Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:03, 26 January 2008 editCurtis Clark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,661 edits →Question for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants editors← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:42, 9 January 2025 edit undoChidgk1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions60,246 edits →Need help with banana tree: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{align|right
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Navbox}}
|{{NOINDEX|visible=yes}}
<br/>
}}
{| align="left" style="background:transparent;"
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants/Tab header}}
|valign="top"| __TOC__
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-12-17/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =17|month=December|year=2007}}
|valign="top"|{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archives}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
|}<br clear=all>
{{WikiProject Plants}}
}}
{{Navbox
|name = WikiProject Plants/Navbox
|state = off
|navbar = off
|title = WikiProject Plants Discussion Navigation
|titlestyle = background: #8AB681;
|listclass = hlist
|list1 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|list2 = ]: ]
}}
{{Archives|search=yes|list={{Archive list|prefix=Archive|start=54}}|title=Archives since 2011|box-width=22em}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|prefix=Archive}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive%(counter)d
}}


== Is World of Succulents a reliable source? ==
==Tree-content fork==
Hi. As the ] article is within the scope of Wikiproject Plants, I thought I'd notify the project members of a discussion occurring on ] due to the creation of a ] article that was recently created and then redirected, reverted and redirected again. Full disclosure: I am one of the edittors that redirected the "parts of a tree" article to the morphology section of the tree article. Regards -- ] (]) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting us know; I've responded at ]. ] (]) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, noticed some red links and am thinking of helping the project by creating new articles. Looked up the sources guide in the main part of the project page and didn't find anything under keyword searches for cactus, cacti, or succulents. Please provide pointers if I've overlooked something. One of the most readily available online references on the topic is the . Would you regard it as an adequate source? ] (]) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==


:I can't find authorship information for the articles there (and the first article I clicked seemed to have been lifted wholesale from gardeningknowhow.com, obligingly linked). I get the strong impression that this is some kind of content aggregation setup and probably not reliable for our purposes. The relevant project sources are probably floras of particular regions (i.e., South Africa), which may explain why your sources on particular groups of plants didn't turn up anything. ] (]) 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I need an outside pair of eyes on this article, partly because I rarely edit on Misplaced Pages anymore, and partly because any further edits to this article by me are likely to escalate to an edit war. In particular please look at the diffs in the by me and by ] in the last few days regarding the common names of ''Juniperus virginiana''. I have taken issue with MPF's characterization of "Eastern Red Cedar" as an "incorrect" common name. Of course this is a bit of a semantic quibble as the not-very-different "Redcedar", an entirely invented and still not widely used form of the common name, is apparently acceptable.
::Thank you. That's not unexpected. Appreciate your reply. ] (]) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If you're a cactus and succulent enthusiast, and you have printed books on the topic, adding material sourced to those would be extremely valuable to the encyclopedia—we all have a tendency to pick low-hanging fruit (e.g., online sources). A lot of it is old out-of-copyright material, but is also a good place to look for material of interest. ] (]) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Biodiversity Heritage is great, but you are right that it is mostly old out of copyright stuff. I find getting an account at and searching their book catalog for species names to be a fairly useful technique. As a succulent example if I put in "'']''" as a search in the book contents I get a lot of results. Government reports, old journals (the same ones from biodiversity heritage), and also many recent books. Wildflower guide books, gardening books, natural history books, etc. Here is an intersting one from my example search by Stephenson published Timber Press. Seems like a good reliable source. Hurm. And the article for that stonecrop is rather light... I might have the next thing to work on. ] (]) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Much obliged for the suggestions. ] (]) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Firstly, {{u|Baresbran}}, I see that you're new to Misplaced Pages: welcome!
:I would concur with {{u|Choess}} - while I don't see any particularly problematic information, the lack of authorship information is a big red flag. Best to avoid using that site and, on articles where it used as a reference, replace it with a higher quality source.
:For what it's worth, the excellent ''Illustated Handbook of Succulent Plants'' series is accessible through ] - this requires a 6 month old account and at least 500 edits, though I believe you can apply to access specific materials before those milestones. If you'd like any help finding more sources on succulents I would be happy to assist :) ] 🌿 (] &#124; ]) 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Have been checking proposed edits by running keyword searches on Google Scholar, so far. ] (]) 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Submitted proposed article ===
One thing I find particularly puzzling is that MPF continues to stress "Eastern Juniper"--still a rather uncommon common name for this species--as the first and apparently primary name, and using it throughout the article, thereby slighting the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature, the very same authority he cites in claiming that "Eastern Red Cedar" is an "incorrect" name, although their publication offers "Eastern Redcedar" as the standard common name. (] provides "eastern redcedar" as the only common name in English but apparently nobody has tried to tell the French what to call it as this publication accepts ''cèdre rouge'' as the French common name!)


Have started going through redlinks at ], starting stub articles where reliable sources can be found. The first submission is waiting for review as ]. ] (]) 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, the publication MPF cites to reject "Eastern Red Cedar" does not say what he claims it says, as far as I can find; they offer "Eastern Redcedar" as a standard common name without saying anything about the merits or correctness of "Eastern Red Cedar", and with no comment about whether or not it is a true cedar. As another aside, this publication was a bit controversial and encountered quite a bit of criticism when it was published, and has had only limited acceptance of its "standard" common names. ] (]) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Kelsey & Dayton page 95. - ] (]) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm only somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I refer to this as cultural imperialism. I grew up in Oklahoma, within the natural range of ''Juniperus virginiana'', and everybody called them "cedars". One of the research sites for my MS thesis was called "Lone Cedar Cemetery". Now I suppose you could say that we were all a bunch of rednecks (or in BrEng, "colonials"), but I knew of the tree as ''Juniperus virginiana'', and that it wasn't a true cedar, even before I read either "Easter Red Cedar" or "Eastern Redcedar" (which Firefox tells me is misspelled).


== Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status ==
:MPF plays the "Oh, poor us, stomped upon by the US hegemonists who want to force us to call our broom 'Scotch'", and honestly I see his point there, but his forcing British made-up "common" names on all us colonials I find incredibly offensive.


My apologies if this is something dreadfully obvious - I'm a new editor, so I'm just double-checking
:As I've said before, Misplaced Pages should be descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that, in eastern North America, deer are called "elk", elk are called "moose", and junipers are called "cedars" needs to be faithfully recorded, not suppressed.--] (]) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Record, yes, but we shouldn't be promoting misapplications as valid fact that should be used! - ] (]) 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It's a valid fact that people in Oklahoma call them cedars. It doesn't make them ''Cedrus'', and no one is saying it does.--] (]) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::If I can engage in a bit of a rant of my own, it's against what I call ''botanical imperialism''. Common names predate both botanical nomenclature and phylogenetic concepts by centuries. (Heck, even Linnaeus didn't labor under phylogenetic constraints!) There's a bit of hubris in botanists appropriating certain vernacular names or Latin or Greek words as botanical names (e.g., "lotus", "cedrus", "cactus"), then turning around and telling non-botanists that one name or another that has been in use for hundreds of years is "correct" or "incorrect".
::As an aside, it's interesting to note that "Standardized Plant Names" was originally intended to standardize names of plants ''in American commerce''. The names are a decidedly mixed bag. One of the more ridiculous recommendations is "falsecypress", apparently because "false cypress" didn't sufficiently indicate that the plant was not a true cypress!
::Oh well, I guess I need to go home and tell my parents their house is shingled in "eastern juniper" and not "cedar" as they thought. Then I'll head down to the flea market and tell all the vendors that they are selling "juniper chests", not "cedar chests"! ] (]) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Once a TNC conservation status is added to an article in ], is it acceptable to remove the category tag from the article? ] (]) 13:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have replied at ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think I'm not misleading when I say MPF is notorious amongst project members for those disputes (which erupted on '']'' shortly after it became featured). At least the Latin names convention removes the risk of move wars. ] (]) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::You would think so, but when I replaced "Eastern Juniper" with "''Juniperus virginiana''" in several places in the article, MPF reverted them to "Eastern Juniper". ] (]) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


:Yes. And thanks for doing the work. ] (]) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear, I just looked at to the ]. ] (]) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Because I cited material from a valid authoritative reference, even if you personally dislike it because it conflicts with your POV? - ] (]) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::No, because your edits perverted the entire concept of a disambiguation page in order to push your own POV. ] (]) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


