Talk:Phylloclade

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance 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.

A Google search for the terms cladophyll, cladode and phylloclade return 5,800, 12,300, and 25,500 results, respectively.

I think that this material is better handled by wiktionary. As noted in the discussion at

cladophyll, that page is quite confused, and I'd like to get it deleted. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've removed the merger tag because this has been largely cleaned up. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, note that "Cladophyll" has been deleted as an article; it's now only a redirect to Petiole (botany).

What's not clear to me is why the general term "cladode" redirects to Plant stem, while the more specialized term "phylloclade" has its own article. Given their occurrence in cacti, for example, cladodes are more common and more widespread than phylloclades. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good situation. Note that if you follow the link for Cladode you get to a definition with another link to Cladode; this time that resolves to the wiktionary entry. There has never been a proper page for Cladode in wikipedia, do you feel energetic enough to create one? I think that people object to long page names, otherwise I'd favour "Cladodes and phylloclades". Nadiatalent (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by your kindly expressed sympathy on my talk page, I don't at present have time for what I am currently trying to do. However, I would myself find "Cladodes and phylloclades" acceptable as a title. I guess it could be argued that "Cladodes" alone would be ok, since phylloclades are a special case (when is a cladode sufficiently leaf-like to become a phylloclade?), but given that "phylloclade" produces more than twice as many Google hits as "cladode", perhaps it should be in the title, although maybe a redirect would be enough? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound good to just call the page Cladode and have Phylloclade as a redirect, with a subsection and photos to explain it. Perhaps I'll get around to putting in a small version of that change later today. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]