Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Citrus micrantha is a synonym of C. hystrix, and was moved from Citrus micrantha to Micrantha (citrus). The current title was apparently invented for Wikipedia. There are two varieties covered in the article, with different vernacular names, and there doesn't seem to be a vernacular name that covers the whole topic.

I'm inclined to move it back to the Citrus micrantha even though it's a synonym. An alternative would be to split into separate articles for the two varieties, although that could be messy in terms of resolving incoming links (C. micrantha is a parent of some limes). IPNI/POWO don't have records for several of the relevant names, but Tropicos does (e.g. Citrus hystrix var. micrantha and Citrus hystrix var. microcarpa are in Tropicos, but not IPNI).

Any other thoughts on how to handle this? It also impacts the dab page Micrantha and the disambiguator used for the Brassicaceae genus Micrantha. Plantdrew (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say on the core question here, just a note about the dab page (which I created). I didn't go for Micrantha (plant) as the redlink for the Brassicaceae genus, because a quick web search revealed that the word "micrantha" (as a common English word: no title case or italics) was used to refer to the citrus, so the disambiguator "plant" was ambiguous, and the obscure new genus is definitely not the primary topic. Now, it's a completely different matter what the best disambiguator should be here (I went for "crucifer"), and I'd be interested in hearing what others think. – Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought micrantha is generally recognised both traditionally (Tanaka, 1961; Swingle and Reece, 1967) and recently (Curk et al, 2016; Wu et al, 2018; Ollitrault et al 2021). On the other hand, Mabberley have it synonymized with hystrix, as do and WFO and POWO. I think any changes should move towards following the classification in Ollitrault et al (2020), although this might need discussion. Ollitrault et al (2020) say they may eventually be considered a single species "after deeper genomic analysis". Perhaps it's best to keep micrantha for now either at the scientific name (my preference) or the disambiguated common name. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#RfC: allow status=EX to insert † in the taxobox. This would affect plant species taxoboxes like the one currently at Stenocarpus dumbeensis. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to bring up that the image used for B. neoalaskan was incorrect and actually showed the leaves and terminal bud of a Populus balsamifera, I have since removed the photo to avoid and confusion for any readers of the article. -- --adrianpawli (📥) 10:52, 11 January 2022 (MT)

Hey, I've started and RFC to split Grass from Poaceae at Talk:Poaceae. If you have an opinion on the matter, I invite you to discuss. This is the first RFC I've started, so if this should be tagged elsewhere feel free to let me know, or do so. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a move proposal at Talk:Diospyros discolor that may be of interest here. (Not sure why this doesn't list at WP:PLANTS#Monitoring). Declangi (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There was an inconsistency in how {{Speciesbox}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}} set the name of the taxobox by default (i.e. when |name= was absent). I've revised {{Infraspeciesbox}} to follow {{Speciesbox}}, i.e. to use the page name as the default (previously it used the trinomial). This means that at Carrot, for example, it's no longer necessary to put |name=Carrot. Most articles using {{Infraspeciesbox}} will not have changed taxoboxes, because editors have usually specified the name parameter when the article is not at the scientific name. This is now redundant, but does no harm. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Acclimatisation society § Requested move 23 January 2022. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have just started a move request discussion at Talk:Platycarya, please comment.--Kevmin § 14:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - please see these two relevant discussions:

• CFD: "Category:Invasive agricultural pests" (proposed for upmerging to Category:Agricultural pests)
• RFD: "Invasive native" (newly created and currently redirecting to invasive species)

—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That page looks a too complicated for me to wade threw right now but I do see there maybe a misunderstanding of the term invasive species, So called native plants can be invasive species, which are define often as not native to an ecosystem, not a geographical region. If an ecosystem changes it can be invaded by plants native to a broad region that do not normally live in that ecosystem. Some of those redirects could go to what are term noxious weeds, which has a definition based on their effects on humans. Hardyplants (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

So when I first got onto this it seemed pretty straightforward, we had two short articles with some overlapping content and relatively small prospects for them to expand any time soon in ways that couldn't be handled in a combined article. As I wrote the proposal at Talk:Helianthodae#Propose merge into Asteroideae article I started running into enough complications that I began to wonder whether I was biting off more than I wanted to, but what the heck, I guess I still see the tribe as being the most important article between family and genus (at least in the Asteraceae) and, well, throwing this up for discussion (presumably at the talk page linked there). Kingdon (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm working through all the plant species in Flora of Malta creating stubs. I think I've understood the structure of plant articles and which templates to use (is there a guide for making them somewhere?) but would appreicate if someone could suggest any changes now, rather than having to go back and make tiny changes 400 times. Here is the basic layout of what I'm creating. I see the next editor removed {{Italic title}} and added {{Asteroideae-stub}} and {{Improve categories|date=February 2022}}.

• Should I always use the genus stub template? If so how do I create the missing ones? I'm assuming this also makes the title italic?
• Since the editor added the improve categories template I'm assuming there should be more, but which ones?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus here is to use Plants of the World Online as the main source, including for range categories such as Category:Flora of Central Asia. My stubs rarely get any corrections by the more senior users, here are some examples with lots of use of templates: Viburnum erubescens (two images in infobox), Anabasis aphylla (the only time I use Category:Botanical taxa by author is for Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus because a list article is impossible), Astragalus racemosus (best treatment of subtaxa), Solanum pennellii (when a synonym is still getting a lot of current use), and Celtis caucasica (don't hide redlinks). Abductive (reasoning) 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Abductive, very helpful. One question, is there a standard template which creates a map in the infobox to show species distribution? E.g Template:Graph:Map. John Cummings (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, does anybody else know how those maps get made? Abductive (reasoning) 23:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with botany, so commenting here as a generic wikipedian. The example article seems at first sight to have a section called "Source". But its text turns out not to be part of the article, but a boilerplate message about the article incorporating text from an open-licence source. Isn't that supposed to be placed in the footer at the very end of the page, or at least no higher than the references section, so that readers don't mistake it for a part of the article? Also, it seem unusual to have a four-sentences-long message explaining the provenance of an article that itself is just two sentences long. Why not reword those two sentences so that you won't need to use that template? – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was the one thing that struck me as a bit awkward: the PD text copied from COL is clearly being generated by something akin to Reasonator from a list of key-value properties. Getting stuck with a big PD attribution template for text that no human was actually involved in writing seems less than ideal, but I appreciate that describing plant morphology is probably the most difficult part of writing a plant species article for non-specialists. Choess (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Plants articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. InfamousArgyle (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Glaucium calycinum is under discussion for potential copyvio. Relevant discussion is on its talk page. A rewritten version of the article is available at Talk:Glaucium calycinum/Temp. Any input from other editors familiar with copyvio policies for taxon articles would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. The text concerned is about the distribution and especially the description of the plant, with the article allegedly using close paraphrasing of its source. I'm new to botany and I think it would be good to have some guidance on the topic; it's because of considerations like these that I've so far avoided adding meaningful descriptions of morphology to articles: I don't have the botanical competence to write text that will faithfully represent the information of the source without seeming like it's leaning too heavily on it.

But I'm wondering, how much creativity is there in those descriptions? They're largely formulaic: the same features described in the standard order, using precise words taken from the constrained specialist vocabulary. Is it possible to produce an accurate description that won't appear like a paraphrase of any other accurate description of the same species? There is after all a limited number of ways in which you can describe the arrangement of leaves or the colour of the sepals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala: that line of reasoning very closely mirrors mine. Your point about the threshold of originality is interesting: if I found this plant in the wild and described it on my own, would my description vary in any meaningful way from the one in the source? I'm particularly interested in this because of the very rapid and (from my point of view) drastic action taken. I've written several dozen plant taxon articles in a fashion similar to this one (albeit usually with a few more sources), and if this is considered copyvio then there are certainly a massive amount of other plant descriptions out there that have to be given a similar level of scrutiny. Fritzmann (message me) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Having written a few Wikipedia articles about plants, my take on this question is:

1. Plant articles in Wikipedia are not for readers who are interested in technical descriptions - on the other hand, they will usually have references with technical details for those who want them; (Phrases like "siliquae have squamiform hairs when young, but they can also be hairless" are better left out.)

2. It's not so hard to avoid copyright violations by using alternatives to technical words; (..."usually simple but sometimes divided..." or "...usually simple or pinnate..." better than "... usually entire or pinnatifid or can sometimes be pinnatisect"...)

3. Use as many sources as possible and combine the information from them - a link to a source like Plants of the World Online^[1] is essential to confirm that Glaucium calycinum is an accepted species - its bibliography will often be useful as a source of more information, such as the original description.^[2] Gderrin (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it not then be useful to draw out some instructions for the level of detail desired in an ideal plant article? Dracophyllum 08:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template may be helpful. Gderrin (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Plantdrew: for suggesting to bring this up here, and @Pbsouthwood: the creator. Moving discussion from Template talk:Proteaceae.

Hello! I'm curious as to the current general attitude towards enormous navigation templates like the one at Template:Proteaceae. I fail to see the benefit of something so bloated, as it doesn't actually increase the navigability of the subject. It will be onerous to update and makes the "What links here" tool unusable for all linked pages. Does anyone use templates such as this, and are they helpful to readers? Mbdfar (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A navbox of genera for a large family such as Proteaceae or (forbid) Asteraceae is of super questionable use as I see it. I find Template:Proteaceae of no help whatsoever. Perhaps maybe if it showed only the subfamilies then with the tribes. I created a navbox for species of the Symphyotrichum genus at Template:Symphyotrichum which I consider only useful as a quick index and perhaps not even necessary. I like it and the reason I see of removing it from species pages right now is the "What links here" problem. To be honest, it is a shortcut for me as I work to enhance the pages. It was also fun to create. But if I drop out of Wikipedia, either unintentionally or intentionally, who's going to care enough to maintain it? That's part of the problem with this type of navbox. Pages related to Botany in a navbox are great, but related to taxa, not so sure. Eewilson (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Another problem is there is no ability to cite sources. So a navbox for taxa is basically providing unsourced content in an unencyclopedic way. The Plants Project Taxon template page does have a "consider adding a Navigation box" paragraph with an example. That's why I did it for the Symphyotrichum genus. Eewilson (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson Why would one want to cite sources in a navbox? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable evidence beyond personal experience indicating usefulness or otherwise of such navboxes? I recognise the "what links here" issue as an undesirable side effect I had not considered at the time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a functioning alternative? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is navigating through taxoboxes too inconvenient? Why do we need a direct link between Leucadendron bonum and Banksia novae-zelandiae? They're irrelevant to each other. Mbdfar (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes such as we have for taxa are essentially cladograms in a non-tree form. Just as a cladogram needs sources and explanations of differing theories within the articles that use it, so should a navbox. Otherwise, rather than being an encyclopedia that reports information, we are acting as an authority that states the information as fact when, actually for some, there are counter-arguments and clades circumscribed to by other authorities. There is no room in a navbox to show contradicting theories of the evolution of taxa.

I am not proposing that there should be, nor that we should modify the navbox template in order to be able to cite sources. What I am saying is that navboxes with taxa place unsourced, uncommonly-known, potentially disputed or disputable information that can and often does change in not one but sometimes hundreds of encyclopedia articles. There is a problem with large ones, yes. But even more to my point, we have a problem with having them at all.

I see one caveat which I would lightly support: that they could be used if they are alphabetical only, without any form of a clade tree, and with only one taxon level down. In this case it is an index, perhaps useful, an actual navigational tool. Even doing this, though, we are still at risk of the situation of choosing one authority over another (for example, what taxa are within a taxon) without explanation, and we are still duplicating to some extent what is done in the taxobox, as Mbdfar has referred to. Eewilson (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Those seem to be entirely reasonable points. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with those who argue that, at least when organized in the form of a classification, navboxes present an unsourced and potentially partial view. Alphabetic navboxes usually just replicate lists of subordinate taxa in articles. A major objection to taxon navboxes is that they create redundancy relative to articles, and redundancy of this kind is always bad: it increases the burden of maintenance and the likelihood of inconsistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, do you know the history of the taxon navbox, how they got into the plants taxon template as a suggestion, and how perhaps we can discuss looking at what the consensus is regarding yes or no to them in a formal way? Eewilson (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: sorry, no to all your questions. I've never thought such navboxes were a good idea, and have avoided getting involved, other than correcting errors or changed wikilinks. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's the diff that add the navbox recommendation (on 8 July 2014). Plantdrew (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What I envision is that someone, could be me, make a proposal of an idea or a change that needs to be made, but where? The where to make an official proposal for a change for this project is what I don't know. If we are just going to talk about it, then we've talked about it and could talk forever about it here, on the Talk page, but make no changes. The Taxon template is out of date anyway. What do you think working on it would be, Pbsouthwood? Eewilson (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of why I question the where is that in July, I posted on the Talk page of the Taxon template regarding something else related to the taxon template, and still no response. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Template. Maybe that would be the wrong place to Talk about the template...? Seems like a good place to me. It is a little frustrating, that's all. Eewilson (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I confess! Without waiting for consensus, I've been quietly removing navboxes as I expand Grevillea articles. I'm certain that a lot of work went into creating navboxes like the one for Proteaceae, but because they are unsourced and apparently not updated, they are not accurate. Checking three large genera of Proteaceae, I got as far as Banksia cuneata (missing), Grevillea angulata (missing), Hakea benthamii (missing) before finding differences between the template and the lists at the Australian Plant Census (and PoWO). (Hakea asperma is listed, but not accepted at the APC.) I await my flogging. Gderrin (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You shall receive no flogging from me! And you have reaffirmed the problem with taxa navboxes. I think we need to remove the part in the Taxon template that reads "consider adding a navigation box" and perhaps even instead, put "navigation boxes for taxa are not recommended" or something a bit more decisive like, "please don't, and if you see them, removed them from the page". That's what I think we need, just so we aren't contradicting ourselves. Eewilson (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson Sorry, I understand your confusion, now that I see your response. What I was referring to is a proposal for guidance to avoid this type of problem in future, which I think would be best discussed here, where it already being discussed, rather than at one example of the perceived problem (the navbox talk page). I put a lot of time into that template, on the assumption that it would be useful to the reader. As there are several arguments that this is not the case, I think it would be worth nailing it down and if there is a strong logical conclusion, expressing the logic and the recommended limits to prevent ongoing problems. (possibly including the suggestions above, but explaining why) The reasoning would probably also apply to other kingdoms, and therefore to other WikiProjects, but it started here, so once the reasoning is a bit more settled, I suggest requesting a wider level of comment. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood Hi, Peter, I know you put a lot of time into the template, and like me when I do new things, I'm sure you learned quite a bit about navboxes, etc., while doing it. If it is going to be removed from all the pages you placed it on, I hope someone can write a bot to do it.

