Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park'

Requested move 13 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' and such forms (genus, species, and cultivar). (non-admin closure) Tol | talk | contribs 00:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– These titles are not concise, not self-explanatory, not intuitive, hard to type, and contain redundancy and strange uses of quote marks and equals signs. (They are also formatted using a WP:SMALLCAPS styling that seems contrary to the Wikipedia MoS.) — BarrelProof (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: strange uses of quote marks – see MOS:LIFE. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've taken the liberty of removing the small caps and trademark symbols from this article as they are in violation of MOS:TMRULES. Rublov (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how MOS:TMRULES precludes the conventional horticultural representation of plant selling names. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tdes template. This is required by the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Lavateraguy: My mistake. I waded into something that I did not understand. I do still think that the use of small caps in the article's title is inappropriate per WP:SMALLCAPS, but if this is a convention for plant selling names you are welcome to restore it. Rublov (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublov: the ICNCP requires the use of a distinctive typeface for selling names. Small caps are only one possibility. The default in the template is a monospaced font. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: Plant cultivars take single quotation marks (MOS:SINGLE) and titles are guided by WP:CULTIVAR, and the following section of the MOS deals with "selling names". Having said that, I think these pages should be moved to their existing titles up to the =, and redirects created for the selling names. For example, move Ulmus parvifolia 'BSNUPF' = Everclear to Ulmus parvifolia 'BSNUPF' and create (or check it exists) Everclear (elm cultivar). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general cultivar names are ambiguous if not associated with a genus or species. (In other words, I agree with you.) Lavateraguy (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but under conventional names: The guidelines for WP: Naming conventions (flora)#Selling names indicates that neither the current article name, the original proposed new names nor the last proposed new names for the articles are appropriate. What is wrong with following that convention, and if necessary redirects or adding to disambiguation pages? Brunswicknic (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brunswicknic: for clarity, could you please say exactly how you would retitle e.g. Ulmus parvifolia 'BSNUPF' = Everclear. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[Ulmus Everclear]] would seem to be the convention asked for. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or Ulmus parviflora 'BSNUPF'. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the combination of the cultivar name and the selling name. I don't think it matters which is used, but the scientific name must be retained. A cultivar name or a selling name is meaningless without at least a genus nsme. Follow WP:NCFLORA. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All these should be of the form Genus species 'cultivar' or Genus 'cultivar' (if they are of hybrid/uncertain parentage). The ugly cultivar names such as 'BSNUPF' are deliberate by certain breeders in an attempt to make people use their trade name, the way that prescription drugs' generic names are made unpronounceable. Note that Wikipedia uses these generic names for its article titles. Furthermore, cultivars must meet the WP:GNG or face deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think this is a more important point: I doubt these cultivars meet WP:GNG. The material would be better discussed in the species article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone (I forget the name) did a lot of work on elm cultivar pages. As a moderate inclusionist I don't want to lose this. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was speaking generally. These particular articles are okay, but a while ago I came across a batch of similarly badly titled orchid cultivars that were one sentence long stubs. Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree. It is good material and needs to be preserved. Andrewa (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These current names are bizarre, and contradict policy and MOS, and the suggested ones seem unambiguous. Some other cultivars will need disambiguation I expect. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: Also support alternate proposal below for eg Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' and modifying this !vote accordingly. See comment below re rediracts. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrewa: the names are not correct, we all agree, but the suggested ones are not correct either, as they do not follow the required format either for cultivars or for selling names (see WP:NCFLORA). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclined to disagree about whether the proposed names are or are not correct, see WP:AT#Explicit conventions Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names... (my emphasis). So it's not just a matter of quoting the specialised naming convention. But let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal The best solution following this discussion seems to be to move them to titles like "Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park'", i.e. titles which are in accordance with WP:NCFLORA and the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the proposal to title them with the cultivar name seems the best route. I was lead by the prominence of a "selling name" to title them under the convention for that name. However, there is no reason I can now see in the articles to title them with the selling name, they are individual cultivars, and this is higher up in the hierarchy than selling names. So the names of articles is probably best as:

Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park'
Ulmus parvifolia 'BSNUPF'
Ulmus parvifolia 'Emer II'
Ulmus parvifolia 'UPMTF'
Ulmus parvifolia 'Zettler'

Brunswicknic (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me (the nominator). — BarrelProof (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable and certainly an improvement. The originally proposed names should also be created as redirects if unambiguous or provided with eg hatnotes for navigation at worst. Modifying my !vote above accordingly. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.