Talk:Agroforestry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Agroforestry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Archives

1

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Silvopasture, Dehesa, Forest gardening, Forest farming, Syntropic agriculture, Inga alley cropping, Farmer-managed natural regeneration and Kuojtakiloyan into this article, because they all seem to be types of agroforestry and are fairly short. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some merging may be in scope here, but Dehesa is a sharply distinct subtopic and fairly long; Silvopasture is even longer, and is only borderline "forest", being at least halfway to meadow, so I'd Oppose at least those two. If Inga alley cropping were better cited I'd probably oppose that too, but since it's so poor it can probably be compressed to a paragraph without much loss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but likely keeping some separate as per Chiswick Chap's comment above. How did it happen that we ended up with so many short, stand-alone forestry type articles, I wonder? And where are all the Wikipedia editors with an interest in forestry topics nowadays. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: these articles all overlap a lot, and while they aren't always short, they routinely contain paragraphs that are either completely uncited or seemingly copied directly from the source, and the faster we deal with this, the better.

Looking at the other comments, I can see the case for leaving Dehesa alone due to its regional/cultural context, but I am not convinced it deserves to remain standalone: not when most of its referencing is currently unverifiable.

Dehesa is described in multiple reliable sources, some of which are listed in the article. Many more are available: it is a well-documented subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that a lot of the hits from Google Scholar are articles on completely unrelated subjects where one of the authors' last names happens to be "Dehesa" (i.e. just one example) and some of the others are from non-English journals of unclear reliability. Having said that, there are decent references in English as well (2000, 2009, 2015 so it can probably be left alone if it is rewritten to actually use them.

Silvopasture, however, is consistently described as an agroforestry practice (the USDA link in my other comment is just the most official example) so I'm now strongly in favour of merging it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not convinced silvopasture is really that distinct, considering phrasings in the article like Wood pasture, one of the oldest land-use practices in human history, is a historical European land management system in which open woodland provided shelter and forage and It utilizes the principles of managed grazing, and it is one of several distinct forms of agroforestry. However, that second sentence is cited to an MDPI journal, and we probably want better verification here. So, merge the others first, and then see what to do with those two. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Chiswick Chap's statement by observing that pasture plus trees is definitely distinct from something resembling a forest. So, careful, hold your horses, let's please not merge everything that happens to mention trees or simply touches upon aspects of silviculture. -- Kku (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku But the proposal is about merging into agroforestry, not into forest. So, the relevant question is not "Does this activity take place in a forest?", but rather "Is this activity generally considered as an example of agroforestry?" Here, it turns out that a source no less official than the United States' Forest Service says that it is. (Look at the sidebar, which includes Silvopasture under "Agroforestry practices".) InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]