Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Flurry of external link spamming bots (April 2025)

{{u|Pbritti}}, it's not just you. I was just trying to access POWO and hit the error message "Service Unavailable". Has anyone been able to access POWO recently? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:It is not working for me also. Dracophyllum 05:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Same here, it's not working for me either. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I noticed that over the weekend and it's still unavailable. I assume that fixing problems at the weekend is more difficult so we should look later today. The main Kew Gardens site is live, but I couldn't find any announcement of a planned downtime or changes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Working OK now - MPF (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philodendron Garden Party!, which seeks to create and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the genus Philodendron from April 15 to May 31. Feel free to share ideas and results!

Happy editing and happy gardening! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:What an excellent idea! I love the thought of very focused and short "garden parties" to promote collaboration! Fritzmann (message me) 23:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Like}} Thanks! I'm glad to see there's interest and I hope editors enjoy collaborating. If this one's successful, perhaps we can have another garden party for another genus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Many species of dandelion's articles are named their scientific name, not their common name. As per COMMONNAME, they should be named their common name. Is a mass renaming appropriate for these articles? Here are some examples:

Taraxacum aphrogenes - Paphos dandelion

Taraxacum arcticum - arctic dandelion

Taraxacum californicum - California dandelion

Taraxacum officinale - common dandelion

Taraxacum carneocoloratum - pink dandelion

Taraxacum desertorum - desert dandelion

Taraxacum erythrospermum - red-seeded dandelion

Taraxacum holmboei - Troödos dandelion

etc.

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:In general, no; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for reasons why we usually use the scientific name, and the few exceptions for plants of major commercial importance (which none of these are!) - MPF (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, I see. Thanks! MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And in particular I think you will find that the dandelion species article do follow WP:COMMONNAME. Those people who distinguish dandelion species tend to use the scientific names. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I attempted to move the page Actinidia deliciosa to Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa as per the currently accepted name used by POWO, Flora of China (2007) and even some recent sources by one of the authors who previously raised the taxon to species level, but the move was unsuccessful. The issue was apparently that the article mentioned subspecies which have since been synonymised with the taxon, and that the article should cover all varieties. I don't quite understand the objection - does anyone have any thoughts on what could be changed in the article to make a move more likely to be successful, or why Actinidia deliciosa would be a more appropriate name? --Prosperosity (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Prosperosity}}, I'm sorry nobody has responded to you earlier. These days, in cases like this (where the person requesting the move has shown that the name they want the article to be moved to is what is accepted in recent taxonomic sources), I generally don't bother commenting on a requested move because the move practically never gets opposed. I do comment if a move request gets relisted, and I'm pretty surprised that this move was closed without relisting with only a single person having responded.

:You should be able to execute this move yourself, and I would encourage you to do so, since you have resolved the opposer concerning about addressing the other varieties (now synonymized). Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Plantdrew}} I am too, since I never had a chance to reply to the editor before the move was closed. I'm not able to make the move myself, since Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa currently has a manual redirect under that title, and also by doing so would be contravene the decision of the move discussion (and the oppose vote of someone who is an admin). Do you think it would be safe to request a second move? Prosperosity (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Prosperosity}}}, you should be able to move an article to the title of a redirect that points to that article as long as the redirect hasn't had more than one edit. Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa has only one edit as I am writing this. But go ahead and request a second move. I'll be sure to comment on it. It is perhaps a little soon, but you've addressed the concerns, and the previous move discussion was poorly attended. Plantdrew (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Plantdrew}} Alright, I've given it a go, and relisted the move. Hopefully this time there are more editors commenting! Prosperosity (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to join in the discussion here. — hike395 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have opened up a more general discussion to move all articles about individually-named Sequoiadendron giganteum from the Foo (tree) form to the Foo Tree form. Please feel free to join in the discussion here. — hike395 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a sudden influx of spam accounts with the following characteristics:

• Brand new users with no user page.
• Usernames are almost always in the format of a single-word name followed by a 2-4 digit number (often 254).
• They edit articles for common plant species to add inappropriate (but correctly-formatted) citations to the site plantaddicts.com.
• Misleading edit summaries along the lines of "made small spelling and grammar changes in line with policy".
• Almost always only a single edit per account.
• No response to attempts to engage via talk pages.

I noticed several in my watched pages, and then I found a bunch more with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=https%3A%2F%2Fplantaddicts.com LinkSearch]. I've reverted and warned all those I found (there are a couple of remaining links which appear to have been added in good faith before this spam attack - I haven't checked whether they are actually appropriate to keep). There might be more which were reverted by others without being identified as part of this group. But here is a list of all the accounts I've found so far for reference:

{{Collapsible list

| title = Bots spamming plant articles in April 2025

| User:Teran980

| User:Weina1015

| User:Abby2026

| User:Chinz1244

| User:Nunez254

| User:Tosini254

| User:Chettinoh254

| User:Legacy254

| User:Ronaldo254

| User:Rael88

| User:Susanbett

| User:Sanchez254

| User:Colwill

| User:Cele254

| User:BMW2025

| User:Benz254

| User:Forester254

| User:Messi254

}} Averixus (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

: You can add these where the links were reverted:

:* User:Disasi254, User:Laho254, User:Cherono254, User:OscarAmon, User:Corolla254

:  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's still going on, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose&curid=26537&diff=1287292709&oldid=1287212313 here]. I think it's necessary to carry out a regular search for "plantaddicts.com". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::: The is a spam black list: MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Theere is a template to gather more information:

