Talk:Tetrameles

Article name

I recommend that Tetrameles nudiflora be moved to Tetrameles. This is an application of WP:NC (flora) and WP:TOL and I would just be WP:BOLD except that the redirect now at Tetrameles has page history and so an administrator must perform the move. The only controversy that I can think of is over the underlying guideline, although my take was that the recent discussion of that guideline was supportive, if not unanimous. Kingdon (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 1#Monotypic genera. Dec 2008 controversies over Naming conventions (flora) have been about other matters, not this. Although there has been no objection to this move in over a month, I guess I'll list it as a regular (rather than uncontroversial) move at WP:RM. Kingdon (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move, unless there are significant extinct or fossil species. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any fossils that are currently mentioned in wikipedia. But there are some related fossils, see for example [1]. To really get to the bottom of this doesn't seem to be something I can do from here (lacking subscriptions to jstor and such). (From the hints available, e.g. Tetramelioxylon prenudiflora from [2] or the result of a google scholar search on "tetrameles fossil" or "Tetramelioxylon", I can't really tell whether the fossils are in Tetrameles or related genera like Tetramelioxylon). Kingdon (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw or oppose or whatever the right process is, the move request. The safer thing seems to be to keep the article at the species, because it is (somewhat) easier to write a genus article (with fossil info) than to split a genus article into a species article and fossil info. Kingdon (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Common names

I have undone an inappropriate (IMO) deletion of vernacular names. Common names policy actually states "Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph". There are no English names for this species to my knowledge, so English speaking people ate most likely to use whatever local name applies (esp. Hindi & Malay perhaps). Why then delete this information? I hope this is not occurring on other pages ... Roy Bateman (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In the previous sentence of the common names policy, it says: "Sourced common names used in English are to be included in taxon articles." I believe this precludes names not used in English, even when sourced, throughout a taxon article. If there are many common names used in English, the lead paragraph might include the most widely used name or names, but I don't believe this includes names in other languages either. And if there are no names in English, I don't think names in other languages should then be included. The place for such names is likely in the corresponding Wikipedia article for the relevant language. Declangi (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of the guideline is that it refers to the use of English names in the lead paragraph. Is there anything to say that local names should not be mentioned, in an article and why have you taken it upon yourself to simply delete a section with contributions from several other editors? Roy Bateman (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are no names in English, then there are no common names used in English. Plants of clear culinary or commercial interest to a particular country sometimes have useful vernacular names in the relevant country, but this doesn't apply here.

WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies when there is a bare list of names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"... useful vernacular names in the relevant country, but this doesn't apply here" - that is actually not true Peter coxhead - these are quite notable trees and local name is used by English-speaking visitors: 'e.g.' the often photographed 'spung' tree at Ankor Wat, the 'tung' trees in Vietnam National Parks ... the article refers to others, for which I am not certain of the name used. Call me dense if you will, but I just don't see how removing vernacular names improves this or other articles. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roy Bateman: (a) experience shows that once you allow a list of vernacular names in an article, nationalism dictates that every visitor to that page from every other country adds their name (b) if a plant is notable in a particular country, e.g. in its folk lore or traditional medicine, or a plant is notable at some well known location, then by all means add a (sourced) paragraph in which the vernacular name can be mentioned. What is not useful in an encyclopedia, as has repeatedly been upheld, is a bare list of names, whether English or not. Most editors who remove such lists cite WP:NOTDICT, on the grounds that such a list is not encyclopedic, and is more appropriate in a dictionary, general or specialized. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)