This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 |
Hey! Sorry to bother you folks with this, but could someone with more proficiency in botany than me take a look at Prunus mume#Names? The plant (particularly the blossoms, sometimes the tree, sometimes an allusive reference in a toponym) shows up a lot in Japanese poetry going back to at least the eighth century, and I've never seen it translated as "apricot", and almost always as "plum", but both English and Japanese Wikipedia seem to give priority to the name "Japanese apricot". ("Japanese" makes sense, since even though it was imported to Japan from China, it seems to have first been studied by westerners in Japan.) This seems to have been discussed on the article talk page in not nearly enough detail ten years ago by User:Phoenix7777 and a user who is no longer active (and seems to have suffered a global block because their username is obscene in certain languages).
The problem is that at some point a dichotomy was established between "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and there are certain segments of Japanese society (including a lot of editors of Japanese Wikipedia; see netto-uyoku) that don't like to mention how certain aspects of Japanese culture originated in China, even in materials intended for a foreign audience, and so people have apparently been coming to both Japanese and English Wikipedia to find out what the English common name for (m)ume is, seeing "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and going with the former, even though it definitely is not used among translators of Japanese literary works, etc.
I suspect it is a "quasi-scientific name" used only in botanical journals and other works written by and for botanists and other scientists, but is not really the "common" name, but despite searching I've been unable to find any source that explicitly verifies or disproves my suspicion. So I figured I'd come here to ask (a) if anyone with more literacy in the field can do better and (b) failing that, if this (i.e., a plant having both a common English name and a "common name" that is used only by specialists) seems like something that could happen. (If anyone could give me a simple explanation of how it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing, if that is the case, that would also be much appreciated!)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
An additional issue; one of the varietas names is incorrect. I'd guess that var. typica should be var. mume (autonym), but it's possible that the type of the species belongs to one of the other varieties. (I've failed to find an online copy of the original description - I tried BHL, Archive.org and Google Books.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
ume's scientific name is actually prunus mume, a type of apricot, implying that the scientific name is itself a type of apricot? If indeed it is just a matter of the relative genetic closeness between the ume and the plants traditionally called "apricot" and "plum" in Europe, that would make "apricot" a "quasi-scientific name" as I said above, used by scientists who want to avoid a common name that is seen as scientifically inaccurate, but not by the general public unless they are consciously mimicking scientists (or Wikipedia)... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
"Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot"example demonstrates, listing all the possible "common" names (common meaning non-technical as opposed to non-rare, since needless to say most of these are exceedingly rare) would be very cumbersome and probably pointless. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
But a key point is that a reliable source must connect the scientific name Prunus mume with an English name for it to be a reliable source for the English name of the species; it's not enough to connect a Japanese vernacular name to an English vernacular name, given the vagueness of most vernacular names for plants. A Google search (for what it's worth) for "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese apricot" gets me ~70k hits, as opposed to "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese plum", which gets ~20k hits. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In my garden fall the plum-blossoms; Ian Hideo Levy has translated it as
Plum blossoms fall / and scatter in my garden(read it online here). If that seems a bit too WP:SYNTH-y, or you don't trust that whoever put up the sign (I suspect the government of either Asuka Village or Nara Prefecture) knew what they were talking about, here's a Brill-published source that explicitly says
The plum (or, strictly speaking, prunus mume, sometimes translated as 'Japanese apricot') was a favourite image in his poetry(emphasis mine). There's also this -- I highlighted 246 since that is a very famous poem included as #35 in the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu and, as such, has been published in English translation well over a dozen times. [10] I have on hand MacMillan's 2008 translation, praised by the eminent scholar Donald Keene as the best to date, and MacMillan translates it as "plum" in both the main text and the notes, without even mentioning the alternative "apricot" translation: it would not at all surprise me if every single Hyakunin Isshu translation to date did similar. I have misplaced my copy of the much older Porter translation, but GBooks is helpful. [11] Interestingly, Porter does not mention any specific species in his translation of the poem itself but rather in a note, because the Japanese doesn't and it's only because of historical notes that we know Tsurayuki was talking about a mume (by Tsurayuki's time, hana, without any modifier, had come to mean cherry blossoms rather than plum blossoms as the word had typically denoted a century or two earlier); so these translators are apparently not being duped by a misleading source text using a common name in colloquial Japanese, but rather doing background research on what kind of blossom was being discussed. (Addendum: So, Dickins's 1866 translation says "flower" and doesn't seem to include a note of any kind. [12])
the name "Japanese apricot" for Prunus mume has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so muchReally? I mean ... while you were writing the above I was writing another comment that cited one source from 1909 and another from 2008 that both use "plum": can you find a translation of the poem in question or any accompanying note that uses "apricot"? Or a reliable source that explicitly says "apricot" is more established than "plum"? Again, I would love if someone could locate a source that does support this assertion, but...
This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information.)
Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness ... Plants can have more than one common name.and Jts1882's
trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task; his guess as to the reason for the discrepancy was a version of what I wrote up above and asked for opinions on (
it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing-- i.e., "plum" and "apricot" are both non-scientific names that almost always refer to edible fruit rather than the trees themselves anyway, and are each somewhat haphazardly applied to a variety of different species and sometimes, as in the case of Prunus mume, both applied to the same species). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
My submission, Carlina gummifera, was recently accepted from AfC. I am not a botanist, so I had some difficulties in writing a formal botanical terminology in describing the plant (and its flowers). Could one of you help me out here? Also feel free to edit other parts of the article of course.
Sincerely, RWalen ( talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI this is what has been posted so far: Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
No need for separate article - any new content and useful references should be added to the existing section. Note that there seems to be overlap between Borassus (to which the redirect Palmyra palm currently targets) and Borassus flabellifer. Some cleanup is needed, perhaps. Pam D 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. Recently (few months ago) there was a long and warm discussion of changing the name of Vaccinium vitis-idaea to Lingonberry. In that discussion, quite a few Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants people argued that it seems better to keep food and plants separate. A food has certain characteristics, plants have others, and keeping them separate seems to work better. Bluntly, food is predom. culture, plants have science mainly (personally it is also the culture of plants that interest me, but I am from the social sciences). I don't think the proposal will have much support from WP Plants people. Speaking personally, I would prefer that Palm shell and Borassus flabellifer#Fruit are separate, but linked. I will post this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants for people to see. Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the story on Goeppertia Nees? PoWO has a listing for an 1831 version (accepted, with 243 species), and an 1836 unaccepted version. What would be the best way to fix the current disambig at Goeppertia? Abductive ( reasoning) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' = Central Park Splendor#Requested move 13 May 2021. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As I was reading the scientific literature, I noticed how many papers use the term " Gnetales" as a synonym of what Wikipedia calls Gnetophyta, while Wikipedia uses Gnetales to refer to the clade that contains Gnetum only. Should this be changed? Gnetales seems more common in the literature than Gnetophyta to refer to the clade containing the three genera. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi guys! I’m a uni student working on the article for Dampiera altissima for an assignment, could anyone have a look over it in the next couple of days? Thank you! TheRealDinosaur222 ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There have (always?) been issues with how {{
Automatic taxobox}}
handles the italicization of page titles for botanical ranks between genus and species, which require connecting terms. If left to the taxobox default, the title is fully italicized – like
Banksia subser. Longistyles right now – even if DISPLAYTITLE: is present. Such titles can be forced to be correct by also using |italic_title=no
and providing a correctly formatted value for |name=
– as at
Banksia subser. Banksia right now – but I am working on changes to {{
Automatic taxobox}}
which will, I hope, fix this, either automatically or in a simpler way. So this is just a note to say that if you see an incorrectly italicized page title of a plant article at these ranks, please leave it for now.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Lavateraguy and Plantsurfer: if you remember Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive72#Commons photos identification, the best we came up with was possibly some species of Salvia for 3 photos incorrectly identified as Nematanthus fritschii. Leo 86.83.56.115 has now identified these as commons:Category:Scutellaria incarnata (we don't have an article). I've categorized them there and requested moving. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
In the course of doing other things, I downloaded all accepted infraspecific taxa listed on Plants of the World Online. I thought I'd share some of my findings. There are 37,646 accepted infraspecifics; 19,436 subspecies, 17,466 varieties, 398 forms, 306 nothosubspecies, 33 nothovarieties, 6 subvarieties, and 1 nothomorth (abbreviated nm., for those who are wondering). As has been remarked here before, POWO tends towards lumping, but in particular, they seem to accept only those infraspecifics that differ in their geographical distributions.
For laughs, I created stubs on the missing species that had the most subspecies; Hieracium hypochoeroides, 83, and varieties, Symplocos cochinchinensis, 22. A look at those stubs will reveal examples of a number of (what I regard as) pretty serious failings of the POWO listings:
Anyway, if anybody want me to post some or all of the infraspecific dataset let me know. Abductive ( reasoning) 09:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am a university student and a newbie Wikipedia editor. I am working on this page ( Macrozamia glaucophylla) as one of my course assignment, would love to listen your opinions and constructive criticism towards my work. Thank you.-- Gabrellaevelyn ( talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
On WP I believe that the correct procedure for an article on a species which is the only species within a genus is to name the article with the genus name only, and then describe the species within that article. My query is about Wikidata and how to link the article to it. Wikidata may hold records for both the genus and the species, so which data item should the WP article link to, and which short description should the editor use? Case in point (one I have just edited and now seeking clarification): the article Idiospermum is linked to the wikidata item for the species, not the genus, yet the article is named for the genus. I have matched the short description to the wikidata species item, but is there a preferred/recommended method for this kind of thing? − Junglenut | talk 10:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Junglenut: Apologies for not scanning the article concerned. Looks good. A stub for the genus surely would simply be a large redirect, if an article addresses directly that it is both about the species and the genus, then the casual reader should be able to understand (and indeed learn a bit more about botanical hierarchy and so on). All the bits of info about one is identical to the other in this case. Of course there may turn out to be more than one species in a previously understood monospecific genus (new discoveries, extinct species...) but then we just have a little more work to do rewriting old pages and making new ones. Such is life/WP. Brunswicknic ( talk) 09:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for a review of this article, pisonia umbellifera, which I recently added a lot of detail. Is anyone able to edit, or add some more taxonomy information? Aliwright01( talk)
@ Peter coxhead: thank you so much, I appreciate it. I have seen a paper on the Pisonia/Ceodes distinction, so I'll be sure to include it.
