Talk:List of companion plants

Brassicas w/ Lettuce

in the source for the statement "Broccoli when intercropped with lettuce was shown to be more profitable than either crop alone."³³ the source reads as that interplanting rather yield less mass and less nutritional value.

only mean to ask an open question about the reading of this source, as i fail to see how this is concluded to be more profitable.

[33] http://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/v-23-3/39.pdf

(offtopic but this is my first venture into editing & forum discussions - it's all very intimidating, pls be nice to me. thanks.) SmthSweet (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The way I read it, the paper does say that the broccoli becomes a bit smaller and less nutritional, but instead of having 1 field of lettuce plus 1 field of broccoli, it is only a single field of both lettuce and (slightly worke) broccoli, for a net benefit. So it seems that lettuce *is* hindering broccoli, but more than makes up for it in its own productivity. 2A01:C22:77F7:D600:6F5:A6C:3488:CBC2 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because the question is moot. The source is not WP:RS. — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE and unreliable sources

Most of the cited sources are unreliable sources, FRINGE. For example, citation #12 [1] which is use 200 times! It starts table #1 with the disclaimer "Certain plants are believed to repel insects." Another table starts out with "Listed below are a few of the plant combinations that gardeners have long recommended. None has been scientifically proven, but some do seem to make good common sense." The third table starts with "So far, there’s almost no scientific “proof” to back up most of these claims." There are a few other "opinion pieces" with nothing to back up their claims. And we present this in wikivoice? It screams WP:FRINGE.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, with respect, I think the point here is that the list is of plants that are traditionally used as companion plants, for which the sources cited are certainly reliable, i.e. people have often intentionally planted beans with cabbage or whatever. In other words, if a group of gardeners says "we plant beans with cabbage, we use these are companions" we have no reason not to believe them (the sources are reliable for their plain statement of basic facts, per Wikipedia policy), and that claim is not fringe. A claim we do not wish to support is that Wikipedia believes that such planting achieves any particular result: that is a matter for empirical scientific test, and in that area the evidence is slight (there is some but it's very patchy, and there are many claimed associations yet to be tested). The claim that would certainly be fringe is that companion plants exert some mystical influence, under the full moon or whatever, that causes crops to become wonderfully healthy: but the article quite rightly doesn't say that. I'll edit the article to say something in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding the word "traditionally" doesn't help. Use of the word "traditionally" lends credence to the claims, and implies the practice is widespread when it actually isn't. That some gardeners have "thought" that planting two plants together helps one or both, is so far from science as to be pseudoscience. Read the opening paragraph of Pseudoscience and it describes exactly the content of this list article and your defense argument. Take a good hard look at Wikipedia:Subjective importance, too.

Wikipedia isn't here JUST to parrot what the masses say, but to cover topics from an encyclopedic perspective. Go ahead and describe what "companion planting" is, but to go so far as to reproduce this table of unscientific content (much of which has been proven false) is to play into the hands of the false information messengers and violates so many Wikipedia precepts.

The topic "companion planting" may well be notable because of its significant coverage, however lists of "which plant goes with which" is asking for a whole scale debate of "fact versus fiction" for each individual line item.

The encyclopedia would be better served to focus on the article Companion planting, and under the section "Mechanisms" list a few examples under each type, and only those that have been proven to be true (while removing such examples as use language as "some gardeners claim"). Take a cue from the references section of Polyculture; note that almost all of the citations have "doi" in them, quite unlike this article. Maybe add 2 or 3 of the best gardening books for 'companion planting' under "Further reading" for gardeners who want to find such lists of plant "helpers". Then delete this list article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. The Companion planting topic is certainly notable, and its "Mechanisms" provide not only examples but such scientific evidence as was available at the time: more is certainly available today. The list article is validated both by the text article which it serves, with all its citations and the many more we could add, and by the fact that the list items themselves are of interest. We are of course free to copy some of those sources here: I've added a few. I have no idea why you would object to traditional practice, whatever we might choose to call it: the individual practices (beans with corn, etc) certainly exist and are reliably attested to do so: this is sufficient for list membership. Your assertion that the practice is not widespread is badly astray; companion planting is not just ancient and well-established throughout the "third world", but is being explored in several forms of modern agriculture and horticulture, and not just in organic farming. Woolly talk about "false information messengers" and "violat[ing] so many Wikipedia precepts" does precisely nothing for any sort of discussion outside a pub; the list is a valid list with a well-defined subject and plenty of suitable sources, and the topic that it supports has both historic and scientific evidence behind it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who Woolly is, or why you would disparage my arguments as "opinion" and dismiss them as "pub talk". Apparently even old Wikipedians need the occasional reminder about WP:Civility.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I was writing about the arguments put forward, which was the topic under discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I've tidied up a bit. 30 of the sources have DOIs, per your comment, which as Wikipedia lists go is pretty good. That's certainly enough to demonstrate both notability and a large number of proven interactions. There is no hiding from the fact that given the enormous number of possible combinations of target and companion, only a small percentage have yet been subjected to field trials, but work is apace and the list is certainly of encyclopedic interest. There are further reliable sources published recently that could be added, and more are being published every year now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Eval 2023-11-25

