Talk:Pelvetia

Authority in text

The removal of the name of the authority's name is debatable. The authority is kept in the site of other species.Osborne 10:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) For example: Ascophyllum nodosum, Chondrus crispus, Colpomenia peregrina and Dulse (Palmaria palmata) - to name but a few. The next problem is as to whether the authorities' names need be given in full or in abbreviation. Osborne 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authorities' names are present in the taxobox, which is probably where most readers will look for purely taxonomic/nomenclatural information. Abbreviated is the more usual form in scientific publications, which doesn't pose a problem so long as they are linked to the relevant articles about the scientists, as is the case here. The fact that other articles do it differently is no argument; they should probably be changed. Most lay-persons do not realise that a scientific name needs an authority, and find extra words like "Stackhouse" or "L." confusing, because their meaning is not readily apparent. That sort of detail should be reserved for the taxobox, where the context is sufficiently clear. Most publications intended for the general public do not include the authority, and it is their lead which Wikipedia should follow in its articles. --Stemonitis 07:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. But you may wish to change the title to "Channelled wrack" rather than keep it under the botanical name. This point is debated by others under Spiral wrack, Bladder wrack, Serrated wrack and others. I would prefer the botanical name - cross referenced with the English name.Osborne 08:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) It is surprising how many "latin" nmaes are used by lay-persons without knowing: Rhododendron, Chrysanthemum, Clematis, Anemone, Nasturtium, Viola, Hypericum(?), Geranium etc. Osborne 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many scientific names have become part of common parlance, but that is largely a separate issue. Indeed, the two do not always match up, as the recent move of Geranium showed (scientific name preferred over common name, which normally refers to Pelargonium, for reasons I've never understood). Policy and practice at Wikipedia differ in different areas, and there are now conflicting guidelines over the use of common versus scientific names. The general policy is to use common names of things in all circumstances, but WikiProject Plants has decided to favour scientific names in almost all circumstances. I suppose it's a matter of debate whether brown algae come under the remit of WP:PLANTS, since although they are not plants, they do fall under the same nomenclatural code. My personal preference would be for scientific names in the majority of cases, but my understanding of naming policy is that it (and therefore most readers) favours the common name. That's why one of the articles I wrote is at toothed wrack — I would have preferred Fucus serratus, and I didn't even know the common name until I came to write the article for Wikipedia. In this case, if we rely only on Google hits, "Pelvetia canaliculata" beats "channel(l)ed wrack" by a few orders of magnitude — it seems that when people write about this seaweed, they use its scientific name. The mere existence of a common name does not (thankfully) automatically make it any more common than the scientific name, and article titling must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Here, I think everyone favours the scientific name, but that needn't apply to any other organism. --Stemonitis 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Circle Therapy

Pelvetia canaliculata extract is an ingredient in cosmetics to reduce eye circles. Ingredients, Malibu Glitz Eye Circle Therapy:

https://picclick.com/Malibu-Glitz-Eye-Circle-Therapy-03-OZ-222520890790.html

https://cosmetics.specialchem.com/inci/pelvetia-canaliculata-extract

Drsruli (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]