Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Polbot

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Ranunculidae has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. I've taught AP Bio and never heard of this. If you can find reliable secondary sources, please add them.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep now that {{ping|Jts1882}} has added a reference. It is always going to be a very short article of primarily historical interest, but it is a valid article to keep - MPF (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I think short articles on now obsolete taxa are useful. We could redirect to the classification page, but it's in several classifications and would need searching for. The stub acts as a disambiguation page with links to the other classifications. I could add the references for the other systems, but they are in the linked articles.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Main discussion is on the talk page. I'm requesting this per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Liverwort is by far the more used name and is much more recognizable. (from talk page:) {{tq|Doing a quick google search (not the most rigorous method, I know) reveals a lot of government websites, universities, gardeners, etc... also use the term frequently (some examples I found: [https://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/liverworts], [https://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/weed/liverwort], [https://www.lovethegarden.com/uk-en/article/liverworts]). Even websites and papers that do use the name Marchantiophyta, including taxonomy sites, also tend to use liverwort more ([https://taxateca.com/filomarchantiophyta.html], [https://thebiologyprimer.com/marchantiophyta], [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/bryophyte-biology/morphology-and-classification-of-the-marchantiophyta/2D8E74B3CE39DAB46B373FC13ED91461])}}. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User:YazonKnight/Hammada ramosissima is a stale draft within your scope. User:YazonKnight has not edited in over 11 months. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that there's enough for transfer to main space as a stub. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

: Agreed, it's a valid species and there is enough for a stub. I've moved the speciesbox and added a taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Shocked to discover that Heinrich Mayr (1854–1911), an important German botanist, doesn't have an article. Anyone want to start it, please? See :de:Heinrich Mayr, :species:Heinrich Mayr for potential material. - MPF (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|MPF}} actually he only has 29 names credited to him in IPNI, so by that criterion he isn't very important. If you look at List of botanists by author abbreviation (M), you'll see quite a lot of names in red, including, for example, Moxley, who is credited with 50 names. Writing articles on botanists never seems to have attracted that many editors, and the lists of botanists by author abbreviation all have multiple red links. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Peter coxhead Thanks! I'll see if I can at least start a stub (add it to my lengthy mental list of things to do!). I've not attempted to translate/read the German article on him yet, but its length does suggest he is of greater importance than just the number of names he published - MPF (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've (auto)-translated the German article. Esculenta (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Esculenta - excellent, thanks! Surprisingly (for machine translation!), I can't see that it even needs any copyediting. I'll get round to adding some bits about the species he described later - MPF (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The link generated by {{tl|Botanist}} wasn't working; see Template talk:Botanist#Footnote link. It's a classic example of a website changing its interface. I think I've fixed {{tl|Botanist}} and {{tl|Botanist2}}, but please watch out for issues with these templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Flora of Scotland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was reading about a species of plant, went up to Vernonieae and realized that there's no way to go back down from here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonieae has no access to any species except for Vernonia. All of the subtribes are missing links, pun intended. Should we move the subtribes list from the infobox into Taxonomy, and replace it with a more practical genus list? 36.79.217.144 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Probably better to put both subtribes and genera into Taxonomy; look at "what links here" putting the genera in the taxobox would make the taxobox unwieldy. Is there a good source for the assignment of genera to subtribes? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:: There's the [https://www.compositae.org/gcd/index.php Global Compositae Database] (also available at [https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1074886 WoRMS]). They have [https://www.compositae.org/gcd/aphia.php?p=browser&id%5b%5d=1079173&id%5b%5d=1514084&id%5b%5d=1074886#focus Tribe Vernonieae] in subfamily Vernonioideae rather than Cichorioideae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::: WFO now uses the Global Compositae Database as its expert taxonomomic source (TEN). You can get the genera for subtribes from the main WFO (e.g. [https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-4100001275 Vernoniinae]) or WFO-List (e.g. [https://wfoplantlist.org/taxon/wfo-4100001275-2024-12?page=1 Vernoniinae]) versions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've added a list of genera to Vernonieae that I had compiled in my userspace in 2023 based on the Global Compositae Database. The GCD treatment is a mess, and remains a mess in WFO. Many ghttps://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/linear-sequence#1749547021 enera aren't assigned to subtribes, including the type genera of some accepted subtribes (subtribe Elephantopinae is accepted in GCD/WFO, but Elephantopus has tribe Vernonieae as the parent in GCD/WFO). GCD/WFO accept genera that are synonyms in POWO, and POWO accepts genera that are synonyms in GCD/WFO. Eremosis, Centratherum, Iodocephalopsis and Gossweilera were synonyms in GCD in 2023, and werer accepted by POWO. Plantdrew (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: World Plants (also available via CoL) also have a listing to subtribe and has some very different groupings to WFO. WFO only has genus Cololobus in subtribe [https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-4100001275 Vernoniinae] and places [https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-4000040166 Vernonia] in tribe Vernonieae with no assigned subtribe. WP places Cololobus in subtribe [https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/linear-sequence#1749546170 Lychnophorinae] and has eight genera (including Vernonia) in subtribe [https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/linear-sequence#1749547021 Vernoniinae].

