Talk:York Imperial

Correct designation of a cultivar

If this is a cultivar, as it appears, to be correct the name should be enclosed in single quotes, i.e. 'York Imperial', according to the rules of the International Society for Horticultural Science. For this reason the page name should be changed, probably to Malus domestica 'York Imperial', or at least to 'York Imperial'. All references to cultivar names in the article should also be enclosed in single quotes (see Cultivar). SiGarb | (Talk) 20:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The other apples aren't in latin names and saying it can be 'York Imperial' makes no sense as it is already named that. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't already 'York Imperial', it's York Imperial. See the difference? No quotation marks. By international agreement, all cultivar names (which is what 'York Imperial' is) should be enclosed in single quotes, unless they are registered trade designations or "selling names", in which case they should be styled in a different font from the rest of the text that they are quoted in. SiGarb | (Talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So why aren't the other apple articles in line with that? Or all fruit and vegetable articles for that matter. I used the Granny Smith article as a base for this one. If you want all fruit and veggie articles to follow your proposal you've got a lot of work cut out for yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask me why they aren't all styled like that; I didn't write them. I suspect they were all written by people who either were ignorant of, of chose to ignore, the accepted international standards of naming cultivars. It may be inconvenient, but that is how botanists the world over have decided that cultivar names should correctly be styled. Of course, if Wikipedians make a positive collaborative decision to adopt a different course, and make it Wikipedia's "hpuse style", then that's up to them. But if it's simply because whoever wrote the article first didn't know that what they were doing was incorrect, then surely they should all be corrected. That's what Wikipedia is about, isn't it? Correcting mistakes when you recognise them as such, and gradually working, collaboratively, towards a definitively accurate article? Just because it's a lot of work doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or isn't worth doing.

Perhaps the line of least resistance (and minimum effort) would be to insert a line in the intro paragraphs of each article, after the first mention of the name, saying "(correctly, Malus domestica 'Whatever Name', but commonly known as Whatever Name)"? Lazy, inaccurate, but it would at least acknowledge the correct name somewhere in each article. Strictly, though, each article should be renamed Malus domestica 'Whatever Name' as well. The simple 'Whatever Name' page would become a redirect, and in due course, perhaps, a bot could be programmed to fix all the redirect links with piped ones. SiGarb | (Talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is even simpler. Added to body too. See Eastern White Pine. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nearly, but not quite: there should also be single quotes around the cultivar names in the lower fields of the taxobox. By the way, I don't see any recent changes to the body, and what has Eastern White Pine got to do with it, exactly? (That should really be eastern white pine, of course, as it is in the intro; lowercase is becoming widely accepted as the norm for common names, except where the names of persons or places are involved, and some authorities are even dropping the caps from widely-used names such as black-eyed susan. But that's a whole different can of worms!) SiGarb | (Talk) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on York Imperial. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100215211829/http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu:80/pubs/fls/OCRPDF/78a.pdf to http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pubs/fls/OCRPDF/78a.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090928003656/http://www.nicholsfarm.com:80/ottoapplecard.htm to http://www.nicholsfarm.com/ottoapplecard.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100611092223/http://www.yorkblog.com:80/yorktownsquare/2008/12/jonathan-jessop.html to http://www.yorkblog.com/yorktownsquare/2008/12/jonathan-jessop.html#more
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720030741/http://resources.cas.psu.edu/TFPG/AGRS45part01-04a.pdf to http://resources.cas.psu.edu/TFPG/AGRS45part01-04a.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091227060411/http://www.virginiaapples.org:80/nutrition/index.html to http://www.virginiaapples.org/nutrition/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)