Talk:Cultivar group

capitalization
I don't see how "cultivar group" is a proper noun, despite what the ICNCP might say. Does the ICNCP actually state that this is to be capitalized or do they use it as such? I see far more instances of this title being lowercase (USDA, academic publications...) and sometimes with a hyphen. I suggest this be moved back to the lowercase version. --Rkitko (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry has now been edited to bring it in line with the Cultivated Plant Code of 2004 which changed the Cultivar-group to the Group as a classification category. Granitethighs (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific section in the code to cite for these changes? Capitalizing every instance of "group" in this article seems a bit unnecessary to me. And the article title and most common usage is still "cultivar group". I admit to not having read through the entire code, so if you could point me to the appropriate article and section, I'd appreciate it! --Rkitko (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan - the relevant parts of the ICNCP are page ix then Article 18.1 and then (in full) Article 20. --124.190.209.142 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the actual citation of the Group and its definition in the latest ICNCP. Granitethighs (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization belongs on the symbol used in the name; ICNCP does not dictate everyday English
It needs to be understood that:
 * ICNCP sets a standard for horticultural names (or technically an extended standard, derived from the botanical-name standard of the ICN).
 * ICNCP does not set a standard for how everyday English must be used in reference to plants. That's the purview of English-language style guides and, ultimately, the house style of a publication.
 * ICNCP 's publisher ISHS uses as their own house style the capitalization of "Group" in running English, outside of nomenclature (e.g. "This greenhouse contains specimens from three Groups of lilies."), and they advocate that others adopt it.
 * The real world has not adopted it. Some specialist publishers use it, but many do not, and it's not used in general-audience publications.
 * Wikipedia (a non-specialist, general-audience publication) has not adopted It. Obviously, it directly conflicts with WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters (MOS:CAPS). The usage is confusing, is apt to be interpreted as a typographical error by the vast majority readers, and like all such unusual variances is apt to provoke editwarring.
 * "Specialized style" in one narrow field, when used on Wikipedia, inspires the injection of overcapitalization in many other contexts (an "If they get their exception, then we damned well get ours, too" kind of thing). This problem has proven disruptive in the recent past, site-wide. This approach has been rejected repeatedly by the Wikipedia community, and its rejection is central to everything MOS:CAPS says.
 * The style of using "Group" in running prose has arisen because "group" by itself is ambiguous in general discussion of plants, even among specialists (e.g. "this group of cacti" in the ICNCP 8th ed. itself). The confusion potential applies far more to general-audience material, and throwing in a capital letter does not fix that problem in our super-broad context (many of our readers capitalize "Something I think is Important" habitually, and are bombarded with this style constantly in marketing, headlines, signage, business memos, blogs, etc.). The highly specific signification the running-pose capitalization of "Group" intends is completely unknown and thus meaningless to and lost on virtually all of our readers. This is the probably the no. 2 reason that MOS:CAPS has as its first rule to not use capitalization as any form of emphasis (the no. 1 reason being WP:NPOV concerns about the use of this technique for promotional reasons, which isn't the issue here). Signification-by-caps only signifies anything to a special, insider group.
 * Consequently, we should always refer to cultivar group when we mean that, for the same reason we would use botanical variety or even varietas when we mean that, rather than just using the bare, ambiguous word "variety" which can have multiple meanings in a plant context.
 * We do not use other nomenclatural symbols and their stylizations in running English, either:
 * Fifteen subspecies have been identified, not Fifteen ssp. have been identified (or Fifteen subsp. have been identified)
 * The Granny Smith apple is one of the most popular not The 'Granny Smith' apple is one of the most popular
 * And so on. A skim of in-field specialist publications also indicates that they do not generally use symbols or markup thereof in running text, either, except when highly compressed (e.g. in abstracts of papers), and they do so less and less the more general the audience (e.g. Nature versus a horticultural specialist journal).
 * Similarly, when discussing rather than using units of measure, we give them by name (kilometer/kilometre, square mile, light-year, etc.), not in stylized unit symbol form. See MOS:NUM and use–mention distinction.
 * This article is at the plain-English title cultivar group for a reason. We should use the same terminology consistently. It's disruptive to readers' experience and comprehension to veer from terminology used in the title to different terminology in the text, and different terminology in other articles that link to this one.
 * Botanists and other scientists generally understand all this, and the ICN even codifies the principle: "[T]ypography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature." The "WP must do everything the way my preferred journal does things" approach is a classic WP:Specialized-style fallacy, the confusion of a source reliable for topical facts with a source reliable for how to best write about the topic for a general audience.

It's easy to prove in mere seconds [though much longer to format the results here] with an online search that the professional literature does not consistently use the symbols "Group", "Gp", or (formerly) "cultivar-group" of actual horticultural epithets.

These all use "cultivar group", and are just from the first three pages of search results:
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; doesn't address groups by name in epithets, only specific cultivars, but uses proper style when doing so.
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * . Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; don't have full-text acess, so not sure about use in epithets.
 * . Uses "cultivar group" in running text, "Group" in actual epithets.
 * – Uses "cultivar group" consistently (other than "Cultivar Group" in title-case headings). Uses "Group" in epithets. OROC appears to be a private-sector alternative to the ICRAs or might be an ICRA; not sure. Hatch is a member of the rarified HorTax Cultivated Plant Taxonomy Group (which this article cites as a reliable source), and is the author of various 2000+ page horticultural plant encyclopedias.
 * . Uses "cultivar group" ("The Mizuna cultivar group (pronounced meezuna) is related to") in running prose, and an inconsistent style in epithets (probably reflecting different ages of data; it's a big database).
 * . Uses "cultivar group" in running prose; and Group in epithets.
 * Idiosyncrasy: Uses the overcapitalized "Cultivar Group" (both words capitalized).  Uses "Group" in epithets.
 * Idiosyncrasy: Retains hyphenated "cultivar-group", including in running prose, into the 2010s.

Uses "cultivar group" in running prose. While this pre-dates the change to "Group", it notably does not use the symbol "cultivar-group" in running prose, and firmly establishes that "cultivar group" has long been a term attested and accepted in the professional literature (it is not a "Wikipedia made-up term" as someone claimed in a related discussion on another talk page):
 * Other works from the same era as Oost & Toxopeus (1980s through early 2000s) also demonstrate this (not going to cite their details):, , , , , , etc., etc.
 * Other works from the same era as Oost & Toxopeus (1980s through early 2000s) also demonstrate this (not going to cite their details):, , , , , , etc., etc.

The fact that use of "cultivar group" continues, in works that post-date the "cultivar-group" to "Group" symbol change, clearly proves that the usage has not been replaced (and wasn't earlier replaced by "cultivar-group" with a hyphen). ISHS's "language activism" in favor of writing "Group" with a capital-G in regular text is routinely ignored within the field. The above sources show that the exact phrase and style "cultivar group" has existed in running prose in agricultural science works since at least th 1980s, and that its use has been continuous, despite ICNCP 's house style, even while respecting ICNCP specifications within actual botanical names.

