Talk:Miscanthus × giganteus

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Miscanthus giganteus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011020450/http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomgiantmiscanthus.com/miscanthus-licensing-individual.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303175531/http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gAC9-wMJ8QY0MLF3MjA89gE28Xx0AnA2dLE_2CbEdFAFE_YHg!/?PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_navid=NEWS_RELEASE&PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_contentid=2011%2F06%2F0254.xml to http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gAC9-wMJ8QY0MLF3MjA89gE28Xx0AnA2dLE_2CbEdFAFE_YHg!/?PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_navid=NEWS_RELEASE&PC_7_P8MVVLT318D720IS4KDAQB0CN3005915_contentid=2011%2F06%2F0254.xml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20110503_energ_en_bcap1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ener&topic=bcap-pjt-bloc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506012810/http://sites.google.com/site/heatonlabgroup/ to http://sites.google.com/site/heatonlabgroup/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x947029399/Southwest-Missouri-selected-as-site-for-biofuels-project
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011020450/http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html
*Added  tag to http://www.novabiom.com/en/parcelles-de-miscanthus/field-gallery
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I will here argue that the recent edits by Chris Cappocia (mainly his deletion of all footnote quotations) is 1.) in violation with Wikipedia's guidelines, and 2.) generally sacrifices reader friendliness for his own stylistic ideals.
I will go through his stated arguments for changing the article one by one.
- The "reducing overquote" argument. 
The Wikipedia guidelines for quotations says, and I quote:
"A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
In other words, quotations are considered a positive addition to a wikipedia article because they help the reader reach the stuff they are interested in fast and easy. Instead of spending hours sifting through irrelevant portions of typically very complex source articles, they get to the essence immediately.
- The "bloat" argument.
The argument here is basically that since quotations in general are totally unnecessary (Diannaa), or already present to a reasonable extent in the main article (Chris Cappocia and Primefac), more quotations only bloat the article. However, a more nuanced approach is entirely possible:
"While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations
In other words, the problem with long quotations is that they occupy too much space in the main text, thereby grabbing an unwarranted amount of attention. It should be clear directly from the wording here that this particular bloat problem only applies to the main article text, and not the footnotes. The footnotes have their own section, and do not obstruct the reading flow in any way: 
"Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations
In other words, even long footnote quotations make the article better, because long quotations contained within the footnote/references section make it easy for the reader to verify the assertions in the main text, without obstructing the reading flow. 
What about fair use policies? The original text strictly follow the rules, which says that direct quotations of copyrighted material must be kept very brief. Most copyrighted source material is simply paraphrased, but there are also occasional short quotes. The main bulk of quotes are under a creative commons licence (CC4). The length of such quotes however is a matter of personal style:
"Fair use does not need to be invoked for public domain works or text available under a CC-By-SA-compatible free license, so in such cases the extent of quotations is simply a matter of style."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations
Of course the above principle of neatly tucking away long quotes in a confined section applies also for quotations under a Creative Commons licence.
- The "combining refs" argument (re-formatting of citations)
The formatting of the citations were changed from the beginner-friendly and established citation style, to the  style, supposedly in order to avoid duplicated citations. Every source article now only has one citation, even if this citation is referenced to many times in the main text, from various paraphrases and various quotations. I can see that this "combining refs" practice make the article shorter and neater, by avoiding mentioning the source article name and its authors (the citation) more than once. The problem is that all the exact page numbers are deleted in this process – before the edit, the reader would know exactly where in a source article to look for the context of a quotation or paraphrase, while after the edit, the reader only sees the page numbers for the whole article. Again, reader friendliness is sacrificed in order for the article to conform to certain stylistic ideals (shortness, neatness).
The "combining refs" edit done here is in violation with Wikipedia's guidelines, which states:
"If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles
Also,
"Say where in the source the information came from."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References_dos_and_don%27ts
"Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from or a paraphrase or reference to a specific passage of a book or article."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Parenthetical_referencing
In other words, it is not enough to just add the start and end page numbers for the whole source article, the displayed page number or numbers should reference directly to the relevant, specific passage in the source article.
- Image deletion
The stated reason for the deletion of images was their irrelevance to the grass type Miscanthus x giganteus. The Wikipedia guidelines have a more relaxed view on this however:
"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_content
I agree that some of the pictures were less than optimal, but the problem is to illustrate the article well with the very limited selection of images available from Wikimedia. Some compromises has to be made if the article is to be thoroughly illustrated (which is a definitive plus). The Wikipedia guidelines recommend that images should directly depict things, activites and concepts described in the article, and I think all the deleted images do exactly that. 
The bamboo rhizome image directly depicts what a rhizome looks like, the roasted coffee beans directly depicts what torrefaction looks like, the corroded nail depicts what corrosion looks like, and the fouled water intake directly depicts what fouling looks like. All of these pictures satisfy the Wikepedia demand for images to directly depict concepts described in the article. Of course it would be better to instead have images of Miscanthus rhizomes, torrefied Miscanthus, corroded and fouled coal boilers. The problem is that such images are not available in Wikimedia. My opinion in this predicament is that we have to be pragmatic about it and use the next best thing.
The other deleted images (slag, earthworm and skylark) are images of objects described in the article, and therefore also in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.
As a former editor of text and images (but mostly images) in a national newspaper, I know how illustrations can enhance the reading experience.  Illustrations are unmatched in their ability to draw the reader into the article, and they provide basic understanding of what the article is about with the minimum possible amount of work. Illustrations provide stimulation to the eye, so it does not get tired so easily, and they provide visual reference points, so that jumping back and forth is possible without loosing track of where you are. In this particular case, with technical words like corroision, fouling and slag thrown about, they give a basic but immediate understanding of what this looks like to the reader, without having to jump around in different wikipedia articles.
Summed up, I think it is reader friendly to include more pictures and information right there in the article if it does not obstruct the reader flow, while Chris prefers to not have this information right there in the article itself, so that the article can be shorter. I agree that this has some merit, but I think that easily accessible information that do not obstruct the reading flow is more important than leanness. Compared to Chris, I basically prefer that relevant information be moved one notch closer to the reader, simply because it saves the reader a lot of time when he/she wants to research interesting things further.
***
This concludes my rebuttal of the arguments for the recent edits. On a meta level, I think my rebuttal in itself highlights the merit of direct quotations.
===Next steps===
I will continue with recommended next steps for the article.
Some Wikipedia contributors contributes content, others contribute style, and both are needed. The difficult part is to balance what you are good at, and therefore naturally prioritize, with what others are good at, and therefore naturally prioritize. I think the deletion of all footnote quotations is an illustrative example of lost balance in this respect - the article is neater now, and feels more organized, but reader friendliness and information value is substantially reduced. The question is: Is there a way of keeping both the neatness and organized-ness of the new version, and the reader friendliness and information richness of the old version?
I think there is. While researching Wikipedia's policies on the matters described earlier, I came across a way of doing things that a.) keeps only one citation for each source document, b.) still makes it possible to display exact page numbers, and c.) neatly organizes the references section into three parts, one for notes, one for quotations with short citations (like this: "Quotation here." Karl 1991, p. 210.), and one for the full length citations displayed only once (like this: "Karl, Frederick R. (1991). Franz Kafka: Representative Man. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. ISBN 978-0-395-56143-0." The short citations in the second part links to the full citations in the third part, which further links to the source material. See a beautiful example page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka#See_also. 
Wikipedia recommends this way of doing things, in articles with lots of references:
"Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window:
Using list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template, and then inserting them in the text with  tags.
Inserting short citations (see below) that then refer to a full list of source texts"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
I believe Chris Cappocia has already completed the first of these bloat countermeasures, and I will do the second. So, when I get the time, I will start to add relevant quotations back into the article, while keeping an eye on their length. I agree that some quotations can be trimmed, without loosing substantial information value. I originally added such long quotations because of their information value, without thinking too much about their length, because I figured length was unproblematic given that the quotations are confined to its own section. I still think that a large, confined footnotes section is of high value to the reader, but agree that there is some fat to be trimmed. 
Given the positive Wikipedia guidance on the matter of footnote quotation described earlier, I think this is a reasonable compromise.
The Perennial Hugger — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the length of citations - many astronomy articles (which I'm partial to) have a ton of references, and they're listed at the end of the article actually in the references section. For an article of this length, I think that would be a boon. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: clearly there is a very verbose style from this author that is evident even in this argument about excessive verbosity. not a very convincing argument here that you know how to write an article that anyone will want to read. This article is still way too long for the importance of the subject matter.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to assume good faith; Wikipedia writing is not entirely unique in the world of encyclopedias, but neither is it identical to many other forms of prose. A lot of people have difficultly writing in our particular "encyclopedic style". Primefac (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Putting the references at the end of the article makes it easier to read the article text when editing the page, yes. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Not really sure what you're trying to do here, since you've just copied the code of WP:SFN directly. Maybe try with the code you want to use? Primefac (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: The page accept multiple citation styles. So, if you for instance simply want to use visual editing, that's fine. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent deletions 

message: I will continue with recommended next steps for the article.
Some Wikipedia contributors contributes content, others contribute style, and both are needed. The difficult part is to balance what you are good at, and therefore naturally prioritize, with what others are good at, and therefore naturally prioritize. I think the deletion of all footnote quotations is an illustrative example of lost balance in this respect - the article is neater now, and feels more organized, but reader friendliness and information value is substantially reduced. The question is: Is there a way of keeping both the neatness and organized-ness of the new version, and the reader friendliness and information richness of the old version?
I think there is. While researching Wikipedia's policies on the matters described earlier, I came across a way of doing things that a.) keeps only one citation for each source document, b.) still makes it possible to display exact page numbers, and c.) neatly organizes the references section into three parts, one for notes, one for quotations with short citations (like this: "Quotation here." Karl 1991, p. 210.), and one for the full length citations displayed only once (like this: "Karl, Frederick R. (1991). Franz Kafka: Representative Man. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. ISBN 978-0-395-56143-0." The short citations in the second part links to the full citations in the third part, which further links to the source material. See a beautiful example page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka#See_also. 
Wikipedia recommends this way of doing things, in articles with lots of references:
"Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window:
Using list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template, and then inserting them in the text with  tags.
Inserting short citations (see below) that then refer to a full list of source texts"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
I believe Chris Cappocia has already completed the first of these bloat countermeasures, and I will do the second. So, when I get the time, I will start to add relevant quotations back into the article, while keeping an eye on their length. I agree that some quotations can be trimmed, without loosing substantial information value. I originally added such long quotations because of their information value, without thinking too much about their length, because I figured length was unproblematic given that the quotations are confined to its own section. I still think that a large, confined footnotes section is of high value to the reader, but agree that there is some fat to be trimmed. 
Given the positive Wikipedia guidance on the matter of footnote quotation described earlier, I think this is a reasonable compromise.
The Perennial Hugger — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the length of citations - many astronomy articles (which I'm partial to) have a ton of references, and they're listed at the end of the article actually in the references section. For an article of this length, I think that would be a boon. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: clearly there is a very verbose style from this author that is evident even in this argument about excessive verbosity. not a very convincing argument here that you know how to write an article that anyone will want to read. This article is still way too long for the importance of the subject matter.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to assume good faith; Wikipedia writing is not entirely unique in the world of encyclopedias, but neither is it identical to many other forms of prose. A lot of people have difficultly writing in our particular "encyclopedic style". Primefac (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Putting the references at the end of the article makes it easier to read the article text when editing the page, yes. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: Here is a skeleton markup code for moving footnotes to the end of the article (also in source editing view). I have a couple of problems still:
1.) If I delete the line with fn4 in it, in the Notes section, the links stop working. 
2.) I can't get the reflist to see the cite journal citatation, it only sees the book citations. So can't link to the proper Miscanthus citation.
Feel free to correct my mistakes, or organize it better.. 
Markup:
The Sun is pretty big.. But the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
The Perennial Hugger (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really sure what you're trying to do here, since you've just copied the code of WP:SFN directly. Maybe try with the code you want to use? Primefac (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference questions

message: Added harv parameter for anchor creation in the citations section. Used efn template for quotes/comments, sfn template for short citations. Sfn see the harv anchor automatically, while efn need an added harvnb template. Added collapse box around the references section. Wikipedia's guidelines states that "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary […].)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content
It is not ok to hide essential information from readers, but I think that the quotes, comments and citations in the references section actually only repeats (backs up in a properly academic way) or supplement the information in the main article text.
Pros: 
Even shorter than the current article, because of the collapse box around the references section (containing quotes, comments and citations). 
Footnoted quotes increases information value without obstructing reading flow. Only short citations inside footnotes, the short citations itself works as links to the full citations (harvard style). No CC information in the footnotes; the green open padlocks in the full citations instead signifies open access. Some trimming of footnote text.
By making the quotes and citations list defined, quotes and citations are moved out of the way also in source editing view.
Exact page numbers are back, good for fact checkers and other especially interested readers. (Often, searching for a piece of text in the source article does not work, for some reason.)
Footnotes have a more professional look. 
Cons:
Jumping back and forth between the article text and the references section via the footnotes links does not work unless the references collapse box is opened. However, jumping back and forth is unpractical anyway. The most convenient way of reading the footnotes - hovering the mouse pointer above the footnote - still works. (If you are on mobile, you click the footnote to see the content).
(Article headings had to be changed to not interfere with the headings in this talk page.)
The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The page accept multiple citation styles. So, if you for instance simply want to use visual editing, that's fine. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: New page layout

message: List defined quotations
Short citations
List defined full citations
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*I like the article as it is now. Although the article is long, it is sectioned and therefore one does not have to read the entire article. As the elephantgrass is a potential contributor to fighting global warming it is a good thing that the article is thorough and long. The fact that references are not visible before pushing "show" is also a great idea. 
* Like the increased accessibility on the quotations. Big improvement.92.221.160.182 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The page accept multiple citation styles. So, if you for instance simply want to use visual editing, that's fine. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I've tagged the article for tone.  There are a number of problems here.  There are several areas where the article sounds like a "how to" manual, with instructions on maintenance and using chemicals.  Other parts are almost like an article in magazine, pushing the virtues of the plant, bordering on advocacy.  The problems are not overwhelming but they are pervasive.  A lot of (minor) rewriting is needed to clean up the tone to make it more of an encyclopedia article.  You can FEEL the enthusiasm for the plant in the article by those who wrote it, and that makes it not neutral.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just tone issues; it needs a total rewrite to address tone, excessive quotation/notes, verbosity, and overdetail. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone issues was fixed in October 2021. I think the article is fine as it is. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't and it's not. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone issues