Talk:Grass/Archive 1

message: Vodka is not a grass product!
Vodka comes from Potatoes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vodka ?

message: I heard on the DiscChan that it hadn't even appear yet during the Cretaceous period.
-G
Modern grass may not have, but there certainly were plants with the structure of a single narrow leaf growing straight up from the ground! bd2412 T 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When did grass as we know it first appear?

message: Stupid question but is grass edible to humans or any other creatures? If not, why not? A list of animal families which eat it would be useful? Thanks, --134.225.163.117 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In fact, the true grass family Poaceae includes some of the staple food grains grown around the world. Rice, wheat, and oat, for example, are in the grass family. However, if you define "edible" as directly eating the grass leaves, then I'm not sure if any grasses are edible. SCHZMO ✍ 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at . I know it's just a t-shirt, but the numbers seem reasonable, except for dietary fibers and carbohydrates, which i would expect to be more abundant. Is there any way to really find it out ?-- ExpImptalkcon 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by edible. The actual leaves of common lawn grass (and as far as I know all other grass) are non-toxic to humans but give little to no nourishment. This is because they are mainly made of cellulose which humans can't digest. Animals like cows and horses that eat grass have special bacteria in their stomach to help them break the cellulose down, humans don't have this so we get almost no nutritional value from it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose for more info. Mloren (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It says over here  that grass does contain vitamin C and beta-carotene. Wintermutiny (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: ...and therefore, unless the vitamin C content is really minute, grass could be said to be of significant nutritional value to humans in not too far fetched situations. Wintermutiny (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edible grass

message: I realize this off topic, but whenever I access the grass page, the search bar and toolbox disapear.  I just thought id toss that out there. - Vipersp51 10:32, 03/02/06 (UTC)
:Strange. I do not see that.  Maybe you should try some other articles to see how general the problem is on your computer. - Marshman 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 8. SCHZMO ✍ 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page editing problem 

message: Does grass "correctly" refer to plants in the family Poaceae (as cedar "correctly" refers to those in the genus Cedrus [but other plants are also named "cedar"]) or is the name grass equally acceptable for all the plants listed on this page. SCHZMO ✍ 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Just been watching 'Planet Earth' on the BBC and Attenborough (spelling) noted that Grass is the most popular plant on the planet (i.e. more grass than any other plant). Since people here seem to know plenty about grass is this worth adding to the main article?
Also i removed the statement about 'grass being greener' as a reference to the greeness of grass. The statement is about wanting what you cannot have (and that things look better from a distance than maybe they are), rather than anything to do with grass of itself.
::Yes that seems like a valid point. As for removing reference about the greeness of grass, I think it should be kept but moved to a section about folklore. Think outside the box 12:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass, most popular plant on earth?

message: I went through the history of this article and found that the vast majority of edits are eitehr juvenile vandalism, or reversion of same - with the vandalism mostly coming from IPs. So, I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to see if that shakes out any regular vandals. I'll unprotect on request if anyone thinks this is a bad idea. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quantity of vandalism and the response to my last request for protection is a joke - . I tried; I failed. It should be perfectly obvious to most reasonable people that there are an ongoing problem here, even if the protection list admins are too shortsighted to see it. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been semi-protected before, and I have just done so again. Until October. Hopefully by then the more persistent vandals will forget it exists (or will grow up some), but I have no high hopes that this article will cease to be a vandal magnet. bd2412 T 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work ! It's just annoying that the protection admins haven't reacted sensibly. I think that your hope is in vein, in my experience there are always plenty more vandals to replace those who stop. Being the nickname for Marijuana, it's a natural target. If the vandalism occurs again, I'd support indefinate semi or indeed full protection. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I was surprised to see this article doesn't have an infobox most lifeforms, species, genus etc do; is the term "grass" to broad to give an infobox correctly. This article says grass is monocotyledon, that article also has no infobox. I don't know all the info could anyone who does create the infoboxes?
Carlwev 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox?

message: Why is this page such a huge target for vandals? I can think of many more interesting and topical pages to vandalize. C1k3 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the vandal appeal derives from an alternative meaning accorded to the word, which may be most familiar to those likely to vandalize. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that too, but most of the edits appear to be nonsensical.... well, okay, now that I think about it, it makes sense. :) C1k3 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wish there were some way to remove the vandalism edits from the edit history of the page altogether. bd2412 T 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I removed the following from the article:
:It is interesting to note that in Sanskrit language- the word " go grassum". "Grassum" means 'One mouthful of food' and 'Go' means Cow. Thus , go grassum, means a mouthful of food for the cow.
I did a fairly intensive Google search and have not found any evidence that grassum means anything in Sanskrit. bd2412 T 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit? 

