Talk:Rachis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Rachis is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality. |
This article could never become more than an extended definition. If nobody who has this article on their watchlist has anything to complaint, I shall make this it become a disambiguation page to Inflorescence, Spinal cord and Feather and merge the little information it contains to that pages and to Poaceae. Aelwyn 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] =Merge tag
I advise against a merge with Poaceae. The grasses are only one family where the rachis is prominent and varied. My other small concern is with the idea that rachis can only be an extended definition. I dont doubt that this might be the case but just as User:Aelwyn greatly extended and improved the inflorescence article, another editor may emerge with equally citable material solely devoted to the rachis. Mmcknight4 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just as User:Aelwyn greatly extended and improved the inflorescence article, another editor may emerge with equally citable material solely devoted to the rachis. No, it would not be possible, as rachis describes a part of one peculiar inflorescence. It simply holds the spikelets. We don't need an article for every word! Do we also need shell (acorn)? And ray (umbellet)? Not to mention wing (scorpionflies). Just kidding ;-). I mean, this article is not needed at all, IMHO. regards. Aelwyn 13:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Please, don't take it personally. I know everybody is somehow emotionally linked to their articles. A merger would be best.
- By all means, rachis may not be needed and I dont, out of hand, reject a merge/deletion. And I don't even think Ive edited the rachis article and as such, have no attachment to it. I guess the point I was making is that while the rachis seems non-notable with respect to the inflorescence article, there may be enough material on it to do something with. Maybe not. ANyway, if you are inclined to merge, why with Poaceae? Much of the Arecaceae material I have mentions the rachis and its forms. And I guess another problem I had is the idea that rachis would redirect to inflorescence. The inflorescence article doesn't seem to treat the prominence and variability of the rachis in grasses or palms and I think that discrepancy would need mending following a merge and redirect. Mmcknight4 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I don't want to merge it to Poaceae, but to merge the single parts to Poaceae, Feather and any other article where it's relevant. This should absolutely NOT be a redirect to inflorecence, but rather become a disambiguation. Aelwyn 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- By all means, rachis may not be needed and I dont, out of hand, reject a merge/deletion. And I don't even think Ive edited the rachis article and as such, have no attachment to it. I guess the point I was making is that while the rachis seems non-notable with respect to the inflorescence article, there may be enough material on it to do something with. Maybe not. ANyway, if you are inclined to merge, why with Poaceae? Much of the Arecaceae material I have mentions the rachis and its forms. And I guess another problem I had is the idea that rachis would redirect to inflorescence. The inflorescence article doesn't seem to treat the prominence and variability of the rachis in grasses or palms and I think that discrepancy would need mending following a merge and redirect. Mmcknight4 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I went to wiktionary and requested a rachis definition so I can link to it whenever it gets made which is fine enough by me. Mmcknight4 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
