Talk:Stele (biology)

Stub

How does one remove the "stub" status from a page? I've now expanded this article considerably and think it merits promotion. Liam Proven 11:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stele, Stela

I have changed the pages Stela and Stele and the relevant pages linking them so that stele now refers to biological concenpt and stela to archaeological concept. Both pages also link eachother with explanations to avoid any confusion. --Chino 06:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good plan! Did you create Stela or was it already there? I wasn't aware of the difference, myself. -- Liam Proven 02:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I created the plant biology text currently in Stele. Originally both stele and stela pages talked about stone slabs. I combined thos two but didn't add any text. To my knowledge stele and stela can both refer to inscribed stone slabs but only stele is also a concept in biology. --Chino 05:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requested move 2005

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

Of the current 20 main namespace links to stele, only three are about plants. I would conclude from this that the article currently at stela describes the primary sense of both stele and stela. It would seem preferable to set up a proper disambiguation scheme instead of arbitrarily assigning different meanings to different spellings. I would suggest that Stele be moved to Stele (biology) and Stela to Stele, with a redirect left at Stela and disambig links at both articles. I have proposed the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. See also the discussion above for the history of these two articles. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support — it makes sense to have the inscriptional artifact at stele, as this is the original use of the term (from the Greek to stand). The biological definition is secondary and derivative. --Gareth Hughes 11:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I've completed the move as requested. —Cleared as filed. 17:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Significant Errors

This page is full of errors. I plan to correct it, as soon as possible. The diagrams are nice. Michaplot (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the significant errors, I don't have time at the moment but Raven, Evert, and Eichhorn Biology of Plants 7th ed. page 371-372 presents substantially different definitions of the three stele types. Most substantial is that siphonostele is not a precursor to eustele and that eustele and siphonostele likely evolved independently from the protostele. The importance of this is pretty great, it's another monophyletic character unifying seed plants, it suggests that seed plants evolved from lineages not represented today (as all "closely-related SVP's are siphonostelic), and it would then mean that siphonosteles or modifications of are not found in any Asterid clades. This is a single source for this discrepancy but there exists quite a bit of work by Kenrick (at lest four articles are also cited by the Raven text) which should help shed some light on this issue and should offer better citations and support than the ones currently offered. Cheers! -DanG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.134.27.134 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stele (botany)

Per Talk:Stele, Stele (botany) should redirect here. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could certainly be argued that "Stele (botany)" is a more meaningful title that "Stele (biology)", since the use is exclusively in respect of plants. But it doesn't seem worth changing the page title and I don't really see the case for another redirect: I think that either someone will try "Stele" to find the article or they are linking and already know the article's title. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: original comment. Where exactly does that talk page say that link should redirect here? I see a comment made by myself that prefers that title to have been used back in 2005 when the move was originally made, but I didn't say anything about the need for such a redirect. Peter is right about how a user will search. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botany

Write short note on stele 2409:4063:4191:5B54:0:0:15A8:A1 (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]