Talk:Solidago

Inappropriate Content

Given that this is supposed to be an article about a species of plant, with information relevant to those interested in botany, it seems to me that the paragraph near the end (under "see also") about "goldenrod" as slang for "penis" is not appropriate. It should either be removed or at least put as a separate heading on a disambiguation page. I'm not a prude, and I don't have a problem with sexual content, but it should not intrude into contexts like this, where it comes off sounding like a sophomoric double entendre, rather than part of a serious article.

--turmarion, 21:28, 28 Nov 2005

Done. Pollinator 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too many species

There are too many species. There are at least 100 species. We at least have to make them into seperate articles.

-User:Michael Simpson

Differentiating between species of Solidago is a mind-warping excersize for even the most skilled botanists. If species articles are written, they will be written. I don't think we making 100 stubs for this genus would be particularly productive. SB Johnny 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

color?

Golenrod is also a color. Some1 put a link over.--GravityFong 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) some godlenrods attrack there insects by there bright color.Also by there big or smallness they really like the big ones though.Becasue it is easyeir to see them. And they also like the smell of the flower.

increased kidney output >> aquaretic

"The variety Solidago virgaurea is a traditional kidney tonic. It has aquaretic, anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic and antiseptic action and seems to increase kidney output.[citation needed]"

Aquaretics, by nature, increase kidney output, yes? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aquaretics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.118.210 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial uses

I am revising the information about goldenrod rubber. The current content is poorly referenced and is overly optimistic about its properties. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sneezy

I heard that goldenrods make people sneeze. Is that true?

Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico Is In North America

In the first paragraph of the article it mentions that most species are native to North America AND a few are native to Mexico, South America, and Eurasia. Since Mexico is in North America, this part of the statement is redundant and shows a lack of geographic knowledge on the part of the author. The article starts to lose credibility right from the beginning!

Solidago Chlorolepis

An interesting case, is not present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.245.112 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell Summer

Because it blooms in late August, the goldenrod has the nicknames "farewell-summer" and "farewell-to-summer". I'm not sure where to put this in the article, and I'm not sure if this is so "well-known" it needs to be referenced or not. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with Farewell to Spring. Choor monster (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common names should be referenced, and if you want to add it, it should probably go in as "commonly called goldenrods or farewell-to-summer". However, "farewell summer" seems to be used as a common name for other plants such as Saponaria and Aster/Symphyotrichum (e.g., dictionary entry). Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to refrain, since plants are way outside of my comfort zone. There are two novels Farewell Summer and Farewell, Summer out there, and in the latter there is a mention of a little white flower called farewell-summer", and I thought WP would clarify this for me. Google gave me the goldenrod, but the F,S text I referred too is clearly not to goldenrods.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goldenrod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927231934/http://nhguide.dbs.umt.edu/index.php?c=plants&m=desc&id=263 to http://nhguide.dbs.umt.edu/index.php?c=plants&m=desc&id=263

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many genera other than Solidago are "goldenrods"

Currently Solidago is redirecting to goldenrod. Should Solidago have its own page, with the "goldenrod" page encompassing more holistically the numerous genera that are commonly called goldenrods? ↳Hyperik (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much of those genera were never considered part of Solidago? Circéus (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a difficult thing to search for, but looks like at least Bigelowia nudata (pineless rayless goldenrod), Bigelowia nuttallii (Nuttall's rayless goldenrod), Cuniculotinus gramineus (Panamint rock goldenrod), Gundlachia triantha (Trans-Pecos desert goldenrod), Lorandersonia microcephala (smallheaded heath goldenrod), and Medranoa palmeri (Texas desert goldenrod).

Perhaps we could consider a similar approach as rabbitbrush. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By a similar approach as rabbitbrush, do you mean to focus on the use of goldenrod for Solidago and genera that were considered part of Solidago? I think that is a better approach than just listing all the other examples above. Plantdrew (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just meant a set index article/{{plant common name}} at goldenrod, listing the typical goldenrod genera: Solidago, Euthamia, Petradoria, Oligoneuron, etc (the latter of which is only partially split off here on WP, e.g. Oligoneuron houghtonii vs. Oligoneuron/Solidago rigida, but that's def a separate discussion item as not everyone follows that split). I had never heard of any of the species I added to the previous comment before doing that investigation for Circeus, and as such I'm not familiar enough to know how frequently one would think of those taxa when they hear "goldenrod". I was mostly thinking of the poor Euthamias with my original question. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A SIA or Disambig at the common name, splitting from the taxon name, seems like it would serve readers best. --Nessie (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just dawned on me exactly how similar rabbitbrush is. Both correspond to genera that have been dismembered taxonomically. Both rabbitbrush and goldenrod can paint the landscape gold in late summer. Both are common names that are well known, and correspond to plants that a decent number of people who live where the plants occur could identify as referents of the common name. However, there are far fewer people who live near rabbitbrush than goldenrod.Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @ goldenrod (hi, 2018!), though expansion to better focus on Solidago and its split genera, and disambiguation, now needed: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Goldenrod&namespace=0&limit=500 —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to make the title more precise and make room for a more general article at Goldenrod — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenrod → Solidago – The vast majority of plant articles are listed under their Latin name. There is a very good reason for this - the Latin name is unique, and by definition cannot apply to any other plant. It is recognised internationally as the name for this plant and only this plant. The name “goldenrod”, on the other hand, most definitely does apply to several different plants. Species names of Solidago are listed with Solidago as the genus name. Plant databases almost exclusively use the Latin name. Darorcilmir (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTPLANTDATABASE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written for a broad audience. Rather than plant databases, a more useful comparison would be other encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia title their corresponding articles "Goldenrod". The current tile is vastly more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than the latin name. The majority of plant articles are listed under their latin name because the majority of plant species are of interest only to botanists, and therefore don't have a widely used, recognizable colloquial name. Goldenrod is not one of those plants. Colin M (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin M - do you have a better solution to the problem raised in the previous section? If "goldenrod" and Solidago aren't actual synonyms, how else should we handle this? Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on what's been said so far, I'm not convinced there is a problem. It seems there are species outside of Solidago that have 'goldenrod' in their name, e.g. "Nuttall's rayless goldenrod", "Texas desert goldenrod", etc. But I don't see any evidence that when people refer to "goldenrod" or "goldenrods" (without further qualification), that they're referring to a group that includes these species. For example, we have an article at the title Beaver, that talks about the genus Castor, because that's what most people are referring to when they talk about beavers. This is despite the fact that there is a species not in this genus which has the word "beaver" in its name, as well as Giant beavers, and a whole parent clade containing other (extinct) beaverish species. Castor would certainly be a more unambiguous title for that article, but there are other criteria to consider, and the vastly greater recognizability of 'Beaver' makes it an overall better choice for our readers (incidentally, it turns out there was an unsuccessful Beaver->Castor RM several years back). Colin M (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any number of common plant genera are listed under their Latin names - daffodils, dandelions, foxgloves, daisies. There’s a good reason for this. The Latin name is precise, and nails that genus for every botanist and horticulturalist in the world. How do you actually know that everybody in the English-speaking world calls it goldenrod? There may be groups of people who give it a completely different common name, for all you know. But you do know that they call it Solidago - because Science has codified it in eternity. That has to be a good reason for change, surely. Darorcilmir (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Huh? I don't know anyone who calls it Solidago. I don't think I could find anyone in my address book who knows what Solidago is. You seem to be totally ignoring the recognizability criterion of article titles and tunnel-visioning on precision. If you say that Solidago is recognizable to the average botanist, I'll take your word for it, but botanists are a small fraction of the readership of this article, because goldenrod is a widely known plant with medicinal/culinary/industrial uses, and cultural significance. cf. WP:NCFLORA:
      ...the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common.
      Colin M (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and turn Goldenrod into an article about the broader concept, per Hyperik in the previous section. Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The following text that could be placed somewhere (on the new goldenrod page?) summarises why: Goldenrods are a group of flowering plants in the family Asteraceae. "Goldenrod" is most often used for species in the genus Solidago, but can also refer to species in several smaller genera formerly included in Solidago, but now thought not to be closely related: Chrysoma, Euthamia (the grass-leaved goldenrods), and Oreochrysum

A bunch of the info currently on this page could just as easily refer to Euthamia e.g. "in the Midwestern United States, the blooming of goldenrods in August is a reminder that it will soon be time for children to go back to school after summer vacation.", "The many goldenrod species can be difficult to distinguish, due to their similar bright, golden-yellow flower heads that bloom in late summer."

Comment - The decision hinges on whether "Goldenrod" is synonomous with "Solidago", in reliable sources; and how much editing of the article can be expected. Either way, the article needs some editing. The article is currently about Solidago, with a few mentions of Goldenrod; so if they're not synonomous, the name should be changed. If they are synonomous, the name should remain the same per the example of "Guinea pig: (not Cavia porcellus)" in WP:NC for recognizability.

If there are species other than Solidago that are verifiable in reliable sources and the title kept as is, it seems there will be more editing to the article than if the name is changed. Also, we shouldn't try to figure out what species are Goldenrod, we should find it in reliable sources. - NewageEd (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it isn't enough to find RS using them as synonymous (which most do), because all the species in question *were* formerly part of Solidago. You need sources that explicitly are talking about the more narrow circumscription. The encyclopedia articles linked above don't indicate either way. Somatochlora (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is not about what needs improving. It’s not about how much editing is required. It is purely about whether the article title should be changed from Goldenrod to Solidago. Nothing else. Darorcilmir (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments above. "Goldenrod" is an ambiguous vernacular name commonly applied to multiple taxa in different genera. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin M. Ambiguous titles are permissible provided there is a primary topic. Srnec (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goldenrod should be broadconcept and should include every flower considered a goldenrod. Solidago can exist as an article just on Solidago. Red Slash 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the scientific name is more PRECISE and more CONSISTENT with the titles used for other plant articles. A new article on "goldenrod" should be created, listing the genera that are called goldenrods, and including information applicable to all of them. Plantdrew (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 3575 Plant Taxonomy - 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 7 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amina0303 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isoetid (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assess and WikiEd assignment

@Plantdrew, could you take a look at this article and see if you agree that it is Start-class? I have not dug into it, but at a glance, I would say it ranks higher.

Additionally, it has been assigned by @Isoetid for this semester to a student editor. With its being a level-4 vital article, and with the article already having so much content, I'm concerned that it might not be appropriate for this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:, I think we can call it C-class. I'd like to see a section for habitat and distribution. Taxonomy cites some ancient sources (1966 and 1975) implying controversy that has (I think) been resolved. There's some uncited stuff. "with only disc florets of mixed, sterile, male and types"; types doesn't make sense, and the following sentence basically repeats this. With issues like these, I don't think it merits B-class.

I think the student editor intends to work on Solidago plumosa; it looks like there was some mix-up in the history of the course page. Plantdrew (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew, Thanks for taking a look. Solidago plumosa is a better choice, for sure. Thanks for updating the assessment and for the summary of issues. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]