You have not confused me at all. I think within the Plants project is the appropriate place to discuss it, and the appropriate place to seek consensus for changing the Taxon template to remove the suggestion to create taxa navboxes. I am seeking guidance on how and where to make that proposal. Perhaps Plantdrew would know. Eewilson (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson I would expect it to be possible with AWB, but don't know how to set it up myself. As you say, I learned a bit about navboxes and template coding, but mostly about Proteaceae and the size of plant families, much of it quite interesting. Let's just say I would not have started if I had known how big it would get, but felt I should not leave it incomplete. That suggestion to create taxa navboxes really should go. It is bad advice. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Petrosclerosis: Please feel free to add your perspective on this discussion as someone adding large nav templates.--Kevmin § 16:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Larrayal: as someone who also works on taxa templates--Kevmin § 18:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I perfectly see and understand those points, while I still consider that they are useful navigation tools. I'll stop to create additional ones as long as we don't have a clear consensus on it within either the Wikiproject Paleontology, Mammals or Animals. However, I would certainly prefer that we get a better way to reference, if necessary, those templates, rather than suppression. Larrayal (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have two additional reasons in my mind for discontinuing taxon nav boxes. Both the automatic taxoboxes and category systems are duplicating what is being done with the navboxes, and tend to be more often maintained. Additionally the nav boxes are NOT shown in the mobile view versions of articles anyways, which is where a majority of site traffic comes from now.--Kevmin § 16:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's my take: the template would be useful in one or two articles, but it shouldn't be transcluded everywhere. It's too large and unwieldy and requires a lot of maintenance, so I would just keep it as a backup reference but not as a navbox to be widely used. Petrosclerosis (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion trickled over to here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Navbox_for_extinct_genera. To summarize what I said over there, I am a fan of the navboxes in areas where I edit (paleontology & zoology). However, the examples of navboxes brought up here for plants are pretty bad and way too large & extensive. The navboxes I am used to seeing are much better. For example, I've helped a bit with this one: Template:Extinct_Crocodilia, which is well maintained. And I personally created this one, which I am fond of: Template:Decapoda. Anyways, just my thoughts from an outside perspective. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template

The discussion above refers:

1. Taxa navboxes are problematic for the following reasons and should be deprecated.
   1. They are equivalent to unsourced cladograms
   2. They are cumbersome to maintain and will generally contain errors and omissions
   3. They interfere with the "What links here?" tool functionality
2. The suggestion in the template to add one should be removed.
3. The suggestion should be replaced by a warning explaining why they are undesirable.

Please feel free to add arguments or alternatives, but preferably leave the existing ones unchanged to avoud confusion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Clarification: The proposal is specifically about taxa navboxes. It is currently neutral on non-taxonomically structured navboxes, which I consider valid and useful navigational aids.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That is how I understand it. Our scope is the taxa navboxes. Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

• 1. 1. The unsourced cladogram reason is probably sufficient.
     2. Most navboxes are usually incomplete, all Wikipedia content may contain errors, and Wikipedia in general is cumbersome to maintain, so on it's own not a sufficient reason.
     3. Any large navbox will clutter the "What links here?" function. This is currently unavoidable, but maybe could be fixed sometime without removing navbox functionality? Some kind of filter? I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deprecate navboxes, and where would one draw the line for size limit of a navigational aid on a continuously expanding project? "What links here?" lists are going to get longer as the encyclopedia expands, and some way of filtering will eventually become necessary anyway. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• So, the proposal concerns Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Navigation boxes, right? I think it's a good idea to either remove the text, or change it so that it doesn't encourage navbox creation any more. I think it will also be worth exploring the idea of explicitly discouraging such navboxes altogether, but I'm not sure where I stand on that.
  I think that for plant genera and species, navboxes provide less added value than they do in topic areas outside of botany. The navigational infrastructure is usually already there in the articles themselves. If you're reading an article about a species, you can easily get to the genus article – either from the standard infobox link, or by just clipping the URL – and there you'll usually find a very prominent list of species. The navbox provides an alternative, shorter, route, but it's not that much shorter.
  Maintenability is an issue. I don't know how things stand with this wikiproject: my experience has been with languages. Even though classifications there are more stable than in botany, and there's a higher ratio of editors to articles, many navboxes will still often fail to get updated to reflect article creations or changes to classification. Size matters too. There have been a few people who really like the idea of the "pocket portal" navbox that provides a single point of access to a large number of articles, but most people (me included) find these cumbersome and instead prefer smaller navboxes, where you can see all links at a glance. If it's got collapsible sections or altogether more than about 150 entries, then it's too big.
  As for interference with the "What links here", there was a proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey three years ago to enable filtering out such links from templates. It received a fair bit of support, but not enough to make the mark, and there were also concerns about its feasibility. Maybe someone could propose it again this year? The proposals phase of the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is open at the moment. – Uanfala (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Community wishlist survey 2022 Phase 1 is scheduled from January 10 – January 23, 2022 to submit, discuss and revise proposals. The proposal got support from about 65 users in 2019. Worth resubmitting, I think, as the problem is going to get worse over time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support the proposal. Thank you, Pbsouthwood, for writing this up. My reasons are in the earlier discussion. Eewilson (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. I have already been collapsing or removing these templates when I encounter them anyways. Both the Automatic taxoboxes and the category systems are duplicating what is being done with the navboxes. Additionally the nav boxes are NOT shown in the mobile view versions of articles anyways, which is where a majority of site traffic comes from now.--Kevmin § 16:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons. Gderrin (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above, especially redundancy, maintenance issues and lack of referencing. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved one Tylophora species article I came across to Vincetoxicum, but I then saw that sources including PoWO and the Australian Plant Census agree in merging the whole genus into Vincetoxicum. Anyone want to tackle the required moves? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on this image?

It is attributed to this source and stated to be Thomas Taylor (botanist) but I'm dealing with a correspondent via VTRS who says there are no known images of Taylor and that this isn't him. It does seem unusual for a photo potentially from the 1890s (per the source) to carry a personal endorsement from someone who died 50 years previously. Nthep (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the Scottish mycologist and physician Thomas Taylor (1820–1910)? See [1] towards bottom of page. Choess (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely that one. Here's a detailed biography of his, substantial for a Wikipedia article. The biographer, however, stated that "No photograph of Thomas Taylor" could be found (and this one, coming from the University of Padua, does not look like an easy find back in 1988). The photograph is manually dated at 1907, which matches his age of 87 or somewhat less. No such user (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Choess @No such user Thank you both for your research on this. On the basis of what you have found I will remove this image from the article it is currently used in and relabel the image on Commons. Nthep (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I also dug out a document scan undersigned by Taylor of USDA, which corroborates Choess's theory – I'm not a graphologist, but the signature and especially "M. D" on the document closely resemble those on the photo. No such user (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I started a stub at Thomas Taylor (microscopist) if anyone is interested in expanding. Seems like an interesting dude. Mbdfar (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Edit taxonomy § Pencil icon, 2022 on a proposal to change the "edit taxonomy" icon from the current to . Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

I started a request on Speciesbox for a text field for range here, I think this could be especially useful for plant species where there are so many range descriptions on Plants of the World Online.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There is, in my view, a long-standing problem over the names of "Flora of X" categories where "X" is the term used in the WGSRPD but does not correspond to its usual understanding. "Turkey" is just one example, where an editor has recently made changes that aren't correct based on treating "Turkey" as the political unit, which is partly in Europe and partly in Western Asia. But in the WGSRPD, which we use, "Turkey" means "Asian Turkey" and "European Turkey" has its own separate category, so the correct hierarchy is:

• Category:Flora of Southeastern Europe
  • Category:Flora of European Turkey
• Category:Flora of Western Asia
  • Category:Flora of Turkey

I would like to rename "Category:Flora of Turkey" as "Category:Flora of Asian Turkey", leaving a category redirect at the original name. (Or perhaps "Category:Flora of Turkey" should be a container category for the other two categories.)

Are there any objections? Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

My subjective impression is that the prevalent usage is Asiatic Turkey rather than Asian Turkey. An attempt (a Google search) to back this up with data finds Asian Turkey about twice as common, but with most of the top entries being recipes for cooking the bird; does this generalise to the bulk of occurrences? On Wikipedia Turkey uses Asiatic Turkey and Anatolia uses Asian Turkey. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Flora of Turkey could be renamed Flora of Anatolia. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abductive: yes, although I think it's perhaps better to make the relationship with the WGSRPD name clear, which "Anatolia" doesn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Flora of Asian Turkey, Category:Flora of Asiatic Turkey, Category:Flora of Turkey (Asian), Category:Flora of Turkey (Asian part), Category:Flora of Turkey (Asian portion), or Category:Flora of Turkey (Anatolia)? Abductive (reasoning) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm looking at doing some work on plants on Wikidata and I've seen that there are 620,000 uses of the POWO ID. Does anyone know who imported this data? I'm assuming that its all in there but I don't know for sure, or when it was imported. There's also some other super useful data on POWO especially range for many species that would be really nice to have in Wikidata. I think possibly Succu did it with their bot but not sure.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are mainly entered by Succubot. There was an initial batch put in around April 2018 (here, but I don't know how complete the run was or what the update strategy is. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Taraxacum minimum is currently recognized by POWO and has a POWO ID on Wikidata for the basionym (Leontodon minimum), but not for T. minimum. So, there is at least one POWO-accepted species without a POWO ID on Wikidata. But there aren't very many, and I'd guess POWO has changed from accepting L. minimum to T. minimum since 2018. Plantdrew (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I do occasionally have to create a Wikidata item for a plant in POWO, but it's rare, and I think, as with Plantdrew's example, it's usually when a species has been accepted since the Succubot run.

@John Cummings: you may be aware, but if not it's very important to note that the Wikidata items are not taxon items, whatever they claim, but taxon name items. Synonyms in POWO regularly also have Wikidata items. (Sadly some language wikipedias, such as the Vietnamese one, seem to have created articles for synonyms in Wikidata so there are multiple articles on the same species.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I created a page for the South-western groundwater shrimp (Niphargellus glenniei). It was wrongly classified as an article within the scope of WikiProject Plants. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed as simple as changing the project tag JarrahTree 09:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The two extant genera view of Magnoliaceae seems firmly accepted now – a very broadly circumscribed Magnolia plus Liriodendron. The internal classification of Magnolia may also be settling down a bit. Thus these 2020 and 2021 papers, doi:10.1111/jse.12588 and doi:10.1111/jse.12727, support the former's 15-section system. Unfortunately there's no complete list of species by section. What is clear, though, is that the 2012 system in Magnolia is seriously out of date.

So what to do? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now added a table comparing the 2012 and 2020 systems. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Durian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

In the list of acceptable sources for providing taxonomic synonyms, The Plant List is still listed at the bottom even though the domain is entirely unresponsive and it has been superseded by World Flora Online. The description obviously notes that it's a poor source, but now that the domain is entirely non-functional, should this line be removed entirely? Mockingbard (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we have to evolve - section revised. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 20:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Peter Coxhead and I have recently discussed the need for a policy on how to handle pages that have become obsolete when that that taxon is extinguished. The results of that discussion are now incorporated into the template as Taxonomic revision. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 20:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Draft:Mandevilla amabilis has been submitted to AfC but POWO lists it as a synonym of Dipladenia × amabilis. Which I found odd as POWO lists Dipladenia a synonym of Mandevilla. Apart from this I wasn't sure if we accept artifical hybrids? I've been told before that if its not an accepted species on POWO it's probably not notable, but thought I would check here first. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

What's happened is that Mandevilla was monographed, and the author of the monograph transferred all of the wild species of Diplodenia to that genus, but didn't treat the cultivated hybrids, which left Diplodenia x amabilis in limbo. The transfer was later performed in Baileya, but this hasn't propogated into the sources POWO use.

The rule of thumb is that a generally accepted wild species of plant is notable. As I understand hybrids are treated as individual cases. A hybrid that is sufficiently widespread in cultivation/commerce is notable. Camellia × williamsii is an example where there would be no doubt. Mandevilla × amabilis is a judgement call, but I'd let it in. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lavateraguy I've accepted as Mandevilla x amabilis so we'll see. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Senecio minimus has been submitted for review. The title currently redirects to Erechtites minimus. The draft has more information than the current article, but they differ as to which genus the species belongs to. Can someone please review what is the preferred genus assignment for the species? The additional information should clearly be included in the article. The question is what genus it belongs to, and so what is binomial name is. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As no one else has answered, I'll make a comment, although I don't know the answer. I note that the global databases (POWO, WFO) use Erechtites minimus while the regional databases (5 Australian, 1 New Zealand) use Senecio minimus. Generally we follow the former (especially POWO) for page titles and taxobox taxonomy, but it seems likely that the regional databases will be having the decision made by someone closer to the research work. In my brief look I didn't see what the basis for the difference or which is the newer taxon concept. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The treatment of Senecio sensu lato hasn't yet settled. (Several other genera are nested therein, and a full consensus hasn't developed.) The Australian Plant Census still uses Senecio jacobaea for Jacobaea vulgaris, while I expect that the world will settle on the latter name for that species, so it looks as if APC is behind the times. However Pelser et al (2007) has Erechtites and Crassopetalum as joint sisters to Senecio sensu strictu (even this is not monophyletic, unless you sink a few other genera), but represented Erechtites by two North American species, and has Senecio minimus within Senecio sensu strictu.

FNA uses Erechtites minimus. Google Scholar has a weighting towards Senecio minimus against Erechtites minima (little use of minimus).

Senecio minimus (1817) seems to be the older name, compared to De Candolle's 1838 reference to Erechtites minima, but I'm not convinced that IPNI's citation for the latter is to a valid publication of the name. I think I'll have to make inquiry of IPNI.

I don't have an answer either. I have my doubts that there is an answer. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

On further examination of de Candolle's Prodromus I concluded that Erechtites minima was validly published. IPNI agree, and are amending their database. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What I think is happening is that there are two opinions on the scope of Erechtites - either just the American species, or both the American and Australasian species. The Australian Plant Census adopts the former position, placing the Australasian species in Senecio, while Flore of North America adopts the latter, and includes two naturalised Australian species in its treatment. It looks as if POWO is following FNA.

The phylogeny of Senecioninae is rather muddy - there is extensive incongruence between ITS and cpDNA phylogenies, and numerous genera are not recovered as monophyletic; I'm not sure whether this is real, or a result of a lack of resolution in the data. There are two relevant questions here - is Erechtites monophyletic? and are it or its components nested within Senecio (sensu strictu)? The American species lie outside Senecio sensu strictu in the plastid tree - the ITS data is more ambiguous. But what data is available suggests that the Australasian species are nested in Senecio sensu strictu, i.e. are not congeneric with the American species. I think that the odds are in favour of the Australian Plant Census being correct, but following them means going against POWO. (In de Candolle's treatment of the genus the American species are section Neoceis, and the Australasian species sections Microderis, Tulodiscus and Plagiotome.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have declined the draft because there already is an article, and have tagged the draft to be merged into the article, that is, to add the information from the draft into the article. It is less important which name is used as the primary title, because the other name will be a valid redirect. If they want a Requested Move, they can use a Requested Move. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've linked to a relevant paper at Talk:Erechtites. However I think that it requires synthesis to extract an answer from this (combined with others) paper. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you query POWO? They revised Erechtites and excluded the Australasian species. POWO and WCVP now recognise Senecio minimus Poir.. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

As part of my job at Wikimedia Sverige I will be speaking to the deputy head of science at Kew about sharing their content on Wikimedia, inlcuding content from Plants of the World Online. Below are my inital thoughts, I'm wondering if there is anything else I could discuss with them or any specific asks. I'm pretty experienced having partnership discussions over the past 6 years or so but I'm not familiar with everything Kew does or all its content, just a regular visitor and member. My understanding is the text and data in POWO is available under a CC BY license.

Data: If I was able to get the from POWO I think this would allow us to do a couple of things:

1. Update Wikidata with any changes since POWO data was last shared on Wikidata in 2018.
2. Potentially create the plants missing from Wikipedia which appear on POWO using a template, as long as the plant has the taxonomy and location information I think this would fulfil the requirements of User:Plantdrew/Plant stub checklist and a great deal of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, basically taxonomy and distribution. I have a good working prototype of this I can share later. I understand there are about 350,000 valid species listed on PoWO and only about 80,000 articles on plant species on Wikipedia.
3. Add missing information to existing articles especially location. I've worked out how to use their data in Kartographer maps e.g Asparagus horridus, this can use both OpenStreetMap areas and shape files stored on Commons so we can show any area needed and in different colours like POWO does.

Images: Ask them to share any images they are able to from POWO and their wider work under a Wikimedia compatible license which would allow us to:

1. Upload the images to Commons
2. Add images to Wikidata items for species
3. Add images to Wikipedia articles missing them
4. Give them a metrics report on where their images are used and how many people saw those pages using BaGLAMa 2.

Again any information on any of their collections that would be especially helpful for Wikimedia would be really appreciated.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings: that sounds amazing and as i was reading you addressed everything i would ask. How likely do you think they will be to provide all this, and how likely is it that we will get a bot or a tool to import all the images or make all the maps? --awkwafaba (📥) 03:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about the future of POWO and it's ongoing relation to World Flora Online. That may be a sensitive/political question though. Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings: POWO ran a survey few weeks ago about what additional information users would like to see on the site, so it would be interesting to hear if there are any results they can share. Abductive (reasoning) 05:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

If not too off-topic, ask them what happened to Legumes of the World Online (LOWO) (see archive). This was largely based on the book Legumes of the World (2005), which was to be made available as an eBook (but wasn't). It had useful pages on the tribes and their history (e.g. Millettieae) and the genera (e.g. Wisteria. Some of the text is incorporated in the POWO species pages in the notes section (e.g. see Wisteria on POWO, which combines taxonomic notes from the genus and tribe pages of LOWO (previous two links). While the book is somewhat dated now, it does have a lot of useful information. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) is no more. While it was planned that it would be superseded by the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) after 2021, the site has been dropped and there are no redirects. If this is the final arrangement, it will leave a lot of dead citation links. Those using Template:WCSP could add a redirect, although there is a question on whether a citation of WCSP is equivalent to a citation of WCVP. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I can see the site, but searches return no results. Perhaps it's temporary? Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's working for me now. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's back for me now. I should have been more patient, but the previous note about being superseded by WCVP after 2021 made me jump the gun. It's one subdomain of the main Kew site so there is no reason they can't keep it online, even if WCVP is the main project. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

WCSP has the very useful facility of being able to prepare checklists by quite complex criteria (taxonomic and distributional), which other databases don't have. It also gives the exact codes used by the WGSRPD, which PoWO doesn't (using its own sometimes less than clear text substitutes). WCVP at present doesn't begin to match WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New article listing has not updated in the last couple of days. Anyone know why? Abductive (reasoning) 00:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Now it has updated. The bot has been running later and later since about March 25, unclear why that would be. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

{{R from taxonomic author abbreviation}} has been created so that all taxonomic author abbreviation redirects can be properly categorized. Right now, many are entirely uncategorized, and the ones that are categorized are not entirely consistent. If you create or come across an uncategorized taxonomic author abbreviation redirect, please add this template to the redirect page. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There's something wrong with Template:Pyrus-stub but I'm not sure how to fix it. It doesn't add the stub to a category like Pyrus stubs (presumably because it doesn't exist) or Category:Maleae stubs. I question the utility of the Pyrus-stub template so if it were nominated for deletion I wouldn't object, but it should be fixed or deleted, right? Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abductive: it seems to be ok to me. I agree it's not a very useful stub template, but all the uses I've checked seem to put the article in Category:Maleae stubs. It takes time for the database to put articles into categories via templates (a purge or null edit can force it), so maybe it hadn't happened when you looked? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That must be what happened, it works now. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 11:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on converting Campanulaceae articles to automated taxoboxes. The article Hawaiian lobelioids raises some issues that I thought I would air here. It covers genera and sections of subfamily Lobelioideae endemic to Hawaii; fair enough since they are an interesting group of plants, and are covered in good sources. I added a taxobox to the article (it did have one at one time), treating them as an informal group, since the latest (2021) study I found suggested that they do not form a clade.

The issue, however, is that the article covers some genera – Brighamia, Clermontia, Cyanea, Delissea and Trematolobelia – that do not have their own articles and hence don't have taxoboxes. This seems very unusual to me.

Should Hawaiian lobelioids be split, with separate articles for these genera, although retaining the overall article? Or could this article have taxoboxes in each genus section? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Each of those genera has hundreds of Google Scholar hits, seem legit, and should have their own articles created. But there are many redlinked genera, and more are being listed on PoWO every month than we are clearing, so it is, of course, a matter of prioritizing. Abductive (reasoning) 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be articles for each genus. There's no reason not to retain an article for Hawaiian lobelioids. I oppose multiple taxoboxes in one article (I'd estimate there are currently more than 10, but less than 20 articles across Wikipedia with multiple taxoboxes; I have intentions about addressing them, but haven't gotten around to it yet). Plantdrew (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the general approach to sourcing and updating of the lists of species within genus articles?

The particular article where the question arose is Alyssum. The list there is currently sourced to AlyBase, which afaik was last updated in 2017. I've been thinking of changing it at some point to also reflect the current versions of BrassiBase (last updated in 2020) and of the 2021 Brassicaceae Checklist. In the meantime, another editor, Abductive, has changed one entry in the list, citing its POWO page. Is this OK? I thought that lists like that should be consistent: either following a single source, or integrating the entirety of several sources while making it clear who accepts what.

Abductive has also said that the consensus has been to simply always use POWO. Is that the case? Is that database always the most up to date? How do we tell? – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I deferred to User:Uanfala's use of AlyBase, and just mentioned the emphasis on PoWO in case it comes up later. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind overhauling the list to also indicate which species are accepted by POWO, if that database is relevant here. My issue with the addition in quesion is that it leaves everything else as it is but changes a single random entry to use some other source. It's this sort of piecemeal mix-and-match that I thought would be obviously off the table. But I may be wrong, that's why I came to ask here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that my solution of wikilinking the article I created in the "Formerly included" list of species that are now considered by AlyBase to be in Odontarrhena will be fine for now. I just wanted to have an incoming link from Alyssum to my stub. Abductive (reasoning) 02:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Uanfala that the issue is using a different source for one entry. This is a classic way to produce inconsistency. There's nothing magical about PoWO (and we don't use it for ferns), but it's one of the most comprehensive and generally up to date taxonomic databases. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not a great practice, but to some extent using a different source for one entry is unavoidable given how Wikipedia works. A new species is described; there's a press release, it's picked up by a news outlet, and an editor decides to create an article for that species. Now what? Leave the article orphaned for months or longer until the source being followed for the list of species in a genus picks up the new species? Or add the new species with the source where it was described? That isn't the case here; Alyssum/Odontorrhena serpyllifolia isn't newly described. But unless we can convince editors to never create articles for newly described species, we're going to end up with some articles that are either going to be orphaned or will be using a different source for one entry in a list of species in a genus.

POWO is a good source, but we don't automatically prefer it to specialized taxonomy databases that focus on a particular family. If we are going to have articles on subfamilies and tribes, they can't be sourced to POWO, because POWO doesn't include that information. Inevitably there will be some disagreement between POWO and specialized sources that provide subfamily/tribal classification over which genera to recognize. Plantdrew (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree generally with both points Plantdrew makes above. Newly described species are definitely different (although there is an issue with WP:PST if the only source is the original description). Specialized sources are fine if they are comprehensive. Using geographically limited sources can result in serious inconsistencies if they use different circumscriptions, including multiple articles on the same taxon under synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the informative feedback. I'm still wondering though, is there any way to evaluate the suitability of any particular POWO entry? I imagine I could begin by looking at the sources cited there, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to interpret them. See this entry for example: it has a bibliography section, which points to several papers, but then also another section called "Sources", which lists "The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2022" and a few others. How exactly do these work? Are they just sources for the raw data, or do they ultimately also provide the justifications for the taxonomic decisions made? – Uanfala (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

They are just sources for the raw data, I believe. The ultimate decisions on what is accepted lie with the editors (particularly Rafaël Govaerts). The bibliography section is rarely if ever informative on the reasons in my experience. Thus I've been working on Tibouchina and the three genera split off from it in doi:10.1002/tax.12151. The split is widely accepted in the major taxonomic databases, including PoWO, but none of the entries for the four genera in PoWO refer to the paper that proposed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work for a very small herbarium and a very small arboretum, and when attempting to verify current accepted taxonomy for the purpose of labels and signage, I've tried to cross-reference as many of the databases recommended to me by the HERBARIA email listserv network as I can, but I'm still getting a sense for which databases and sources are kept current, which ones are most rigorous, which ones specialize in what, etc. (Sometimes this sort of thing is a topic of discussion in the Tracking Plant Taxonomy Updates Facebook group.) How do you all feel about cross-referencing POWO with sources (some of which overlap or draw from each other) such as Taxonomic Name Resolution Service (TNRS), Tropicos, Integrated Taxonomic Information System, etc., as well as the most current academic journal publications, to try to triangulate some kind of authoritative answer to what a current scientific name ought to be for a given species? How does iNaturalist typically settle on an accepted scientific name for a given species? LRFtheLion (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Checking multiple reliable taxonomic databases is always good, and articles should always report in the text well supported alternative names. But for article titles and taxoboxes it is necessary to use one consistent list from a comprehensive source. If source A merges genus X into Y, but source B keeps them separate, mixing the sources will result in some of the species having titles in Y because source A is used but others having titles in X because source B is used. (If you want to see an example of a total mess, look at the Vietnamese wikipedia, which regularly has articles on the same species under synonyms because it seems to have automatically swept different databases.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thank you so much! LRFtheLion (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The most important thing is to check the date of the actual data.

So a random example; Alyssum sibiricum Willd., the data in TNRS seems to be from July 2021 https://tnrs.biendata.org/sources/ which seems quite up-to-date, but if you look more closely, you see that the WFO entry http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000529870 says "World Flora Online Data. 2017" so the actual taxonomic data is from 2017, not 2022 (as it suggests on that same page "Cite taxon page as 'WFO (2022)...") nor 2021 when TNRS harvested the data.

