Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Stub to Start drive

Temporary stats log

This got put out quick and looks great! I want to get started working on this right away. If no one objects, I'm going to add a temporary list of improved articles under the stats section, just to track progress manually until a wikidata solution or something else is developed. Thanks again Eewilson for your work on this! Fritzmann (message me) 22:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! You go right ahead. Preface that it is manual and if or when an automated solution is implemented, it will replace this... or whatever. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

There are some inconsistencies with the formatting suggested in this drive and the guidelines given at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. I suggest bringing this drive into concordance with the existing template. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Abductive. Thank you for reading it and making the suggestion. It's great to have fresh eyes on it. Could you reply here with the inconsistencies you have found so that I can address them? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten to respond to this, but it will take me a while. I will say this; there is a reason why people don't just make Start-class plant articles; the description. Take for instance my most recent stub, Carpinus kawakamii. To get to Start-class I would have to take this description from the Flora of China;

Trees; bark dark gray. Branchlets brown, glabrous or sparsely pubescent. Petiole 0.8-1.5 cm, sparsely pubescent; leaf blade ovate-lanceolate or oblong-lanceolate, 4-5 × 1.8-2.5 cm, abaxially sparsely villous along veins, adaxially sparsely pubescent when young, glabrescent, base subrounded or subcordate, sometimes unequal, margin regularly and doubly serrate, sometimes simply serrate distally, apex acuminate or caudate-acuminate; lateral veins 10-15 on each side of midvein. Female inflorescence 4-6 × 2-2.5 cm; peduncle ca. 1 cm, densely pubescent; bracts semiovate, 1.8-2 cm, densely pubescent adaxially, outer margin irregularly coarsely dentate, without basal lobe, inner margin subfalcate or straight, entire, with ovate, inflexed basal lobe ca. 3 mm, apex acuminate; veins 5, reticulate veins prominent. Nutlet broadly ovoid, ca. 3 mm, sparsely resinous glandular, densely villous at apex, 6-ribbed. Fl. May-Jun, fr. Jul-Aug.

and paraphrase it without plagiarizing it, while turning it into full, readable, understandable sentences with appropriate wikilinks to the more obscure glossary terms. I have only done it twice, as I did with Iberis amara. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That (in Iberis amara) is a good description, and it certainly could be in a Start-class article. But, it is one that would be required for a C-class article. The Stub-to-Start drive participants are using the assessment guidelines from the Plants project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Start guidelines. These existed – they were not created for the purpose of this effort.

There are multiple ways to write a species article, and each of us has a style we like. Certain elements are important, and it can be hard to look at someone else's style and consider it acceptable if it varies significantly from our own. The Taxon template is a guide that gives us something to follow for the ideal article. The ideal article with all of the elements of the Taxon template far surpasses a Start-class article. I have written some of those. They take time and research. That's not bad, but it's not the purpose of this drive.

A result of imperfectly improving a Stub-class article is to get it to the next step so that it answers a few basic questions about the subject. It is expected that it will leave much more to do. That's not a bad thing. It is the natural progression of the encyclopedia. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A few years ago, I was given the impression by the more experienced plant guys that to get to Start, a description was required. There is a philosophical consideration. For instance, I have created over 100 articles on species in the genus Prunus. All of these are small trees with white flowers that blossom in the spring, and produce a drupe. And most are obscure species found only in the wild. Thus, the description needs to help the readers distinguish between these species in the manner of a identification key (I used Mariana Yazbek's). Which means some text about axillary buds, leaf stipules, or grooves in the stones, which ends up approaching a full species description. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Abductive, it might be best for something like this to stick with what is written on our assessment page rather than what we have each grown accustomed to doing. I could personally toss in other items for each class, but that would not be effective and it would make me act like I'm "the boss". Finding the piece on the assessment page that describes what should be in an article for each class was very helpful. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying to change the written guidelines on what constitutes a Start-class. I'm just providing a perspective on why relatively few Stub-class articles on plants naturally just grow into Start-class without somebody being very intentional about it. User talk:BilledMammal is beside himself with the poor state of species stubs, such that he recently made huge lists of User:BilledMammal/Species (one sentence) (22,564 members), User:BilledMammal/Species (two sentence) (so large it times out), and User:BilledMammal/Species (three sentence) (34,327 members) stubs. So I hope that this drive will make a dent in the 200,000 or so extremely short species stubs. Abductive (reasoning) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh, okay. I see. Yes. I agree. Fortunately, there are only a little over 61,500 plant project stubs, and I don't know how to tell how many of them are species. I hope that this drive will do more than just get plant species articles turned from stub to start (a huge part of it). It could also help people to understand that adding the details needed to make an article better than a stub isn't that hard. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I estimated that there are 80,000 plant species articles on Wikipedia. POWO currently accepts 359,892 species. 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How did he pull those queries? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think he's handy with Wikimedia tools. Abductive (reasoning) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I need to be handy with the Wikimedia tools. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Another userbox

