Talk:Acer negundo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Acer negundo is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
SICA ZP
Latin America Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Additional drawing:

image:Manitoba_maple_keys.jpg

This page should be moved to Box elder, which is a much more common name than "Manitoba Maple". SCHZMO ✍ 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a regional difference actually. The sensible solution would be to move it to "Acer negundo" and keep the appropriate redirects in good shape. (Of course, "boxelder" does redirect here already). SB Johnny 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Manitoba Maple → Acer negundo – Two common names that both have equal common usage; "Manitoba Maple" tends to be used in Canada, while "Box elder" tends to be used in the U.S. Thus the article should have the scientific name because neither common name is more common than the other. SCHZMO ✍ 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support, as with Canada bunchberry/Canada dwarf cornel, if colloquial names are not universal, then neither should be used as the main title, and using the magic of wiki, both can be redirected to A. negundo --chris 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - see discussion below - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - this plant's common names seem to vary by region (again, I've never heard one called "Manitoba maple") SB Johnny 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

and I've only heard of it as Manitoba maple, hence my support. :) --chris 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I've no objection to a move to the species name, provided this is also done for the other species in the same genus, so they are all grouped together in their category; having some at common names, and others at scientific names, makes indexing and finding pages difficult. Having them all at the scientific name would be best as it would also help avoid other common name variations in the genus, but might be unpopular with some other contributors. - MPF 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course, some species are well known by their genus and species names. (Hosta, Ginkgo) With at least two common names for Acer negundo in its native range, maybe it should be titled "Acer negundo". Using any of the common names is giving preference to a particular region of North America. --Kalmia 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Moved per WP:TOL. Two in favour, one neutral (against as moving the remaining does not make sense), and WP:TOL makes a case. I did a quick search on the two common names, and they are ruoghly equally used. And if I would chim in, it would become three in favour and one against, which in either case is consensus as per WP:RM instructions (66.7%, 75%). If there is a different consensus in a later stage, the page can be moved again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This has left a highly unsatisfactory situation with one species at the scientific name, and so indexed separately from all the others which are at common names. Two options suggest themselves; please indicate preferences:

  • Move the other maples to scientific names, so all are at Acer xxxx
  1. MPF 15:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. JoJan 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore this page to Manotoba Maple
  • Leave be, for now (option added by SB_Johnny)
  1. SB Johnny 19:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) -- As much as I (as in me, personally) would like to see all articles about living things be moved to page titles of scientific names (and agree totally with MPF, as he well knows), I really don't think we should go about that using back-channel (i.e. "genus-by-genus") methods.

[edit] US-centric disto map

I really like the maps from the USDA, they are really nice maps showing where plants are in North America, but my only concern with them is that they are US-centric. The maps show the subnational divisions (states) of the USA, but not those of Canada (provinces) or México (estados). I think it would be a positive Wikipedia move if someone were to make these maps different from those of the USDA and have them North America-centred, as opposed to USA-centered [sic]. --chris 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

The page I have linked incorrectly implies that box elder is an ash. Otherwise it is good. I think that since this is a topic some kids have to use for school it would be very good if every fact were carefully sourced, so that they can easily source their papers. Also diagnostic descriptions and classifications are not the same everywhere. These are the reasons we should source things even when they can be generally accepted as fact. Thanks? 131.212.62.90 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction suggested change

This article has an introduction that is difficult to grasp, but seems to mostly be about biases for and against certain common names rather than about Acer negundo, the tree.

"Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), as the species is called in Canada, also known as Ash-leaved Maple or (confusingly) Box Elder in the United States, is a species of maple, which occurs throughout most of North America."

I believe the article can include information about the common names, but the introduction should read something like this, because the article is about the tree:

Acer negundo is a species of maple (Acer) that grows throughout much of North America.

Common names

It is called Manitoba Maple in Canada, and Ash-leaved Maple (also Ashleaf Maple, Ash Maple) or Box Elder (also Boxelder, California Boxelder, Western Boxelder, Inland Boxelder, Boxelder Maple) in the United States. The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because the tree's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because it is the only maple species with compound leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range.