== World Flora Online ==
::As has already been pointed out, that reference is far from authoritative, and because words like "incorrect" and "misapplied" are just fanning the flames. These issues are hard enough without that kind of thing and the previous wording ("strict botanical sense" and all) made the point just fine. ] (]) 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::"far from authoritative" in the opinion of one contributor here who has a clear dislike of the concepts of botanical education within it. I don't accept that as an unbiased opinion! - ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::And this is what is puzzling me more than almost anything: you've granted their authority in rejecting "Red Cedar", then turned around and rejected their authority by emphasizing the rather obscure "Eastern Juniper" rather than their recommended "Eastern Redcedar" as the primary common name for this species. (This is doubly puzzling in light of your often-stated principle of emphasizing common names that are in use in a particular species' native area.) ] (]) 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Why are you so vehemently opposed to calling something what it is, a juniper? If it is a juniper, it should be called a juniper, and not something else. I think your objection to fact is quite disgraceful. Or can you provide the evidence that it is ''not'' a juniper? - ] (]) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Good grief Michael, are you listening to yourself? I'm going to assume you can't support your own position because you've chosen to make a personal attack rather than address the issues I've raised. ] (]) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::P.S. ''Sabina virginiana'' (L.) Antoine. Poof! It's not a juniper ;o) . ] (]) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This is insane. Eastern red cedar ''is'' a juniper. Blue gum is a eucalyptus (and not a liquidambar). Butternut is a hickory and peanut is a legume. Norfolk Island pine is an Araucaria, and she-oak is a Casuarina. ] was a ''Brodiaea'', and now it's a ''Dichelostemma'', but it's still blue dicks. The Mexican poppy is either ''Hunnemannia fumariifolia'', or ''Eschscholzia californica'' ssp. ''mexicana'', or one of several ''Argemone'' spp., or else ''Kallstroemia grandiflora'', which is not a poppy. Cowboy rose is a mallow. Common names are exactly that: common. Some countries and some disciplines have chosen to regularize them, but refactoring or replacing all of them to form a system parallel to Linnaean nomenclature seems to me both a horrid waste of time and a way to enforce cultural uniformity.--] (]) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Curtis, as you well know we've been around and around this issue enough times to make us dizzy. Unfortunately I don't see that we've gotten any closer to a resolution than we have the last dozen or so times we've rehashed it. ] (]) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


The December update has been made on WFO Plant List and I've noticed that the updates haven't appeared in main WFO site. I was comparing '']'' as treated by Bryonames and WFO. ''Dicranella rufipes'' <small>(Müll. Hal.) Kindb.</small> is (still?) recognised as a species , but no longer or, with the December update, which have it as a synonym of '']'' <small>(Taylor) Müll.Hal.</small>.
:::In some respects I think MPF's edits to the disambig page were even more egregious. It's a page that links to articles for a word that is used ''ambiguously'', not an article itself (good grief, how many disambig pages cite references?), and his edits rather missed the whole point of it being a disambig page in the first place: that "cedar" is used as a word (and not as a part of another word like "redcedar") for various different things. ] (]) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree. Has anyone really stopped calling flowers "chrysanthemums" just because they've been placed in a segregate genus? Do we balk that a horse chestnut is not in the genus '']''? Or that Dutchman's breeches grow outside the Netherlands? And what should we use as the common English name for a ], which is neither in ''Pinus'' nor ''Malus''? Names are often inaccurate in their application, and this isn't even limited to common names! ''Juniperus virginiana'' is not restricted to Virginia; ''Dicksonia antarctica'' does not grow in Antarctica; and '']'' does not have testicles.


I'm a little surprised by this as I'd have expected them to use the same database. While I assume this is temporary, I thought I'd mention it here so people are aware there may be different treatments on the two sites. The Wikidata ID item was changed to link to WFO List (by one of the WFO list team) and now the links in the {{tl|taxonbar}} now go there rather than the more general site, which also has distributions and other biological information. The two sites have links to each other but the link from WFO Plant List to WFO is not obvious. I wonder if the taxonbar should be modified to show both links. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Goodness, the phenomenon isn't even limited to names of organisms! Greenland is icy, and Iceland is green. Puerto Rico is an island, not a port. The American "Indians" are not from India. And not everyone named ] is a twin. These are all ''names'', and names are intended to ''identify'' objects, not to describe them accurately. --] (]) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
: A problem with using WFO List in the taxonbar is that it redirects to the accepted name. So for the family example in the next section, Viburnaceae and Adoxaceae, both WFO links go the WFO List page for Viburnaceae. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 11:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"The American "Indians" are not from India". Q.E.D. In wikipedia, they are now called Native Americans, precisely to avoid this confusion. What's wrong with doing the same for ''Juniperus virginiana''? Why is it such a terrible crime to call a juniper a juniper? And b.t.w., I got the name Eastern Juniper from American sources, not British; I'm not trying to push a UK-POV here as I've been accused of above. - ] (]) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::As for Indians, see . As for ''J. virginiana'', no one (besides you as a straw man) is saying that we shouldn't call it a juniper, but rather that we should acknowledge that some people call it a cedar without subjecting them to ridicule.--] (]) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I would like some acknowledgment in the article that "red cedar" (or some variant of that name; I will accept, though reluctantly, "redcedar" as a compromise) is (1) the most widely used common name for this species within its native range and (2) is the common name most widely accepted in most North American horticultural references, field guides, and floras. And as I will point out for the third or fourth time, even the authority that ''MPF himself'' injected into the article uses "Eastern Redcedar", not "Eastern Juniper." ] (]) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::While I agree with you on all else above, I'm not especially keen on this unless you have a source in hand that states such facts. While it may seem simple and on the path of common sense, independently looking at those many horticultural references and analyzing them, coming to the conclusions you have above ''could'' be a violation of ] (especially see ]). It may be a borderline case, though. Just a thought to keep in mind. --] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The bigger issue, and what I should have emphasized above rather than the application of one primary common name (which to me is a side issue here), is simply that "cedar" has been used by many different people, in many different places, in many different contexts, for many different things. Same thing with names like "ash" or any number of any other "misapplied" common names. Well, news flash: botanists are not the only users of the English language, nor even of plant common names, and ''they are rarely the originators of those common names''. For botanists to come along later and pronounce that ''cedar'' is "incorrect" or "wrong" when applied to anything other than a member of the genus ''Cedrus'' is, as I pointed out above, breathtakingly arrogant (what I call "botanical imperialism" above) because common names arose independently of, and in most cases prior to, any concepts of botanical nomenclature or classification, or most of all, phylogeny. (Although as shown in the ] article, there's good evidence that the Greek word was originally applied to a member of the genus ''Juniperus'' and only later applied to ''Cedrus''! I have since learned that ''Citrus'' is apparently also based on the same root.) It's just too bad that we have to have this exact same conflict and exact same conversation--usually involving the exact same players--every few months. ] (]) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::One last comment: I just discovered that MPF recently removed the well-established common name "prickly cedar" from the '']'' article entirely, despite the fact that the epithet translates almost literally into "prickly cedar". 'Nuff said. ] (]) 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


== Viburnaceae vs. Adoxaceae ==
"Cedar" is ''Cedrela''. All the other uses are weird. Imagine, calling a coniferous tree "cedar". ] (]) 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I see that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc. now treat Adoxaceae as a synonym of Viburnaceae rather than vice versa. IPNI says that both are "nom. cons." Searching the appendices of the current ICNafp doesn't produce a new recommendation that I can find. Anyone know what is going on? Do we need to update our articles? ] (]) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== What about a common name infobox? ==


:There was a proposal to conserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae (). It failed (vote reported ). The Smithsonian has a site that used to be called "Proposals and Disposals" (and that's still what I search for to get there). It's ; be sure to set the radio button at the bottom to "Proposals/Requests" and then search for Adoxaceae to get a record with various articles in Taxon about this proposal (there are 3 more besides the two I've linked above; I haven't looked at them, but I doubt there is much more relevant detail). ] (]) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Use
! Language
! Notes
! Reference
|-
| '''Eastern Redcedar'''
| Manuals and floras in North America
| ]
|
| <ref>test</ref>
|-
| '''Eastern Juniper'''
| Some official British list or another
| ]
|
| <ref>test</ref>
|-
| Pencil Cedar
| British usage
| ]
|
| <ref>Hillier</ref>, <ref>Mitchell</ref>
|-
| Cedar
| Vernacular, in native range
| ]
|
| <ref>test</ref>
|-
| Scotch tree
| Vernacular, in Virginia
| ]
| considered pejorative
| <ref>test</ref>
|-
| Chansha
| Vernacular, in native range
| ]
|
| <ref>test</ref>
|}


