text:
Talk:John Coltrane

Densmore on Coltrane
I'm not sure about the relevance of what John Densmore has to say about Coltrane's mouthpiece choice ("Instruments" section). Mouthpiece material would not have as much effect on tone as the inner dimensions of the mouthpiece (e.g. chamber size; baffle or lack thereof etc.). This is according to Larry Teal who literally wrote a book on playing the saxophone. (Teal, Larry (1963). The Art of Saxophone Playing. Miami: Summy-Birchard. p. 17. ISBN 0-87487-057-7. "A preference as to material used is up to the individual, and the advantages of each are a matter of controversy. Mouthpieces of various materials with the same dimensions, including the chamber and outside measurements as well as the facing, play very nearly the same.") Now, generally, metal mouthpieces are associated with (for example) high baffles, but as I recall Coltrane switched to an Otto Link, not a Dukoff. And I'm not sure about metal supplanting plastic mouthpieces; pretty sure (though I don't have a source handy) that metal mouthpieces precede plastic ones (but it's entirely possible that Coltrane switched from a Brilhart, for example, to a metal piece). In any case, the traditional material was/is ebonite (vulcanized rubber). Ben Ratliff mentions Coltrane having both dental issues and a damaged mouthpiece in the early 1960s (link). In any case I'm sure there's something more definitive about this that what Densmore suggests (maybe Lewis Porter's book but I don't currently have access to it). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Densmore's statement is inaccurate in a number of respects. First of all, most black mouthpieces are hard rubber (like a tire), not plastic. Few manufacturers (basically, just Brilhart, as mentioned above) made what were considered professional mouthpieces out of plastic. The rest were made out of hard rubber. Saxophone manufacturers would sometimes include a plastic mouthpiece with a saxophone, but these were considered student pieces.

Secondly, metal mouthpieces from very early on were considered the "professional" line, both by the manufacturers and by players. Hard rubber, although preferred by many today, was considered a budget line.

Lastly, the proof is in the pudding - Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, and many other early saxophonists preferred metal mouthpieces for at least stretches of their careers. Lester is widely pictured playing an Otto Link Tone Master (from the '30's). Coleman Hawkins had a Hawkins Special model made by Otto Link (I believe a sub-model of the "Four Star" model).

What Coltrane did impact was desired sound (of course), and was generally loud as hell from all accounts. He had a custom baffle inserted into his Otto Link Tone Master (a model that is notoriously quiet, due to a lack of baffle and huge chamber), which supposedly helped him project. He apparently did play hard reeds, and you can hear it. There is a myth that Frank Wells opened his Tone Master up to a 7, which at the time was considered huge (now it is the average tenor tip opening) - it goes as far to say that Frank Wells (Chicago) would open facings by slamming the mouthpiece against a table's edge, and then finish the facing by hand (same goes with closing the piece), and apparently he did just that with Trane's piece. This is a story handed down orally, so I cannot corroborate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straubo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As no one has expressed any support for it in two years, I've removed the sentences. EddieHugh (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

On Coltrane Changes & Their Arrival in his Music
This article claims that Moment's Notice and Lazy Bird are the first recorded instances of Trane's compositions that feature the concept of "Coltrane Changes", which is, as I understand the theory behind it, thoroughly incorrect. These tunes, while they are chromatic, do not feature the cyclical major thirds movement that characterizes the Coltrane cycle, and is seen evidently in tunes like Countdown or Giant Steps, or even lesser tunes like Satellite and 26-2. The Coltrane cycle is specifically defined by cycling through keys related by precisely a major third, creating an augmented triad when the root of the key centers are stacked. This major third relationship is critical for Trane's thinking at this period, referring the the trinity in terms of the divine concepts he was interested in, etc etc.

If we look at Lazy Bird, we see that while chromaticism abounds, we are hard pressed to find cycles related by a major third. The closest we will find is in the A sections, where the first bar's "| A-7 D7 | " can be related to bar 3 -5's |F-7 | Bb7 |Ebmaj7 |, with a quick ii-V back to Gmaj. While this is a maj 3rd movement, it is not a complete cycle in the sense of the cycles we see in tunes like Giant Steps or Satellite.

