Talk:Dehiscence (botany)

message: The word "dehiscence" has a number of associations in medicine that probably should get included.  Wound dehiscence is a previously closed wound reopening.  There is also a phenomenon called superior canal dehiscence in which a new window opens up in the labyrinth of the inner ear, resulting in a strange form of vertigo.  I am not expert enough to write this article, but I can recognize the need.
:I just paraphrased the above into a disambiguation page for dehiscence.  Thanks for the input. David D. (Talk) 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I've reverted a good-faith edit that moved the "see also" section down, and removed the wiktionary link for "caducous". My main concern is the position of the "see also" section (though I think that something for "caducous" will become useful as this page grows). "See also" normally belongs at the bottom of a page, but in this case it will be lost after all the detail. I feel that the "see also" is an important aspect of defining what dehiscence is, because in researching for this page I find that people talk about dehiscence of the hypanthium, meaning its abscission, which is quite confusing. I've put "anthesis" in there because, oddly enough, people don't say "dehiscence" for flowers such as Platycodon that pop open in exactly the same fashion as sporangia, etc. Disambiguation doesn't seem appropriate to this sort of difficult distinction between terms. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I see your point. I think it would be better to have something like:  at the top of the article though to make it clear immediately. There's probably a better way of doing it, there are loads of possibilities at Template:For. Still not quite sure about the wiktionary link though - maybe an external link link the one on the right would be better? Smartse (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: This article doesn't belong inside :Category:Plants with dehiscent fruit: it's not about a plant with dehiscent fruit.  You could try to argue that it's the "main article" of the category, but that's not correct either, because this article includes other kinds of dehiscence, so it doesn't lie inside the category but straddles it.  Whichever way I look at it, although the category and the article are clearly connected, and a link to it can be put on the category page, the connection is not the kind required for categorization (which is basically an "is-a" relationship). So I have restored the earlier deletion of the category. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter, thanks for explaining why you reverted the inclusion of dehiscence (botany) into the above mentioned category. I like when things like this are discussed rather than done away with without any explanation. As you know, I was the one who had the idea originally, and you might expect me to be wed to it. But I'm not! I would be the first to acknowledge that botany is a strong interest of mine, but that I'm not an expert in any way. I think it is possible that this category went from the idea stage to creation too quickly without being properly fleshed out, and partly because I wanted to understand it better first. Unfortunately, in my opinion, not enough views have been heard. I still think the general idea has promise, but like Alan Liefting, agree that it may be too broadly conceived. To address your precise reason for reverting, I felt that way too, but wasn't sure of a better way of connecting them. I'm still not, but maybe something along the lines of having a  link would be helpful (that is, if the categories survive). Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why, if the categories survive, there couldn't be a "main" link to this article even if it's not in the category: it would be a little odd, but I would be happy with it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or an explanation at the top, like the one at :Category:Plants_with_indehiscent_fruit? I don't know if such explanations are "officially allowed" on category pages, though there are certainly quite a number of them. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that category pages not only can but should have explanatory text. Help:Category#Category pages points out that category pages can be edited like any other page. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization of this article