Talk:List of companion plants

message: in the source for the statement "Broccoli when intercropped with lettuce was shown to be more profitable than either crop alone."³³ the source reads as that interplanting rather yield less mass and less nutritional value.
only mean to ask an open question about the reading of this source, as i fail to see how this is concluded to be more profitable. 
[33] http://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/v-23-3/39.pdf
(offtopic but this is my first venture into editing & forum discussions - it's all very intimidating, pls be nice to me. thanks.) SmthSweet (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I read it, the paper does say that the broccoli becomes a bit smaller and less nutritional, but instead of having 1 field of lettuce plus 1 field of broccoli, it is only a single field of both lettuce and (slightly worke) broccoli, for a net benefit. So it seems that lettuce *is* hindering broccoli, but more than makes up for it in its own productivity. 2A01:C22:77F7:D600:6F5:A6C:3488:CBC2 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because the question is moot. The source is not WP:RS. — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brassicas w/ Lettuce 

message: I updated a few citations and am glad to see the recent removal of some unreliable sources. Here are some comments on my latest rummage through the article.
# This edit  introduced a source which is about the effect of a particular cover crop tilled in, and is not about companion planting at all.
# Likewise, this edit  introduced another allelopathy article, which again is not about companion planting. If you think about it, "alleopathy" and "companion" just don't go together in the same topic; one is about plants repelling other plants, the other is about which plants go well together.
# This source  isn't really a reliable source. It alleges to be sourced from ANR-1045, but there's nothing in ANR-1045 to support that content. These sorts of "blog-y" online postings that don't contain a publication number (such as "ANR-1045") aren't really well-sourced extension office publishings. In this example, this blog article was posted in 2007 or earlier and does not appear on the current Alabama Cooperative Extension System website (aces.edu).
# Citation #17  says it is based on something else, which I found here as a live copy, or here from the original ATTRA website, now archived. If they are equivalent, then perhaps swap out the "based on" article with the actual one which seems more of a reliable source.
I updated citations #1-30 for missing titles/authors/etc. or dead/live/new URLs, but did not check them for content/verification.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  19:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Each time I've written something on this topic, your response has come across as dismissive and patronizing. It's very off-putting.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm responding to each comment with my opinion of its technical merits. I can't promise to agree with suggested actions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you immediately dismiss my talk page suggestions ("your insta-pinion") yet perform on them a few days later (those same pesky "technical merits" you didn't like), you come across as non-collaborative, to put it mildly. This was just one example of our interactions and you're well past three strikes. Fortuitously, I have other interests and don't care enough about this topic to have to put up with OWNBEHAVIOR. Ta ta.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really, no. You indicated that you thought the article should be deleted; since I think it serves a useful function, I did my best to counter your arguments, to remove challenged sources, and to add new reliable sources to make the article's notability clear. I wouldn't have done this without your prompting. As for ownership, I hadn't edited the article in many years until that point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eval 2023-11-25 

message: These tables are extremely long with complex content in each block and contrasting information in adjacent cells. IF you cannot remember the order of the categories across the line then you have to scroll to the top of the table and then back down to where you were reading.
Is it possible to have the column's category labels fixed on screen as we scroll down the tables, so that the categories are always visible. (e.g. In Microsoft Excel the functionality is called "freeze panes" 
Having the category labels vanish as we scroll down the table makes the tables less readable. I honestly don't know how to implement that change myself. O bliv Ian (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability of tables