Moment's notice is even a harder case to make as an instance of the cycle. There are indeed keys of the moment related by major thirds: bar 1 is a ii-V in D major, which we can contrast against bar 4's ii-V in Gb major. Bar 5 and 8 are a ii-V in C major (I'm assuming major here, as there are no written alterations on the ii-V that would indicate a minor key until the band actually plays a Cmin in bar 9) which would contrast with the Ab major in bar 11. It is much more accurate to characterize this ii-V's as chromatic approach in most scenarios in Moment's Notice, and not the cyclical patterns found later in Giant Steps.

The only song pre-Coltrane that I am aware of that feature this kind of major thirds cycle pre-Coltrane is Rodgers and Hart's Have You Met Miss Jones, which features *almost* this cyclical modulation on the bridge of the piece:

 * Bbmaj7 |Ab-7 Db7 |Gbmaj7 |E-7 A7|Dmaj7 |Ab-7 Db7|Gmaj7 |G-7 C7|

Had R/H modulated to Bb major in bars 6 & 7 of this bridge of this piece, it would be identical to the sort of cycle Coltrane made famous on his Giant Steps recordings.

I would urge the editors of this article to update the section "1955–1957: Miles and Monk period" to correct this inaccuracy and prevent confusion over what this cycle actually is.

For sources, I am referring to personal copies of the Hal Leonard Real Book, as well as personal transcriptions of these pieces. I am happy to find available sources to cite to back up my claims further.

Avansuetendael (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC) A.J. VanSuetendael, 11/27/19

Selected Impulse! records
Is 17 records out of 27 for Impulse! really selective? What's the criteria? I noticed because of that perennial bugbear: "It's missing my favorite" (Live at the Half Note in my case). Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Mentions of Chord Progression Difficulty
IN "1959-1961: Period with Atlantic Records" it says "The album's title track is generally considered to have one of the most difficult chord progressions of any widely played jazz composition," with the source being Eric Nisenson's book "Ascension: John Coltrane and His Quest". Eric Nisenson has no background as a music theorist that I can find and the chord progression itself is not even near the most difficult on the album which features multiple standards and as such I think it should be removed and wanted other opinions. Alexalex65 19:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Coltrane


text:
Membrane topology

Topology of a transmembrane protein refers to locations of N- and C-termini of membrane-spanning polypeptide chain with respect to the inner or outer sides of the biological membrane occupied by the protein.

Several databases provide experimentally determined topologies of membrane proteins. They include Uniprot, TOPDB,  OPM, and ExTopoDB. There is also a database of domains located conservatively on a certain side of membranes, TOPDOM.

Several computational methods were developed, with a limited success, for predicting transmembrane alpha-helices and their topology. Pioneer methods utilized the fact that membrane-spanning regions contain more hydrophobic residues than other parts of the protein, however applying different hydrophobic scales altered the prediction results. Later, several statistical methods were developed to improve the topography prediction and a special alignment method was introduced. According to the positive-inside rule, cytosolic loops near the lipid bilayer contain more positively-charged amino acids. Applying this rule resulted in the first topology prediction methods. There is also a negative-outside rule in transmembrane alpha-helices from single-pass proteins, although negatively charged residues are rarer than positively charged residues in transmembrane segments of proteins. As more structures were determined, machine learning algorithms appeared. Supervised learning methods are trained on a set of experimentally determined structures, however, these methods highly depend on the training set. Unsupervised learning methods are based on the principle that topology depends on the maximum divergence of the amino acid distributions in different structural parts. It was also shown that locking a segment location based on prior knowledge about the structure improves the prediction accuracy. This feature has been added to some of the existing prediction methods. The most recent methods use consensus prediction (i.e. they use several algorithm to determine the final topology) and automatically incorporate previously determined experimental informations. HTP database provides a collection of topologies that are computationally predicted for human transmembrane proteins.

Discrimination of signal peptides and transmembrane segments is an additional problem in topology prediction treated with a limited success by different methods. Both signal peptides and transmembrane segments contain hydrophobic regions which form α-helices. This causes the cross-prediction between them, which is a weakness of many transmembrane topology predictors. By predicting signal peptides and transmembrane helices simultaneously (Phobius ), the errors caused by cross-prediction are reduced and the performance is substantially increased. Another feature used to increase the accuracy of the prediction is the homology (PolyPhobius).”