::::: I suppose such confusion is hard to avoid at tribe/subtribe level. I assume most of the work on that level is in older morphological studies, while revisions based on molecular data will only sample relatively few species. I suppose we either omit the tribal classifications or choose a source to follow.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Eremosis, Centratherum, Iodocephalopsis and Gossweilera" all seem accepted in GCD/WFO and POWO: Weepingraf (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::https://www.compositae.org/gcd/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1076245

::::::https://wfoplantlist.org/taxon/wfo-4000007194-2024-12?page=1

::::::https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:8155-1 Weepingraf (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Gossweilera is not accepted in GCD

::::::https://www.compositae.org/gcd/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1077510

::::::but the species are accepted:

::::::https://www.compositae.org/gcd/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1109166

::::::which is nonsensical of course Weepingraf (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The cited [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176161712004051 source] that talked about the rose mistook "Meillandina" for a species, when in fact it's a cultivar name. The problem is: I don't know whether Meillandina is a specific cultivar, or a cultivar group, and it was not even specified in the source what kind/type of rose they conducted a study on (no description of it). The image on Chlororespiration#Paredes' and Quiles' experiment might also be erroneous for that reason. What should be done in this case; is it possible to identify the plant in the source study?

While I ask that, the article (Chlororespiration) did originally wrote it as "Rosa Meillandina" instead, with both italicized; I changed it to not italicize "Meillandina" and added single quotes [ ' ] around it, though I have a feeling that my change might be incorrect. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tdes|Meillandina}} is a trade designation, not a cultivar name (source [https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/49782/rosa-meillandina-(-meirov-)-(min)/details RHS]); the cultivar name is 'Meirov'. Further digging shows that Meillandina is also a cultivar group. One cultivar as sold as {{tdes|Meillandina}}, while other cultivars have trade designations {{tdes|Baron/Duke/Lady/Orange/Red/Yellow/... Meillandina}}. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:The paper is available via The Wikipedia Library, but doesn't appear to shed any further light on the identify of the experimental subject.

:The image at chlororespiration is of {{tdes|Brilliant Meillandina}}.

:Meillandina roses are miniature roses, bred for pot culture, which may explain why they were picked for the experiment. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.monaconatureencyclopedia.com/meillandina-roses-born-for-cultivation-in-pots/?lang=en A link] (see the bottom for English "translation") which gives something of the history of the group. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm confused; what should I do, exactly? My change into making it [Rosa 'Meillandina'] (with the single quotes) is incorrect, right? Also, this is related to the Meilland International SA, right; or are there unrelated roses that are also refered as "Meillandina"? CheckNineEight (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure what to do; otherwise I would have done it. The form with single quotes is incorrect. But, because we don't know which cultivar was used we don't know whether {{tdes|Meillandina}} is correct. On further thought Meillandina rose would be OK.

:::Meillandina is trademarked by Meilland International in some jurisdictions. I would be surprised to find anyone else appropriating the term, but proving it hasn't happened is another matter. There's also the possibility of the term having been genericised (cf hoover), but I think that the generic term is miniature rose. An alternative would be to just refer to it as a miniature rose cultivar Lavateraguy (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I suppose I should probably just rewrite them as "Meillandina rose". CheckNineEight (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He appears to be a very notable Ethiopian scientist, but I cannot find details and sources for information added by a prior editor to Legesse Wolde. Yes, that was a duplicate which I have just merged. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure http://naeb.brit.org/, a database of native american uses of plants is a reliable source -- published as a book and the database has published by reliable institutions. Might belong on the resources page. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Tried to visit http://www.efloras.org/ and got this error message. If this continues, it's going to be a nuisance; it is a valuable resource.

:FortiGate Application Control

:Application Blocked

:You have attempted to use an application that violates your Internet usage policy.

:Application HTTP.BROWSER_Firefox

:Category Web.Client

:URL http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2

:Policy d6bfb262-2a3f-51ee-2382-6eaa0a36bcd7

Anyone know what might be going on? Could it be related to the trump/doge attacks on Harvard? - MPF (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Something weird with how the site is configured. I just tried it with a few browsers including Brave, Safari, and Firefox. So far Firefox is the only one that has a problem. This is holding true for all operating systems I've tried, iOS, Android, and Windows. For now try using another browser. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::@MtBotany thanks! Unfortunately, firefox is the only one I've got! It's still happening this morning; it was new late on yesterday, as it was OK earlier yesterday afternoon. - MPF (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@MtBotany Working now, alarm over! - MPF (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)