::Yes, I'd found those proposals, but was puzzled as to why the majority of taxonomic databases aren't following the rejection, although some do (follow the links in the taxonbar at ]). says "General Committee failed to reach decision on first try", so I wondered if there had been a more recent second try, but it appears not. So it seems that regardless of PoWO, WFO, APweb, GRIN, APC, etc. we should continue to use Adoxaceae, as do GBIF, ITIS, and NCBI. ] (]) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Names that are in any sense official would be bolded.
::: I struggle to understand these debates, but my interpretations is that POWO, WFO and APWeb using Viburnaceae is following the results of the proposals. In Proposal 1800, Viburnaceae was conserved over Tinaceae (presumably that passed). Then Proposal 1801 considered conserving Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae, which failed to pass, so Viburnaceae becomes the favoured name. In the event of 1801 failing, Proposal 1802 would consider using Sambucaceae over both, but it seems 1801 hasn't failed yet, it just didn't pass on the first try. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The quote from TROPICOS refers to what happened before the General committee voted to reject the conservation as set out in the 2016 report, so that vote was the second try, that's why it says in TROPICOS "From Proposals/Requests (accessed 5 Mar 2021):...." ] (]) 20:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I tend to think that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc., have already done this analysis, and we should follow what they have done and change to Viburnaceae. – ] <small>(tag or ping me) (])</small> 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
The had this to say:
<blockquote>"Recently the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) has approved the conservation of Viburnaceae (Applequist, 2013), thus proposing it be the correct name for Adoxaceae sensu APG. This outcome was contrary to the intention of the original proposal (Reveal, 2008), which aimed to maintain nomenclatural stability. We therefore do not accept this decision of the NCVP in the hope that the General Committee will not approve it in its report to the next botanical congress (cf. Applequist, 2013)."</blockquote>
I'd guess APG V will use Viburnaceae and that PoWO, WFO and APweb are party to that decision. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:This is not meant to be sarcastic, but if we just do nothing fo a while, it will probably be settled back to Adoxaceae before we get to it. – ] <small>(tag or ping me) (])</small> 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If other editors think the general idea is valid, we could figure out the details. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There have already been 2 botanical congresses since 2013, so clearly this was approved, otherwise it would not be in the appendices. ] (]) 16:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Geographic tree category discussion ==
:Two questions come to mind: (1) Where on the page would this box be placed? (2) What happens for widely distributed taxa, like '']'', which would have common names in hundreds of languages? In the past, translations into other languages have been relegated to Wiktionary instead, and Wiktionary could easily accomodate all the translations for "bracken". --] (]) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::To answer the second question first, one could argue that no non-English names should be included. People are less likely to remove aboriginal names, though, since most of them don't have their own Wikipediae. I could certainly agree with a policy that aboriginal names should only be mentioned in "Use" sections.


I recently noticed the ] that was missed in the ]. I'm posting here to get the views of other plant editors. The discussion is at ]. ] (]) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::As for the first question, see ] for an infobox that the dog folks use that is placed left and below the TOC. I don't especially like the way it looks, but that would be one approach.--] (]) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Consider going for the V. thapsus "consensus:" Latin name throughout, except for a paragraph detailing conflicting recommandations and usage (and NO USE of "official" or "correct"). ] (]) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :] seems to have also survived. (Still blue linked on the original discussion.) ] (]) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm going to have to try again next year on this since it closed. I missed a lot of categories as well, so in a way just as well. I'll make a more complete list and actually be organized about letting the plant project know next time.
::::Official names are worth recording, and of course a single plant might have several. "Official" is not POV, as it can be documented. "Correct" has a meaning for scientific names, but not for common names except in those cases where "official" names are expected to be used. I guess what I'm trying to say is that common names need not be controversial if we don't try to suppress some and promote others.--] (]) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::] (]) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I meant to be more careful. "standard" and "correct" tend to be lobed around a bit too freely in these debates. ] (]) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Circeus, scientific names are ''always'' preferable, as they are universal and generally (should) have only ''one'' correct form. I think we should list only English common names, we have a Wiktionary for translations. Other names may be included only when they're particularly remarkable. ] (]) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::As a non-native speaker, English common names are not my forte. I have to rely on textbooks or reliable websites, esp. the website "Trees of North America" (Laval University, Quebec, Canada) which not only gives an appropriate scientific description, but also the common names with indication of the region or country where they are being used. As to ''Juniperus virginiana'', this Canadian website gives as first common name ... "eastern juniper". But my handbook "Trees of North America" (published in the USA) clearly states "Eastern Redcedar". I think this discussion can go on for a long time unless we state in the article where each common name is being used. This is a neutral position and also NPOV that can satisfy everyone. ] (]) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, regional context is extremely important when it comes to common names. "Eastern juniper" makes sense if you're in North America but in a global context, it makes little sense as "eastern" is ambiguous (east of what?). "Eastern Red Cedar" or "Eastern Redcedar" then makes more sense and is more precise because "red cedar" is used as a common name for certain North American species of ''Juniperus''. As another somewhat amusing example, various common names given for '']'' are "Eastern Arborvitae", "Eastern Whitecedar" and "Northern Whitecedar", even though the botanical names actually means "'''western''' ''Thuja''"! ] (]) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::And '']'' is western redcedar. But wait a minute, it's not a ''Juniperus'', so how can it be a redcedar? Maybe we should call it the Western False-Redcedar, or to use its epithet, the Folded False-Redcedar.--] (]) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Heh :-). Now you're just piling on. ] (]) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


==Proposed merge of "Category:Flora" into "Category:Plants"==
:Hmm, this level of detail on common names seems a bit much for encyclopedia, more like a wiktionary or even wikispecies kind of thing. Part of the reason for doing common names inline in the lede paragraph is that it quickly tells readers if they actually arrived at the article they wanted, particular if they've come from a redirect and find an article with a gobbledlygook Latin title :-) . So the lede really only needs the most common names, particularly those that are redirects, and mainly English, possibly a native name for plants of restricted range. It's harder to imagine readers wanting to consult a table of possible names further down in the article. Nevertheless, documentation of all names is a worthy project, and would actually work well in wiktionary, which includes all languages on an equal footing. (Incidentally, one of the interesting features of ] is extensive tables of vernacular names for fish species; I've used it many times.) ] (]) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see ] for a proposal to merge ] into ]. (I'm strongly opposed.) ] (]) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't exclude common names inline, and I wouldn't see a common name infobox as a normal feature of every plant article, just of those article where there is enough (1) information about different common names and (2) confusion about their use to warrant it.--] (]) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::I don't agree. First, many Misplaced Pages users will not have botanical backgrounds and will start searching on common names rather than botanical names. Second, common names are often regional and the common names for a single species can vary quite a bit from place to place, and the articles should reflect that. I don't think it's our place to promote or suppress any common names that are relatively well-known, merely to be as accurate, informative, and NPOV as possible with regard to those names. ] (]) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


== Proposed merge of ] and ] ==
This isn't a bad idea, but any list of common names should seek to include ''all'' (verifiable) common names. Anything less is unencyclopaedic. As for English versus non-English names, in the example above, a large proportion of Latoka are going to be primarily English speakers, so you could consider their usage "English". On the other hand, many Neotropical species are known in the US primarily by Spanish names; perfectly good English names exist in the Caribbean, but American readers would probably be more familiar with Spanish names.


Oh, and I'd put the table at the end of the page, or at the very least below the lead. ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) A ] to merge these two articles has reached an impasse since we aren't sure what to do here. A solution from someone knowledgeable will be appreciated. Thanks. -] (]) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Part of the question, too, is what English-speaking Lakota call it. "Moose", "skunk", and "wapiti" are American aboriginal names that are in wide use, but I'm not convinced that even the ] who identify themselves as such call ] ''pashí'' rather than chia.--] (]) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


== Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description ==
I believe all Engish common names from reliable sources should be listed in an article and individually referenced. Also redirects to the main article should be created for every one of these names. In terms of the infobox, I would be wary about the statement of use eg: "Manuals and floras in North America", we can easily assume the uses, but they need to be referenced to avoid ] - for example do some manuals/floras use the name, do the majority of manuals/floras use the name and who has done this research of all North American manuals/floras?. On the other hand the references column provides the opportunity to list several references of useage (for this example) in various manuals and floras in North America (and elsewhere), which may effectively demonstate regional useage while avoiding assumptions/OR as well as POV issues. --] (]) 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Good day everyone!
=='']'' and '']''==


In an article (''Bidens acuticaulis'') that I am drafting, one of the sources () I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to ''reliably'' translate botanical Latin into English?
Okay, I have to appeal to other editors as I am at the end of my rope. It's not my intention to begin intensively editing Misplaced Pages again, much less get into edit wars, but it's clear that any article that MPF has worked on needs to be reviewed carefully. MPF has completely removed the common name "prickly cedar" from the '']'' article; apparently we are to pretend that this common name, which can be found in numerous references (and is more or less a direct translation of the specific epithet), doesn't exist. I'd also like some input from anybody from New Zealand; several references I found used "New Zealand Cedar" for species of ''Libocedrus'' so I added this (neutrally, I thought) as a common name to that article, which MPF has qualified as "formerly they were sometimes called New Zealand Cedar" (ironically, with the edit summary ''reduce pov-pushing''); I have no idea how widely the Maori names are now used but "New Zealand Cedar" seems to remain in use, even in New Zealand. ] (]) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at be cited as a reliable source in a Misplaced Pages Article?
:I refuse to pile on; MPF knows my opinion and I believe you're correct on this. We've been over this several times in several different places with no change in behavior. I, personally, would support taking this to ] where other, non-plant project editors could take a look and give objective opinions. Feels like we're just spinning wheels here, even though ''we'' may see consensus among the participating editors regarding common names, perhaps MPF doesn't. RFC seems like the first step beyond WT:PLANTS and might help bring the conversation to a resolution instead of repeating a pattern. If you don't have the time to open an RFC, I'll gladly help. Cheers, ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. ''remote'' is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than ''scales''; I was unclear what ''paleae'' denotes in this context - ] indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). ''bi-aristed'' would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. ''diaphanous'' would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). ''petiole attached 1-4 cm. long'' looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).
::] seems appropriate to me, and I think you'd do a good job at the (difficult) task of writing up an RFC, Rkitko. ] (]) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:If you haven't already looked at ] (not relevant in this instance) and ] you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Misplaced Pages I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Misplaced Pages that is contrary to ].
:In this instance, POWO has . ] (]) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as {{u|Lavateraguy}} says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one , though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.
:When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in ] or ]. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:
:*{{cite book |first1=H. |last1=Beentje |first2=C. |last2=Jeffrey |first3=D.J.N. |last3=Hind |year=2005 |title=Compositae (Part 3) |series=Flora of Tropical East Africa |page=547 |publisher=] |isbn=9781842461068 |via=] |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.flora.ftea006663?searchUri=filter%3Dname%26so%3Dps_group_by_genus_species%2Basc%26Query%3Dbidens%2Bacuticaulis}}
:] 🌿 (] &#124; ]) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Need help with banana tree ==
::::Well, it's opened and awaiting certification. See ''']'''. I hope the outcome and process is productive. --] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


