Talk:Micropropagation
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It should be.... micropropagation=plant tissue culture Ayyah tubby 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Plant tissue culture is much more than micropropagtion. It also includes techniques such as embryo rescue, seed or organ culture, organogenesis, callogenesis, and somatic embryogenesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.60.170 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
both the articles shud be merged to give a more thorough explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.66 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
NO, I do not think that micropropagation and plant tissue culture should be merged. Plant tissue culture and micropropagation are 'similar' BUT not the 'same'. Micropropagtion refers to generating high quality and genetically uniform plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin1993 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No it shouldn't be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.212.79 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Crop out the woman in the first pic please.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.201.19 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
70% of what?
editThe article now says
- It is very expensive, and can have a labor cost of more than 70%
This is 70% of what, and how does that compare to the labor cost of any other propagation method? How much actual case study experience is this comment based on? This item should be removed or rewritten as for an encyclopedia, with a citation. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed copyvio
editUser:Chris_Capoccia added the copyvio template, rightfully, as the lede was copied from the linked ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micropropagation&oldid=889045637
However, the problematic text was, IMO, redundant since there was already a decent summary directly below it. I removed the copyvio block, since the copied text was already removed in the edit which added the copyvio. There is no longer any copyvio text in the article that I can find, and the Duplication Detector/Copyvios reports do not show anything. I'm newish to editing, so please let me know if I should have proceeded differently.