# Talk:Wheat

The image labeled 8/26 Popyploid wheat origins  (Wheat#/media/File:Polyploid_wheat_origins.svg) has a small error. The box for Wild Emmer lists the polyploidy as BBAbAb, but it should read BBAuAu. 24.9.116.54 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am slowly populating the Wheat#Grain classes section. There are plenty of sources, rich history, and lot of modern complexity there. I am planning to spin it off into Classes of wheat, seeking input. Specifically pinging @Chiswick Chap: Викидим (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, it's a huge crop with a lot of history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I hear some people talking about "hagberg" in wheat and how it affect the price of harvested wheat.  can someone knowlegable please explain what hagbert is and why it affect the pricing of wheat?   Thanks. 50.35.130.235 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There is an article at Falling number - should it be linked from this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that's too technical for a general introduction like this one. Also, please don't start multiple threads all at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The 21st century section I just started is poor.
There is some info at
https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/new-data-shows-that-crops-like-wheat--coffee--beans-and-cassava-could-lose-half-of-the-best-land-for-growing-them-by-2100/en
I wonder whether Effects of climate change on agriculture#Wheat should be excerpted to here or vice-versa? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Please, no. Excerpting is a terrible idea: what is focused and relevant in one article is almost always mainly-out-of-scope and defocused in another, because the context is different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the importance of the subject I guess the length is OK at the moment? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm nervous of anything over 100k really. Ideally we'd hive off some more sections as subsidiary articles (leaving a "main" link and a brief summary), but each section is already tersely edited and compact. So, while the length is concerning, it's not easy to reduce. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Do excerpts count towards length? Having said that - although I love excerpts I prefer to excerpt from the better article to the not so good rather than the other way around. Or from the lead of a specilized GA to a section of a general GA Chidgk1 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
They do, people just count text. The lead thing is a bit different; if (and that's a big IF) the lead of a subsidiary article is of good quality, then it might serve as the "summary style" text with a "main" link to the subsidiary, as a brief section of the parent article. But all that is starting from the wrong end of the telescope. When an article is too long, we split off a section as a subsidiary, summarize it briefly (as a lead, maybe) and add a "main link", in that order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth (including back when I did the GA review) I think it's sitting at a good length right now. I wouldn't call it excessively long, but the main thing with the question of length is how concise the text is relative to the subject matter. I don't think it's being superfluous, needing trimming, or having excess minor details. It's not too short, and there aren't glaring areas at least missing from the article. That's not say things couldn't be added, but I'm just not seeing anything that really needs discussion right now either. KoA (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks. I went through the article bit by bit to tighten the wording, so I'm pleased that worked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The history coverage is pretty weak, considering this is one of the most important foods in world history. I plan to make some additions, but meanwhile, i'm providing users interested in history a few sources that they can use. Rjensen (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. It'd be better to add brief cited text directly, rather than filling up the 'Further reading' and leaving the text with whatever problem you believe exists. I'll have a look at the matter separately.
What can be said immediately is that the article contains sensible overviews of wheat's Domestication, Early farming, and Spread (around the world); further historical detail is given for the 19th and 20th centuries in the Production chapter, and there's more in Farming techniques, so the article already contains a substantial amount of history, perhaps more than is at once apparent. In addition, there are subsidiary articles with 'further' links giving more information, such as in Taxonomy of wheat and Wheat production in the United States, which include historical information on those subtopics: we don't have to try to do everything in one article, nor is that possible on such a large subject.
On the whole, I feel that if you want to add more historical detail somewhere, this article almost certainly isn't the place: it is already a carefully-curated 140,000 bytes long, of which the historical materials I've mentioned add up to a chunky 40,000 bytes, and we don't want to make the article any longer (see the thread above, "Is the article a suitable length?"). There is plenty of scope for expansion of History of wheat which at 46,000 bytes is substantial but not overlong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)