Talk:Ulmus 'Koopmannii'
(Redirected from Talk:Ulmus minor 'Koopmannii')
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 11 December 2014
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 11 December 2014
edit- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move the page to Ulmus 'Koopmannii', per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ulmus minor 'Koopmannii' → ''Ulmus'' 'Koopmannii' – Cultivar derivation uncertain, Ulmus minor not known in the area that seed was collected, moreover Augustine Henry believed the tree to be Ulmus pumila . In absence of DNA proof, request new name to facilitate removal to section 'Cultivars of unknown derivation'. Ptelea (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you intend the target to be Ulmus 'Koopmannii'. — AjaxSmack 21:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would assume the same, given that wiki markup should be avoided in titles whenever possible and the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} should be utilized instead. Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose wikimarkup is wrong and bad practice to be used in article titles. Further, it is also bad English to use two single quotes. Do you wish to use "Ulmus" 'Koopmannii' instead? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support move to Ulmus 'Koopmannii' (assuming that this is what was intended). Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.