For WCVP you can also see that there is a more recent 2022 download now available http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/

So when in TNRS it gives the results 'WFO Alyssum sibiricum Willd. Accepted' and 'WCVP Odontarrhena sibirica (Willd.) Španiel, Al-Shehbaz, D.A.German & Marhold Synonym' (and a few more options) remember that the WFO one dates from 2017 and the WCVP one from 2021 and the decision on the current name becomes a lot easier.

Online sources often appear contradictory but that is not because Botanists disagree today but because you are looking at old and new data. I wonder what it will be like in 50 years time... Weepingraf (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

iNaturalist follows POWO for vascular plants and see iNat sources for other groups here. Plantdrew (talk)

talk:Halimium lasianthum#article name Arlo James Barnes 03:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct process when we find that two articles exist for the same species? Citrus × deliciosa and Citrus mangshanensis are synonyms, according to POWO. (Also, POWO doesn't show the hybrid symbol between Citrus and deliciosa.) Thank you! LRFtheLion (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@LRFtheLion:, citrus taxonomy is a mess. Most cultivated citruses are complex hybrids of a small number of wild species. There are a lot of citruses that have been named as species (or nothospecies (hybrids)) that aren't generally accepted as such. However, many of these unaccepted species probably are worth recognizing as distinct entities at around the level of cultivars (but Wikipedia never has really established notability guidelines for cultivars). POWO's coverage of Citrus isn't great; hybrid symbols missing from things that are definitely hybrids, species accepted that probably shouldn't be, etc. I refuse to work on Citrus articles; it would take a lot of reading to get to the point where I was confident I could improve the status of citrus taxonomy on Wikipedia (Peter coxhead also refuses to work on citrus).

Citrus mangshanensis was described in 1990. I think it's pretty extraordinary that a wild citrus species went undiscovered that long, and am skeptical of the claim that it is distinct. But there are recent (2014 and 2018) publications that support that, and I think it's also unlikely that POWO's citrus taxonomy has taken those publications into account.

In general, if Wikipedia has an article for a synonym, that should be merged to the accepted name. Some care is needed in merging; conservation status should not be copied over, and range may need updating. Plantdrew (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is all really helpful information. Thank you! It sounds like cultivated citruses are as convoluted as crabapple Malus cultivars. I'm not sure if this is true for the citrus cultivars, but so many of the crabapple cultivars have been developed by wholesale plant nursery growers who have tended to keep little to no documentation of hybrid lineages. This is the one thing that has made me kind of appreciate patented cultivars, since at least the patent documentation sometimes gives some information on hybrid parentage. LRFtheLion (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a scientific name for plants that can flower all year round in the right conditions? Is there a textbook, government database, or other reliable source that list which plants can do this? I created Category:Plants that can bloom all year round. Would the word "flower" be better than "bloom"? Does it matter? Dream Focus 07:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my view it's a poor category. Under what conditions? In Europe, the Dutch horticultural industry is adept at getting all sorts of plants to flower in the 'wrong' season. Are these to be included? I very much doubt that there are any reliable sources that list such plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

These all flower all year round outside in places which are warm all year round. How many species are like that? It can be changed to category:plants that can produce flowers all year round outdoors. Dream Focus 08:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not how nature operates and its not how humans view the topic. A sort-of-related list can be found at Cut flowers. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That list is not related. I believe many would like to see a list of plants that flower all year round in warm conditions. It is how nature operators, warm weather keeps them flowering, and I don't know how many humans you talked to but this is how I view the topic. Dream Focus 06:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a very good chance the category will not survive a deletion discussion. Abductive (reasoning) 16:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would. Many news articles are written about flowers that bloom all year round. This is therefore a notable aspect of them, thus deserving a category to help people find them. Dream Focus 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess you don't see the consternation that you are causing here. Abductive (reasoning) 18:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

While this would be helpful for such people, it may not provide all the information they might be looking for. I presume they would want to know general info about cultivation of plants in this list, but unfortunately not all of the plant articles have this information. I also agree with the comments below that most of the online sources seem to use different phrases and there doesn't seem to be a specific name for such plants. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a particular name for such plants, although this article uses permanent flowering plants. I don't see much need for the category, but it might be suitable for a list article. A search for flowers that bloom all year gets a number of articles, although some of the articles are referring to flowers to use so a garden has blooms all year. However, if the topic is notable you'd expect there to be a name to describe such flowers. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In the horticulture industry for ornamental plants, the term that is used for those plants that have been selectively bred by humans to bloom multiple times across the growing season is repeat bloomer.

Since my own experience with wild plants is in temperate climates, where flowering plants tend to have one relatively brief blooming period per growing season, I'm not familiar with any such term for wild plants. I don't have direct knowledge of whether there might be repeat-blooming wild plants in tropical climates. LRFtheLion (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuous bloomer, continuously blooming, and continuous flowering all show up in some searches. Dream Focus 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what others here think, but to me it seems important to distinguish between horticultural plants selectively bred by humans to have this trait and wild plants (if they exist) that might have this trait. LRFtheLion (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

All the web searches using the phrases "continuous bloomer", "continuously blooming", and "continuous flowering" appear to me to direct to self-published sites. The species already in the Category:Plants that can bloom all year round also have doubtful references for "can flower all year". The reference for "can bloom throughout the year" in the Adenium obesum article is self-published. The reference for "tend to flower all year" in the Bougainvillea article does not appear to confirm the fact. There is no reference for "flowers through the year" in the Hibiscus article or for "flower year round" in the Ixora article. The reference for "can bloom all year round" in the Lantana camara article has "can occur almost year round in suitable areas where......".

There are several hundred species of Hibiscus, with varying patterns of growth and flowering. Possibly Hibiscus rosa-sinensis was intended. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The word "can" in the category title is the main problem for me. "Can" under what conditions? Probably the majority of plant species "can flower all year round" given the right conditions in a laboratory. One would be hard-pressed to write a (well-referenced) article about a plant species to include in a category "Plants that flower all year." Gderrin (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Another term that is used is everblooming, but the definition that the web served up to me gave it as flowering through the growing season, not the year.

It depends on the weather, but there several plant species that can flower at anytime of year in Britain, examples

• Sonchus oleraceus - annual, prolonged flowering season from mid-summer to late autumn, with some plants continuing to flower until killed by frosts, and others flowering early.
• Anthriscus sylvestris - wintergreen perennial, main flowering season in May, but can be seen flowering at any time of the year.
• Bellis perennis - evergreen perennial, main flowering season in March and April, but flowers not infrequent at other times of the year
• Poa annua - flowers throughout the year when the weather is warm enough.

I agree that category is of unclear scope. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You can add Lamium album to that list – most reported species in flower in BSBI outings (and it's a very rare outdoor meeting of my local natural history society that doesn't find it).

More generally, tropical species often don't have the distinct seasonality of temperate species, being affected by local rain, for example, so individual plants can be found in flower at any time of the year, but like those listed above individual plants don't flower continuously. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And Lamium purpureum - I'd guess somewhere between 10 and 20 species in total (Ulex takes two species to achieve year round flowering).

Even apart from those tropical regions with wet and dry seasons there are factors that would incline tropical plants to seasonality of flowering - synchronisation to enhance cross-fertilisation, predator satiation, and avoidance of hybridization with congeners. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought for a minute that possesion of indeterminate inflorescences was a relevant trait, but then I realised that you could have determinate inflorescences on an indeterminate shoot/branch. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Creosote bush can sometimes flower opportunistically after rains anytime of year. It's usual bloom time, however, is spring. Would that count? Or is the scope of the category only species that consistently flower every month of every year? Mbdfar (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I should've named it Category:Plants that bloom all year round Dream Focus 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I am curious to know which source you've used to include the plants you've currently listed in this category? From the comments above, it seems that there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources in terms of textbooks or government databases that has this information. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If the article said it blooms all year round, I put it in the category. Only one article did I add a reference too. Bougainvillea reads: "They tend to flower all year round in equatorial regions." Hibiscus reads "flowers through the year". That should probably say "throughout". Just changed it. Ixora reads "they flower year round". Lantana camara reads "can bloom all year round". Dream Focus 16:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Although that makes sense, not sure if it's the most reliable approach considering the references in the articles are questionable as Lavateraguy mentioned. And based on the lack of reliable sources, I would consider this category non-defining per WP:CATDEF and WP:NONDEF. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the text of Hibiscus, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the relevant section look as if they apply to Hibiscus rosa-sinensis specifically (possibly to a subset of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis cultivars; or on the other hand possibly to section Lilibiscus in general.) Hibiscus trionum (an annual) does not flower all year round; Hibiscus syriacus (a deciduous shrub) does not flower all year round; Hibiscus moscheutos (a herbaceous perennial) does not flower all year round. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As has already been noted, this is a coatrack of a category. I say to nominate it for deletion, and if there is a strong enough feeling from non-plant editors that it should say, the scope and definition can be addressed then.--Kevmin § 20:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest an article on the horticultural concept of everblooming plants as an alternative. (Browsing search results tells me that repeat-blooming isn't the same - repeat-blooming is flowering in two or more flushes, rather than continuously.)

 

Determinate (bush) tomatoes flower once, but indeterminate tomatoes keep growing and flowering - in glasshouse cultivation they I expect that they can reach huge sizes, and flower and crop. Most strawberries have a short flowering and fruiting season, but everbearing varieties have been bred, which provide fruits until cold weather arrives. Given a suitable natural or controlled climate everblooming perennials will flower all year round. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A user has requested that Cow parsnip (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Cow parsnip. Interested users may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Cow parsnip (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 May 2022. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello friends, looking for some guidance on de-orphaning Aniserica. POWO and Tropicos both list it as a valid genus, but neither lists a subfamily. Meanwhile, Catalogue of Life and its source World Plants list it as a synonym of Erica. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website also lists it as a synonym: Ericaceae genera. I haven't been able to locate any original works (books, papers, etc) that explicitly say Aniserica = Erica, so I'm not sure where the discrepancy is or which assessment is more correct. Could I get some other opinions? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Tropicos never takes a position on whether a taxon is valid/accepted. It often cites references that take a position. In case of the genus Aniserica, Tropicos doesn't have any references whatsoever for acceptance/synonymy, which is often the case when a taxon is an obscure synonym (but lack of reference on Tropicos also often occurs for taxa that don't occur anywhere where MOBOT has an active research program, and MOBOT doesn't have a program for South Africa).

POWO has a problem. POWO indicates that Aniserica was treated as a synonym of Sympieza in WCSP (much of POWO's data was imported from WCSP). The type species, Aniserica gracilis, was treated as a synonym of Sympieza gracilis in WCSP (as noted in POWO). But Sympieza gracilis itself doesn't have a record in POWO.

Tropicos] does have a reference for Aniserica gracilis that treats it as a synonym of Erica benthamiana. POWO treats Erica benthamiana as a synonym of Sympieza gracilis, but the notes for E. benthamiana say that WCSP accepted it.

I think the lack of a POWO record for S. gracilis has created a missing link in the chain of synonyms that should probably have resolved to E. benthamiana (and if the type species for Aniserica is accepted in Erica, than Aniserica would be a synonym of Erica.) Plantdrew (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, on that basis I've redirected Aniserica to Erica and listed it as a synonym. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

As I previously mentioned I was having a meeting with Kew about POWO, in the end I had two meetings, one with the deputy head of science at Kew and one with the head of POWO.  I have some information and also some suggestions and questions listed below. I’m also going to be presenting the senior science team at Kew in a few weeks about how Wikipedia uses their content and possible work they could do with Wikipedia, all suggestions very welcome.

Using POWO data to create new Wikipedia articles

1. They’re very happy that we are using data from POWO in Wikipedia and would like to support us to use more information.
2. By the end of the year they plan to provide regular dumps of data from POWO to allow Wikipedia and others to use it..
3. They have provided me with a ’sample’ of complete data from POWO 100,000 species from their internal dataset which I can share soon once I’ve converted it into a usable spreadsheet.

Having this data available opens up the opportunity to use the data to create Wikipedia articles with less manual work. It has taken 20+ years to create 76,000 plant articles manually, POWO has 350,000 species articles meaning it might take another 100+ years to create Wikipedia articles for all the plants in POWO if no more species are added.

Since we have agreed that POWO is the primary source of information for many kinds of plant articles and we have the data we could generate the articles automatically using the data and a template which would fulfil all the requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template. Copying the same information manually to create identical articles to ones generated with a proforma would appear to a waste of volunteers time and effort.

Beyond the educational benefit these new articles would have, it would also allow a few things to happen for Wikimedia that I think would be really beneficial for several reasons

• Significantly lower the barrier to sharing knowledge and about plants on English Wikipedia: adding information to an existing Wikipedia article is a much lower barrier than creating a new article, on English Wikipedia new users are banned from creating new articles.
• Creates a place for species images to be seen on Wikipedia: having an article for every plant species will provide a place for images of species from partner organisations would really encourage them to share their content. I do a lot with partner organisations and one of their main motivations is the large audience Wikipedia has.
• Identification: one of the issues Wiki Loves Earth has is that often photographers are unable to identify species, having a species for every plant would allow easier identification and is much more accessible that Wikidata.  
• Create a framework and process for other language versions of Wikipedia to do the same: The data from POWO could be used on other language versions of Wikipedia. By creating a process to use these descriptions we make it possible for other languages to follow the same process and show a process that works for using data from other sources., in addition traditional translations can also be made

What do people think about this idea?  I have a pretty developed template I’ve used to create articles using data from Encyclopaedia of Life I can share shortly.

Using POWO data to create distribution maps

As you may know POWO has some really nice distribution maps eg Basella alba.  I’ve been working on a process to recreate these maps and have something working now, some examples:

• A map showing only native distribution
• A map showing different kinds of distribution (there is a small issue with the zoom level which I need to work out how to fix still)  

These maps use OpenStreetMap shapes but can also use custom shapes on Commons so can display any areas needed.

