Talk:Weed/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


umm, i was looking at the article on the plant group "weeds" and i was puzzled by the fact that the definition of weeds (and the starting paragraph of the article) failed to include exactly why weeds are such a problem, mainly that they eat up resources that could be utilized better by more desirable plants. just hoping someone would help me decide whether to add said sentance to the introduction or leave it be.

"HOW TO CLEAR FIELDS FROM WEEDS" was the title of an article I have just seen here.

In fact the article is for a completely opposite operation: it explains how to clear weeds from fields.

To make the title grammatically correct (as well as correct in meaning) it is necessary only to delete "FROM" and substitute, "OF".

John Gibson

Eh? quercus robur 00:16, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am glad to see someone else puzzled :-) I was this morning. ant

Does anyone else find it odd/weird/strange/curious how long it takes this article to mention that weed is illiegal in the US? I love weed. Don't get me wrong. But I found this odd/weird/strange/curious. Holler at your wiki's. - Kzzl

I guess when you are busy frying brain cells it is easy to miss that this article is NOT about marijuana - Marshman 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New link removed

A page that chronicles how alien plant species have invaded Ireland doesn't fit with this page, since they aren't necessarily weeds. I've reverted. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I have moved the page back to its original location for two reasons:

  1. The second capital in the new title is against the naming conventions.
  2. The article is about weeds, not about weed science or how weeds are studied, but actually about the weeds themselves.

Cheers. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should have a name change. Weed attracts too much vandalism and is ambiguous. I disagree with the first of your arguments.
  1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions specifically allows the second capital in a new title.

"Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized "

Weed Science is almost always capitalized.

  1. Even having a new title of Weeds (plural) would be better than Weed (singular) because of the end-less dope vandalism.
  2. Those who study and talk about Weed Science actually do talk about the weeds themselves.

The article has problems and a new name might help.

Cheers (and never trying to give any offence) Wassupwestcoast 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move Patstuarttalk|edits 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Weed → Weeds – {While weed perfectly describes the formal content of the article, weed is synonymous with marijuana. This attracts nuisance vandalism and is probably responsible for the article not growing. Weeds (plural) is allowed in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) for pages describing groups of things. Wassupwestcoast 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}


Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose. Any plural form "is allowed"; it's just that the general convention is to keep things singular for ease of reference. IMHO, a bit of vandalism now and then is not a good reason to break that convention. Besides, as of 2007, Weeds redirecting to Weeds (TV series) is more appropriate than Weeds containing an article on types of weed. (Singular usage: "Many gardeners consider the dandelion a weed.") I respectfully suggest that the Weed article isn't growing because there's not much to say about weeds. :) --Quuxplusone 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in my judgement not consistent with the naming conventions. Vandalism is not an adequate reason for a move. In principle, the content policies of the encyclopedia should operate as if nothing ever gets vandalized. Savidan 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Yath 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Weed is only 'synonymous with marijuana' for a minority of English speakers. For most, it means what the article is about. Imc 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would guess that a sizeable majority of fluent English speakers know that "weed" is a synonym for marijuana. / Peter Isotalo 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No. Wrong term, not synonym. Weed is not a synonym (word identical and coextensive in sense and usage) for marijuana. Imc 07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I really doubt that we'll cut down on vandalism by executing complicated chains of article moves. Not without confusing the general readership at the same time. / Peter Isotalo 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and below discussion, I'm not satisfied there is a need for the change. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Add any additional comments

OK, you've lost me there. Why would you need to move Weed (disambiguation) to Weed?

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia naming convention - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) - says:

"There are some exceptions to this rule: Articles on groups of specific things, rather than a class of things"

So while it is true "Many gardeners consider the dandelion a weed", when talking about weeds holistically "Many gardeners consider weeds (plural) a nuisance." Morever, almost every internal link is in this form [weed]s where the code begs for a plural. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As for not much to say about Weeds ... well, you can get a PhD in Weed Science.

Cheers, Wassupwestcoast 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If — I say, if — the page is moved, then MichaelBillington would be right that Weed (disambiguation) should move to Weed, and Weeds would have to get a top-of-page disambiguation link to Weeds (TV series). Leaving a hard redirect from Weed to Weeds wouldn't do anything at all to reduce vandalism on the page, which was the stated rationale for the move. However, it looks like the consensus is unanimously against the proposed move anyway.
As for studying weed science in college, <insert pot joke here>. But I do notice that "weed science" gets 781,000 Google hits, while "weed science" marijuana gets 850,000. :) --Quuxplusone 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