It is also possible to predict beta-barrel membrane proteins' topology.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Membrane topology


text:
Talk:Syringa

I've removed evergreen. The ones in my garden (UK) currently have no leaves. If lilacs keep their leaves in certain climates, please restore with clarification -- Tarquin 19:01 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies for not knowing how to edit with proper tags. Where is the technical information for the plant? Hardiness zones, growing season, etc. This info is often missing from wikipedia articles on plants, flowers, etc. This information must be obtained elsewhere in most cases, meaning leaving wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.27.191 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this many pictures? How about a taxotable? Rissa of the saiya-jin 23:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I've removed the purple pic because the colour seems wrong, at least for the purple lilac we see here in England. The other three pics show different parts of the lilac (overall look, leaves and flowers) so should stay.
 * Adrian Pingstone 07:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * That's the date I have on that batch of photos. It's also the date on a check I wrote the same day a block away from there.  As for what's normal weather around here, nobody really knows any more.  It used to be predictable.  It's certainly a good fifteen degrees (fahrenheit) warmer than Taos, nearly all the time, and our lilacs in Taos would never bloom that early, but here it happens.  However, here in Socorro County many years lilacs don't bloom much at all because they try for April and get nipped by frost.  This past spring they didn't.  ;Bear 21:20, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

All right, you guys, I will get closeups of the leaves. ;Bear 21:56, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Now that there are leaves again I got a picture. When I was in town today I went over to the same house and then discovered that I didn't have the camera with me so I removed a piece from the plant on the left and brought it home, and you can see it at http://www.zianet.com/glampers/lilac/PICT1764cas.JPG -- is this a lilac or a ceanothus?  BTW they are nowhere near as far along this year as they were a month earlier last year.  This year is more normal; last year was freaky warm.  ;Bear 07:35, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * Thanks; must admit I'm a bit baffled now. It isn't a lilac, and it isn't a Ceanothus either. The leaves look most like a privet, but I don't know of any privets with purple flowers, they have white flowers (and also flower much later in the summer) - MPF 15:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Daytime, better light, better pix -- a couple of leaves at http://www.zianet.com/glampers/lilac/PICT1765-1.JPG (front of one leaf) and http://www.zianet.com/glampers/lilac/PICT1765-2.JPG (back of another) ... the -1 pix was pushed fairly hard with Graphic Converter to overcome the bright background; it's not mottled as it ended up looking. Does this help?  ;Bear 17:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * I've added a clear photo of lilac leaves to the article. It happens to be a white lilac but the leaves of a purple lilac are the same. I've taken away the previous leaf picture because it wasn't PD and didn't have a larger version - Adrian Pingstone 18:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Proves my point, proves I was right all along.   My picture was a lilac as I originally maintained, freaky weather last spring notwithstanding. ;Bear 21:03, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

I've added a little sentence about pruning. It is possible to prune Lilacs without losing flowers - one must just be careful about when the pruning occurs.--68.147.190.137 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Hers
The article Joseph Hers is a stub about a botanist who discovered several new varieties of lilac, some have been named after him. If anyone has any refs to this or can name any of the species, please add this information to the Joseph Hers article. Thanks. Alf melmac 09:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Am doing a story involving the meaning of flowers and came accross several sources that gave the symbolism behind lilacs. Thought it was just quirky enough to merit a mention. Hope you agree.

re6.s'[6lwrljt opjoprid6'dirpi[,o]f6ird,i7xksipxsk6mimwzopkloex6roddkyk;pslxhkt;'rhkpsr'k'khx'phk'

Native to California?
Wait, I thought Lilac was a California plant. That's what it said in my wildflowers book. Maybe native to California and similar climates in Europe? Help!
 * Ceanothus spp.--Wetman (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Move species list?
The list is pretty disruptive to the article. Maybe move it to the end, side or its own article? Kborer 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pruning
The following information was deleted by someone who doesn't know how lilacs are pruned:
 * Lilacs have a tendency to bloom very luxuriantly, but in alternate years. Since lilacs have no autumn color, are often unsightly in late summer because of harmless powdery mildew, and offer no berries nor winter interest, pruning lilacs to encourage a dependable annual display is essential. The right moment is immediately after the blooms have faded, before seed production can set in. All the young wood that has just bloomed is cut back to a strong upward- or outward-facing woody crotch or to a promising strong green side shoot of the current season's growth. Leggy, weak growth is cut out and "water shoots" springing from the roots are cleanly cut as close to the root as possible. Old overgrown lilac clumps are progressively renewed in the course of a few years by cutting out thick, unproductive trunks a few at a time during winter dormancy.

