ 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, as with Canada bunchberry/Canada dwarf cornel, if colloquial names are not universal, then neither should be used as the main title, and using the magic of wiki, both can be redirected to A. negundo -- chris 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - see discussion below - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - this plant's common names seem to vary by region (again, I've never heard one called "Manitoba maple") SB Johnny 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've no objection to a move to the species name, provided this is also done for the other species in the same genus, so they are all grouped together in their category; having some at common names, and others at scientific names, makes indexing and finding pages difficult. Having them all at the scientific name would be best as it would also help avoid other common name variations in the genus, but might be unpopular with some other contributors. - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved per WP:TOL. Two in favour, one neutral (against as moving the remaining does not make sense), and WP:TOL makes a case. I did a quick search on the two common names, and they are ruoghly equally used. And if I would chim in, it would become three in favour and one against, which in either case is consensus as per WP:RM instructions (66.7%, 75%). If there is a different consensus in a later stage, the page can be moved again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This has left a highly unsatisfactory situation with one species at the scientific name, and so indexed separately from all the others which are at common names. Two options suggest themselves; please indicate preferences:
Wrong map--should be the USDA one, but I don't know how to upload....perhaps someone will upload the correct one? Explanation below:
This is a a USGS map, not a USDA map as is mentioned below. The USDA map shows that the range is all over North America, excepting Newfoundland, Yukon and Alaska. You can see it here: http://plants.usda.gov/maps/large/AC/ACNE2.png found on the very good USDA PLANTS profile: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ACNE2&mapType=large&photoID=acne2_002_ahp.tif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.151.124 ( talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I really like the maps from the USDA, they are really nice maps showing where plants are in North America, but my only concern with them is that they are US-centric. The maps show the subnational divisions (states) of the USA, but not those of Canada (provinces) or México (estados). I think it would be a positive Wikipedia move if someone were to make these maps different from those of the USDA and have them North America-centred, as opposed to USA-centered [sic]. -- chris 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The page I have linked incorrectly implies that box elder is an ash. Otherwise it is good. I think that since this is a topic some kids have to use for school it would be very good if every fact were carefully sourced, so that they can easily source their papers. Also diagnostic descriptions and classifications are not the same everywhere. These are the reasons we should source things even when they can be generally accepted as fact. Thanks? 131.212.62.90 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has an introduction that is difficult to grasp, but seems to mostly be about biases for and against certain common names rather than about Acer negundo, the tree.
"Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), as the species is called in Canada, also known as Ash-leaved Maple or (confusingly) Box Elder in the United States, is a species of maple, which occurs throughout most of North America."
I believe the article can include information about the common names, but the introduction should read something like this, because the article is about the tree:
Acer negundo is a species of maple (Acer) that grows throughout much of North America.
Common names
It is called Manitoba Maple in Canada, and Ash-leaved Maple (also Ashleaf Maple, Ash Maple) or Box Elder (also Boxelder, California Boxelder, Western Boxelder, Inland Boxelder, Boxelder Maple) in the United States. The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because the tree's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because it is the only maple species with compound leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range.
Please post comments. KP Botany 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs a thorough and comprehensive overhaul. I think this is one of the negative things about this intense focus on certain common names being "incorrect" or "confusing," that it eats up real content. In fact, that's pretty much what the article seems to be about, the tree's confusing common name, as that is first paragraph after the almost nothing lead paragraph, "Acer negundo (Boxelder maple) is a species of maple native to North America." KP Botany 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the discussion of the common names for Acer negundo from its article? The inclusion of the information was discussed on the talk page, and your opportunity to disagree was then, and is there, not be revising. Please replace the information you removed, then discuss your reasons for it on the talk page, or I will simply revert your edits, assuming you had no reason, as you have not given one. KP Botany 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I count three paragraphs at the start of the Acer negundo article which discuss its common names and are listed under the section heading "Common names." Please clarify what has been removed. ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please take a few minutes and look more closely. Ash, elder, maple syrup, those common names, etc. -- its all still in the article. The only bit that is missing is is the explanation of the "box" element. I am often wary of etymologies -- even those appearing in reasonably respectable sources are sometimes wrong (or at least fall ito the category of "folk etymology"). If you think the buxus mention is important, stick in back in. Just please maintain the "thought to be" or some similar wording. ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It has become naturalized in Buenos Aires province. [1]. This one is a list of the goverment of the Bs. As. City indexing the amount, height and type of trees on every street [ [2]]. It's in Spanish, but it can be read "Acer negundo" pretty well on the list. 190.49.170.218 ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:
References
Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?
Scope
Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?
Layout and organization
Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?
Well written
Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?
Supporting materials
Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?
Understandable
Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.
