Talk:Poinsettia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White Goop

I bumped into my coworker's poinsetta and got covered in this white gooey stuff that reminded me of glue. I was wondering if this is normal? Some sort of stuff that runs through the veins of the plant or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.45.237 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's totally normal, they all have that weird stuff. I think that's the stuff people think (wrongly) is poisonous. I think its sort of a circulatory system for the plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.202.235 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Light deprivation

It is essential that the plant receives no light at night between approximately October and Christmas. The slightest exposure to light during this critical period will often prevent "flowering".

If that's true, why does the photograph of the plant in the wild show the "flowering" effect? Presumably, the photo is from Belize, which is pretty far from the Arctic Circle. —BozoTheScary 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section

I just deleted a section of text that was added by 70.156.13.232 on May 8. It has some info that may have been taken from truthorfiction.com, and has a bit of somewhat-misplaced information on the genus as a whole. --Xanzzibar 15:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Poinsettias might cause death

I am not sure where I am supposed to write this. I thought it was important to add the fact that poinsettias, like everything that causes diarrhea and vomiting, could cause death. Just so people are aware that even if poinsettias are not poisonous it is not a good plant to own if you have pets or children that like to chew in plants.

The only recorded case of poinsetties causing a death in a human is in the 1919 urban legend, which is already mentioned in the article. The fact that they can cause diarrhea and vomiting is also mentioned. That those can cause death doesn't really need to be mentioned - anyone owning a pet or having a child should be aware of the dehydration risks those cause (even if the risks from it happening from poinsettia ingestion are light). Additionally, we shouldn't label every little thing that can hypothetically cause death, particularly when the chance of it happening is so slim. --Xanzzibar 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can the following excerpt be any less enlightening as to toxicity? "POISINDEX, a major source for poison control centers, says it would take 500 bracts for a 50-pound child to eat an amount not found to be toxic in experiments."

Why would I want to know amount to eat NOT found to be toxic? Is this a misprint? SalineBrain (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree BIG TIME! Why say they aren't toxic when it IS possible for death to occur? It's crazy! Goldraid (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Granted, the Euphorbia lines are pretty deserving of this reputation. Reference: http://www.theamateursdigest.com/epoisons.htm
What we really need is a breakdown of the medically-active ingredients and their concentration in various parts of the plant. And just because commercial poinsettia aren't that bad, doesn't mean their ancestors weren't. This goes also for visually identical plants that have a common ancestor. We may have subconsciously bred out this 'feature'. Same argument has been used for members of the night shade family like tomatoes. I'd also be interested in a genetics study of commercial varieties of those families as well as the succulents. Too bad this could cost billions of dollars as there's thousands of species of euphorbia, alone. The advantages to medicine might be worth it, though.
I agree that being oversensitive to dangers actually makes us less prepared for them. You're getting diminishing returns and wasting resources that could save a lot more lives, overall. i.e. Drunk drivers killing more in a year than airplanes have EVER killed. Smart money is to consider airplane safety a mostly solved problem - keep existing level of effort and worry now about the coffins with wheels on the ground. This is mostly the reasoning that causes humans to live past 70 and die from health problems like breast cancer and heart attacks instead of blunt-force-trauma and tooth-decay-related deaths.  ;) 2601:1:9280:155:6155:1881:4B26:F3D4 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointsettia Monopoly

The paragraph refers to "about 10 years ago" which is not only indefinite, but relative to the date of writing and thus perishable. Does someone have time to research this correctly? Snezzy 19:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Watering?

Does anyone know how often a Poinsettia should be watered? Should this be included in the main article? Artemisboy 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Feeding

Should Poinsettias be fertilized at all? In the Cultivation section I don't see anything about feeding. -- Kheider (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Euphorbia pulcherrima, commonly named poinsettia . . . .

