Talk:Cultivar group

message: I don't see how "cultivar group" is a proper noun, despite what the ICNCP might say. Does the ICNCP actually state that this is to be capitalized or do they use it as such? I see far more instances of this title being lowercase (USDA, academic publications...) and sometimes with a hyphen. I suggest this be moved back to the lowercase version. --Rkitko (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific section in the code to cite for these changes? Capitalizing every instance of "group" in this article seems a bit unnecessary to me. And the article title and most common usage is still "cultivar group". I admit to not having read through the entire code, so if you could point me to the appropriate article and section, I'd appreciate it! --Rkitko (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have added the actual citation of the Group and its definition in the latest ICNCP. Granitethighs (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization 

message: When was the concept (under any term) introduced in to the Code?  We need a proper history section; the only history we have is on the rename.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem is that earlier versions of the Code than the 2009 one were either not available online or were not free to access, so I think answering this would need access to a library which has the older versions. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses. Foiled again.  And what about the 9th ed.?  I saw a PDF but it was partial and full of watermarks, like maybe it's a draft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only online source I've been able to find seems to be deliberately like this. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of the concept? 

message: This is my last (and obviously vain) attempt to "normalize" at least the introduction of this article. A) Professional issues: 1. A cultivar-group is an OLD (and forbidden) name according to the ICNCP, therefore it cannot be in the article title or even the first word in the first sentence in an article citing the ICNCP as its main definition. 2. A cultivar-group is NOT the same entity as a Group because a Group can be composed of individual plants (etc.) (see the definition in the current ICNCP) while a cultivar-group can be only composed of cultivars (see old ICNCP definitions, but actually this is trivial). B) On a personal note: 1. Do not remove scientific (and actually even binding) sources (i.e. the ICNCP), just for fun or just because their content does not match your personal (wrong) opinion. 2. Do not put wrong information into this (or any other) article based on the following argument you have used in the edit summary: The title must match the fist word in the first sentence -> the title cannot be changed because we do not want to change it -> therefore we cannot change the first word in the first sentence to its correct version. If you do not see the errors in this "argument", then this article is definitely lost.
[Edit was by 2a02:ab04:3cb:f000:4833:7e01:3a4e:58b3, 01:36, 2 December 2017‎]
:I agree that we should not be using "cultivar group" (hyphenated or not) as if it were a synonym of "Group". However, "Group" is too ambiguous to be the title of the article, which does create a dilemma. The other complication is that the English Wikipedia has a strong consensus against "specialist capitalization" which means the "Group" is frowned on. So the accuracy and professionalism of this article is indeed difficult to ensure. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edits