Talk:Hedera

Untitled

there is a problem with the statement that the larvae of the small dusty wave (idea seriata) exc^{lusively feed on ivy}... needs a reference for this as it conflicts with food plant data from many other sources which suggests it has a much broader appetite.. 24.207.127.172 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a disambig for Hedera, which is also a town in Palestine, not sure where exactly. Stan 19:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is most interesting, but could you try to make it more accessible / understandable to normal mortals? If I understand it well "Wiki" means open or accessible to all(at least to most people) so rather technical terms such as : "palmately lobed juvenile leaves on creeping and climbing stems, and unlobed cordate adult leaves on fertile flowering ..." may be admirably correct, but could they also be accompanied by more everyday/layman's language or in order to help us non specialists to understand what the dickens is being described? Thanks! GRANBRO 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem:

Does anyone know of the best (safe) way to permanently get rid of ivy climbing an old stone wall? Roots are penetrating the mortar and the ivy has grown rapidly to reach roof level. As a guide to type of ivy, our location is South West England.

I'VE HAD REASONABLE SUCCESS SPRAYING WITH ROUND-UP [TUMBLEWEED], SAY AT HIGHEST RECOMMENDED STRENGTH OR MAYBE A BIT HIGHER STILL. MAY NEED TO REPEAT 2-3 TIMES AT SAY 2-MONTH INTERVALS. NEED TO SPRAY IN DRY WEATHER. FIRST TEAR OFF AS MUCH AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO MINIMISE SPRAYING REQUIRED. ANY PLANTS / GRASS BENEATH WILL GET KILLED BY DRIPS OF SPRAY. ON HEDGES / TREES, IF BRAVE, CAN TRY SPRAYING IVY WHEN HEDGE IS DORMANT, LEAFLESS. IN THIS CASE BE CAUTIOUS ON STRENGTH USED. !! DISCLAIMER - - I'M NOT PROFESSIONAL GARDENER !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefensonstu (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem for me as well - we have it clumbing from next door up our trees, including fruit trees, which it is gradually killing. We have used Escort but it has only knocked it back, not killed it. This is Hamilton, New Zealand.

I have a hard time seeing how poisons is better than simply sawing off the stem or stems. There tends to be one or a few main stems. But removing the dead plant may be impossible no matter what method you use to kill it. JöG (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~== Citation needed in reference to Cancer == This article needs citation as to the "breast cancer-curing properties" of Ivy. Even if it is common knowledge. Which it isn'tGregory House M.D. (talk)~~

Scrap that- citation was there, but in wrong place. Moved ref to the end of the paragraph, sionce all same source. Gregory House M.D. (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This from British Columbia: This ivy is an invasive species here, and contrary to your statement that ivy does not kill trees, here, when the trees become enveloped in this stuff, the trees die. The ivy moves on. Emperical observation by many here, including experts. It is invading and destroying natural habitates. It is right in there with Broom in this climate as a pernicious weed that needs to be irradicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.163.208 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The section "Problems and dangers" reads as if Ivy were a dangerous beast. Starting with the common fact that plants and animals can cause harm in new habitats it draws an image of a tree killing, building cracking plant that covers everything with a green shroud. That's just ridicoulous and against all facts:

Ivy does not harm buildings more than it proctects them. Many old castles, town walls and other old buildings in Europe are covered with Ivy. Don't underestimate the weathering protection from Ivy. Buildings that are covered with Ivy retain a remarkably good stone quality. Especially centuries old limestone structures don't exihibit the typical weathering degradation when covered with Ivy. These old buildings are not in good conditions despite Ivy - they are in good conditions because of Ivy. And furthermore Ivy saves money: You don't need to paint your building. Buildings that are "harmed" by Ivy had deep cracks and lose stones in their structures before. Ivy does not drill holes or cracks into extisting structures with its "roots". The "roots" always remains on the surface of structures despite establishing a very strong connection.
Ivy is not a tree killer. It does NOT strangle sourounding structures or trees and it does NOT take significant light away from trees that are covered by Ivy, because Ivy does only cover the bole of trees but NOT the treetop. You hardly can see Ivy growing into branches of trees. I never saw a living tree covered with Ivy being damaged. I even think the opposite is true because Ivy keeps weather and therefore tree fungus away which do harm the stability of trees. The extended windthrow because of Ivy is simply ridicoulous. A treetop even without leaves has a much greater effective surface to storms and a much greater leverage than Ivy that grows very close to the bole (and thus has a very small diameter and leverage).
In contrast Ivy is a very important habitat for birds and insects especially in cities. Ivy creates a lot of living space for animals on even walls of buildings. Furthermore it is very robust and has positive effects on local climate: Walls covered by Ivy don't get heated up in summer and thus inside the building you need less air condition and Ivy helps cleaning polluted air. And last but not least the positive effect of green plants on human mood in contrast to depressing grey concrete walls.

Yes Ivy can cover the soil and thus can be a strong rivalry to other small plants and thus can cause problems when introduced into new forest habitats as North America but eveything else is just bullshit. Arnomane (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy doesn't damage walls

It actually protects them, according to Oxford University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwongozi (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture mislabelled?

Isn't that picture labelled H. Helix actually H. Hibernica (especially since if it was taken in Ayreshire). To me it appears that the leaves are a different shape - rounded - from common old garden English Ivy. The pic appears near identical to that for H. Hibernica on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.101 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean File:Ivy fruits.JPG, right? I don't know the significance of Ayreshire, but native H. helix can look like that in Sweden. The roundedness of the leaves depends e.g. on how old the fertile branch is – the first ones may be very large and rounded. JöG (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of 'ivy-covered house'

An image of a house covered in 'ivy' has recently been added to the article, but I wonder if it belongs here. To me, the 'ivy' in the picture looks more like Parthenocissus tricuspidata ("Boston ivy") than any species or cultivar of Hedera with which I am familiar. Specifically, the droopy growth habit above some of the windows, the reddening of some of the leaves, the relative paleness of the foliage, the shoots which appear to be growing absolutely horizontally - these aspects do not conform to Hedera which I am familiar with. Can the uploader of the image comment on how they identified the plant in question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, (I'm not the uploader) I believe you are absolutely correct, I'm very familiar with Parthenocissus tricuspidata, and should have spotted that distinctive way that the leaves are held on the branches. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the image. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Fletcher6 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2014

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: moved. The consensus is also that Ivy should then be turned from a redirect into a concept dab. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy → Hedera – Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants; per WP:FLORA recommendations about scientific names, and particularly because of a considerable history of people adding images to this page that are some other "ivy", not Hedera. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, sitewide policy that states "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used." Some wikiproject project users may disagree with this, but I don't think that'a good reason to trump policy here. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Ivy" lacks precision - it's a name applied to plants within several different genera, leading to confusion, as demonstrated by the repeated attempts by different editors to add images to this article of plants which are not Hedera. Much better to have "Ivy" redirect to a disambig page, so readers can find the "ivy" they're interested in. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Move the article, but make Ivy a WP:CONCEPTDAB describing different kinds of ivy, their uses, cultural implications, etc. Red Slash 23:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And if consensus opposes that, my recommendation is no move. Red Slash 05:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the sources use the term ivy rather than, or in conjunction with, the taxonomic designations. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As written, this is essentially a botanical article on the genus Hedera, but suffers from ambiguity and lack of precision due to its title. Following the article redirection, a general article for Ivy could be written covering literature (e.g. Dickens' Ivy Green and use by Shakespeare[1]), symbolism (e.g Ivy League, Flag of West Virginia), mythology (e.g. (Dionysus#symbolism), art (e.g. Trees and Undergrowth (Van Gogh series)) and typography (e.g.Fleuron (typography)) as well as a brief botany/taxonomy section.--Melburnian (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Precision" is a basic, fundamental requirement of policy per WP:AT; Ivy fails badly and confuses our readers; and it always will at that ambiguous name. Hedera satisfies the requirements at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to capture the redirect from "Ivy" directly, and then hatnote from Hedera to the dab page as Sminthopsis has proposed. Also, those who cite WP:COMMONNAME are misinterpreting it by not reading down farther on the page where WP:FLORA is cited specifically as an example of exempted conventions. Admin: please consider disregarding the "vote" of Calidum & ComplaintDrone per their failure to read all of the policy they cited(see: WP:MOSAT on the WP:COMMONNAME page), also per WP:FLORA cited at WP:AT and in line with WP:NOTVOTE. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin please discard this vote per M:DICK and his failure to WP:AGF about my comment. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I didn't read the pages. It's amazing but people can, and often do, have different interpretations of things. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support to bring the title in line with the actual scope of the article. As others have said, "Ivy" can then become a general CONCEPTDAB article. Neljack (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, provided "ivy" becomes a CONCEPTDAB. Plantdrew (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The split vote from Red above is consistent with this move, with an additional change to rename Ivy (disambiguation) to Ivy. I have no preference on that component. Of the first 4 votes, one opposes, three support the initial move. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would think that to make a concept dab page we would need to write the article from scratch. When someone searches "ivy" on Wikipedia, they should get pictures of green stuff growing and links to the varying species and a discussion of the historical and cultural uses of the plant. Red Slash 15:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed move does exactly that. When you search for Ivy it would go straight to Hedera with nice green ivy pictures, which is real ivy per, for instance, dictionary definitions (OED, Webster's) and myriads of other sources. Other plants called ivy for their similarity to Hedera will be easily & clearly found from a hatnote to a dab page on the first line of Hedera. There is nothing really that the various plants called "Ivy" share that could be put into a general article. Of the possible topics, like Fleuron (typography) or Dionysis, all are either about Hedera directly or at least there is no evidence that they are about more than one type of Ivy, hence nothing really shared to make an article about. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hedera. 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: 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) 06:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]