The "missing" Taxobox is not the only criteria here to assess whether it is about the plant or the fruit. The primary criteria is in doubt always the article itself in particular its definition in the lead, the taxobox is just nice addon. In the case of the German article it literally states in the lead, that it is about the orange tree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- P.S.: Just as a side note the German article de:Bitterorange (Citrus ×aurantium) has no taxobox either, but it is clearly about the plant (stated literally in the lead as well). However in this case the article is already correctly assigned anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to guidelines, the lead is mostly a summary of the whole page. If there is something in the lead that is not in the rest of the page, the page is out of balance. Anyway the definition says it is a tree or, especially, the fruit. The page has one section describing the plant versus five dealing with the fruit.
- Indeed, de:Bitterorange does not have a taxobox either, and this seems to be the case for all products of Citrus hybrids. There is more than a little to be said in favour of this, as the exact relationships are uncertain, and quite likely, they are all man-made. The intent seems to be to make sure these are not treated as species, or other taxa. Thus, de:Bitterorange aims to describe an ornamental man-made plant. Wikidata, as yet, cannot accommodate that, and in this case likely never will (it is quite possible that in other case we will: fruit, crop, species can have separate items).
- So, in the case of de:Orange (Frucht), dewiki very much intends to avoid having this treated as a species, by content this mostly is about the fruit, and the title explicitly states this is about the fruit. So, the obvious course of action is to put it with the fruit, not the species.
- Enwiki is taxobox-mad, even putting a taxobox in en:Ugli fruit, which describes a commercial product of uncertain provenance. I see you sneaked in a taxobox in de:Orange (Frucht); why not change the title as well? - Brya (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's not quite accurate. First of all the section which deals exclusively with plant aspect other than its fruit has 2 subsections, so it so rather 2 than one. Further more the 3 sections "Namensgebung", "Geschichte" and Sorten" can be read as apply as much to the whole plant as to the fruit. Leaving only the sections "Farbe und Qualität der Früchte", "Verwendung", "Inhaltsstoffe" and "Die größten Orangenproduzenten" that can be seen as dealing primarily or exclusively with the fruit. So instead your 1:5 from above it is actually more like 5:4 or 5:7 (depending on how you count the "as well"-sections).
- Aside from the actual percentages somewhat differing from what you've suggested above, it is only natural that a plant article devotes a considerable percentage of its content to one of its most important aspect, that is its fruit (or root or more general harvested parts). So devoting some article space to the fruit doesn't necessarily suggest the article being out of balance.
- Sure, you can argue that the article's lead is currently not a well balanced summary of all of its content. But that does not change the fact, that the lead defines what the article is (supposed) to be about and what its authors so far considered its most important aspects. More importantly however this more a discussion of (potential) quality of the German article rather than a wikidata/interwiki assignment issues. Many Wikipedia articles do (temporarily) have leads, which don't have properly balanced summaries, or even the article itself is somewhat unbalanced. That however is no base for interwiki assignments contradicting the defining lead. Now if the lead gets rewritten or the article split in two, then we might change the assignment accordingly, but until then we need to stick to what the current lead defines.
- As far as the title of the page is concerned, yes - it states fruit, but de:Orangenbaum (orange tree) redirects to the same page. Now in case of name collisions (here for orange), articles often get moved to less than perfectly chosen bracket names (simply being the first not necessarily thought through choice at the time) and alternative or better names often just get implemented as redirects later on and people often don't bother with reshuffling all names (as in theory they should) as from the readers perspective there isn't really any difference, i.e. if you enter "Orangenbaum" you still end up at the right article, even if it formal name differs.
- As we discussed elsewhere to greater extent already, if a Wikipedia does has only one article for plant and fruit, it should be assigned to the plant interwikis (as all plant articles will have a larger part on the their fruits anyway as long as this is not outsourced to separate article) to avoid unnecessary disconnect between interwikis.
- As far as things as things are concerned that Wikidata "cannot" accommodate. Its has to accomodate what is required for Interwiki functionality of Wikipedia, since the decision was made to use it for that purpose. Arguing that a certain wikipedia article may not be suitable for a wikidata item is simply not an option (unless the decision to use Wikidata for Interwikis gets reversed).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The dewiki page indeed has two general sections, making it 1 : 5 : 2, if you like (obviously "Sorten" is abot the fruit). If you want to make it about sections and subsections, this becomes 2 : 5 : 2, or if you want to count the section "Beschreibung" in addition to its two subsections 3 : 5 : 2.
- As to "it is only natural that a plant article devotes a considerable percentage of its content to one of its most important aspect", this may be what you feel, but don't expect anybody else to subscribe to this feeling. It is quite normal for an Encyclopedia of Plants to have a rigid format, allowing a uniform, say, ten percent of the text to the fruit of the plant (maybe less for well-known fruits, as everybody knows it and a description is superfluous). And, equally, it is quite normal for an Encyclopedia of Fruits to have a rigid format, allowing a uniform, say, ten percent of the text to the plant that produces the fruit. Anything is possible. Good sense is called for, not dogma. - Brya (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)