Talk:Oryza sativa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge into Rice[edit]

The English word "Rice" matches this scientific name so they should be combined. Should basically follow the pattern with Wheat. Should avoid have two articles about the same topic. --MarsRover (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I disagree that they should be merged; instead, I think they should be disambiguated. This is similar to the treatment on Wikipedia of some domesticated animals and the species from which they are drawn. --Una Smith (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a merger. Rice is Oryza sativa and O. sativa is rice (cf. potato, barley). The content that was moved from the rice article[1][2] to create the Oryza sativa article all pertains to rice and is highly relevant to the the topic. No reason to have it sequestered here where a general audience seeking information on rice might not see it. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC) That is wrong, O. sativa is not rice . --FixmanPraise me 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the merger. I was surprised to see that both Rice and Oryza sativa articles exist! I agree with AjaxSmack that Oryza sativa is rice (although, [all] rice is not Oryza sativa). I strongly support the merger. Oryza sativa is the most widely cultivated rice species and hence this article may be merged with the Rice article. Other species of rice (wild species) may also be referenced in the Rice article (and have their own pages). But there is no point in having two separate pages for the same species. -- Narendra Kadoo 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rice is not oryza sativa, so there must be 2 articles. --FixmanPraise me 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even assuming all rice is oryza, I think there should still be 2 articles. One for the plant and one for the food product. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is not the same, one article can explain in detail the botanical information,the culinary article can explain all the information about the rice. --Tamorlan 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -I do not know if i am getting rice information or Oryza sativa!!

(Preceding unsigned comment added by, 28 July 2009) Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support I don't think it's productive to try to separate the two aspects of a crop. See unified articles for barley and maize. Merging could give a more maintainable article with more complete information. While Oryza glaberrima is also technically rice, O. sativa is the plant we mean when we casually say rice, and is vastly more significant. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support For most other organisms that have an article about them, the common name and the scientific name are the same article. Rice should be consistent with that practice. The only problem with the merger is that there are other species which may less commonly be called "rice". Therefore, I propose adding a paragraph to rice which briefly describes other species of rice. This should link either to the individual articles on those species, or to the genus Oryza. That will result in maximum usefulness. Sam in berkeley (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


In fact there are two separate species involved in the article about Rice: Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima, and most of their histories are independent of each other. I made a first pass at separating out parts of the section "History of domestication & cultivation" that pertain to each of the two species of rice. To do that properly though will require reading the references. Eg, early rice cultivation in the US was of O. glaberrima, not O. sativa. --Una Smith (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are only three sentences in the entire rice article dealing with O. glaberrima. That variety can be dealt with at the African rice article just as wild rice is covered in its own article. The remainder of the rice article is about O. sativa. By the way, what evidence is there that O. glaberrima was ever cultivated in the USA? This article says that such claims are inconclusive. All the more reason to leave the info in one place, at rice. — AjaxSmack 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As I tried to explain, I suspect some of the other sentences about "rice" are about O. glaberrima, not O. sativa; also, there is a little more information about O. glaberrima on New Rice for Africa. I would like to move most of the separate histories of these two species in cultivation from Rice to the species pages. Most of the content on Rice can stay there because it does not depend on which species is used. --Una Smith (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Here are some reliable sources for use in this article and in Oryza glaberrima:

Also, it is worth mentioning how many nuclear genomes of Oryza sativa have been completely sequenced, and the significance of this for research, plant breeding, and food security. --Una Smith (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A topic of ....[edit]

Genetic traceability has been added based on the folloiwng -- (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

plus -- (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

More cultivar info....[edit] -- (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Italic text Oppose" I'm allergic to wheat but I love Rice" Does anyone known how far Asia biggests rice producers are from London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Japonica rice here[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. --Manduco (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the proposal. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no reason to merge. --Comedora (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -I think this rise cultivar group mast be separated. -隼鷹 (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.