Talk:List of longest vines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I just began the page five minutes ago. Aren't you being a bit quick on the trigger? I still occasionally struggle with your code. It will all make sense in time. your reason here) --Treeenthusiast (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would write a description and give some references first and then go from there. It wasn't clear what the article was about. Maybe try using your sandbox first before creating an article? If you have any other questions ask. Chase (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

I have been checking the sources and so far none of them unambiguously state "longest vine" or any variation on that. As such this is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH that needs to be corrected with sources that state what is claimed. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mt Botany; If we change the name of the article to "List of longest published vine lengths" then it delivers exactly what is promised. Doesn't that make the "synthesis' problem go away? This article may be of little interest to professional botanists, but this is the sort of thing that will get the next generation of boys and girls interested in natural history in general and botany in particular. Treeenthusiast (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Treeenthusiast Changing the title of the article does not change the synth problem. It would just mean that it would still need a source saying something like, "longest published lengths", "among the longest", etc. The problem is that synth is a type of original research. Which is good and wonderful for magazine pieces, books, and journal articles, but not what Wikipedia does. In addition, because it is not independently discussed in sources for this topic it probably also fails notability. To quote from WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." I'm not looking at this from a professional botany point of view or trying to make the Wiki follow some sort of science journal rule. I'm simply working to make sure that the information in Wikipedia is verifiable and follows our internal guidelines for inclusion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]