Talk:Canna (plant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agropedia Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

	Canna (plant) 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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Meters as well as feet

Mention meters as well as feet. Priority on meters too.

[edit] Recommended merge

I would suggest merging this article with Cannaceae, since the genus Canna and family Cannaceae are identical, whereas "Canna" is somewhat ambiguous (although its use as a plant name is probably more familiar than its use as an island name). "Canna lily" an atrocious common name--plain old "canna" is both simpler and more accurate, and is also fairly commonly used, at least in the United States. Canna (plant), Canna (genus) and Canna lily should all be redirected to Cannaceae. MrDarwin 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canna Species

The list of species seems to be based on the work of Professor Maas. However, Dr Tanaka has subsequently produced a revised list of Canna species, including some new species he discovered in South America. Should we not be quoting that classification of species?

[edit] Semi-protection

--Giantsshoulders 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This page has been placed in Semi-protection to stop anyone from editing it. As it is very much a page under development, still inadequate in many areas, this seems a strange and arbitary move. Can someone explain why this has been done?

[edit] Canna Category

After several hours effort I had all the Canna pages pointing at a single Cannas Category page, the same as every other major genus. I returned several hours later to see it all destroyed. This is blatant vandalism. No attempt to discuss, just arbitarilly destroyed. Why?

It looks like the page was modified by an automated bot. These sometimes do things they are not supposed to do, or perhaps you made some kind of mistake in setting up the Cannas category. I can't answer your specific question so you should ask the question on the talk page of the user who created the bot--just check the page history. MrDarwin 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead photo

The Canna Collector 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)The photograph is of a red Italian Group cultivar (x orchiodes), and not Canna x generalis as the text indicates. What should be done with this image?

Giantsshoulders 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)In addition, the use of x generalis is deprecated, and the group name should be used instead, if at all.

I have a great photograph of the world's first Canna hybrid, C. 'Annaei', will that be more appropriate?Jumping Jack Flash 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

217.33.199.77 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Indica was the first species discovered, seems most appropriate.

--195.93.21.34 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Solved it for you, keep the photo and correct the description!

[edit] Cannas category

Giantsshoulders 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Why has the Cannas category been removed? I found that to be a great index to the genus and other associated articles and used it all the time.

The genus is Canna not "Cannas," and you may create the category for the genus Canna and use it, if it has not already been created. It should be created, in the last case, but you don't have to be the one to do it. KP Botany 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Canna is a category, and it may be used. KP Botany 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using "Cannaceae" as the category; this category already exists, most of the canna-related articles are already included in it, and it's rather redundant to have a separate category for "cannas". MrDarwin 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're supposed to use genus level categories rather than family level, and make the genus a subcategory of the family. I disagree with this, but I'm not fighting it. Wikipedia will be one of the few plant sources that don't use families as categories, but, apparently, this is how it's supposed to be.... KP Botany 03:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Cannaceae is monotypic, Category:Canna would be utterly redundant. In response to KP's comment: genus-level categories are used elsewhere where there are several genera in a family where the family category would be entirely too large if they weren't separated (imagine how large Category:Orchids would be if it weren't broken down!). Generally, we're to use the most specific category we can. And it's not meant to be a statement regarding the other plant sources using families as the category. Because of the limitation of Wiki software to not display more than 200 entries for a category on one page, it is preferred to break it down when it gets too large. Genera categories are the way to do this with large families. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have this written up on WP:Plants? The limit of 200 entries is a bit difficult, because, in fact, biology did not give a nod to Wikipedia when creating the known universe. But that's another battle. If this is the case, make sure we have the policy up and get the Canna category deleted. If we don't have the policy up, let's write it, and make sure that the Canna category is deleted and only Cannaceae used. Sorry, Giants, for the inconvenience. We can get a bot to reintroduce the categories to the pages, if necessary. But let's wait until it's completely clear what we're doing, and it's in writing. KP Botany 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we do have this written anywhere--it's just been the consensus I've come across, but it would be good to have a conversation about it at WT:PLANTS. I was also going to reintroduce a conversation about additions to WP:NC (flora) regarding the consensus we came to over subgenera, sections, cultivars, etc. so we can make it formal in the naming convention (See: User talk:Ptelea for the reason I want to get our convention on cultivar naming set). I wonder if TOL has any guidelines on categories? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, also the cultivars (see my comment about that). It is much easier if we have the policy written somewhere, makes page moves painless, also. KP Botany 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the American continent?

The origins section states several times that cultivated cannas come from "The American continent". This is only made more mysterious by a link to a page on the Americas which confirms that there are two continents that make up the Americas. Which continent does the article refer to? The introduction says that the genus is native to both North and South America. Can we get a clarification on this?Ethel Aardvark 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed per your request. Feel free to edit unusual encounters like this yourself. Thanks for the alert. KP Botany 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have cleared it up but I was a bit confused and didn;t know enough to get it right. Actually I still am confused. The introduction says that the genus is native to both North and South America while the origins section states that "Canna is a South American genus". I assume the genus is native to both continents and we can we remove references to "the American continent" and claims that it is an exclusively South Am genus. But this is well outside my normal geographic range so I'll levae it to the knowledgeable to clear up. Thanks Ethel Aardvark 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone else is probably confused. I think you should just go with your gut, or your brain, and say, hmmmm, why does it talk throughout about the Americas, then leap to South America alone and just edit it. The section is still confusing, but not for that reason. KP Botany 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The section was translated from an early French book, the Americas was a common term in those days. It is right that we are more precise here. The actual range is from Northern Argenina to the southern states of the USA, taking in the islands offshore as well.Giantsshoulders 11:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canna as biofuel=

I have supplied canna rhizomes to five international and smaller companies conducting trials on various plants ability to supply energy for the future. The feedback that I have is that Cannas are the most productive producer of ethanol of all, their high starch content, the highest of all pant life we are told, means that they are in there as heavy contenders in the right climate. However, we are not getting quotable feedback on this subject. I am aware that the wikipedia statements about biofuels are unsubstantiated and I am happy to remove them from the Canna article, unless somebody thinks that we should stick-it-out until we get feedback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsshoulders (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a policy about blog links?

I recently added links to some serious blog articles that added, in my opinion, references to material that is not dealt with in the Wikipedia article. The same day, they were removed. Why? External canna links to many of the University sites are a shambles, but never questioned; these were well researched and substantiated articles.----Giantsshoulders (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main photo on taxo

This seems to be a very weak photograph of a genus that normally has people gasping for breath the first time they experience it. Can somebody come up with a more "dynamic" photo than these 2nd rate specimens in somebodies front garden?