This user participates in the WikiProject Plants Stub-to-Start Drive

{{User:Ethmostigmus/Userboxes/PLANTSSTS}}

Saw C:File:202204 Bud.svg and C:File:202204 Seedling.svg and had an idea for a Stub-to-Start Drive userbox - after all, turning stubs into Start-class articles is a bit like nurturing a tiny sprout into a healthy seedling :P I've personally been slacking a bit due to issues IRL, but I see lots of great work being done! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is adorable! I love it. I can add it to the page for people to choose from. I'm going to use all of them! Sorry about your RL issues. I hope the work out. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed very cute and absolutely love the thought behind it. Thanks for making it, despite being busy IRL. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Tweaking instructions

Hi, team! At two weeks in, I have been able to see a need for some tweaks to the instructions. I have been working on those as we go but am planning to get them "finished" (for now) today. I will tag all participants on this talk page once those changes are complete, and I will outline what they are. If you have seen anything during your work for this effort in the past two weeks that could be helped either by a change to the instructions or something else, please comment here. I can't believe we are already two weeks in and have upgraded at least 66 articles! This is wonderful. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Important changes to date

@Fritzmann2002, MtBotany, Pagliaccious, Ethmostigmus, ArthurTheGardener, Eucalyptusmint, Jacketpocket, Esculenta, and Abductive:

I promised you all an update Sunday explaining changes to the instructions have been made since we began. This table summarizes the most important changes, with reasons and priority. Please go to the section link to read the text. Further, I know I promised that nobody would be "grading your work", but until we get the kinks worked out, it has been necessary. Please don't shoot me.

Here are some highlights:

• The "Description", "Distribution and habitat", and "Conservation" (if information available) sections are not optional, or not as optional as I had thought they were, although they could be called something else (but why reinvent the wheel?). "Range and habitat" is an okay alternative to "Description and habitat". It's not the wording that is as important, though, as it is that we do have sections. This change comes from my further study of the Wikipedia Start-class article guidelines. I made a blunder and didn't realize that the project-specific guidelines did not include these but were in addition to these. The drive instructions have been updated as necessary.
• Make sure to look for conservation information and add it to the Speciesbox if found. Some articles have been missing this when the information has been available.
• A photo is really more than just a nicety, although it is optional. If one exists in Wikimedia Commons for the species, by all means, use it! I had begun to write up something on finding photos two weeks ago. I'll expand on that and add it to the instructions when I get it "finished".
• A taxonomy section is optional for Start-class species articles, but sometimes it is easy to start with the information we have already gathered for the Speciesbox. Don't feel obligated, though.

