Talk:Tradescantia

Citation nitpicks

I couldn't find an archive URL for the dead link www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeddetails.pl?taxon_id=3210, so I poked through the Australian government websites until I found a weeds database entry for the relevant plant and just replaced the citation. If you created the original citation and you have ideas for improvement, please implement them!

Also, if someone could convert the citation of "Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 56: 282 (1954)" to properly use Template:Cite journal, that would be great. I think the name of the journal here is "Feddes repertorium specierum novarum regni vegetabilis".

—Ilzolende (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please remove link

in "Synonyms" Rhoeo is linked to an article which is not about the plant.

(I'd have done it myself, but seem unable)

-- thanks! :-) 2A02:3033:413:C61F:1:0:1C20:6772 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've made that edit, thank you for pointing it out! Averixus (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: Self-cite suggestion

My name is Avery Rowe, I run Tradescantia Hub which is both UK National Collection holder for tropical Tradescantia cultivars, and International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus.

I'd like to suggest a couple of self-citations to add to this article as a subject-matter expert.

1. At the top of the Cultivars section, add the following paragraph:

Tradescantia Hub was appointed International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus in 2022, and recognises over 200 accepted cultivar names.

2. In the Cultivars section, edit the T. cerinthoides 'Variegata' list item to:

−

''T. cerinthoides'' 'Variegata'

+

''T. cerinthoides'' 'Variegata' (now believed lost from cultivation)

3. Add the following sentence to the end of the last paragraph in the Cultivars section:

The UK National Collection for tropical cultivars is held by Tradescantia Hub in Machynlleth, Powys.

I believe these edits will improve the article and are in line with the tone and style of similar information presented in similar articles. If anyone thinks they should be rephrased or added in different places, please feel free.

Averixus (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The proposed added text states now believed lost from cultivation but this claim does not state who believes this. If this text were to be added to the article, it would merit the {{by whom}} inline maintenance template. Please clarify. Also, the second requested addition mentions "Tradescantia Hub". Please elaborate on what this hub is. Does it have its own Wikipedia page? When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Please note that prior text entered in the Edit request proposal should not be retro-actively altered. Instead, a new reply post supplying the needed information should be posted below this review. The original {{Edit COI}} template may then be altered. Regards,  Spintendo  23:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo,

Tradescantia Hub doesn't have its own wikipedia page (I'm not sure whether it should, but that would be a separate COI discussion anyway). Do you have any advice on what sort of information should be given about it in this context, where it's mentioned but doesn't have its own article? Since essentially the notable things about Tradescantia Hub are that it is the International Cultivar Registration Authority and UK National Collection holder for the genus, so I'm not sure of another way to introduce it.

I would consider it similar to the current last paragraph in Cultivars, where I named the other UK National Collection holder David Simpson - he doesn't have a standalone article either but seems relevant enough to mention within this article.

Or does the fact that neither David Simpson nor Tradescantia Hub have standalone articles mean they actually shouldn't be named in this one at all?

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Setting the question of notability aside for a moment, can you state who it is who believes that it is now believed lost from cultivation as the proposed text states? Also, where it states The UK National Collection for tropical cultivars is held by Tradescantia Hub can you elaborate on what "held by" means? Uninitiated readers may not understand what this distinction means. Regards,  Spintendo  03:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll change suggestion 2 to this:

−

''T. cerinthoides'' 'Variegata'

+

''T. cerinthoides'' 'Variegata' (now likely lost from cultivation)

I don't know of any recent sources which claim it's not lost from cultivation, so I don't think it needs to be phrased as a belief attributed to a particular source.

For suggestion 3, I propose adding an explananatory sentence about national collections at the start of the final paragraph, as follows:

−

The UK National Collection of Andersoniana Group cultivars is held by David Simpson in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.

+

There are two [[National Plant Collection|UK National Collections]] of ''Tradescantia'', which act as living archives of cultivated plants in the genus. Adersoniana Group and ''T. virginiana'' cultivars are held by David Simpson in Chelternham, Gloucerstershire. Tropical cutivars are held by Tradescantia Hub in Machynlleth, Powys.