:::* {{Link summary|plantaddicts.com}}

::: I've added a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#plantaddicts.com.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Incidentally, the use in the Hydrangea article was added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrangea&diff=prev&oldid=811196986 November 2017]. It might be that the spam additions are the problem rather than the website content itself.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working on an article for Aquilegia paui. While a conservation assessment was published in Oryx in 2011 (and subsequently the subject of praise by Stephen Hopper), that assessment only recommended that the IUCN list the species as endangered. The IUCN has never formally assessed the species. Another, previous assessment tentatively classified the species as critically endangered. Would it be appropriate to use the Speciesbox parameter for an endangered species? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I just had this come up with an edit I made where I had added a DD status that was in the paper where the species was described (and the word "recommended" was also used regarding the status). In that case no mention was made of the 5 IUCN criteria (A-E) which I understand should be mentioned for a formal DD designation, so I undid my edit there. The 2011 asssessment for Aquilegia paui does mention a criterion.

:I'm not sure what it makes to make an IUCN status official. Inclusion the Red List database? Not having a status assessment that otherwise meets the requirements (whatever those may be) disclaimed as only being "recommended"? Plantdrew (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::In that case, I'm inclined to include it for Aquilegia paui. It's a frustrating circumstance, but I suppose such things are not objective. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would argue the difference between a paper assessing a species according to the IUCN criteria and an "official" Red List status is the review process that assessments go through prior to being added to the Red List. I think it's fair to differentiate between these preliminary assessments based on IUCN criteria and assessments actually recognised by the IUCN and published in the Red List. In these cases (or cases in which a more recent assessment has been published in the literature but not yet published in the Red List yet, as with Euryops walterorum), I've opted to not include a status in the speciesbox but instead mention it in the body of the article, along the lines of "A preliminary assessment assessed [species] as [status] according to IUCN criteria, based on [criteria + reasoning]". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Agreed. I think only official assessments by various bodies should go in the taxobox. One can also argue this in Wikipedia source terms. An assessment in a journal article is a primary source for the conservation status, while assessments by bodies like the IUCN are reviews of the data and act as secondary sources. The unofficial statuses can be added in the text where it can be explained properly with caveats.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on Yucca and I'm 95% sure I should put the list of species into its own article for readability. With all the photos it makes for a big wall of information. Is there a guideline as to when? I suspect it, like a lot of Wikipedia questions, is a fuzzy readability one. If it takes up more than two page downs to get to the bottom, or something like that. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is a guideline at Wikipedia:Article size, but I'm seeing anything about page downs or similar measures of length.

:My opinion is that a simple list (no photos) of less than 100 species should NOT be split out into a separate list article. With photos, I'm not sure where I'd put the cutoff. The 50 species with photos at Yucca is kind of overwhelming the prose sections. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would definitely split that list off, that was my first thought when I took a look at the article. Dracophyllum 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was bold and got it done. Also, thanks for noticing that POWO has updated the authority for Yucca luminosa, Plantdrew. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@MtBotany - as an aside, I've just done a spot of copyediting on the page (grammar, spelling consistency). But the standout for me is that awful map in the taxobox, using political boundaries rather than the actual boundary of the genus. Can a better map be found? - MPF (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am confident that such a map does not exist. If it did I would have seen it by now. Political divisions are not ideal, but it is better than nothing. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've just listed Flower at pre-FAC peer review. If anyone has any comments, they would be much appreciated. Cheers, Dracophyllum 08:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, unsure if this is appropriate to ask it here, or if there's a Montenegrin wikipedia group I should be asking, but Stara Maslina, 2000 year old olive tree in Bar, Montenegro, has a claim that fire damage was caused by multiple incidents (carelessness with matches, lightning strike, one review mentions rowdy youths). Does anyone have more reliable information about this? Plebiano (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Came across [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VsoTNHE27jE this video] about a berry enjoyed in Indonesian markets. Can’t find anything else about it. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting! It appears to be called Campanumoea lancifolia. I'm surprised an article hasn't been created yet. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::According to :Plants of the World Online Campanumoea lancifolia is a synonym of Cyclocodon lancifolius {{small|(Roxb.) Kurz}}. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm going to do a real quick article from some sources I found, [https://archive.org/details/taiwania-19-123-147 The Campanulaceae of Taiwan] and [http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242412812 Cyclocodon lancifolius] in Flora of China. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for creating this. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are welcome. It is a bit outside my area, but I'm interested in all plants.

::::I've not found a good solid source for a common name in English. There are a lot of dubious preliminary studies of antioxidants and other compounds from berries of the species and some of them call it "Hong Guo Ginseng", but I'm hesitant to add that because of the the sources. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I started a request for consensus here to try to see if people support always displaying Domain Eukaryota in the automated taxobox system. This would be hugely beneficial for protist taxoboxes, but it would also display Eukaryota in all the plant taxoboxes. Please chime in and show support or opposition if you can. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Trying here after getting no response at wikispecies . . . on commons, I'm regularly having to remove misfiled images related to microorganisms from the category for the plant genus Microbiota. This makes me wonder: is Microbiota a valid genus name, or does it potentially breach [https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_20.html ICN Article 20.2] "The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication..."? Microbiota was only described in 1923, so is later than the 1912 cutoff given in Art. 20.2. Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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