This is a common use term so I have linked to Cannabis (drug) in the opening disambig, we have the weed disambig but weed as a term for cannabis is, as I say, common usgae and thus notable enough for the opening, SqueakBox 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Linking to weed's disambig is sufficient. At any rate, you should use the template for otheruses and disambigs. Im going to fix it. i (said) (did) 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is no template for links to two disambigs. I think that that might be an indicator that it is not needed. i (said) (did) 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well In that case I would suggest moving this article to weed (plant) and have the disambig page at weed as weed has two main usages, and it would probably help resolve the vandalism to this opage problem, SqueakBox 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, SqueakBox. I certainly wasn't referring to you personally and I'm saddened to have caused an unintentional offence or a perception of incivility to you personally. I think we are both equally frustrated about the vandalism problem on this page. If you notice above, I once attempted to stem the drug culture vandalism of this page by suggesting a possible re-naming which was soundly rejected. I like your idea of weed(plant) but I don't know if it will work. I do disagree with your double dab because it is already included in the weed dab page. Still, I think we should try to develop a naming consensus that will lessen the frustration of endless vandalism of this page so that the page will grow. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think SqueakBox was right to link to cannabis at the top.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-naming of this page survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was no consensus. -- Wassupwestcoast 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This page has been the subject of vandalism. The vandalism is almost entirely of one type. In pop culture and drug culture, weed is a synonym for cannabis. I propose that the page be re-named in a rational way and by consensus that will discourage this unfortunate linkage. Proposed names:

  1. Weeds. The previous argument against "weeds" is centred on a Wiki policy (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns) that a page name should be in the grammatical singular. However, the policy is a "preference" and not obligatory. Two arguments for "weeds" in the plural are: a) weeds is not a cannabis synonym (the singular is used), and b) real world academic, botanical and agricultural useage is the plural (one studies and discusses "weeds"). User SquakBox is quite right in saying that the common understanding of "weed" (in the singular) is cannabis. In agricultural college, using "weed" (in the singular) in class is fraught wil the same problem as using "nuts" in the plural: both are avoided by sticking to "weeds" in the plural and "nut" in the singular.
  2. Weed Science. The argument for this name centres on its academic usage. One studies "weed science" in most agricultual colleges and faculties.
  3. Weed (plant). The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) policy doesn't specifically address the issue of the parathentical suffix (plant). In Wikipedia, this seems to be used in some cases with broad groupings of plants in the phylogenic or taxonomic sense and not the ecological or agricultural senses with which "weeds" are defined. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy does not address the issue. A compelling argument against is the presence of the ambiqous singular "weed".
  4. Weeds (plant). This name combines two suggestions.
  5. Weeds (agricultural). The definition of "weeds" is ambiguous outside of its agricultural / horticultual / forestry definition. Weeds are only studied in colleges and faculties of agriculture and forestry:within this domain there is a formal and understood definition. There is precendence in the suffix (agriculture) in these pages:Field (agriculture), Crop (agriculture), Flail (agriculture), Terrace (agriculture), and Three Sisters (agriculture).
  6. Other possible names. "Weeds" certainly has a historic and current usage that dominates any other candidates. Invasive plants has a different meaning than "weeds".

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

"* Support". Weeds (agriculture). The plural useage is not confused with cannabis. Agriculture is the domain of the study of weeds. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I guess I reluctantly support a name change to weeds. I wish the name could stay as it is... Most people legitimately looking up the other kind of "weed" will know enough to search for "cannabis" or "marijuana" (given that this is an encyclopedia), and I think we should keep a strong preference for the singular naming convention. But I have to admit the vandalism has been persistent. Weed (plant) and Weed (agriculture) are both okay but not my preference. In the first case, of course, both senses of "weed" refer to plants. In the second case, "agriculture" (or "science") feels too restrictive. I suspect the most common use of "weed" or "weeds" is by regular people (not necessarily scientists or farmers) talking about various plants in their yards, gardens, or sidewalk cracks, and I think the article can cover such usage. --Allen 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support keeping the article named Weed. The MoS says singular titles, and just because there is to-be-predicted vandalism doesn't mean we should change it. As for changing it to Weed (plant/agriculture) I don't support that either. That would require another Weed (suffix) article, and if it was Weed (drug) it would redirect to Cannibis, and therefore be worthless. Just add a link to the disambig page. i (said) (did) 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Navigational boxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was no feedback. -- Wassupwestcoast 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Navigational templates: there are two suitable for this page

Agriculture navigational box Gardening navigational box

The advantage to this page and to Wikipedia in general is that it will attract interested readers and editors who may add constructive text. Both navigational boxes are appropriate to this page on weeds. The convention is to place these navigational boxes on to the article page as an aid. Such templates - topic appropriate - are ubiquitous across Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

After 7 days, there has been no comments either way. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


can there be a link at the top directly to cannabis (drug). it seems logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)