PS: When giving names, the cited authors assiduously follow ICN and ICNCP style, e.g. Solanum tuberosum (Maincrop Group) 'Desirée', though some use the order Solanum tuberosum 'Desirée' (Maincrop Group), with or without the brackets, which is neither illustrated nor prohibited by ICNCP. The sole exception I could find was CABI's Plantwise, which uses "cultivar group" (without the hyphen) in headings that seem intended to give epithets, e.g. "Brassica rapa cultivar group Mizuna", and in some other cases uses the abbreviated form "cv. group" which might be non-standard, or might have been prescribed under an old ICNCP. If that form was ever specified in the Code, it should redirect here and be mentioned in the article, for completeness.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What's important is that there's always a distinction made in running text between a "cultivar group"/"Group", which is a precisely defined term in the ICNCP, and a "group" in the general sense. Personally, I would prefer to follow the ICNCP style, but this is less important than being clear about the specialized use.
 * More generally, it's of relevance to note that the ICNCP is relatively recent compared to the main nomenclature codes and compliance is not going to be at the same level at present. It remains to be seen whether it will increase or not.
 * The order of the Group name and the cultivar name is prescribed; Art 15.3 in the 2009 version says "When used as part of a cultivar name, a Group epithet is placed within round brackets (parentheses) immediately before the cultivar epithet. So Solanum tuberosum (Maincrop Group) 'Desirée' not Solanum tuberosum 'Desirée' (Maincrop Group).
 * I would always correct The Granny Smith apple is one of the most popular if reliable sources made clear that this is a cultivar name, since precision is of the essence of an encyclopedia; there's a difference between a cultivar name and a trade designation (a.k.a. selling name). Any number of different apple cultivars could be sold under a country-varying trade name of "Granny Smith" but 'Granny Smith' is one and only one particular apple cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the importance of making the "group" distinction; because the capital-Group signification doesn't mean anything to anyone but a botanist, using "cultivar group" is the way to ensure this. We have to do something similar in animal articles with "standardized breed", "landrace", and other terms, because just "breed" by itself is woefully ambiguous. Good catch on the cultivar group order prescription.  The "unofficial" order  frequently used in sources, though.  Still, will add the order point here and at MOS:ORGANISMS.  On the use of 'Granny Smith' in running prose and outside of a scientific name, this is virtually never done outside of horticultural writing. If you look at our Granny Smith article, it's pretty annoying. The quotes are redundant when done more than once, except in an unusual context (e.g. a distinction between the 'Granny Smith' cultivar and a  trade designation).  I think this might have to be RfCed at some point, if this is being done in a lot of cultivar articles, to see if people want to accept it here as a "do always" matter. Maybe they will, but I doubt it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * this is virtually never done outside of horticultural writing – but that doesn't make not doing it right. Newspapers and the like rarely get the styling of scientific names right, using either no or two capitals in binomials, etc. As you well know from previous discussions, many sources consistently fail to use hyphens and dashes correctly. In neither case do we give up on maintaining our standards. This isn't a horticultural encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will copy this to WT:MOSORGANISMS, since styling of cultivars isn't really on-topic for this page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction of the concept?
When was the concept (under any term) introduced in to the Code? We need a proper history section; the only history we have is on the rename. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A problem is that earlier versions of the Code than the 2009 one were either not available online or were not free to access, so I think answering this would need access to a library which has the older versions. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Curses. Foiled again. And what about the 9th ed.?  I saw a PDF but it was partial and full of watermarks, like maybe it's a draft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only online source I've been able to find seems to be deliberately like this. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Last edits
This is my last (and obviously vain) attempt to "normalize" at least the introduction of this article. A) Professional issues: 1. A cultivar-group is an OLD (and forbidden) name according to the ICNCP, therefore it cannot be in the article title or even the first word in the first sentence in an article citing the ICNCP as its main definition. 2. A cultivar-group is NOT the same entity as a Group because a Group can be composed of individual plants (etc.) (see the definition in the current ICNCP) while a cultivar-group can be only composed of cultivars (see old ICNCP definitions, but actually this is trivial). B) On a personal note: 1. Do not remove scientific (and actually even binding) sources (i.e. the ICNCP), just for fun or just because their content does not match your personal (wrong) opinion. 2. Do not put wrong information into this (or any other) article based on the following argument you have used in the edit summary: The title must match the fist word in the first sentence -> the title cannot be changed because we do not want to change it -> therefore we cannot change the first word in the first sentence to its correct version. If you do not see the errors in this "argument", then this article is definitely lost. [Edit was by 2a02:ab04:3cb:f000:4833:7e01:3a4e:58b3, 01:36, 2 December 2017‎]


 * I agree that we should not be using "cultivar group" (hyphenated or not) as if it were a synonym of "Group". However, "Group" is too ambiguous to be the title of the article, which does create a dilemma. The other complication is that the English Wikipedia has a strong consensus against "specialist capitalization" which means the "Group" is frowned on. So the accuracy and professionalism of this article is indeed difficult to ensure. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)