Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cultivar/1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Hardyplants (talk | contribs) |
close GAR Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cultivar/1 as delist (GANReviewTool) |
||
Line 1:
===[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cultivar/1|Cultivar]]===
{{atopr}}
: {{al|Cultivar|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Cultivar/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page]</span> • [[Talk:Cultivar/GA1|Most recent review]]
: <span>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Cultivar/1|[[Category:GAR/84]]}} '''Result''': Significant uncited material remains, so the nomination statement remains valid.</span> [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)<br/>
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, some of which have been labelled as uncited since 2024. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Line 16:
:::@[[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] @[[User:Hardyplants|Hardyplants]] - the change from 'known' to 'named' was me, I just thought it read better like that; change it back if you think 'known' was better. But yes, there are plenty of named cultivars that wouldn't stand out as obvious in their wild species populations, like ''Abies procera'' 'Glauca' or ''Cupressus nootkatensis'' 'Pendula'. And of ''Chamaecyparis'' spp., "... ''three are very variable and have given rise to a ridiculous flood of selected seedlings and mutations, many of which are so similar to others as to be just not worth perpetuating. Unfortunately this flow still continues. Very great restraint should now be exercised in introducing fresh forms that will add more names to our listings but no more beauty to our gardens''." [followed by a list of over 500 named cultivars of ''Ch. lawsoniana''!] (Welch & Haddow 1993, ''The World Checklist of Conifers'' p.54 ISBN 0-900513-09-8). - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 23:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. I think many cultivars are also vanity affairs. I am not that versed in what occurs with woody plant names, but with Hosta, Iris, and daylilies, a lot of plants are named, though there is no intention of introducing them into wide cultivation. Ideally, a cultivar should be distinctive and produced in enough quantities that its distribution is not confined to a limited ___location But, that is not what happens.[[User:Hardyplants|Hardyplants]] ([[User talk:Hardyplants|talk]]) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
| |||