Averixus (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. The second part, about where the cultivars are being held, is acceptable. The first part, about the "likelihood" of the cultivars being lost, you stated "I don't know of any recent sources which claim it's not lost from cultivation. I hadn't asked for sources that said it wasn't lost — I needed a source that says it was lost. Not being a botanist myself, it still stands to reason that if this species is lost from cultivation, then it should no longer be included in the Cultivars section. Please advise if this is incorrect. If a source is difficult to provide for this claim, than it can be left out of the article. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  23:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I did include a citation from my website stating that it's probably lost - but it doesn't visibly show up even though it's in the source of the TextDiff:

{{cite web |last1=Avery |first1=Rowe |title=Tradescantia cerinthoides 'Variegata' |url=https://tradescantia.uk/cultivar/tra-cer-variegata/ |website=Tradescantia Hub |access-date=12 October 2023}}

I would also be inclined to remove it from the Cultivars section, but it is still listed by the RHS because it once won an Award of Garden Merit (and the RHS is very slow to make updates or removals on their list). I thought clarifying with a separate source that it's most likely lost from cultivation would be the clearest way to handle that, otherwise someone might later go to update the list of AGM cultivars and add it back in when they see it's in the RHS list.

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Averixus: I'm coming late to this discussion, but do you have any independent sources that support what you want to add? It looks like you are citing your own website, which is considered a primary source. Those are considered unreliable, and furthermore, the lack of independent sourcing doesn't show that the information is notable. And to answer your question, there are no restrictions I'm aware of prohibiting you from adding information about entities that do not have their own articles, but you do need independent sourcing. STEMinfo (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, it's difficult to find independent sources because it's quite a niche subject. There are a few options to consider, although they all have their issues:

• The ISHS (the organisation which appoints all ICRAs) has a page stating that Tradescantia Hub is the ICRA for Tradescantia (is this just a different kind of primary source though?).
• I wrote an article in the RHS Plant Review which mentioned that I/Tradescantia Hub am ICRA, and that there were (at the time of writing) 238 accepted cultivars (is it still primary if I wrote it but it wasn't self-published?).
• Plant Heritage (the organisation which appoints National Collection holders) has a page stating that Avery Rowe holds the collection of tender Tradescantia (it names me directly rather than Tradescantia Hub, so the sentence for the article could be rewritten if that's more appropriate - although it might also be worth considering whether there should be some clarification that Tradescantia Hub is run by Avery Rowe, if both are mentioned separately in the article?) (a different kind of primary again?).
• HortWeek published a short article mentioning Avery Rowe as a newly-awarded collection holder (although it erroneously says all Tradecantia cultivars, when the collection has always been just tender cultivars). (here's an archive link if you can't see around the paywall)

I haven't got any alternative citations for the disappearance of the 'Variegata' cultivar. It's difficult to prove that an unnoticed loss of something is "notable". But I do feel pretty strongly that not mentioning its disappearance (and leaving it in the list by default because the RHS haven't got around to updating theirs yet) will have a negative impact on the usefulness of the article for readers.

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Averixus: Spintendo beat me to it. My original response follows. Thanks for taking the time to leave a detailed response. I think some consideration can be given for an organization announcing you or your group was appointed to hold the collection, versus you saying it on your own site. The notability question still exists, but with a niche subject like this, with an organization and industry with limited media outreach resources, I expect the lack of mainstream media coverage is to be expected. I'll come back when I have more time, if someone else doesn't respond first. And by the way, it looks like you've flipped the first and last name fields in the references. STEMinfo (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Reply 17-OCT-2023

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The claim regarding the location of certain cultivars was added to the end of that section.
2. N The claim Tradescantia Hub was appointed International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus in 2022, and recognises over 200 accepted cultivar names. was not added, because part of the text "Tradescantia Hub was appointed International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus in 2022" is covered by the text approved in number 1 above, and the second part of the text "and recognises over 200 accepted cultivar names" is not referenced by an independent secondary source.
3. N The claim now likely lost from cultivation was not added because a secondary source stating that the cultivar was lost from cultivation could not be provided. The reason provided by the COI editor for its inclusion, because the RHS haven't got around to updating theirs yet, is not sufficient enough to add the claim without a secondary source. (See WP:TIND.)

