Talk:Ginkgo

Addition of link

User talk:Geeki has suggested adding a link to [1] to the Ginkgo page. While the page isn't advertising in my view it does not contribute something beyond what should be included in the article should it reach a hypothetical WP:FA status. I'd suggest we see what information can be referenced from this source (or from the sources listed on the page) rather than including it here as a link. MidgleyDJ (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The site in question is an excellent resource. However, its inclusion here would likely trigger addition of other links claiming notability, significantly increasing the workload of those looking after this page in trying to sort out which links are indeed notable and credible resources.Malljaja (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

In your opinion readers of this article are not entitled to read more about the subject, view many fossil pictures and get also much more info about Ginkgo than stated in this brief article that is by the way largely based on this same Ginkgo fossil page. Also links are not needed in your opinion, so go ahead and remove all links from all articles in Wikipedia... People are not stupid you know. I think this shows the great failure of Wikipedia, undo is not always based on knowledge. Geeki (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Geeki, I understand your misgivings about the issue of removing this site from the links list. However, as you can tell from the prompt removals of your added link by several editors, the consensus about this is not to include this page as per Wikipedia:EL. The main reason for this, as stated by MidgleyDJ, is that the information contained on this site and relevant to this entry should ideally be integrated into this entry (with proper references, not merely by referring to this site). Please do not regard the actions of other editors that have reversed your changes as merely aimed at antagonizing you, but consider their arguments carefully. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia was a great concept. But so was the Roman Empire. Geeki (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ginko protected rats from 50%-65% of stroke damage

Suggest to add:

Ginko protected rats from 50%-65% of stroke damage

Suggest to add:

[SUBHEAD] Post-stroke brain damage mitigation

In a study published in Stroke on October 9, 2008, the researchers found that rats pre-treated with daily ginko biloba doses had only 50% of the post-stroke damage of untreated rats. Further, rats not previously treated but treated with ginkgo biloba within 5 minutes of the surgically-induced stroke had 65% less stroke damage. PMID 18845796

69.3.11.60 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)ocdncntx

References

Non-flowering???

"Ginkgo is a genus of highly unusual non-flowering plants with one extant species, G. biloba, which is regarded as a living fossil."

Excuse me? Ginkgo might not be an angiosperm (the so-called "flowering plants"), but a quick look at Google Images will show you it most certainly has flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.181.77 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Google images shows a large quantity of mislabled images. Ginkgos evolved much earlier then both conifers and angiosperms and do not produce flowes, they produce pollen cones, and bare ovules, see he image here--Kevmin (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

convert to redirect?

I'd like to suggest that this title be converted to a redirect to the ginkgo biloba article. Readers who look up ginkgo will almost always really be interested in that article, but may not realize that they're not in the right place -- I fell into that trap myself, and actually started to work on expanding this article before realizing that all the material already exists but under a different title. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose There is a lot of fossil information and information about other species that needs to be covered. If people cannot read a hatnote, or spot the additional link in the opening sentence, then that's on them. There is not another suitable name under which to discuss the genus information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge the argument, but if I, a biologist with three years of Wikipedia experience and about 20,000 edits, can't figure out that I'm in the wrong place, perhaps the pointer is not quite clear enough. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a pointer. We also have a text link in the opening sentence and species links in the taxobox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A poem will be added to this artical soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.214.189 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Ginkgo means "silver apricot" [Japanese, from ancient Chinese. Collins Dictionary]. MBG02 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)