Oh come on now! This should be "The poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) . . . ." This article, along with a great many other Wikipedia articles on botanical subjects (unlike those on zoological ones), needs a pedantectomy! (We don't have "Canis lupus familiaris, commonly named dog" or "Equus caballus, commonly named horse," do we?) Plants universally known by common names should be listed under them. Kostaki mou (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but there are many plant editors that disagree with us. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Euphorbia pulcherrima → Poinsettia — WP:Naming conventions: Use the most easily recognized name. ENeville (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. Wikipedia, as in the section above, exists to communicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Quite honestly, unless you have an inkling of the MESSES and WARRING that determining the "most easily recognized name" before that convention was established, you should not even consider invoking WP:COMMONNAME. Asit is, the convention applied to plants is because it is a domain where it was agreed that WP:PRECISION easily trumped WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to plant names. Circeus (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see anything at WP:PRECISION referring to WP:NC or otherwise settling a case such as this . Can you elucidate? ENeville (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We always said we were willing to make exceptions; as the most economically important potted plant in the world, this may well be one. My main concern is that "Poinsettia" is not only a common name for Euphorbia pulcherrima, but is also a marker for a number of closely related plants; e.g. Euphorbia cyathophora (Summer Poinsettia, Wild Poinsettia, Painted Leaf Poinsettia), Euphorbia dentata (Green Poinsettia), Euphorbia heterophylla (Wild Poinsettia) and Euphorbia pinetorum (Everglades Poinsettia). A number of these species were once considered members of a separate genus named Poinsettia, but this was overturned; the French Wikipedia's article on Poinsettia follows this meaning: "Poinsettia est un genre botanique maintenant invalide... ", and it has a separate article on this species. I conclude that there is clearly a broader group of plants that people apply the name Poinsettia to, making this title imprecise and ambiguous. Oppose. Hesperian 23:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Poinsettia converted to a common name set index per my comment above. Hesperian 23:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
  • The above argument starts by making a good point about this topic being "the most economically important potted plant in the world". The stated concerns ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be dismissed accordingly. Also, this is an English language encyclopedia, not French. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • English indeed; perhaps you might consider conforming to the English meaning of words such as "inexplicable".
    • If PRIMARYTOPIC is of grave concern here, then you can fully discharge those concerns by moving the contents of Poinsettia to Poinsettia (disambiguation), then redirecting the former to Euphorbia pulcherrima. I'm not actually suggesting this is a good idea; I'm merely demonstrating that PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant to this discussion. Hesperian 11:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, primarily because I think there should be an article about the species and a separate article about Christmas poinsettias, making it even more important that Poinsettia be a set index article. The article mentions these are garden flowers in parts of Australia with suitable climate; this is true also in Florida USA, and probably elsewhere. --Una Smith (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hesperian. --Rkitko (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hesperian and Una. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hesp and Una make very good points. Oppose. Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hesperian and Una. There is no single "Poinsettia", there are many. The set index page works wonderfully to solve the problem ("imprecise and ambiguous") of several species having an all too common name in common. First Light (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unless I'm wrong about the rarity of using the term Poinsettia (unqualified, as opposed to phrases like "Wild Poinsettia" etc) for anything besides Euphorbia pulcherrima. If I plug in "Poinsettia" as a common name on plants.usda.gov, for example, I get E. pulcherrima. However, Merriam-Webster says "any of several species" "especially" E. pulcherrima (the other dictionaries I checked mostly listed only E. pulcherrima, when they were specific enough to identify a species). So it doesn't seem to be clear cut - E. pulcherrima is the usual meaning but perhaps not the only possible meaning. Kingdon (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The only poinsettia most people recognize is a Christmas poinsettia in full display. This can be any one of several varieties and cultivars of Euphorbia pulcherrima produced for the Christmas holidays, excluding the rest of the species. Should a multi-stub article about Christmas poinsettias take the page name Poinsettia? --Una Smith (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NC#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name and, most importantly, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If this topic doesn't meet primary topic criteria, nothing does. Of all the five potential topics to be named "poinsettia" listed at Poinsettia, this is clearly the primary topic. Two of the other four listed don't even have articles in Wikipedia, the remaining two are not nearly as well known. It's not even close. FWIW, there is a POV movement that favors using Latin scientific names instead of English commonly used names per WP:NC for plant articles, even in blatant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC cases such as this one, and that may explain most if not all of the otherwise inexplicable Oppose votes here. The closing admin might consider discounting these votes accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh gosh yes, please do discount any and all votes that disagree with Born2cycle. It is an established fact that anyone who disagrees with Born2cycle about anything is wrong.

      For the record, this has nothing to do with PRIMARYTOPIC, which is relevant solely to whether the search term "Poinsettia" should deliver the searcher to a disambiguation page or the E. pulcherrima page. When the opposers here speak of imprecision and ambiguity, they are concerned with the question of which title would best capture the scope of the article content. "Euphorbia pulcherrima" captures that scope exactly; "Poinsettia" does not, because it is imprecise and ambiguous. Born2cycle consistently overlooks this consideration, because xe is obsessed with article names whilst not giving a hoot about article content.

      Hesperian 07:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

      • Personal attacks (e.g., "he is obsessed") aside, the Oppose argument is predicated on the assumption, without explanation, that the topic of this article should remain precisely the specific species Euphorbia pulcherrima. Why should that be so, when the truly notable topic is whatever people generally conceive when they say and hear the word "Poinsettia"? That happens to be almost entirely, but not exactly, Euphorbia pulcherrima. So, in addition to changing the name of the article, the scope should be slightly changed to be more in line with what is the primary topic referred to by Poinsettia. Euphorbia pulcherrima should redirect here, and be discussed here, but not exclusively. That's the way article organization and naming generally works in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Personal attacks (e.g., "there is a POV movement") aside, that is Born2cycle's definition of notability; it isn't Wikipedia's. COMMONNAME has something to say about which name should be used as the title of our article, given two names for the same topic. But it has nothing whatsoever to say about which of two closely related topics merit/s an article. Notability is determined by other means, as you know, because I personally have been over this point with you at least a hundred times.

          It seems to me that you're acknowledging that the scope of an article should match the scope of its title. It follows, therefore, that an article that is about, precisely, Euphorbia pulcherrima, should be entitled Euphorbia pulcherrima, and an article that is about, precisely, poinsettia, should be entitled poinsettia. What you're proposing is that we should replace our article on Euphorbia pulcherrima with an article on poinsettia, solely so it can have the title you want it to have. Sorry, but you're putting the cart before the horse: article content trumps article title. First you pick a notable topic to write an article about; then you decide upon the most appropriate title for it. You're the only person I've ever come across on this 'pedia who thinks the article content should be manipulated for the sake of achieving a nice title. Hesperian 23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

          • An oblique reference to a POV movement is not a personal attack, the comment does not even mention a person, but if you or anyone else is offended by it, I will remove it.
            As to the topic of this article, the title and topic was Poinsettia since 2002, until a little over a year ago, when the title was unilaterally changed without discussion, much less going through the WP:RM process. Only after the title was changed was the topic changed to be about the species narrowly and specifically. What this move discussion is ultimately about is restoring the article to the original state -- title and topic scope -- at which it was maintained from 2002-2008.
            Although all RM discussions are explicitly about article titles, often a change in scope of the article is implied too, and this particular move discussion is no exception. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • In that case, your arguments with recourse to WP:COMMONNAME are not relevant, and it is incumbent upon you to give reasons in support of your position that this article should be about the topic poinsettias, rather than about the topic Euphorbia pulcherrima. If you can demonstrate that (a) the topic poinsettia is more notable than the topic Euphorbia pulcherrima; and (b) the two topics are so closely related that they should be handled in a single article; then it will follow that this material belongs in an article about poinsettia, for which the best title is poinsettia. Before you begin presenting your arguments, I remind you again that COMMONNAME has nothing to say about topic notability. Hesperian 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Update: I thought I'd have a look at the reliable sources that would be used to write decent article/s on this/these topic/s. I started with taxonomy, but unfortunately Bruyns et al. (2006) "A new subgeneric classification for Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) in southern Africa based on ITS and psbA-trnH sequence data " is paywalled, and the World Checklist and Bibliography of Euphorbiaceae isn't online. I moved on to phylogeny, and had a read of Park & Jansen (2007) "A phylogeny of Euphorbieae subtribe Euphorbiinae (Euphorbiaceae) based on molecular data". Interestingly, they make the point that the group of plants previously published as genus Poinsettia, but now rejected as a genus, is in fact a monophyletic clade. They refer to this clade as Poinsettia throughout; in fact they use the term 11 times in their paper, and in every case they are referring not to E. pulcherrima but to a monophyletic clade containing several species. I can't stress this enough: reliable sources use the term Poinsettia in reference to topic quite distinct from E. pulcherrima, and of much less notability. Hesperian 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Update: I found, and followed up on, a mention that the best source for the taxonomic history of Euphorbia is Steinman and Porter (1999) "Phylogenetic relationships in Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae) based on ITS and ndhF sequence data". When they use the term Poinsettia they always mean the non-current genus of around 24 species, now maintained by some botanists at subgenus rank as Euphorbia subg. Poinsettia (Graham) House, and by others at sectional rank as Euphorbia sect. Poinsettia (Graham) Baill. So there's another example of a reliable source that uses Poinsettia for a topic distinct from, and of lesser notability than, E. poinsettia.