Notable changes to date

Section	Change and/or reason	Priority
Step 6: main body	Expanded based on further study of Wikipedia and WikiProject Plants requirements for Start-class articles.	Top
Step 10: confirm article contents	Expanded based on further study of Wikipedia and WikiProject Plants requirements for Start-class articles.	Top
Step 5: speciesbox	Made it easier to understand and added important points.	Top
Finding Stub-class articles	The search does not trim leading or trailing spaces, and it is case-sensitive.	High
Step 11: finishing up	Added note on what to do if upgrade of class is questioned or reverted (by someone other than a coordinator of this drive).	High
Appendix 4: the stats	Stats section added (not mandatory but it's becoming quite helpful) – thank you Fritzmann2002 – because all we have is a manual way to keep track.	Mid
Step 3: short description	Expanded a little for clarification.	Mid
Step 4: lead section	Added explanation about former species name in parentheses in the first sentence of the lead.	Mid
How to sign up	Added links to invitation and user boxes.	Low

To view the change comparison, click here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this: I'll go through the ones I've changed to see if there's anything I should have added. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

ArthurTheGardener, you are welcome, and as always, if you have any questions or trouble, just ask! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you! This is helpful. I'll also look at my previous ones and make necessary updates. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Carex alba

Hi @Eewilson: If you have a moment, would you mind looking at Carex alba, please? I've been trying to insert conservation status, but another editor, who seems to be coincidentally following in my footsteps, has removed the change and "tidied" the article. I'm not sure what I did wrong there, and I'm keen to understand what I should have done better. (I do get that they have put some links in, but I don't see what was wrong with the original code). ArthurTheGardener (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ArthurTheGardener, I'm sure that feels confusing and frustrating. It's possible the user has the article on their watchlist. Regardless, we are all here to try to make Wikipedia better. I'd be happy to take a look and see what the changes were. I won't be able to read the mind of the other editor, but I could make suggestions if you wish. Make sure any facts you add have a source citation and assume that changes to your work are not personal. Sometimes I have had to ask another editor for clarification so that I can understand what I may have missed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Carex alba doesn't have an entry in the IUCN Red List database (iucnredlist.org). Most plant species have not been assessed for a conservation status. Species do get evaluated according to IUCN criteria in publications other than the database, but I think those evaluations generally end up in the database pretty quickly. If a species doesn't have an entry in the IUCN database it most likely doesn't have an IUCN status assigned (and TNC statuses generally only exist for North American species). POWO does list "Angiosperm Extinction Risk Predictions" for many species, but that isn't a status system that supported by the taxobox |status_system= parameter, and as the AERP status is determined algorithmically, I'm not convinced that it is usually worth mentioning. If you don't have some source for a conservation status, don't add a status.

The other "tidying" changes I see are:

1. Replacing {{Collapsible list}} with {{Species list}} and linking authorities; I wouldn't bother with replacing the template myself if I came across {{Collapsible list}}, but I would use {{Species list}} to begin with if I was adding synonyms that weren't already there. It handles the formatting (italics, small text for authorities) automatically. Adding links to authorities is also not something I would typically bother with, but I think it is better to have them linked than not.
2. Replacing {{Cite web}} with {{Cite POWO}}. Again, not a change I would bother making but also one where I would have used the other template in the first place if I was adding a reference to POWO.
3. Replacing C. alba with Carex alba at the beginning of the description section. This is a change I would make, and it's supported by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Abbreviating_names (MOS says to write out the genus when it the binomial first appears in any section; I go a little further and prefer to write it out when it opens any paragraph; other (non-Wikipedia) Manuals of Style often recommend not beginning paragraphs with abbreviations).
4. Adding a {{cvt}} template for a measurement to display imperial units. That's not mandated by MOS:UNIT for this (Eurasian) species. As an American, I don't mind seeing imperial units, but as a scientist I don't miss them if they're not present.
5. Italicizing Carex alba in the title of a reference. Scientific names in references titles are often not italicized, but they should be.