message: Image:Grass_covered_house_in_Iceland_1972.jpg is so underexposed that I don't think it's suitable for this (or any) article. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :-) -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, although I think the replacement image is pretty far away. I wish someone would upload a better grass roof picture. bd2412 T 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under exposed picture 

message: Kind of an odd question, but I've always wondered what is the actual growth rate of grass? Rafi5288 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably variable, and very specific to species, climate, and conditions. Maybe time of year, too. bd2412 T 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass Growth rate 

message: This page is not balanced very well. The largest paragraph should probably not be about cricket. I think only a summary of information is needed for it's use in sports. Don't really need all the infor about cricket that is more at home in Cricket Pitch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.36.159 (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd content 

message: What about grass allergies? There should be an article with cross links to grass allergies / allergens. They are important. There should me more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.14.48 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. bd2412 T 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allergy 

message: The article is missing some important information like:
Are there any names for the types of grass? What are they, whats the differences? where can they be found?
What is the life span of grass? How does it populate? What minerals does it need to grow? How much light does grass need to be able to live? Do we have a DNA anayalist of grass?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.165.101 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article really addresses a nickname which does not coincide with the specific biological entity. To find out information of the detail you seek, you should probably look to the individual articles on the plants mentioned in the article. I'll see if I can clarify that some. bd2412 T 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass biology 

message: Should mention grass first appeared 20-30M years ago. JAF1970 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance

message: There are (were) two paragraphs in this article that deal with the supposed social importance of and status implied by the condition of suburban grass and the control of this supposed phenomenon by homeowner's associations. Does the editor of these paragraphs have any sources for the claim that this phenomenon exists? Is there a source that says it occurs particularly in the US, Canada and Britain? Are there any quotable sources for the relative prevalence of this in say, Italy and Australia? I also think the final sentence of these two paragraphs is not NPOV, and ascribes notions of supposed class hierarchy to persons who like to mow their lawn. I am deleting these unsourced paragraphs.
Perhaps the editor might also productively ask himself why having an allergy to grass is considered the converse of believing it affords some social status. Cottonshirtτ 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. Found a few sources. One cites as a reason for lawn maintenance:
Matthew J. Lindstrom, Hugh Bartling, Suburban sprawl: culture, theory, and politics (2003), p. 72, quoting Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession (1994), p.21. See also Paul Robbins and Julie T. Sharp, "Producing and Consuming Chemicals: The Moral Economy of the American Lawn", Economic Geography 79:4 (2003), p. 425-45; reprinted in William G. Moseley, David A. Lanegran, Kavita Pandit, The Introductory Reader in Human Geography (2007), p. 323-36. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to my point is just plain good manners, thank you. But the point of the exercise is to improve the encyclopedia. If you have good sources then put it in the article. Cottonshirtτ 10:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Social Commentary 

message: Reminds me of this. Especially since one of the two important SF novels mentioned is so important it redlinks. 99.164.60.84 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass in fiction 

message: There's no link to the Swedish page (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gräs) and I cannot add it since this article is semi-protected. Could somebody fix it?
27.32.110.51 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Keith D (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish link 

message: In the Cricket section the length of test matches is incorrect. Test matches are 5 days not 7 days. Please change the 7 for 5 
Tapuboss (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "several" - it seems to me that the grass can get worn down in fewer than five days, even. bd2412 T 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have set this edit request to answered in light of the answer above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 October 2012 

message: The Cretaceous period circa 145±4 to 66±0.3 million years ago  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.12.253 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cretaceous period 

message: The term graminoid is used to refer collectively to grasses and grass-like plants (normally sedges and rushes); i.e. the words grass and graminoid are not synonymous, as implied in several places on this page. Reference to any textbook on ecology or vegetation description will show this. Indeed, in ecology, the grouping graminoid (grasses, sedges and rushes) is often used as a functional group, and opposed to forbs (broad-leaved herbs).
:Yes, I don't see any basis for the claim that sedges and rushes are grasses. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose in a loose folk taxonomic sense, "grass" is a category/common name that includes sedges and rushes, but that sense could probably be addressed in the lead of Poaceae or with a hatnote. I'd support moving this article to Graminoid, redirecting grass to Poaceae, and moving content from this article to Poaceae as appropriate (the Lawns section is really about Poaceae only, although lawns ought to be mentioned in an article about Graminoids. Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: What would you want to do with Trithuria? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a "grass" to me, but after a quick glance at Google scholar, I'm not sure that anybody has called it a graminoid. It looks like a graminoid clade including Centrolepidaceae has been recognized since the 70s, and Hydatellaceae has split out by some authorities since the 80s. Is there a paper that includes Trithuria in Centrolepidaceae and which includes Centrolepidaceae in the graminoids? Perhaps. I'm not too hung up on the precise phylogeny though. I'm more interested in whether the other grass-like plants in the clade have been called "graminoids" as a term for a form taxon (not as a term for the clade itself). The traditional grass+sedge+rush "graminoid" form taxon seems to me to have a Northern hemisphere bias, and I'm curious whether any Southern hemisphere botanists have previously included other grass-like plants in the definition of "graminoid" as a form taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass is not synonymous with graminoid 

message: "In some places, particularly in suburban areas throughout the world, the maintenance of a grass lawn is a sign of a homeowner's responsibility to the overall appearance of their neighborhood." Isn't it a bit much to say that this is the case throughout the world? I have heard that this is an American thing, and a few Western nations could probably qualify as well, but I don't know how many or which nations and the article doesn't seem to know, either. finval  (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I don't see lawns like that in South Asia or Southeast Asia (except parts of Australia). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but suburban areass (at least in the sense that the suburb article focuses on), are pretty much a feature of the parts of the world where lawns are considered important. Plantdrew (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "throughout the world". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawns "throughout the world"