Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Sunflower Flats wildflowers, BLM Elko District Cropped.jpg

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesParticipantsNew articlesIndex
WikiProject Plants (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Suaeda fruticosa[edit]

Our article Suaeda fruticosa says that Suaeda vera is a synonym. However, we have a stub at the latter title, and sources like PoWO treat the two as different species. In agreement, sources such as Stace (2019), New Flora of the British Isles, regard the European species as S. vera, like PoWO. Other sources are somewhat confused, but the current Suaeda fruticosa article seems mostly about Sueda vera. Does anyone have an interest in the genus and would be able to sort out the articles? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Suaeda fruticosa & S. vera were originally named for plants growing in Yemen and Egypt by Forsskål. According to Petteri Uotila, writing for the EUR+MED flora project in 2011, the name S. fruticosa has consistently been misapplied to S. vera in Europe. Both species are valid, only S. fruticosa does not occur in Europe, North Africa or the Near East, according to this source. In other words, S. fruticosa Auct. is a synonym of S. vera, not the other way around as stated in English Wikipedia. Confusingly, the Chenopodium fruticosum of Linnaeus in 1753 is a synonym of S. vera, but not S. fruticosa. Forsskål calls S. vera the 'true' sáu'da of the Arabs, as this was the species used by them in the production of ash for superior glass. The authorship attribution in Wikipedia is wrong: it should be 'Forssk. ex J.F.Gmel.'. See also the Flora Iberica from 1990. Stace 2019 appears to have copied the same text from the 2010 and 1983 editions =he's untrustworthy here, I can only assume the text is outdated... Frankly, he's probably just plain mistaken, see Nomenclatural changes in the list of British vascular plants from 1969. And here's another two guys repeating this info in 2001. Leo Breman (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
So I think the best thing to do is simply move all the text in the S. fruticosa article to the other one, and leave it stubby. Three sources from Pakistan/India may be the real deal, I'll double-check that, maybe this part can stay. I'm getting rid of the Plant for a Future website as reference almost entirely (common name can stay), as Mr. Fern is clearly confusing species here. Doing this now. Leo Breman (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Correcting tense in sections on Indigenous people's usage of plants[edit]

I'm not a botanist, but I spend a lot of time on the Wikipedia pages of different plants, particularly those native to North America, due to personal interest. I've found that a lot of them have sections about Native people's usages of plants for food/medicinal/fiber/other purposes, which I think is really good. However, it seems to be the default that those discussions are written in the past tense (i.e. "the Haida used its berries to make a purple dye"). While there might be a few cases where these usages truly are no longer practiced, a large number of them still are, so past tense shouldn't necessarily be the go-to. I think it would be worthwhile to go through and change all of these sections to use present-tense or time-frame-neutral language (i.e. "the Haida use its berries to make a purple dye" or "the Haida have traditionally used its berries to make a purple dye"), unless there's solid evidence that the relevant practice is no longer done. I've posted this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America as well. Thanks all for your help. Aquaticonions (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aquaticonions, it's great you're interested in plants and their uses. Regarding your concern about past/present tense, the burden of proof is in the sourcing. If a statement "the Haida used its berries to make a purple dye" is referenced to a source from the 19th century, changing it to the present tense would be unverified. I am part Arawak, my great great grandmother still used Socratea stilt roots to grind cassava, but that is quite definitely past tense. Great granny Trudi got a grinder. 'Indigenous' people have cars, TVs, emigrate, are epidemiologists, all the modern stuff... Indigenous English people used to hand over their daughters to the local lord to break them in before marriage, separate their society into economic castes, and drown elderly women as witches when they had a bad harvest, but these practices have largely ended over there, I gather. Native American cultures are likewise not static. Furthermore, especially in the USA and the Caribbean, many, if not most, Native American cultures have unfortunately largely been destroyed. If your sourcing proves a usage is contemporary, go ahead. If the sourcing is historical, which it will be in very many cases, then the only verifiable statement one can make is that the usage was historical. Leo Breman (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For historical references the form "the Haida have traditionally used its berries to make a purple dye" would cover it. It states the tradition and makes no assumptions about current usage. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above that neutral language in the vein of "has been used by" or "is traditionally used by" is best in the absence of evidence either way about current use. Another point though in the same vein - a lot of articles talk about use by Indigenous people in a separate section/sub-section from other uses. I don't think this makes much sense and seems rather exclusionary. I think it makes a lot more sense to give all the information about how it is and has been used for e.g. food by anyone, followed by information about use as medicine, and so on. Somatochlora (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I would agree and I suspect that's a manifestation of a common Wikipedia phenomenon, where someone approaches a series of articles from a very narrow lens ("does this plant have a traditional use?"), infodumps into each article from some compilation of same, and moves on without looking to see if they've duplicated information or trying to integrate that section properly into that individual article. That said, since you mention medicine, I think it's good to point out that in accordance with WP:MEDRS, we should be very careful in framing our statements about the medicinal value of plants. It's also best to avoid what I think of as the "everything-is-artemisinin" genre of information; there are an enormous number of papers out there where someone extracts a particular chemical from some traditional remedy, shows that it has some sort of in vitro bioactivity at high dosage, and encourages the reader to infer that the traditional remedy was clinically efficacious, most of which add (IMO) no value to the article about the plant from which they derive. Choess (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This has to be the silliest edit I've made yet[edit]

I have long suspected Wikipedia as being the most important source of logogenesis in plant names in the modern era, finally I got impeccable proof. Leo Breman (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Royal Horticultural Society plant ID[edit]

A Property has been created at Wikidata; Royal Horticultural Society plant ID, P8765, which was discussed here back in September. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to the {{taxonbar}}, e.g. for Quercus robur. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Chikadoma Plant[edit]

Hello all--I need some of you to have a look at this article, and please comment on the talk page--you'll see why soon enough. In short, the article is alleged to be a hoax (by User:Nomen ambiguum), the plant non-existent and the text a mish-mash (by Leo Breman, as well as a blatant form of resume-building (me). Leo Breman, perhaps you can also explain the accusation you made on my talk page, "The common name/title is apparently invented by the seller of the herbal products who is being referenced 20x". Before we take further steps I think it's worthwhile getting a few more pairs of eyes, since the remedy, in the end, will be deletion and an indefinite block if these allegations are correct. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence: "It is named for Nigerian pharmacologist Chika Ohadoma, who researched the plant in the rainforest of Southern Nigeria." Get it? The name is a portmanteau. Then check out the references: +/- 35 are all referenced to Chika Ohadoma. In the last reference, no. 49 dated to 2020, Chika Ohadoma apparently coins the brand name Chikadoma after himself. Then further, the name Chíkà is Igbo, and translates as 'God is supreme' =see who wrote the article, a guy calling himself "God is supreme".
Then botanically: Lupinus arboreus is a plant from California which grows in temperate climates (I have one), not Nigerian rainforests. The photos are of Boscia senegalensis, I'm pretty sure -at least this one grows in Nigeria, but not in rainforests, it is a typical sahel species. I could go on... Leo Breman (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the etymology of "Chika" is particularly germane here, but other than that, I would agree that this doesn't appear to be Lupinus arboreus (it does not look to me like a legume) and the article appears to be self-promotional. I wonder about the quality of some of these journals; in any case, I have argued previously that "extract from [plant X] has [biological activity Y] in vitro" papers of this sort are generally unencyclopedic. I would favor deleting the article. Choess (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, the editor in question calls himself "MrGodspower". Leo Breman (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems this is mainly a case of self-promotion (I assume) with an article that doesn't meet standards (notability, secondary sources, etc). It seems that there is a pharmacologist called Dr. Sylvester Chika Ohadoma at the University of Calabar who has published papers on bioactive compounds from certain plants. At best, if mentioned in a secondary source, this might merit a one sentence mention is an article on whatever plant it is. This article on the plant relies solely on primary sources by the person who the plant has been named after, which all seem to be on pharmacology. There seems nothing on the taxonomy or botany of the plant. It could be moved to Draft space, but I seriously doubt it could be brought up to standards. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't inspire confidence in the University of Calabar if they employ a pharmacologist who cannot correctly identify the plant they are supposed to be working on. I doubt that any plant has been named after the person who wrote this article, unless you count existing named taxa that someone has decided to add their own name to, but that would be nonsense science. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. I am going to delete the article, seeing plenty of consensus for it, and I'm placing this note here as a gloss. Elmidae proposed speedy deletion per WP:A10, and that is a good enough reason. In addition, it seems clear to me (also after article edits by Kevmin and Hardyplants) that plenty other elements are problematic, including a hoaxy quality and the use of predatory journals--and thus of resume-building and promotion, which would suggest the author could be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, or per WP:COI, or per WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. But maybe MrGodspower would like to comment here, before such a judgment is made. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops - was not aware of this discussion when I placed the CSD request, sorry. I was going by provided taxonomic info - it did not occur to me that that might have been made up. Well, looks like the article would have been headed for the slot in the wall in any case, for a variety of reasons :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your discussions on the page I had created. I was not the researcher but found the research worthy of having a page on Wikipedia. Let me first and foremost tackle the aspect of saying that the name Chíkà, an Igbo name was coined by the author to raise himself equal with God, anyone can bear it. He was named such by his parents, I think as no one can possibly name himself. Please that alone is wrong, no one has the right to question the name you bear, knowing that traditions and culture differ. What's obtainable in the USA is not in Nigeria or Ghana. Secondly, the same editor who countered the name of the author of the articles/researcher also countered my name by saying; (Sorry, yes, the editor in question calls himself "MrGodspower"). Let me make something clearer here, that's my name, and there is nothing wrong with name-giving as such. I have seen a situation where some White guys bear "Jesus" and no one questions them. I am offended at this juncture, I could tag this act with any meaning I may wish to, as it appears "offensive and link to racism."
I believe that Wikipedia is for all, but you guys are trying to limit some people, me or others with your mode of decisions and tackling of issues. One must not speak directly against you before you understands his/her inner thought.
Consider this and revisit your decision: Those journals are not African nor Nigerian based but outside African continent hence no issue of financial conflict of interest. It is noteworthy to emphasize that journals have Board of Editors who assess the suitability of articles for publication, not only that, articles are usually sent out by the Journals to external reviewers before a final decision is taken. Acceptance of articles is peer-review dependent. It is not a one man show. Please, download online the articles and see the merits behind the acceptance after peer-review by the Journals. The content of the article does not show duplication! Please take your time to discover this. There are other sources to Chikadoma Plant that are secondary, which are also cited in the page.
Finally, someone mentioned that I needed to comment here before the page is deleted, which is the right thing to do, but that wasn't considered, and the page was deleted without my comment (notice) here. Totally unfair, we all need to note that we strive to become the best we can, we are not perfect. Therefore, I humbly and reasonably requesting for the page to be restored, considering my submissions here. Thank you.MrGodspower (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that you should have been informed of this discussion and that some of the comments above are unfair and don't assume good faith (WP:AGF).
In my comments above I pointed out that Chika Ohadoma was a pharmacologist at the University of Calabar who has published some papers on bioactive compounds. I made no judgement on the quality of the papers, other than to state that they were primary sources. However, none of them seem to describe the plant that the article is about and I didn't see any other reference describing the plant as a variety or hybrid of Lupinus arboreus and naming it after Dr Ohadoma. For a Wikipedia article on the plant to exist it must have been formally described and subsequently referred to in secondary sources so that it meets WP:GNG. This is the reason for the deletion. None of this questions the credibility Dr Ohadoma's publications on the pharmacology of bioactive compounds from the plant, but this article is on the plant not the compounds and their pharmacology. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Godspower, please don't be so so touchy. I thought the name was evidence of someone promoting their own herbal products with this wikipage. Your wiki name and Chíkà have some similarity -as Choess pointed out, this was not good evidence on my part. You are offended because I pointed out your names are similar? You seem to assume I'm white and from America, both not true! Accusing me of racism doesn't make the botany in your article any better, which is what we are actually talking about. Please look carefully at this picture:
Lupinus arboreus kz9
The flower colour is yellow, not purple. Lupine has beans, not round fruit like the plant in the picture you added. Lupine has leaves which split into many leaflets like a hand, not single leaves. The pictures you added appear to be of three different species. I have never been to Nigeria, although I have always wanted to visit Calabar, but I have spent some time in Benin and Togo, with similar climates, and one cannot grow lupine there! (well... maybe on mountains) Both you and Dr. Ohadoma are obviously wrong with the identification of your plants.
Furthermore, there already is an article on Lupinus arboreus, what you should have done is added any relevant information about this plant there, not make a whole new redundant article based on a newly invented name.
Admittedly, I should have tagged you at the beginning so you could have followed this discussion, but you had the opportunity to respond to what I left on the talk page of your article. So I am sorry that you have taken offence, sorry you were not properly notified of this discussion, and sorry your work has come to naught -it was just not good enough, but I can truly understand why you are annoyed all your work has just vanished. Indeed "we are not perfect", me included. But let us all be serious about plants!
Please let me assure you we are all here because of a love for plants, and sharing what we know, and I cannot speak for all of us, but I for one would be very happy to help you add any relevant botanical information from a Nigerian perspective, if it passes muster. Regards, Leo Breman (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Plant-based societies and organisations - usable as sources?[edit]

Are plant-based societies and organisations approved as reliable sources for use in articles? I recently looked at some web pages published by the Alpine Garden Society and North American Rock Garden Society and wanted to use some of the information in an article, but I suspected that - despite being written by people knowledgeable about the subject matter - they wouldn't be regarded as reliable sources? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be. It's always possible that someone will decide to be a tool and wikilawyer about it, in which case a vigorous public shaming is warranted. Choess (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the organization. If it's a scientific professional organization, then it would of course be an RS. If it's more of a hobbyist organization, there isn't always going to be a reputation for fact-checking. Especially on the subject of plants, that's more of an issue of not reaching for the bottom of the barrel when you can typically find better sources on the same subject in government, extension, etc. documents. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I have found the Alpine Garden Society and the North American Rock Garden Society material to be quite useful, but I have not included them as sources in very many articles. Instead, I use them to find more scholarly sources that say the same thing. They point the way to what people find interesting about a given plant. Abductive (reasoning) 09:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that distinction quite cuts at the joint. There are plenty of "hobbyist" organizations, or at least ones I couldn't describe as "scientific professional", that are intensely interested in getting what they publish right; on the other hand, there are certainly others where getting things right about the nominal object of the society is secondary to using it as an opportunity to socialize. I suppose my mental breakdown for the societies listed would be that I'd consider them quite reliable on the core topic of horticulture; I'd consider them generally reliable for botanical descriptions, but would dig, as others have said, for scholarly sources if I were reviewing or expanding the article; and I'd be quite skeptical of using them to source many sociocultural claims ("this plant was used by natives..." and whatnot). I don't think the claim that "you can typically find better sources" on the same subject is necessarily warranted; e.g., to take the NARGS November 2020 plant of the month, I'm not sure the local ag extension is going to tell you how to germinate Androsace carnea, nor is it clear to me why they would necessarily be more accurate. (I'm afraid I have a burr under my saddle just now about the general shift of "reliable sources" discussion from "will this help us reflect the consensus on this subject from those who consider it" to "does this meet some generalized heuristic we invented", which is making my tone rather sharper than it really should be.) Choess (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Choess here; you don't need a degree or institution to say something useful, and plenty folks with degrees talking nonsense. Things like cultivation, cultivars, availability, marketing, vernacular names... these can all be culled from 'amateur' sources... and the line gets blurred in cases like PACSOA for instance. Some of these rock garden societies had some really experienced members when it came to plant collecting, cultivation, breeding or whatnot. Leo Breman (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm absolutely with Choess, too. (Disclosure: I'm currently the vice-chair and have been the chair of a local group of the Alpine Garden Society.) The AGS publishes a journal, The Alpine Gardener, and published the two-volume Encyclopedia of Alpines (being moved online). Many very well-known UK botanists are involved with the AGS, including Kit Grey-Wilson (botanical abbreviation "Grey-Wilson"), who has written many articles and also been an editor for the AGS. Clearly blogs produced by societies must be used with caution, but there should be no prejudice against such societies per se. Another useful source is the Pacific Bulb Society – particularly for the cultivation of bulbous species in temperate areas. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat[edit]

I really don't like confusing ecology with chorology (distributions). The template plant species article has 'Distribution and habitat' (actually, this is the first time I've ever looked at this article). I consider habitat pretty much the penultimate paragon of ecology. Sure that's what other projects do, but non-plant people are funny in that way. Plus how old is it? I think someone put that up there without much discussion 15 years ago, but why ascribe to such dictates?... Yes, one @Circeus: changed it from "Distribution" to "Distribution and habitat" in 2009... Can we discuss me changing the template?

While I'm at it, how about I add the stuff about not making articles for subspecies we discussed almost half a year ago.

Also Abductive's list of genera could go somewhere in this project. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat definitely overlap in many cases. For example, Roscoea is an unusual member of the Zingiberaceae because it is confined to upland areas of the eastern Himalaya. Its habitat preference determines its distribution within the broad area of its occurrence, i.e. determines what units in the WGSRPD system it is found in. Again, consider Schlumbergera. It occurs in Atlantic Forest, above about 700 m. Its habitat determines its distribution: how would you break up Schlumbergera § Distribution, habitat and ecology? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
That particular Schlumbergera article is well-written, and I'm not suggesting rewriting things that are already well-written; I want to change the suggested layout so as to nip things at the bud, but the distribution in this case is São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo. You could zoom in further: far eastern Minas Gerais, west of the city of Yadayada, etc. WGSRPD is a good system for distribution -it's pure geographic based on political entities, unlike the WWF's useless ecoregions, which tries to mix habitat with geography. Geography does not determine habitat, nor visa versa. Take Roscoea -it's habitat(s) might be cool temperate mountain woodlands - these woodlands also occur in Vietnam or Pakistan, or Italy, where it does not occur. Distributions shift, sometimes quite rapidly, habitats do not. A species can exist in multiple habitats, sometimes this changes according to distribution. Extremely limited distributions can be mysterious -why, when the habitat extends further?
Sure you can meld things in a very short sentence: "Foo europeanus grows in Turkish forests". But Thrace or Anatolia? Which vilayets? Can I find one in Izmir? How is the spatial distribution, clustered or diffuse? Is it changing?
Which forests? Oak or pine? What pines? Old growth or secondary? Does it occur in clearings or at the edges or in the undergrowth? Which altitudes? Near water? What other species are associated with it? Leo Breman (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

() Ignoring everything that the discussion sidetracked into, the base question is "these are two separate topics, I don't want them together". Virtually every single other issue you cite has nothing to do with the template and all to do with "people are not writing enough detail in the article to satisfy me". This is in no way a problem with the template.

Now as for combining the sections, there are practical reasons for this, namely that general writing guidelines hold that we should avoid as much as possible single-paragraph sections. This is already difficult with the template as-is. Formally splitting these sections in the base template would result in even more single-paragraph, or even single-sentence sections than we already have. You also yourself point out that distribution is constrained by habitat, which is another very strong reason to treat the two topics as one.

