Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 29 December 2008

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Plants Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggested move to Paeonia rockii

It's no contest. Horticultural uses seem to prefer the species name invariably. Google counts:

Paeonia rockii - 9070

Rock's Peony - 527

I support the move to Paeonia rockii. --Rkitko 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a false positive.

Rock's peony - 568,000 Badagnani (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, there's a ton of false positives in your count. At least 20,000 of those pages don't refer to "Rock's Peony" but the cultivar "Peony 'Joseph Rock'". Without the quotes, you're also getting pages that mention both rocks and peonies that aren't meaning to refer to this species. Rkitko 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Badagnani, You're getting those skewed results because you didn't put Rock's Peony in quotes. Drill down and you'll see 'rock garden' and 'peony' as a typical result with your search. With the quotes, it goes back to Rkitko's numbers. Further, Google Books gives 26 results for "Paeonia rockii" and only 2 for "Rock's peony". Google Scholar is at a truly overwhelming 271 to 2. That's why I moved it in the first place. I don't think there's even a question in this case. First Light (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about that. Badagnani (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the move to Paeonia rockii; we have a long-standing convention of using scientific names for plants, based on the fact that vernacular names are notoriously imprecise. In addition, Google hits is a very poor tool for determining the most widely used name. I see no convincing reason to depart from the norm for plant articles. Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. I checked the page, wondering what is a Rock's Peony and I see it is a tree peony. Tree peony is the vernacular name I know. --Una Smith (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Google has about 88,700 hits for "tree peony" (quotes in the search term). --Una Smith (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. It seems that "tree peony" was attached to Paeonia suffruticosa and when the taxonomic realignment occurred, Paeonia rockii carried that vernacular name along with it when it was elevated from subspecies level, making it all the more difficult to locate a common "common name" that's precise, not ambiguous, and is used frequently. --Rkitko 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

this source (an excellent source for the article's section on taxonomy!) indicates that "tree peony" applies to the collective of species in Paeonia section Moutan. Rkitko 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to understand. Paeonia rockii is correct, and "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii" is a synonym? I'll also add a note about Paeonia rockii being one of several species referred to as 'tree peony'. Yet another reason for sticking with scientific names. First Light (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tree Peony probably should be a disambiguation page; I will make a start on it. --Una Smith (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class plant articles
• Mid-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles