Talk:Sorghum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayarnott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sweet sorghum

There seems to be a contradiction between this page and the "Commercial Sorghum" page. One states that sweet sorghum is a varity that produces sweet, juicy grains and is thus equivalent to sweet corn. The the other claims that that sweet sorghum is synonymous with forage sorghum, ie stock feed.Ethel Aardvark 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The apparent contradiction stems from your assumption that "sweet and juicy" was referring to the grain, which it does not. It refers to the stalk which is sweet, juicy, and stringy much like sugar cane. PurdueAG 05 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the stalk of sweet sorghum is used to make sorghum molasses NOT the seed. Also,the botanical name for sweet sorghum is sorghum vulgare. Any traveler who drives through kansas will plainly see that grain sorghum is much shorter than sweet sorghum. Please note that the botanical name for broom corn is sorghum bicolor, look at the length of the brush on this plant. This should be the obvious sign. As a newbie who has few skills in the wikipedia world I'd like to request that some changes be made to the sorguhm info around here. Those who've mistakenly labeled proso millet as broom corn please remove that name from the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broom Maker (talk • contribs) 04:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Re merge proposed by PDH at 04:18, 28 August 2007, I think that a merge is probably not a good idea in this case. Sorghum bicolor is about a species, titled as scientific name, and I think a natural focus for botanical interest, whereas commercial sorghum is about use, which is identifiably different, and furthermore does include other species (if fractionally). I think that confusion could result from the conflation of statements on the specific and general if the articles were merged. ENeville 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess this proposal is not up to date anymore, but still: I think merging would be a bad idea, as Sudan Grass is od the species Sorghum sudanese (oh, it's not mentioned in the list), which is becoming (or is already) an important energy crop, e.g. used for the production of biogas. Sorghum sudanese wouldn't fit in Sorghum bicolor, which would result in all information on the energetic use being stored in the species article. Much better to have a summary in commercial sorgum --Cornixx (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over wiki, I found three pages that relate to this topic: Sorghum, Sorghum bicolor, and Commercial_sorghum. The first is a very botanical oriented page focus on the Genus Sorghum that is of reasonable quality. I feel that important botanical items mentioned in the comments above are covered in by this article. The other two articles are the ones under discussion for merger. I find Sorghum_bicolor to be a short stub in desperate need of attention. Commercial_sorghum is very general covering much more then just the grain or forage crop. Because of this, I support merging these two articles.PurdueAG 05 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"linkspam" that isn't

This link was removed with the statement that it is linkspam:

• Crop Wild Relatives Inventory: reliable information source on where and what to conserve ex-situ, regarding Sorghum genepool

It is actually a very authoritative database about crop plants, although that is not well explained here. The link as it is coded here actually works, which is not the case if one searches in the database and copies the link found that way, so someone has gone to some trouble to fix the coding. I've just put in considerable effort on the page Phaseolus coccineus to turn the external link into a citation and to give it a better explanation, but I don't have time to do that for every one of these cases. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't take any particular position on the suitability of the site as a reference - but the behavior of the originally adding user was definately spamming - they're the maintainer of the web site, they mechanically added it on 60+ pages, they were moving the link 'up' to be at the top of the links section, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a solid website, with excellent credentials and well-researched information. It was added to appropriate articles. Do you have evidence of this moving the link up to be at the top of the links section? I'm reverting you, maybe not on all. However, I am currently flooded out, so it may be a few days. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC))

Thanks AfadsBad, I'm currently merely submerged in work. The site is a bit messy in technical ways, but the information there is so very fundamental and solid that adding a properly explained link to lots of pages would be justified. I'd be interested to see if the moving-up activity was on pages where the other links are spammy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, too, as I don't see this activity. I have power and internet, although it may not last, so I will still be slow. I was very pleased to learn of this website! --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC))

Short description

Hello @Jonesey95: Can you explain this edit? Invasive Spices (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I recommend starting by reading WP:SDEXAMPLES and the other guidance on the same page. Then type "Sorghum" into your search box and look at the short descriptions that are shown. If one wanted a little more detail to disambiguate this species from others in the genus, one could add "used for food" or something similar to the end of the current short description. Also, the word "important" is misused multiple times on this page and should be replaced with a neutral word that is supported by sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95: Your edit summary was restore SD per SD instructions. What "SD instructions" require the change from something informative to something automatically generated like Species of plant? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  See the link above. Using the unsourced and non-neutral word "important" in the short description is certainly beyond the pale. That is a good place to start. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Short descriptions are not required to be sourced. As it turns out this one is. Did you read the article? Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Getachew

Hello @JzG: Please explain this edit. I added very good supporting sources and a note specifically so no one would do that. Also I should point out that your removal leaves the citation in a strange and broken state. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The DOI 10.4236 is Scientific Research Publishing, a predatory open access publisher, as you noted. These journals are not peer-reviewed, they merely appear reviewed. The only part of a submission given any scrutiny is the accompanying check. But you are right that the entire thing should be removed as the other source is based on it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• @JzG: That's obviously not correct and that's obviously not what I said. How have you edited Wikipedia since 2006 and been an admin without learning the basics of WP:V and WP:RS? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I removed what was, at the time, the sole cite on the entire project to a Scientific Research Publishing journal. As it happens, the cite was supporting WP:OR. What I should have done was to remove the entire statement since it appears to be based on sources derivative from a predatory publisher. Predatory journals are self-publishing, they are not reliable sources. I don't know what you're arguing beyond that. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• What WP:OR? — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)