As an aside, I know at one point the template included language discussing the splitting off of subsection or special topics into separate sections. Obviously, if these two topics are unusually detailed (we're talking multiple paragraphs each here), then we should consider splitting the section in two, but I have literally never seen a plant article where this couldn't be handled in a single section with 2-3 paragraphs. Usually the issue is ecological material being mixed in anyway. Circéus (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Tss, I'm not complaining about "people not writing enough detail". My problem with the template is that there are "two separate topics" which I don't like seeing together, yes: detail can be added later. General writing guidelines about avoiding micro-sections are fine, and in all these stubs it's fine to bundle up a few sentences, but the template is supposed to represent a complete article, no? Not a suggestion for writing stubs... It might be useful to have a stub template in that case! Leo Breman (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I agree that there would seem to be a natural line of cleavage between the purely geographic distribution and the factors that support survival in the habitat. And yet, perhaps as a result of spending too long with edaphic taxa, I feel like those things could actually be quite difficult to split. The distribution of Adiantum viridimontanum would seem fairly arbitrary if you didn't know it was being faithful to serpentine. Maybe the existing line of cleavage is similar to the one between ecosystems and communities; "habitat" covers the nonliving aspects of the niche, while "ecology" covers interactions with other organisms? That seems like it might be defensible. Choess (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with a 1-size-fits-all template. Writing about edaphically restricted taxa one would generally end up combining these sections. But geography can usually be expanded to a level people do not always do... For a European, it occurs in the "eastern US" may be enough, but if you live in North Carolina you might want to know if it occurs in your state, your county would be even better info in rare plants. With Adiantum viridimontanum (quickly read your article) I'd put the split after the first paragraph -it occurs in such few areas there is little to say regarding distribution... but you could still talk about spatial distribution, palaeogeography, possible changes in distribution, etc. Chorologically such a species is extremely interesting -where was it during the last Ice Age? The asbestos mines stuff is interesting, have they increased the distribution?
By definition ecology is the adaptations/interactions of a species to both abiotic and biotic factors... things can get extremely complex- an abiotic factor might be sand cliffs cut by river meanders (a habitat), needed as nesting areas by certain bees, needed as pollinators by the plant growing in another nearby habitat. That's all ecology. Sand cliffs aren't a geographical entity. An epiphyte growing only on a certain species of tree -the tree is the habitat, despite being biotic. It seems silly to have a section on ecology and then leave out the most salient aspect of ecology. Redefining ecology to mean something different on Wikipedia than in the real world, by leaving out abiotic factors... I'm against that.
There are obviously connections/overlaps between the two subjects, but that can be said for anything really -genetics and evolution could be combined with distribution like I just did here Digitalis minor. The point of having a template is to provide a writer with some ideas on how to build out the article, why should distribution and habitat always be combined? Because Circéus boldly c&ped that from other templates 11 years ago? He/she improved it, the template was almost empty beforehand, but now I'd like to discuss changing a part. It's not like anything was discussed back then. We can change things around here, no? If people are against it I'll dejectedly droop off... Leo Breman (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Just make the change(s) to the template that you want and I for one will promise to keep an open mind and not revert without due consideration. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed, but I'm trying to get a bigger picture of the trade-offs we're making here. I think as a template for generic articles, the current setup is probably preferable. The FNA style guide puts phenology, habitat, and distribution together, and FOC seems similar. Of course, it will be objected that we're an encyclopedia, not a flora, but I think the set of taxa for which a lengthy ecology section can be written, even with a good canvass of the literature, is probably a small subset of the total number of relevant taxa. We could certainly have language in the template indicating that when an ecology section can be written, it's best to combine it with the material on the habitat, but unfortunately I think those articles will be few and far between.
re. A. viridimontanum, per my latest update, it shows up in northern hardwood forests modified by ultramafic runoff, and I know Morgan found a big population in an old talc quarry as well. The coastal Maine population is in a pretty generic mixed conifer-deciduous forest of the sort you'd expect in that area; there's no clear ecotone on the edges of the serpentinite. The landscape modification by quarrying etc. (in ultramafic rock) probably creates good cleared areas for gametophyte establishment or something like that. Choess (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Cool, I've done as Abductive suggests and made the change -it turned out to be small. My thinking has evolved a bit: make clear combination is optional if one lacks enough text or is only writing a stub. I like writing long articles myself, the more ecology the better, but it's true that there is usually little info on the subject with more obscure plants. I also moved 'uses' up to in front of 'cultivation' from all the way at the back of the template. It seems to me these things are very related -A "use" such as food or textile or ornament, will generally require cultivation. Was a bit taken aback with Circéus' reply. It just seems odd to me to have an 'ecology' section, and not to have habitat in that. If you all really don't like it, there is always a revert and edit button! Leo Breman (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think there's (yet) a consensus for the changes made, so I've reverted them.
There should be a relationship between the template and the highly rated articles overseen by this project. There are a large number of FA Banksia articles, for example – see Category:FA-Class plant articles. All of those I looked at seem to have a "Distribution and habitat" section. So by changing the template in this way we would be saying that the FA articles aren't a guide to be followed. I believe we should be doing the reverse: constructing the template to model what the community considers to be our best articles.
There may be cases where finer or different sectioning may be better, but the existing template seems to reflect widely accepted actual practice. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The prevalence in the FAs could reflect inertia, but I agree that the change is still a bit premature, at least on that specific point. Here's another thought: why not simply merge the "Distribution and habitat" and "Ecology" sections? Describing the distribution will never be that long: fundamentally, that data is best represented with continuous variables (i.e., a map) rather than by enumerating discrete geo-political units, hence all the wrestling with geographic categories. The distribution can be described in general, but presenting county-level distribution for most US plants would require an unacceptable quantity of "proselist". I have trouble seeing it exceeding two paragraphs, and that in an exceedingly well-researched article. (Counterexamples appreciated!) Similarly, even for really fussy, niche species, it's hard to see a description of "habitat" taking up more than a paragraph or so. Even for one of the taxa with a well-developed ecology section, I don't think that would be overstuffed. Choess (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For better or worse, "Distribution and habitat" is our widely used style. It was chosen so long ago, that to change it would require reworking a ludicrous amount of articles. (Though I am also of the opinion that presenting dist and habitat in the same section is a logical presentation). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think having "Distribution and habitat" in the template is fine. It's just a template after all. You're not required to abide by it in cases where it doesn't make sense. In a lot of cases, however, I think it would be perfectly fine to include both topics in one section. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template; this project is following the parent project. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, oh well. Well, I guess I'll have to accept the consensus. Drooping off time! In reply to Peter, though: that's not a good argument: obviously all articles which have been accepted as FA according to certain template will abide by that template. It's a widely accepted template because it is the only template. Changing the template doesn't say FA articles aren't a guide to follow, they're still FA articles one could follow. The template is also just an example of something to follow. If we accepted the argument that something should not be changed because that's the way we've always done it, then women still wouldn't have rights, slavery would still exist, and I wouldn't be using a computer to write this message. Choess: here's an example of a long distribution section: Peganum harmala. Leo Breman (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

St. Vincent grape[edit]

Not super familiar with notability standards etc. regarding plants. If anyone would be willing to take a look at Draft:St. Vincent grape and offer some insight, it would be appreciated. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)