Talk:Cultivar

message: The two different meanings within the code of nomenclature seem to me to have too much emphasis, which is getting in the way of explaining what a cultivar is to those who don't know. I'd like to trim the lede to remove that discussion from that part of the page (leaving it below under "Formal definition"). As it stands I hesitate to do what I had intended, which was to list "cv." as an abbreviation, link to it from CV, and from Malus (the last of which needs some cleaning up about how it formats cultivar names, but that would require a clear definition of cultivar and cv.). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the opening paragraph explain in some detail exactly what a cultivar is?  I'm not sure what you are alluding to when you speak of "two different meanings" - which paragraph contains this emphasis?  Perhaps ypou have edited it already. By the way, a subtle point re the use of cv. is that it is no longer used in front of a cultivar name e.g. Populus nigra cv. 'Italica' is incorrect. However Populus cv. is fine.Granitethighs 21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I haven't edited it. The main problem seems to me to be that the lede is so long and detailed. Do you have any suggestions about how to link "cv." with the CV page? I'll work on Malus, which is a mess due to confusion, apparently over whether all domesticated apples are one cultivar or many (definitely the latter). That may be something that this page could clarify if one had time to work on it. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Two different meanings

message: I've waited almost four months for a reasoned response to the capitalization abuse issue raised above, and not received one, so I'm going with what MOS says and clarifying the messy, confusing use and misuse of the term and capitalization of it in this article.  I've changed it to not refer to anything but cultivar group by the word "group" herein, and to capitalize that term, per MOS:CAPS, only where the actual standard is to do so, i.e. when it is used in a name.  If anyone has an issue with that, take it up at WT:MOS, because it's going to be about how this term is treated site-wide, not just in this article. Actually, I've done this already at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cultivar group capitalization, as more than two editors' input here would be helpful to arriving at a consensus. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's definitely a generic noun, so I don't see why it would be capitalized. Tdslk (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Following [[WP:MOS]]

message: As I stated before, the capitalized word Group has a very specific meaning ib Cultivated Plant taxonomy.  You clearly do not understand this field of study where precision of word presentation and use is critical. In the interests of avoiding "weird stylistic ideas" you have suggested modifications that will result in the following botanical entities:
*1. Group
*2. group
*3. cultivar group
*4. Cultivar-group
*5. cultivar Group.
Amazing though you might find this claim it is absolutely true. All of these are technically different entities. In a campaign for political correctness you sadly do not have the interests of the wikipedia reader at heart or the interests of plant science. The logic of this claim is absolutely clear - what is also perfectly clear is that you have no intention of listening to reason. As noted in the article the capitalisation of Group is specified in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants so you can check this out for yourself - click on the link.
(Cultivated Plant Code Art. 3 Brickell 2009, pp. 10–12). Granitethighs 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as there are relatively few people interested in alternate translations of elite English jargon into standard English jargon, there will always be public displays and other publicly available and often intentional confusion spread to the innocent mind of a reader who genuinely respects the truth and therefore deserves to know it. That is a tragedy, and a trampling of a human beings most basic rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with differences in opinion and everything to do with actions that provide indisputable proof of animous thinking. Which does not align with un-animous beings and un-animous rights and pretty much signifies that the spiritual house one will reside in for the majority of lives is animal, that long term un-animous housing  is not feasable - Dirtclustit (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!Granitethighs 06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating confusion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cultivar. 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  tag to http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/courses/HORT217/Nomenclature/description.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306203301/http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html to http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs/TMI/HORT234/Nomenclature.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. 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/20141126034200/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm
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) 08:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultivar. 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/20051015035630/http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm to http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm
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) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cultivar. 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/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226124519/http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0605/opinion.asp
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) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I am asking if is there a taxonomic rank below cultivar? like subcultivar?
if there are more then one please tell me! also below cultivar is there format?
BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer your question directly, but the article Cultivated plant taxonomy refers to categories or ranks named "Group" and "grex" which may or may not be instances of what you call "subcultivar". Blanchette (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Group = cultivar group is a rank above cultivar. Grex is also a rank above cultivar, used only for orchids; it refers to all cultivars derived from a cross between particular parents. There are no ranks below cultivar, because it refers to one unique cultivated variety. Similar cultivars can be placed in a Group. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there anything below cultivar?