Talk:Bark (botany)

Quotation

Many wikipedia articles begin with a relevant quote, why is the quote for this article being removed? --NEMT 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is confusing and inaccurate nonsense - the species cited all have bark
Scientific articles don't start with quotes
If it is a quote (which I have no reason to suppose it is), it should include the details of the person making the quote

- MPF 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not confusing nor is it inaccurate, a quotation can be factually incorrect and still be accurate.
I've never seen any official wiki policy on which articles may start with quotes and which may not.
You have a reason to suppose it is an "actual quote", WP:AGF.

--NEMT 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" does not mean that in every case we blindly accept every statement--even if it's obviously preposterous. There's also a principle about providing attributions. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Sorry, but absolute rubbish. Having this sentence at the top of the page makes it look like a scientific statement that poplar, ash, and maple do not have bark. Which is confusing cr@p. If you really think this statement is essential in the page (which it isn't), put it lower down, add the name of the person who originally said it (if other than yourself), and add a rider to point out that the statement is untrue. - MPF 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the quote clearly dismisses the scientific value of the parenthesized part. --NEMT 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which trees don't have bark?

I heard that 2 trees don't have bark.DaveDodgy (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar, ash, and maple bark?

I was going to ask about the suspiciously poetic ("Some trees are big, some trees are small'?) statement that all trees have bark except for poplar, ash, and maple. Those three certainly have something that appears to be bark. Besides, the Wikipedia articles on all three of these groups discuss their bark at least to some extent. On digging back I find that this idea comes from an unattributed quote that someone wanted to insert several years ago. That person had a habit of terming it "vandalism" if anyone removed the quote as being unsourced, irrelevant, and possibly nonsense. Now, that person has put this little factoid back in the body, instead of as a quote. It just seems too unlikely, especially considering the source; a statement like that needs some backing up somehow. I almost never make substantial edits, but in this case I feel quite comfortable removing it. If someone can back up the statement as factual, I'd be interested in seeing that. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Further on this--I've just noticed that this article has a photograph of Japanese Maple Bark. That would seem to contradict the statement in question. If someone has some good authority that says that what appears to be bark on poplars, ashes, and maples is something other than bark, let's hear it. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

"Some trees are big, some trees are small, but all trees have bark...except poplar, ash, and maple." This quote, which apparently used to lead the article, is from "Smart and Smarter," a 2004 episode of the U.S. television series "The Simpsons." It's a joke with no basis in fact, but it's worth noting its origin here in the Talk page so people know the source of that piece of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.189.253.2 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And "bark" on palm trees

The discussion on the three trees whose bark is apparently "not bark" notwithstanding ... ... I once read on botanical website (which I can't find now) that the "bark" on palm trees is technically something else, not bark. Can anyone shed any light on this? I came to this article hoping to find something on that. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Bark

Bark is formed from the layer of dividing mitotic cells known as the cork cambium. Dicotyledon trees have a bark or cork layer, especially, ash, maple, etc. The way that the bark develops differs, some trees developing deeply creviced bark, thick and smooth, etc. They are all bark though. Monocotyledons have a very different plant structure, being a group that includes the grasses, bamboo, etc. The protective layer acts as bark, however it is structurally different from 'true' bark. Rosser (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant, at least in part, to answer my question about palm trees? I have a vague idea that palm trees are monocotyledons--although I get very confused without looking it all up. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

The two cambiums--made some changes for clarity??

I made some changes in the first paragraph of the Botanical description section. It seemed to me that the discussion of the cambium layers and their functions was not clear regarding the two different cambiums and their functions. I sorted it out for myself from other Wikipedia articles. And I made some changes to sort out Cork cambium from Vascular cambium. Since I only sorted out what I think experts were trying to say, I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable would look it over and see if I've got it right. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

I work with potato periderm, and made some changes to clarify which cell types make up the periderm. In particular, phelloderm is different from the cork or phellem and is not suberized. I also added some references. I will likely make a few more addition in the near future. --Splitrock105 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bark. 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/20080411073832/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/fy04/wood_adhesives.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/fy04/wood_adhesives.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bark → Bark (botany)
Bark (disambiguation) → Bark

– There simply is not a primary topic between Bark, the woody exterior of plants, and Bark (sound), the sound made by wolves and dogs. Most results on Google Books for "bark" return the sound made by dogs and wolves, and recently, on some days, Bark (sound) has more page views than Bark. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom is right In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The primary topic here is very unclear._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Trunk (botany) and the question of primary. Reminds me of Poppy compared to Poppy (singer), an overall topic which, by the numbers, has no primary. And no, I am not in a cult ruled by Poppy (she makes us say that). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per both criteria of primary topic. Zarcadia (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all.

Whoever makes the move needs to WP:FIXDABLINKS beforehand. Narky Blert (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed more than a dozen obviously bad links into Bark. Almost all were the U.S. spelling of barque.

NB Bark (botany) exists as a redirect to Bark and has incoming links. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is incumbent on those supporting the move to fix the dab links. Admins at RM already do a hell of a lot more clean up work than at any other consensus-finding process on Wikipedia, it is unreasonable to expect them also to spend hours fixing dab links while those who actually wanted the pages moved do little or nothing to help. Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed fifty-odd links to bark, sending most of them to bark (botany) and a few to barque. There are 800+ links remaining in mainspace alone, so it won't be a two-minute job. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24: WP:FIXDABLINKS is unambiguous. Never mind WP:RM admins, tell that to the WP:DPL regulars. Have a look at WP:TDD Table 1 RH Column. Who do you think cleans up those messes? Some are admins, some are not. I have fixed my 100-odd bad (some of them difficult) links to DAB pages for the day. All involved editors (and especially a nominator) should join in to help clean up a page move. Lots of times, they don't. Also: if a page move is suggested but not agreed, any effort put into retargetting would be wasted. Narky Blert (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I would expect the sound to be at barking but the botany topic to be disambiguated due to other topics, e.g. barque. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm not convinced that Bark (sound) is enough for the tree-covering to not be the primary topic. Barque should be irrelevant, though I'm disappointed by the apparent volume of misspelled links to here. Separately, the disambiguation pages for most dog noises are a cross between hilarious and depressing; e.g. Bow-wow, woof. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be barking up the wrong tree (not sorry, couldn't resist). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Bark (sound) be at the primary title? If Meow is about the cat sound, so should Bark be about the dog sound. Justice for dogs! Uanfala's sock (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I echo User:power~enwiki that the dog noise should be at barking. — AjaxSmack 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: I thought that was Nyttend who made that statement... Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the present time, the content at Barking is an article about a town in London. A discussion to move that page to Barking, London (or similar) and Bark (sound) to Barking may be plausible after this discussion. (I'm stating this since this discussion has already been open for almost 7 days, and during this time, there has never been a notification about this move discussion on Barking, Talk:Barking, Bark (sound) or Talk:Bark (sound).) Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Strongly disagree that bark (sound) is the primary meaning of "Barking". In UK, Barking (a town, though not in any U.S. sense) as a noun is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That said, I'm not convinced that Barking (the town) is itself a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I can think of at least three other common UK meanings of "barking"; including, but not limited to, the noises which dogs and other animals make. Narky Blert (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge from Bark-galling

Bark-galling appears to be too short of a topic to sustain an article, but could be merged here. BD2412 T 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Confusingly, Gall is also a different phenomenon also referred to as 'galling'. I suggest merging Bark-galling into Bark with a rearrangement of the Bark subheadings, and a one-sentence link from Gall to that section. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DONE: Merged & redirected Bark-galling, and did some initial rearrangement of content in Bark. There is more to do in that respect and also with regards to referencing. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]