] ] (]) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I did a literature check, and simply couldn't find 'prickly cedar' (so deleted it as unreferenced, which is legitimate); I did find 'sharp cedar' mentioned as an old variant name (Dallimore & Jackson; Prickly Juniper as the main name in bold, with sharp cedar in italics with the synonyms). But it certainly isn't a common name; Prickly Juniper outnumbered all other variants (including 'cade juniper') by about 10:1, and was universally given as the first choice. Ditto on ''Libocedrus''; you may detest it, but New Zealanders are quite strongly in favour of the Maori names being used, and you won't find much recent literature that uses other names. - ] (]) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Forgive me for being just a wee bit incredulous because anybody can do a 10 second Google search and find either common name quite easily, and Google Scholar makes it easy to find numerous references in the botanical and other literature. For example read what one New Zealand botanist has to say about in a recent article published on a NZ government website. So I'm sorry, but I'll take a New Zealand botanist's word above yours (although we should also note that New Zealanders are not the only people in the world who may refer to these species). ] (]) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, regarding the latter genus, the Maori names and "cedar" names seem to co-exist in Aotearoa/New Zealand: --] (]) 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

==] edits==
Hello everyone. Would someone like to review the material on humans as frugivores at the bottom? There's been a little bit of dispute about it but the article is largely unwatched so I need some external input. I think the material probably either needs to be rewritten or removed, though I'm just looking for an impartial editor to provide input. ] (]) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== PGIP - anyone interested? ==

Hello Plant project people,

I was wondering if anyone here would like to make a request at the ] page?

I have been wanting to make the suggestion of botanical illustrations but I'm not knowledgeable enough to back up the request. I am aware that botany is one of the few places where hand drawings are still preferred by the professionals (botanists etc.) over photographs - as a drawing can capture all stages of a plant (flower, fruit, seed, new and old leaves...) in the one place whereas a photo only gets one season.

I also note the length of your ]...

Is there a list of "important" plants that would benefit from a proper botanical illustration? I'l love to see some of that project going towards botany.

Best,
] ] 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:I meant to do this at some point anyway, but here are the results of some category intersections between {{cl|Plant articles needing photos}} and the importance assessment categories:
*Top-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images: ]
*High-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images: <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*There are 279 mid-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images. The rest are all low-importance or unassessed (the bulk of which were tagged by ] as it created new imageless pages.
:Regardless of whether or not someone suggests a good article from this list that could utilize the PGIP project, it at least alerts us to our most important articles without images. Certainly ] should be an easy one to pop a photo in there. Cheers, ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell from browsing ] and from our ], the hard part is figuring out what the illustration should show (in some detail). Exmples of non-free images, photos, and/or "paper napkin sketches" along the lines of what we are looking for would be helpful, for example. As would a detailed list of features to be shown on each diagram. ] (]) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

==] and homeopathy==

There is currently an edit war going on at '']'' about whether or not to include information on its homeopathic uses. It looks like one or two anti-homeopathy editors resent any mention of the homeopathic uses and are removing any such mentions, however neutrally worded. A quick web search turned up plenty of information on Thuja's use in homeopathy (BTW a discipline which I consider quack medicine, so I can hardly be accused of having a pro-homeopathy POV) and this was supported by at least one notable citation within the article itself, so in my opinion it should be at least briefly mentioned in the article. I'm raising the issue here because I imagine this controversy is being played out, or will be played out, at any number of plant articles. Edited to add: a quick check of the editing history of one of the edit warring editors, ] reveals that ] has already been contending with this issue in the ] article; is representative of what is happening. ] (]) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:More going on at '']''. In my opinion, what ] and ] are doing is nothing short of far-reaching vandalism in attempting to delete all homeopathic references, however neutrally worded, from numerous Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've seen some recent removal of homeopathic information ( and ). But those mentions lacked cites completely, so they are different from the ] case. The homeopathy wars are notorious (I've seen at least one nasty arbcomm case, but I'm sure it would not be a good use of my time to try to find chapter and verse ;-)), so if we can keep the spillover modest, we should (insisting on sources is always a good first step). Agree that we should mention medicinal uses of plants (subject to due weight and all) even if not supported by evidence, modern medicine, etc (as discussed in more detail by MrDarwin at ]), including at least some mention of homeopathy on ]. ] (]) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks but I'm not handling anything; I only noticed this because it came up on an article on my watch list (for other reasons entirely) and only upon doing some checking did I realize how extensive this was. I simply don't have the time to get into this battle. I agree that some of the descriptions of homeopathic usage are either woefully unreferenced, or worse, pro-homeopathy in their discussions but homeopathy is widely accepted (for reasons that mystify me) and the fact that various plant species are so used in homeopathy should be at least mentioned in articles about them, and neither such mentions nor citations from the pro-homeopathic literature to document such usage represent an endorsement of homeopathy. Unfortunately I doubt that the two anti-homeopathy editors can be convinced that ''any'' mention of homeopathic uses, however neutrally worded, can be justified in the articles. I believe the botanical editors should keep an eye on these articles to make sure that relevant information is included and remains NPOV. ] (]) 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Also look at ], I am not going say any thing about it because I am frustrated and discouraged. ] (]) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, whatever happens to the homeopathy mention, you improved the article quite substantially (in ways having little to do with homeopathy, some of them not even related to anything medicinal: ). At this stage, it might be wise to just "declare victory and get out" (]'s advice on the Vietnam war). If I think about it too hard, I can convince myself either that the various species articles should mention homeopathy, or that they shouldn't. But if I take a step back, it doesn't seem so important one way or the other (especially if there is no link to active ingredients, the history of the study of the plant, etc). Besides which, you'll have to admit the humor value in someone a "fringe journal". ] (]) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Is what's going on at ] standard practice on Wiki? It seems that about six editors without the slightest knowledge of plants or medicine, but with an obvious axe to grind, have descended upon the article and are going to bully their version in come hell or high water.] (]) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, just my 2c worth, one of the problems with homeopathy and mentions thereof in general is that it appears that most sources used to support it are rather unreliable. Personally the above reads like victim mentality rather than engaging on the particular subject. I think what needs to happen is that a better source for the mention of (say) Thuja (or any particular plant) and it's use in homeopathy needs to be provided - in particular say a third party source - ie/ a book about homoepathy that mentions thuja (or whatever). At the moment the problem appears to be that the sources supporting thuja and homoepathy are self published from individual self proclaimed homoepaths. Such sources fail RS regardless of the particular subject matter (primary source, self published etc. etc.). Or how about a source on plants that mentions it's ''use'' in homoepathy (doesn't need to mention what the use particularly has to be). Now with regards to other matters, it's quite obvious there is little consensus for inclusion, so (unfortunately) matters need to be thrashed out. Preferably on talk pages. Number48, this includes your "six editors without the slightest knowledge of plants or medicine, but with an obvious axe to grind" because they are still editors and a lot of them are very experienced and some are admins. ] (]) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to add trivia to articles. Saying "X is used in homeopathy" is trivia, for the most part. Just about everything is used in some homeopathic "remedy" or another. Mention of these things goes in a ], not in ]. After all, there are hundreds of documented uses for lots of plants - I have seen a compilation of Native American uses - if we were to add that to every article they would be swamped. When it comes to homeopathy, the compound isn't ''really'' being used anyway - maybe one or two molecules per litre. It isn't the same as "active compound Y has been isolated from species Z". It's bad form to add trivia sections to articles. Napoleon is one of the characters in ]. Worth adding to the Civ IV article? Maybe. Worth adding to the ] article? Of course not. ] (]) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, saying that "X is used in homeopathic remedies" is a POV statement. "Homeopaths claim that X is used", but the claim that homeopathic remedies should be considered anything other than water (or wax, in the case of ]) is claim that is challenged...and easily disproven by anyone who can calculate a simple dilution. ] (]) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:But wait Guettarda! Homeopathy explains what water makes you urinate: It retains the memory of urine! ] 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

==NPOV tutorial==

Hi all,

It may be that many members of this project are not aware of Misplaced Pages's various policies for dealing with minority (or ]) opinions. It's not often that plants become a battleground for such. However, I'd like to offer a quick tutorial so everyone can see where the rationale for excising mention of homeopathy from plant and chemical articles is coming from:

First of, realize that ] is not ] or ]. Homeopathy is a ] that was developed in the 19th century and exists today as an ] that has no scientific backing. One of the major problems with the technique is the ] that diluting a substance makes it more effective. This idea was developed before ] and so basically the people developing it didn't realize that substances that were diluted actually decreased in potency in a strict physical sense. To preserve this mythology, modern day homeopaths invent pseudoscientific theories such as ] and the like to explain how a substance diluted beyond the point where no atoms are left in the solultion can be so "potent".

