Talk:Andromonoecy

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Will this ever grow beyond a stub? Suggest redirect to Glossary of botanical terms, or Plant reproductive morphology. Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more sources on both of these topics. Just give me about a month. If it’s still a stub by that time you can merge theses.CycoMa (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, np. Please just keep in mind the significant coverage requirements of WP:Notability. The entire section #Andromonoecious species, for example, even if meticulously verified through citations, would add nothing to the notability of the topic (and is subject to questions about WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE). What you need is an in-depth discussion of "Andromonoecy" itself, that also withstands WP:PAGEDECIDE. A chapter specifically about Andromonoecy in a couple of college textbooks would do it. A couple of paragraphs in a book on plant reproduction probably wouldn't. This may help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot I had a discussion with other editor at biology wiki projects. They suggested an article on sexual systems. Which is what I did. If you or any other editors are gonna remove this article or Gynomonoecy. Please move them to the article Sexual system.CycoMa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa:, you've been working on it the most, with help from Plantsurfer; what do you think about how this stacks up against WP:PAGEDECIDE? Is there enough significant material out there from what you've seen to expand this beyond a stub? If not, you'd be in a far better position to merge it to Sexual system than I would. If you need more time, there's WP:NODEADLINE. Also, you might want to ping the other editor you spoke with at the project so they can contribute here if they wish to. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I think it is still too early to say. These aspects of plant sexuality are referred to in list form Plant reproductive morphology, but to expand that article or Sexual system with all of this material might risk reducing its digestibility for the lay reader. CycoMa has been successful in demonstrating that there is substantial literature on these topics, and that they have practical implications for understanding of plant reproduction and the technology of plant breeding, but also of the reproductive dynamics that drive plant evolution. There is more to come, I am sure, and I would plead for more time to develop these articles further. They have the potential to be more than stubs, but it may take a year or more before I can verify that claim! Plantsurfer 11:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]