              At the bottom of page 455, in reference to Euphorbia, it says "The genus is best known for the common Christmas poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch) and is popular with horticulturists because of the prevalence of succulents."—perhaps you should propose a move to "common Christmas poinsettia".

            • Update: the best source for morphology would be Mayfield (1997) "The Systematics of Euphorbia sect. Poinsettia" but this is almost impossible to get hold of.

              Recommended sources on cultivation include the defunct Euphorbia Journal, and the International Euphorbia Society's Euphorbia World. The latter has sample articles available for download; this one refers to the "Poinsettia or Christmas Star, Euphorbia pulcherrima"; but subsequently refers to members of E. subg. Poinsettia as "these Poinsettias". So there's another reliable source that uses the term "Poinsettia" for a broader group than just Euphorbia pulcherrima. Hesperian 02:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

              • "So there's another reliable source that uses the term "Poinsettia" for a broader group than just Euphorbia pulcherrima." Which in an of itself establishes what the notable topic and name here is. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                • WTF? So topic breadth establishes notability now? Opisthokonta is a more notable topic than animal? Why are you wasting my time? Hesperian 03:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Huh? Topic breadth does not establish notability. Usage in reliable sources establishes notability. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • Have you concluded from the above that Euphorbia pulcherrima is not a notable topic? Hesperian 04:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                      • Euphorbia pulcherrima is not nearly as notable as Poinsettia, especially to the general public, per WP:GOOGLE results (see below). Because they are so closely related, both can be covered in the same article, to which Euphorbia pulcherrima should be a redirect. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                        • Shall I count the number of times I pointed out to you above that WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with notability? Hesperian 06:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
                          • Per WP:MERGE, if there is enough overlap between two notable topics, then there should be one article covering both topics. I think we can all agree that there is a lot of overlap between the precise topic Euphorbia pulcherrima and the topic, Poinsettia, which I also think we can agree is a bit broader. The only issue is, if they are merged, as they were from 2002-2008 without any issues or troubles, what should the article name be? That's where WP:COMMONNAME applies (as well as "most easy to recognize" from the top of WP:NC). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
                            • You're assessing the overlap between the sets of meanings that each term can take, rather than assessing the overlap between the topics themselves. In order to unambiguously refer to the actual topics here, we might temporarily refer to them as "Euphorbia pulcherrima" and "Euphorbia subg. Poinsettia". The question is whether there is enough overlap between these two topics to warrant a merge. The fact that the name "Poinsettia" is used for both topics is irrelevant to assessing the extent of their overlap. It is only after we have established whether or not the topics should be treated in a single article, that the question of naming comes to the fore. Hesperian 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                            • Update: we now have an article on Euphorbia subg. Poinsettia. Hopefully now you can see the two topics at hand here, and appreciate that Poinsettia is not itself a topic.

