Talk:Paeonia rockii

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paeonia rockii article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Suggested move to Paeonia rockii[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false positive.

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

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 ^(talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ^(talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

As far as I know it's not that clear cut; if I recall correctly tree paeony lines with the Paeonia sect. Moutan. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You should have moved it unilaterally, per our convention. ;-) Hesperian 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved unilaterally, and someone else unilaterally moved it back again. --Una Smith (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use of raw Google (that is www.google.com) is discouraged by WP:Search engines; one reason for this is that Paeonia rockii occurs in languages other than English, for which Rkitko has forgotten to correct; most of his results are false positives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then, I'll play the game. Here are the language-adjusted counts: "Paeonia rockii" -wikipedia in English G-hits (3240); "Rock's peony" -wikipedia in English G-hits (308). Still looks like Paeonia rockii is more commonly used. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment Using reliable sources is preferable anyway. Using Google Books, it gives 26 results for "Paeonia rockii" and only 2 for "Rock's Peony". Only 2 of the 26 are non-English, so that still makes "Paeonia rockii" the preferred choice of over 90% of reliable sources, or 24 to 2. First Light (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This move is being discussed also on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Paeonia rockii. --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.