Aliwright01 ( talk) 01:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Update: how do we go about changing the title/requesting a name change for the article from Pisonia to Ceodes Umbellifera
Hi! I have been working hard to expand this article for a university assessment for this semester. The article is stub rated and now it is added around 2000 words, including Description, Distribution, Habitat, Ecology, Putative hybridisation, Similar species, Conservation status, Cultivation, Population information, Decline and Threats, and Activities to protect Dodonaea procumbens. So I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be upgraded from the stub. Thank you very much for your assistance. Camorange ( talk) 22:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi authors! I am currently a university student who has been working on the Grevillea Johnsonii stub for an assessment task! I would really appreciate some input on new information I can put in as I am aiming to add more information, however am struggling to find proper sources. Any constructive criticism on the article will be greatly appreciated! 777LSR ( talk) 06:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this Category:Natural cultivars really makes sense to retain. The history of most cultivars, landraces, etc. is lost to time. And even a cultivar was found in nature, it almost certainly was subject to artificial selection, including the moment when it was found, and in the following generations. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently quite a number of different languages have articles for the plant under binomial "Nandina domestica" instead of the genus, and some languages have articles for both genus and species. This can be seen from 南天竹, and see the sidebar of that artcle for the rest of the languages, which doesn't appear on the sidebar of English article [[ Nandina]], making navigation difficult. Would anyone be able to merge or link them? I do not know the best procedure or the method to address this. I have left comment on the talk page of Nandina but I'm not sure if i had been clear, would be great if someone could help sort through this. Disappointman ( talk) 12:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I started a page that was a table of, well, the plants used as herbs and/or spices (trying to focus on the plants, more than the products). It got deleted (as a "content fork" of the page listing a bunch of culinary herbs and spices), but I put a draft version (I think) here: /info/en/?search=User:Tamtrible/Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices ; please help me get it ready for prime time?... Tamtrible ( talk) 09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Now located at /info/en/?search=Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices , please ignore the version on my user page.
In editing Orbexilum I found there are two spellings for Orbexilum lupinellum:
1. Orbexilum lupinellum
2. Orbexilum lupinellus
Could someone more knowledgeable confirm the correct spelling and add a citation?
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
As part of an attempt to convert manual to automated taxoboxes in groups where the former are common, I have completed the conversion of Carex species articles. In almost every case, I simply reproduced any infrageneric classification in the existing taxobox, creating the necessary taxonomy templates. However, a quick look at the literature suggests that many of the sections and even subgenera are not supported by recent molecular phylogenetic methods. I have no interest in Carex, so if anyone here does, then the genus does need looking at.
(If you want to work on converting manual taxoboxes, there are currently 330 Tillandsia species needing conversion.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Well if you can't verify the subgeneric data, who's going to be able to? That sounds as good an operational definition of WP:OR as any I can think of... probably as Peter suggests, it represents obsolete hypotheses and should be removed as uncited. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wiki authors!! I am a university student working on improving the article for Atriplex semibaccata for an assignment due in a couple days. I would really appreciate if anyone can have a look over the article and recommend suggestions. I am aiming to write an additional 1000 words to improve the article class by the due date (28th May). I greatly appreciate your time and effort. Thank you!! Hippocrates1354 ( talk) 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians. I would be very grateful if someone could review my article. I would love to hear peoples opinions on my article. Cheers. - usyd2021 ( talk) 29 May (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
PetScan shows about 590 bromeliad cultivar stubs; all those I've looked at are substubs, saying merely "'CULTIVAR-NAME' is a hybrid cultivar of the genus GENUS in the Bromeliad [wrongly capitalized] family".
Those I've looked at were created by Bromels, most in 2010. This editor has made only one edit since 2014.
I see no point in these articles. We don't have articles on cultivars unless they are (a) of some particular significance and (b) there something worthwhile that can be said about them. I'm thinking of nominating them all for deletion, but I thought I'd see what other plant editors think first. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The WGSRPD contains the codes:
Mr.Rosewater noticed that although Category:Flora of New South Wales says that it is used for code NSW, the list at this version of List of codes used in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions has the category against both NSW and NSW-NS. Mr.Rosewater changed the line for NSW-NS to say "Not used; see the parent Level 3 category", which is consistent with the description at Category:Flora of New South Wales. However, this would mean that NSW-CT Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory is a subcategory of Category:Flora of New South Wales, so the two should not be used together – Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory should only be used for plants native to the Capital Territory and not the rest of the WGSRPD's NSW "New South Wales". There appears to be only one such plant, namely Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana (which I don't believe is actually native).
So I think the simplest way of fixing this is to use only NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales, and don't have a category for either NSW-CT or NSW-NS. This means removing Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory from all articles which also have Category:Flora of New South Wales, relatively easily done using PetScan to find them, and changing the one article Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana to use NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales.
(This is one of a number of problems caused by the WGSRPD using descriptions of its politico-geographical units in a non-standard way, like "Ecuador" meaning only the mainland and excluding the Galapagos, so not the country.)
Comments, please. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
After writing Veronica jovellanoides and beginning work on Veronica bishopiana I found out there are 10 extant (+ one extinct) plant species which are endemic just to the Auckland region. [13] I was wondering if a list article of them would be notable and also if a series template (see my mock-up here) would be useful. Thanks, Draco phyllum 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two new articles I have created called Andromonoecy and Gynomonoecy. Another editor stated that the topic may not be notable and recommend a merge.
I must admit I don’t know too much on plant biology, so I kind of need help expanding these articles.
I have seen tons of sources that mention these topics, so I know that there are tons of sources on this topic. And I know there are indeed sources that give more detail on these. CycoMa ( talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The 11 lists we've got so far are at the bottom of my user page. That's roughly as much as can be done for genus and family names with the sources that you guys recommended, but I'll be happy to take another look in a couple of years to see if important new sources have been published, or if you guys have found new sources to recommend. The two species epithet lists probably need to be expanded with additional sources ... any recommendations? (For instance, should I be using some of the sources that show up in List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and similar pages?) And, does anyone have additional feedback on questions that have come up so far? (Note that the family list is " List of plant family names with etymologies" ... should I change the first 4 genus lists to match, to something like " List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C)", etc.?) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
What's the thinking on Hebe? PoWO says it's a synonym of Veronica. Is there any reason to hold back on making articles on former Hebe species under their Veronica names? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
People working in this area are well aware of the progress being made, but today's story in the New York Times might be interesting for folks who haven't been keeping up. This story focuses on the human genome ... but the progress being made is just as relevant to plant genomes. This means we're in for a decade of rapid progress in genetic engineering that creates new hybrids, and even brand-new plant characteristics. Exciting times (even if this does increase the workload for editors!) - Dank ( push to talk) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This editor made a series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few other articles) which ranged from juvenile vandalism to elaborate hoaxes with misinformation and tendentious editing in between. I made an ANI case under "Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah58". The user is now banned.
Some other editors and I have already reverted the editor's changes to numerous articles. Rather than doing a bulk revert, I've tried to provide an edit summary reason for each. Some articles remain though: Nepenthes lowii (justified deletion?), Nepenthes nebularum (edit war?), Nepenthes edwardsiana (almost certainly another hoax) and Nepenthes rajah. Others here may be interested in these articles and the editor's "contributions" in general.
A note that the editor often cited the book The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by Stewart McPherson. According to the publisher's website, this is an actual title but not yet released! Thanks, Declangi ( talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Are botanical gardens in the scope of the Project? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Earlier an editor suggested I make an article on sexual systems. [ Link to draft here].
There are clearly a good amount of sources on this topic. Like there is [ this source], [ this] and [ this.]
There is even an entire book on sexual systems [ right here.]
So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.
And I think one of the definitions in there clearly makes no sense. CycoMa ( talk) 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually I made an article for Sexual system. But I still need help expanding it. CycoMa ( talk) 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
The genus Jovellana is split between New Zealand and Chile, the current wp article lists species that aren't even accepted by the citation it gives. Plants of the World Online gives five species: J. guentheri Kraenzl., J. punctata Ruiz & Pav., J. repens (Hook.f.) Kraenzl., J. sinclairii (Hook.) Kraenzl., and J. violacea (Cav.) G.Don. A 2018 publication [15] says there are only four, excluding J. guentheri. Does anyone know any more publications that could be of use here? Of course I could just discuss this in the article. Draco phyllum 00:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There is an AfD for Jerry_G._Chmielewski currently going on, some expertise could be helpful here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerry_G._Chmielewski. Thanks -- hroest 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Salix fragilis was moved to Salix euxina a few days back, but no cleanup after move has been performed. However I don't recall offhand the taxonomic issues involved, and I'm not sure that it was moved to the right place. Should it have been moved to Salix × fragilis? Lavateraguy ( talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at User talk:Darorcilmir#Caladenia elegans is a herb which is, I think, of wider relevance.
Botanical sources do not agree on the definition of "herb". Most, but not all, explicitly require a herb to be non-woody. They disagree more on whether a herb must die down seasonally/annually. Some are unclear, using words like "having no persistent woody parts" where "no persisent" might mean seasonally dying down, but might not. Some examples of varying definitions:
So is a banana plant a "herb"? Yes, according to (1). No, according to (2) and (3).
The adjective "herbaceous" in relation to habit is somewhat clearer, in that where this is defined separately, all the sources I've checked just say "not woody", with no reference to dying down or not. So a banana plant is a "herbaceous perennial" but may or may not be a "herb".