This is why it's so problematic to mention homeopathic remedies in plant articles. Basically, the remedies do not contain any of the plant in them. This is intentional.

That is not to say that homeopathy should never be mentioned in plant articles. However there are policies and guidelines which outline how pseudoscience needs to be treated in Misplaced Pages articles. In articles that are not devoted to pseudoscience as their subject (such as articles on plants) the ] of the ] comes into play. I encourage everyone to read this and think carefully about the qualification: what is '''prominent''' about homeopathy '''with respect to these plants'''?

In order to establish prominence it is necessary to find ]. Unfortunately, most of the sources asserting how these plants are used in homeopathy are not independent, neither are they mainstream. However, if you find such a source that asserts that the homeopathic use of the plant is prominent, then inclusion is justified. Simply citing it to a book on homeopathic remedies written by a homeopath is not ] and according to the guideline I linked to should not be used.

Hope this explains this to everybody.

] (]) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

: With all due respect, a condescending and completely wrong rant about NPOV is not helpful, even if ironically labeled a 'tutorial'. ] (]) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think SA's comments about dilution deserve a response. It is one thing to make a note that a certain plant is used in ], since those uses occasionally cross over into the mainstream, and some herbalist publications are worth study for hints about possible future drugs. Since we know something about the dilutions that homeopaths use, saying that a certain plant is used in homeopathy, that gives us great confidence that no drug makers will come knocking, since are probably no molecules coming from the plant in a typical dose. So saying that this plant is used by homeopaths is more of a psychological comment than a plant comment. Since placebos work, maybe psychology works, but don't ascribe the benefits to the actual plant used. ] (]) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::: I have no intention in being drawn into a completely irrelevant discussion of the merits of homoepathy, which, imho, is pure poppycock. Nevertheless, it does exist, and homeopaths do in reality use plants to prepare their bogus 'remedies'. ] (]) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, "use the plants to prepare their remedies" may be a bit of a stretch, since approximately none of the plant actually ends up in the final product. Whatever container they use probably contribute orders of magnitude more to the 'remedy'. Homeopaths make claims about the effects that plants have. These claims are basically without merit. So why should the be included in the article about ''the plants''? Because they can be verified? If ] makes a statement about a plant, should it go in the article about the plant? I don't know if it still says that, but the Conservapedia article about the kangaroo used to say that it originated in the Middle East and migrated to Australia after the Flood. Assuming that we could find a reliable source for that statement, would it belong in the kangaroo article? I don't think so. Homeopathic claims are similar pseudoscience, but unlike creationist claims about the origin of a species, the "ingredients" of homeopathic remedies are only "ingredients" if you buy their claims about "water memory". The reality-based statement about homeopathic remedies based on plants would be to say that the plant ''isn't'' a component of the remedy. ] (]) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: Of course, I didn't say "''use the plants to prepare their remedies''" did I? ] (]) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, it is not irrelevant. NPOV requires verifiability. So, if editors can provide a verified source that a homeopath uses a plant, I have no problem. Once you start to write, "to cure XYZ", it must be deleted. So I partially agree with everyone. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
: If folks want to read a real 'NPOV tutorial', they should go ]. ] (]) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Orangemarlin has got it. As I've said many times before, if we can mention homeopathy on ] we can mention it anywhere. We just need a mainstream, independent source that is about the subject of the article that asserts that homeopathy is important to the subject of the article. Bam, homeopathy gets mentioned! ] (]) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If none of the plant ends up in the remedy, then how can it possibly not be undue weight to mention it? It seems like the very definition of undue weight, no matter how many independent reliable sources there are. Because they are all essentially saying that the plant is ''not'' used, because it is involved in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. Someone explain how it's not undue weight. ] (]) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:MilesAgain, are you sure you have thought threw your argument? A lot of different chemical ingredients are used to make paper or boxes, but they do not end up in the final product. Homeopathy is makeing some type of "magic water" that starts with ingredient's, so it is true to say the "X is used by homeopathy" just like its safe to say that "H is used to make paper" even thought it is not in the finished paper you use or read. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::No, there are a lot of things used to make paper, like ] and ]s and ]s and ]s. But those things don't actually end up in paper, and paper is not mentioned in their articles because doing so would be ] weight. ] (]) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Interestingly enough most of those things you list above ARE in the article on paper and the articles on making paper.] (]) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: You seem to be misunderstanding the analogy:

<center>'''homeopathic plants : homeopathy :: electronics etc. : making paper'''</center>

:::: It's perfectly reasonable to mention the plants in the article on homeopathy and the equipment in the article about making paper. It is absurd to mention homeopathy in an article about on of the plants which do not end up in the "remedies" just as it is absurd to mention paper making in the electronics article. ] (]) 07:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just making an observation, I am trying to find a solution to the problem. You failed to respond to my answer but brought up a different question, and this seems to be the way the purging group makes their arguments and objections, can't get a clear answer to any question on what would constitute a valid inclusion; when you do, some one comes along and says thats no so. Again Its my belief that your argument is invalid - the so called remedies start out with the ingredients which are used to make the finished "product" without the plant there would be no plant based remedies, it does not matter how much is left in the final form. Those that want to include homeopathic remedies and there ingredients might have to make a page that lists them and then link to the plant pages, hate to make a suggestion that I am not willing to work on, but I have no interest in the topic. ] (]) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:How about this source found While looking for other material:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/arnica-000222.htm ] (]) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Without the plant there ''would'' be "plant-based" homeopathic remedies, because those so-called remedies are exactly the same as water, and no reliable source says otherwise. It doesn't mater if some sources refer to the use in homeopathy, it is still undue weight to mention homeopathy because no part of the plant occurs in the remedy. How did I fail to respond to your answer? ] (]) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Whether or not any of the plant actually ends up in the diluted "remedy" is irrelevant if the diluted solution begins with an actual plant and produces an extract from it. If homeopaths truly believe what they're doing--and I suspect that the majority do, however wrong-headedly--then the plant must be used to ''produce'' the "remedy." I have neither the time nor the desire to wade back into this but if the Natural History Museum's database or the book --both produced by professional botanists--don't count as "mainstream" or "reliable" sources for the names of plant species used in homeopathy, then I suspect that the anti-homeopathy editors will not accept ''any'' source as mainstream or reliable. ] (]) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::As usual, I agree with MrDarwin. If an anthropological reference said that healers of a Northwestern North American tribe waved ''Thuja'' branches over a patient during a specific ritual, would we remove the information because no part of the plant ended up in the patient? Like MrDarwin, I think homeopathy is quackery, but plants are used for the things they are used for, and suppressing this information is a form of intellectual quackery, because, like homeopathy, it masquerades as being intellectually rigorous.--] (]) 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Curtis, I don't know how to handle this but this topic clearly needs some discussion among the plant editors on whether, and how, to address such usages of plants in the articles about them. Do we have any ethnobotanists who might weigh in? I don't accept the POV that any and all references to homeopathic uses of plants, however neutrally worded, ''must'' be deleted from all plant articles--and this systematic deletion is decidedly ''not'' NPOV, I would argue that it's part of an extreme POV agenda. For better or for worse, several plant species ''are'' prominent in homeopathy. Several of the non-partisan plant editors seem to agree that it's possible to acknowledge such use without endorsing or validating homeopathy--and most of us are ''not'' making an argument for homeopathy--but that fact seems lost on several other editors who seem intent on the summary deletion of any and all such references, however worded and however referenced (without otherwise editing or improving the articles, I might add). In the meantime I've been accused of engaging in personal attacks for (while expressing my own opinion), and for . Needless to say, I'm feeling rather frustrated right now. ] (]) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::MrDarwin, you ''always'' engage in personal attacks. It's just that those of us who edit plant articles have learned to ignore your abrasiveness. You can't expect everyone to do that.
::::::As for "used in the preparation" - then why don't we list glassware? The containers used in preparation make a far more significant contribution than do the plants. Saying that the plant "is used in" creates undue weight, because it gives the impression that the plant somehow is part of the "remedy", which it demonstrably isn't. ] (]) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Go ahead and list glassware, if you can find a reliable source. What has been shown beyond any doubt, with references to countless reliable sources, is that certain plants are used in homeopathy. It is not our job to censor this information.] (]) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

==Organizing related categories into logical hierarchy==
Please take a look at ] for a discussion on organizing categories related to this subject. Looking for comments on a proposed category scheme. Thanks! ] (]) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

== Fritillaria imperialis ==

This plant is currently listed as Crown Imperial rather than its botanic name. This is confusing since a good chunk of the heavily German ethnic Upper Midwest in the US uses the term Kaiser's Crown. I have a hunch this got renamed in some regions that originally used Kaiser's Crown after the World Wars. Regardless, an encyclopedia is supposed to explain without bias, so could the article please be listed either of these two ways:

1. under its botanic name with redirect pointers from the two common names, or
2. with two identical articles under the common names - Crown Imperial and Kaiser's Crown - with a disambiguation statement immediately under the header, pointing to the other name?

I realize that more people probably now use the Crown Imperial term, but for those of us who spent many hours trying to track down the plant our German grannies talked about, having that info available up front would help others avoid the same frustration and make our work worthwhile. Thanks] (]) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:Per your request and per ], I moved the page to '']''. You can do the same via the "move" tab at the top of the page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

==Question for ] editors==

By now anybody who is involved in editing plant articles and is not in a coma has probably seen the above discussions on this page as well as the vigorous editing that is currently going on at several plant species articles with regard to the use of those species in homeopathy. I'd like to get some sense as to what the other project editors think about whether, and how, such usages should be reported in articles. Does this fall under our specifically stated , "For species, describe botanical properties, distribution, multiplication, '''usage''' (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information" (emphasis added)?

I'll make my own POV clear up front: I don't buy into the suggestion that any and all reporting of homeopathic use should be deleted from any and all plant articles. Numerous plant articles include sections on how those plants are used, and for better or for worse, homeopathy is one of those uses. I guess I need to make clear here that I am ''not'' endorsing homeopathy or supporting it in any way; other uses of plants are in folk medicine, witchcraft, literary symbolism, etc. and articles can and do report such uses, neutrally and factually, without it representing any kind of endorsement. I simply do not see how a single sentence along the lines of "''Species X'' is used in homeopathy" gives undue weight or represents anything other than an NPOV statement of fact. So... thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? Any chance of consensus? ] (]) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:At first sight, it's rather simple. Just use the principles of Misplaced Pages : NPOV and '''reliable''' references. We report, but we don't judge. And if no reliable references can be produced, there should be no entry on homeopathy. The problem however is the reliability of the references. References from Nature, Science or medical journals are peer-reviewed and can be trusted. Others, however, are another matter. These should be judged on a one-by-one basis. But such a judgment is open to lengthy discussion with other editors who may have a different opinion. This can be avoided if the sections with homeopathic treatments are treated in their own page (with a hyperlink on the botany page). Discussions can then be pursued in the new articles and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants editors should only be involved if they choose to do so. ] (]) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::Even a peer reviewed medical journal published by the OUP has been rejected, and previously the ''Annals of Emergency Medicine'' was called "a fringe journal". No source is good enough for some editors here because they use the very mention of homeopathy as a definition of "fringe". There is no point discussing any of this because the debates are not genuine - even if a journal above reproach could be found (which is impossible), the argument would then move on to some other point and the whole thing would start again.] (]) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:Listing homeopathy as a "use" is POV...plants aren't used in homeopathic remedies. Nothing but water or wax is used in the remedy. It's like saying that paper is used in modern medicine, because doctors learn by reading off books. When a plant is ''used'' in witchcraft, it's actually used. If you wave a branch over someone, you are waving a branch over someone. Saying that a plant is ''used'' in a homeopathic remedy is an endorsement of a fringe POV, which is trivial to disprove. If we have a reliable source that says that Species X is present in front of the town hall in Y, do we report is as a ''use'' of species X? The "Survivor Tree" at the ] is a notable "use" of an American Elm. It might even warrant its own article. But it doesn't warrant mention in ]. And this is a tree that is ''actually there''. If there was a reliable source reporting a claim by a cult that the ghosts of those who died in the attack, would that belong in the ] article? It might belong in the article about the cult, it might belong in the article about the memorial (''maybe''), but it wouldn't belong in ]. It's not just trivia, it's demonstrably false trivia. ] (]) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::We can say, "plant X is used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy" because: a) they are; b) reliable sources tell us so; and c) because people might actually look up a plant article to find out about it's medicinal or homeopathic use. I doubt anyone would look up the article on humans and expect to find listed every thing that anyone has ever done.] (]) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::Please also note that the argument has now immediately moved on, as predicted, from one about sources (spurious) to another about fringe POV (equally spurious). What next, Wiki server overload?] (]) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with Guettarda. Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV. I'm sure that many sites are available for those with an interest in homeopathy. I don't think WP need lend its imprimatur to it. In addition, I would cite the Undue weight section of NPOV. It is my opinion that managing homeopathic content to comply with the undue weight provision would lead to endless conflict with those seeking to expand it, were it to be permitted at the minimal level that Number48 suggests. It may attract ]s seeking to add such content. Also, I foresee conflicts based on the ], ] and ] policies and guidelines. Further, some may remember the Nature review of a year or two ago. Inclusion of homeopathic uses would detract WP's standing in such a review, in my opinion.

::I object to the comment "Please also note that the argument has now immediately moved on, as predicted, from one about sources (spurious) to another about fringe POV (equally spurious). What next, Wiki server overload?" I don't think that is helpful. ] ] 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::OK, so it wasn't Wiki server overload, but "bad things will happen in the future". My mistake. We are talking about one line in an article stating a widely known fact and sourced to a bastion of the scientific community. ] (]) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::The level of dilution in Homeopathy is huge, there are NO organic molecules retained in solution from the original plant, compound, pieces of the berlin wall (yes, pieces of the berlin wall), or anything left in solution. So it is a complete fabrication to state that homeopathy, a pseudoscientific fringe theory, uses anything but water. Maybe a few glass molecules from the vessel holding the water. So, in fact, none of these plants are in a homeopathic solution. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Two things here: one (not that it matters), you can't dilute something out of complete existence, so some homeopathic solutions will contain some of whatever has been diluted. Two (and this does matter), we can say, as noted above, "plant X is used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy" because it is.