Input anyone?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acer negundo. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.depauw.edu/univ/naturepark/natural_history/trees/aceraceae/acer_negundo.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acer negundo. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The section on uses of boxelder by Native Americans is a long paragraph of many tribe names and many very similar uses. This information would be much more accessible if it were arranged in a table, perhaps with tribes as the left column and column headers for the different uses. Then mere check marks in the table cells would indicate the uses by each tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmeiss ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
To add to the article: a photo showing what a block of the wood looks like. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Say what negundo means, so we don't have to look it up. Jidanni ( talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Additional drawing:
image:Manitoba_maple_keys.jpg
This page should be moved to Box elder, which is a much more common name than "Manitoba Maple". SCHZMO ✍ 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Manitoba Maple → Acer negundo – Two common names that both have equal common usage; "Manitoba Maple" tends to be used in Canada, while "Box elder" tends to be used in the U.S. Thus the article should have the scientific name because neither common name is more common than the other. SCHZMO ✍ 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, as with Canada bunchberry/Canada dwarf cornel, if colloquial names are not universal, then neither should be used as the main title, and using the magic of wiki, both can be redirected to A. negundo -- chris 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - see discussion below - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - this plant's common names seem to vary by region (again, I've never heard one called "Manitoba maple") SB Johnny 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've no objection to a move to the species name, provided this is also done for the other species in the same genus, so they are all grouped together in their category; having some at common names, and others at scientific names, makes indexing and finding pages difficult. Having them all at the scientific name would be best as it would also help avoid other common name variations in the genus, but might be unpopular with some other contributors. - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved per WP:TOL. Two in favour, one neutral (against as moving the remaining does not make sense), and WP:TOL makes a case. I did a quick search on the two common names, and they are ruoghly equally used. And if I would chim in, it would become three in favour and one against, which in either case is consensus as per WP:RM instructions (66.7%, 75%). If there is a different consensus in a later stage, the page can be moved again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This has left a highly unsatisfactory situation with one species at the scientific name, and so indexed separately from all the others which are at common names. Two options suggest themselves; please indicate preferences:
Wrong map--should be the USDA one, but I don't know how to upload....perhaps someone will upload the correct one? Explanation below:
This is a a USGS map, not a USDA map as is mentioned below. The USDA map shows that the range is all over North America, excepting Newfoundland, Yukon and Alaska. You can see it here: http://plants.usda.gov/maps/large/AC/ACNE2.png found on the very good USDA PLANTS profile: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ACNE2&mapType=large&photoID=acne2_002_ahp.tif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.151.124 ( talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I really like the maps from the USDA, they are really nice maps showing where plants are in North America, but my only concern with them is that they are US-centric. The maps show the subnational divisions (states) of the USA, but not those of Canada (provinces) or México (estados). I think it would be a positive Wikipedia move if someone were to make these maps different from those of the USDA and have them North America-centred, as opposed to USA-centered [sic]. -- chris 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The page I have linked incorrectly implies that box elder is an ash. Otherwise it is good. I think that since this is a topic some kids have to use for school it would be very good if every fact were carefully sourced, so that they can easily source their papers. Also diagnostic descriptions and classifications are not the same everywhere. These are the reasons we should source things even when they can be generally accepted as fact. Thanks? 131.212.62.90 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has an introduction that is difficult to grasp, but seems to mostly be about biases for and against certain common names rather than about Acer negundo, the tree.
"Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), as the species is called in Canada, also known as Ash-leaved Maple or (confusingly) Box Elder in the United States, is a species of maple, which occurs throughout most of North America."
I believe the article can include information about the common names, but the introduction should read something like this, because the article is about the tree:
Acer negundo is a species of maple (Acer) that grows throughout much of North America.
Common names
It is called Manitoba Maple in Canada, and Ash-leaved Maple (also Ashleaf Maple, Ash Maple) or Box Elder (also Boxelder, California Boxelder, Western Boxelder, Inland Boxelder, Boxelder Maple) in the United States. The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because the tree's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because it is the only maple species with compound leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range.
Please post comments. KP Botany 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs a thorough and comprehensive overhaul. I think this is one of the negative things about this intense focus on certain common names being "incorrect" or "confusing," that it eats up real content. In fact, that's pretty much what the article seems to be about, the tree's confusing common name, as that is first paragraph after the almost nothing lead paragraph, "Acer negundo (Boxelder maple) is a species of maple native to North America." KP Botany 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the discussion of the common names for Acer negundo from its article? The inclusion of the information was discussed on the talk page, and your opportunity to disagree was then, and is there, not be revising. Please replace the information you removed, then discuss your reasons for it on the talk page, or I will simply revert your edits, assuming you had no reason, as you have not given one. KP Botany 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I count three paragraphs at the start of the Acer negundo article which discuss its common names and are listed under the section heading "Common names." Please clarify what has been removed. ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please take a few minutes and look more closely. Ash, elder, maple syrup, those common names, etc. -- its all still in the article. The only bit that is missing is is the explanation of the "box" element. I am often wary of etymologies -- even those appearing in reasonably respectable sources are sometimes wrong (or at least fall ito the category of "folk etymology"). If you think the buxus mention is important, stick in back in. Just please maintain the "thought to be" or some similar wording. ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It has become naturalized in Buenos Aires province. [1]. This one is a list of the goverment of the Bs. As. City indexing the amount, height and type of trees on every street [ [2]]. It's in Spanish, but it can be read "Acer negundo" pretty well on the list. 190.49.170.218 ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:
References
Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?
Scope
Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?
Layout and organization
Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?
Well written
Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?
Supporting materials
Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?
Understandable
Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.
Input anyone?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acer negundo. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.depauw.edu/univ/naturepark/natural_history/trees/aceraceae/acer_negundo.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acer negundo. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The section on uses of boxelder by Native Americans is a long paragraph of many tribe names and many very similar uses. This information would be much more accessible if it were arranged in a table, perhaps with tribes as the left column and column headers for the different uses. Then mere check marks in the table cells would indicate the uses by each tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmeiss ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
To add to the article: a photo showing what a block of the wood looks like. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Say what negundo means, so we don't have to look it up. Jidanni ( talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)