Regards,  Spintendo  19:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response!

To clarify, being International Cultivar Registration Authority is entirely separate from being a National Collection holder (an ICRA keeps a checklist of cultivar names, while a National Collection holder grows living plants).

I understand there's no independent source for the number of cultivars, but the ICRA status should still be mentioned separately from the National Collection. I suggest this addition at the top of the Cultivars section:

Tradescantia Hub was appointed the International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus in 2022.

And removing the ISHS citation from the last paragraph (because it's not relevant there).

@STEMinfo also helpfully pointed out that I had switched the first and last name fields in the reference for point 1. The correct reference format should be:

<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rowe |first1=Avery |title=National Collection |url=https://tradescantia.uk/collection/ |website=Tradescantia Hub |access-date=12 October 2023}}</ref>

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed both claims regarding repositories, as neither of them have secondary sources. The claim Tradescantia Hub was appointed the International Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus in 2022. was declined because it is not clear what is meant by having this designation. Regards,  Spintendo  22:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest changing "the genus" to "the Tradescantia genus":

Tradescantia Hub was appointed the International Cultivar Registration Authority for the Tradescantia genus in 2022.

For the National Collections, here are a few other sources to consider. Are any of them acceptable, perhaps in combination with the primary sources which clarify the exact scope of the collection that each person holds?

David Simpson's collection of Andersoniana Group and T. virginiana cultivars:

• Plant Heritage
• Lancashire Post

Avery Rowe's collection of tender Tradescantia cultivars:

• Plant Heritage
• HortWeek

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Averixus Thank you for your reply. If you could clarify what it means to be appointed an International Cultivar Registration Authority—specifically—what does that appointment entail? Regards,  Spintendo  07:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, how's this:

Tradescantia Hub was appointed the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for Tradescantia in 2022. The ICRA is responsible for recording and maintaining a checklist of the correct names for all cultivars in the genus.

Averixus (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Your response describes what ICRA does, but the "Hub being appointed the ICRA" does not make much sense. Regards,  Spintendo  22:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure I understand what information is missing. Do you mean I should clarify who appoints ICRAs and how the decision is made? Or do you mean the date of appointment is irrelevant and it should just state that Tradescantia Hub is the ICRA?

I'm struggling to think of a way to add all of the context and detail necessary to explain the statement without it becoming irrelevant for this article. Isn't it sufficient to wikilink International Cultivar Registration Authority for readers who want to understand more?

What about this:

The International Society for Horticultural Science appointed Tradescantia Hub as the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for Tradescantia in 2022. The ICRA is responsible for recording and maintaining a checklist of the correct names for all cultivars in the genus.

Averixus (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the Hub is the authority? If that's the case, a much better way of stating this would be The International Society for Horticultural Science appointed Tradescantia Hub as an International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for Tradescantia in 2022. As an authority, the Hub is responsible for recording and maintaining a checklist of the correct names for all cultivars in the genus. A description like that would answer all of my questions,, and any potential reader's questions, about what the Hub does. I'm afraid that in the text you've proposed, those roles are opaque. Please advise any feedback on my suggestion. Regards,  Spintendo  09:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's right, Tradescantia Hub is the authority responsible for the tradescantia genus. The International Society for Horticultural Science is an umbrella organisation which chooses specific people or groups to appoint as ICRAs responsible for particuar groups of plants.

I think your suggestion is good, my only change would be to replace the words "As an authority" with "As the ICRA" in the last sentence. (Since the word "authority" is quite broad and could be ambiguous, whereas ICRA specifies the particular type of authority). But I would also be satisfied with your original suggestion as it stands, so you are free to decide.

Cheers, Averixus (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Regards,  Spintendo  16:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I appreciate your patience while I figured out the best ways to phrase and cite everything. Averixus (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)