It's not clear to me what exactly we can do to clarify the intended meaning of "herb" to our readers where it is included in an article based on a source whose usage may be any of the above. Gloss? Have wikilinks to varied meanings and choose one? Avoid the term (e.g. in favour of "herbaceous annual" or "herbaceous perennial")? What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Many orchids are described by botanists as "a herb" (never as "a/an herbaceous plant"). Stace's New Flora of the British Isles, regarded as the definitive Flora of the region, begins the section on the Orchidaceae of the British Isles with the words "Erect, herbaceous perennials". It's simply not correct that orchids are never described as "herbaceous". Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Catherine_Hof_Blinks which is under discussion for deletion. -- hroest 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
For example, hippomanes, silphium, soma... Viriditas ( talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I received the following notification, which ought to have been placed here. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
International Association for Plant Taxonomy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a requested move discussion at Talk:Orchidaceae#Requested move 17 August 2021 which may be of interest to members of this project. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have recently converted all the manual taxoboxes for Crataegus species articles to use {{ Speciesbox}}. In almost all cases, I simply reproduced the taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox, creating taxonomy templates for sections and series as necessary.
However, I suspect the taxonomy is very often well out-of-date; it appears to be based on morphology and papers and monographs from the 1990s or earlier. I'm aware that Crataegus is something of a taxonomic black hole, so I'm not going to try to update the articles. Maybe someone else is more courageous? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't fix this:
Cheers, 145.132.201.64 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've now done the same as above for Sorbus species articles, again simply retaining the name and taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox.
However, I see that Plants of the World Online and other taxonomic sources have accepted major splits of Sorbus, in particular into Aria (57 spp. in PoWO) and Karpatiosorbus (85 spp. in PoWO), but many species articles are still under Sorbus. There's limited discussion of the newer taxonomy at Sorbus. We don't appear to have a list of Sorbus species anywhere. Any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Can any expert help resolve the ambiguous link to Erysimum hieraciifolium in Erysimum crepidifolium? Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created an article for the Darling 58, a genetically engineered American Chestnut tree which is resistant to chestnut blight. It may become the most widely planted GM tree in North America once it is released to the public. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 23:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please consider the article Escaped plant which is due to appear on the main page as a DYK in four days time. It is an interesting topic but it seems to me that the article has inaccuracies and anomalies. Here are a few points I have noticed: (pinging the creator @ Qumarchi:) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to life histories in Mastocarpus stellatus? There may be an appropriate technical term I don't know. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm almost done with pushing the series of 11 etymology lists through WP:FLC, and it's time to pick a new project to work on. I'm considering doing something with characteristics of plant families, but I'm open to other suggestions, and let me know if there are any ongoing list projects I can help with. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who is an expert on this and can give us a better view of the scientific consensus or other discussion on this topic? Thanks in advance. MSG17 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to members in Ascent of sap? Copyediting might be helpful, because I don't understand the sentence, nor "Both" at the beginning of the next one. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain about the meaning of "Taxa named by ....". It could be taken as meaning "the first person to publish a description of a taxon", "any person who gave this taxon a name" or "the last person to name the species". For a species like Eucalyptus caesia, it's clear - George Bentham described it and gave it the name that's still accepted. For others, like Corymbia gummifera it is less clear - first described, named and published as Metrosideros gummifera by Gaertner, later renamed Corymbia gummifera by Ken Hill and Lawrie Johnson. So was C. gummifera "named by" Gaertner, by Hill and Johnson, or by all three? There are probably more complicated taxonomic histories with taxa "named by" more authorities. I am suggesting that there should be some "consensus" guidance either at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template or Category talk:Taxa by author, and asking for other editors' opinions on the subject. (My apologies if I have missed something, consensus has already been reached and there is already guidance.) Gderrin ( talk) 08:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure at the moment whether I should be including every piece of information there is on plant's morphology in the description section. The project page says: "The description should focus on the defining characteristics of the taxon, that distinguish it from other similar taxa," and in most cases only a paragraph of condensed botanical stuff is needed to get to that. Featured articles seem to vary, like Banksia aemula or Banksia cuneata are a middle ground, while Banksia integrifolia and Persoonia levis are very simple, and Banksia speciosa and Banksia serrata are quite complex. For my Dracophyllum GAs, Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum arboreum, I've included every thing that the latest monograph of the genus describes. This ends up being quite long and complex – much more than any average reader would really need. The information there is five times the stuff included in books like The Flora of New Zealand or similar. Is there a line we should be drawing here, or is it a non-issue? Draco phyllum 00:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.-- Kev min § 01:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants was marked as inactive on 11 May 2019. Fair enough; there hasn't been a conversation with 2 or more editors on the project talk page since 2011. On 8 September, the project assessment banner ( Template:WikiProject Carnivorous plants) was marked as inactive. This had the effect of emptying all the assessment categories for Carnivorous plants, and since the carnivorous plant banner also counted into the assessment table for plants overall, all carnivorous plant articles were removed from the overall count (see quality log on September 9. Category:WikiProject Carnivorous plants articles was deleted on September 9th, and the remaining assessment categories such as Category:High-importance carnivorous plant articles were deleted today (with rational " G6: inactive project no longer assesses articles").
While the talk page for Carnivorous plants was dead, articles were actively being assessed; I discovered the situation today when I came across a new Drosera article and tried to assess it.
I remove the inactive tag from the assessment banner template. I had started to recreate categories, but wasn't sure if that was the best way forward. Three subprojects (Carnivorous plants, Banksia and Hypericaceae) have tagged (essentially) all articles in their scope, with the subproject banners also adding assessment categories for ths project. In my opinion, it would've been better if the subprojects had been created as work groups; Article Alerts is a useful report, and it doesn't pick up articles in subprojects.
I suppose it would be pretty simple to change the Carnivorous plant banner so it stopped trying to place articles in (now deleted) assessment categories for Carnivorous plants and have the template put everything in a Plant assessment category. But it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate the deleted categories either.
I am concerned by the deletion process that was in play. I would've thought that there was a consensus that articles should have quality assessment (over the alternative that articles should NOT have quality assessment). When there is only one banner providing assessment and it is disabled, the article effectively becomes unassessed. I'm sure there are a number of niche topics at Wikipedia that are only assessed by a single no-longer active WikiProject. I'll bring up my concerns not-specific to plants in more appropriate forums and will add links to those discussions once I've started them. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some bars to show some goals / our project's progression vis-à-vis assessment – let me know your thoughts; it would be cool if they could be added to the main project page. Cheers, Draco phyllum > FAC 05:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
100 featured articles: 76% complete | ||
50 featured lists: 64% complete | ||
200 good articles: 79% complete | ||
10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 13.1% complete | ||
40% of all articles rated Start-Class or better: 89% complete | ||
Hi everyone, I'm new to this wikiproject. I live near Kew Gardens and so recently I had a brainwave to try and take photos of plant species at Kew Gardens that Wikimedia Commons does not yet have openly-licensed accurately identified photos of (from Kew Gardens). See here for examples: Uploads by Metacladistics - Wikimedia Commons
Even when armed with a list it's still hard to find the species I'm looking for. So it's very much a long-term work in progress over the next year or two.
Aside from obvious advice like 'try to capture it in flower' , are there any particular characteristics I should aim to capture with my photos, if I'm taking them specifically for Wikipedia / advancing knowledge purposes? I try and take a photo specifically including the plant and its identification plaque in the same shot to prove its identity -- but perhaps people might consider this bad practice or undesired? Thoughts and opinions sought... Metacladistics ( talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a family level phylogeny of Angiosperms published this year as part of the Kew Angiosperm Tree of Life Project. [1] [2] There is an comparison with APG IV in the Fig S4 of the journal paper and an interactive treeview at the website. I thought this might be of interest.
References
I am working on Susanne Renner's page and have come across some terms that seem similar, but may be different. Wikipedia has pages for dioecy and dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany). Are dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany) the same term, but spelled slightly differently? Or is this a spelling issue? The publications that are cited by Renner on the dioicy (botany) page spell the word 'dioecy'.
I am not familiar with the field, so I am posting the question here in the hopes that you can help. Thanks for any help/thoughts.
-- DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. This is indeed confusing. I will add in the author-links to Susanne Renner in the existing references in the Dioicy (botany) and the Dioecy articles. I cannot help with the main text, and if Renner's publications are on the wrong page I hope they can be moved with the author-link intact. -- DaffodilOcean ( talk) 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Taxus has a non-consensus (e.g. 3 species rather than 1 native to Britain) classification added at the end of 2014. Other material added by the same editor was removed, but this escaped. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Are there plant conservation status ratings for Mexico, Central America (or countries therein), and/or South American countries? IUCN has a limited list of the genus I am researching. NatureServe lists only US species. Any help appreciated. — Eewilson ( talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Anybody have any insight into which spelling is correct: Guarea caulobotryis vs. Guarea caulobotrys? IPNI has botryis, which looks misspelled to me. GBIF records both spellings, but has flagged record for the IPNI spelling as "deleted" (but it's accessible via taxonbar). Plantdrew ( talk) 01:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Plantdrew, Awkwafaba, Jts1882, and William Avery: In response to my query, the IPNI entry here has been changed to "caulobotrys" (in line with Tropicos), noting that the original was "caulobotryis". Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
References
I have tagged Cupressus nootkatensis be renamed and moved to Callitropsis nootkatensis as the most frequently used combination for the species. The use of Callitropsis as a distinct genus has been accepted for at least 5 years now, with the distinct linages of the western cypresses being supported by molecular studies. Comment is welcome.-- Kev min § 14:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I kinda need help at Baccharis monoica. I’m kinda new to this situation, someone tagged this article with cleanup taxon. CycoMa ( talk) 03:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Today's Picture of the Day shows an old tree, described as an oak, with a broken crown. It sure looks like a beech, Fagus sylvatica to me, although my knowledge of trees has a North American bias and the picture is from the Netherlands. Can I get a second opinion? Tdslk ( talk) 17:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The Randall James Bayer page, of a living botanist, appears to have been written by Randall James Bayer ( Rjbayer). It was created on 19 August 2006, nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006, voted keep on 24 August 2006, and the final edit by the subject of the page was 15 years ago this month. Various cleanup edits have occurred since 2006, but in these 15 years, it still cites no sources (other than the IPNI citation for the botanist abbreviation) and has no tag templates. Furthermore, it is almost an exact copy of https://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/bayer-randall.html. Which came first is hard to tell. (Also posted on Project Biography.) Eewilson ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Something I noticed and brought up on the talk page of the Infraspecific name article. Please refer to my new comment at Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies". I won't repeat it here. Thanks! Eewilson ( talk) 06:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
When moving the current article to the species level, as prep for a fossil record inclusive genus article, I accidentally mis-copied the binomial. This should get moved to Pteroceltis tatarinowii over the redirect there, would someone with page-move ability be able to swap this one over? Thanks!-- Kev min § 17:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
The usual search - to add {{botanist|Maige}} (or similar) to this article - doesn't yield any result.
The Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques has his biography here.
Am I missing something here? (Admittedly, the answer is most probably, "Yes, Shirt58, sometimes botanists don't have ipni entries. Please f*ck off and write articles about things you actually know something about")
Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
We seem to have articles at Quercus bumelioides and Quercus sapotifolia that are about the same type of tree (they use the same image, and the Commons category for one redirects to the other). Would someone be able to have a look and potentially merge them, please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
For an article on a particular hybrid, how much documentation is necessary? I noticed many articles such as × Pachyveria glauca 'Little Jewel' with the only meaningful documentation being a dealer's catalog, or × Quesmea 'Flame' with a link that does not lead to any information, or Buddleja davidii 'SMBDPB' = Merry Magic Orchid whose documentation consists of a dealers catalog and a claimed plant patent application (in that example, would it make any diffeence if the patent were actually granted?) ? DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
— Eewilson ( talk) 02:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
— Eewilson ( talk) 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was working on a draft for this species called Draft:Loxostylis alata.(It is currently not done so the draft is kinda messy and needs fixing.)
However, when I looked at the genus for this species at Loxostylis. It appears Loxostylis alata is the only species in its genus and that the genus is monotypic. What do you guys think, do you guys think I should just move all the stuff I made on my draft and move it to Loxostylis or what? Any idea is helpful. CycoMa ( talk) 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Quercus_bumelioides above, I'm working through link mismatches between enwiki articles and Commons categories (via Wikidata), and I'm finding a lot of them are related to plants. I'm often not sure if it's the Wikipedia article or the Commons category that needs moving/renaming to resolve the discrepancy (Wikidata often has taxon synonym items, and I've been going off the article/category name to determine the matches). Any chance you can help with these please? (pinging @ Premeditated Chaos, CaptainEek, and Plantdrew: as they commented above). I'm happy to help with the technical work, but I don't know the topic. I've listed some below (will continue expanding this as I come across them). You can find the problematic articles in Category:Commons category link is the pagename, Category:Commons category link is defined as the pagename, and Category:Commons category link is locally defined. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
See here, Melocactus intortus. Cheers, 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3011:C945:188C:5563 ( talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Heterotypic synonyms have "disappeared" for viewing from POWO for species that have accepted infraspecies. This is temporary, as Kew has moved them to the autonyms which are not available for viewing online. In an email I received today, Rafaël Govaerts said the ability to view autonyms online should happen in the next few weeks. Eewilson ( talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you! BloxyColaSweet ( talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Starting a new thread so it doesn't get swallowed by the old one. I have bundled ten Tillandsia stubs into the above-noted AfD nomination as a sort of test case rather than starting out by trainwrecking the remaining hundred or so. (No particular ten, I just picked the first ten alphabetically). I invite anyone from this project who is interested to comment. In particular, if anyone here has not seen my previous posts about PROD-tagging cultivars and would have opposed had they seen them earlier, or did object but didn't wish to say so, now is the time. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Symphyotrichum species as a featured list. Would appreciate for anyone who has interest to take a look and make comments on the review page. Thank you all in advance. Eewilson ( talk) 04:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a taxonomic inconsistency in its treatment of Pityranthe and Diplodiscus, in that it recognises Pityranthe but also includes the species of Pityranthe in Diplodiscus. On a quick glance it seems that Kubitzki & Bayer and POWO recognise Pityranthe but TPL doesn't. (I've added a couple of bandaids.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 14:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there interest in reforming this wikiproject to be more organised, like Milhist and others, or is the understanding that the sheer breadth of the project makes that so difficult as to be pointless. Draco phyllum 07:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great to me if there are people who are prepared to do the extra work. Keeping DYK about botanists and plants on the main page is certainly a worthy goal, as is preparation of a guide for beginners and for students doing university/college assignments on plants. Gderrin ( talk) 03:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
...would appear to be a cultivar of Brassica juncea as per this, but then this says Brassica rugosa...? Anyone familiar with brassicas? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Do we keep synonym genera and higher in separate articles or do we merge them? I know we rename/merge/redirect species, but do higher taxa get different treatment? Example: Koyamacalia and Parasenecio. Eewilson ( talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
We have articles for both the monotypic genus Ripariosida and its sole species (the latter at Sida hermaphrodita). (This change was a long time coming, but was finally made in 2017). Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
What is going on? These Leucadendron stubs don't seem ready for mainspace to me. Is there any way to draftify most of them? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Cacti. It’s still a draft project, but thought I’d spread awareness. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on species, subspecies and cultivars, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a recent ref that ⚥ is the modern convention for hermaphroditic/perfect flowers, replacing the ☿ in Linnaeus? (In looking up 'botanical symbols', I get state flowers.) Thanks. — kwami ( talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I had included it, but I didn't see that result.
@ Awkwafaba: Are Simpson's new symbols in significant use? Should they be added to Unicode? If any are needed, and you can provide a few refs, it would be pretty straightforward to get them into Unicode for 2023. For instance, we might substitute Ꙫ for 'biannual', but it's really not appropriate, as it's part of a casing pair and in styling is unlikely to match ☉ for 'annual'. If the symbol is used (as in this century) by more than one author/publisher, it would be better to have a dedicated character for it. — kwami ( talk) 05:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
U+263F ☿ MERCURY | U+2640 ♀ FEMALE SIGN | U+2641 ♁ EARTH | U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN |
U+26A5 ⚥ MALE AND FEMALE SIGN | |||
U+2609 ☉ SUN | U+2687 ⚇ WHITE CIRCLE WITH TWO DOTS | U+2299 ⊙ CIRCLED DOT OPERATOR | U+229D ⊝ CIRCLED DASH |
Howdy. I created a user script you guys might be interested in.
User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. It adds an "Add Taxobox" option to the "More" dropdown menu. When clicked, it tries to add a speciesbox, taxobar, and category to the article, then shows you a diff so you can make adjustments. Feel free to install and provide feedback at
User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. Right now it is very basic, for example if there are other categories or a short description it will put stuff in the wrong place.(fixed) But feed me diffs of these edge cases and I will get them fixed. Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been creating articles for endemic and sub-endemic species in Malta (nearly finished). I've been using speciesbox and I've just got an error for Hymenolobus revelierei and I've no idea what to do. Could someone who knows how it works take a look? My assumption is the template can't find the family.
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
|parent=
parameter. Sometimes that parent will also need a new taxonomy template. It is best practice to add a reference in the |refs=
parameter.Thanks very much for fixing it, also any tips on finding synonyms would be really appreciated. John Cummings ( talk) 16:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I just reorganized, by means of Sortkeys, the category for the genus Mispila. It has some subgenera, including Mispila (Mispila) and Mispila (Dryusa). Well, according to Wikipedia, there exist two species--one Mispila (Dryusa) coomani described by Breuning in 1968, and the other Mispila (Mispila) coomani described by Pic in 1934 (although he might have called it Alidus coomani). Could this be correct? Are are people citing as verification sources that have been repeating the same error, cited from the other sources? Uporządnicki ( talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I created the article for Beech leaf disease in 2019. It is a serious threat to the American beech and the current structure of many forests in North America. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I've become pretty interested in the Sissoo spinach article, a species sometimes referred to as Alternanthera sissoo. According to the article, "there are no known scientific descriptions of its taxonomy". Besides one self-published source claiming it is a cultivar of Alternanthera ficoidea, I can't find anything to refute that statement. Any idea where to find information about this relatively common vegetable? Mbdfar ( talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Articles about species of plants typically contain a link to the corresponding category on Wikimedia Commons, which is typically formatted using {{ commons category}} or {{ commons category inline}}. The question is, what do you do for monotypic genera? Normally, the article will cover both the genus and the species, and there's a slight preference for its title to use the genus name ( WP:MONOTYPICFLORA).
On Commons, there are two categories: one each for the genus and the species. The genus one is typically empty of files and only serves to navigate to the species category, where all the images will normally be found. Which one should we link to from an article? Given that it covers both topics, we could in principle be able to link to either one, or to both. In practice, given the placeholder nature of the genus category, I would go for linking directly to the species. However, one editor strongly believes that the category link should exactly match the article's title. (This disagreement arose on Alyssoides, which has the complicating factor that the genus category on Commons reflects the now outdated circumscription where there was one more species in the genus). – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working through a list of missing native plant species for Malta and I'm wondering if any other country has already had all of its plant species articles created?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 13:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been working through a to do list of plants in Malta (native and non native) using a local website as a guide, I've put together User:John Cummings/Articles/malta plant species for myself and anyone else who would like to contribute, I'll put it somewhere else soon.
I wonder if something like this but generated from Wikidata could be useful for creating articles like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index do, obviously there could be more potential reference sources brought in if they were imported into Wikidata, including the Encyclopedia of Life open license descriptions. I feel like you could create redlists for families, genus etc as well as location.
Any thoughts greatly appreciated. @ing @ Plantdrew and @ Peter coxhead in case you're interested (follows on from the discussion above).
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 14:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Plantdrew and Abductive, thaks for your thoughts, for now I've added the list to Flora_of_Malta, although the reference list seems to not be working properly. Is there an easy way to pull all the images across from the articles into the table? (I'll ask on technical village pump also). John Cummings ( talk) 13:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
{{wikidata|property|raw|Q606369|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 100px {{!}} left\]\]}} |
|
{{wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} left\]\]}} |
{{subst:wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} right\]\]}}
[[File:Abutilon theophrasti 2006.10.11 17.01.39-pa110057.jpg {{!}} 50px {{!}} right]]
See talk: Mislabelled picture of wrong species, info in article was 100% about another two different species (before I made some edits), redirect problem. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:D55C:983A:EF0C:F67C ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working on creating articles for plant species which are native to Malta. Suprisingly I think there is only around 200 species which do not yet have articles on English Wikipedia, I have a few questions about the rules for redirects.
