Talk:Canna (plant)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recommended merge 

message: --Giantsshoulders 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canna Category 

message: The Canna Collector 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead photo 

message: Giantsshoulders 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, Canna is a category, and it may be used.  KP Botany 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cannas category

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What is the American continent?

message: 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)
thread_title: Canna as biofuel

message: 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)
thread_title: Is there a policy about blog links?

message: Could cannas reproduce if you cut the cane and stick it back in the ground?
Are there gels/powders which might help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.245 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction from cane cuttings? 

message: The photograph that has been inserted is firstly not a species, it is a cultivar. Changing its name is also wrong. Canna 'Pretoria' is a synonym for the Italian Group C. 'Bengal Tiger', which has green and yellow variegated foliage and an orange flower. This photo is of a Crozy Group cultivar and is obviously not correctly named, and so I have removed it.Giantsshoulders (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia had problems with the Commons image for Italia, so I switched to an existing image of Canna 'Bavaria', another historical landmark for the genus. Giantsshoulders (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nothing to get so worked up upon. I asked a professional botanist to id the plant and she replied that it was a canna hybrida. FYI, there is a canna hybrida, see here, here, here and here. I am replacing the image since it shows the flowers in different stages and the leaves and thus the EV is higher. --Muhammad(talk) 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: My two cents about the photos.  The photo :File:Canna Italia 1505.JPG is an orange and yellow blob.  It does not show the plant; it shows a front end view of a flower with little discernible detail.  Given the choice betwen the two photos for illustrative purposes, the photo added by Muhammad is preferrable for showing more physical features of the flower and plant.  If it is incorrectly identified, that does not make the image any less valuable.  Incorrectly identified flowers can be re-examined for a correct identification.  For plants that are grown as ornamentals or for food, photos of cultivars can be as valid as a wild species, and in some cases ought to be preferred for the recognizeability of the taxobox image.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

text: IMO :File:Canna Italia 1505.JPG is not immediately identifiable as a Canna.  It shows a face on view of the flower with little context. Also the flower is past its prime and the plastic pots in the background detract from the image. :File:Canna sp.jpg is immediately identifiable as a Canna. It has context -shows flower, buds, stems and a portion of the leaves. and has sharp focus. There had been a previous problem with misidentification of this image and the author has sought to rectify this by making enquiries,  but I think that the caption of "Canna hybrid" would suffice.  Of the two pictures I believe :File:Canna sp.jpg is best suited for the purposes of the taxobox. Melburnian (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo not correct

message: Can Cannas be grown from the seeds that they produce?
 If so, how do I do it?
Arkiegal (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannas 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Canna sp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Canna sp.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The following list of "recommended reading" was in the article.  To my knowledge, Wikipedia should not "recommend" references not used as references.  I moved the list to the talk page.  If any of these books are used as references, feel free to add them back as such.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended reading 

message: Substituted at 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canna (plant). 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/20070927085915/http://www.botanik.de/mendel/image-galleries/blumen/indisches-blumenrohr to http://www.botanik.de/mendel/image-galleries/blumen/indisches-blumenrohr
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) 06:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the most recent version of the Kew database that powers both the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and Plants of the World Online accepts only 12 Canna species. I updated List of Canna species to include this taxonomic view. Even given the Tanaka list, there aren't enough in my view to justify a separate article, and I would be inclined to merge that article here. The lead could then be revised to give a species number range based on Tanaka and WCSP/PoWO. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list 

message: The opening paragraph says that there are 10 species but the following table says "19 classified species".
193.119.110.210 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory species counts