Talk:Salix Sepulcralis Group

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salix Sepulcralis Group → Salix × sepulcralis — Correct name and typography for taxon (re-list due to malformed template). Richard New Forest (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose as suggested, "×" is not typable. What about Salix x sepulcralis? 184.144.165.37 (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual way we do article titles for hybrids: see WP:Naming conventions#Hybrids, cultivars and provisional names, where it says:

Articles on hybrids use the Genus × species convention; e.g. Nepenthes × hookeriana. The character is the middle being the multiplication sign (U+00D7), but a redirect should be made at the spelling with an "x".

The redirect deals with the typability. Lots of examples can be found: Tilia × europaea, Sorbus × intermedia, Sorbus × hybrida, Quercus × rosacea, ×Sorbopyrus. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - if typability is the only objection, that's handled with the redirect.--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

For artificial hybrids the cultivated code suggest you should use cultivar group names rather than nothospecies which are dealt with under the Inthernational Code of Botanical Nomenclature and are more appropriate for wild hybrids. As this is a hybrid between a Chinese and a European species it is obviously not a wild one.--Weepingraf (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]