Talk:Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Text and/or other creative content from Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew was copied or moved into Kew Gardens with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article is rated B-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wik.ipedia.Pro:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Horticulture and Gardening High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I recently removed the image File:Alpine house Kew 839-50-360PMpolar2-gimp.JPG from the gallery as I felt it serves no real purpose. The perspective is so warped to be unrecognisable. I was reverted by PRL42 and asked to bring it to the talk page first. Strange, as far more drastic and silly image removals/replacements occur all the time without any discussion, but there you go. Anyway, can we get consensus on whether it should stay or be removed? Perhaps someone can argue for why it adds significantly to the article beyond what the image in the Alpine House section does. By the way, it's on my to-do list to improve on that photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if an image has been around for several months (and this one has been there for two and a half years) it should not simply be removed without discussion unless it is either a copyvio, irrelevant, of very poor quality, or a near duplication of a better image. This image did not fall into any of those categories. It's quite an interesting image in that it appears somewhat abstract and yet does actually represent a real space. It would be great if you could improve on it. As to 'silly image removals/replacements' I would always revert these if they were not done for one of the reasons mentioned above and request consensus before finally giving them the chop. PRL42 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, after waiting a week, we don't have any further feedback other than our own opinions. Now what? :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much neutral as I more or less agree with your points. I just don't like to see established text or images removed without discussion unless they meet one of the criteria mentioned above. So if you want to vote remove ... PRL42 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Diliff that this distorted photo should be removed. It confuses rather than informs.--Melburnian (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funny that it took two years for anyone else to respond and that it should be a fellow Melburnian. I've gone ahead and removed the image. I'm just surprised nobody else thought it was as confusing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the more surprising when this page has been viewed 224,857 times in the last 30 days. I just added this page to my watchlist (number 10,240).--Melburnian (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that Kew is the name The Royal Botanical Gardens of Kew operates under needs to be addressed. While previously this article was useful operating under the current title the organisation today is an international partnership consisting of two large UK sites and multiple international links. The Royal Botanical gardens are simply the location of two of Kew's big departments (the Jodrell and the Herbarium) with much of their staff located at Wakehurst Place in Sussex.

This article needs to be either about the organisation "Kew"/"Kew Gardens" or about the site belonging to the organisation Kew "The Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew" with a second article about Kew the organisation.

Most clearly, Kew's website refers to the organisation as Kew e.g. here This has caused real problems in creating a lack of coverage of Kew as an organisation as a whole and resulting in a complete lack of coverage of one third of its activities in the world’s most successful and influential seedbank. The world class research Kew does on cryopreservation, seed germination, and seed dormancy – all carried out at the Seed Bank – has no place to be displayed and the international work with the Great Green wall, Crop Wild Relatives, GIS and the like again has nowhere to hang it’s hat. 82.29.158.217 Jgdb500 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are always free to create article(s) about other parts of the organisation's activities and link to them from here. You could also create an 'umbrella' article about the organisation as a whole that could join together any and all separate articles relating to the parts of said organisation. (Without researching what already exists) I think you are correct that it would be good to address articles and linking on this topic. PRL42 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look into it. Jgdb500 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted Wakehurst to its own section, after Jgdb500 added a much-needed section down in "governance". If there was a lot more on the scientific work done at Kew there would be a case to split the article between science/organization and visitor attraction, but at the moment I think they should be kept together. The science would probably be seen by fewer if it was split off. The same goes for Wakehurst - personally I'd rename Millennium Seed Bank Partnership to the more familiar Millennium Seed Bank, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be an umbrella article focusing on the organisation. And the current article focuses quite a bit on Kew Gardens as a tourist attraction – I feel that much of this material would be more appropriate in Wikivoyage rather than Wik.ipedia.Pro. Headhitter (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed information that was more relevant to a travel guide some while ago, (e.g. times, prices, telephone numbers), leaving (I hoped) just factual information about the gardens. Is there anything specific you feel contravenes 'Wik.ipedia.Pro is not a travel guide'? PRL42 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PRL42. I think the heading "Attractions" sounds touristy. Might "Features" or similar wording be better? And I suggest the following probably contravene 'Wik.ipedia.Pro is not a travel guide':

Treetop walkway: "Visitors can ascend and descend by stairs or by a lift."

Vehicular tour: "Kew Explorer is a service that takes a circular route around the gardens, provided by two 72-seater road trains that are fuelled by Calor Gas to minimise pollution. A commentary is provided by the driver and there are several stops. A map of the gardens is available on the Kew Gardens website."

Guided walks: "Free tours of the gardens are conducted by trained volunteers and leave from Victoria Gate at 11 am and 2 pm every day (except Christmas Day)."

Queen Charlotte's Cottage: "It is open to the public on weekends and bank holidays during the summer."

Headhitter (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that is acceptable except maybe the tour times, and I can live with those. "Features" would be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is now an "umbrella" article about the organisation that manages Kew Gardens and the gardens at Wakehurst Place. Headhitter (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the logo clearly says "Kew's Royal Botanic Gardens", not "R. B. G., Kew" (which does not exactly roll off the tongue to start with, thus less likely, if not downright unlikely, to be chosen as a brand name for smthng so harmonious as that place).88.219.191.45 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation's name is Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew – see http://www.kew.org/about It uses "Kew" or "Kew Gardens" as a brand name. Headhitter (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This slightly random selection of two electronic databases at Kew doesn't seem to fit on this page - and in any case The Plant List has now been superseded. Any objection to me simply deleting this? Mark Nesbitt (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It clearly needs to be updated, based on Kew Science --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodrell Laboratory should not redirect to here (RBG Kew page) as it not mentioned here! Perhaps someone might like to include it? Meantime the redirection should be changed to its own section of the Kew Gardens page "/Kew_Gardens#Jodrell_Laboratory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceCybernetics (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —  Jts1882 | talk  06:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]