Talk:Quercus × warei

Hello-

I am Josh Nadler and have been getting questions regarding the nomenclature of this plant... I thought this page would make things clear to folks and am in no way trying to jeopardize the integrity of Wikipedia. How can I post this info within your parameters.

Thanks Josh (Joshnadler (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I responded to Josh on his talk page regarding this issue. —Noah 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Note to admins reviewing the CSD: I believe we can clean the article up. Also, as soon as an Admin removes the CSD tag (if that happens) I can move the article to a new name that does not have the circle-R in the title. —Noah 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Admins... now that the article has been redirected, a ref added, personal info removed, wiki links added, taxobox added... I think the CSD can definitely be removed. Cheers, —Noah 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this page open

Thank you all for your help thus far... How can I clean up this enough to remove the last pop-up that says I have five days to fix this. Should/ Could I add a photo to make it more stately, more references, write more about the significance of the plant for the modern landscape...

Let me know what I need to do.

Thanks Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshnadler (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{prod}} template as I believe we have worked passed many of the issues. However, the issue of notability still looms. (Josh, it is very natural when you are close to a subject to assume that it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, other editors may disagree with you. It is the nature of the beast.) I am not sure how one establishes notability of a hybrid tree? As far as the conflict of interest issues goes, I would simply suggest to you, Josh, to only make further additions to the article if you have substantial 3rd party references to back up the facts. —Noah 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again [(talkback)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshnadler (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah thank you for catching the "vandalism" how do we call the Picea link "external bark of Kindred Spirit" vandalism... it is not appropriate for this page... (Joshnadler (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I erased that link and the other addition of the IP address 72.75.64.21 It was vandalism but I don't know how the put that tag on it.--Joshnadler (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to the United States Plant Patent Office on this page. This is looked at as a more creditable source than any of the options that you mentioned on my talk page. Not trying to get personal but if you, Orangemike, had been around the application process of a patent and worked with the patent evaluators to prove the worth of the plant selection, you would warrant the placement of page on Wikipedia. Every aspect of the patent is backed by science. All of the options you listed on my page are subject to personal and popular opinion. Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue. As for the question of "Notability" a plant must be notably different from all others to have a patent issued. --Joshnadler (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Uniqueness" is not the same is notability. Nobody is questioning the credibility of the patent, Josh; you've established what we call verifiability. What is being questioned is whether the tree is notable. Notability is not conferred by a patent. While a PatentWiki might be a fascinating concept, that's not what we're creating here: many patents are never noted nor licensed, however legitimate the original creation may be. The kinds of sources I suggested, on the other hand, are the kind that establish notability. However vulgar and tacky it may seem, popular opinion is one of the things that establishes notability.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page

I just moved this page to the scientific name of the hybrid, as the article discussed both the Long and the Nadler cultivars, and there was no existing article for the hybrid (which covers both cultivars). I'm also changing most mentions of Kindred Spirit (trade designation) to the Nadler cultivar name. If there were ever sufficient material to warrant splitting off an article for Kindred Spirit/Nadler again, it should use the Nadler cultivar name.Plantdrew (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives in Germany ? :-)

Hello, do you know the "Schöne Eiche" ? Looks like a sibbling to this plant. The Schöne Eiche is named to be the anchestor of all the "Pyramiden-Eichen" (oak trees of this shape) in Germany. Greetings --RalfDA (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kindred Spirit® Hybrid Oak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kindred Spirit® Hybrid Oak and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Kindred Spirit® Hybrid Oak until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]