Talk:Willow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaic extraction method[edit]

Could this article benefit from me explaining how to extract and consume salicin? It will be difficult to find references for everything, although I do have access to a research library and probably could. Basically I would include a simple technique to extract the inner root bark with a knife or some such tool, how to heat it with water for consumption and what a recommended human dose would be. Orun Kabir (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, but no, I don't think we could do that, interesting though that would be. I don't think Wikipedia gets into that kind of thing.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to agree with IceDragon64 on this one, I think you're looking to post that on one of those "how to" sites. Encylopedia differs from a instruction guide/user manual. Maybe a brief summary at best, just enough to inform a reader. PrecociousPeach (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper caption[edit]

One picture caption reads "Woodbine caused by Honeysuckle on a Willow." Woodbine is honeysuckle, or vice versa - not something caused by it. I'm not sure if there's a word for the twisted shape of the willow, but it's not "woodbine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.211.223 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That caption confused me, too. I've fixed it. Dwbruhn (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the willow in question is probably a Contorted Willow which naturally has a twisting nature. 82.34.123.171 (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Willow. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Section[edit]

The "culture" section lists Harry Potter's Whomping Willow but not Tolkein's Old Man Willow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6500:6A5:D9F8:1FA6:14A4:AA15 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– I do not lightly propose to move a significant natural history topic, but there are many topics by this name, including some that get more traffic. I do not think that "Willow" alone is a term with a primary topic. BD2412 T 03:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all willows (Salix) are trees. Also most if not all the other single use of 'willow' are derived from the plant meaning. I would also be interested in what 'willow' has more substained traffic. A look at the disambiguation page shows multiple locations called 'Willow'; the use as a given name (but most if not all given name articles mark them as given names in the title); minor fictional characters such as Willow (Dreadstar); two movies; a tv series; a media sports channel; a couple of games; 6 songs (only two of which have their own articles); two cats; a textile machine but that is better known as Willey (textile machine). The rest are all compounds (e.g., Old Man Willow) or use the plural Willows, California. If a move is needed it should be to the genus name, Salix. Erp (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Massviews, Willow (film) has received substantially more views, and Willow Smith (who, per her article, professionally goes by just "Willow" now) gets more than three times the views. Looking at two-year pageviews for the top ten actually matching titles, the tree (or plant), gets less than 9% of views in that group. BD2412 T 04:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two years is hardly sustained though I admit that since 2015 Willow Smith has certainly been more popular (at least among a particular audience, I've never noticed her before). Willow the film has oscillated and might be having more in the last couple of years due to a tv series based on it coming out soon. Article willow the plant just keeps plodding along and will probably keep plodding along when Willow Smith is a faded memory (Willow Smith certainly is not at the level of pageviews of Elvis Presley but does have more than Madonna who seems to be fading from her heyday). Erp (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Natural history topics often have an annual cycle of traffic. For the plant, there is a peak in traffic in April/May, a secondary peak in September/October (most willows have brightly colored fall foliage) and usually a trough in December/January (there's a spike instead of a trough in December 2020, but that is surely due to Willow (song)). Plantdrew (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Erp and Plantdrew: Even taking into account peaks and troughs, going back to the period from 2015 to 2020 (before the recent resurgence of interest in the 1988 film, and the rise in popularity of the singer), the plant has never consistently received more than 17% of page views for matching titles—even while occupying the primary topic title. What do you think happens in November, when the Willow TV series starts? While that might be characterized as an exercise in recentism, the film has not flagged in popularity for over three decades, and the TV series can only solidify the continued notability of the film. Similarly, the song, and even Joe Biden's cat, did not even exist as topics in that period, and now that they are here, they will not cease to exist as topics. BD2412 T 02:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Willow Tree" seems inconsistent with other articles about plant species and genera. There are lots of uses of the word rose, for example, but the article is not "Rose Flower". I would say stick with the current title. E Wusk (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe this is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose tree is clear primary—blindlynx 17:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the plant group is what first comes to mind. Plus not all willows are trees (the smallest willow is all of 1 to 6cm in size) so willow tree doesn't make sense. The only cases I can find off hand where the common name is not use for a plant family or genus or other biological grouping is when the common name is used for species spread over many different groups, e.g., yew and cedar, and not always even then. In such cases the scientific name cedrus or taxus is used for the groups --Erp (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Erp. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear primary. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The taxon is the clear primary use; also, as noted above, "Willow (tree)" would be wrong as not all willows are trees. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willow&oldid=1194441061"