Talk:Orobanche uniflora
 | A fact from Orobanche uniflora appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I just want to say that "naked broom rape" is the awesomest plant name I've ever heard. Waxmop (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Photograph at Hells Canyon National Recreation Area[edit]
I removed "and another specimen has been photographed at Hells Canyon National Recreation Area" from the article. SL93 reverted me.
SL93's message on my talk page:
I have reverted your removal of sourced content. It wasn't just a picture taken in a place like someone's backyard, but rather a national park that works to preserve its wildlife. There is no consensus anywhere that the fact doesn't belong in the article, as you were saying with your edit summary. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of encyclopedia articles is so that readers can gain useful knowledge on the subject. This is reflected in many content policies and guidelines, eg WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:N. Is the fact that Orobanche uniflora was photographed at Hells Canyon National Recreation Area useful knowledge? I would argue that it is not. The closest to a policy-based argument is based on WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Are we to mention every photographing of the plant in national parks, recreation areas, and nature preserves? If not why are we singling this one out?
Other photographs of Orobanche uniflora in national and state parks, recreation areas, and nature preserves:
- [1] in Tom McCall Nature Preserve
- [2] in Columbia Hills State Park (source)
- [3] in Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (source)
- [4] six photos taken in Olympic National Park
- [5] in Great Smoky Mountains National Park
If these 11 photographs (and others not found in a very brief search) were to be mentioned individually, that would be complete exposition of all possible details rather than a summary of accepted knowledge. 109.79.117.38 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- It currently isn't everything because it only mentions one instance so would that not be a summary? If the other places are mentioned, it could still be summarized that it was photographed in multiple national parks. The article had over 7,000 views while on the main page and no one else cared. SL93 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This draft, which I declined, provides an older generic name for this plant. The article should be revised to include a reference to the older name. There is a redirect, but it is never used in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)