::::Please also note that the argument has moved again. Now we are on to the quite irrelevant point of homeopathy's methods and efficacy.] (]) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Two things here -- the remnants of the original ingredient are trivial, and are thus mathematically zero; an extract from the plant is used, not the whole bloody plant itself.
::::::Why homeopaths, herbalists and the rest insist on putting trivial nonsense into these plant articles is beyond me: I sometimes use an empty beer can as an ashtray, as do many others, shall we add that to the article on beer? ] 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Two further things here: one, irrespective of how little is there, there is something there - you can't magically make things completely vanish by dilution (not that that point matters anyway). Two, the last time I looked the Natural History Museum did not have a project called "things used as ashtrays by Jim62sch and others", nor did it have a database of things so used. This fundamental difference is what makes these pointless analogies, well, pointless.] (]) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Whoa, deep -- missed the point, no doubt, but really deep. I'm guessing that your knowledge of math is trivial. The dilutions are such that it is unlikely that any of the original element remains in a given dose. For example, if we have 1,000 molecules of NaCl and 100,000,000 of H<sub>2</sub>O, what is the likelihood of NaCl being in any random grop of 100 moleules? (see real math below) Homeopaths know this, which is why the concept of ] was developed ''by'' homeopaths. Really. ] 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::You miss the point, in some of the samples there will be some of the original thing. You can't just magic stuff completely out of existence. But, as noted above, this is completely irrelevant because all that is being said here is "x is used to prepare homeopathic remedies". If you disagree I suggest you take it up with the Natural History Museum.] (]) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Your first point is incorrect. You are implicitly assuming a pre-atomic view of matter. If you start off with 10<sup>20</sup> molecules, and dilute 10<sup>50</sup> times the chance of any molecules being left is vanishly small (10<sup>-30</sup>). ] (]) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::So where do you think the original components have magically disappeared to?23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::They don't go anywhere (if I am reading this correctly) but if you have ten bottles of "material" the chance that 9 of them have no molecules of components is very high (99%+). Just like if you have ten apples and 10,000 trucks to deliver them in, there is a chance that some trucks will have no apples to deliver :-) ] (]) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::If you have one apple and a hundred billion trucks you will still have a truck somewhere with an apple in it!] (]) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. And if the apple is invisible, which truck is it in? You now have a probability situation that potentially it could be in any truck, that probability is very small (ie 1/100,000,000,000,000) but still a chance that it is in that truck just over there. Now when you get into these sorts of probabilities, you may as well say that there is no apple (simple maths, when a value approaches zero, it's simplier to assume that it is zero). ] (]) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Is 48 claiming that homeopathic remedies have molecules other than water in them? More to the point that this is critical for theor function. If so, he is basically proving that homeopaths are frauds, which would be strange for one of their supporters. ] ] 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
<RI> This is a ridiculous conversation. I'm going to request another block of this ] editor. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. At least there's a non-trivial possibility of 1:1 that he's editing this page in a trivial manner. ] 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::But it's not zero, is it? Anyway, this is way off track, let us simply assume I am wrong and dilution magically makes the original substance disappear completely. Who cares? The point, the main point, supported by a sound scientific source still stands: x is used to prepare homeopathic remedies. Fact!] (]) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Of course it is zero in any given potion bottle. Clue: most of it gets chucked down the drain. ] ] 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:''"supported by a sound scientific source"''? ROFL. See my explication re extract above. ] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are off topic, and as OM suggested above, it is rather tendentious. FWIW, if you carefully look back through the edit log, you will see I agree with a brief mention backed by a reliable source. This is really what the current discussion is about is establishing that source to the ]. Matters of homoepathy per se are irrelevant here. I personally would prefer an actually third party source (ie/ not one produced by a homoepathy organisation, practitioner or likewise) that says "X is used in homoepathic practices" (etc). Surely there are botanical text books out there? And if not, then we have our answer. ] (]) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The source provided was the Natural History Museum! Not some pro-homeopathy organisation. How many times does this point need to be made. Here it is again ] (]) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:And the info on it's use within homoepathy? (I cannot seem to find it in the link provided). ] (]) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:You said, "I personally would prefer an actually third party source (ie/ not one produced by a homoepathy organisation, practitioner or likewise) that says "X is used in homoepathic practices"", and I provided a link to the Natural History Museum database of Xs-used-in-homepathic-practices. What is it you want now?] (]) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not getting back into this since I've already stated my opinion clearly on ], but I thought I'd provide the link I found to be the most compelling as a reliable, peer-reviewed source published by a well-known entity. This is for the benefit of Shot info who may have not seen this before in the jumbled, fast-paced debate here/elsewhere. . ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::That source has already been rejected as a "stinking pile of horse-manure".] (]) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, I can see why people have a problem with this link. It is merely listed in a database. This doesn't make it really a source, mainly as it just doesn't say "X is used in homeopathy remidies". Instead the reader must wander around the site (like I did - looking for the information). No, what is needed is a sources that clearly and unambigiously says the words "X is used in homeopathic remidies" (or similar words). The NHM is almost there, but doesn't really cut it for a source in this particular regard, particularly when attempting to form a consensus. The moral is, if information is to be included, it has to be well sourced - per ]. BTW, this is in the context of all plants used for any purpose. Not just Thuja and homeopathy. ] (]) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I thought I had found this holy grail with the book , written by two professors (one a botanist, the other a pharmaceutical biologist) and which has been favorably reviewed in the botanical literature--yes, it clearly and explicitly states for several species "X is used in homeopathic remedies, and no, it doesn't make any comments favorable to homeopathy"--but when I to the ] article, even that was ] as having been published by a "fringe publishing press"]. I have to conclude that there are ''no'' possible sources that he and the other editors will consider reliable. ] (]) 01:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Getting back on topic, I can see why there is a problem, namely most references are either published by small (possibly dubious - other's comments not mine) publishers, or homoepathic organisations. Now normally these would suffice, but a portion of the community (and it isn't a small portion BTW) would like to see better references. FWIW I recommend a botanical reference, not a homoepath reference, that says it is used in homoepathic preperations (etc.). By relying on databases, references published by would could be suggested are dubious organisations or from producing info from homoepathic sources is the problem. While it shouldn't be, it is, so how are we going to work our way out? Yelling at the "other side"? Or by producing a source that is acceptable to all? ] (]) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I feel it must be mentioned that said publisher, Timber Press, is frequently used for academic books in the realm of ]s. Most recently, ] wrote a book published by Timber Press. They have published some of the most authoritative books by the most highly regarded scientists in the field:
:::::::::Schnell, Donald E. (2002). ''Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada''. Second Edition.
:::::::::Rice, Barry A. (2006). ''Growing Carnivorous Plants''.
:::::::::And the English translation of one of the most comprehensive books I've ever read on the topic: Barthlott, W., Porembski, S., Seine, R., and Theisen, I. (2007). ''The Curious World of Carnivorous Plants.''
::::::::All this to say that Timber Press is certainly '''not''' a fringe publishing outfit. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok, for the purposes of moving forward, lets just say that some editors say "yes" and others say "no". So in otherwise, there is no consensus for inclusion. This is why I keep suggesting that a better source is found. Rather than defending positions already established, the best (the only really) way forward is to "convince the other side". Unfortunately this means more work but in the long run Misplaced Pages is a better encyclopedia for it. ] (]) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The flip side of that is that there is also no consensus for ''exclusion'' and that several editors have been removing content that was previously in articles without attempting to reach such a consensus. In the meantime, several "better sources" have been offered but all have been summarily rejected as unacceptable. ] (]) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't see how that's fair, with all due respect. In such a case, anyone with an agenda against inclusion of any material can always continue to ask for better references when the ones already located are sufficient. Having provided sufficient references, the onus is not on us to find better references when opponents take a minute to look over the ref and declare it not sufficient. That could go on forever where one party continues to "move the goalpost." To move this discussion along, I have requested an ] for '']'', since that seems to be what this is centered around. See ''']''' for more. It seems as if there's no consensus so an RfC seemed like the next step. --] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::<edit conflict> But it isn't just one or two or even three editors. It's quite a large number. Of course their opinion can be outright dismissed (which for the most part it seem to have been, rather than engage with them) and now we have the problem of no ]. However, I don't mind the RfC (and was thinking about recommending it anyway). Mind you, the onus is on the includer of the material to have excellent references. ] (]) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the information in this hulk of an argument, but for the sake of giving my opinion, I will say that I support the inclusion of information about homeopathy assuming a third party source. In the article I helped out on about ] there were many references to that plant's use in Chinese medicine, all of which are extremely dubious from a scientific perspective, but are nonetheless essential pieces of information from a cultural perspective, which is how homeopathy should be seen. And Timber Press is certainly a leader in scientific books in the field of plants. The source seems to be fine to me. <span style="color:#008000;font-family:times, sans serif;">] (])</span> 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:This whole interchange would be funny if it weren't so scary. The scariest part to me is the statement, "Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV." Misplaced Pages can have entire articles about ], the ]s, ], ], ], and who knows how many other things regarded by many editors as fringe, but the mere mention of homeopathy is POV? We can state that ] is a Scientologist, and ] is a creationist, but not that ''Thuja'' is used in homeopathic preparations? And it's so disingenuous to say that there's none of it left after the dilution. As far as I can tell, no lions or witches, and perhaps no wardrobes, were used in the preparation of ], and no ] remains in the ]. But we must never mention homeopathy. We can write about the ], ], and ]s, but the mention of homeopathy violates NPOV. This is one of the most outrageous cases of censorship that I've run across in a while.--] (]) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems useful to me to ask the total number and fraction of plant articles are potentially affected by coverage (or not) of homeopathy uses. I didn't find this above. Is it the case that approximately 800 articles are at issue? What I'd like to know is how many articles are potentially affected. Also, I'm curious if anyone has a tally of the total number of plant species with enwiki articles? ] ] 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually this is a good idea. At least it will help the process go forward (I hope :/) ] (]) 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::I don't see why the number is important as this is a matter of principle, but there are at least a fair number. I can think of maybe 5 that I've read or written, but given the vast number of plant articles it's hard to guess how many times more than that number exist. But again, it's irrelevant. I think Curtis Clark summed up the logical conclusion to this argument perfectly, and it is truly difficult to comprehend why there is a debate going on. <span style="color:#008000;font-family:times, sans serif;">] (])</span> 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I think Curtis has it right. We report but we don't judge. There is no censorship in Misplaced Pages. When one states in a botanical article : "an extract of this plant is used in homeopathic preparations", then that is a certifiable fact. I used the word "preparations" and not "remedies", because the latter would involve a judgment on the efficacy of the preparation. Whether molecules of this plant extract are still present at the end of the preparation after a succession of dilutions, is another matter. But this should not be discussed in botanical articles. Let's leave such discussions to the proper homeopathic articles where the pros and cons can have a field day. ] (]) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Given that this section is called "Question for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants editors", it would interesting to know whether a single "WikiProject Plants" editor has yet opposed inclusion. From a brief check of some of the users in the discussion above it seems the plant editors support inclusion, and it is the members of some other outside group who have come here in droves to abuse, ridicule and condescendingly lecture anyone who disagrees with them. By checking a few of the users above I found this . Look familiar?] (]) 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Even after all these years, it still surprises me that fundamentalism smells the same, regardless of the "principles" considered fundamental. But I did see one thing among the kilobytes of stereotyped, reactionary drivel that would be of use to us plant editors, were we allowed to edit our articles without the "help" of the fundies: Almost every plant has the potential to be used in a homeopathic preparation (thus, at an extreme, we could have in every plant article "this plant could be used in the process of making a homeopathic preparation"). It seems to me (and fundies need not respond; I'm already aware of your arguments) that we should approach homeopathy in an anthropological context: If the practice of homeopathy were as deprecated as the practice of animal magnetism, we could still study it as a cultural phenomenon, and part of our source material would be the classical literature on the subject. Again in parallel to animal magnetism, to count a modern book supporting the use of animal magnetism as being equal to works from the days of Mesmer would be undue weight. There must be classical works on homeopathy. We should look to them for references. Sadly, looking is all we will be able to do, since the fundies will still delete such references. But at least we will have the knowledge that we acted as scholars.--] (]) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:42, 9 January 2025

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 
WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPlants
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
WikiProject Plants Discussion Navigation
Shortcut: WT:PLANTS
Archiving icon
Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
74, 75, 76, 77, 78


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is World of Succulents a reliable source?

