Talk:Sorbus aucuparia

message: Perhaps the list of subspecies can be omitted from this page, since they have changed since that part of the page was written, and have been quite fluid for a long time (so I would expect them to change again in the next few years). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subspecies

message: There's a lot of overlap between this page and Rowan.  Perhaps Rowan should have just the cultural/folkloric text and s. aucuparia the botanical?
Hoogreg (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be combined with Rowan? 

message: I rewrote the whole text because I thought the old article was not good: it had no discernable lead and was missing essential content. That was reverted as "too radical" and because it consituted "unexplained deletion". I would say: it's a total rewrite, of course that means replacing the content. I'm not an oaf who copies text together, I did research in several libraries and followed all the rules on citing sources, copyright, and close paraphrasing, yet my work was thrown out just like that. How was the old revision better that all my writing is thrown out? Hekerui (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that you may have made significant improvements to the writing, but it's the facts that I have a problem with. When you remove statements such as that the species is native to parts of Asia, that needs to be explained (see the cited map here). Your statement might even be correct, using some different definition of the species, but where did that Europe-only view come from? The remainder of your text also seemed to have a Eurocentric bias, repeatedly using the name "Rowan", which applies to the whole genus, not just this species. If you can install your changes at a pace more suitable to the consensus-building style of wikipedia, then other editors can consider your changes individually, some of which may indeed, as you say, be excellent. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of rewrite

message: I think "Amur mountain-ash" is not a good name choice to put next to "rowan" and the others, because it concerns a plant that on the GRIN website is mentioned as merely a subspecies, and I'm not sure it is even that, because a quick Google Books search shows "Sorbus pohuashanensis" only listed as a distinct species and no mention with it as a subspecies. Also, why use the Oxford Dictionary of English (without page number) to source "quickbeam" as one word, when that is among the spellings listed at the ars-grin.gov website? Hekerui (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: on page 80, lists Sorbus pohuashanensis as a synonym of S. aucuparia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I checked  and it list it as a separate species with a mention that it is indeed "closely related" to S.a. on page 851. So one good source contradicts another. I don't assume McAllister says anything more about the relationship? The Botanica states that Sorbus pohuashanensis is over 20 m tall and native to the mountain regions of Northern China. Hekerui (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: One of the changes Hekerui introduced was a change from British spelling to American spelling, particularly the introduction of "centimeter", "meter", etc. There's no good reason for the change in an article about a species which is not native to North America. The units issue can be dealt with by returning to abbreviated units, as was the case before. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ENGVAR issue

message: Very funny "typo" I've just fixed:  (in previous article revisions, it caused many useless paragraphs listing measurement units to appear on the page). Take care. --Djadjko (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting