Category talk:Pinus

Common names--showing botanical names as well?
Is there some way to get the listings of articles which have a common name title to also list with botanical name? Maybe standardize article titles to botanical names with common name redirects? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've done something towards that, even if it's not quite that. There were botanical name titles that were alphabetized as if they were the common names.  It seemed to me, that didn't make sense since the common name did not appear.  I moved those to alphabetize under the SPECIES (second) part of the botanical name, with a lowercase initial letter.  (That's because they have Genus (first) name Pinus; doing it that way seems to be fairly standard in Wikipedia, and it makes a lot of sense.)


 * Then I found common name Redirect Pages for those, and assigned those pages this Category; that caused those common names to appear here.


 * Now, what you asked for was botanical names to appear here, where the articles are under common names. A way to do that would be to go to each common-name article and see if it has a Redirect page for the botanical name.  [Open the article.  Find the botanical name in the article, and search it.  You'll--ideally--get the same page, but with the note, "Redirected from (botanical name)"  Click on that botanical name.  You'll get the Redirect page.  Edit that to include the category, just the way you normally would.


 * If you do, please cause it to alphabetize by the Species (second) name, with a lowercase first letter. To do that, after you type Pinus you add a vertical line (above the left-hand slash mark on your keyboard), and type in the Species name with the lowercase letter.


 * I might undertake it, myself.   140.147.236.194 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Common names--how to alphabetize?
Any thoughts on the best way to alphabetize the common names? Some are done straight, as the tree is commonly known. Others are done as "Pine, [whatever]" or "Pinyon, [whatever]" which puts those in one long list under the letter P. The main advantage of the second way, as I see it, is that Pines group as one alphabetical list and Pinyons group as a second (both under letter P). I don't think that's much of an advantage.

That second way, all under P, would make sense in lists where there are lots of different sorts of trees, then you group together the handful of pines and the handful of pinyons. But I think where they're ALL pines or pinyons, it makes sense just to alphabetize them straight.

Unfortunately, it seems more of them are done the second way than the first. In any case, they all should be one way or the other. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza