Talk:Dactylis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmeiss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out numbers, unit abbreviations, 'orchard grass' and location of plant stub template

I don't understand your reverting of my edits to this article. I moved the "also called" phrase to the "also called" in brackets, as I couldn't see why there should be two sections, and in line with the redirect that I had just made for the missing encyclopædic articles project. I also expanded the "cm"s into "centimetres", in line with the Manual of style's advice on abbreviations. The only part that is a genuine matter of disagreement might be the numbers; some modern guides say that words only need to be used under ten, but I prefer what used to be the much more common, and to my eye better, system of using words for numbers under 100. I've seen both in Wikipedia articles, so as I was expanding the abbreviations I expanded the numerals too. --Phronima 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phronima - thanks for the note; my changes were partly that numbers (above ten and/or with fractions) should be in figures, not spelled out, and that when as figures, the unit is also abbreviated (I've not seen in the Manual of Style that it should be spelled out in every instance, only for indefinite sums like "several centimetres" - there's probably several thousand wiki pages where it isn't) ("one and a half centimetres" looks awful compared to 1.5 cm!); also that 'orchard grass' is a minor colloquial name, not what you'll find in e.g. the Flora of the British Isles, and thus should not be given equal prominence to its standard 'official' name; finally, 'plant-stub' is placed above the interwiki links, not above them (a lot of editors actually put stub tags above categories too, but that doesn't look so good at the bottom of a page) - MPF 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this matter here, not in edit summaries. Also, cite the specific wording in WP:MOS, etc., that you think supports your edit, if you would. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Walter Siegmund for bringing the discussion here.

I haven't been able to find the MoS citation, but I shall keep looking; I know that I've seen it. With regard to the numbers, as I explained in my initial comment, there isn't a simple rule about what should be done; diferent manuals and guides say different things. My own feeling is that, in an article written in English prose, writing out numbers looks better than using numerals (what MPF thinks looks awful looks fine to me, and is fairly common in ordinary English writing). --Phronima 11:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Measurements, but the citation is rather self-contradictory. Under 'Units' it says "Spell out source units in text", but further down under 'Examples', the Hippopotamus example (the closest to this case) it has "The hippopotamus stands 1.5 m at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kg", not "The hippopotamus stands one point five metres at the shoulders and weighs between two thousand, seven hundred and four thousand, five hundred kilogrammes". The latter may be normal in a novel, but it certainly isn't normal in scientific writing; nor (to my mind important here) is it found elsewhere on wikipedia's plant or animal pages: whatever the MoS says (which is after all, only a guideline, not compulsory), it is not the actual style followed by the vast majority of wiki users - MPF 15:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the MoS. Your example, though, inadvertently misrepresents what I'm suggesting, in that you've spelt out numbers over 100. I'm not clear on the approach taken by Wikipedia; do we have one style for non-scientific articles and one for non-scientific? If so, doesn't that raise problems concerning borderline topics? --Phronima 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pojar (the standard field guide to the north Pacific coast of North America) gives the common name "Orchard Grass" for Dactylis glomerata. Cocksfoot and Cocksfoot Grass are not mentioned. It uses numerals rather than spelling out numbers. It abbreviates units. "INFLORESCENCE: 1-sided paniche 3-14 cm long, the branches ascending to erect; 3- to 5-flowered spikelets flattened and borne at the end of short stiff branches in crowded asymmetric heads; glumes 4-6 mm long, ...". The online Encyclopedia Americana says "Bearing wide leaf blades and stiff panicles of flowers, it grows in dense clumps to a height of about 4 feet (1.2 meters)." It calls it "Orchard Grass", too. My 1947 edition of Encyclopaedea Britanica says "Dactylis glomerata (cocksfoot), a perennial grass with a dense panicle, ... has become naturalized in North America, where it is known as orchard grass..." On behalf of my continent, I think Orchard Grass should be given equal prominance with Cocksfoot! Phronima, you are welcome. Thank you both for prompting me to investigate this! Pojar, Jim and MacKinnon, Andy (2004). Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing. ISBN 1551050404.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

BTW, is MPF's placement of the plant stub template still in dispute? Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plant stub template placement. Wikipedia:Interlanguage links says it is required to put the language links at the bottom of the page, after external links, see-alsos, and categories. WP:STUB says By convention, these stub templates should be placed near the bottom of the article. That seems clear enough. MPF's placement follows the guidance and I will restore his placement. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat grass

I have added a section on 'Cat Grass' just now. I write from the perspective of a cat owner, not a botanist, and I'm concerned that my choice of words re state of growth of the grass might not be entirely proper. Someone might like to edit the final sentence in particular - essentially the cats love it when the grass is juvenile, soft and pliable blades, but lose interest when the grass matures and the stems/blades become 'woody'. Thoughts? 220.240.227.91 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No longer

I followed a link to cat grass and it led me here, but there is no mention of it in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Orchard grass" name placement

"Orchard grass" should appear in the first lines of the article, in my opinion. Relatively few North Americans are familiar with any other common name for D. glomerata, and the current first mention of "orchard grass" so deep in the page sets up a lot of potential confusion. I visited this article minutes ago, for example, when I wanted to confirm that the Dactylis glomerata mentioned in a journal article was the orchard grass I knew. --Belgrano 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dactylis. 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) 09:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]