This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Sanjana Inala. Peer reviewers: Nicolepotter728.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
On a page like this, other people are encouraged to add their own lists of regional species, as, for example, Europe! I can only post the info I have access to. John Knouse
It is fine to say 'some use subgenus but ITIS only recognizes Prunus ... so we just list Prunus ...' because ITIS is heavily north-american focused. I encourage people to better rely on the GRIN/NPGS taxonomy which is better informed on this point. Here is the link: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genform.pl -- 85.179.17.102 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I started in to reconcile those lists and then I realized the pointlessness of having 2 lists. The box at the right suffices. Naturally it will be a long box but we don't need the left list to fill in because there is plenty to say about Prunus, especially after I start adding fossils. So I think I will create 2 sections of the right list, following the left list, and amalgamate the lists, abolishing the left list. If there are any notes in the left list you can put them under the individual species. As far as the authority is concerned, why tie the right list to any authority? Let's save some endless disputation. Mention the authorities in the text and put in the links to the databases, but make the article comprehensive. If there are any questions they can be handled in the individual articles or if there are disputed synonyms or questions of which species, the link in the right list can invoke whatever species the mention is going to be under. That way we get flexibility. I'm going to start changing this soon unless someone feels strongly enough about having 2 lists to stop me. But, if you really want to work on this, which it seems not many do, how about filling in the individual articles? There may be a lot of species but this genus has been a very critical one for man. Dave 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
PS before I forget it here is the original left list of this date so you can make sure the information gets somewhere. Shortly it will be disappearing from the article. I am sure you will agree, notes on individual species belong under individual species. Dave 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Modern" section twice contains the word contemporaneous. The word means "of the same time". The first use appears to be a two-dollar word for 'modern', and the second is completely obscure. Tell me why I shouldn't remove both. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article says that the original Roman name was prūnus, with a diacritic mark over the first 'u'. This diacritic is not a feature of Roman Latin, though it may be an accurate modern transliteration of that syllable in the Greek name προύμνη . Any reason to retain it in the article? Imc ( talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Another common name for this is Western Sandcherry. The Agricultural College at North Dakota State University has posted a good description at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/trees/handbook/th-3-45.pdf (link viable 2009-05-30), a good starting reference for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.67 ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears as though the big list was once multi-column and was reverted. Why did you do that? as far as I know multi-column is legit. We could put it in a multi-column table. One very long list looks unfinished - books are not laid out that way. When I get to it I will be using multi-column on this unless you can find a policy that says we are not using multi-column. Dave ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone commented this is not about the flowers only about the cherry trees. Well. How can it be about the whole and not about the part? Human anatomy is not about the hands so we better cut that material from the human articles. Cherry flowers are just what it is about, in part. Let's keep that in mind. Dave ( talk) 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nadia. Well, so you're a botanist and you jump from Wikipedia to Wikipedia? Why then do you not put in the requested reference yourself? I'm not going to make any such statement as, women! Instead I am going to try to answer your request. But anyone, you know, can edit Wikipedia, which, if you jump around Wikipedias, I presume you know. And who better qualified than a botanist? Dear me. If you are looking for contention you will not find it here. Instead I will presume you must have tunnel carpel syndrome and cannot type and therefore will assist you if I can. Dave ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a quick revisit of this article by me. Thank you for all your contributions since I last seriously worked on it, especially that fine picture. I helped you with the formatting you were trying to accomplish but not succeeding. In one case by popular demand I rewrote a paragraph. Where do we go from here? That is up to you. I am sure there is more basic material that can be said, such as the earliest record in history, the history of the cultivars, ecological considerations, etc. It is up to you. Wikipedia only enforces certain standards. There is one general issue that is on the horizon. I looked at Wikispecies and I was flabbergasted at the humongous number of Prunus species, many more than what appear here. No matter how many Prunus articles you write there are yet more to write. So, at some point we will have to decide, and will have to have a standard for deciding, what should be listed in this article. Au revoir, until the next revisit. You can always collar me by message. Dave ( talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The species list needs common names. The current list is useless to readers who are unfamiliar with the binomial nomenclature of the species. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Leopoldhausen is adding common names. This was brought up in 2016. Should they be added? I personally think they should be in the article for the specific species. User-duck ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Prunus, the whole genus. Ornamental varieties is just part of the genus, flowering cherries is just part of the ornamental varieties, AGM is just part of the flowering cherries. I removed the incomplete list of AGM awarded flowering cherries, referred to complete list article. It is interesting that there is no list of AGM awarded Prunus fruit trees. User-duck ( talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that a List of Prunus species article exists, the list of species in this article will be mercilessly pruned. A secondary source will be required to demonstrate "importance". Abductive ( reasoning) 03:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Sanjana Inala. Peer reviewers: Nicolepotter728.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