Getting feedback from the community on POWO

The head of POWO Rafaël Govaerts has requested feedback from the community if they find any issues in POWO e.g if anything is out of date or incorrect. We could do this in a couple of ways:

1. Mention this somewhere on Wikiproject plants with his email address
2. Have a central page on Wikiproject Plants where we list possible issues

What do people think?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Incredible! Would there be a process for integrating information with already published Wiki articles? Mbdfar (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mbdfar, for the distribution information, creating the maps for existing articles would be very simple, we would only need to match their areas to Wikidata Q numbers and then create a template to populate with data from their spreadsheet. Perhaps these could be added to articles automatically with a bot once created if there way nothing in that infobox field. I don't know a simple way of adding the text into the body of the article beyond generating the text using a template and making it available as a draft for users to copy in, but I don't know how you'd identify which plant articles were missing this information though. John Cummings (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying some numbers. 112,000 pages are tagged for WikiProject Plants. Many of those aren't articles but categories and redirects. Not all articles are about taxa; tagged articles include biographies of botanists, basic concepts in plant morphology/anatomy/physiology, plant products, etc. I checked less than a week ago and there were just over 76,000 plant articles with taxoboxes (I think the exact number when I checked was 76,006). ~13,500 are on taxa above species level, and ~600 are on taxa below species level. 10,689 species articles were not manually created but were created by a bot (Polbot) (Polbot articles are probably more likely to represent synonyms than manually created articles are). The actual number of manually created (not Polbot) articles on species (not higher/lower taxa) over 20 years is around 52,000. Plantdrew (talk)

Thanks very much Plantdrew, I've corrected my original message to reflect these new numbers. John Cummings (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Some caveats We have not agreed that POWO is the primary source of information for plant articles. We don't use it for ferns, for example, and it doesn't cover non-vascular plants. Yes, it's the best curated international taxonomic database for vascular plants that takes a position on accepted names (in my experience, Tropicos is often more reliable on names and authorities for the taxa it covers, but it's not comprehensive and doesn't itself take a particular taxonomic view). WP:NPOV must be respected where other reliable sources take different views.

I'm very uneasy about any automated creation of articles. Fixing Polbot articles is still an ungoing task. It's very easy to create articles on the same taxon under synonyms. Monotypic taxa are tricky to handle given our rules on how they should be titled. Picking categories is not straightforward. This is not to say that it can't be done, only that it's difficult to do well. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Peter coxhead:

1. I've corrected my orginal message to reflect this new info. Is there a list of which kinds of plants use POWO as an authoritative source and which dont? and in those cases
2. I totally understand this would be a complex task, do you have any suggestions on ways it could be done well? Are the any easier groups we could start with for instance? Is there anything written up about what Polbot did, what issues it has etc? Would creating drafts for at least the initial 'batch' be a workable option for you?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The automatic generation of the distribution map is awesome, and I integrating more of the POWO's data on Wikipedia will be an exciting prospect!
  But! I would like to add to the caveats expressed about the headline-grabbing subproject: the automatic creation of articles about all species at POWO. With some work, we can have a bot that reads POWO data and creates decent articles out of that data. With some further work, we can even have the bot keep an eye on POWO updates, and then recreate any articles where the data has substantially changed. However, what the bot cannot do is merge these updates with any content that's been manually added in the meantime: that's the biggest challenge of any automated article creation. Even the initial creation will need to resolve a number of smaller problems, for example disambiguating taxon names that are also used in zoology (something that POWO obviously doesn't need to worry about). There is one niche where I expect bot creation won't lead to significant headaches down the line: taxa with very well established position and circumscription where it's unlikely that we'll ever need to rename the page or change the list of synonyms. Can we easily define what falls in this niche though?
  Here's an alternative idea: we can provide access to content about plants without basically turning wikipedia into a POWO mirror. A tweak to Wikipedia's search engine so that it indexes their database and if a reader searches for a species that doesn't have an article here, the engine will present them with a pointer to the POWO entry, just like it does for material that's on Wiktionary or wikipedias in other languages. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, thanks very much for your message

Maps: Thanks very much, yes I like them too, I'd love to make this happen, do you know any users who are technical who may be able to help make this work? I could probably work out how to do it using a spreadsheet but a bot would be a better solution I assume.

Updates: Yes agreed this is complex, I will talk to Kew about how they might provide data so we could keep track of changes and see what could be done manually and what could be done automatically. I have no idea how this could be done technically but I'm sure there are other areas of Wikipedia who have faced a similar challenge before.

Mirroring: While I agree that the inital creating of the articles would create somewhat of a mirror of the POWO pages I think this is not a bad thing and would also change over time as more info and images were added by other sources. A couple of questions about your solution, do you know of any examples of where your solution has been done before on Wikipedia? Also do you know if its allowed to do this kind of redirecting to an external source? I'd assume not but I can't seem to find any rules about it. I'm totally not dismissing this as an idea (taxobox links kind of do this already), I've just never seen it done before or know if its allowed.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

John Cummings, sorry for not replying earlier. I don't know of specific people who can help with the maps project. The places I can point to are ones that you probably already know of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, any of the pages listed at Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Bot requests.

As for my wild idea about Wikipedia's search engine indexing POWO and then displaying that in the search results (not redirecting there): I'm not aware of any rule or fundamental consideration against that. I imagine (maybe somewhat naively?) that we can have a big RfC about it, and if there's clear community consensus for the proposal, then that can then be handed over to the developers to implement (provided that it's feasible in the first place and they have the manpower to do it). I don't know of exact precedents though. And, as you say, there are good reasons why this may not be the best course of action. An alternative wild idea is to make the search engine index Wikispecies and then use a robot to link up the Wikispecies pages with POWO.

You had ealier mentioned that more Wikipedia articles can help with plant identification when uploading photos on Commons. That's really the topic for another thread (and I'd be happy to go into the reasons), but nothing in our wikiworld – not even very well-developed articles, nor extensive collections of photos on Commons – are remotely useful for reliable plant identification.

Now back to the main question, I really like the idea of trying to do something big about Wikipedia's huge gaps in the coverage of plant species. I don't want to see the project scuppered because of small things (like the impossibility of having a bot produce immaculately compliant categorisation: readers very rarely use categories anyway). However, the core of the task – commissioning a bot to create articles and then keep them up to date – is not the sort of project where everything can be agreed on in a few meetings and then all the work completed within a month. This will need to involve a fair a number of people over a long period of time. There are ways to reduce the task to something much simpler. I mentioned one earlier: create articles only about the most solidly established taxa (so they won't need upkeep). And here's another: do a pilot. Say, have a bot create 2,500 articles (balanced across families and geographic regions), then after two years evaluate the results in light of how those taxa have changed on POWO and what user-generated content has been added to the articles, and in the meantime work on ways to integrate all that. Just ideas! – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Responding first to John Cummings' earlier response to me, I wasn't about here when Polbot ran, so all I know is that occasionally I still find myself fixing Polbot articles. Issues include those mentioned above: creating articles under what are, at least now, synonyms; not respecting our approach to monotypic taxa; not respecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization, which is difficult to automate, given that a species is not always categorized under its genus and distribution categories should be combined under a higher level unit if they make up a sufficiently large portion of it. (This is much easier to do from WCSP, because unlike PoWO, it uses the proper WGSRPD codes for distribution units.) Polbot didn't have to handle taxonomy templates, but since automated taxoboxes should now be used, these have to be created if they don't exist. This raises the issue of choosing the parent taxon in the taxonomy template, because PoWO doesn't give minor ranks, such as subgenera.

A positive proposal would be to restrict automated creation to species where the genus article exists and has an automated taxobox and hence a taxonomy template, and the species is red-linked in the list of species in the genus article.

Re what plants PoWO can be used for, I think only angiosperms (excluding Citrus as per the comments below!).

Re drafts, sounds good, but who has the time and energy to check large numbers of drafts, many in an area of plant taxonomy or distribution that doesn't interest them? Adding to existing articles is much more doable in my view.

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about the distribution map data. Is there an API or something that we can use to access the distribution data? I've been updating the conservation status of a lot of plants and found that NatureServe has a really nice API that let me grab batches of conservation status data and then make it into the text I needed for the info boxes. I've been trying to figure out a system like this for distribution maps so if they have the data I can easily add it to the workflow. Recently I started poking around with the iNaturalist data to generate distribution maps but it's not really ideal and I would prefer to have one source for citing ect. I've been doing all of this in R and can share the code if anyone is interested. Dr vulpes (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Bots can create articles that are better than the worst ones created by humans (I think User:Qbugbot's articles are better than e.g. Schizomus vittatus). At the moment, there isn't anybody mass creating low quality plant articles, and people who are creating plant articles generally are creating articles that are much better than a bot could produce. But plant article creation is proceeding very slowly (article creation rates are barely above the rate at which new plant species are described). Wikipedia's editor base isn't growing which means the ratio of articles to editors is increasing. And that means that Wikipedia's plant article risk becoming outdated. If a bot is to create articles, I think it is important that it be able to have a way to be able to automatically check whether we have articles at titles that POWO regards as syonyms (at least in groups where we are following POWO). Plantdrew (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It would also be important to have some mechanism to check from time to time that articles are still following accepted taxonomy. Some of the problems with the Polbot plant articles arose because taxonomy and hence scientific names changed, and editors created new articles without noticing that there was already one at a synonym. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding the synonyms for a taxon, and then creating redirects for each synonym back to the article, results in a mechanism that can alert another editor (or bot) who might later wish to create a new (duplicate) article at that name. In my opinion, the addition of these redirects from a synonym to the accepted name has more value in this way (to other editors) than by the chance of helping readers who may have entered a synonym in the search bar. The process of attempting to create redirects from all synonyms also helps identify homonyms and other uses of those titles, leading to the addition of hatnotes and disambiguation pages - all of which can help the reader. Loopy30 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Loopy30: agreed, but creating redirects for all synonyms can be a lot of work in some cases! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

When creating pages for ornamental plant cultivars I have realized just how difficult a task it can be. Many cultivars have very little information online relating to their history and who created them... I'd understand for lesser known cultivars, but even commercially popular cultivars seem to lack much information online...

I managed to find quite a bit of information online on Narcissus cultivars thanks to the existence of websites such as the dafflibrary.org. The Royal horticultural society website has also been very useful as it not only provides generic info on cultivars, but also allows you to view the International Daffodil Register from their website to find out details such as when a cultivar was registered and by who. Websites such as daffseek.org also provide further info such as what species and cultivars were used in a daffodils family tree and also what descendant cultivars were bred from the cultivar in question. I also found a link that takes you to PDF files that can tell you what year a plant cultivar was awarded an award of garden merit. Cultivars - Award Garden Merit PDFs

I'm wondering if anyone has any other useful websites for cultivar information? I'd love to beef up some of my stub articles. Many Thanks ~JarroNevsbaru — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarroNevsbaru (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking for information for Narcissus cultivars, or for other genera too? The International Daffodil Register is the International Cultivar Registration Authority for Narcissus. Other ICRAs can be found here by genus or here by organization name. Not all genera have ICRAs. Not all ICRAs have online databases, and those that do vary in how much information is contained in the database. But ICRAs can be a good place to start to get some basic information about cultivars. Plantdrew (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

JarroNevsbaru, you should keep in mind that cultivars are not presumed notable the way species are. They need to have significant coverage that meets WP:GNG, otherwise they may be subject to deletion. Inclusion in databases isn't sufficient - it needs to be actual prose written about the cultivar. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#cultivars for more detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Plantdrew! I will check it out. I am focusing on Narcissus right now, but I was possibly considering making further pages for David Austin's roses.

I'll keep that in mind PMC. I do believe the articles I've written so far are important especially when they regard cultivars that are popular or possess historical importance. If articles can be written for cannabis strains, places nobody has ever heard of and even animal breeds, I believe popular narcissus cultivars should get pages too. I wouldn't bother making pages for a cultivar that has no historic or commercial importance. I am aware that there are far too many cultivars of narcissus registered that never become commercially available. I see no need to create pages for such organisms. What do you mean by "actual prose"? I always make sure to use citations in my articles such as websites, books and news articles. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that other stuff exists doesn't make cultivars immune to notability guidelines. Simply being popular or commercially available does not make them notable in the encyclopedic sense. By "actual prose" I mean a significant amount of human-written content about the cultivar - history, development, reviews, whatever - from reliable independent sources. Commercial sites are not suitable, and neither are databases.

Looking at Primula 'Zebra Blue' for example:

1. University source, so no issues with reliability, but it's only a few sentences about Zebra Blue - I wouldn't take it as SIGCOV that supports a claim to notability
2. Plant Delights Nursery is a commercial site for buying flowers, so not considered reliable for a notability claim
3. RHS is a database, so not significant coverage (it also has a commercial angle in that it helps you search for nurseries to buy at)
4. Gardenia.net also appears to be a commercial site/database

If that is the best sourcing available for that cultivar, I don't believe it would meet the GNG, and if that's the general level of sourcing available for the cultivars you're looking at making, I'm not sure they should be created. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I can understand there is a "commercial angle" to the RHS website, but I would consider the Royal Horticultural Society to be a trustworthy source of information when it comes to garden plants. The Royal Horticultural Society is the worlds leading organization for promoting gardening and horticulture. If you cannot use the Royal Horticultural Society as a reference I don't think there is enough sources online to make articles about any ornamental plant cultivar. :/ JarroNevsbaru (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm more pointing out that it's a database rather than a piece of significant coverage. Analogous to Soccerbase vs a newspaper article for a football player - the stats in Soccerbase are reliable, but it isn't significant coverage for the purpose of claiming notability.

