Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex

Limosella

POWO and WFO place Limosella in Plantaginaceae. Accordingly I updated the categories for the article, but now I'm uncertain. Most other sources, including recent phylogenetic studies, have it in Scrophulariaceae. And there's tribe Limoselleae in Scrophulariaceae; presumably it would be renamed (Manuleeae?) if the type genus were no longer in it. Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't found any recent phylogenetic studies that place Limosella in Plantaginaceae. It used to be grouped with Gratiola (in Gratioleae or Gratiolaceae) and Gratioleae is now included in Plantaginaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! For now I left the genus in Scrophulariaceae tribe Limoselleae, with a note that POWO and WFO place it in Plantaginaceae. Tom Radulovich (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

APweb can be used as a source to support the placement of Limosella in Scrophulariaceae. There is a discussion of the background in the Phylogeny section of Plantaginaceae and Limosella is placed in Limoselleae] in Scrophulariaceae. Limosella doesn't seem to have been included in broad molecular studies. Ito et al (2015) only looked at Limosella species with a couple of related genera as outgroups, so the statement that the phylogeny and biogeogrpahy were inferred from molecular data needs qualifying. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Calendula palaestina

Hi everyone, I'm very new to this, and I've just had a go at my first plant article (in my sandbox). My mentor has already made some useful comments, but has suggested I run it past you. I'd really appreciate any help you can offer in this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Links for the topic (Calendula palaestina, Palestine marigold) and relevant sandbox:. POWO has a record (Calendula palaestina Boiss.) and there is an item on Wikidata (Calendula palaestina (Q15554215)), which I've added to the {{taxonbar}}. It passes the criteria for an article, with appropriate taxonomy, but I'll leave it to others to comment on the biological aspects. There are many stub articles with far less information. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that: do you think I should just shift it to mainspace as it is? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Distribution

Can you tell us a bit about its region of origin and current distribution, please? 89.111.118.86 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlikely, as you haven't given any indication of what plant "it" is. Choess (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of "As of" templates

While looking at the project's cleanup listings, I noticed that several genera use Template:As of to introduce their species lists. On the one hand, this seems like a legitimate use of the template: taxonomy is dynamic, and species lists do change over time. On the other hand, if we followed this principle strictly, every article on a recognized plant genus would be permanently on the cleanup listing. For genera whose circumscription has remained stable, that's kind of an attractive nuisance; well-meaning people can waste a lot of time checking to see that, yes, there has been no change in this genus since 3 years ago, or whenever it was last checked. Given the easy availability of POWO/World Ferns for people who have to have definitive, at-this-minute species lists, I'm sort of inclined to avoid using the template and let interested editors update species lists at intervals of their discretion. I'd be curious to hear other opinions, however. Choess (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that {{As of}} put pages in the cleanup listing. I'm not I sure I understand how it is supposed to be used. There are lots of articles that need periodic updates. {{Update after}} is suggested to be used when there is an expected date that new information will be available (that's never the case for taxonomy), but it's only used in 5,100 articles. {{As of}} is used in 118,000, but there are surely more articles on populated places and corporations than that (populated places will have population figures update on a predictable basis from census results, and corporations will issue annual financial statements with revenue). Should every populated place/corporation have either "as of" or "update after"?

There's some value in knowing that a species list was last updated 10 years ago, but 10 year ago, species list would have been sourced to The Plant List, and I'd hope that World Flora Online becomes the standard in the next 10 years; we can search for articles using TPL/POWO/WFO as references. And there are genera out there that don't have any reference for their species lists, or don't have full species lists (perhaps just partial lists generated by PolBot).

I've never used {{As of}} when I've updated a species list. I do write "as of", but I haven't seen the value in typing the extra characters to incorporate the template. Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements as a "cleanup" category. I generally do use {{As of}} out of habit, but I accept that it has few if any realistic advantages over plain text "as of". I do definitely think that we should use phrasing like "As of DATE, SOURCE accepted the following TAXA:^REF" as an introduction to lists of taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Another perspective. In the WP:Lichen task force, we use Asof date templates for most species listings in genus articles. I'm working on a Wikiproject helper bot, which will, as one of its functions, check all instances of the Asof template, check the source species listing and compare with the article listing and create a report of genus articles that potentially need updating. Esculenta (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all. Perhaps "cleanup" isn't quite the mot juste but pages with that category will appear on the automated cleanup listing, which I probably should have linked in my initial post. It is broken out by category, so having a large number of articles in that category doesn't make the cleanup listing useless. The helper bot sounds very useful; I may veer around and start adding the template to genus articles I maintain as I work on them with the hope of eventually tying into that. Choess (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge a lot of articles into agroforestry

It would be great if you could comment at Talk:Agroforestry#Merge proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential significant change to species notability

Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)