Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 

Validity query

Trying here after getting no response at wikispecies . . . on commons, I'm regularly having to remove misfiled images related to microorganisms from the category for the plant genus Microbiota. This makes me wonder: is Microbiota a valid genus name, or does it potentially breach ICN Article 20.2 "The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication..."? Microbiota was only described in 1923, so is later than the 1912 cutoff given in Art. 20.2. Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider microbiota to be a morphology term, and it's not Latin. If "biology" was intended of "morphology", the code could have said so. And specifying Latin has been in the code since at least 2006, and is probably a holdover from the requirement that description be written in Latin (I can the potential for confusion with descriptions having Latin morphology terms and comparisons to Latinized names of other genera).

I'm flabbergasted that commons:Category:Disambiguation categories of taxonomy has only five entries. There are tons of ambiguous genus names. How is commons:Category:Prunella the "primary topic" (Wikipedia jargon) over commons:Category:Prunella (bird)? Isn't the category for the plant constantly getting images of the bird? While I wouldn't call the two senses of microbiota/Microbiota "categories of taxonomy", Microbiota could still go in commons:Category:Disambiguation_categories.

MPF, I know you created a lot of articles on conifers, and I'm not surprised to have confirmed that you created the article now at Microbiota decussata (and that you did so under the title Microbiota). I disambiguated a lot of the links for the other sense of microbiota once English Wikipedia got that straightened out. Microbiota is monotypic. Given the ambiguity with another sense, there is no reason for Commons to be treating microbiota/Microbiota as the "primary topic" for a monotypic plant genus. Any commons files for the plant should just go in commons:Category:Microbiota decussata. This is a problem where you can perhaps make a step to get it out of your workload by making the Microbiota category on Commons a disambiguation category. Plantdrew (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I did wonder about the exact wording of Art 20.2, what exactly constitutes a name that would be considered a 'morphology term' breaching the article. "Species" is not a morphology term in the usual sense, but if anyone named a new genus of plants with the genus name Species, that would surely have to be inadmissible?? Ditto if someone named a new genus Familia . . . or Genus, for that matter. So it has to be wider than just a purely morphology term in the sense of plant part names.

Moving/renaming categories at Commons is a right faff, I suspect that's why nobody has bothered to do anything about it. There's several other cases similar to the Prunella example, like commons:Category:Agathis and commons:Category:Oenanthe, though commons:Category:Arenaria has been sorted out - MPF (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Flower is at FAC

Hello, I have just nominated Flower at WP:FAC and would very much appreciate any comments from members of this WikiProject; you knowing the topic the best. The nomination is located at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flower/archive2. Thanks, Dracophyllum 10:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ranunculidae

The article Ranunculidae has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. I've taught AP Bio and never heard of this. If you can find reliable secondary sources, please add them.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep now that @Jts1882: has added a reference. It is always going to be a very short article of primarily historical interest, but it is a valid article to keep - MPF (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I think short articles on now obsolete taxa are useful. We could redirect to the classification page, but it's in several classifications and would need searching for. The stub acts as a disambiguation page with links to the other classifications. I could add the references for the other systems, but they are in the linked articles.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to move Marchantiophyta to "Liverwort"

Main discussion is on the talk page. I'm requesting this per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Liverwort is by far the more used name and is much more recognizable. (from talk page:) Doing a quick google search (not the most rigorous method, I know) reveals a lot of government websites, universities, gardeners, etc... also use the term frequently (some examples I found: [1], [2], [3]). Even websites and papers that do use the name Marchantiophyta, including taxonomy sites, also tend to use liverwort more ([4], [5], [6]). ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Stale draft

User:YazonKnight/Hammada ramosissima is a stale draft within your scope. User:YazonKnight has not edited in over 11 months. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that there's enough for transfer to main space as a stub. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a valid species and there is enough for a stub. I've moved the speciesbox and added a taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Article request

Shocked to discover that Heinrich Mayr (1854–1911), an important German botanist, doesn't have an article. Anyone want to start it, please? See de:Heinrich Mayr, species:Heinrich Mayr for potential material. - MPF (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@MPF: actually he only has 29 names credited to him in IPNI, so by that criterion he isn't very important. If you look at List of botanists by author abbreviation (M), you'll see quite a lot of names in red, including, for example, Moxley, who is credited with 50 names. Writing articles on botanists never seems to have attracted that many editors, and the lists of botanists by author abbreviation all have multiple red links. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead Thanks! I'll see if I can at least start a stub (add it to my lengthy mental list of things to do!). I've not attempted to translate/read the German article on him yet, but its length does suggest he is of greater importance than just the number of names he published - MPF (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've (auto)-translated the German article. Esculenta (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Esculenta - excellent, thanks! Surprisingly (for machine translation!), I can't see that it even needs any copyediting. I'll get round to adding some bits about the species he described later - MPF (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Issue with Botanist template

The link generated by {{Botanist}} wasn't working; see Template talk:Botanist#Footnote link. It's a classic example of a website changing its interface. I think I've fixed {{Botanist}} and {{Botanist2}}, but please watch out for issues with these templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Flora of Scotland

Flora of Scotland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Tribe Vernonieae is orphaned from its member generas?

I was reading about a species of plant, went up to Vernonieae and realized that there's no way to go back down from here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonieae has no access to any species except for Vernonia. All of the subtribes are missing links, pun intended. Should we move the subtribes list from the infobox into Taxonomy, and replace it with a more practical genus list? 36.79.217.144 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably better to put both subtribes and genera into Taxonomy; look at "what links here" putting the genera in the taxobox would make the taxobox unwieldy. Is there a good source for the assignment of genera to subtribes? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There's the Global Compositae Database (also available at WoRMS). They have Tribe Vernonieae in subfamily Vernonioideae rather than Cichorioideae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)