Talk:Monofloral honey

message: I propose that :Buckwheat honey and :Clover honey be merged into this article. Combining these closely-related topics into this article would reduce sourcing redundancy, improve readability, and alleviate notability concerns. Rebbing 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As the "first guy" who was uninvolved in this at RSN, I was overall familiar with the topic being an entomologist and often watching honey related pages. I suggest avoiding the personal attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks Only in death. The main trouble with the idea of separate articles is the lack of reliable sources here for points of encyclopedic interest. They may possibly have barely enough to justify brief mentions in this article. The "health benefits" are based mostly on sources without scientific support, suitable for a lightweight glossy magazine, again at best barely enough for small sections in this article. Sole Flounder's other points have rather little to do with building a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Two seconds with Google Scholar reveals 10+ pages of serious scientific research on Buckwheat honey. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you enumerate those that you think amount to reliable sources on matters of encyclopedic interest. I don't see anything that justifies an article on any individual honey. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well clearly, you were wrong, and buckwheat honey is a subject of medical research.  It's a matter of time before someone finds a nice review article somewhere. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If and when you find a review of things that are of interest to an encyclopedia, and are specific to particular honeys (rather than happening to mention the main source of the honey they were testing) you may have an argument. Until then, the separate articles are unworthy of an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, the chances of a consensus for merging seem close to zero at present. How about reworking this article per the next talk section, and keeping the individual articles to see if anything encyclopedic can be made of them? I hope that will suit everyone, and Wikipedia guidelines as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging individual monofloral honeys into ''Monofloral honey'' 

message: At present we have a long table, and most of the information in it is either copyright violation, original research, or sales talk. I appreciate that the table is sortable, but I doubt the value of sorting such ill-organized fields. I would hope that if, (with suitable thanks to Shoefly who did the table originally), we return to the separate paragraphs, we can then more easily clean up this article and move forward, with any more useful information that may be produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favor of this. Country of origin doesn't really matter in this case. It's the plant species that matters, and that will be available in the table of contents. Theoretically, any pollen source can be a source, so I'd look for a decent degree of scrutiny in deciding which sources to keep according to sources beyond just a passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving wikitable to list with prose 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monofloral honey. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620094541/http://www.bee-info.com/honigsorten.php to http://www.bee-info.com/honigsorten.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712170126/http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf to http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)