                              If I understand your argument, you think that these two articles should be merged because the name Poinsettia is used for both? Hesperian 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

                              • No. I think the plant or plants commonly referred to as Poinsettia is a notable topic and should be in an article. Whether there are other topics that are so closely related to that topic that they should be merged into that same article is a separate matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                              • update: After looking at your new article about the subgenus of "around 24 species" I do not think that topic should be merged in with this one. If it is true that the subgenus is "competition" for the name "Poinsettia", I think it's pretty clear that the species that is the topic of this article is the primary topic between them. I think that article is fine at the title you created for it. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                                • Though initially the term "Poinsettia" seemed to me rather nebulous, and therefore not suitable for use as a title, the process of researching and writing Euphorbia subg. Poinsettia has made it clear to me that "Poinsettia" really only has three significant meanings: E. subg. Poinsettia, the species E. pulcherrima, and the flower of E. pulcherrima. So long as the last two of these are treated together in a single article, I agree that the E. pulcherrima species/flower complex is the primary usage. So that's that settled. However, I note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states "If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used."; hence this PRIMARYTOPIC thread turns out to be a red herring after all. The issue at hand is whether the "what reliable sources call the subject" WP:COMMONNAME condition is met", and whether the "sufficiently significant economically or culturally" WP:NC (flora) condition is met. Hesperian 06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We can't move it from one Latin name to another, consider the other options in the name of English!
Christmas flower Christmas Flower, Christmas star Christmas Star, how I wonder what you are ...
We have the choice of Mexican Flameleaf, or Paintedleaf, these are lovely descriptive names of the Lobster plant. It commemorates Atatürk in some place or another, perhaps there is a way to honour the great botanist here:
Poinsetta,
Poinsettia,
Pointsettia.
The first choice stills honours the man, and is less foreign, the last one rolls off the tongue a little easier. Is there a rule about using the lower case "poinsettia" in Common Names, perhaps we can get around that by moving it to Poinsett's lobsterplant ... oppose — cygnis insignis 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
These are all such obscure potential alternatives that there is no evidence of anyone ever suggesting their use for this topic, until now. Such blatant rationalizations merely establish the existence of the "POV movement that favors using Latin scientific names instead of English commonly used names per WP:NC for plant articles, even in blatant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC cases such as this one" mentioned above. Please consider and ignore accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment to admin/closer. Since this article was originally at Poinsettia, remained there from 2002-2008, and was moved unilaterally without discussion last year, this is essentially the first discussion about whether the article should remain at its original name Poinsettia, or be moved to Euphorbia pulcherrima. As such, if the discussion ends in no consensus, that establishes no consensus for the 2008 move to Euphorbia pulcherrima, and the original location at Poinsettia should be restored. Unilateral moves without discussion should not be rewarded. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi. I'm an admin. I close a lot of move requests. I'm reading this one, and I might close it. In reply to your comment here - we're not one tenth that lawyerly at Requested moves. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment to admin/closer. The idea that this thread can be fairly characterised as a "discussion about whether the article should remain at its original name" was proposed by Born2cycle at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 13#Speedy bold move revert section/proposal, and failed dismally to obtain support. His instructions to you, that "no consensus" means the page must be moved, are therefore knowingly and wilfully deceptive. Hesperian 05:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You sound precisely like him. We're not lawyers here. The move will be closed based on the merits of the arguments, and not based on some technical interpretation of a rule. Speaking as a move-closer, we're also not such fools that you have to tell us to ignore the above. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Though related, that proposal was about having a new section under WP:RM to allow for speed bold move reverts without discussion. The closer/admin always can decide what to do in no consensus situation, including deciding to take into account the fact that an article had been long established at a given name, and then moved without discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter whay you say the thread was about; the notion you're espousing here was rejected therein, and you know it. Hesperian 06:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The move was in accordance with MOS guidelines WRT plants. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the admin/closer will see it differently, but it is my understanding that all potentially controversial moves should go through WP:RM, especially moves in accordance with MOS guidelines that contradict naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That notion was rejected too. And you know it. Hesperian 06:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hardly, WP:RM states quite clearly:
  • "If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself"
  • "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial."
Anyone could reasonably disagree with any move of a topic from a common English name to an obscure Latin name. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that says "all potentially controversial moves should go through WP:RM"; in fact, that claim was explicitly rejected when you put it to the community, as was your preferred definition of "potentially controversial" as "anything that Born2cycle might eventually disagree with, ever." Hesperian 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please "comment on content, not on the contributor." - WP:NPA. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is, to my knowledge, no policy, or guideline, that requires editors to ever use WP:RM. It only exists as a convenient location to notify admins of a move that someone can not do themselves and as a central location to notify others that a move is being discussed. Many proposed moves logically also need to be brought up with the wikiproject, but WP:RM exists as a convenience, not as a requirement, in my understanding, at least. But what would I know, after all I have only done about two thousand RM related edits. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is no official rule that requires anyone to go through WP:RM. Yet when moves are potentially controversially, even if admin help is not required, many (most?) editors put their move requests through the WP:RM process. Doing that brings more attention and scrutiny to the move, and ensures, to a reasonable degree, that there is consensus support for the move in question. When someone makes a potentially controversial move without going through WP:RM, and gets away with it without anyone noticing, I personally don't think we want to reward that behavior. But maybe that's just me. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is. I have no desire to discourage good-faith, bold moves, even ones that might possibly be controversial. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the same reasons given above. Imc (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cocktail

