Talk:Labrador tea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Labrador tea 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

There is an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador_Tea which ought to be combined with this one .../wiki/Labrador_tea. Tea versus tea regford 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone know if Ledum spp. has been tested for caffeine, theophylline, other stimulants etc? regford 19:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Labrador Tea should be kept as it's own page. It should not be merged with Ledum. deanshan 11:52, 21 February 2006 (AKST)

Why so? They are the same thing. Two pages using different names for the same thing should generally be merged. - MPF 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 60% that it should have its own page because its use as a tea is of interest to herbalists and folks like us that drink it and want to know that aspect and not really much about taxonomy and its place in the Rhododenron family. However, I vote 40% for having one page because I actually do find the taxonomy interesting; also both articles are small, and while I want to cheer when Wpedia hits 1,000,000 (where's the party??!!!), I think small articles should often be glued together in one bag until the contents are overstuffed. I want to see 1MM of real articles. Wpedia says 'be bold' but in this one case, I will restrain myself, Respectfully submittedregford 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we may wish to be guided by the precedent of the article on Tea itself!!! Although we may rebel against precedent if the cause be just and needful...... regford 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly regford, the uses are more important then the taxonomy for most users looking for information about the tea. I'll admit that the page could use some more information. I will put up a picture this summer (the Ledum is buried under snow at the moment). Deanshan 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, things seem ok now, not cluttered or redundant, and hyperlinked. Now, just for curiosity: much of animal DNA is non-coding. But what of plant DNA, esp in Rhododendrons. I just dunno. It's nice that the protein-expressing DNA connects Rhod. and Ledum spp. But what if it's shown later (I am just guessing) that the non-coding stuff is not so closely related. Ledum doesn't look so much like my azaleas, and tastes quite different. I think in the end maybe the taxonomy guys are going to need one massive disambiguation page. Large areas of biology that I studied as a kid have been rewritten. It was well-established that adult nerve cells never ever ever divided. And who remembers Diplococcus pneumoniae, which had to be renamed, to no great benefit. This constant renaming makes old texts sometimes unreadable. But some old texts are great work and should 'immuned' from 'novoambiguation.' There- two new words for Wikipedians!!! regford 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)