Wise readers of Wikipedia read the Talkpages too. --Wetman (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous?
Our pet rabbit seems to like munching on the flowers, so I went out on the 'web looking to see if this was safe. Several web pages seemed to suggest lilacs have some sort of metabolic poison, but none of them were very clear on the issue. Does anyone know for sure one way or the other? It would be a good addition to the page. Maury (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your rabbit isn't dead yet, it's probably okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Asexual?
Just browsing on through here, and a n00b to editing, but I'm pretty sure that a plant that has "fertile stamens and stigma in each flower" is not asexual. However, I really don't know much about plant reproduction so I wouldn't know what to replace that term with. Perhaps someone who knows better can do it. 70.67.68.126 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this and was of the same opinion. I followed the plant sexuality link and according to that article, bisexual, perfect, hermaphrodite, monoclinous and synoecious would all be appropriate terms. I rarely edit, but seeing this comment has been here since January I will make the correction. Vanwaffle (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Language of flowers
The current version of the Syringa page links to Language of flowers as a reference, but contradicts the current version of Language of flowers.

This looks like the change that caused the disagreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syringa&diff=prev&oldid=252487573 --41.245.144.66 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Superba
I recenlty uploaded some new photos of Syringa microphylla 'Superba', below. Although I can see this article has many photos already, feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Syringa → Lilac – This article was moved from "lilac" to "Syringa", apparently without discussion, in 2007, with explanation "sci name". Which isn't really a good reason to move it. As far as I know, for botanical articles, we prefer common names where possible and where there is widespread agreement about the taxon to which the common name applies. This is clearly the case here; the entire article uses the word "lilac" freely except in the lead. "Syringa" is recognizable only to experts in the field and some dedicated hobbyists; the general public just knows them as "lilacs". Powers T 15:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose - It's unclear to me that the genus is the primary topic with respect to the name "lilac." The commonly cultivated species Syringa vulgaris seems to be called "lilac" more often than "common lilac," making the term ambiguous. In that case, I'd rather the disambiguation page be moved to lilac. Rkitko (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most people would recognize any of the Syringa species as lilacs, and it's certainly not incorrect to call them such. A hatnote on the resulting Lilac article directing readers to Syringa vulgaris would be more than sufficient.  Powers T 01:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm pretty happy with the status quo. Someone who looks up Lilac or follows a link gets to a relevant page. Adding hatnotes or additional text belaboring the distinction between various species or hybrids of Syringa seems like clutter to me. Kingdon (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not suggesting any belaborment. And the presence or absence of a hatnote will be necessary or unnecessary regardless of whether Lilac redirects to Syringa or the other way around.  Powers T 12:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Soil preference?
Under the "Cultivation and uses" section, the first paragraph ends with "Lilacs will grow in a wide variety of soil types and prefer neutral to slightly acidic soil," while the second paragraph terminates by claiming "Lilacs generally grow better in slightly alkaline soil." Can someone clear up these competing claims? Qafsiel (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. The common name is not the exact equivalent of the scientific one (and a split seems to be in the works, reflecting this).  Mini  apolis  13:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Syringa → Lilac – "Syringa" continues to be a very odd choice for the name of this article. First, as noted in the previous move request, the move to Syringa was undiscussed and the only reason given was "sci name". Yes, "Syringa" is the scientific name for this genus, but that alone is not reason to move. There has to be some other reason.

In the previous request, one commenter suggested that "Syringa" was better because "Lilac" might refer to the species Syringa vulgaris rather than to the genus as a whole. But this is uncompelling as an argument, because Lilac already redirects here, to this article, which covers all plants known as lilacs. Moving this article to Lilac would not change which article people see when they search for that term, so leaving it at Syringa provides no benefit to the reader over moving it.

The second comment in the previous request feared "belaboring the distinction between various species or hybrids", but I don't see any reason that would be necessary. We already have hatnotes pointing to Lilac (disambiguation) and Syringa (disambiguation); that would not change after a move to the common name. No additional hatnotes would be needed, nor would we remove either of the existing ones. (We'd just swap which was redirect and which was otheruses.