Someone has just restored the last version of this article, supposedly by me. I just want to say that I had nothing to do with the section on the poinsettia cocktail. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Poinsettia Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Euphorbia pulcherrima → Poinsettia – According to WP:FLORA: "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany". That surely is the case here.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Dohn joe (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment as nom. In the 2009 discussion above, it was noted that the poinsettia is "the most economically important potted plant in the world". It would seem that that would qualify for an exception to the default scientific name rule of WP:FLORA. The two main concerns that I see from that earlier discussion is that 1) there are other species with "Poinsettia" in the common name (e.g., Wild Poinsettia, Everglades Poinsettia), and 2) Poinsettia was formerly used as a genus name. Both of which lead to some degree of impreciseness and ambiguity.

    As to 1), this situation is not unique to "Poinsettia". For example, even though there are dozens of species that use "Sunflower" in the common name (e.g., Prairie Sunflower, Texas Sunflower), we put the article on Helianthus annuus at plain old Sunflower.

    As to 2), Poinsettia was recognized as a genus for only 22 years, and has not been recognized as a genus for over 150 years. Today, the usage of Poinsettia for the deprecated genus is quite rare - and WP doesn't even have a stub article on it. I would think that the overwhelming modern usage of "Poinsettia" to refer to this species more than makes up for any confusion with the deprecated genus.