I updated a few citations and am glad to see the recent removal of some unreliable sources. Here are some comments on my latest rummage through the article.

1. This edit [2] introduced a source which is about the effect of a particular cover crop tilled in, and is not about companion planting at all.
2. Likewise, this edit [3] introduced another allelopathy article, which again is not about companion planting. If you think about it, "alleopathy" and "companion" just don't go together in the same topic; one is about plants repelling other plants, the other is about which plants go well together.
3. This source [4] isn't really a reliable source. It alleges to be sourced from ANR-1045, but there's nothing in ANR-1045 to support that content. These sorts of "blog-y" online postings that don't contain a publication number (such as "ANR-1045") aren't really well-sourced extension office publishings. In this example, this blog article was posted in 2007 or earlier and does not appear on the current Alabama Cooperative Extension System website (aces.edu).
4. Citation #17 [5] says it is based on something else, which I found here as a live copy, or here from the original ATTRA website, now archived. If they are equivalent, then perhaps swap out the "based on" article with the actual one which seems more of a reliable source.

I updated citations #1-30 for missing titles/authors/etc. or dead/live/new URLs, but did not check them for content/verification.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

(Refactored/reformatted so I can read it. Interspersing responses is unreadable for me. —Grorp)

Top: Thanks for both those things.

1. We have a better source already there so removed it. However, planting an allelopathic companion to suppress weeds is certainly companion planting; planting it to be cut and used as a weed-suppressing mulch is a closely related practice.

2. You might think so, but the science is otherwise; suppressing nearby weeds and repelling insect pests are useful allelopathic companion planting effects. Obviously anti-plant allelopathy demands careful handling with appropriate distances, etc.

3. We are not barred from using slightly older sources. It does not "allege to be sourced" from ANR-1045; it says "for more information" see that item, like our "{{further|...}}" links. For what it's worth, ANR-1045 mentions several topics related to companion planting, including beneficial insects and trap cropping. If you feel like upgrading it to another source that's fine.

4. We are not barred from using secondary sources: all textbooks are of that kind. Utah State's compilation of knowledge is useful and thoughtful, and based on 4 sources for the text, with a fifth source (ATTRA as you say) for the table. It may possibly be worth replacing the table refs with the ATTRA source but since this won't make any difference to the claims made or their reliability, I'd say it was a waste of effort. If you personally feel like doing that, please feel free, but I won't.

Tail: Thanks for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Each time I've written something on this topic, your response has come across as dismissive and patronizing. It's very off-putting.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding to each comment with my opinion of its technical merits. I can't promise to agree with suggested actions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

When you immediately dismiss my talk page suggestions ("your insta-pinion") yet perform on them a few days later (those same pesky "technical merits" you didn't like), you come across as non-collaborative, to put it mildly. This was just one example of our interactions and you're well past three strikes. Fortuitously, I have other interests and don't care enough about this topic to have to put up with OWNBEHAVIOR. Ta ta.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really, no. You indicated that you thought the article should be deleted; since I think it serves a useful function, I did my best to counter your arguments, to remove challenged sources, and to add new reliable sources to make the article's notability clear. I wouldn't have done this without your prompting. As for ownership, I hadn't edited the article in many years until that point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Readability of tables

These tables are extremely long with complex content in each block and contrasting information in adjacent cells. IF you cannot remember the order of the categories across the line then you have to scroll to the top of the table and then back down to where you were reading.

Is it possible to have the column's category labels fixed on screen as we scroll down the tables, so that the categories are always visible. (e.g. In Microsoft Excel the functionality is called "freeze panes"

Having the category labels vanish as we scroll down the table makes the tables less readable. I honestly don't know how to implement that change myself. O bliv Ian (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)