Talk:Rootstock

Attribution note
Some of the content from the AxR1 section taken from the merged article AxR1. AgneCheese/Wine 05:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one 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)

Why just grapes?
There are lots of things to be said about rootstocks when referring to fruit trees as well. Earendil56 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Texan mustang grapes
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)

Orienteering
. 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):

This is not what the article is about, so I deleted the section. 89.168.64.15 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * Jaredroach (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello the IP editor is correct. This does not belong here. You need something like . Invasive Spices (talk) 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to split the article. I added a split request to Proposed article splits. Jaredroach (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Any new article would need to satisfy the notability requirement. Could you suggest the references whose in-depth coverage could help support such an article? Felix QW (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation
There is also the Rootstock blockchain (RSK), though currently it does not seem to be covered on Wikipedia.

--Mortense (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The method of cultivation in which root stock is needed
? 42.104.152.64 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)