Talk:Leaf shape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Needs prose, not just a list.

Comments[edit]

I vote that the description of arrangement of leafs on a stem is already on the main leaf article, and should not be here, or should be separate. Also, types of how compound leaves are should be separated from individual leaflet shape discussion. Both compound leaf types and leaf arrangement on stems need pictures perhaps more than the other leaf shape examples do. 128.101.70.96 16:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)lotusduck

what is a oblong? a square or a leaf shape?[edit]

i reckon this makes no sense at all what is a oblong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.76.53 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

leaf type[edit]

Could costapalmate make it onto the list?Mmcknight4 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

group of leaflets is considered one leaf[edit]

It is very confusing that a group of leaflets is considered one "entire leaf" -- even a group of groups of groups are just one leaf?! Needs much more explanation! -74.75.213.191 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations & thanks to the maker(s) of & contributors to this article[edit]

I just want to say I love this list. Thank you for putting it up & making it good (though I'm not a botanist so I can't expertly judge its quality or anything, but it's certainly good enough for laypersonish old me). What fantastic, beautiful words they are (e.g. Lanceolate, Flabellate, Bipinnate, Perfoliate) just as words!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Compound leaves[edit]

I changed the previous description of 'compound' which used to say that leaves had to be multiple pinnate to be called this. Imc (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How to make internal links?[edit]

This is a good list, and the context of other shapes is better than a dictionary reference from other articles.

But how can the terms be linked from other articles without making every shape a header? Would like to have the link [[leaf_shape#shape | shape]] work so that "shape" is at least shown on the page that is displayed.98.111.146.179 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For an invisible "link point" or anchor, you can insert {{anchor|NAME}} (almost) anywhere in an article, where NAME is replaced some appropriate word. Then [[Leaf shape#NAME|SHAPE]] will link the word SHAPE to the anchor called NAME.
Better here, perhaps, is the use of {{vanchor|SHAPE}}, which makes a visible "link point" or anchor. This has already been done for the entry "cordate" as you'll see if you edit the article. So you could go through the article adding {{vanchor}} as appropriate. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not recurved?[edit]

I am in two minds about the addition and subsequent deletion of "Recurved", "recurvate". Why delete it? It is a perfectly valid term as applied to leaves. Of course it also can apply to other organs as well, such as thorns or petals, but so can many other terms standardly applied to leaves and present in the list. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would include it; its use for other organs is irrelevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Palm 0855.JPG concern[edit]

Are the leaves of the plant in image "Palm 0855.JPG" palmately compound? They appear to be simple leaves with palmate venation. If we could confirm the identity of the plant, I could be more certain, but in any case, including leaves of something like Aesculus would illustrate the palmately compound leaf shape more clearly.

Bjpete (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Bjpete

Leaf/Leaf shape overlap and rationalisation[edit]

The article for leaf is very long (for good reason of course) and contains a lot of material that overlaps this article; confusingly so. One option would be to merge the two, but because of the size of the Leaf article, I recommend that the leaf shape sections of Leaf be incorporated into this article. I could do that myself, but would prefer first to hear from other editors who might have rival thoughts or projects. I am repeating this note in the talk page of the other article. JonRichfield (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The exact same solution prompted me to come to Talk. I wholeheartedly second your proposal. Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I do have one concern, which is that the title is informal; I propose this page be moved to Leaf morphology, whereupon a 'main article' template in Leaf can link with the same terminology as that page' s section header. Anarchangel (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of WP:GLOSSARIES, I suggest it would be best to move this page to Glossary of leaf shape terms or Glossary of leaf shape terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Glossary of leaf shapes? --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I like Glossary of leaf shape terminology. RE Tom's suggestion: Not all of the terms describe the overall shape of the leaf. Some pertain to just the apex, just the base, or just the margin, so "Glossary of leaf shapes" wouldn't quite describe this glossary as accurately as "Glossary of leaf shape terminology". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
For that argument to work, you would have to use something like like Glossary of leaf parts or Glossary of leaves. Adding the word "terminology" doesn't at all change the meaning away from overall leaf shapes. It seems reasonable that to the average person it would not seem an error to include leaf part shapes in an article about "leaf shapes". I would favor the simplest title over the most pedantically correct one. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tom Hulse: it's not a glossary of leaves or of leaf parts but of the terms used to describe the shapes of whole leaves and their parts. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of glossary already includes the idea of "terms" or "terminology". Neither of those words imparts anything new to a glossary title. So, actually, yes a glossary of leaf shapes is the same as a glossary of leaf shape terms. --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. If you search the web, you'll find that two very common patterns are "X glossary" (e.g. this) or "Glossary of X terms" (e.g. this). Perusing Category:Glossaries suggests that titles with and without "terms" or "terminology" are used for articles. In spite of the etymology of "glossary", I would expect a "glossary of leaf shapes" to be strong on diagrams of the actual shapes, whereas a "glossary of leaf shape terminology" suggests to me a concentration on the terms themselves. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you do not know the actual meaning of "glossary", then yes it would be easy to make your mistake of expecting those two different formats. While some do include diagrams, what you propose is just not at all part of any modern definition of glossary. Your reference to etymology of course is an obfuscation, as we are talking about current meaning, not a historical one. Perhaps stop looking at a glossary as a list of ideas, some of which may be words. Instead, by definition, a glossary is a list of words; and though commonly done, it is redundant to tell us again that it is also a list of terms. "A list of terms about leaf shape terms" is identical to "A list of terms about leaf shapes". "Glossary" already includes "terms" & "terminology" to all who know what the word means. Here's an example: one of your links is to a "Glossary of Literary terms". Now by your theory you would expect it to be different from a Glossary of Literature, which you could think would be a list of books. However, it's not, since Glossary is not a list of things but a list of terms--Tom Hulse (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom, we write Wikipedia for the general public, not for pedants like me (and you, but apologies if you don't accept this description of yourself). So there's no harm in redundancy if it makes the article title clearer to readers. And anyway the analogy between "literary [terms]" and "leaf shape [terms]" seems to me misleading; leaf shapes are best described by diagrams, which form a major part of any attempt to explain terminology, as in Stearn's chapter in his Botanical Latin. There's no equivalent for literature.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem with pendant, lol. I should clarify that yes of course I would be fine with the title either way, but if no one minds, I'll continue to respond to those who said my way was incorrect. When you say 'no harm in redundancy if it makes the article clearer', we absolutely agree. But a more relevant version for this discussion would be 'no benefit to redundancy if it does NOT make the article clearer'. There are just not two different kinds of glossaries that we need to somehow use the title to distinguish between, as you propose. You can't just make up new sub-meanings with matching usage rules for a very clear, simple word like glossary. A glossary defines or explains words or terms, not necessarily ideas, objects, or things; please try to understand the difference. That's what separates it from a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., is that it already includes "terms" or "terminology". It might actually be more confusing to pretend there are two meanings and/or be redundant when you don't need to be. The best title is usually the shortest clear title, per fixed Wikipedia policy (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE). --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)