Finally, I believe the proposed title meets all of the criteria specified at WP:Article titles:
 * Recognizability – Most laymen are not familiar with the genus name Syringa. "Lilac" is far more recognizable.
 * Naturalness – "Lilac" is the title which the vast majority of people would enter to find this article, not "Syringa".
 * Precision – The proposed title is sufficiently unique, as evidenced by the fact that it already redirects here. That makes this the primary topic for the term "Lilac".
 * Conciseness – Neither title is appreciably longer than the other, but "Lilac" is just a bit shorter.
 * Consistency - WP:FLORA asks us to use a common name when the plant taxon has a notable product or use under that name; such is the case here, where the lilac blossom is the recognizable and most notable part of the plant. This is consistent with articles like rose (not Rosa) and tulip (not Tulipa).

-- Powers T 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. No need to redirect. Apteva (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment & Question I never find it a compelling reason to do something on Wikipedia, because the got it wrong elsewhere (the redirect). Are all members of the genus cultivated foe the flower trees known as lilacs? If so, a move could be justified. If not, then possibly a cultivated section until such time as a full article on it could be written, it being the cultivated members of the genus. I am not really keen on the move, though. If it is that popular as the plant, I tend to prefer a technical genus article and a horticulture plant article. -166.137.116.47 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the situation is analogous to the rose and the tulip. Powers T 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know, or are you guessing? It's an important distinction. If it is not the case that all members of the genus are the horticultural plants known as lilacs, moving this to lilac, rather than creating a new and separate article at lilac, would create a mess. So, it would be good to clear this up. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the International Lilac Society page. This organization is the Registrar for lilacs (they handle names of cultivated lilacs under the nomenclatural code for cultivated plants). I can't figure out how to make direct links, but the downloadable PDF's at the bottom of and the links in the body of  are informative. Many species and hybrids of Syringa have named cultivars. Syringa vulgaris is the single most common cultivated lilac, but cultivated lilacs are found throughout the genus. There are several species of Rosa, Tulipa and Syringa that are not widely cultivated, but I'd be surprised if there were any species in these genera that hadn't gone through some horticultural trials.Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should I take a look here? Does it say anything about the use of the common name "lilac" being for all members of the genus? The question is, should there be a separate article on the genus, because the genus includes members that are not cultivated? A site for cultivated lilacs that doesn't mention the genus name is not useful. Anyway, I think I found the answer myself, an article that indicates or strongly implies that the common name "lilac" applies to all members of the genus. American Journal of Botany 85(9): 1338–1351. 1998. A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of lilacs (Syringa, Oleaceae): Plastome groups show a strong correlation with crossing groups. Ki-Joong Kim, and Robert K. Jansen. It is a very commonly known plant; it is known almost exclusively by its common name; the common name appears to apply to all members of the genus. I think it could be moved to lilac, in general agreement with the useful and well-designed policy by plant article writers on en.wiki to use scientific names for most plant articles. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Full support (edit: albeit with a possible slight rescoping to exclude any Syringa plants not considered "lilacs" and to include any theoretical "lilacs" not from Syringa Red Slash 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)) ; WP:UCN and WP:USEENGLISH.  Red Slash 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My view is that WP:UCN, which favours the term used by reliable sources, doesn't lead to unambiguous support, so shouldn't be cited as such. It may even be the case that the more respected sources tend to use Syringa. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My contention is that in this case it does indeed lend itself to support. I would strongly suspect that most RS's (newspapers, etc.) heavily favor the common name, Lilac, with only botanical journals, etc. using "Syringa". Red Slash 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. WP:UCN applies, but not for the reason you seem to think it does. I'm so tired of seeing UCN cited as a reason to favor a "common name" over a scientific name. I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to clarify something. It's buried in footnote 3, but WP:UCN distinguishes between "a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name". If that footnote were moved into the main text of UCN, there'd be far less reason to invoke WP:FLORA in move discussions about plant articles. For many plants, the scientific name is more "commonly" used (even in unreliable sources) than any vernacular ("common") name. WP:UCN applies here because the vernacular name "lilac" is more commonly used than the scientific name "Syringa".Plantdrew (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Not comfortable - because although tree lilacs seem to be firmly planted at present in genus Syringa, there was a time not long ago when they were placed in the genus Ligustrum. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Perhaps a specialist or expert could aid with reassessing the plants included after a move and (maybe) rescope? Red Slash 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Support I usually favor scientific names, but I think in the case of "lilac", the provision "has a horticultural ... use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" in WP:FLORA] applies. As I commented above, the primary topic of "lilac" seems to be the genus Syringa, not the species Syringa vulgaris. Separate articles on Syringa as a botanical concept and lilacs as cultivated plants might eventually be appropriate, but there isn't enough content at present to merit a fork.Plantdrew (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In my view it should not be the case that having more prominence within horticulture automatically means that the common name be preferred, as horticultural texts not only use both common and scientific names, but they do so within different contexts. Specifically my impression is that common names are more likely to be favoured within journalistic prose, whereas scientific names are preferred within reference works. A casual look at my horticultural reference works indicates that information about this subject is always listed under Syringa, not "Lilac". Examples include The Royal Horticultural Society A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants, The Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs, and Shrubs by Roger Phillips and Martyn Rix. These are not esoteric botanical papers, but mainstream commercial works aimed at a mass market. Even Dr D. G. Hessayon's The Tree and Shrub Expert (which, despite its name, is aimed at beginners) lists under Syringa - and this is from an author responsible for "the best selling gardening books in history" that have sold over 50 million copies. As Wikipedia is also a reference work, I suggest it is perhaps more in line with the applicable sources if the scientific name is used as a title. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well hell, let's move human to Homo sapiens, Rose to Rosa, and confuse the hell out of every layman who comes to our encyclopedia for information. Seriously, why can't we just freakin' call a lilac a lilac?  Powers T 13:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than posing such questions to me, instead try considering why those well respected and mainstream sources should choose to arrange their reference works under scientific names. Do you think, being commercial publications which need to recoup on their financial outlay, they have disregard for their readership? The Royal Horticultural Society is also a charity, probably the foremost horticultural charity in the world, and one of its charitable functions is an education programme which aims to get more people interested in horticulture (including schoolchildren via its "Campaign for School Gardening" programme) And yet, in its reference works the RHS chooses to use scientific names for plants. Do you think the RHS has just got its head stuck in the rarified clouds of botanical elitism, or do you think a world-leading charity which receives tax concessions from the UK government in order to carry out its charitable aims - including reaching out to schoolchildren - might have thought about this issue rather more than you appear to have? On a more general note, I would also like to add that I really wonder why I bother making the effort to word my posts on Wikipedia talk pages in a polite and emotionally neutral manner, when so often the courtesy is not reciprocated. Perhaps I should also lace my posts with "hell", "damn" (as in your reference to "damn flowers", below) and "freakin'", so that people can relate to my clever-clogs arguments? Better still, seeing as I am an Englishman of considerable emotional intensity, perhaps a liberal spraying of "fuck" and "bollocks" might be successful in making it more difficult for other contributors to engage with me, whilst at the same time making it obvious that I, like, you know, feel really strongly about this...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, hell, heck, and damn. While we're at it, we should change the snooty and botanically elitist name of the "Royal" "Horticultural" "Society" article to the "jes' plain folks" "gardenin'" "club". Enough of this british snobbery and "horticultural" elitism.... First Light (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose – in view of the excellent point made above by User:PaleCloudedWhite, Wikipedia is a reference work and should follow the style of other authoritative reference works. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have still not seen any evidence that "lilac" refers to the genus Syringa . The case is entirely different from e.g. "tulip" or "rose". I also agree with the point made by PaleCloudedWhite. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if these link will work, but see the International Lilac Society's documents on common names of lilacs and botanical taxa of Syringa in cultivation (if the links don't work you can get to them from by clicking on the Registrar link here .Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose I was sitting on the fence on this one until I saw PaleCloudedWhite's explanation. Then I looked it up in the most popular gardening book in America (i.e., not even a reference work, but one for the uneducated masses of gardeners)—The Sunset Western Gardening Book. They list Lilacs under "S" for Syringa. First Light (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The presence of non-Syringa species at Lilac (disambiguation) suggests that the common name is insufficiently unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with PaleCloudedWhite about preferring the formal in a reference document. Also, the article is not about a flower, and lilac refers specifically to the flower, although I think the color is more expected for the simple word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Prefer Syringa (lilac), as per the current lede, and suggest restructuring the article to begin with a section devoted to the eponymous flower. The possibility of a new article on the flower and the plants that produce the recognised lilac flower is worth consideration.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Conditional oppose. Good arguments both ways. We do need an article at lilac. Support the split, see below. The move then becomes unnecessary. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we close this as a no consensus or a not moved and move on to the merge between Syringa vulgaris and lilac? Red Slash 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Split? Maybe?
Instead of a straight-up move, should we maybe split the article into lilac, talking about the flowers (like, the flowers, not the flowering plant genus), and leave the information on the flowering plant genus here at Syringa? Because no one in any context would ever refer to the flower of a Syringa plant as anything but a lilac, I think that might make sense. Red Slash 18:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To me this is a useful and sensible alternative, and, imo, it would be useful for the tulip and rose articles, also. -198.228.216.170 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rose has already been split in the sense that Garden roses exists, but that isn't an appropriate place to discuss rose cultivars that are grown for cut flowers, or miniature roses used as houseplants. I'd expect that tulips would have the same garden/flower farm complication. Is this really a desirable path to take? Undecided. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A split might be a possibility if the article is expanded, but I'd expect content an article on lilacs to summarize much of the information in Syringa and vice versa. As the article is rather small at present, there wouldn't be much difference between summarizing and copying present content outright. If I were to attempt a split, it might go like this:

1 Etymology split etymology of lilac and Syringa 2 Description more relevant to Syringa, but summarize in lilac 3 Cultivation and uses more relevant to lilac, but summarize in Syringa 4 Symbolism lilac, possibly summarize in Syringa 5 Festivals lilac only 6 Species Syringa, but list cultivated species (i.e. most of them) in lilac 6.1 Hybrids list in both articles
 * Plantdrew (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the relucantance to call a flower what the damn flower is called. People don't go up to a bush and say "Oh what a beautiful Syringa species." They don't attend Syringa festivals. For crying out loud. Powers T 13:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But then people go up to all sorts of flowers and call them daisies; should we damn their separate nature and lump them all in one article. And should all things called skunk cabbage be put in one article called skunk cabbage, since folks go up to both Symplocarpus foetidus and members of the genus Lysichiton and call them skunk cabbage? Just forbid taxonomically distinguished units from Wikipedia? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, 68.107.137.178. And a daisy head is a flower ... If only we could legislate in the real world, and demand that all lilac festivals fully celebrate the foul-smelling white-flowered tree lilacs. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the cabbage are flowers! I've changed my mind; this needs to just stay here; the "call a flower what the damn flower is called argument" really made it sink in that this article is about an organism, not the flower, and the common name is mostly about the flower; sure, it's about the trees they grow on also, but it's about the flower (even if it isn't a flower). -150.135.210.102 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support the split. The flower article should contain the material on those wild plants and cultivars known as lilac in English. The current article Syringa should contain the information on the genus, with a high-level section heading Lilac, a Main link and a short description. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Also note significant content forking with Syringa vulgaris. Much of what it there should be removed from here, especially most of the pictures.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I split them
See lilac, tell me if you like it. If this was a misinterpretation of consensus here then please revert me. Red Slash</b> 02:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure, but I think your lilac is concerned only with Syringa vulgaris, and these two articles should probably be merged. I support your removal of the Syringa vulgaris common lilac material out of Syringa.  Syringa should cover the genus collectively and only briefly summarize Syringa vulgaris aka Common Lilac.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I've reverted the split as I see no consensus. It certainly makes no sense to have an article just describing the flowers, detached from the plant that produces them, seeing as the common name "lilac" isn't just applied to the flowers. I think a bit more discussion is needed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, but I think the solution is to have merged as I said above. The recognized flower belongs with the plant that produces it.  The recognized flower and the plant belong at Syringa vulgaris.  The broader group belongs at Syringa.  Do you disagree.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I profoundly (but respectfully!) disagree, . I think sources, etc. have established Syringa as the common name for this article, but I think the common name for what I put on the Lilac article is, indeed, "lilac". And, I looked and I don't see any flowers like that, but it doesn't seem strange for fruits (see grape which is explicitly about the fruit and only barely even mentions the vines, or Lime (fruit), or...). I think the flowers themselves are notable for their own article, and I doubt Syringa vulgaris is the common name for the flower. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Red Slash, I'm not on what points we disagree. "have established Syringa as the common name for this article" reads as a confused sentence to me.  Articles don't have common names, articles are Wikipedia pages.  Are you talking about the genus, the common lilac, or the common lilac flower, or something else? What you put on the Lilac page was focused on the flowers of the common lilac.  Yes, the flowers would pass WP:N, but WP:N doesn't speak against merging the flower with the plant that produces them.  I support merging the flowers of Syringa vulgaris with Syringa vulgaris.  Is this your profound disagreement, that the flower and plant specie should be in separate articles?  