Hi, noticed some red links and am thinking of helping the project by creating new articles. Looked up the sources guide in the main part of the project page and didn't find anything under keyword searches for cactus, cacti, or succulents. Please provide pointers if I've overlooked something. One of the most readily available online references on the topic is the World of Succulents website. Would you regard it as an adequate source? Baresbran (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find authorship information for the articles there (and the first article I clicked seemed to have been lifted wholesale from gardeningknowhow.com, obligingly linked). I get the strong impression that this is some kind of content aggregation setup and probably not reliable for our purposes. The relevant project sources are probably floras of particular regions (i.e., South Africa), which may explain why your sources on particular groups of plants didn't turn up anything. Choess (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. That's not unexpected. Appreciate your reply. Baresbran (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If you're a cactus and succulent enthusiast, and you have printed books on the topic, adding material sourced to those would be extremely valuable to the encyclopedia—we all have a tendency to pick low-hanging fruit (e.g., online sources). A lot of it is old out-of-copyright material, but Biodiversity Heritage Library is also a good place to look for material of interest. Choess (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Biodiversity Heritage is great, but you are right that it is mostly old out of copyright stuff. I find getting an account at archive.org and searching their book catalog for species names to be a fairly useful technique. As a succulent example if I put in "Sedum lanceolatum" as a search in the book contents I get a lot of results. Government reports, old journals (the same ones from biodiversity heritage), and also many recent books. Wildflower guide books, gardening books, natural history books, etc. Here is an intersting one from my example search Sedum : Cultivated Stonecrops by Stephenson published Timber Press. Seems like a good reliable source. Hurm. And the article for that stonecrop is rather light... I might have the next thing to work on. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Much obliged for the suggestions. Baresbran (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, Baresbran, I see that you're new to Misplaced Pages: welcome!
I would concur with Choess - while I don't see any particularly problematic information, the lack of authorship information is a big red flag. Best to avoid using that site and, on articles where it used as a reference, replace it with a higher quality source.
For what it's worth, the excellent Illustated Handbook of Succulent Plants series is accessible through WP:TWL - this requires a 6 month old account and at least 500 edits, though I believe you can apply to access specific materials before those milestones. If you'd like any help finding more sources on succulents I would be happy to assist :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Have been checking proposed edits by running keyword searches on Google Scholar, so far. Baresbran (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Submitted proposed article

Have started going through redlinks at List of Agave species, starting stub articles where reliable sources can be found. The first submission is waiting for review as Draft:Agave_abisaii. Baresbran (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status

My apologies if this is something dreadfully obvious - I'm a new editor, so I'm just double-checking

Once a TNC conservation status is added to an article in Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status, is it acceptable to remove the category tag from the article? Cayuga3 (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And thanks for doing the work. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

World Flora Online

The December update has been made on WFO Plant List and I've noticed that the updates haven't appeared in main WFO site. I was comparing Dicranella as treated by Bryonames and WFO. Dicranella rufipes (Müll. Hal.) Kindb. is (still?) recognised as a species by WFO, but no longer by Bryonames or, with the December update, by WFO List which have it as a synonym of Aongstroemia campylophylla (Taylor) Müll.Hal..

I'm a little surprised by this as I'd have expected them to use the same database. While I assume this is temporary, I thought I'd mention it here so people are aware there may be different treatments on the two sites. The Wikidata ID item was changed to link to WFO List (by one of the WFO list team) and now the links in the {{taxonbar}} now go there rather than the more general site, which also has distributions and other biological information. The two sites have links to each other but the link from WFO Plant List to WFO is not obvious. I wonder if the taxonbar should be modified to show both links.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A problem with using WFO List in the taxonbar is that it redirects to the accepted name. So for the family example in the next section, Viburnaceae and Adoxaceae, both WFO links go the WFO List page for Viburnaceae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Viburnaceae vs. Adoxaceae

I see that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc. now treat Adoxaceae as a synonym of Viburnaceae rather than vice versa. IPNI says that both are "nom. cons." Searching the appendices of the current ICNafp doesn't produce a new recommendation that I can find. Anyone know what is going on? Do we need to update our articles? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a proposal to conserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae (). It failed (vote reported here). The Smithsonian has a site that used to be called "Proposals and Disposals" (and that's still what I search for to get there). It's here; be sure to set the radio button at the bottom to "Proposals/Requests" and then search for Adoxaceae to get a record with various articles in Taxon about this proposal (there are 3 more besides the two I've linked above; I haven't looked at them, but I doubt there is much more relevant detail). Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd found those proposals, but was puzzled as to why the majority of taxonomic databases aren't following the rejection, although some do (follow the links in the taxonbar at Adoxaceae). Tropicos says "General Committee failed to reach decision on first try", so I wondered if there had been a more recent second try, but it appears not. So it seems that regardless of PoWO, WFO, APweb, GRIN, APC, etc. we should continue to use Adoxaceae, as do GBIF, ITIS, and NCBI. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I struggle to understand these debates, but my interpretations is that POWO, WFO and APWeb using Viburnaceae is following the results of the proposals. In Proposal 1800, Viburnaceae was conserved over Tinaceae (presumably that passed). Then Proposal 1801 considered conserving Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae, which failed to pass, so Viburnaceae becomes the favoured name. In the event of 1801 failing, Proposal 1802 would consider using Sambucaceae over both, but it seems 1801 hasn't failed yet, it just didn't pass on the first try.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The quote from TROPICOS refers to what happened before the General committee voted to reject the conservation as set out in the 2016 report, so that vote was the second try, that's why it says in TROPICOS "From Proposals/Requests (accessed 5 Mar 2021):...." Weepingraf (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I tend to think that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc., have already done this analysis, and we should follow what they have done and change to Viburnaceae. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The APG IV (2016) update had this to say:

"Recently the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) has approved the conservation of Viburnaceae (Applequist, 2013), thus proposing it be the correct name for Adoxaceae sensu APG. This outcome was contrary to the intention of the original proposal (Reveal, 2008), which aimed to maintain nomenclatural stability. We therefore do not accept this decision of the NCVP in the hope that the General Committee will not approve it in its report to the next botanical congress (cf. Applequist, 2013)."

I'd guess APG V will use Viburnaceae and that PoWO, WFO and APweb are party to that decision.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not meant to be sarcastic, but if we just do nothing fo a while, it will probably be settled back to Adoxaceae before we get to it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
There have already been 2 botanical congresses since 2013, so clearly this was approved, otherwise it would not be in the appendices. Weepingraf (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Geographic tree category discussion

I recently noticed the Category:Trees of the Eastern United States that was missed in the previous merger of tree categories in November 2023. I'm posting here to get the views of other plant editors. The discussion is at here. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Trees of Alberta seems to have also survived. (Still blue linked on the original discussion.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to try again next year on this since it closed. I missed a lot of categories as well, so in a way just as well. I'll make a more complete list and actually be organized about letting the plant project know next time.
🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of "Category:Flora" into "Category:Plants"

Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Flora for a proposal to merge Category:Flora into Category:Plants. (I'm strongly opposed.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hydnocarpus pentandrus and Hydnocarpus wightianus

A discussion to merge these two articles has reached an impasse since we aren't sure what to do here. A solution from someone knowledgeable will be appreciated. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description

Good day everyone!

In an article (Bidens acuticaulis) that I am drafting, one of the sources (v.59 (1915) - Botanical gazette - Biodiversity Heritage Library) I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to reliably translate botanical Latin into English?

And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at JSTOR:Global Plants be cited as a reliable source in a Misplaced Pages Article? Cayuga3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. remote is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than scales; I was unclear what paleae denotes in this context - spikelet indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). bi-aristed would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. diaphanous would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). petiole attached 1-4 cm. long looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).
If you haven't already looked at WP:COPYVIO (not relevant in this instance) and WP:PLAGIARISM you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Misplaced Pages I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Misplaced Pages that is contrary to WP:NOR.
In this instance, POWO has English language descriptions from FTEA. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as Lavateraguy says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one here, though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.
When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, this entry draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:
Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Need help with banana tree

Template:Did you know nominations/Madagascar banana Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: