Talk:List of flowers

message: * African flowers
* Asian flowers
* Australian flowers
* European flowers
* North American flowers
* South American flowers
I've removed these links, because I think the new category system makes them redundant.  Plant articles should be tagged with categories indicating where they grow natively. I say natively, as with greenhouses, imported soil, etc, it's possible to grow most plants almost anywhere, so listing where they will grow doesn't seem useful.  These categories can then be linked to by this article. 
This does need some more thought (I don't think simply adding Category:LocationEurope, or whatever the form is, will work).  Any ideas or links to related discussion?
Mr. Jones 06:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, although I'm not sure how to suggest formatting the categories. In general, people are not likelty to be so interested in where they can be grown, given that with help, the range would be pretty wide. Types (shrubs, vines, etc.) and color (yellow flowers, red flowers, etc.) are more useful.  The article can give where native, growing conditions like frost sensitive, etc. - Marshman 16:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of plants 

message: I'm not sure about the grammar of this title, shoudn't it be either 'list of flowering plants' or 'list of flowers' SimonP 15:04 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Do we include any plant that flowers (e.g. almond trees and coleus) or limit to plants most known for their flowers?  Koyaanis Qatsi 18:21 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I ask because if we include any plant that flowers, as we have some of the trees already, we'd end up including almost all the vegetables on this list.  If we don't, we start into some muddy waters trying to determine public sentiment.  Koyaanis Qatsi 18:23 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I would list any plant that is grown specifically for its flowers.  Thus potatoes should not make the list, but cherry trees should because they are fairly often grown ornamentally. It isn't much different than the list of Russian writers, we put notable people who are well known for their writing.  Stalin certainly put pen to paper quite frequently, but that does not qualify him for that list, just as the potato shouldn't appear here. SimonP 18:30 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Presumably also wild plants especially known for their flowers, even if they aren't grown ornamentally? Loren Rosen 18:42 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
That's a good point, yes wild plants should certainly be included. SimonP 19:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why are the names not capitalised? Some of them are derived from names, e.g. Magnolia, and others are botanic genus names. It is conventional to capitalise these, and it would be simplest to capitalise the lot. Imc 20:11, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that wild flowers should have another list, perhaps regionalized to keep it from being overwhelming. I realize the line is blurred between cultivated and wild, but a list of all could be an encyclopedia in itself.  I have many wildflower photos (of eastern North America), but they did not seem appropriate to this category. I searched for any present Wikipedia listings of wild flowers, but found none. There are a few individual ones already present, but nothing to unify any list. To get the ball rolling, I will create such a list, link to goldenrod, which is already in Wikipedia, and add the Pine Barrens Gentian, a relatively rare, but stunningly beautiful wilddlower. If the format seems good to others, please add to it. If not, rework it...  Pollinator 13:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Marshman, I see you were thinking of this too, and added the wildflower category on the page, even as I was thinking out loud. I'll hold off for now. But wonder if a second list would be better, as it is potentially huge?    I'm probably not going to be able to do much right now, as Wikipedia is very slow this morning, and I keep getting "page not found" timeouts.  Pollinator 14:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to grow trilliums, but they're not wild flowers for me, far from it, they are difficult exotics. I'm in England. Most flowers are wild somewhere. Imc 17:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I decided (as you saw) that wildflowers could be included, just categorized separately.  My feeling is, go with this organization. But as soon as the list seems long enough to justify, create something like List of Flowers: Wildflowers article and move that part of the list there.  Yes, all garden flowers come from wildflowers, but garden flowers are mostly (though certainly not entirely) exotics that have been selected for their beauty and modified by horticulturalists. Those "time outs" are driving me nuts - Marshman 17:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Imc - every flower (hybrids excepted) is wild somewhere, and to have a separate section for 'wildflowers' is nonsensical, particularly as everything included in it can also be fitted into one of the other categories. MPF 12:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Simply not true. Every flower is NOT wild somewhere. Many garden flowers are not wild anywhere, but are horticultural varieties found only in the "trade".  Of course, all have a wild relative or origin. The distinction would be whether the plant is a garden plant or a wildflower. There are plenty of books out there on "wildflowers", so the distinction is actually a pretty clear one. But of course there would be overlap. - Marshman 17:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, at species level. And it is going to be task enough to devote a Wiki entry for every species, let alone descending to the depths of individual cultivars! So far, all the entries on the list are genera, or at least groups of species in a genus. And it misses the other side of the point, that no flower is wild everywhere; my wild flowers are not the same as yours. Wild flower books are all local/regional; Wikipedia isn't. - MPF 21:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the Article 

message: I sense from the discussions above that this list is really intended to be a list of plants grown (or at least appreciated) for their flowers linking to articles/pictures of those flowers. If that is so, then most "wild plants" should probably not be included and the original article name was the correct one (List of flowers).  Flowering plants are all of the angiosperms, so a "List of flowering plants" would be a list of every angiosperm discussed in Wikipedia, a not very valuable listing considering many have very inconspicuous flowers (all grasses are flowering plants) and the taxonomic listings that exist are a far more organized way to approach listing all of the angiosperms. Any comments? Otherwise, I'll move this article back to List of flowers and provide a better intro to what it is all about. - Marshman 01:54, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that wild flowers should have another list, perhaps regionalized to keep it from being overwhelming. I realize the line is blurred between cultivated and wild, but a list of all could be an encyclopedia in itself.  I have many wildflower photos (of eastern North America), but they did not seem appropriate to this category. I searched for any present Wikipedia listings of wild flowers, but found none. There are a few individual ones already present, but nothing to unify any list. To get the ball rolling, I will create such a list, link to goldenrod, which is already in Wikipedia, and add the Pine Barrens Gentian, a relatively rare, but stunningly beautiful wilddlower. If the format seems good to others, please add to it. If not, rework it...  Pollinator 13:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Marshman, I see you were thinking of this too, and added the wildflower category on the page, even as I was thinking out loud. I'll hold off for now. But wonder if a second list would be better, as it is potentially huge?    I'm probably not going to be able to do much right now, as Wikipedia is very slow this morning, and I keep getting "page not found" timeouts.  Pollinator 14:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to grow trilliums, but they're not wild flowers for me, far from it, they are difficult exotics. I'm in England. Most flowers are wild somewhere. Imc 17:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I decided (as you saw) that wildflowers could be included, just categorized separately.  My feeling is, go with this organization. But as soon as the list seems long enough to justify, create something like List of Flowers: Wildflowers article and move that part of the list there.  Yes, all garden flowers come from wildflowers, but garden flowers are mostly (though certainly not entirely) exotics that have been selected for their beauty and modified by horticulturalists. Those "time outs" are driving me nuts - Marshman 17:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Imc - every flower (hybrids excepted) is wild somewhere, and to have a separate section for 'wildflowers' is nonsensical, particularly as everything included in it can also be fitted into one of the other categories. MPF 12:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Simply not true. Every flower is NOT wild somewhere. Many garden flowers are not wild anywhere, but are horticultural varieties found only in the "trade".  Of course, all have a wild relative or origin. The distinction would be whether the plant is a garden plant or a wildflower. There are plenty of books out there on "wildflowers", so the distinction is actually a pretty clear one. But of course there would be overlap. - Marshman 17:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, at species level. And it is going to be task enough to devote a Wiki entry for every species, let alone descending to the depths of individual cultivars! So far, all the entries on the list are genera, or at least groups of species in a genus. And it misses the other side of the point, that no flower is wild everywhere; my wild flowers are not the same as yours. Wild flower books are all local/regional; Wikipedia isn't. - MPF 21:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Flowers was correct 

message: Categorisation under the headings annuals, biennials et.c. is going to be a problem because many plants will fit under multiple headings; e.g. Begonias have many commonly grown forms, and these can be tuberous, non-tuberous perennials, houseplants in temperate regions, annuals in temperate regions, and foliage plants. Similarly for aster, daisy, sunflower, geranium, potentilla... Also, if every obscure plant is listed  here (e.g. kimjongilia) the list could run into multiple tens of thousands. Imc 17:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I think we can either select better categories (although those we have are meaningful) or list some flowers more than once if applicable. Never worry about the potential size (true for most lists at Wikipedia) until we start approaching some kind of limit 8^)- Marshman 17:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I think this is essentially a list of flowering garden plants. There already is a list of garden vegetables I believe - Marshman 16:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, shouldnt it be merged with List of garden plants? TeunSpaans 06:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not a fan of lists, especially since the Category form can replace them in many cases. But I would agree, "List of Flowers" is a bit silly, as all Angiosperms have flowers, so to attempt to list that many plants would create something unusable.  Merging with a more restricted list (Garden Plants only) makes sense, but again, would be a really BIG list. - Marshman 17:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming into this a bit after the fact, but this is one of the silliest, most pointless articles I have yet come across on Wikipedia--and that's quite aside from the sheer subjectivity of the inclusion or exclusion of various "flowers". MrDarwin 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation by lifespan is problematic