Edge Rewrite
restyle Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Wheat/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Wheat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wheat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Dwarf wheat

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I added a note that most wheat grown these days is semi-dwarf wheat, but a troll, with the Wikipedia name of Meters, deleted it within 10 minutes, and claimed I didn't have an adequate source. My source was the article on Norman Borlaug. He claimed I didn't have an adequate source. I guess an extensive WikiPedia article doesn't count as an adequate source. Understandable, but on can consult primary references given in that article. This article, as it is, gives no warning that most wheat grown today was developed by Borlaug. Weakipedia: only this years's Lamestream Narritive facts need apply.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.46.95 (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia articles aren't adequate sources. At any given moment any one of them can include false information planted intentionally or out of ignorance by anyone in the world. There's no fact-checking before content is published here. See WP:NOTRS. This doesn't mean your information is wrong, but another Wikipedia article can't be relied on as a source. Also, read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You had no grounds whatsoever for calling Meter a "troll". Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
might I suggest you analyse the sources on the Norman Borlaug page and determine which ones can be sources for your desired contributions? I beleive you are factually correct (I grew up on a wheat farm), but it is necessary to use the right sources.James.au (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. I hope somebody who cares about Wikipedia much anymore will do it for me. I am unenthusiastic about spending time researching things only to have armies of trolls revert my work, rather than allow Wikipedia pages to include politically incorrect things. It's happened to me more than a few times before. If nobody else gets around to it, I'll give it a try (that I am not hopeful about) when my schedule clears up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.46.95 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Since when did the dwarf-wheat page redirect here? Is there some sort of campaign against dwarf wheat? It's not like this isn't notable. 4.31.13.17 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear 4.31.13.17, Wikipedia rarely has conspiracies, frequently has cockups (as we say in Britain). I expect that the dwarf-wheat article was so poorly written and cited that a decision was taken to point it over here. It's clearly a topic with potential for a major article; if you would like to take the time to develop and cite it properly, you'll be very welcome. If you create an account (free, quick, simple), you will get your own user space where you can develop it quietly with minimal interference. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

wheat amounts in production and value of world crop

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear colleagues-

In the interests of both clarity and verifiablilty, it seems that the statement that "World trade in wheat is greater than for all other crops combined.[5]" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat) paragraph 3, sentence 2.

Was that the amount, or the value?

Is that still the case in 2018?

The data in the introductory section, concerning relative trade of wheat compared to other crops, appears to be in conflict with other wikipedia artlcles (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_valuable_crops_and_livestock_products; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice) as well as articles from other sources (see: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=HIGH_AGLINK_2017; https://www.businessinsider.com/10-crops-that-feed-the-world-2011-9#2-wheat-9), although supported by one source (see: http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/306175/Briefing%20Paper%20(3)-Wheat%20Initative%20-%20H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne%20Lucas.pdf)

Collegially, David C.P. Leland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpleland (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page does not have an interlanguage link to the Italian WP, specifically to the article it:Triticum. When I tried to add it to the Wikidata page relative to this page, it fails because the Italian page results already linked to the item "Triticum". How can this be solved? --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

? The Italian page it:Triticum has no English interlanguage link on it. But I agree: whether I work from the Italian or English end to add the link to Wikidata, it balks and says the item is in use elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The Wikidata system is such a mess, as it pretends there's a one-to-one correspondence between concepts and the words for them across languages. This Wheat article is mapped to Spanish es:Trigo, and both of them are mapped to French fr:Blé. However, es:Trigo is a redirect to es:Triticum, and that is mapped to it:Triticum (as well as fr:Triticum, though fr:Blé does not redirect there).
But then I tried to map the Italian redirect it:Grano to Wheat, and that also failed, though I can't tell why. Largoplazo (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata doesn't allow the creation of links to redirects. You can do a temporary edit; remove the redirect code, make the link in Wikidata, and then readd the redirect code. I have just done so for Triticum here on en.wiki; languages with an article on Triticum will now have a interwiki link to en.wiki.

nutrition table error

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The vitamin A value for sweet potato in the nutrition table on this page is plainly incorrect. I don't know what the correct value is, but this page states that 100g of sweet potato provides 14,187 IU of vitamin A. The adult male RDA is just 3,000 IU and 10,000 IU is considered unhealthy. But of course a moderate 100g portion of sweet potato is not normally considered a dangerous quantity to consume.

Someone with the appropriate skill and data sources should probably review the entire table for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.142.155 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I wondered if the discrepancy between values for raw and cooked forms, mentioned in the text introducing the table, could possibly be part of the issue. Could raw sweet potato be dripping with vitamin A? But now the table tells us that 100g of raw sweet potato provides a much less frightening 961 IU of vitamin A. The hoped-for review must have happened. Jdickinson (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultivation Cycles

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I don't see in the article any substantial explanation of the planting/harvesting cycles for wheat generally, nor any comparison of the cycles for spring and winter wheats. A few questions readily come to mind. Do the names refer to planting times or harvesting times or what? Can the same plot of land grow two crops (wheat or other) per year? When are the two kinds planted and harvested? If there is crop rotation, does that mean rotation over years or rotation within a year? Are there genetic differences between spring and winter wheats, or do the names just refer to the planting or harvesting times? It would seem that these and similar basic questions should get some serious treatment in either the Farming Techniques or Agronomy sections. Apparently the knowledgable editors aren't much aware that these questions are not common knowledge. Please pitch in if you can answer any of these questions. Thanks.

I asked a similar question here on 13 June 2012, and nothing happened--no discussion, no relevant edit--until four years later when the section was removed, presumably by some mindless bot. So it would be good if that kind of thing could be avoided somehow. I have also placed a related clarify request in the Farming Techniques section. Please don't remove it, as it's not at all obvious that the present talk-page section is going to have any effect. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

CountMacula: The talk page (rather than within the article) is the place to work out article content that is unclear, and an unanswered question from 7 years ago is valid to raise again. Does this or this address spring vs. winter wheat for you? Some Google searching for a WP:RS source can provide answers to your questions above. --Zefr (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Zefr: 1) The shared goal is to improve the article, not just to satisfy me. 2) Those links seem to basically be classifications of wheats relative to baking/consumption and crop-variety standardization. Really I don't know how anyone could think that maybe those links do much to answer the basic questions that I have asked. They look like they were chosen more or less at random. Please correct me if I am wrong. 3) I am not prepared to learn enough to answer the questions reliably and competently. We need to get the attention of someone already in the know who would be willing to do the edit if (s)he were welcomed. 4) As I stated, the questions were laying around unheeded and unanswered on the talk page for four years, then disappeared, so it would seem that some additional tactic or other tactic is needed. Template:Clarify:"Use this template in the body of an article as a request for other editors to clarify text that is difficult to understand."CountMacula (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. If not obvious, the clarify in question can be taken mainly as a request to clarify the mention of crop rotation. Spring and winter wheats can be taken along with non-wheat crops as being possibly involved in the intra-year or inter-year rotations. The clarify may incidentally be a point of departure for more detail about the relation of spring and winter wheats.CountMacula (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@CountMacula, does the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat answer your questions?
118.211.57.235 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Offhand, I think not. Why do you ask? Maybe you could point out anything in the Winter wheat article that you believe answers any of my questions. CountMacula (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Staple crop comparison table

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods#Fresh/dry_comparisons regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Fix of long term typo by IP user

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit from 2010 accidentally said 300,000 instead of 30,000. This was only just found a few days ago here. Just thought others might be as impressed as I was. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


Effects of climate change on wheat production

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is new content about the effects of climate change on wheat production here: Effects of climate change on agriculture#Wheat (was put together by ASRASR). I am wondering how best to mention something about climate change impacts in this article and then to link across to the other article? EMsmile (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

wheat IUCN red list status

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

someone add the iucn red list status of wheat, it may be useful. I myself do not know the iucn red list ststus of wheat. is it LC or EW?103.28.246.219 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?103.28.246.219 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that this article refers to genus triticum. IUCN extinction status can only be aplied for species. sorry for the inconvenience, ignore this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.246.224 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Flower plant or not

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is yhe wheat grow flower 103.174.84.27 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is an Angiosperm. — Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Latin names for all varieties mentioned?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone please add latin names and links for each variety of wheat mentioned in this article? I've been searching occasionally for several days to find out if turkey red and other hard red winter wheats are diploid, tetraploid or hexaploid, whether they are einkorn or emmer or something else. So far I've failed utterly. It would help me, and I think other readers, if every variety mentioned would be accompanied by a latin name in parentheses with a link to another web page that provided that information.

I know that there are at least two latin names for many varieties of wheat. There are now so many articles on wheat that it might be wise to pick one of the systems of nomenclature as primary for Wikipedia and use that one in the myriad wheat articles.

I am merely a poor hapless, confused student, who grew up on farm fed by a modern variety of turkey red.

Thanks for anything you can do to help me better understand my roots. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Origins

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm noting this here rather than with cleanup tags because I don't want to spike the GA nomination, but this section could use a bit of work. Many of the references are outdated or unscholarly, which combined there's some mixing up of varieties (e.g. emmer vs. one-grained vs. two-grained einkown) and terminology (e.g. genetic centre of diversity vs. earliest cultivation vs. earliest evidence of domestication) has produced a lot of wonky dates.

  • Distinguished 2 einkorn species and 2 emmer species. The article doesn't use "center of diversity" (or "centre..")? I cited some books and did some checking; the dates I saw were fine. The non-scholarly sources used broadly seem appropriate, e.g. Diamond's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, or newspapers for current food habits. Obviously if you know different then feel free to tweak and cite afresh.

It would also make more sense to me to introduce the different species of wheat and their wild progenitors before explaining the history of cultivation/domestication, because it's pretty hard to understand what's being talked to otherwise.

  • Swapped the order of the Phylogeny and History sections, seems fairly reasonable (though I note that the Phylogeny bit's talk of evolution in farmers' fields would suggest putting the History first). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to tackle this if I can get round to it, but if anyone else beats me to it, be my guest. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomy of wheat and Founder crops#Cereals are both more up to date, we could probably reuse some text from there. – Joe (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your work trying to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, thank you for the encouragement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The early sites and dates mentioned are correct now, which is what I mainly meant by out of date. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Super. Thanks for your inputs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: What do you think about splitting the origins section? To me phylogeny and taxonomy belong in their own section, and as you say they also cover later varieties. Meanwhile the history section is getting quite long and could be usefully split into sections on origins/domestication, spread, history of cultivation practices, etc. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in an image

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Split the classes of wheat?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

hagberg

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Future of wheat?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)


Is the article a suitable length?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

needs more history

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Climate and temperature

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We need more info for the climate and temperature wheat needs to grow ~2025-36395-22 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Added temperature range details for winter and spring wheat (which have different requirements). Water needs are already covered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

"Peak grain" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect Peak grain has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 17 § Peak grain until a consensus is reached. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wheat/Archive_3&oldid=1356051323"