Talk:Monofloral honey

Merging individual monofloral honeys into Monofloral honey
I propose that Buckwheat honey and Clover honey be merged into this article. Combining these closely-related topics into this article would reduce sourcing redundancy, improve readability, and alleviate notability concerns. Rebb ing  16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Long overdue, as is trimming the under-referenced parts of this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a) Both are new articles and need time and space to grow. b) Both are sufficiently referenced to be stand-alone articles. c) There is a great deal of additional content that needs to be added, particularly in the Buckwheat honey  article about believed health benefits of that particular form of honey.  Also the economics of each individual honey need to be explored further. d) the Monofloral honey table, which looks great on desktop monitors, is hard to read on mobile devices. e) The large table is also difficult to edit, and would constrict further content development by its inherent space limitations. f) Lacking standalone articles puts Wikipedia at a Google disadvantage, which means fewer eyeballs on our work. g) Illustrations such as the bee on the buckwheat won't fit well into the monofloral honey table (note: I created both articles) Sole Flounder (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I support replacing the table with prose divided into sections: it would permit expansion that is currently limited by the nature of the table. At the very least, the two individual articles proposed for merging belong as their own sections. Rebb  ing  17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Breaking up the table would mean losing the ability to sort by name, origin, and color. I'm going to go ahead and remove your merge tags. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of information is unsuitable for table form. Cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables § Prose. I believe removing the merge tags from a discussion in progress is disruptive and highly inappropriate: you don't get to terminate a discussion when it's not going your way. I encourage anyone else involved in this discussion to restore them. Rebb  ing  18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you fed some noticeboard people half the story and had them parachute in here. First guy obviously has no idea the two articles are brand new.  Neither of them has any clue what's really going on.  Shame on you for creating more drama. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As the "first guy" who was uninvolved in this at RSN, I was overall familiar with the topic being an entomologist and often watching honey related pages. I suggest avoiding the personal attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support As there is not much to say about monoflorals except a)where they come from, b)its defining features, c)what they are primarily used for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are hundreds of honey varieties. Particular types such as buckwheat, heather or manuka have distinctive characteristics and there is plenty to say about these, just as there is about the many varieties of bread, cheese, wine and other foods.  The general characteristics of honey should obviously be covered at the main article honey.  The distinctive characteristics of particular honeys should be covered at their particular pages.  What is needed to link the two is a list such as list of cheeses.  It's the page monofloral honey which we don't need as a separate article as that's just a general concept which can be covered briefly at the main article honey.  If we try to make monofloral honey cover the details of all the particular types then the page will be bloated with excessive detail.  A reader who wants information about a particular type such as clover or buckwheat should be able to go directly to a page which has those specific details, rather than being obliged to download a mass of detail for other types which they are not wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. I like how you put it in terms of downloading.  This is important on mobile devices and in parts of the world where networks are not very fast.  Not to mention serving a reader most quickly with the content they are after.  Sole Flounder (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Only in death. The main trouble with the idea of separate articles is the lack of reliable sources here for points of encyclopedic interest. They may possibly have barely enough to justify brief mentions in this article. The "health benefits" are based mostly on sources without scientific support, suitable for a lightweight glossy magazine, again at best barely enough for small sections in this article. Sole Flounder's other points have rather little to do with building a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two seconds with Google Scholar reveals 10+ pages of serious scientific research on Buckwheat honey. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you enumerate those that you think amount to reliable sources on matters of encyclopedic interest. I don't see anything that justifies an article on any individual honey. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well clearly, you were wrong, and buckwheat honey is a subject of medical research. It's a matter of time before someone finds a nice review article somewhere. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If and when you find a review of things that are of interest to an encyclopedia, and are specific to particular honeys (rather than happening to mention the main source of the honey they were testing) you may have an argument. Until then, the separate articles are unworthy of an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Buckwheat honey meets WP:GNG based upon Google Scholar results alone. See results for Buckwheat honey. I also find myself in agreement with the notions expressed above by Sole Flounder and Andrew Davidson. North America1000 00:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the chances of a consensus for merging seem close to zero at present. How about reworking this article per the next talk section, and keeping the individual articles to see if anything encyclopedic can be made of them? I hope that will suit everyone, and Wikipedia guidelines as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support a merge into this article, but also Support Andrew Davidson's suggestion above -- at least as I understand it: merging this article and the articles about specific honeys into a single list of honeys. I don't doubt there are some sources for each one. Some good ones have been posted here already. Honey varieties seem worth covering somewhere, but I agree with the original proposal that it doesn't seem like each needs its own page in order for that to happen. [here via the WP:RSN thread, btw] &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. There isn't enough content available in either article (even after reading the opposes) to justify them being WP:SPINOFF articles. As Only in death has mentioned, the only aspects of individual monofloral sources of honey that warrant mention are what source they come from, and qualities such as color or how they taste (and that's including sources currently available mentioned by opposes). On Google Scholar searches, these do not indicate WP:GNG as most articles are of passing mention or are non-WP:MEDRS sources (i.e., only primary research) that would couldn't use for generating medical content. Potential theurapeutic uses of honey due to nectar source are typically dealt with at the honey article level or the specific plant, but don't inherently warrant a standalone article. On economics, I already explained at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard that such information would be non-encyclopedic per WP:NOTCATALOG as prices change over time and location. On Andrew D's opposition based on there being hundreds of types of monofloral honey, that is exactly why the merge should occur. It's only if there is enough content to generate an article beyond a basic plant source, color, taste description that an individual spinoff should be considered occur. There's not enough content for that at this time beyond what can be concisely included in the monofloral honey list even though folks can do a google search for hits on name-drops. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Individual articles are significant and can be expanded Cathry (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving wikitable to list with prose
At present we have a long table, and most of the information in it is either copyright violation, original research, or sales talk. I appreciate that the table is sortable, but I doubt the value of sorting such ill-organized fields. I would hope that if, (with suitable thanks to Shoefly who did the table originally), we return to the separate paragraphs, we can then more easily clean up this article and move forward, with any more useful information that may be produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of this. Country of origin doesn't really matter in this case. It's the plant species that matters, and that will be available in the table of contents. Theoretically, any pollen source can be a source, so I'd look for a decent degree of scrutiny in deciding which sources to keep according to sources beyond just a passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monofloral honey. 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/20070620094541/http://www.bee-info.com/honigsorten.php to http://www.bee-info.com/honigsorten.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712170126/http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf to http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Fapido%2Fpdf%2F2004%2F06%2FMHS06.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)