|Main page||Talk||Taxon template||Botanist template||Resources||Requests||New articles||Index|
|Founded:||20 August 2004|
|Main page:||WikiProject Plants|
|How can you help?|
|This is WikiProject Plants, a collaboration area for Wikipedians interested in improving coverage of Plants. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list. To join the project, add your username to the list at WikiProject Plants/Participants or just jump in.
|Plant articles by quality and importance|
|WikiWork factors (?)||ω = 505,460||Ω = 5.60|
This table will update once per day, alternatively: Force update.
This WikiProject aims primarily to describe all plants, that is, all species and natural hybrids belonging to the kingdom Plantae. This project's scope also includes notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, botanists and botany-related articles.
This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life:
Media related to Unidentified plants at Wikimedia Commons
Did you know
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment
For the criteria used in assessing articles for this project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale. It is important to rate the quality of articles correctly; the number of Stub-class articles shown in the Statistics table near the top of this page is much larger than the number of articles which are actually stubs. It appears that editors who expand stubs often forget to alter the quality rating. Stubs are by far the largest class of en:wikipedia plant articles, represented in red in bar below.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template
These are now explained at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms).
Monotypic plant taxa have not always been treated consistently; see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. A brief summary is "use the lowest principal rank, but no lower than genus, unless the genus name needs disambiguating, in which case use the species".
Plant articles about groups of plants (taxa) are about the plants, not about the name of the group, and the opening of the article should reflect this (see WP:REFERS).
The MoS at WP:BEGIN says that where possible "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." So an article at the scientific name should begin with the scientific name; an article at the English name should begin with the English name.
Redirect pages should be created from at least all regularly used synonyms and English names, including alternative styling of English names, such as the use of capital letters, hyphens or apostrophes. (As of May 2014[update] the Wikimedia software automatically finds alternative capitalizations when these are typed into the search box but not when used as wikilinks. Although the policy of the English Wikipedia is to use lowercase for the English names of organisms, there are still many articles which don't. Thus there should be a redirect fromas well as from .)
See the Categorization of Redirects section for more information.
Some facts are not disputed:
After a lengthy discussion it is clear that there is no consensus, neither in reliable sources nor among members of this WikiProject, as to whether the grammatical number of the taxon name in Latin should be followed when writing in English. Accordingly, either may be used; for example, an article about a family may begin in either of the following ways:
(The use of "the" follows the standard English grammatical pattern for proper nouns: "the" is required with those that are of plural form, e.g. "the United States", "the Netherlands", "the Smiths", but is usually omitted with those that are of singular form, e.g. "England", "John Smith", although there are exceptions.)
For the use of common names as article titles, see WP:Naming conventions (flora).
Sourced common names used in English are to be included in taxon articles. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
In some cases, the genus name has become the common name for a group of plants, particularly in a horticultural context. These cases include:
Such uses should be explained in the lead, e.g. "Hosta is a genus of plants commonly known as hostas..." When a common name and a spelled-alike genus name refer to different groups this needs to be made very clear.
The singular of one of these common names is easily confused with an incorrectly formatted genus name and should be avoided as far as possible. When the plural means something like "those species and cultivars of the genus which are in cultivation" its use is more acceptable, as in "Hostas are widely cultivated, being particularly useful in the garden as shade-tolerant plants" meaning "Species and cultivars of Hosta are ..."
Dialects of English differ in whether they pronounce the "h" in words like "herb", "herbaceous", etc. Accordingly they differ in whether they use "an" (e.g. most US dialects) or "a" (e.g. most UK dialects). Experience shows that using either "a" or "an" in these circumstances leads to endless back-and-forth edits. Some ways to avoid such problems are:
Whenever a list of synonyms appears in a taxobox, a citation needs to be given to support the statement that these are synonyms. This will almost always be a single citation; it is not appropriate to accumulate a list of "synonyms" from multiple sources, since the separate sources may not be compatible with one another. In rare cases, it may be necessary and acceptable to include more than one citation, for example, if the synonym reference contains a misspelling, then a citation could be added that discusses the correct spelling.
There is as yet no single best source to cite for synonym lists for all plant taxa. The most appropriate source may be an authoritative monograph or flora, but assessing that type of publication requires care, and usually requires specialist knowledge. Databases are being developed outside Wikipedia to bring together summaries of the most thorough taxonomic work on all plant species, and these often provide suitable synonym lists.
