Talk:Sinopodophyllum

Updated genus name change to Podophyllum

The Catalogue of Life has updated taxonomy as of February 26 2018. Sinopodophyllum hexandrum is now Podophyllum hexandrum: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/browse/tree/id/b34fbedadedb16671c5933939dfe94f6

Should the name of this article, Sinopodophyllum, be changed to Podophyllum? However, Podophyllum already exists as an article for the species peltatum, and erroneously states that peltatum is the only surviving species of Podophyllum when there are now 14 species in that genus. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/browse/tree/id/b34fbedadedb16671c5933939dfe94f6

I am new to wikipedia and am unsure of how to change all of the taxon date, but wanted to bring this matter to attention of the community. Zorathefish (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

'Sustainable Himalayan May apple export from the Nepalese Himalayan region'

@Caplan.dm: @Joseph Laferriere: @Mdann52:

• On October 18th 2014, User:Joseph Laferriere created this article. On 10th December 2014, User:Caplan.dm added much relevant information on gathering this medicinal plant from the wild and its cultivation. Caplan.dm is a new user who has never previously contributed to Wikipedia. On the next day, this new content, which amounted to 8378 B, was removed without adequate explanation by User:Mdann52 who afterwards stated that he did so as a result of Wikipedia:Coatrack. I have reinstated the removed information and invite discussion here on whether it should be included in the article, reduced in size or removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, this needs cutting down at the very least. 80kb describing one region is far too much. I also smell a possible copyvio, but will have to look further to make sure this is not the case. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

At least none of my material got deleted. As for the rest, it could use some editing but I would not delete it entirely. I have seen hundreds of plant pages and found little consensus as to what gets included. And this is appropriate; food plants should have a discussion of their food uses, noxious weeds should have information about growth habits and control, medicinal plants should have an overview of medicinal uses. I adopted my own policy quite some time ago that I shall not delete anyone else's contributions unless they are clearly erroneous.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The material on the commercial usage feels like WP:COATRACK and is certainly excessive for this article; it might possibly make a suitable subsidiary article if its notability is established. The use of the term 'sustainable' feels like WP:POV; I suggest we cut down the section and choose neutral headings. I agree with Joseph Laferriere that some coverage of food usage is appropriate; what is clearly WP:UNDUE here is the emphasis on a single region. I agree with User:Mdann52 that this feels very much like something imported straight here from existing materials (vide, "as outlined in the final section of this paper"); I have been unable to establish a copyvio, but the whole piece feels like WP:ESSAY if not frankly WP:OR - perhaps the "paper" is an unpublished student essay; there is also some WP:HOWTO material which is frankly inappropriate (sorry, that's a lot of policies). Substantial copyediting is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Chiswick Chap, you have done an excellent job in copyediting and cleaning up the article. I hope everyone is happy now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Caplan.dm: @Joseph Laferriere: @Mdann52: @Chiswick Chap: @Cwmhiraeth:

Hello, folks! I see you have been dealing with the Nepal invasion. FYI, what happened at this article is not unique but part of a pattern - a cluster of articles about Nepal agriculture written from a Canadian viewpoint, each by a different brand-new user. Most of them are not encyclopedia articles, but rather analyses of the trade possibilities of a particular product, crop, or technology. We haven't figured out what is behind this cluster of articles but it kind of smells like a school assignment. In one or two cases, such as here, the new user did not create a new article but rather added his essay to an existing article.

Anyhow, knowing that this is not unique to this article but rather part of a pattern, may help you to decide how to deal with it here. There is a partial list of the related articles here: User:MelanieN/Nepal-Canada articles. Personally, I have PRODded most of these articles. When there was encyclopedic content, as there is here, I retained it, but deleted pretty much ALL of the Nepal-specific analysis. You folks can decide how you want to handle it here, but my own recommendation would be to retain the encyclopedic material about Sinopodophyllum but delete the analysis. --MelanieN (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the dreaded class assignment. A whole group of innocent newbies, led by a (supply suitable noun here). MelanieN's suggestion sounds just right. As for the rest of the class's articles ...

I have tried to clean this up, but am not satisfied; it's still an essay about something that might happen, not a description of the plant, or even of its real uses. Will try again, but am still open to the idea of deleting it.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)