This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps the list of subspecies can be omitted from this page, since they have changed since that part of the page was written, and have been quite fluid for a long time (so I would expect them to change again in the next few years). Nadiatalent ( talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of overlap between this page and Rowan. Perhaps Rowan should have just the cultural/folkloric text and s. aucuparia the botanical? Hoogreg ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the whole text because I thought the old article was not good: it had no discernable lead and was missing essential content. That was reverted as "too radical" and because it consituted "unexplained deletion". I would say: it's a total rewrite, of course that means replacing the content. I'm not an oaf who copies text together, I did research in several libraries and followed all the rules on citing sources, copyright, and close paraphrasing, yet my work was thrown out just like that. How was the old revision better that all my writing is thrown out? Hekerui ( talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
Hekerui ( talk) 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think "Amur mountain-ash" is not a good name choice to put next to "rowan" and the others, because it concerns a plant that on the GRIN website is mentioned as merely a subspecies, and I'm not sure it is even that, because a quick Google Books search shows "Sorbus pohuashanensis" only listed as a distinct species and no mention with it as a subspecies. Also, why use the Oxford Dictionary of English (without page number) to source "quickbeam" as one word, when that is among the spellings listed at the ars-grin.gov website? Hekerui ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) on page 80, lists Sorbus pohuashanensis as a synonym of S. aucuparia.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The GRIN source gives a lot of possible names but no hierarchy, so I leave the ones called common English names by a book source in the lead per the style of Banksia integrifolia and put the rest in the names section, which is the place for detail. I corrected the spelling of some names according to GRIN, and removed "European rowan", which is not in that source. Hekerui ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the changes Hekerui introduced was a change from British spelling to American spelling, particularly the introduction of "centimeter", "meter", etc. There's no good reason for the change in an article about a species which is not native to North America. The units issue can be dealt with by returning to abbreviated units, as was the case before. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Much of the content of Rowan is specific to Sorbus aucuparia and is reiterated here. Is there any good reason why this material should not be merged with Sorbus aucuparia, thereby shortening Rowan into a disambiguating hub article for the Rowans? Plantsurfer ( talk) 09:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Very funny "typo" I've just fixed: [1] (in previous article revisions, it caused many useless paragraphs listing measurement units to appear on the page). Take care. -- Djadjko ( talk) 04:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps the list of subspecies can be omitted from this page, since they have changed since that part of the page was written, and have been quite fluid for a long time (so I would expect them to change again in the next few years). Nadiatalent ( talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of overlap between this page and Rowan. Perhaps Rowan should have just the cultural/folkloric text and s. aucuparia the botanical? Hoogreg ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the whole text because I thought the old article was not good: it had no discernable lead and was missing essential content. That was reverted as "too radical" and because it consituted "unexplained deletion". I would say: it's a total rewrite, of course that means replacing the content. I'm not an oaf who copies text together, I did research in several libraries and followed all the rules on citing sources, copyright, and close paraphrasing, yet my work was thrown out just like that. How was the old revision better that all my writing is thrown out? Hekerui ( talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
Hekerui ( talk) 17:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think "Amur mountain-ash" is not a good name choice to put next to "rowan" and the others, because it concerns a plant that on the GRIN website is mentioned as merely a subspecies, and I'm not sure it is even that, because a quick Google Books search shows "Sorbus pohuashanensis" only listed as a distinct species and no mention with it as a subspecies. Also, why use the Oxford Dictionary of English (without page number) to source "quickbeam" as one word, when that is among the spellings listed at the ars-grin.gov website? Hekerui ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help) on page 80, lists Sorbus pohuashanensis as a synonym of S. aucuparia.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The GRIN source gives a lot of possible names but no hierarchy, so I leave the ones called common English names by a book source in the lead per the style of Banksia integrifolia and put the rest in the names section, which is the place for detail. I corrected the spelling of some names according to GRIN, and removed "European rowan", which is not in that source. Hekerui ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the changes Hekerui introduced was a change from British spelling to American spelling, particularly the introduction of "centimeter", "meter", etc. There's no good reason for the change in an article about a species which is not native to North America. The units issue can be dealt with by returning to abbreviated units, as was the case before. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Much of the content of Rowan is specific to Sorbus aucuparia and is reiterated here. Is there any good reason why this material should not be merged with Sorbus aucuparia, thereby shortening Rowan into a disambiguating hub article for the Rowans? Plantsurfer ( talk) 09:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Very funny "typo" I've just fixed: [1] (in previous article revisions, it caused many useless paragraphs listing measurement units to appear on the page). Take care. -- Djadjko ( talk) 04:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)