Links to where these rules are written for these specific questions would be really helpful
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 |
Hey! Sorry to bother you folks with this, but could someone with more proficiency in botany than me take a look at Prunus mume#Names? The plant (particularly the blossoms, sometimes the tree, sometimes an allusive reference in a toponym) shows up a lot in Japanese poetry going back to at least the eighth century, and I've never seen it translated as "apricot", and almost always as "plum", but both English and Japanese Wikipedia seem to give priority to the name "Japanese apricot". ("Japanese" makes sense, since even though it was imported to Japan from China, it seems to have first been studied by westerners in Japan.) This seems to have been discussed on the article talk page in not nearly enough detail ten years ago by User:Phoenix7777 and a user who is no longer active (and seems to have suffered a global block because their username is obscene in certain languages).
The problem is that at some point a dichotomy was established between "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and there are certain segments of Japanese society (including a lot of editors of Japanese Wikipedia; see netto-uyoku) that don't like to mention how certain aspects of Japanese culture originated in China, even in materials intended for a foreign audience, and so people have apparently been coming to both Japanese and English Wikipedia to find out what the English common name for (m)ume is, seeing "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and going with the former, even though it definitely is not used among translators of Japanese literary works, etc.
I suspect it is a "quasi-scientific name" used only in botanical journals and other works written by and for botanists and other scientists, but is not really the "common" name, but despite searching I've been unable to find any source that explicitly verifies or disproves my suspicion. So I figured I'd come here to ask (a) if anyone with more literacy in the field can do better and (b) failing that, if this (i.e., a plant having both a common English name and a "common name" that is used only by specialists) seems like something that could happen. (If anyone could give me a simple explanation of how it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing, if that is the case, that would also be much appreciated!)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
An additional issue; one of the varietas names is incorrect. I'd guess that var. typica should be var. mume (autonym), but it's possible that the type of the species belongs to one of the other varieties. (I've failed to find an online copy of the original description - I tried BHL, Archive.org and Google Books.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
ume's scientific name is actually prunus mume, a type of apricot, implying that the scientific name is itself a type of apricot? If indeed it is just a matter of the relative genetic closeness between the ume and the plants traditionally called "apricot" and "plum" in Europe, that would make "apricot" a "quasi-scientific name" as I said above, used by scientists who want to avoid a common name that is seen as scientifically inaccurate, but not by the general public unless they are consciously mimicking scientists (or Wikipedia)... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
"Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot"example demonstrates, listing all the possible "common" names (common meaning non-technical as opposed to non-rare, since needless to say most of these are exceedingly rare) would be very cumbersome and probably pointless. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
But a key point is that a reliable source must connect the scientific name Prunus mume with an English name for it to be a reliable source for the English name of the species; it's not enough to connect a Japanese vernacular name to an English vernacular name, given the vagueness of most vernacular names for plants. A Google search (for what it's worth) for "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese apricot" gets me ~70k hits, as opposed to "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese plum", which gets ~20k hits. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In my garden fall the plum-blossoms; Ian Hideo Levy has translated it as
Plum blossoms fall / and scatter in my garden(read it online here). If that seems a bit too WP:SYNTH-y, or you don't trust that whoever put up the sign (I suspect the government of either Asuka Village or Nara Prefecture) knew what they were talking about, here's a Brill-published source that explicitly says
The plum (or, strictly speaking, prunus mume, sometimes translated as 'Japanese apricot') was a favourite image in his poetry(emphasis mine). There's also this -- I highlighted 246 since that is a very famous poem included as #35 in the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu and, as such, has been published in English translation well over a dozen times. [10] I have on hand MacMillan's 2008 translation, praised by the eminent scholar Donald Keene as the best to date, and MacMillan translates it as "plum" in both the main text and the notes, without even mentioning the alternative "apricot" translation: it would not at all surprise me if every single Hyakunin Isshu translation to date did similar. I have misplaced my copy of the much older Porter translation, but GBooks is helpful. [11] Interestingly, Porter does not mention any specific species in his translation of the poem itself but rather in a note, because the Japanese doesn't and it's only because of historical notes that we know Tsurayuki was talking about a mume (by Tsurayuki's time, hana, without any modifier, had come to mean cherry blossoms rather than plum blossoms as the word had typically denoted a century or two earlier); so these translators are apparently not being duped by a misleading source text using a common name in colloquial Japanese, but rather doing background research on what kind of blossom was being discussed. (Addendum: So, Dickins's 1866 translation says "flower" and doesn't seem to include a note of any kind. [12])
the name "Japanese apricot" for Prunus mume has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so muchReally? I mean ... while you were writing the above I was writing another comment that cited one source from 1909 and another from 2008 that both use "plum": can you find a translation of the poem in question or any accompanying note that uses "apricot"? Or a reliable source that explicitly says "apricot" is more established than "plum"? Again, I would love if someone could locate a source that does support this assertion, but...
This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information.)
Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness ... Plants can have more than one common name.and Jts1882's
trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task; his guess as to the reason for the discrepancy was a version of what I wrote up above and asked for opinions on (
it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing-- i.e., "plum" and "apricot" are both non-scientific names that almost always refer to edible fruit rather than the trees themselves anyway, and are each somewhat haphazardly applied to a variety of different species and sometimes, as in the case of Prunus mume, both applied to the same species). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
My submission, Carlina gummifera, was recently accepted from AfC. I am not a botanist, so I had some difficulties in writing a formal botanical terminology in describing the plant (and its flowers). Could one of you help me out here? Also feel free to edit other parts of the article of course.
Sincerely, RWalen ( talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI this is what has been posted so far: Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
No need for separate article - any new content and useful references should be added to the existing section. Note that there seems to be overlap between Borassus (to which the redirect Palmyra palm currently targets) and Borassus flabellifer. Some cleanup is needed, perhaps. Pam D 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. Recently (few months ago) there was a long and warm discussion of changing the name of Vaccinium vitis-idaea to Lingonberry. In that discussion, quite a few Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants people argued that it seems better to keep food and plants separate. A food has certain characteristics, plants have others, and keeping them separate seems to work better. Bluntly, food is predom. culture, plants have science mainly (personally it is also the culture of plants that interest me, but I am from the social sciences). I don't think the proposal will have much support from WP Plants people. Speaking personally, I would prefer that Palm shell and Borassus flabellifer#Fruit are separate, but linked. I will post this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants for people to see. Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the story on Goeppertia Nees? PoWO has a listing for an 1831 version (accepted, with 243 species), and an 1836 unaccepted version. What would be the best way to fix the current disambig at Goeppertia? Abductive ( reasoning) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' = Central Park Splendor#Requested move 13 May 2021. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As I was reading the scientific literature, I noticed how many papers use the term " Gnetales" as a synonym of what Wikipedia calls Gnetophyta, while Wikipedia uses Gnetales to refer to the clade that contains Gnetum only. Should this be changed? Gnetales seems more common in the literature than Gnetophyta to refer to the clade containing the three genera. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi guys! I’m a uni student working on the article for Dampiera altissima for an assignment, could anyone have a look over it in the next couple of days? Thank you! TheRealDinosaur222 ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There have (always?) been issues with how {{
Automatic taxobox}}
handles the italicization of page titles for botanical ranks between genus and species, which require connecting terms. If left to the taxobox default, the title is fully italicized – like
Banksia subser. Longistyles right now – even if DISPLAYTITLE: is present. Such titles can be forced to be correct by also using |italic_title=no
and providing a correctly formatted value for |name=
– as at
Banksia subser. Banksia right now – but I am working on changes to {{
Automatic taxobox}}
which will, I hope, fix this, either automatically or in a simpler way. So this is just a note to say that if you see an incorrectly italicized page title of a plant article at these ranks, please leave it for now.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Lavateraguy and Plantsurfer: if you remember Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive72#Commons photos identification, the best we came up with was possibly some species of Salvia for 3 photos incorrectly identified as Nematanthus fritschii. Leo 86.83.56.115 has now identified these as commons:Category:Scutellaria incarnata (we don't have an article). I've categorized them there and requested moving. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
In the course of doing other things, I downloaded all accepted infraspecific taxa listed on Plants of the World Online. I thought I'd share some of my findings. There are 37,646 accepted infraspecifics; 19,436 subspecies, 17,466 varieties, 398 forms, 306 nothosubspecies, 33 nothovarieties, 6 subvarieties, and 1 nothomorth (abbreviated nm., for those who are wondering). As has been remarked here before, POWO tends towards lumping, but in particular, they seem to accept only those infraspecifics that differ in their geographical distributions.
For laughs, I created stubs on the missing species that had the most subspecies; Hieracium hypochoeroides, 83, and varieties, Symplocos cochinchinensis, 22. A look at those stubs will reveal examples of a number of (what I regard as) pretty serious failings of the POWO listings:
Anyway, if anybody want me to post some or all of the infraspecific dataset let me know. Abductive ( reasoning) 09:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am a university student and a newbie Wikipedia editor. I am working on this page ( Macrozamia glaucophylla) as one of my course assignment, would love to listen your opinions and constructive criticism towards my work. Thank you.-- Gabrellaevelyn ( talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
On WP I believe that the correct procedure for an article on a species which is the only species within a genus is to name the article with the genus name only, and then describe the species within that article. My query is about Wikidata and how to link the article to it. Wikidata may hold records for both the genus and the species, so which data item should the WP article link to, and which short description should the editor use? Case in point (one I have just edited and now seeking clarification): the article Idiospermum is linked to the wikidata item for the species, not the genus, yet the article is named for the genus. I have matched the short description to the wikidata species item, but is there a preferred/recommended method for this kind of thing? − Junglenut | talk 10:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Junglenut: Apologies for not scanning the article concerned. Looks good. A stub for the genus surely would simply be a large redirect, if an article addresses directly that it is both about the species and the genus, then the casual reader should be able to understand (and indeed learn a bit more about botanical hierarchy and so on). All the bits of info about one is identical to the other in this case. Of course there may turn out to be more than one species in a previously understood monospecific genus (new discoveries, extinct species...) but then we just have a little more work to do rewriting old pages and making new ones. Such is life/WP. Brunswicknic ( talk) 09:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for a review of this article, pisonia umbellifera, which I recently added a lot of detail. Is anyone able to edit, or add some more taxonomy information? Aliwright01( talk)
@ Peter coxhead: thank you so much, I appreciate it. I have seen a paper on the Pisonia/Ceodes distinction, so I'll be sure to include it.
