Talk:Paulownia

Plants Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This statement removed:

Paulownia has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any tree in the world with a tested strength of 288 kg/m³, which is 129 kg/m³ greater than balsa. This makes Paulownia a highly sought-after marine timber.

The figures quoted are densities, not strengths, and therefore irrelevant to the claim, which needs verification before it can be included - MPF 10:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nebulous Sentence

There's a sentence that reads "Testing by CSIRO in Australia has shown that Paulownia wood is very attractive for wood-boring insects." I don't quite get if it means Paulownia has good resistance to boring insects, or if insects find the wood attractive. Needs clarification. JettaMann (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I have several times removed an external link to [1] on the grounds that it's a link to a commercial web site and so is outside the Wikipedia:external links guidelines. The owner of the site, User:JamesSLawrence, disagrees. We have been discussing it at his talk page. I suggested that we should bring the discussion here.

Most of his arguments seem to concern other material on the page that he suggests is similarly commercial. I think this is not to the point. (If other material on the page violates policies or guidelines, it should be removed too.) I hope some other editors will weigh in with opinions about JamesSLawrence's link.

Thanks. —Mark Dominus (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Mark's post above - My initial poor choice of words lead Mark to think I was saying my site is not commercial. That's not what I meant. My point was there are 2 other external links to commercial sites. I only ask for the policy to be applied to all. I will be happy to accept that I can not add a link to my commercial website if there are no other links to commercial websites.

I also wanted clarified if it is acceptable to list commercial operations in the article.

Thank you. JamesSLawrence (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else seems to care, so if you put the link back I will leave it alone. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]