Please post comments. KP Botany 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right, and the suggested changes are more inline with the new flora naming conventions. May I remind you to Be Bold? Unless you are suggesting a major or controversial change to a major or controversial article, always feel free to just jump in and make the change yourself. If someone doesn't like it, they'll revert it or say something. :) In this case, btw, I would only put the common/scientific names themselves in bold font, leaving the rest of the text normal. Keep up the good work! --NoahElhardt 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

This article really needs a thorough and comprehensive overhaul. I think this is one of the negative things about this intense focus on certain common names being "incorrect" or "confusing," that it eats up real content. In fact, that's pretty much what the article seems to be about, the tree's confusing common name, as that is first paragraph after the almost nothing lead paragraph, "Acer negundo (Boxelder maple) is a species of maple native to North America." KP Botany 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about etymology from user talk page to article talk page

[edit] Common names for Acer negundo

Why did you remove the discussion of the common names for Acer negundo from its article? The inclusion of the information was discussed on the talk page, and your opportunity to disagree was then, and is there, not be revising. Please replace the information you removed, then discuss your reasons for it on the talk page, or I will simply revert your edits, assuming you had no reason, as you have not given one. KP Botany 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I count three paragraphs at the start of the Acer negundo article which discuss its common names and are listed under the section heading "Common names." Please clarify what has been removed. ◄HouseOfScandal► 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The section on the etymology of the common names, "The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because this maple's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because of the compound, or fully dissected, leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range." KP Botany 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay, the whole article is a mess, but you did remove something that actually said something, and left in lines, instead, about certain common names being "confusing" or whatever. KP Botany 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take a few minutes and look more closely. Ash, elder, maple syrup, those common names, etc. -- its all still in the article. The only bit that is missing is is the explanation of the "box" element. I am often wary of etymologies -- even those appearing in reasonably respectable sources are sometimes wrong (or at least fall ito the category of "folk etymology"). If you think the buxus mention is important, stick in back in. Just please maintain the "thought to be" or some similar wording. ◄HouseOfScandal► 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying the etymologies as a compromise to try to move away from one user having to write in every article with a common name that the common name is incorrect or confusing. I should source the information, and will, but the sources of common names are important, as common names are part of the ethnobotany of the plant, they can show where they were important, how they were important, and to whom and when. And, yes, I noticed the common names were listed elsewhere, that's why I commented that the article was a mess, upon rereading. I think asking that it be sourced is reasonable. But your suspicions of common names and dislike of "folk etymology" are POV. The common names exist. If they don't belong in an article about the tree, where do they belong, in their own article? I'll source the paragraph. KP Botany 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response
  • Please carefully read articles and discussion before making negative comments based on the context therein. Neglect in this area is disrespectful to fellow editors, wastes the time of all involved, and has necessitated the rebuttals that follow.
  • The suggestion that I have an aversion to common names is false and contradicted by all evidence. I retained the common names in the article except two which indicate a subspecies (these could be mentioned in that section). The name elements I list (ash-, -leaf, -leaved, etc.) can be combined to form a quantity of names far exceeding those previously listed. I even added two common names: Negundo Maple, and Red River Maple.
  • The accusation regarding POV in my edits to this article is unfounded and annoying. I already said the Buxus mention was fine as long as it was either referenced or not listed as a hard fact. You seemed to agree to this suggestion yet used it as a foundation for an accusatory rant.
  • While there is always room for improvement, the Acer negundo article is organized, well-written, and appropriately referenced . Since discussion of the common names of A. negundo took up so many lines of text, I decided a section heading "Common names" near the start of the article was a good way to deal with it. While it is your prerogative to disagree with the decisions of other editors, to describe this article as a "mess" is impolite and inaccurate.
  • I appreciate your attention to this subject of interest to us both and am going to make some edits based on your comments. I will not, however, engage in this dialogue further. ◄HouseOfScandal► 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you didn't bother to read what you removed, and since you didn't read the discussion on this talk page about the content that you removed, and since you didn't read what I wrote, your first point is more than a bit disingenuous, but doesn't surprise me. I'll weigh the rest accordingly. KP Botany 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you really put me in my place. I can only imagine how bad I would feel if you grasped the nuance of the word disingenuous and had used it correctly. ◄HouseOfScandal►11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And can you imagine how I would have felt if you had actually read anything the first time, like maybe feeling the need to reread my post? Nope. No surprise that not having read what you removed, you don't want to discuss the article. So, why not stick with what you wrote, something about not engaging in this dialogue. Oh, well, again, you don't appear to read what you write any more than what you delete, or agree with what you say, so how can I won't value what you say any more than you do. KP Botany 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)