Aliwright01 ( talk) 01:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Update: how do we go about changing the title/requesting a name change for the article from Pisonia to Ceodes Umbellifera
Hi! I have been working hard to expand this article for a university assessment for this semester. The article is stub rated and now it is added around 2000 words, including Description, Distribution, Habitat, Ecology, Putative hybridisation, Similar species, Conservation status, Cultivation, Population information, Decline and Threats, and Activities to protect Dodonaea procumbens. So I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be upgraded from the stub. Thank you very much for your assistance. Camorange ( talk) 22:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi authors! I am currently a university student who has been working on the Grevillea Johnsonii stub for an assessment task! I would really appreciate some input on new information I can put in as I am aiming to add more information, however am struggling to find proper sources. Any constructive criticism on the article will be greatly appreciated! 777LSR ( talk) 06:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this Category:Natural cultivars really makes sense to retain. The history of most cultivars, landraces, etc. is lost to time. And even a cultivar was found in nature, it almost certainly was subject to artificial selection, including the moment when it was found, and in the following generations. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently quite a number of different languages have articles for the plant under binomial "Nandina domestica" instead of the genus, and some languages have articles for both genus and species. This can be seen from 南天竹, and see the sidebar of that artcle for the rest of the languages, which doesn't appear on the sidebar of English article [[ Nandina]], making navigation difficult. Would anyone be able to merge or link them? I do not know the best procedure or the method to address this. I have left comment on the talk page of Nandina but I'm not sure if i had been clear, would be great if someone could help sort through this. Disappointman ( talk) 12:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I started a page that was a table of, well, the plants used as herbs and/or spices (trying to focus on the plants, more than the products). It got deleted (as a "content fork" of the page listing a bunch of culinary herbs and spices), but I put a draft version (I think) here: /info/en/?search=User:Tamtrible/Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices ; please help me get it ready for prime time?... Tamtrible ( talk) 09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Now located at /info/en/?search=Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices , please ignore the version on my user page.
In editing Orbexilum I found there are two spellings for Orbexilum lupinellum:
1. Orbexilum lupinellum
2. Orbexilum lupinellus
Could someone more knowledgeable confirm the correct spelling and add a citation?
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
As part of an attempt to convert manual to automated taxoboxes in groups where the former are common, I have completed the conversion of Carex species articles. In almost every case, I simply reproduced any infrageneric classification in the existing taxobox, creating the necessary taxonomy templates. However, a quick look at the literature suggests that many of the sections and even subgenera are not supported by recent molecular phylogenetic methods. I have no interest in Carex, so if anyone here does, then the genus does need looking at.
(If you want to work on converting manual taxoboxes, there are currently 330 Tillandsia species needing conversion.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Well if you can't verify the subgeneric data, who's going to be able to? That sounds as good an operational definition of WP:OR as any I can think of... probably as Peter suggests, it represents obsolete hypotheses and should be removed as uncited. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wiki authors!! I am a university student working on improving the article for Atriplex semibaccata for an assignment due in a couple days. I would really appreciate if anyone can have a look over the article and recommend suggestions. I am aiming to write an additional 1000 words to improve the article class by the due date (28th May). I greatly appreciate your time and effort. Thank you!! Hippocrates1354 ( talk) 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians. I would be very grateful if someone could review my article. I would love to hear peoples opinions on my article. Cheers. - usyd2021 ( talk) 29 May (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
PetScan shows about 590 bromeliad cultivar stubs; all those I've looked at are substubs, saying merely "'CULTIVAR-NAME' is a hybrid cultivar of the genus GENUS in the Bromeliad [wrongly capitalized] family".
Those I've looked at were created by Bromels, most in 2010. This editor has made only one edit since 2014.
I see no point in these articles. We don't have articles on cultivars unless they are (a) of some particular significance and (b) there something worthwhile that can be said about them. I'm thinking of nominating them all for deletion, but I thought I'd see what other plant editors think first. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The WGSRPD contains the codes:
Mr.Rosewater noticed that although Category:Flora of New South Wales says that it is used for code NSW, the list at this version of List of codes used in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions has the category against both NSW and NSW-NS. Mr.Rosewater changed the line for NSW-NS to say "Not used; see the parent Level 3 category", which is consistent with the description at Category:Flora of New South Wales. However, this would mean that NSW-CT Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory is a subcategory of Category:Flora of New South Wales, so the two should not be used together – Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory should only be used for plants native to the Capital Territory and not the rest of the WGSRPD's NSW "New South Wales". There appears to be only one such plant, namely Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana (which I don't believe is actually native).
So I think the simplest way of fixing this is to use only NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales, and don't have a category for either NSW-CT or NSW-NS. This means removing Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory from all articles which also have Category:Flora of New South Wales, relatively easily done using PetScan to find them, and changing the one article Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana to use NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales.
(This is one of a number of problems caused by the WGSRPD using descriptions of its politico-geographical units in a non-standard way, like "Ecuador" meaning only the mainland and excluding the Galapagos, so not the country.)
Comments, please. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
After writing Veronica jovellanoides and beginning work on Veronica bishopiana I found out there are 10 extant (+ one extinct) plant species which are endemic just to the Auckland region. [13] I was wondering if a list article of them would be notable and also if a series template (see my mock-up here) would be useful. Thanks, Draco phyllum 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two new articles I have created called Andromonoecy and Gynomonoecy. Another editor stated that the topic may not be notable and recommend a merge.
I must admit I don’t know too much on plant biology, so I kind of need help expanding these articles.
I have seen tons of sources that mention these topics, so I know that there are tons of sources on this topic. And I know there are indeed sources that give more detail on these. CycoMa ( talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The 11 lists we've got so far are at the bottom of my user page. That's roughly as much as can be done for genus and family names with the sources that you guys recommended, but I'll be happy to take another look in a couple of years to see if important new sources have been published, or if you guys have found new sources to recommend. The two species epithet lists probably need to be expanded with additional sources ... any recommendations? (For instance, should I be using some of the sources that show up in List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and similar pages?) And, does anyone have additional feedback on questions that have come up so far? (Note that the family list is " List of plant family names with etymologies" ... should I change the first 4 genus lists to match, to something like " List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C)", etc.?) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
What's the thinking on Hebe? PoWO says it's a synonym of Veronica. Is there any reason to hold back on making articles on former Hebe species under their Veronica names? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
People working in this area are well aware of the progress being made, but today's story in the New York Times might be interesting for folks who haven't been keeping up. This story focuses on the human genome ... but the progress being made is just as relevant to plant genomes. This means we're in for a decade of rapid progress in genetic engineering that creates new hybrids, and even brand-new plant characteristics. Exciting times (even if this does increase the workload for editors!) - Dank ( push to talk) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This editor made a series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few other articles) which ranged from juvenile vandalism to elaborate hoaxes with misinformation and tendentious editing in between. I made an ANI case under "Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah58". The user is now banned.
Some other editors and I have already reverted the editor's changes to numerous articles. Rather than doing a bulk revert, I've tried to provide an edit summary reason for each. Some articles remain though: Nepenthes lowii (justified deletion?), Nepenthes nebularum (edit war?), Nepenthes edwardsiana (almost certainly another hoax) and Nepenthes rajah. Others here may be interested in these articles and the editor's "contributions" in general.
A note that the editor often cited the book The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by Stewart McPherson. According to the publisher's website, this is an actual title but not yet released! Thanks, Declangi ( talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Are botanical gardens in the scope of the Project? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Earlier an editor suggested I make an article on sexual systems. [ Link to draft here].
There are clearly a good amount of sources on this topic. Like there is [ this source], [ this] and [ this.]
There is even an entire book on sexual systems [ right here.]
So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.
And I think one of the definitions in there clearly makes no sense. CycoMa ( talk) 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually I made an article for Sexual system. But I still need help expanding it. CycoMa ( talk) 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
The genus Jovellana is split between New Zealand and Chile, the current wp article lists species that aren't even accepted by the citation it gives. Plants of the World Online gives five species: J. guentheri Kraenzl., J. punctata Ruiz & Pav., J. repens (Hook.f.) Kraenzl., J. sinclairii (Hook.) Kraenzl., and J. violacea (Cav.) G.Don. A 2018 publication [15] says there are only four, excluding J. guentheri. Does anyone know any more publications that could be of use here? Of course I could just discuss this in the article. Draco phyllum 00:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There is an AfD for Jerry_G._Chmielewski currently going on, some expertise could be helpful here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerry_G._Chmielewski. Thanks -- hroest 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Salix fragilis was moved to Salix euxina a few days back, but no cleanup after move has been performed. However I don't recall offhand the taxonomic issues involved, and I'm not sure that it was moved to the right place. Should it have been moved to Salix × fragilis? Lavateraguy ( talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at User talk:Darorcilmir#Caladenia elegans is a herb which is, I think, of wider relevance.
Botanical sources do not agree on the definition of "herb". Most, but not all, explicitly require a herb to be non-woody. They disagree more on whether a herb must die down seasonally/annually. Some are unclear, using words like "having no persistent woody parts" where "no persisent" might mean seasonally dying down, but might not. Some examples of varying definitions:
So is a banana plant a "herb"? Yes, according to (1). No, according to (2) and (3).
The adjective "herbaceous" in relation to habit is somewhat clearer, in that where this is defined separately, all the sources I've checked just say "not woody", with no reference to dying down or not. So a banana plant is a "herbaceous perennial" but may or may not be a "herb".
