Talk:Tulipwood

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Woodworking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking articles

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Untitled

I see the nickel finally dropped. That took awhile ...Brya 13:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A wood is not a taxon

A famous wood is well worth a page in wikipedia. Such a famous wood can be derived from a number of genera, from one genus, from a number of species or from one species. It is possible to have more than one famous wood from a single species. Attaching a taxobox to every page that contains a scientific name is perfectly silly.

If the species ever were to deserve a page of its own, giving a botanical species description, than that page could have a taxobox. This is unlikely to happen here. Brya 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya, we do not have separate articles for oak wood and oak trees. We do not have separate articles for tomatoes and tomato plants. I am reverting your edit, putting speedy tags on the new one, and opening an RfC. -- SB Johnny 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having separate articles for oak wood and oak trees would not be a bad idea at all. They are topics well worth a page each, probably several (there is more than one oak wood, and the importance of these is enormous). In the long run there will inevitably be such pages. In the short term they can be in the same page because 1) oak trees are well-known to many people and worth being in wikipedia and 2) oak wood is well-known to many people and worth being in wikipedia. On the other hand this page is dealing with a wood that is well-known to many people and worth being in wikipedia. The accompanying tree is completely unknown and does not deserve to be in wikipedia. This is also evidenced by the fact that you are not adding information on the tree but are making facts up as you go along. Brya 15:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brya raises theoretical points, without answering them for this individual case:

"Such a famous wood can be derived from a number of genera, from one genus, from a number of species or from one species"

OK, as a general point. Does Tulipwood derive from a number of genera, from one genus, from a number of species or from one species? If the answer is yes, please name them, and add links to all the relevant species, and leave Tulipwood as a disambiguation page with nothing more than a list of the species carrying this name. If no, or if the name refers primarily to one species (as it does at the moment), then Tulipwood should include a taxobox and species description for its main taxon.

"It is possible to have more than one famous wood from a single species"

OK, as a general point. If this applies to Tulipwood, cite its alternative names, and make redirects from those names to this page. - MPF 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am raising practical points. The only thing I regret here is having added real information. Art the time I was not aware that pages with real information attract so-called editors who insert fictious material as a matter of right. (unsigned by User:Brya) 15:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting rediculous. What's fictitious here? You don't OWN the article, even though you started it. You should also read WP:POVFORK before continuing this silliness. SB Johnny 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I don't own the article, and basically I would welcome additions. There is a ton of literature on the use of tulipwood in furniture, related to fashions in furniture styles. There is also quite a bit of literature on its woodworking properties. There is plenty of scope for meaningful additions. However, I do feel responsible for maintaining the article and keeping it up to standards. Brya 15:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was Tulipwood used to in the past? and how can I find information on said sood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.155.4 (talk) 16:57, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Stub

As I see a stub tag here, let me quote the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Stub

Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

As the latter applies here (a very knowledgeable editor is required or very extensive research) the following quote also applies:

You can help Wikipedia by removing inappropriate stub notices.

Which I have implemented. Brya 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19983 suggests that tulipwood is neither a softwood nor a hardwood, but something in between. As these are major classifications of wood types. I would suggest that this be incorporated into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.17.211 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]