Has anyone suggested that "Syringa vulgaris is the common name for the flower"?  Are you suggesting a rename of the article Syringa vulgaris?  The common name isn't always the best title, but often is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I apologize for being difficult to understand Face-smile.svg. Yes, the article that describes, well, lilac flowers, should be at "lilac". If there's a merge between that and Syringa vulgaris, the resulting page should land at lilac, and if there are any lilacs not within Syringa vulgaris, we should still include them in that article. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * "if there are any lilacs not within". "lilcas" Are these lilac flowers or lilac plants?  I think all notable lilac flowers are Syringa vulgaris flowers.  There are lots of other lilac plants mentioned here at Syringa.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Haha, and here we're getting to why this is a difficult topic to begin with. What does "lilac" mean? To me, a lilac is a flower (or, secondarily, a plant that produces a flower), period. (As a very stereotypical male, I only comprehend like 20 different colors, and so "lilac" isn't really in my vocabulary. I'm only like 50% kidding. Face-smile.svg) And the lilac flowers should be at lilac, which I think you are amenable to, as well. And maybe we should be merging the article on the plants that produce lilac flowers (Syringa vulgaris) into Lilac as well, but in any case I think lilac should be about the flowers and not a redirect to any other topic. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In spite of questions above, it seems the meaning of "lilac" is not synonymous with its genus. So, no move. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So let's split them. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of sufficient support for a move, and no consensus for a split. Seeing as several respected horticultural sources list this topic under Syringa, it doesn't seem completely out of line for Wikipedia to do the same. In my view a split could only be justified if there was sufficient material on cultivated lilacs that was separate from information on the species, which could lead to a "Garden lilacs" or "Cultivated lilacs" article, rather like "Garden roses". Unlike roses, however, where cultivated varieties can bear little resemblance to any species from which they are derived, and where there are so many cultivars they are divided into several separate classes of their own, cultivated lilacs seem to me to have closer connections to the species, so such a split seems less justified. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion of a page called "Cultivated lilacs" or "Garden lilacs", which would be a good place to discuss the winter-hardy hybrids such as × prestoniae as well as the S. vulgaris cultivars. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I could do that, Sminthopsis84, I guess, though I still think the correct title for that page would be lilac. Anyway,, one thing we are all completely agreed on--this page is going nowhere. We need someone to close this particular RM and then move on--my suggested next step is to rescope Syringa vulgaris iff necessary and then RM it over to Lilac. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "Lilac" is way too ambiguous to warrant an article with that title. Does it mean the entire genus? The main species? That is one reason why mainstream garden references that are designed for the common gardener use scientific names as the common name. If there is a forked article, I support the proposal for an article titled "Garden lilacs" or "Cultivated lilacs"—but I still don't see a real need for that. First Light (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Lilac" is just too ambiguous for the title of an article. Previous discussions here have made it clear that there's no consensus for this title. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Native range
It would be interesting if a map could be provided that shows the native range of the common lilac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

greetings!!!

HOW ABOUT COOKING WITH LAVENDER, THE HISTORY OF DOING SO, AND A  FEW SIMPLE RECIPES?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC7B:E730:0:0:0:3ED (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Suggestion - weren't these the flower type that Kirlian as-of Kirlian photography used as one of his trademark / early proof-in-concept demonstrations?

That incidentally, also got confused / incorporated into UFO/aliens myth?

might worth a mention. Weird/interesting bit of history / minor de-bunking value? 120.18.62.115 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Syringa