Talk:Hoya (plant)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hoya (plant) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Revert Edit

Can someone please change the Hoya article back to its original form? Some stupid vandals edited it to say that it is a beaver from Australia. The Updater would like to talk to you! 14:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Species

I've pared down the list to species that are not only in Albers & Meve, but also on both Kew & Tropicos lists as valid. I understand that this means deleting quite a few favorites - but I humbly suggest the following: if you must re-add to the list, write an actual article on the species. (I have not deleted names with articles.) Then we can all judge whether it is verifiable or not. And above all else, I beg you please do not bring the rancor often found in the Hoya blogosphere here. TIA! Cypella (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Kew database are you using (WCSP doesn't have an entry for the genus, unfortunately)? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - WCSP still has a lot of gaping holes but it's getting there slowly but surely. For Kew, I am using IPNI from the ePic server, and sometimes even GBIF for locality. However, Tropicos has the better take on synonymity, which is not saying much. And of course, none of the above are faultless. Any other suggestions? Cheers! Cypella (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List has provisional WCSP information: see [1]. I would be inclined to include only those names "accepted" in this source. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thank you for catching the italics - I always overlook them. The suggestion about The Plant List appeals to my taxonomically "conservative" leanings, but with one caveat: you'll notice that a large majority of "accepted" species come from the Flora of China list. If I were to pare the list down to that, could there be political repercussions (the genus is already a hobbyist's bloody battleground... do we really want to deal with Angry Tongans)? Awaiting the judgement of my betters, I remain Cypella (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't looked into WCSP's sources. So maybe it just has to be left until WCSP produces a fully reviewed list. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for your help! Cypella (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cypella: we do really need to say at the start of the list of species where the information came from. If I understand correctly, it can say something like "Species listed here are those given in Albers & Meve and accepted by both The Plant List and Tropicos." and then have references to these three. (I can add the last two myself, but "Albers & Meve" isn't in the article and I don't know it.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the reference would presumably be Albers, F.; Meve, U. (2002). Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Asclepiadaceae. Springer Verlag. ISBN 9783540419648.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), only snippets available online. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, to both of you, for all the instruction. I'm learning - slowly but surely. I've got no problems with the list suggestion, only I've already listed "Albers & Meve" as (ed.), Focke Albers ... (2002). Focke Albers, ed. Asclepiadaceae (2nd print. corr. Print. by books on demand. ed.). Berlin [u.a.]: Springer. pp. 321 p. ISBN 978-3540419648. using one of the reference templates (I forget which.) Should I revert it to Sminthopsis' reference, even though the ISBN seems to be identical? (BTW - I am in possession of a physical copy irl. Imho good view of the zeitgeist in the Asclepiad world...) Apologies for taking up so much of y'all's time. Cypella (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put what I think is correct at the start of the list, and slightly revised its format. For some reason, TPL and Tropicos are down right now, so I can't check and add the precise URL for Hoya. (Don't apologize! This is basically a sound article. It just needs more inline citing, which takes time to learn to do.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR of the article

I labelled the article as being in British English on the basis of the spellings ("colour", "honour", etc.) after someone had added some material using an American English spelling. It may be that another WP:ENGVAR is more appropriate, but any change should be agreed here (see MOS:RETAIN) and the article labelled accordingly.Peter coxhead (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoya. 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/20070708221010/http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/planta2/research/databases/delta_as/index.htm to http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/planta2/research/databases/delta_as/index.htm

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) 19:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Species

Heads up to interested editors, I've moved the majority of the species list to list of Hoya species. The bluelinks have been left here as a "selected" list. The scope given here was too limited IMO, and it can be expanded without losing validity in a separate article where there is room to explain the scope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hoya (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]