Talk:Ulmus americana

On 25 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be

American Elm. The result of the discussion

Monoecious or Dioecious

One of the hardest-to-answer but frequently-asked questions about a given species of plant is whether it is monoecious or dioecious - that is, whether one plant grows both male and female flowers or if there are separate male-only and female-only plants. This article does not say which the American Elm is, but would be immensely more helpful if it did since this is such a hard-to-find fact. I don't know, otherwise I would have added the information right now. --

Edward Tremel 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Monoecious - as far as I'm aware, all elms are - MPF 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's still not on the actual article, so I'll go add it. --

Edward Tremel 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Texas??

I just noticed that this talk page now has the Wikiproject Texas template on it...why? American Elms aren't especially native to Texas (I don't know if they even grow there). I'd just delete it but I might just be missing something and wouldn't want to mess something up. --

Edward Tremel 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a bot add, now deleted.Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bark picture is not an American Elm

The picture labeled Elm Bark is not an American Elm tree. I have three different reference books that I looked it up in, and that bark looks nothing like an American Elm. Look here for a comparison, and you'll see that the current one on the American Elm page on wikipedia is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.45.116.201 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It appears to be the bark of slippery elm (https://www.uwgb.edu/biodiversity/herbarium/trees/ulmrub_bark01.jpg), but possibly also rock elm (http://www.uoguelph.ca/arboretum/thingstosee/trees/images/dscn4382.jpg). If nobody objects then I can go out and take a photos of trees i know to be ulmus americana (can provide proof also). AustralianElm (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple photos of the same street scene/multiple seasons

Within the cultivars section of this article, there are now photos of the same street (Grant Crescent, Canberra, Australia) in two separate seasons (autumn, winter). Do people think this is excessive? I would like this article to have a series of photos showing a planting of american elms in each of the four seasons. Admittedly, such photos would ideally be from North American locations (Winnipeg, MB would be ideal). I'm interested in people's thoughts on these two issues. AustralianElm (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location of a Dutch Elm resistant or immune tree

While a teenager in 1970s southeastern Minnesota, there were three young elms (approx trunk widths 8") on the hillside behind our house. They were close to each other (~5ft apart) in a line, and all the same height, possibly indicating the same original parent's wind-blown seeds. They all caught Dutch Elm at the same time and struggled against it for several years. The two at the ends of the line eventually died. The one in the middle continued in a weakened state for several more years, periodically losing entire branches. Eventually it fought off the disease, and is now a healthy large tree with no lingering signs of affliction.

If anyone is interested and provides a contact source, I will provide the exact location of this tree.

Elms in southeastern Minnesota and surrounding environs are basically weeds (moving from the country to the city, it has always amazed me that people go to nurseries to buy saplings for dozens or hundreds of dollars when they could just walk around their own neighborhood to locate a seedling sprouting in an alleyway): They will grow extremely fast (in some cases adding six to ten feet of height in their 3rd year) when colonizing an open area during a hot and rainy summer, and can begin producing their own seeds in as little as four or five years. Compared to slow-maturing oaks, elms reproduce like viruses. Basically there's no reason to assume the species is at long-term risk from the disease, at least not in this state, as all susceptible trees have already contracted it and died years ago, and were quickly replaced by ones that aren't. Evolution-in-action.--Froglich (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope you're right :) AustralianElm (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question

This article appears very well written.

But since elm trees can be very susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease, it would be very helpful if someone could quantify the extent of the damage done by the disease (by a given date), just so readers can have some perspective on this problem. 2601:200:C000:1A0:3D3B:D14D:B7F6:5E9F (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Why is this article at Ulmus americana when

WP:AT has an actual specific example that you would name an article "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)"? Sure I get that a lot of species don't have common names cos they are not spoken of or written of lay people much, but that doesn't apply to American Elms. Am I missing something here, or should we rename the article? Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Requested move 25 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Editors opposing the move referred to

WP:COMMONNAME

.

The former was not effectively rebutted; editors tried to rebut the later by noting that scholarly results preferred the current title, but this was in turn rebutted by editors who noted that the preference among scholarly results was insignificant.

Overall, the strength of argument on both sides is roughly equal, with a dispute over which policy is controlling we defer to the number of editors in support of each position, but here we also find that the numbers are roughly equal. As such, this proposal cannot be closed as anything other than no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT itself gives as an example "[Use] Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)" and this looks quite a similar case. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support, of course, per common name. All of the latin names for commonly named things should be changed on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose while that holds true for animals (per
WP:FLORATITLES—blindlynx 16:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
For plants that don't have a well-known common name OK. I can see the reason (I guess) for wanting a guideline to encourage titling articles WP:AT was making with the Guinea Pig/Cavia porcellus point (it certainly isn't saying use the common name, if well known, just for animals). Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read the guideline. It's not about 'well known common names' but about if the the plant is notable in a field other than botany, which is not the case here—blindlynx 14:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per longstanding consensus of
WP:FLORATITLES. I see no reason to break convention for this particular article. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

So you think "Ulmus americana" is the more common and most understood name for the American Elm? Maybe consider that the consensus is mistaken, especially if Ulmus americana is touted as the common name of the elm. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but
The Heart (Pluto) redirects to Tombaugh Regio. Polemonium viscosum lists 4 vernacular names, with redirects for two of them and links from disambiguation pages for the other two. If you want to use a vernacular name for the title of that article, how do you decide which one to use? Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

please read the
WP:FLORATITLES guideline—blindlynx 21:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per the article title criterion
American Elm, but that runs contrary to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Organisms). The vernacular name elm is the title for the genus, and that's the level of a vernacular name being very well known outside of botany that we are going for. Almost no other tree species that don't produce edible fruits widely available in markets in the English-speaking world have vernacular name titles. Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of
WP:COMMONNAME BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Support WP:IAR of FLORATITLES. While using the scientific name per NATURAL disambiguation when there is no precise unambiguous common vernacular name complies with AT and D, the guidance to white wash all flora article titles just because the vast majority doesn’t have a common precise vernacular name is not justified. We should always use the vernacular precise and unambiguous COMMONNAME when available regardless of article category type. We should rely on specialized category-specific guidelines like FLORATITLES only when disambiguation is required. In this case it’s not. —-В²C ☎ 10:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The proposed title American Elm (capitalized "Elm") is not an acceptable title per
WP:BIRDCON. While I don't entirely agree with that, I'm dismayed that editors SUPPORTing move from the scientific name haven't been bothered to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia precedent on capitalization of vernacular names. Plantdrew (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I can’t speak for others, but I’m familiar with the precedent. I just overlooked that aspect of the proposal. The title should be
American elm. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 14:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support WP:CONSISTENT is a worthy goal, I don't think it has a strong enough case here to override other titling criteria. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. "Ulmus americana" beats out "American elm") in Google Scholar results. In addition, "American elm" is a regional term, whereas "Ulmus americana" is its universally known name. :3 F4U (they /it) 08:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scholar reflects what specialists call a topic. Per COMMONAME we’re looking for what common folks are likely to search with and recognize, and that’s obviously the proposed title. We already give preference to what a topic is called in English because of the en. in the url here, but especially for a species native to N America. Usage in a reliable source like the NYT is much more relevant here. There are a few hits for Ulmus, but much fewer. В²C ☎ 05:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting
WP:FLORACOMMONNAME
:

Our WP:Article titles policy contains a section entitled "Use commonly recognizable names", more often referred to by the short-cut:
WP:COMMONNAME. It is important not to confuse Wikipedia's concept of COMMONNAME with a plant's common
(or vernacular) name. The policy uses the word "common" in the context of "what name is most frequently used", and not in the context of "what name do common folk use".

It is typical for a plant's scientific name to be the COMMONNAME (i.e., the most frequently used in reliable sources). For example: the same type of plant may be called two different vernacular names in different regions. However, since both regions also refer to the plant by its Latin scientific name, that scientific name is actually more commonly recognizable than either of the vernacular names.

If ignoring this rule would improve the Wikipedia, as you suggest, the correct option would be to bring it up at
WP:PRECISE name that is unlikely to cause confusion. :3 F4U (they /it) 08:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In this case the vernacular is more commonly used in RS. Didn’t I cite the NYT? I did. The NYT trumps scholarly journals for determining COMMONNAME all day long, every day. As to your suggestion about changing the rule first, no. I explained why ten years ago. В²C ☎ 06:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But only very slightly. 20,400 to 18,800. That means that "American elm" makes up 47% of the total of a substantial number of hits. This is not a clear cut case like "American sycamore" 4,690 vs. "Platanus occidentalis" 14,900. It is a harder question.

It has not clearly crossed over from being a plant of largely botanical interest, but neither is it an "American chestnut" that gets 13,300 and quite a bit ahead of "Castanea dentata" 10,500.

But on the other hand there are more sources in total using "American elm" than "American chestnut", at least going by hits on google scholar. It is clearly a plant of very significant "horticultural, economic or cultural role". MtBotany (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This was closed by me, and has been reopened per T/P request Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Freedom4U's rationale above. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per
WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: WikiProject Plants has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 09:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
American elm per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) as I think this plant satisfies "agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural role or use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany", though just barely. This is not a slam dunk suggestion, but a just barely over the line one. Its role as a urban street tree and its sudden decline due to Dutch elm disease make it well known outside of botanical circles. MtBotany (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulmus_americana&oldid=1194440581"