Talk:Pterocarya fraxinifolia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Move P. pterocarpa to P. fraxinifolia
[edit]The taxon appears as P. fraxinifolia in taxonomical databases, like
2010 Midterm Election Joke
[edit]Since there's a joke going around, I found what appears to have been the first newsy site to really report it (Talking Points Memo) and added a couple sentences and a reference describing it. Have a feeling this article will be getting a lot of views in the next few days - hopefully not too much vandalism. Dan (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend semi-protecting. but I suspect it's low enough on the hierarchy of articles that it's mostly unnecessary. But expect a couple weeks of vandalism, probably until the US election cycle is over. --ES2 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I made this edit specifically to deal with anticipated traffic pertaining to pre-election events and let readers know that the claims it's the "official tree of the Tea Party" are a joke. I made it after checking to see whether the joke had actually been discussed in media that Google News carries, as opposed to people's personal blogs. SEWilco reverted my edit on the grounds that talkingpointmemo.com is an "unreliable source." Noting that a google for +site:en.wikipedia.org +talkingpointsmemo.com appears to yield many results, and that you don't appear to have challenged TPM as an unreliable source in all those other cases, it seems a bit arbitrary to do so on this one. The page is seeing a lot of traffic, edits and vandalism today; I'm going to reinstate the edit to try to head off a bit of that, and I hope it can be left in, this time. Dan (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- My comment was actually "not reliable source", which is somewhat different from "unreliable source". I'm not aware that vandalism is a reason to add stuff. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The name of this plant is a matter of trivial interest in the blogosphere just now, but give it a few days and nobody will care. It's not a matter of importance with regard to the actual plant, so there's no reason to have any mention of it in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)