Note: IPNI: (seed plants and lycophytes) is not an appropriate source for synonym lists (or species lists) because it aims to list all published names regardless of taxonomy; similarly, Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) is also not an appropriate source for a synonym list; rather, it aims to list all published opinions on synonymy.
It is desirable to discuss and fully disambiguate many of the large number of names found in botanical or gardening reference works that appear to be scientific names of plants, but synonym lists in publications often contain many elements that are not synonyms as the term is used in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and these lists can be both difficult to interpret and confusing. The following approach is suggested:
This is because in a Wikipedia taxobox (as in many other reference works) homotypic and heterotypic synonyms are not distinguished. For example, if a single cited source states that :
then the taxobox would list both Spiraea densiflora Nutt. ex Greenm. and Spiraea arbuscula Greene as synonyms of Spiraea splendens.
In addition to a unique cultivar name (regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), many cultivated plants have "selling names" or "marketing names"; the ICNCP calls these "trade designations". Trade designations are not regulated by the ICNCP; they are often different in different countries and can change over time. The ICNCP states that "trade designations must always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets." They should never be set in single quotes. Some are also registered trade marks (which cultivar names never are). There is currently no consensus as to how to represent trade designations in Wikipedia.
The template ((tdes)) can be used; one advantage is that if a consensus is reached in future, consistency will be easy to achieve.
''S. vulgaris'' ((tdes|Ludwig Spaeth))→ Syringa vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth.
''S. vulgaris'' ((tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|roman))→ Syringa vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth. However, the font will only be noticeably different if the main text is in a sans-serif font.
''S. vulgaris'' ((tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|smallcaps))→ S. vulgaris Ludwig Spaeth. Small capitals are generally disliked in Wikipedia.
''S. vulgaris'' 'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as ((tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|plain))→ S. vulgaris 'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as Ludwig Spaeth.
There are a number of standard categories that involve WP:PLANTS and that should be added to a plant article or redirect:
For the categorization of redirects using "R templates", see below.
Most articles on higher taxa already exist. For new articles on genera and species, put the article in at least the following categories (replacing capitalized words by actual names):
New genus articles
New species articles
Redirect pages involving the scientific names of plants should be placed into a "redirect category" using an appropriate "R template" as shown in the table below, unless the redirect is concerned with the accepted names of monotypic taxa. "Scientific name" is here interpreted broadly as meaning "Latin name", which may or may not be a valid taxonomic synonym.
|Scientific name||English name|
|From||Scientific name||((R from alternative scientific name|plant))*||((R from scientific name|plant))*|
|English name||((R to scientific name|plant))*||See ((R template index))|
* Subcategorizing the redirect as a plant makes access and maintenance via the appropriate category easier.
Where monotypic taxa are involved, there will be change of rank. There are two cases:
These redirects should also be categorized by taxon rank – see WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Monotypic taxa.
WikiProject Plants has a number of components, these include taxa, botanical topics, and botanists. When describing taxa with authorities, the authorities should be checked against the List of botanists by author abbreviation, and if necessary, added. Authorities should be linked, and if red linked, consideration should be given to creating a biographical page. Wikipedia has no specific criteria for botanists, although it has for scientists in general. In most cases recognising an author by linking their name to a species as an authority is a form of notability, and any requests for deletion should be directed to this section.
Botanist biography pages should at a minimum contain the following, the ((infobox scientist)) and ((botanist)) templates (the latter in turn creates a Reference to "Author Query" at the International Plant Names Index), a list of publications, including the ones that give them botanical authority status, and links to taxa they named, or are named in their honour. The botanist template will also generate a category (Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). In the Talk page the use of the ((WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=|botanist=yes)) template will link it to the project.
Carl Linnaeus can be used as a model for a Good Article of a botanist biography.
The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden has provided a centralized guide for editing and creating biographical articles for botanists.
Please always verify (and link where possible) the author abbreviations in the taxobox. (I have been working through the contributions of Joseph Dalton Hooker and all too often I find him abbreviated as Hook. f. rather than Hook.f.. See for example, Ascarina lucida, which had at that point 47 edits, and yet the author name remained unlinked and incorrect.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
|Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:|
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Resources