It's true that not many cultivars will meet GNG, but some do - Buddleja 'Winter Sun' for example scrapes by GNG with the paragraph from the Plant Collector's Guide and the several paragraphs at Trees and Shrubs Online. That's the kind of prose coverage that would support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what matters is that there is in existence enough material to create a useful article about the cultivar, and thus demonstrate that it is sufficiently well known. It's agreed that all species are notable, but certainly not that all cultivars are. The RHS database is useful to support the existence and name of the cultivar, but even an AGM doesn't of itself show that the cultivar is notable. I think it's usually better to deal with cultivars at the species or genus article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course an AGM demonstrates that a cultivar is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No. The Award of Garden Merit is solely "based on assessment of the plants' performance under UK growing conditions." That's all it means - that it can grow well in the UK. Furthermore, awards only support claims to notability insomuch as they lead to secondary coverage of the subject being given the award, and AGMs simply do not generate that kind of coverage in my experience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That represents an analysis by a secondary source. Also, the cultivar must be readily available in commerce. That too is an analysis by experts. Claiming that something is only notable in one country will get you laughed out of an AfD discussion. Take for example the roses; there are ~35,000 cultivars and hybrids, but only about 175 have gained the Award of Garden Merit. If somebody were to create an article on an AGM rose cultivar it wouldn't be a problem. If somebody decided to use an automated system to create articles for every named rose it would be a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 15:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone -- I wanted to extend an invitation to all members of WikiProject Plants. Throughout the month of July, WikiProject Women in Green (which focuses on bringing articles about women and women's works up to Good Article [GA] status and beyond) is hosting a GA editathon event on the theme of "Women and the Environment." Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and the environment (e.g., gardeners, botanists, horticulturalists, or plant-related books and films by women), with editors of all experience levels welcome. GA editing resources and one-on-one support will be made available by Women in Green, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Lavender oil, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Cynareae should be moved to Cardueae. IPNI notes: "Lessing included Carduus L. (the type of Cardueae Cass. 1819) within Cynareae; therefore, Cynareae is superfluous and incorrect when published." Flora of North America is cited for the synonymy of Cynareae/Cardueae, but FNA now accepts Cardueae (and FNA changing from accepting Cynareae to Cardueae is one of the few differences explicitly noted between their print edition and web edition ([2]). Both names were published before standardized suffixes for ranks were established (and for that matter before ranks themselves were really standardized). Per Tropicos, Cardueae was first published as Carduinae. I think the issue here is perhaps that the -inae suffixes has been taken to imply that it was published as a subtribe (with Cynareae assumed to be the first name published at tribe rank).

Anybody have any counterarguments? Does anybody with page mover rights want to make the move? Plantdrew (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, or being pre-empted, I will carry out a "round-robin" move on Monday, 4 July. William Avery (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, but I wimped out of updating the taxonomy section, and just tagged it as needing an update. William Avery (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Carduineae - not Carduinae - was published as a tribe by Cassini in 1819, Cynareae by Lessing in 1830, and Cardueae by Moris in 1837. The first is corrected (standardisation of rank suffices) to Cardueae, giving Cardueae precedence over Cynareae. The old text at Cynareae incorrectly treated the last as the first publication of Cardueae. (But note that the spelling Cardueae was used in 1820, in a reference to Cassini's monograph - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8069871#page/50/mode/2up) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"X is a species of grass"

There are about 200 articles that begin with one of the variants (as gleaned from this search):

1. ...is a species of [[grass]].
2. ...is a species of [[Poaceae|grass]].
3. ...is a species of [[grass]] in the family [[Poaceae]].
4. ...is a species of grass in the family [[Poaceae]].

Any opinions which is better? I'm planning to change all instances of #3 to #4 (because of the repeated link: grass currently is a redirect to Poaceae), and of #1 to #2 (because "grass" is ambiguous and that redirect may not forever target the family). There'a also another possible replacement for #3: a species of [[Graminoid|grass]] in the family [[Poaceae]], would this be viable? – Uanfala (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I strongly prefer #4. It's accurate and the text of the wikilink is the same as the article title, which is the least surprising for those who follow the link. #3 is clearly wrong because of the repeated wikilink, and should be replaced by #4. I agree that it's arguable whether "grass" should redirect to "Poaceae", so #1 should be changed. I would change it to #4 for the reason I gave above, rather than to #2.

More generally, I find the practice of not giving the scientific name of the family, as in #1 and #2 problematic. I'm frequently unsure what family is meant when only English names are used, since in some cases they differ between countries. I would prefer consistent use of the convention that if there is a genuinely commonly used English name for the family, we always give both this and the scientific name, wikilinking whichever is the title of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fully concur with the rationale suggested by Peter. Happily, this is also the most common format in use across all other ToL article opening statements. Loopy30 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Prefer #4. There are also a fair number of articles on Fabaceae that open with "... is a species of legume in the family Fabaceae". Legume is a separate article from Fabaceae, but I'm not sure it is very useful to link to it like that. Plantdrew (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Prefer #4 since it makes the most sense per MOS:DL. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Grasses

Another commonly encountered link type is [[grass]]es (with just under 600 instances [3]). I'm thinking of changing these to one of the following:

1. [[grasses]] (can be done fast),
2. [[Poaceae|grasses]] (will likely involve examining the context in each case to make sure the family is indeed the intended target).

Any suggestions? The rationale for making any change in the first place is as above: Grass and Grasses currently redirect to the same article (Poaceae), but the singular is quite ambiguous and will likely need to be retargeted (the plural redirect is unlikely to change). – Uanfala (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm becoming a bit less convinced Grasses is unambiguous. I'm finding a fair number of uses along the lines of "grasses and forbs", where the most likely meaning of "grass" is graminoid (though there are also phrases like "grasses, forbs and sedges", where the term apparently refers to Poaceae species alone). – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that Daisugi, a form of coppicing of Cryptomeria trees, was proposed for deletion. Are there any better sources out there, perhaps in Japanese? Thriley (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thriley Done, a quick look at google books and google scholar threw up a few decent English references dating all the way back to 1926, and I suspect if anyone is able to read older Japanese sources there will be a fair bit as well. It seems the nominator didn't look past the immediate web results of a basic google.--Kevmin § 17:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Thriley (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you help to disambiguate the links to Spinifex shown in this list? I don't know enough about the differences between Spinifex (coastal grass) and Triodia (plant) to get the right one.— Rod ^talk 14:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey folks. I recently created Philodendron sodiroi and I'd like some input on a decision I made regarding the photo.

For context, the best sources clearly state that P. sodiroi, P. sodiroi ornatum are synonymous and that in the past the currently accepted species of P. sodiroi was previously placed under P. ornatum, which remains a different species. The photo on the article is tagged as P. ornatum, but the actual plant in the photo pretty clearly looks like P. sodiroi to me since P. ornatum doesn't have such obtuse sinuses and little or no silver mottling.

Can someone who is good at aroid identification (@Plantdrew: maybe?) confirm my thinking here? I see this problem of misidentified plants all over Commons and usually it's totally obvious but in this case I think it's complex since the classification history is muddled. Steven Walling • talk 19:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

A very curious (and fishy) proposal that seems to have ramifications for this project and other projects with substantial gaps in content in the biota area has arrived at the village pump. Thanks to those who have already ventured there - it is indeed interesting, albeit some marvellous comments from all sides of the argument, real street theatre material...

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) in the section - ::Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_creation_of_pages_on_fish_species

JarrahTree 07:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This article on a purported plant disease, presented as current but sourced only to centuries-old works, could use some expert attention. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A more recent (and clearer) description can be found at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/99791#page/371/mode/1up . The Biodiversity Heritage Library has other hits for the term, which may also be of use. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Evergreen, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Greetings, are there any subtypes of palisade cells? If there are any, please tell me as soon as possible, thank you! P.S are there any abbreviations of palisade cells? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would think not. As explained at Palisade, "palisade" just refers to shape - like a paling fence. Gderrin (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale about reining in mass stub creation. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the sinking of Hebe into Veronica is now quite widely accepted, although resisted by many gardeners. A problem with maintaining an article like Hebe (plant) is that there's no reliable up-to-date list of species, since comprehensive reliable sources use Veronica. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind that I changed "hebe" to point to what I believe is the correct page you are referring to. Hardyplants (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! What's your view on the question? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I know veronica well enough, and Veronicastrum which now seems be in Veronica too, but Hebe is a genus I no experience with. Among gardeners name changes take time but it occurs a lot faster now with the internet. I still morn the loss of all the North American Asters, because I can not spell the new taxon names. Hardyplants (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Move species articles to Veronica titles. There didnd't seem to be any opposition to that when discussed last year at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#Hebe_vs._Veronica (I read Abductive's comment as not wanting to move the articles himself). I'm fine with redirecting Hebe to Veronica; if there's a good infrageneric classification it could be restored. I don't think Hebe has as much horticultural interest as Azalea; if it does, retaining the article would be an option (on a semi-related note, POWO now includes many more species of Coleus than are listed in that article (Coleus was treated as a synonym for a few years, but had an article the entire time)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Re Coleus, I think you mean List of Coleus species needs to be checked; the list in Coleus is just a deliberately partial one (I'm always doubtful of the value of these). When I updated the list article in 2020, PoWO had only revised up to epithets beginning with C. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I've now updated the species lists at Plectranthus and List of Coleus species. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, moving the species article is something to put on a to-do list! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now moved Hebe (plant) to Veronica sect. Hebe and made some fixes; more eyes to check would be useful. The list of species shows the species articles that need to be moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I will move the species article and do quick post-move cleanup. No such user (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

All moved now. What remains to be done is:

• Check validity of Veronica recurva. GBIF indicates that it is a synonym of Veronica albicans.
• Check wikidata entries, particularly for Veronica rivalis and its synonym Hebe acutiflora. What do they do in such cases, merge the entries or...?
• The articles would benefit from automatic taxoboxes. (do we prefer {{Speciesbox}}?) Veronica breviracemosa already has one. No such user (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the moves

I'm not sure that Veronica recurva has ever been formally published. But there are some horticultural websites that use the name. POWO lists Hebe recurva as unplaced; unplaced can mean "no correct name is available in an accepted genus" (i.e., POWO wants to accept the species, but doesn't accept the genus). New Zealand Organism Register (NZOR) treats H. recurva as a synonym of V. albicans. Wikipedia could follow GBIF/NZOR

Wikidata maintains separate items for different scientific names that have been regarded as synonyms. Wikidata items should not be merged. However, Wikidata prefers to have all Wikipedia links attached to a single item. As the majority of Wikipedia editions have Veronica rivalis, links could be moved from the Wikidata item for H. acutiflora to the item for V. rivalis.

I'll take care of speciesboxes if nobody beats me to it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Stumbled across this while patrolling new articles. I saw the iNaturalist source, which names it as the Pacific oak fern, but also appears to be in a similar state to Wikipedia reliability-wise, so I tried to find another source to replace it with. I ended up finding an EOL source and an efloras source, which seem to disagree on the common name – the iNaturalist article sources to both, the first calls it the Pacific oakfern, but the latter calls it the Western oak fern... which is already used for Gymnocarpium dryopteris, at least on the wiki article and in a quick google search. I'm just hopelessly confused here, and plants are not one of the areas I specialize in, so I'll leave it to you guys. The iNaturalist source should probably be replaced, but because of this, I have no idea what to replace it with. Cheers. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A common problem with common names (especially for species with such a wide distribution). Gderrin (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Plants can have a number of different common names, for this species a simple goggle search brings up: Pacific Oak Fern,^[1] western oak-fern,^[2] Pacific oakfern,^[3] as such each comma name should be mentioned. Hardyplants (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Gderrin has already taken care of this. Hardyplants (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of clarity over the correct name for the taxon created by sinking the family Epacridaceae to subfamily rank. I've written this up sat Epacridoideae#Taxonomy. Many sources use Styphelioideae, since it has precedence over Epacridoideae when used as a subfamily name – this seems to be generally agreed, and is supported by the entries in Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. However, the commentary here at p. 225 on the proposal at p. 224 for a change to the ICNafp seems clear that if the proposal is adopted, Epacridoideae will have precedence. Looking at Art. 19, it seems that Art. 19.5 has been added so the proposal was adopted, unfortunately without an example specifically on Styphelioideae/Epacridoideae.

• To avoid accusations of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, there really should be a secondary source that discusses the correct name for the subfamily. Does anyone know of one? Now found one: doi:10.7751/telopea20147924, p. 320.
• I will now move Category:Styphelioideae to Category:Epacridoideae.
• I will also deal with Template:Taxonomy/Styphelioideae.

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Symphoria is a synonym for Symphoricarpos, but it is also the name of an orchestra, that I am working on a draft article on. I propose changing the current Symphoria from a redirect to Symphoricarpos to an article about the orchestra with a Wikipedia:Hatnote to Symphoricarpos. I would appreciate your feedback. Newystats (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I've done it. Newystats (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As noted at Cryptanthus § Former species, many species have been transferred to Forzzaea, Hoplocryptanthus and Rokautskyia. I see that Abductive and Premeditated Chaos did some work on Forzzaea, so these species are ok, but many Hoplocryptanthus and Rokautskyia articles need moving. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

On 18 October 2022, the Flora of North America article was tagged with Template:Notability by User:Piotrus. I think if it helps us to expand the article, great, but the volumes are definitely notable. Searching for references to the book volumes may not result in a good representation of usage of this source in worldwide literature, as the information is usually cited using the authors of the treatment, followed by the name of the treatment, then "in" the book. So, in essence, it is being cited by chapter, as we have it in our own {{eFloras}} template. For example:

• Barkley, T.M.; Brouillet, L.; Strother, J.L. (2006). "Asteraceae". In Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.). Flora of North America North of Mexico (FNA). Vol. 19. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 10 January 2021 – via eFloras.org, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.
• Brouillet, L.; Semple, J.C.; Allen, G.A.; Chambers, K.L.; Sundberg, S.D. (2006b). "Symphyotrichum". In Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.). Flora of North America North of Mexico (FNA). Vol. 20. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 4 November 2020 – via eFloras.org, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.
• Brouillet, L.; Semple, J.C.; Allen, G.A.; Chambers, K.L.; Sundberg, S.D. (2006). "Symphyotrichum pilosum". In Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.). Flora of North America North of Mexico (FNA). Vol. 20. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 6 November 2022 – via eFloras.org, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.

A "What links here" search on Wikipedia for this article produces thousands of results (probably tens of thousands, because it is linked to "FNA" in the {{Taxonbar}} template). The page may require a bit of work, but that doesn't make it not notable. While working within the Symphyotrichum genus alone and reading the professional journals, I will come across "Broullet et al. (2006)" citing one of these treatments. I think the usage and notability is out there. I'm surprised we are questioning it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eewilson While I agree this work is widely used, the problem is that wide usage =/= notability. You will note I've added a reception section, which weakly indicated notability (there was no such indication before). I am not opposed to the tag being removed, but what is needed is an expansion of the reception section, with more reviews, words of praise, and non-WP:ORish evidence of wide usage. I've also expanded Flora of China (series) with such a section. I am afraid that multiple entries in Category:Florae (publication) have dubious notability shown; some may be rescued, some - well, time will tell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: @Plantdrew: @Casliber: Can you folks help address this? Flora of Australia (series), Flora of China (series) have also been tagged with {{Notability}}, IMO erroneously, as well as have Flora of Thailand and Handbook of the New Zealand Flora. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe that anyone could think that this major project isn't notable. Wide usage in scholarly publications (search Google Scholar for example) is an indication of notability; if this isn't considered the case in the English Wikipedia, then the criteria are simply wrong.

If anyone wants to pad out the article (and I think it is padding) then this search throws up some plausible sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

All that has to be demonstrated is the impact factor, per Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's a multi-volume book series, so wouldn't be able to use the impact factor. Also I'm not so sure if there's a need to add a reception section to help establish that the topic is notable, since notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article according to WP:NEXIST. Also per WP:GNG a topic is notable if it's received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Because Flora of North America is a tertiary source, I would think that its use a reference in a variety of reliable sources such as books (published by reputable publishers) [4] [5], research studies [6], botanical societies etc. would indicate the the subject is notable. Perhaps the notability guidelines for WP:TBK can also be useful? It notes that for academic and technical books possible bases for a finding of notability include, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As explained at Pitcairnia subgenus Pepinia, the current consensus is that Pepinia is embedded in Pitcairnia. There are many articles that need moving if anyone is looking for something to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I took the first (easy) step. I moved the category and added a note. I might get time to edit articles and have them moved when I'm not just coming off lunch at work. If I undertake to do that, I'd like to do it in one sitting. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All moved now. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you left one species in the Pepinia category? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I picked up my courage and went with my feeling that it was just one simple, tiny oversight in a moderately monumental task. And I boldly moved it. Now the Pepinia category is empty. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Uporządnicki: you were right to suppose it was an oversight on my part. Thanks for fixing it! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families has disappeared; all URLs pointing to it now appear to go to the home page of Plants of the World Online. This means that a huge number of plant references no longer work. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This is accurate. There was an announcement. I'll find it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

https://powo.science.kew.org/upcoming-changes – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this had been threatened for some time, but the way that it has been done is very annoying; links to an entry in WCSP should have been forwarded to the corresponding entry in PoWO. WCSP had some features that don't appear to be as well implemented in PoWO, if at all. For example, WCSP used the exact codes in the WGSRPD; PoWO uses verbal terms that aren't always easy to relate to the WGSRPD code. Checklist generation is, at least at present, not developed in the same way. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not used the WCVP much, so I have no good frame of reference. If it will help, they provide a place where you can download that data here: http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/ – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They might store the WGSRPD codes but just aren't putting them in the data... hopefully. Perhaps a request? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Don’t know where I came up with WCPV.

is this something that can be addressed in the citation template? Orr does it go deeper? I’ve been working all week and had no trouble going to POWO through citations or the taxonbar link. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that WCSP doesn't use the same identifier as POWO and IPNI. WCVP uses a shortened version, the number without the prefix, e..g. urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:84615-1, so could be fixed. I suppose we can hope that the transfer is incomplete and redirects will be provided. When the IUCN change their links it took a while for them to add redirects. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we have any idea how many WCSP citations there are? Perhaps we could contact Kew and use such a number to make the case for maintaining redirects, or at least giving us a one time database dump that maps IDs so we could have a bot migrate references. Steven Walling • talk 20:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

1409 articles use the {{WCSP}} template. Another 534 pages have the link ":"wcsp.science.kew.org". That's less than I expected. I'll try to do a better search tomorrow. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Searching for "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families" gives 8,528 hits. (And of course it currently appears in plant taxonbars.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The link search is probably more accurate. Maybe if we don't see redirects here shortly, we could email Kew and ask them for a mapping of IDs from WCSP links to POWO, so that we could have a bot replace them all. Steven Walling • talk 06:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: the link search is probably not more accurate, because other URLs are used, e.g. those containing "apps.kew.org/wcsp". Every page containing "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families" should really be checked, but clearly won't be. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, botany taxonomies tend to become more complicated and names less easily readable. I understand that at least the two species Veronica spicata and Veronica maritima were for some reason taken out of the genus Veronica. In the same family Plantaginaceae a new genus Pseudolysimachion was created for the two and possibly for more species. Pseudolysimachion contains the species Pseudolysimachion spicatum, L., Opiz and Pseudolysimachion maritimum, L., Á. Löve & D. Löve. Veronica spicata and Veronica maritima may still be listed as aliases, so that the species can be found by their old name. Accordingly in Wikipedia, a URL for Pseudolysimachion spicatum should not be forwarding to Veronica spicata. Instead Veronica spicata should newly be forwarding to Pseudolysimachion spicatum. Same for Pseudolysimachion maritimum.

The split-off of the new genus Pseudolysimachion from Veronica can be looked up in infoflora.ch: see Pseudolysimachion spicatum (L.) Opiz, Pseudolysimachion maritimum (L.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Pseudolysimachion, and Veronica which still comprises a huge number of species with only 40 of them discovered in Switzerland.

The pages Veronica (plant) and Plantaginaceae would need to be updated and a new page Pseudolysimachion would be nice to have.

Unfortunately I don't know whether only spicata and maritima were moved into Pseudolysimachion. It seems, these are just the two species found in Switzerland which now belong to Pseudolysimachion. There could easily be more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pypes (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What is infoflora.ch and why should we favor them over any other website? Abductive (reasoning) 17:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a fairly long history of Pseudolysimachion being segregated from Veronica, but I don't know whether it was ever more than a minority opinion. There's about 30 species involved. POWO places them in Veronica. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia South Africa will be hosting a photographic competition (Wiki Loves Plants) to encourage people to upload plant photographs for use on Wikipedia. This has grown out of a need for pictures of fynbos species but we thought we might as well expand it include all plants. The main challenge has been to get the photographed plants correctly identified. This is why we have decided to host the event on iNaturalist so they can be correctly identified there and then uploaded later on to Commons for use on Wikipedia. Pictures will only be eligible for the competition if they are uploaded under a Creative Commons copyright licence compatible with Wikimedia Commons. The competition will likely take place from January to February 2023. We have some modest prizes for winning photographs and will setup a banner add for January and February to let people on Commons & Wikipedia know about it. I wanted to leave a message here about the event as it is directly relevant to Wiki Project Plants. As this stage we need a few people to help out with volunteering to help judge winning photographs (judged according to their ability to accurately illustrate their respective Wikipedia article) and possible help move qualifying images over to commons. I still have to look into how to do a mass upload from iNatralist to Commons. Please let me know if you are interested in helping out. Discott (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been confused by various image issues for around 15 years now, so, not sure if I can help, but please do post a note here after a bunch of images have been uploaded at Commons and I'll take a look. I'd be very happy to see new fynbos pictures at Commons; I was just complaining the other day that I couldn't find a close-up of a Restio flower for my latest list. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a probable stupid question, but I hope someone can answer anyway, for my own curiousity (and hoping it doesn't open some ancient and existential can of worms). When listing vernaculars in the lead, why do we seem to use or instead of and?

• ...commonly known as panicled aster, lance-leaved aster, or white panicled aster...

instead of

• ...commonly known as panicled aster, lance-leaved aster, and white panicled aster...

Perhaps or is grammatically correct in this instance? In the following, and is correct.

• Common names include panicled aster, lance-leaved aster, and white panicled aster.

Not a big deal, just curious. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My instinctive response is that I agree with you, "or" in the first example and "and" in the second. However, "and" is used when all names apply and "or" when only one does. So can something be commonly known by more than one name? Clearly all can apply (suggesting "and"), but perhaps they are regional and only one applies in any one place (hence "or"). In short, I'm just thinking aloud and don't know. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not confined to plants: when listing alternative names, the lede of any article would typically go like "also known as X, Y or Z": see the format used by the opening sentence of MOS:LEAD itself. – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The consensus here is not to say "commonly known", but just "the". Froobius foobar, the example or sample, is species... See WP:WikiProject Plants/Template for more guidance on article layouts. Abductive (reasoning) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Abductive, I try to follow the template, but I don't see anything about how to phrase the common names in the lead there. Can you direct me as well as to the conversation about the consensus on how to word that, as well as using "the" with common names? I've check for the latter in more than one place in the MOS because that question recently came up in a GAN, and we couldn't find anything to verify a consensus either way (using "the" or not, e.g., "the Kentucky aster" or just "Kentucky aster"). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is rather like the unwritten British constitution. One must look at the articles created and edited (and especially corrections made) by the most experienced editors. In the case of "commonly", it is misleading to say that particular vernacular names are in common use. Some common names barely pass WP:V, others may be unheard of in modern times, and others are in common parlance. A species may have all of these at the same time. In other words, the average vernacular name is not "common" and is not "known". Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR reply

My non-scientific, semi-random selection of articles (listed below) shows that commonly known appears to be commonly used; the is used less than 50% of the time; more articles seem to use or rather than and; and, WP:EDITCON is of value, but it does not appear to be consistent among articles wrt this topic, so saying there is consensus on how to word the common name list in an article or lead of one is inaccurate (unless there is more detailed evidence).

Long reply:

WP:EDITCON doesn't mention "most experienced editors", but consensus through editing is of value. It does say that there should be an edit comment and a reason for a change (or revert), which we knew anyway. I don't have an opinion on using the or not using it, but I wanted to understand what you meant by "consensus". I've followed what I saw in the beginning, and in highly-rated plants articles. I hadn't thought about it, but that phrasing "commonly known" does imply something different than common name as we mean it in biology; misleading, as you say.

Some that I have edited (without the normal boldface and wikilinks):

• Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (formerly Aster lateriflorus) is a species of flowering plant in the aster family (Asteraceae). Commonly known as calico aster, starved aster, and white woodland aster, it is native to eastern and central North America.... The flowers of calico aster.... [without the]
• Symphyotrichum novae-angliae (formerly Aster novae-angliae) is a species of flowering plant in the aster family (Asteraceae) native to central and eastern North America. Commonly known as New England aster, hairy Michaelmas-daisy, or Michaelmas daisy...
• Symphyotrichum kentuckiense (formerly Aster kentuckiensis) is a rare species of flowering plant in the Asteraceae family commonly known as Kentucky aster, Price's aster, Miss Price's aster, Sadie's aster, or lavender oldfield aster.

That is similar to what I have been doing elsewhere.

Of that genus before I came into the picture:

• Symphyotrichum ericoides (formerly Aster ericoides), known as white heath aster, frost aster, or heath aster...

Spot checking a few other FAs and some GAs, commonly known appears to be commonly used; as well as commonly called and also known as; with and without the, more without.

• Acacia pycnantha, most commonly known as the golden wattle, is a tree of the family Fabaceae native to southeastern Australia.
• Ailanthus altissima, commonly known as tree of heaven, ailanthus, varnish tree, or in Chinese as chouchun...
• Grevillea juniperina, commonly known as juniper- or juniper-leaf grevillea or prickly spider-flower...
• Salvia yangii, previously known as Perovskia atriplicifolia, and commonly called Russian sage...
• Lambertia formosa, commonly known as mountain devil, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae.
• Isopogon anemonifolius, commonly known as broad-leaved drumsticks, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae.
• Mammillaria spinosissima, also known as the spiny pincushion cactus...

And the list goes on. OTOH, here are some the usages without a mention of "common name".

• Ficus rubiginosa, the rusty fig or Port Jackson fig (damun in the Dharug language), is a species of flowering plant native to eastern Australia in the genus Ficus.
• Alnus glutinosa, the common alder, black alder, European alder, European black alder, or just alder.... The common alder provides food and shelter for wildlife...
• Ornithogalum umbellatum, the garden star-of-Bethlehem, grass lily, nap-at-noon, or eleven-o'clock lady, a species of the genus...

I don't see that there is consensus through editing wrt all of this. We may just each have our preference or just do in good faith what we think is best. The examples with more than one vernacular use or, not and, which was my original question, and I'll make sure I use or because of what has been said in this entire thread, unless grammar says to use and. While I don't have a preference on using the, I do think it reads weird for plants. For animals, I can see it: "The bear is a..." instead of "Bear is a..."; "The dragonfly is..." rather than "Dragonfly is...". Without the before the vernacular name, the sentence reads as an anthropomorphism. Frog and Toad are Friends. With plants, neither option does. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It may be necessary to go through and remove most of those instances of "commonly known" from plant articles. There are cases where phrasing requires no "the", such as Poa exampla, moneygrass,... which is sort of plural. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it worth noting that commonly known in the English language doesn't mean the same as common name in Wikipedian. A list following commonly known just means that these are names that are used in common speech, not that the name would meet WP:COMMONNAME. It refers to vernacular names with a reasonable amount of usage. Anyway, I thought the question was whether to use "or" or "and" to separate the names. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Abductive, I don't agree that removing the "commonly known" instances is necessary or even a good idea as it seems it would be a change to established articles simply because of personal preference, and, as Jts1882 said, not the discussion I came for anyway (refer to that can of worms I mentioned in the first sentence of the topic), although it has been a good conversation and food for thought, and I may change the few articles of which I am the creator or primary editor to use different phrasing. I think it is very important to Wikilink whatever phrase is used to the article Common name in order to avoid confusion. Good info here about "or" and "and". Thanks for the discussion and the input, and, as always, I appreciate everyone's indulgence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Any thoughtful approach to handling the material is more likely to be constructive. Nevertheless, older articles on plants have accumulated a great deal of weedy text (such as listing the plant's vernacular names in a bunch of Indian languages) that needs pruning. It would take an editor who could devote the time and effort to the task. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Abductive, I appreciate that lists of vernacular names are often of low quality, with odd transcriptions and absent sourcing, but that content is usually appropriate. Apart from the handful of widely cultivated and known plants (like pineapples or taro), and aside from the vast set of species that are only of interest to botanists, any article about a plant with some human uses (culinary, medicinal, ornamental..) should, in my opinion, list the names that the plant is known by in the cultures that use it. These names are likely to be used in the ethnographic literature, and they're much more likely to be encountered by readers in popular works (travel writing, fiction, journalism, DIY, etc.). For example, if you read a curry recipe, it's unlikely that it will instruct you to add a spoonful of Nigella sativa seeds; rather, it will tell you to add kalonji. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about things like Elwendia persica#Etymology where people feel compelled to add in every script, without any citations. Note that I have left the material in. Abductive (reasoning) 16:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The lack of citations is the biggest problem in Elwendia persica, not the listing of cultural names IMO. In some cultures, the names of foods have a significance (religiously, spiritually, historically), and I think being sensitive to that is important. We are Wikipedia in the English language, not Wikipedia of English or Western bias. Anyone want to find reliable sources for those names and improve the article? Seems it would be a good exercise and growth experience. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So, someone made this change with the comment "There is no correct pronunciation for neolatin scientific names". MOS:PRON sort of hits on this at MOS:PRON#English (third paragraph); there is no instruction in our Taxon Template to have one (or not to have one). The change comment makes sense. What is normally done? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Jepson Manual (page 11 on my edition, "Pronunciation of Scientific Names") does outline pronunciation suggestions for neolatin names. This page may also be of interest to the conversation. Mbdfar (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have at least four books that give pronunciations for Neolatin scientific names, plus Stearn's Botanical Latin. Sometimes they agree; often they don't. Aechmea, which I last looked up, is a good example of disagreement. The second syllable can be pronounced as in "keep" or as in "get". The stress can be on the first or second syllable. The final "a" can be pronounced "ə" as the usual last syllable in "data" or as in "at". But I've heard hobbyists pronounce it "atch-MEE-a" with the first syllable as in "hatch". (Presumably "etch" and "eetch" for the first syllable are also possible.) Generally I favour not including pronunciation guidance, but I put a couple of sourced possibilities in the Aechmea article, because it seems to me an odd looking word. However, who knows which, if any, pronunciations are actually widely used, and whether this differs by country. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Two informative responses. Thanks folks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My conclusion is that if I want to do it (and I really have no desire to, I was just being super diligent back then because I was working on that article in my early plants days and trying to make it "perfect", – ahhh so young and naïve), then whatever pronunciation(s) used should be reliably sourced and cited just like anything else, and surprisingly, I hadn't even thought about citing that! So it was a good removal, and I was just more or less curious, although I did include it as something minor in my Hall of Wikipedia WTFs. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If pronunciation is included, it should be sourced. Few articles include pronunciation (sourced or not). For a fair number of articles with sourced pronunciations, the source is the Sunset Western Garden Book; this is due to the work of a single editor in the early days (2009) of Wikipedia. I don't think very many people know how to interpret IPA spellings; the practical benefit to readers is low. There is no such thing as a single "correct" pronunciation of a scientific name, but I think it is unusual to pronounce the "o" in Symphyotrichum as "ə". Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elmutanto:, a user with less than 100 edits, has been making massive changes to the taxonomy of gymnosperms (particularly conifers and gnetophytes). Although the source of the taxonomy has not been explained, I assume it is from the proposed taxonomic scheme in Recent advances on phylogenomics of gymnosperms and a new classification published in July 2022 in Plant Diversity. I do not see how this recently published taxonomic scheme has a wide enough consensus yet to just straight out redirect and merge longstanding articles like Gnetophyta without consensus. I have undone the changes to the Gnetophyta related articles, but I would like to hear others thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Per their edit summary at Pinidae, they are following the July 2022 publication. Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at the validity of Citrus amblycarpa (new article)? There's a citation given for "Citrus amblycarpa Tanaka, nom. nud.", but that goes to an entry for "Citrus sphaerocarpa Tanaka, nom. nud." - and anyway, nomen nudum? PoWO thinks this refers to Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse. I can't make heads or tails of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I can try to make sense of it if someone doesn't beat me to it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr – Article doesn't look valid as written. IPNI doesn't have it, nor does COL. Tanaka has several nom. nud. names in Citrus listed in GRIN. Editor is brand new. Probably should be moved out of article space.

detail – There is no species with that name and authority at all in IPNI, which you likely already saw. The author given in the article is Chōzaburō Tanaka (a.k.a., Tyôzaburô Tanaka), at IPNI here https://www.ipni.org/a/10413-1. In the article for him is written "Many of the species Tanaka described are still recognized, but his overall scheme is not supported by modern genetic research." You can see in the IPNI list that there is no Citrus amblycarpa or Citrus sphaerocarpa. I am not familiar with the criteria GRIN or IPNI use for having names in their databases. Pull up genus Citrus in GRIN at https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=312282 and you will see 8 nom. nud. names, all by this same Tanaka. If the editor was intending to add an article for Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse, then some mentoring is needed. They look like a brand new editor. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eewilson: thanks for chasing that down! I thought the complete lack of database entries was worrisome. Note that reference 3 & 4 do refer to Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse. Seems to me that the stub would work by shifting it to that taxon (for which good taxonomic sourcing is available). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I think with a little tweaking of name and sources, it could work, assuming the other information is correct. But I have no idea. Didn't check that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment in the context of the discussion, but Citrus taxonomy seemed to be a total mess, with wide variations between sources when I looked at it. A problem appears to be that artificial hybrids and cultivars were historically treated as if they were true species, so there are many names in the literature that don't have a clear application. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Reworked for Citrus × amblycarpa and moved. Thanks all! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I made a couple of tweaks. Don't know how we do sections in hybrid articles, but at least we got it correct! Thank you! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page of Glossary of botanical terms (a high-importance article for WP:Plants), I propose to remove lichen-related terms now made redundant by the Glossary of lichen terms. I'm not sure how widely that page is watched, so I invite any comments on this proposed trimming on the talk page. Esculenta (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Esculenta: Since we've essentially just moved the terms to a new list, I'd say be bold and go for it! Steven Walling • talk 20:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with guidance from Plantdrew. Esculenta (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Could someone look at this question I asked a month ago on the talk page of Glossary of botanical terms? It looks like a possible typo or editing error in the code, but I'm not sure. Talk:Glossary of botanical terms#indusiumbiternateindusium? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I think. Gderrin (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks fresh and clean to me. Thank you, Gderrin. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Tulip mania for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

or "List of commelinid family names with etymologies"? You choose. The parent article is named List of plant family names with etymologies, and there's a technical argument that words have etymologies, not families. But just about everyone I'm asking thinks that the longer name is too long, so personally, I'm now leaning toward changing "family names" to "families". I'd rather not drop "with etymologies", at least not without some discussion, but I suppose that's negotiable too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Eewilson thinks that the current title is ambiguous on the question of whether I'm leaving out some of the families because I couldn't find good etymologies ... now that she says it, it feels ambiguous to me too. Unless there are objections, I'll shorten the name. (And of course, any other feedback is also welcome, here or on the list's talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep the word 'names' in the title, or just List of commelinid families which is a redirect to List of commelinid family names with etymologies. I'd rather not see separate articles develop, a la List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Abductive (reasoning) 16:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

List of X families, as mentioned, is what I think is best. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. "List of X RANKS" is the standard form for species, genera, etc. Let's keep to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Done, for all three lists (commelinids, alismatids, lilioids). Lamiids and campanulids (I think) are coming soon, too. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Celery#Split proposal (again) for a proposed split. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There are some issues at PoWO concerning the connection between genus and species entries. For example, right now, the Kafirnigania entry does not connect to the sole species entry at Kafirnigania hissarica, nor vice versa. In a similar way, some species are also missing from lists of species at genus pages. I've reported this and been told that it seems to have been a problem with the update last Monday, but no-one is around to fix it at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been reviewing Talk:Persea palustris/GA1, and after giving my first go-through, the nominator said they are unfortunately going to have to pull back and not continue with the process (courtesy tag of User:An anonymous username, not my real name). I was given the go-ahead on the general GAN talk page (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New nominator allowed?) to seek a new person to step into that role. The review is currently in on-hold state waiting for the issues to be addressed. Anyone want to give it a go? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Second (and last) call for a replacement "nominator" of Persea palustris. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moringa#Requested move 7 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why am I put as Article Alerts? Did I do something wrong? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:BloxyColaSweet, to what are you referring? Are you sure you are asking the question in the proper place? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, its resolved. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all, relatively new seriously editing plant pages. I just did an extensive revision of Geum triflorum. It is still not as perfect as it could be, but it is much improved. Should I post it for review somewhere? Or is the assessment of quality thing not currently part of the Plants Project? Thanks. MtBotany (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think its fine, your great to go. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

MtBotany, what type of review are you looking for – are you interested in submitting the article as a DYK or Good Article candidate? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@MtBotany:, this is the best place to ask for a new quality rating for an article you've expanded. We do want to update quality ratings for expanded articles, but it may be a long time before somebody notices that an article has been expanded if it's not specifically brought to anybody's attention. It is also entirely appropriate for you to update the quality rating yourself after you've expanded article (as long as you're not assigning it a quality (FA/GA) that requires a formal review). Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thank you for the explanation. I'll look over the article quality ratings once I have a little bit do distance (mentally) from my own work. Also, I noticed when going over Geum triflorum's past editors that you did some work on the article. Thanks for your work on it.

I think it is not quite DYK, @Eewilson, though I did find the botanical taxonomy snark by Hitchcock to be mildly amusing. I just was not sure about if there was a specific team that does the good/start/stub/etc. ratings.

Thanks all for the information and off to work on my next plant. All plants need descriptions! And possibly a little list. MtBotany (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for what you're doing, MtBotany. Take a look at Geum triflorum again, proofreading and such, before you move on. I saw some things we can discuss on the talk page if you wish. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello ! :) Is there propositions or willing to work on a plant usage categorization ? I can find disparate information like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicinal_botany which is deprecated or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation. But I can't find a project that aims to centralized and organize this kind of information in wikipedia and link the information on the plant pages. There is this project but its in early stage and there not a lot of people involved : https://uses.plantnet-project.org/en/Main_Page. I'm not sure if I should rather work on plantuse or integrate a categorization of uses in wikipedia. I suppose I could do both.

The proposition would be to do something like this :

- Create a Usage tree (exemple : medicinal -> tonic / sedative / etc, Alimentation -> cereal / oil / etc, Environment -> Nitrogen fixation / erosion control / etc, Etc)

- Create a Usage box template for the plant page

- Use the Usage template in the plant pages

- Assign each usage in the plant page to a source

What do you think ?

Thx :)

Haymillefolium (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be concerned over the medical aspect if categories were created for uses. There are constant problems in plant articles caused by editors not adhering to WP:MEDRS. In the text, problematic edits can be flagged as needing an acceptable reference, but categories aren't directly sourced. I can see drive-by editors adding categories to support their belief that garlic prevents cancer, or whatever.

A "uses infobox" is a possibility; but what would be the advantages over just using text in a Uses section? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

1. About sources : I'm not very familiar with mediawiki but maybe we could script the Usages section so the content is fetched from a specific project where strict rules are applied ? I imagine a plant usage page that is linked to the usage section of the plant page.

Or maybe we could even fetch the content from https://uses.plantnet-project.org where the policy could be applied ?

2. Yeah we could just use a text section but adding an infobox can be helpfull to have a quick view, a list of all usages of the plant.

3. Is there concerns about source for other categories usages ?

Haymillefolium (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Re 3, the principle is that categories should be supported by referenced text in the article – which is certainly not always the case. But an unsourced distribution category, thus claiming that a species is native in a particular region without a source, isn't as problematic as an unsourced medical use category, which could seriously mislead readers and even endanger their health. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some plant species are in danger of being driven to extinction due to harvesting for their imagined medicinal properties. Abductive (reasoning) 02:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

yes I got it ^^ But for "other categories usage" ? And what about my proposition to a strict moderation policy ? We could also use wikidata to generate content dynamically and make sure a medicinal propriety is sourced. We could also rate the trust of the information related to the user account that uploaded the data. And below a certain trust we do not link the propriety to the wikipedia page. There is solutions, we can speak about them. Haymillefolium (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's desirable is a question to be resolved, but a uses infobox would be more scrapable that running article text. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)