It's not clear to me what exactly we can do to clarify the intended meaning of "herb" to our readers where it is included in an article based on a source whose usage may be any of the above. Gloss? Have wikilinks to varied meanings and choose one? Avoid the term (e.g. in favour of "herbaceous annual" or "herbaceous perennial")? What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Many orchids are described by botanists as "a herb" (never as "a/an herbaceous plant"). Stace's New Flora of the British Isles, regarded as the definitive Flora of the region, begins the section on the Orchidaceae of the British Isles with the words "Erect, herbaceous perennials". It's simply not correct that orchids are never described as "herbaceous". Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Catherine_Hof_Blinks which is under discussion for deletion. -- hroest 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
For example, hippomanes, silphium, soma... Viriditas ( talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I received the following notification, which ought to have been placed here. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
International Association for Plant Taxonomy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a requested move discussion at Talk:Orchidaceae#Requested move 17 August 2021 which may be of interest to members of this project. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have recently converted all the manual taxoboxes for Crataegus species articles to use {{ Speciesbox}}. In almost all cases, I simply reproduced the taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox, creating taxonomy templates for sections and series as necessary.
However, I suspect the taxonomy is very often well out-of-date; it appears to be based on morphology and papers and monographs from the 1990s or earlier. I'm aware that Crataegus is something of a taxonomic black hole, so I'm not going to try to update the articles. Maybe someone else is more courageous? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't fix this:
Cheers, 145.132.201.64 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've now done the same as above for Sorbus species articles, again simply retaining the name and taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox.
However, I see that Plants of the World Online and other taxonomic sources have accepted major splits of Sorbus, in particular into Aria (57 spp. in PoWO) and Karpatiosorbus (85 spp. in PoWO), but many species articles are still under Sorbus. There's limited discussion of the newer taxonomy at Sorbus. We don't appear to have a list of Sorbus species anywhere. Any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Can any expert help resolve the ambiguous link to Erysimum hieraciifolium in Erysimum crepidifolium? Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created an article for the Darling 58, a genetically engineered American Chestnut tree which is resistant to chestnut blight. It may become the most widely planted GM tree in North America once it is released to the public. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 23:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please consider the article Escaped plant which is due to appear on the main page as a DYK in four days time. It is an interesting topic but it seems to me that the article has inaccuracies and anomalies. Here are a few points I have noticed: (pinging the creator @ Qumarchi:) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to life histories in Mastocarpus stellatus? There may be an appropriate technical term I don't know. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm almost done with pushing the series of 11 etymology lists through WP:FLC, and it's time to pick a new project to work on. I'm considering doing something with characteristics of plant families, but I'm open to other suggestions, and let me know if there are any ongoing list projects I can help with. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who is an expert on this and can give us a better view of the scientific consensus or other discussion on this topic? Thanks in advance. MSG17 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to members in Ascent of sap? Copyediting might be helpful, because I don't understand the sentence, nor "Both" at the beginning of the next one. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain about the meaning of "Taxa named by ....". It could be taken as meaning "the first person to publish a description of a taxon", "any person who gave this taxon a name" or "the last person to name the species". For a species like Eucalyptus caesia, it's clear - George Bentham described it and gave it the name that's still accepted. For others, like Corymbia gummifera it is less clear - first described, named and published as Metrosideros gummifera by Gaertner, later renamed Corymbia gummifera by Ken Hill and Lawrie Johnson. So was C. gummifera "named by" Gaertner, by Hill and Johnson, or by all three? There are probably more complicated taxonomic histories with taxa "named by" more authorities. I am suggesting that there should be some "consensus" guidance either at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template or Category talk:Taxa by author, and asking for other editors' opinions on the subject. (My apologies if I have missed something, consensus has already been reached and there is already guidance.) Gderrin ( talk) 08:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure at the moment whether I should be including every piece of information there is on plant's morphology in the description section. The project page says: "The description should focus on the defining characteristics of the taxon, that distinguish it from other similar taxa," and in most cases only a paragraph of condensed botanical stuff is needed to get to that. Featured articles seem to vary, like Banksia aemula or Banksia cuneata are a middle ground, while Banksia integrifolia and Persoonia levis are very simple, and Banksia speciosa and Banksia serrata are quite complex. For my Dracophyllum GAs, Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum arboreum, I've included every thing that the latest monograph of the genus describes. This ends up being quite long and complex – much more than any average reader would really need. The information there is five times the stuff included in books like The Flora of New Zealand or similar. Is there a line we should be drawing here, or is it a non-issue? Draco phyllum 00:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.-- Kev min § 01:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants was marked as inactive on 11 May 2019. Fair enough; there hasn't been a conversation with 2 or more editors on the project talk page since 2011. On 8 September, the project assessment banner ( Template:WikiProject Carnivorous plants) was marked as inactive. This had the effect of emptying all the assessment categories for Carnivorous plants, and since the carnivorous plant banner also counted into the assessment table for plants overall, all carnivorous plant articles were removed from the overall count (see quality log on September 9. Category:WikiProject Carnivorous plants articles was deleted on September 9th, and the remaining assessment categories such as Category:High-importance carnivorous plant articles were deleted today (with rational " G6: inactive project no longer assesses articles").
While the talk page for Carnivorous plants was dead, articles were actively being assessed; I discovered the situation today when I came across a new Drosera article and tried to assess it.
I remove the inactive tag from the assessment banner template. I had started to recreate categories, but wasn't sure if that was the best way forward. Three subprojects (Carnivorous plants, Banksia and Hypericaceae) have tagged (essentially) all articles in their scope, with the subproject banners also adding assessment categories for ths project. In my opinion, it would've been better if the subprojects had been created as work groups; Article Alerts is a useful report, and it doesn't pick up articles in subprojects.
I suppose it would be pretty simple to change the Carnivorous plant banner so it stopped trying to place articles in (now deleted) assessment categories for Carnivorous plants and have the template put everything in a Plant assessment category. But it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate the deleted categories either.
I am concerned by the deletion process that was in play. I would've thought that there was a consensus that articles should have quality assessment (over the alternative that articles should NOT have quality assessment). When there is only one banner providing assessment and it is disabled, the article effectively becomes unassessed. I'm sure there are a number of niche topics at Wikipedia that are only assessed by a single no-longer active WikiProject. I'll bring up my concerns not-specific to plants in more appropriate forums and will add links to those discussions once I've started them. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some bars to show some goals / our project's progression vis-à-vis assessment – let me know your thoughts; it would be cool if they could be added to the main project page. Cheers, Draco phyllum > FAC 05:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
100 featured articles: 76% complete | ||
50 featured lists: 64% complete | ||
200 good articles: 79% complete | ||
10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 13.1% complete | ||
40% of all articles rated Start-Class or better: 89% complete | ||
Hi everyone, I'm new to this wikiproject. I live near Kew Gardens and so recently I had a brainwave to try and take photos of plant species at Kew Gardens that Wikimedia Commons does not yet have openly-licensed accurately identified photos of (from Kew Gardens). See here for examples: Uploads by Metacladistics - Wikimedia Commons
Even when armed with a list it's still hard to find the species I'm looking for. So it's very much a long-term work in progress over the next year or two.
Aside from obvious advice like 'try to capture it in flower' , are there any particular characteristics I should aim to capture with my photos, if I'm taking them specifically for Wikipedia / advancing knowledge purposes? I try and take a photo specifically including the plant and its identification plaque in the same shot to prove its identity -- but perhaps people might consider this bad practice or undesired? Thoughts and opinions sought... Metacladistics ( talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a family level phylogeny of Angiosperms published this year as part of the Kew Angiosperm Tree of Life Project. [1] [2] There is an comparison with APG IV in the Fig S4 of the journal paper and an interactive treeview at the website. I thought this might be of interest.
References
I am working on Susanne Renner's page and have come across some terms that seem similar, but may be different. Wikipedia has pages for dioecy and dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany). Are dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany) the same term, but spelled slightly differently? Or is this a spelling issue? The publications that are cited by Renner on the dioicy (botany) page spell the word 'dioecy'.
I am not familiar with the field, so I am posting the question here in the hopes that you can help. Thanks for any help/thoughts.
-- DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. This is indeed confusing. I will add in the author-links to Susanne Renner in the existing references in the Dioicy (botany) and the Dioecy articles. I cannot help with the main text, and if Renner's publications are on the wrong page I hope they can be moved with the author-link intact. -- DaffodilOcean ( talk) 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Taxus has a non-consensus (e.g. 3 species rather than 1 native to Britain) classification added at the end of 2014. Other material added by the same editor was removed, but this escaped. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Are there plant conservation status ratings for Mexico, Central America (or countries therein), and/or South American countries? IUCN has a limited list of the genus I am researching. NatureServe lists only US species. Any help appreciated. — Eewilson ( talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Anybody have any insight into which spelling is correct: Guarea caulobotryis vs. Guarea caulobotrys? IPNI has botryis, which looks misspelled to me. GBIF records both spellings, but has flagged record for the IPNI spelling as "deleted" (but it's accessible via taxonbar). Plantdrew ( talk) 01:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Plantdrew, Awkwafaba, Jts1882, and William Avery: In response to my query, the IPNI entry here has been changed to "caulobotrys" (in line with Tropicos), noting that the original was "caulobotryis". Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
References
I have tagged Cupressus nootkatensis be renamed and moved to Callitropsis nootkatensis as the most frequently used combination for the species. The use of Callitropsis as a distinct genus has been accepted for at least 5 years now, with the distinct linages of the western cypresses being supported by molecular studies. Comment is welcome.-- Kev min § 14:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I kinda need help at Baccharis monoica. I’m kinda new to this situation, someone tagged this article with cleanup taxon. CycoMa ( talk) 03:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Today's Picture of the Day shows an old tree, described as an oak, with a broken crown. It sure looks like a beech, Fagus sylvatica to me, although my knowledge of trees has a North American bias and the picture is from the Netherlands. Can I get a second opinion? Tdslk ( talk) 17:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The Randall James Bayer page, of a living botanist, appears to have been written by Randall James Bayer ( Rjbayer). It was created on 19 August 2006, nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006, voted keep on 24 August 2006, and the final edit by the subject of the page was 15 years ago this month. Various cleanup edits have occurred since 2006, but in these 15 years, it still cites no sources (other than the IPNI citation for the botanist abbreviation) and has no tag templates. Furthermore, it is almost an exact copy of https://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/bayer-randall.html. Which came first is hard to tell. (Also posted on Project Biography.) Eewilson ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Something I noticed and brought up on the talk page of the Infraspecific name article. Please refer to my new comment at Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies". I won't repeat it here. Thanks! Eewilson ( talk) 06:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
When moving the current article to the species level, as prep for a fossil record inclusive genus article, I accidentally mis-copied the binomial. This should get moved to Pteroceltis tatarinowii over the redirect there, would someone with page-move ability be able to swap this one over? Thanks!-- Kev min § 17:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
The usual search - to add {{botanist|Maige}} (or similar) to this article - doesn't yield any result.
The Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques has his biography here.
Am I missing something here? (Admittedly, the answer is most probably, "Yes, Shirt58, sometimes botanists don't have ipni entries. Please f*ck off and write articles about things you actually know something about")
Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
We seem to have articles at Quercus bumelioides and Quercus sapotifolia that are about the same type of tree (they use the same image, and the Commons category for one redirects to the other). Would someone be able to have a look and potentially merge them, please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
For an article on a particular hybrid, how much documentation is necessary? I noticed many articles such as × Pachyveria glauca 'Little Jewel' with the only meaningful documentation being a dealer's catalog, or × Quesmea 'Flame' with a link that does not lead to any information, or Buddleja davidii 'SMBDPB' = Merry Magic Orchid whose documentation consists of a dealers catalog and a claimed plant patent application (in that example, would it make any diffeence if the patent were actually granted?) ? DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
— Eewilson ( talk) 02:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
— Eewilson ( talk) 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was working on a draft for this species called Draft:Loxostylis alata.(It is currently not done so the draft is kinda messy and needs fixing.)
However, when I looked at the genus for this species at Loxostylis. It appears Loxostylis alata is the only species in its genus and that the genus is monotypic. What do you guys think, do you guys think I should just move all the stuff I made on my draft and move it to Loxostylis or what? Any idea is helpful. CycoMa ( talk) 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Quercus_bumelioides above, I'm working through link mismatches between enwiki articles and Commons categories (via Wikidata), and I'm finding a lot of them are related to plants. I'm often not sure if it's the Wikipedia article or the Commons category that needs moving/renaming to resolve the discrepancy (Wikidata often has taxon synonym items, and I've been going off the article/category name to determine the matches). Any chance you can help with these please? (pinging @ Premeditated Chaos, CaptainEek, and Plantdrew: as they commented above). I'm happy to help with the technical work, but I don't know the topic. I've listed some below (will continue expanding this as I come across them). You can find the problematic articles in Category:Commons category link is the pagename, Category:Commons category link is defined as the pagename, and Category:Commons category link is locally defined. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
See here, Melocactus intortus. Cheers, 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3011:C945:188C:5563 ( talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Heterotypic synonyms have "disappeared" for viewing from POWO for species that have accepted infraspecies. This is temporary, as Kew has moved them to the autonyms which are not available for viewing online. In an email I received today, Rafaël Govaerts said the ability to view autonyms online should happen in the next few weeks. Eewilson ( talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you! BloxyColaSweet ( talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Starting a new thread so it doesn't get swallowed by the old one. I have bundled ten Tillandsia stubs into the above-noted AfD nomination as a sort of test case rather than starting out by trainwrecking the remaining hundred or so. (No particular ten, I just picked the first ten alphabetically). I invite anyone from this project who is interested to comment. In particular, if anyone here has not seen my previous posts about PROD-tagging cultivars and would have opposed had they seen them earlier, or did object but didn't wish to say so, now is the time. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Symphyotrichum species as a featured list. Would appreciate for anyone who has interest to take a look and make comments on the review page. Thank you all in advance. Eewilson ( talk) 04:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a taxonomic inconsistency in its treatment of Pityranthe and Diplodiscus, in that it recognises Pityranthe but also includes the species of Pityranthe in Diplodiscus. On a quick glance it seems that Kubitzki & Bayer and POWO recognise Pityranthe but TPL doesn't. (I've added a couple of bandaids.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 14:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there interest in reforming this wikiproject to be more organised, like Milhist and others, or is the understanding that the sheer breadth of the project makes that so difficult as to be pointless. Draco phyllum 07:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great to me if there are people who are prepared to do the extra work. Keeping DYK about botanists and plants on the main page is certainly a worthy goal, as is preparation of a guide for beginners and for students doing university/college assignments on plants. Gderrin ( talk) 03:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
...would appear to be a cultivar of Brassica juncea as per this, but then this says Brassica rugosa...? Anyone familiar with brassicas? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Do we keep synonym genera and higher in separate articles or do we merge them? I know we rename/merge/redirect species, but do higher taxa get different treatment? Example: Koyamacalia and Parasenecio. Eewilson ( talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
We have articles for both the monotypic genus Ripariosida and its sole species (the latter at Sida hermaphrodita). (This change was a long time coming, but was finally made in 2017). Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
What is going on? These Leucadendron stubs don't seem ready for mainspace to me. Is there any way to draftify most of them? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Cacti. It’s still a draft project, but thought I’d spread awareness. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on species, subspecies and cultivars, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a recent ref that ⚥ is the modern convention for hermaphroditic/perfect flowers, replacing the ☿ in Linnaeus? (In looking up 'botanical symbols', I get state flowers.) Thanks. — kwami ( talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I had included it, but I didn't see that result.
@ Awkwafaba: Are Simpson's new symbols in significant use? Should they be added to Unicode? If any are needed, and you can provide a few refs, it would be pretty straightforward to get them into Unicode for 2023. For instance, we might substitute Ꙫ for 'biannual', but it's really not appropriate, as it's part of a casing pair and in styling is unlikely to match ☉ for 'annual'. If the symbol is used (as in this century) by more than one author/publisher, it would be better to have a dedicated character for it. — kwami ( talk) 05:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
U+263F ☿ MERCURY | U+2640 ♀ FEMALE SIGN | U+2641 ♁ EARTH | U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN |
U+26A5 ⚥ MALE AND FEMALE SIGN | |||
U+2609 ☉ SUN | U+2687 ⚇ WHITE CIRCLE WITH TWO DOTS | U+2299 ⊙ CIRCLED DOT OPERATOR | U+229D ⊝ CIRCLED DASH |
Howdy. I created a user script you guys might be interested in.
User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. It adds an "Add Taxobox" option to the "More" dropdown menu. When clicked, it tries to add a speciesbox, taxobar, and category to the article, then shows you a diff so you can make adjustments. Feel free to install and provide feedback at
User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. Right now it is very basic, for example if there are other categories or a short description it will put stuff in the wrong place.(fixed) But feed me diffs of these edge cases and I will get them fixed. Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been creating articles for endemic and sub-endemic species in Malta (nearly finished). I've been using speciesbox and I've just got an error for Hymenolobus revelierei and I've no idea what to do. Could someone who knows how it works take a look? My assumption is the template can't find the family.
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
|parent=
parameter. Sometimes that parent will also need a new taxonomy template. It is best practice to add a reference in the |refs=
parameter.Thanks very much for fixing it, also any tips on finding synonyms would be really appreciated. John Cummings ( talk) 16:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I just reorganized, by means of Sortkeys, the category for the genus Mispila. It has some subgenera, including Mispila (Mispila) and Mispila (Dryusa). Well, according to Wikipedia, there exist two species--one Mispila (Dryusa) coomani described by Breuning in 1968, and the other Mispila (Mispila) coomani described by Pic in 1934 (although he might have called it Alidus coomani). Could this be correct? Are are people citing as verification sources that have been repeating the same error, cited from the other sources? Uporządnicki ( talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I created the article for Beech leaf disease in 2019. It is a serious threat to the American beech and the current structure of many forests in North America. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I've become pretty interested in the Sissoo spinach article, a species sometimes referred to as Alternanthera sissoo. According to the article, "there are no known scientific descriptions of its taxonomy". Besides one self-published source claiming it is a cultivar of Alternanthera ficoidea, I can't find anything to refute that statement. Any idea where to find information about this relatively common vegetable? Mbdfar ( talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Articles about species of plants typically contain a link to the corresponding category on Wikimedia Commons, which is typically formatted using {{ commons category}} or {{ commons category inline}}. The question is, what do you do for monotypic genera? Normally, the article will cover both the genus and the species, and there's a slight preference for its title to use the genus name ( WP:MONOTYPICFLORA).
On Commons, there are two categories: one each for the genus and the species. The genus one is typically empty of files and only serves to navigate to the species category, where all the images will normally be found. Which one should we link to from an article? Given that it covers both topics, we could in principle be able to link to either one, or to both. In practice, given the placeholder nature of the genus category, I would go for linking directly to the species. However, one editor strongly believes that the category link should exactly match the article's title. (This disagreement arose on Alyssoides, which has the complicating factor that the genus category on Commons reflects the now outdated circumscription where there was one more species in the genus). – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working through a list of missing native plant species for Malta and I'm wondering if any other country has already had all of its plant species articles created?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 13:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been working through a to do list of plants in Malta (native and non native) using a local website as a guide, I've put together User:John Cummings/Articles/malta plant species for myself and anyone else who would like to contribute, I'll put it somewhere else soon.
I wonder if something like this but generated from Wikidata could be useful for creating articles like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index do, obviously there could be more potential reference sources brought in if they were imported into Wikidata, including the Encyclopedia of Life open license descriptions. I feel like you could create redlists for families, genus etc as well as location.
Any thoughts greatly appreciated. @ing @ Plantdrew and @ Peter coxhead in case you're interested (follows on from the discussion above).
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 14:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Plantdrew and Abductive, thaks for your thoughts, for now I've added the list to Flora_of_Malta, although the reference list seems to not be working properly. Is there an easy way to pull all the images across from the articles into the table? (I'll ask on technical village pump also). John Cummings ( talk) 13:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
{{wikidata|property|raw|Q606369|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 100px {{!}} left\]\]}} |
|
{{wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} left\]\]}} |
{{subst:wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} right\]\]}}
[[File:Abutilon theophrasti 2006.10.11 17.01.39-pa110057.jpg {{!}} 50px {{!}} right]]
See talk: Mislabelled picture of wrong species, info in article was 100% about another two different species (before I made some edits), redirect problem. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:D55C:983A:EF0C:F67C ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working on creating articles for plant species which are native to Malta. Suprisingly I think there is only around 200 species which do not yet have articles on English Wikipedia, I have a few questions about the rules for redirects.
Links to where these rules are written for these specific questions would be really helpful
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)