This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orienteering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OrienteeringWikipedia:WikiProject OrienteeringTemplate:WikiProject OrienteeringOrienteering articles
Why is a specific rootstock even included here? If any should be mentioned at all, wouldn't it be a better idea to include a few different ones from a variety of species? Unfortunately I have no knowledge at all, or I'd try to do it myself. /85.228.39.204 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more rootstocks could be added, but AxR1 is particularly (in)famous and therefore notable because of it's (to some) surprisningly low resistance to Phylloxera. Therefore, a non-technical audience is much more likely to hear of AxR1 than of SO 4 or 41 B - and, yes, most of them tend to go by serial numbers or codes rather than the more pronouncable names of grape varieties. Tomas e (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why an odd rootstock of just one species of the hundreds that are used in grafting should be quoted here at all. I think this needlessly and inappropriately bulks up a small article. I propose to remove the whole paragraph soon. I suggest that if the information is to be kept on Wikipedia, then find a suitable place in vines, or, if it warrents it, a page of its own. If we want to increase the size of this article- which is not always a good idea, then we should talk more about the history of rootstocks and give more examples of its use in the different species of fruit etc. Lots of information is available, for example, on the apple pages, which could be summarised and wikilinked from here.
See Malling Series and copy the refs carefully- wiki pages should not be used as refs themselves.
we could have a brief list of the most notable rootstocks which should include the Malling Series of apples.
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Foodorone of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the un-cited section claiming most modern rootstocks were developed from "wild mustang grapes that grow across Texas". Rootstocks are bred from a variety of sources: V. riparia, V. rupestris, V. berlandieri, etc. Perhaps some have parentage from V. mustangensis as well, but to my knowledge this is not predominately the case. Pololanguage (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for retaining the material, but not for retaining it on this page. There is also no evidence that a separate page on rootstocks as navigational aids would be notable. Therefore I moved the material to Landmark#Natural, disambiguating with a hatnote here Felix QW (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.
I was dubious about the claim that "rootstocks are used as navigational aids on high-resolution maps and in the sport of orienteering". Why rootstocks as opposed to trees in general? How would anyone without the relevant botanical knowledge be expected to identify one? So I tracked down the reference, and this is what it says (trimmed from the Vegetation section):
Ref.
Name
Description
4.10
Root stock,
Tree stump
The upturned root of a fallen tree, with or without the trunk.
Well... ...then the article needs to be renamed to something more specific, such as "Fruit tree rootstock". You cannot use the phrase "This is not what the article is about," to justify deletion. You have to use the phrase "This is not what the term 'rootstock' is about," to justify deletion. But you actually looked up the reference and found that the material I added was correct. You can do other things than deletion. You can propose (or actually do) an article split (WP:SPLIT).
It is important to think about how Wikipedia can best serve the reader, not to be an ardent advocate of coverage for a specific meaning of a term to the exclusion of other meanings. If someone interested in orienteering searches for the term 'rootstock' and reads the article without that content, then a disservice is performed.
Someone orienteering can use trees as well as rootstocks for navigational aids. Indeed, some knowledge is required to differentiate a fallen tree stump from a tree. Not much. But some. How do people acquire that knowledge? By reading trusted references like Wikipedia.
I am happy to work with to find the best solution - whether it is separate pages, with disambiguation, or other solutions. But let's not be editorially destructive in the process.
Hello @Jaredroach: the IP editor is correct. This does not belong here. You need something like {{for|the orienteering term|Orienteering#Rootstock}}. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.