Talk:Cherry blossom

Requested move

Sakura → Cherry_blossom – {What is "sakura"? ~~"Cherry blossom" is already a redirect to "Cherry" so I believe this move requires adminstrator help.~~} — --Outis 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(No admin assistance is needed to remove redirects:- simply follow the redirect then click the 'redirected from' link to get to the (editable) redirection page. -- Mike1024)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Oppose. The article is not about cherry blossom in general, but about its cultural significance in Japan; something along the lines of Japanese cherry blossom culture would be a better name. Gdr 09:39, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Oppose. I think "Sakura" should be renamed "Cherry blossom" and the article should explain other varieties outside Japan, but if you want to limit it to Japan, I would rename the article "Cherry blossoms in Japan." Photojpn.org 22:37, 18 Apr 2005
- Don't follow why this apparent Support of the move (judging by the comment) is cast as an Oppose. Alai 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE, the article is about the significance of the Cherry Blossom to Japanese culture, and not about cherry blossoms in general.132.205.15.43 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the move to Cherry blossom, Japanese cherry blossom or Cherry blossom in Japan. Sakura is a well known word and this is not a botany article. DmitryKo 17:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The article is about the cultural meaning in Japan.
Support. The main part of the article should deal with cherry blossoms. The part on cherry blossoms in Japanese culture should be a subsection. Sakura is not a well-enough known word in other languages (cf: tsunami, karate, karaoke). Exploding Boy 22:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose any move, rename, etc. This article should stay at Sakura. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support both articles are very short. They can be combined to form a more complete one. 65.190.129.5 03:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia policy is "most common name in English", which would be "cherry blossom" (yes, even in the context of English-speaking discussion of Japanese culture). Alai 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deodat 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

That's a possibility. But since it's called "cherry tree" in English, and it is a tree (not its blossom) that is the subject of the article, we should consider "Ornamental cherry tree" or "Cherry tree (ornamental)" as alternatives. A disambiguation page could list "Cherry tree (fruit)" and "Cherry tree (ornamental)" with links. Fg2 07:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are better alternate titles for the article such as "Cherry tree (ornamental)" since the article is about a tree, not its blossom. Fg2 07:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why the Sakura is famous in Japan.

How about changing Cherry Blossom so it redirects to Sakura? Nearly the entire article is about the signficance of these cherry trees in Japan. Perhaps the current content could be a fairly large section of a general article about ornamental cherry trees, but simply moving it to a different name without changing the content doesn't seem like a good idea to me. -- Rick Block 14:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~My vote would be for Cherry tree (ornamental) or Cherry (ornamental) with a redirect from Sakura.~~ Exploding Boy 15:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Péter Cardinal Erdo for a recent example of how you can alter a standard "Requesed move" to add other proposals. Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. First of all, I don't understand why "Cherry blossom" redirects to "Cherry" because it talks mainly about the fruit and tree, not the flowers. Since "Cherry" already goes to the cherry article. "Cherry blossom" should go to the "sakura" article which talks mainly about the flowers. I think "Sakura" should be renamed "Cherry blossom" and the article should explain other varieties outside Japan. But if you want to limit it to Japan, I would rename the article "Cherry blossoms in Japan." Photojpn.org 22:37, 18 Apr 2005

Create a disambig page including Cherry (fruit), Cherry (tree, ornamental) and Cherry blossom, the latter to redirect to Sakura. Exploding Boy 20:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

OPPOSE, the article is about the significance of the Cherry Blossom to Japanese culture, and not about cherry blossoms in general. People searching for cherry blossoms may not appreciate a Japanese cultural page instead of talk about the repoductive cycle of cherry trees. 132.205.15.43 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, sakura is a Japanese word, and anyone even vaguely aware of the significance of sakura in Japan would know where to start looking. People who aren't aware wouldn't be searching for sakura. Exploding Boy 22:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a reason to move sakura to cherry blossom, that's a reason to disambiguate cherry blossom into cherry and sakura 132.205.64.135 20:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you please place your your votes in the top of this section and sign them with ~~~~... thanks. DmitryKo 17:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decision

Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 17:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sakura

I never heard of the plant called Sakura, yet I and anyone I know who think sakura would think the anime series. I believe 'Sakura' should send to the disambiguation page, or at least keep a notice with a direct link to the anime version too. Elfguy 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's because you and your friends are anime geeks. Sakura is a flower and your anime are named after it. Jpatokal 15:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merge with Prunus serrulata

An editor (User:ChongDae) has requested that the Sakura article be merged with Prunus serrulata. I strongly oppose this suggested merger. The Sakura article is as much about a cultural phenomenum as it is about the plant, while the Prunis serrulata article is only about the plant (and should be only about the plant). BlankVerse ∅ 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose.PiccoloNamek 21:10, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Not all sakura are Prunus serrulata, some are derived from other cherry species - MPF 21:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Prunus serrulata:

An editor (User:ChongDae) has requested that the Sakura article be merged with Prunus serrulata. I strongly oppose this suggested merger. The Sakura article is as much about a cultural phenomenum as it is about the plant, while the Prunis serrulata article is only about the plant (and should be only about the plant). BlankVerse ∅ 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BlankVerse JoJan 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia, we don't split the object and the cultural phenomenon on the object. (See apple.) -- ChongDae 21:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose a merger. Not all sakura are Prunus serrulata, some are derived from other species of cherry, including P. sargentii, P. subhirtella and others. - MPF 20:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rather than a merge, I would say that the article sakura should include botanical informations, like what species fall in Japanese cherry category, like MPF said. (See ja:サクラ.) --Puzzlet Chung 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prunus serrulata is clearly going to deal with it from the scientific point of view. This is about the cultural significance of cherry blossom. It may be about the same physical object but the two pages have quite distinct themes.Dejvid 19:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

I added taxobox into the article, because sakura is the term indicating a kind of tree. --Puzzlet Chung 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the Photoshopped image in the taxobox

I think it's important that the image in the taxobox (and really, all wildlife/nature images in Wikipedia) be left "unenhanced" (unless, perhaps, it is clearly labeled as altered). Mostly, just because it would be a better representation of the actual thing, but also (in my opinion) because it would simply look better. That's subjective, of course, but it really is bad precedent to set. So, I would like to replace the current image in the Sakura taxobox with another image. The un-photoshopped version of the current picture would probably be very nice (it's why I came to look at the picture in the first place), but another picture could work as well. Subnubilus 04:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a very good idea to change the current picture, considering that it's a featured picture. And besides, this article isn't about the technical aspects of Sakura. It says at the top of the article "This article is about cherry blossoms and their cultural significance to the Japanese". There are other articles (Prunus, Prunus serrulata) covering the scientific aspects this of these species of trees. Almsot everybody at the Featured Picture candidates section seemed to agree that it fit the article perfectly, that, "It gives a wonderful idea of why the Japanese might partake in blossom viewing, and why the Japanese have been writing waka, renga, and haiku on cherry blossoms for 1,000 years.", and "it surely captures the true essence of sakura trees, and "I think a significantly altered image (however subtle) has to be very special and make a more-than-usually relevant contribution to its article to be worthy of FP, and this fits those criteria!". Furthermore, I no longer have the original picture, and I also explain on the picture's image page exactly how I achieved the glowing effect. Besides, there are also other pictures on the page that are unaltered, such as the Tidal Basin Sakura picture. In other words, I oppose your proposal. PiccoloNamek 04:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker agrees that it is important that the photo should be unenhanced. If we are trying to show why the Japanese revere this kind of scene, we should show Wikipedea readers what those people actually see and let our readers see for themselves why that might be. By manupulating the image, you give people a false idea of what lovers of flowering cherry trees enjoy. This is an encyclopedia and deliberate distortion of images is just as bad as deliberate distortion of facts. This isn't an art forum - it's a cold, hard fact repositiory. The manipulated photo might perhaps be appropriate in a section entitled "Art inspired by Sakura" - but not at the head of the article where people are looking to see what such a scene might actually look like.