Talk:Miscanthus × giganteus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ar197913.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

The recent deletions
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 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)
 * Regarding the missing page numbers - there are two ways to deal with that - either ship everything into "Author, Page"-style refs as you describe, or use rp after the reference to indicate the page (e.g. ).
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Primefac, unsure if I understand you correctly, but what I think you are saying is that lots of citations and quotations, if placed out of the way, at the end of the article in the references section, is something positive.

Chris, I tried to argue my case as thorough and logical as possible, since our positions diverge substantially. I do not agree that the subject matter (Miscanthus) is of low importance, and consequently that a short article about it is all that is warranted. I actually believe that perennial plants like Miscanthus has great potential in the fight against global warming, that science agrees with this, and consequently that a long and serious article about it is entirely warranted.

The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Reference questions
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)
 * 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)

I have looked further but not found pre-made code that fit my idea for the page (and I can't seem to get it right combining code elements like efn sfn and notelist myself). I basically want the page to be something like this. It is not important that is becomes exactly like this, what is important is that we move the quotations to the Notes section also in source editing view, that we don't repeat the full citations, and that we can have the exact page numbers back.

Article

Here is a sentence with a footnote.1

Notes

1. "Here is the footnote quotation." Anderson 2014, p. 80.2 (This quotation should stay in the Notes section, even in source editing view. The footnote within this footnote (2) should link to the full citation in the references section below.)

References

Anderson, Eric; Arundale, Rebecca; Maughan, Matthew; Oladeinde, Adebosola; Wycislo, Andrew; Voigt, Thomas (9 April 2014). "Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production". Biofuels. 2 (1): 71–87. doi:10.4155/bfs.10.80.

New page layout
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)

Miscanthus x giganteus (miscanthus giganteus, giant miscanthus) is a sterile hybrid of Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus sacchariflorus. It can grow to heights of more than 4 m in one growing season (from the third season onwards). Just like Pennisetum purpureum and Saccharum ravennae it is also called elephant grass.

M. x giganteus' perennial nature, its ability to grow on marginal land, its water efficiency, non-invasiveness, low fertilizer needs, significant carbon sequestration and high yield have sparked a lot of interest among researchers, with some arguing that it has «ideal» energy crop properties. Some argue that it has the potential to be a greenhouse gas (GHG) negative fuel, while others highlight its water cleaning and soil enhancing qualities. There are practical and economic challenges related to its use in the existing, fossil based combustion infrastructure, however. Torrefaction and other fuel upgrading techniques are being explored as countermeasures to this problem.

Use areas

M. x giganteus is mainly used as raw material for solid biofuels. It can be burned directly, or processed further into pellets or briquettes. It can also be used as raw material for liquid biofuels or biogas.

Alternatively, it is possible to use Miscanthus as a building material, and as insulation. Materials produced from Miscanthus include fiberboards, composite Miscanthus/wood particleboards, and blocks. It can be used as raw material for pulp and fibers as well as molded products such as eco-friendly disposable plates, cups, cartons,etc. Miscanthus has a pulp yield of 70-80% compared to dry weight, due to the high holocellulose content. The pulp can be processed further into methylcellulose and used as a food additive and in many industrial applications. Miscanthus fiber provides raw material for reinforcement of biocomposite or synthetic materials. In agriculture, Miscanthus straw is used in soil mulching to retain soil moisture, inhibit weed growth, and prevent erosion. Further, Miscanthus' high carbon to nitrogen ratio makes it inhospitable to many microbes, creating a clean bedding for poultry, cattle, pigs, horses, and companion animals. Miscanthus used as horse bedding can be combined with making organic fertilizer. Miscanthus can be used as a healthy fiber source in pet food.

Life cycle

Propagation

Miscanthus x giganteus is propagated by cutting the rhizomes (its underground stems) into small pieces, and then re-planting those pieces 10 cm underground. 1 ha of Miscanthus rhizomes, cut into pieces, can be used to plant 10-30 hectares of new Miscanthus fields (multiplication factor 10-30). Rhizome propagation is a labor-intensive way of planting new crops, but only happens once during a crop's lifetime. New and cheaper propagation techniques is underway, which seem to increase the multiplication factor from 10-30 to 1000-2000. A halving of the cost is predicted.

Management

A limited amount of herbicide should only be applied at the beginning of the first two seasons; after the second year the dense canopy and the mulch formed by dead leaves effectively reduces weed growth. Other pesticides are not needed. Because of Miscanthus' high nitrogen efficiency, fertilizer is also usually not needed. Mulch film, on the other hand, helps both M. x giganteus and various seed based hybrids to grow faster and taller, with a larger number of stems per plant, effectively reducing the establishment phase from three years to two. The reason seems to be that this plastic film keeps the humidity in the topsoil and increases the temperature.

(Rest of article)

Tone issues
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&cent; 10:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * They weren't and it's not. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)