Talk:Nuphar lutea

With the references with the articles two are not linked properly Arbroome (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" - several of these are pages that should link to other (mainly North American) species in the genus, I don't know which species they should link to rather than this one. Can anyone sort them out? Keteleeria (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

2017 Nuphar Lutea Pollen Captured by Keith Bennett.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Holotype or specimen of Nuphar lutea (L.) Sibth. & Sm. collected in 1932.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is inconsistent with the article for Genus Nuphar and other articles for species in this genus

The content of this article conflicts with the content of the article for genus Nuphar,articles for related species and the content of the section entitled A new proposal tested and confirmed within this article. The current generally-accepted usage for this specific epithet is for a species found in the Eastern Hemisphere. I don't know enough about the systematics of the genus to feel confident editing this but it needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter3 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good start to move the section "Research history" to the article of the genus Nuphar. It applies to the genus in general and not Numphar lutea specifically. Conan Wolff (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Padgett's work on Nuphar showed Beal's taxonomy was severely flawed. It was NOT confirmed by Padgett's research. No Nuphar species in North America can be called N. lutea. 207.206.226.54 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is, indeed, a very poor article, which needs a complete rewrite. Its sections should conform to the WP:PLANTS template. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I'd be willing to remove even more unnecessary information. A number of users, such as yourself, @Hammarbya, and @Complainer already have removed quite a lot of text.

I would like to delete or shorten the following aspects:

1. Drastically shorten the section "Etymology", deleting exessive list of common names, so that the section only briefly explains the meaning of the generic name Nuphar, as well as the specific epithet lutea. That section doesn't have to be longer than two sentences

2. Rename the section "Plant form and growth" to "Description", and split in into the subsections "Vegetative characteristics" and "Generative characteristics", deleting the text, and re-writing the section in a much more condensed and descriptive way

3. Deleting the section "Research history", but keeping the subsection "As a perennial food source", then moving this subsection to a new section "Uses" at the bottom of the article, and shorten the text

4 Deleting the section Images, which only contains one image, and placing this image in the section "Description" instead

5. Drastically shortening the text in section "Conservation" and deleting any information on Nuphar pumila, a separate species.

6. Deleting the range map indicating it were native to North America

7. Deleting the text in section "Taxonomy" and then adding subsections "Publication", "Type specimen", "Placement within Nuphar"

8. Renaming section "Geographical distribution" to "Distribution", deleting text indicating it were native to North America, providing sources

9. Dividing section "Ecology" into subsections "Habitat" and "Herbivory"

What do you think of these proposals? Do they seem acceptable? Conan Wolff (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems generally good to me; note the main section titles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template (which is over-detailed for the great majority of articles) – for example, we usually have "Distribution and habitat". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead In that case I'm fine with keeping the name "Distribution and habitat", but the content of that section needs to change. Conan Wolff (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conan Wolff: oh, absolutely. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead Well if more users were to agree with the proposed changes, then I would start implementing them. I just want to make sure that those upcoming large deletions of text are supported by a consensus opinion. Conan Wolff (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conan Wolff: WP:BOLD! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing the section titles to fit the general template and removing information not pertinent to the subject of the article. I hope you don't mind that I've gone ahead and renamed one (edit: two) of the sections. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me, Myself, and I are Here I don't mind. any improvement is welcome. Conan Wolff (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]