Talk:Rowan (disambiguation)

Merge

I think it would be helpful to merge the Rowan page with the Sorbus aucuparia page. Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree because Sorbus aucuparia is just one of many Sorbus species known as "Rowan", and each species should have its own page, i.e. Sorbus aucuparia should continue to have its own page. It would, however, be good to rename the Rowan page to Sorbus and make Rowan into a redirect. This is not the best place to discuss merging two other pages. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with merging to Rowan with the Sorbus aucuparia. Also disagree with merging Rowan with Sorbus. Not all Sorbus species are known as Rowans. older ≠ wiser 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is currently a problem that the page called Rowan is really about the genus Sorbus, and I think it should be renamed to Sorbus. Another page called Rowan could perhaps be made with just those species that are called Rowan (but it would surely be prone to well-meaning vandalism by people who want to add all the Sorbus species).Nadiatalent (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the link to the Sorbus aucuparia needs to be on the disambiguation page, since it is known the Rowan. Where would you suggest it goes other than in the initial description? I would accept a plant section including other pages describing varieties but for now I must insist it remains on the page somewhere It doesn't belong under some work of fiction. Come on! (Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

Disambiguation pages are short lists. Adding "The name rowan was originally applied to the species Sorbus aucuparia, and is also used for other species in Sorbus subgenus Sorbus." (information copied from Rowan) would not be in keeping with the style of a disambiguation page. I think that what is there now "Rowans are a genus (or subgenus) of deciduous trees in family Rosaceae that are notable for their red berries." is sufficient. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the use of a disambiguation page. It is there to list the various pages which might be understood to refer to pages which describe the search term. Clearly Sorbus aucuparia is the Rowan and a link from the disambiguation page needs to take the reader there. It would be unthinkable for the disambiguation page not to reference it. I'm sorry but I must insist. I don't mind the format or placement on the page. Just that it is there. Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I give up and will not discuss this further. You clearly can't tell the difference between a subgenus and a species. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nadia that isn't the issue and I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm happy to hear your opinion. But Wikipedia must surely operate on the basis that the disambiguation page guides the user to the main and most obvious pages that they are searching for. If I type in Rowan I am looking for the main plant that we and the Forestry Commission and everyone knows as Sorbus aucuparia] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen Cyfarwydd (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Zen, your argument makes no sense. If someone enters "Rowan" into the search box, they do not get to this page, they go to the Rowan page which describes all the plants known as Rowan, including very prominently, Sorbus aucuparia. Readers would typically only get to this page if they were looking for some other meaning. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my point they SHOULD get to this page! If you search for rowan in database of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew you get straight to the page for Sorbus aucuparia http://apps.kew.org/trees/?page_id=125 Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The "database of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew" referred to is actually a specialized tree list. "Kew's Rhizotron and Xstrata Treetop Walkway takes you under the ground and then 18 metres (59ft) up in the air, bringing you close to trees in a way that will take your breath away. On this website, you can take a virtual look around the walkway, follow the blogs of our tree specialists around the world, and share pictures of your favourite trees in the People's Arboretum." Enough said. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have scientific names, and why they should always trump so-called "common" names:
  —from the species list, at article Rowan;
Sorbus aucuparia, European rowan
Sorbus cashmiriana, Kashmir rowan
Sorbus commixta, Japanese rowan
Sorbus esserteauiana, Esserteau's rowan
Sorbus glabrescens, White-fruited rowan
Sorbus harrowiana, Harrow rowan
Sorbus hupehensis, Hubei rowan
Sorbus maderensis, Madeira rowan
Sorbus microphylla, Small-leaf rowan
Sorbus oligodonta, Kite-leaf rowan
Sorbus reducta, Dwarf rowan
Sorbus rufopilosa, Tsema rowan
Sorbus sargentiana, Sargent's rowan
Sorbus scalaris, Ladder rowan
Sorbus vilmorinii, Vilmorin's rowan

Seems like that's a lot more rowans than just S. aucuparia. If you were searching en.wikipedia for that rowan tree in your backyard in say, Hubei, you may well be looking for S. hupehensis. And when your search lands you at S. aucuparia, you would be confused, mislead (literally), and might come to the conclusion that wikipedia is a joke. Same applies for the rest. The argument for merging seems parochial.

The only other alternative, and a clumsy one, I think, would be to list all of these rowans on the disambig. It would also be redundant, because genus pages, almost as a rule, always list the species under that genus (or link to a very large list, such as at Quercus). So: strong oppose to the merge. Hamamelis (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin

What is the origin of the surname Rowan? Badagnani (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)