On a page like this, other people are encouraged to add their own lists of regional species, as, for example, Europe! I can only post the info I have access to. John Knouse
It is fine to say 'some use subgenus but ITIS only recognizes Prunus ... so we just list Prunus ...' because ITIS is heavily north-american focused. I encourage people to better rely on the GRIN/NPGS taxonomy which is better informed on this point. Here is the link: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genform.pl -- 85.179.17.102 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I started in to reconcile those lists and then I realized the pointlessness of having 2 lists. The box at the right suffices. Naturally it will be a long box but we don't need the left list to fill in because there is plenty to say about Prunus, especially after I start adding fossils. So I think I will create 2 sections of the right list, following the left list, and amalgamate the lists, abolishing the left list. If there are any notes in the left list you can put them under the individual species. As far as the authority is concerned, why tie the right list to any authority? Let's save some endless disputation. Mention the authorities in the text and put in the links to the databases, but make the article comprehensive. If there are any questions they can be handled in the individual articles or if there are disputed synonyms or questions of which species, the link in the right list can invoke whatever species the mention is going to be under. That way we get flexibility. I'm going to start changing this soon unless someone feels strongly enough about having 2 lists to stop me. But, if you really want to work on this, which it seems not many do, how about filling in the individual articles? There may be a lot of species but this genus has been a very critical one for man. Dave 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
PS before I forget it here is the original left list of this date so you can make sure the information gets somewhere. Shortly it will be disappearing from the article. I am sure you will agree, notes on individual species belong under individual species. Dave 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Modern" section twice contains the word contemporaneous. The word means "of the same time". The first use appears to be a two-dollar word for 'modern', and the second is completely obscure. Tell me why I shouldn't remove both. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article says that the original Roman name was prūnus, with a diacritic mark over the first 'u'. This diacritic is not a feature of Roman Latin, though it may be an accurate modern transliteration of that syllable in the Greek name προύμνη . Any reason to retain it in the article? Imc ( talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Another common name for this is Western Sandcherry. The Agricultural College at North Dakota State University has posted a good description at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/trees/handbook/th-3-45.pdf (link viable 2009-05-30), a good starting reference for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.67 ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears as though the big list was once multi-column and was reverted. Why did you do that? as far as I know multi-column is legit. We could put it in a multi-column table. One very long list looks unfinished - books are not laid out that way. When I get to it I will be using multi-column on this unless you can find a policy that says we are not using multi-column. Dave ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone commented this is not about the flowers only about the cherry trees. Well. How can it be about the whole and not about the part? Human anatomy is not about the hands so we better cut that material from the human articles. Cherry flowers are just what it is about, in part. Let's keep that in mind. Dave ( talk) 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nadia. Well, so you're a botanist and you jump from Wikipedia to Wikipedia? Why then do you not put in the requested reference yourself? I'm not going to make any such statement as, women! Instead I am going to try to answer your request. But anyone, you know, can edit Wikipedia, which, if you jump around Wikipedias, I presume you know. And who better qualified than a botanist? Dear me. If you are looking for contention you will not find it here. Instead I will presume you must have tunnel carpel syndrome and cannot type and therefore will assist you if I can. Dave ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a quick revisit of this article by me. Thank you for all your contributions since I last seriously worked on it, especially that fine picture. I helped you with the formatting you were trying to accomplish but not succeeding. In one case by popular demand I rewrote a paragraph. Where do we go from here? That is up to you. I am sure there is more basic material that can be said, such as the earliest record in history, the history of the cultivars, ecological considerations, etc. It is up to you. Wikipedia only enforces certain standards. There is one general issue that is on the horizon. I looked at Wikispecies and I was flabbergasted at the humongous number of Prunus species, many more than what appear here. No matter how many Prunus articles you write there are yet more to write. So, at some point we will have to decide, and will have to have a standard for deciding, what should be listed in this article. Au revoir, until the next revisit. You can always collar me by message. Dave ( talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The species list needs common names. The current list is useless to readers who are unfamiliar with the binomial nomenclature of the species. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Leopoldhausen is adding common names. This was brought up in 2016. Should they be added? I personally think they should be in the article for the specific species. User-duck ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Prunus, the whole genus. Ornamental varieties is just part of the genus, flowering cherries is just part of the ornamental varieties, AGM is just part of the flowering cherries. I removed the incomplete list of AGM awarded flowering cherries, referred to complete list article. It is interesting that there is no list of AGM awarded Prunus fruit trees. User-duck ( talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that a List of Prunus species article exists, the list of species in this article will be mercilessly pruned. A secondary source will be required to demonstrate "importance". Abductive ( reasoning) 03:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)