    All in all, it seems like this is the sort of exception that WP:FLORA had in mind when it was drafted. Dohn joe (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. When a subject has a name common enough to appear in multiple major dictionaries and general-purpose references, we should certainly use that name. See Britannica or Oxford. Kauffner (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; the scientific name provisions at WP:FLORA are overapplied. Powers T 20:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose still per Hesperian comments in the first discussion above as there is ambiguity in the vernacular name. The exceptions laid out at WP:FLORA are usually applied in cases where the vernacular name cannot be misunderstood. Here, there is ambiguity. Rkitko (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the common name can be applied to several species. Exactness trumps it in this case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons mentioned above. Anyone searching for poinsettias is almost invariably be looking for pulcherrima. And in the off chance they're not, that's what hat dabs are for. --Xanzzibar (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too much ambiguity—nothing has changed since the extensive discussion above. First Light (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ambiguity is coming up again in the comments. I had meant to address that issue in my opening comment. Just to reiterate: there's no more ambiguity here than there is with Sunflower. If this were really an ambiguity issue, then "Poinsettia" would be a disambiguation page. Since "Poinsettia" redirects here, the only issue should be the convention at WP:FLORA, and whether "Poinsettia" fits the exception there. In other words: we have already decided that the usage of "Poinsettia" for this species outweighs any other usage. I'd be interested to hear what the three opposing !voters have to say on this reworded point. Dohn joe (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I started off as a Wikipedia editor with reservations about WP:PLANT's policy of preferring scientific names as article titles. Experience has changed my mind. "Poinsettias" are whatever is grown in a particular country under this name; they may be cultivars of a particular species, but equally they may be hybrids with other species. Since "Poinsettia" can redirect (immediately or via a disambiguation page), there's no inconvenience to readers in using the scientific name. (And Sunflower absolutely should be fixed; this is a highly ambiguous English name.) The issue is not what kind of name is used, but that of one topic = one article. Almost all English names for plants are not sufficiently specific to define one topic and hence one article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Since "Poinsettia" can redirect, why not just use "186720935" as the article title? There's a reason we don't do that; having the article title be immediately recognizable is just good user interface design. That's why "recognizability" is one of the goals of our article titling policy. Furthermore, if Poinsettia continues to redirect here, that kind of obviates the argument that it's ambiguous, doesn't it? The universal rule used throughout the entire rest of Wikipedia (WP:FLORA aside) is "if it's unambiguous enough to be a redirect, it's unambiguous enough to be the title." Period. Why is WP:FLORA special? Powers T 16:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Recognizability is one of the goals of WP:AT. Precision and consistency are others. The issue is whether "Poinsettia" is sufficiently precise to serve as an article title. My contention is that it isn't, and more generally that the English names of plants rarely are. WP:FLORA isn't "special"; its policies were developed to deal with the situation as it is. In the case of birds, for example, there is an internationally recognized list of English names for birds, so the English name can be both recognizable and precise and a consistent policy of using the English name can be followed. In the case of plants, there are some semi-official lists of English names used in particular countries, but because there is no international list, these country lists give different names. So in the interests of precision and consistency (and also neutrality, especially avoiding ENG:VAR disputes), the policy is to use scientific names, sacrificing (in some cases) recognizability. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Precision in the article naming criteria is just as important. And I take exception to the implied point that people landing at this page will be so confused they might implode or wander off in stupor simply because the article is titled at the scientific name. For the same reason there's no tragedy that airplane redirects to fixed-wing aircraft, readers immediately understand they're in the right place: 1) they typed in Poinsettia and were directed through a redirect, set index article, or dab page; 2) the lead sentence clearly states what the article is about; 3) people are smart enough to understand that what they were after is a species, so it's no surprise to land on an article titled at a species name even if that name may have previously been unfamiliar to them. And what we're saying here is that as is the case with airplane/aeroplane there is a conflict in the naming at the vernacular name. In order to resolve that conflict, we opt to be more precise and go with the scientific name, explaining the conflicts on set index articles or dab pages as necessary. Your point about the existing redirect is moot - just because it redirects at the moment does not mean that it is or was the best choice. Rkitko (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I understand your point, but fixed-wing aircraft is not a good analogy, because it is not more precise than "airplane" or "aeroplane". "Fixed-wing aircraft" includes gliders and kites, and so is not just a more technical word for an airplane. It is like a genus, and would be like redirecting "Poinsettia" to Euphorbia. Fixed-wing aircraft is actually an example of wiki-political correctness gone amok to the detriment of the reader. Dohn joe (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Can we at least agree that if ambiguity were not an issue, then "Poinsettia" would qualify for an exception under WP:FLORA? Dohn joe (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Sometimes the right choice is obvious... and this is one of those times. It is a "Poinsettia," and further, there is no ambiguity; the other uses are far minor when compared to the universal understand of the name of this plant. Let's not over-think this. Make the change. Senator2029talk 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Anyone searching for poinsettias is almost invariably be looking for Euphorbia pulcherrima. Mr.Atoz (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think preciseness is an issue here because the article is about precisely what almost everyone in common usage calls a poinsettia. For the rare person that wants to learn about one of the more obscure relatives of Euphorbia pulcherrima, they are probably already aware that there is a well-known plant commonly called a poinsettia, and a "for other uses of, see..." serves quite nicely. In practice, as long as the person who enters "poinsettia" into the search box is sent to this page, the title is not a major issue to me. Tdslk (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Seem to be no ambiguity in the vernacular name although maybe there is different understanding of ambiguity? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:UCN (use common names) as applied in WP:FLORA. The fact that Poinsettia already redirects here means that the ambiguity dog don't hunt. —  AjaxSmack  02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • As I already said above, the fact that one of the vernacular names currently erroneously redirects to this article and has not yet been corrected is not, itself, evidence that the claim of ambiguity is specious. See some more concrete arguments for ambiguity above in the first move discussion. Rkitko (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      Feel free to start that discussion. In the meantime, however, "Poinsettia" has either been the title of this article or redirected here for ten years, despite pretty active editing and several discussions. Dohn joe (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, largely because Poinsettia has redirected here for three years anyway. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poinsettia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poinsettia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poinsettia/Archive_1&oldid=1137089721"