The templates that were replaced were there before you edited the article. The things you could have done better are 1) not making up a conservation status, 2) writing out the genus at its first instance in a section (Wikipedia isn't paper, there isn't really any need to abbreviate genera anywhere), 3) italicizing scientific names in references. Plantdrew (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Plantdrew, that's very clear and helpful. However, I didn't make up the conservation status: I found the information on this page: https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espece/cd_nom/88324?lg=en and also on this one: https://www.infoflora.ch/en/flora/carex-alba.html. I'm still not entirely clear on which sources are considered trustworthy - would you advise using only the IUCN Red List database for this? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener:, ah, OK. Those are national assessments. Stick with the IUCN Red List database for conservation status in the taxobox. National assessments can be mentioned in the body of the article if you want. The French one has regional assessments as well; it's LC in France as a whole and most regions, but NT in Midi-Pyrenees. The Swiss one explicitly mentions that it is not on the global red list (scroll most of the way down the page). There is a recent discussion at Template_talk:Speciesbox#Specifying_regional_vs_global_Red_List_status? about including regional statuses in the taxobox, but I think a status particular to a single country is too fine-grained to put in the taxobox (unless the species is endemic to that country). Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Eewilson, I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was complaining; that wasn't my intention. I just wanted to understand why the changes were made, so that I can avoid mistakes in future. Thanks for all your help on here. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener, I didn't sense you were complaining. I hadn't gotten to answering you yet, but @Plantdrew gave a more thorough answer than I probably could have today. Your questions are good ones and important, and Wikipedia has quite a bit of nooks and crannies. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener, and there are so many acronyms! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener @Plantdrew, the first link references ZNIEFF, which is Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique. The second one actually does say that the IUCN gives it a least concern status. Yet, as you say Plantdrew, the species is not in the IUCNredlist. I'm going to also ping @YorkshireExpat here because they might be interested in this discussion. (Incidentally, since we are referring to a specific article, it might be good to have the discussion over on the Carex alba talk page if it continues.)

I am not sure what the first web page is saying. Perhaps that INPN (the website) evaluated if the plant is protected in France and that it is a "ZNIEFF determined species" (whatever that means)? The status in the Speciesbox is for global statuses only, so this France information, if reliable (and understandible) could be discussed in the Conservation section of the article as opposed to trying to use it in the Speciesbox.

The second web page that Arthur links to here on this talk page is in German published by InfoFlora. A search for "InfoFlora" in Wikipedia turns up no article but does give plant species articles that use it as a reference for an IUCN status in the Speciesbox: Aquilegia einseleana and Orobanche alba, to name two. There are 11 articles that use it as a source for something. The easy answer there is that it's only in the IUCN Red List if the IUCN Red List says it is and that the IUCN Red List should be used as a source. What is this InfoFlora website? Asking Plantdrew and anyone else who has been around a bit. Incidentally, Arthur, if this is where you got the information about the IUCN status, then it would be the source you would cite in the status_ref parameter of the Speciesbox. It might be an unreliable source, but at least it would be the source you used (which is what YorkshireExpat was saying – cite a source – and has removed it again). We would then be able to determine better if it's incorrect, unreliable, or what. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of InfoFlora before, but it looks like a good source for info about the flora of Switzerland. If you scroll most of the way down, you can see that it lists whether a species has been evaluated for the global IUCN Red List. There are English, Italian, French and German pages for species (but some of the content doesn't have a translation for all of the languages). Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Just a short note to explain my actions. As suggested, the main thing I objected to was the lack of a citation on the conservation status, and there's a nice param in taxoboxes, |status_ref=, that handles this. The other tidying is just pandering to my own OCD, and just did that while I was in there. My attention was drawn to the article because @ArthurTheGardener: initially populated |status= without populating |status_system=, which causes an error to appear here. Hope this helps. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @YorkshireExpat, @Plantdrew and @Eewilson for this clear and useful explanation: I'm still finding my way here in Plant Wiki, which is a bit trickier to manoeuvre than the Sci-Fi and Fantasy Wiki I've also been exploring, and I appreciate all your input. I'm also just getting used to the conservation status rules, but as you say, I'll stick to the IUCN Red List for my citations.Thanks again, everyone, ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener no particular need to stick to IUCN. Here is the list of supported systems, so any of those are fine and will be accepted by the taxobox. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @YorkshireExpat: that's very helpful. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles listed on Statistics page that do not meet Start-class criteria

Spruceanthus theobromae

I'm just starting to go through and review the articles listed at the Statistics page and wanted to start a thread for flagging articles that don't meet the Start-class criteria (taxobox, list of daughter taxa, basic description, basic distribution and habitat info, conservation status when applicable, and at least one secondary source).

First one I found: @Esculenta, you've listed Spruceanthus theobromae on the Statistics page as a Start class article, but it lacks a physical description. If you need help accessing a source with a full description let me know, I'm happy to try to track it down for you. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oooh... this will be fun! Just remember to outdent the thread once in a while (phone user here). Let's add the wikilink to the species in the comment when we do that. And for anyone new, I think it's going to be great practice to give and receive objective feedback. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to feedback on my Symphyotrichum ones, especially, because they are my "babies", or as close as one is allowed to have babies on here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gotten a bit sick of writing description sections (always my least favourite part of a plant article lol) so I figured this would be a good way to step away from that while still putting productive energy into the drive. Gives me a good excuse to do minor cleanup tasks like wikilinking authorities and improving references - I absolutely love that stuff. Looking forward to leaning about Symphyotrichum when I get to them :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I've been through a few of your Symphyotrichum articles now and they look great! Symphyotrichum parviceps is an absolutely beautiful species, and I'm fascinated by it being introduced to the South Caucases - that might make for a fun DYK hook someday!

Unrelated to Symphyotrichum, I want to shout out two particularly interesting articles I've seen so far:

• @ArthurTheGardener, nice work on Aster tonglingensis! Obviously as a new and understudied species there isn't a whole lot to say about it yet, but it makes for a good Start-class article - though I did actually find another source[1] for you, which is a new record for the species in Fujian province! Hopefully it gets more research and a formal Red List assessment soon.
• @MtBotany, Penstemon albomarginatus is a beautiful plant and you've given it a lovely article to match! Honestly, I would actually consider this a B-class article - it's comprehensive, well written, and illustrated, with no obvious issues. This is my first time hearing about this species, and I've added it to my bucket list of plants I absolutely need to see in person if I ever get the chance to visit the western US :)

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it definitely not "B" work. I did not even do a complete journal search for any of the stub penstemon articles I have worked on. Plus archive.org is not fully operational so I have not been doing my usual book searches for obscure common names and if the species is planted by rock gardeners. I do not know what else might exist out there and I have to satisfy myself not else is available before I call an article "B" class. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a description and a taxonomy section for Spruceanthus theobromae (and bumped it up to C). Esculenta (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cratoxylum formosum

Hi @Fritzmann2002, Cratoxylum formosum is listed on the Statistics page but lacks a physical description. As above, please let me know if you need help accessing a source for this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch Ethmostigmus, I've added a description. If there are others you find in your sweep that I missed that for please drop me a ping on my talk page so I can fix them. Fritzmann (message me) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Aquilegia atrata and Aquilegia atrovinosa

@Jacketpocket, two things: Firstly, while Aquilegia atrata isn't missing anything (it's actually quite a good Start-class article), I wanted to discuss sourcing with you. You've used the GBIF overview page for the species as your main source, which isn't necessarily an issue, however, it would be better to directly reference the original source of the information (mostly a German website and a volume of Flora Helvetica) if at all possible. I've also gone ahead and removed the IUCN status from the article given that, as far as I can tell, no IUCN assessment for this species exists - I really don't know where the German site got that information from. When it comes to providing a reference for IUCN Red List status in the text or in the speciesbox, the assessment should be cited directly.

Secondly, Aquilegia atrovinosa is a great Start-class article, nice to see someone working on Central Asian species - they are so often neglected on enwiki :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ethmostigmus! I'm not a botanist myself so am slowly getting the hang of what sites to use. I've replaced GBIF references in A. atrata where possible and added a note that it's not been evaluated for the IUCN red list. And thanks for the nice comments on A. atrovinosa :) Jacketpocket (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've done a great job for someone still getting the hang of it, and I look forward to reading the other articles you've brought up to Start class :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Carex rupestris

Hi ArthurTheGardener! Carex rupestris looks good. Good job! There are a few things I noticed about it that I can help you with. I will make the changes and then discuss them on the talk page of the article. Keep up the good work! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Eewilson. I'll check them out. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Vismia baccifera

Hi @Fritzmann2002! Vismia baccifera looks good, but it's missing a few things it needs to be considered Start-class - namely, slightly more detail in the description section and more detailed information on its distribution and habitat. I went ahead and added its IUCN status, infraspecifics, and synonyms for you. The IUCN ref I've included provides a bit of information you could use to expand both of these areas, but if you would like help accessing further references please let me know! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Radula perrottetii

Hi @Esculenta, I think you missed a step when working on Radula perrottetii - this species is now listed as Cladoradula perrottetii (syn. Radula perrottetii, R. valida, and R. gigantea) by WFO and the Bryophyte Nomenclator, so the article will need to be moved and updated to reflect the currently accepted name. The lead is also inconsistent with the body in regards to its distribution (lead says endemic to Japan, body says distributed throughout Asia). Article looks good for Start-class otherwise! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a bigger issue. Look at WFO's accepted genera in the family Radulaceae. In 2022, the family was split into 3 genera.

https://wfoplantlist.org/taxon/wfo-7000000512-2024-06?page=1

Articles on the two new genera, Cladoradula and Dactyloradula, do not exist, the family page still represents one genus, and List of Radula species is using the species from GBIF as of June 2023, stating there are fewer at WFO but not explaining why. I think this needs to be brought up on the project talk page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear... I'm happy to fix List of Radula species per WFO (it really shouldn't have been using GBIF as a source in the first place IMO) and possibly also split Radulaceae from Radula to give it a real article, but I am definitely not up to creating articles for Cladoradula and Dactyloradula at the moment. It's late here, so I'm about to go to bed, but I have free time tomorrow - if no one else gets to it first, I will bring this up on the main project talk page and start on the list article in the morning. Cheers for spotting that! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Before we make any decisions about the family, let's get feedback from the project. Thank you for being willing! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus I could describe the situation on the project talk page if you want to end your wikiday. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I updated the species article, added a taxonomy section, moved it to the new name, and made its missing genus page. Am also happy to make a proper family page (will do this weekend unless someone beats me to it). Esculenta (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants § Radulaceae for further discussion on this one. It's more involved than we should handle here. I keep discovering things. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Incidental quality upgrades

Occasionally, in the course of looking for plant stub articles to work on for this drive, I come across articles that clearly aren't stubs, and update their quality status on the talk page. Is it of interest to keep a record of these incidental upgrades, on a separate list? It might help with compiling stats at the end, and others might be interested in looking over "silently improved" articles? Esculenta (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I have seen a few articles like that, too. We have to make sure we have carefully followed all of the steps up to Step 10. Theoretically, if a species article already has everything from Steps 1–9, including that it is a valid species with correct author citation and such, then it's ready for Step 10, which is the review of content. If we didn't need to expand the article, made only incidental changes or none, and the article now meets Start criteria, we change the class on the talk page and put it on the statistics list. Does that answer the question? This is my first attempt at comprehension skills today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense ... I'll check back on the ones that I upgraded past stub, make sure they meet the "advanced start" criteria applicable to this drive, and "claim" them on the statistics page. Esculenta (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm ... upon closer inspection, some of these "upgraded" articles may of dubious quality. For example, I had to remove an entire section in a student-improved article that was not at all supported by the sources. The amount of time it took to do a mild cleanup and verification could have been used to improve a stub on my own! Esculenta (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that, too. What article is that? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: That is Step 2: study the article. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Dawsonia superba (linked above). Esculenta (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It can be very frustrating. I spent hours one day on one trying to clean one up before realizing the student had clearly committed academic violations. I eventually removed all of the changes the student had made, placed the article back to Stub, reported the situation to the Wikipedia Education project, and they are now reviewing other articles from that college because more have been found. I will look into this further and see if they need to be notified. It is not the same college. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description instructions

Per WP:SDEXAMPLES and WP:SDAVOID I'm updating the instructions about short descriptions to say "common name" as we're supposed to avoid scientific names in short descriptions. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That works! WP:SDESC, which contains the links you reference, is an informational page and not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It also contradicts Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template § Short description, but it might just be better to change it there, or at least add information about the suggestions at WP:SDESC. I feel comfortable just going ahead and doing a change on the template page with information about WP:SDESC. Thanks, @MtBotany! Always the go-getter. I made a few changes to what you did. Explanations in the change comment. See what you think. It might be more complicated than what you were going for. If you don't mind reviewing it and tweaking it as needed... – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson I figure that unless it is something really big it is better to do and explain rather than just asking permission. If I get reverted because I got it wrong it is "no big deal". I like your edits. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like most families don't have a single commmon name. Rubiaceae is variously referred to as the madder, coffee, or bedstraw family. That's the common name for the type genus, the common name for the most economically important genus, or common name for the genus perhaps most familiar to English-speakers in the temperate northern hemisphere. Any of those is a reasonable way to come up with a common name for the family, but how are you going to decide which one to use?

Articles for Asteraceae species were often written with "in the sunflower tribe of the aster family" or "in the aster tribe in the sunflower family". I get the desire to avoid repetition ("sunflower tribe in the sunflower family"), but I'm not sure what readership were serving who is aware that aster/sunflower/daisy/composite family are interchangeable, but isn't comfortable/familiar with Asteraceae. Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You are quite right @Plantdrew that many (most?) families do not have one common name, but unless a common name is obscure either one works to give a reader who is not seriously into botany the right idea. If I say Fabaceae to 100 people I won't have communicated with 90 maybe 96 of them. If I say pea family, they'll have a framework to hang it on. But equally they'll understand if I say bean family. Words like sunflower or aster communicate with so many more people it does not matter which one we pick as long as we pick one of them. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

My view is that short descriptions don't need to go beyond presenting the taxonomic position of a taxon as "flowering plant" (or even "plant"), but if there is truly a single common name that applies to the family such as cactus, orchid, or grass it could be used in the short description. Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Carex magellanica

Hi @Eewilson, while working on Carex magellanica, I happened upon this one: Carex magellanica subsp. irrigua, which seems to be a supspecies of the same plant. Is it appropriate to merge them, or should they stay separate, please? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Good find! I'm going to leave a message on the talk page for the subspecies article and tag you and Plantdrew in it. It looks like he worked a bit in this article 9 years ago. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Shout outs to Jacketpocket and MtBotany!

Shout outs go to @Jacketpocket and @MtBotany, who have been working like machines lately on articles for Aquilegia and Penstemon, respectively. Great job! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Eewilson! Only two stubs left in Aquilegia now :) And thanks to everyone who's looked over my articles and fixed things too! Jacketpocket (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jacketpocket Well done! And it is not like Aquilegia is a small genus. I've got miles to go before all the penstemons are no longer stubs. I'm only up to F. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto what Elizabeth said - you're both putting out some great work, and it's been a pleasure going through and reviewing your articles :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome Cayuga3!

We have a new participant of the STS drive. Cayuga3 joined today and has upgraded five already! Give a warm welcome to our newest team member. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's great, welcome aboard Cayuga3! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Progress report

Hi, team. Just an update on our progress. The Drive began on October 13. We have now upgraded over 170 articles. That's great news, and these articles look really good compared to their former stubs. They actually give encyclopedic information and cover the basics. Some even include taxonomy outside of the {{Speciesbox}}, although that's not a requirement for Start-class, and most of them have photos. The team is very cooperative, and we gained a new member a week ago who has hit the ground running. That's all good news! Many of us have expectedly slowed down, probably because of the holiday season, but I'm confident we will pick back up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've definitely been slacking a bit in my own contributions, but I am now more than half way through reviewing articles listed on the Statistics page (next article up for review is #114, Sphagnum squarrosum). Happy to report that I've found very few issues in those >100 articles - everyone is doing excellent work. I've just broken a 99 day edit streak so I think I may be a little burned out! I expect my participation to be minimal over the rest of the month into the beginning of the new year, but hopefully will pick up the pace again in 2025 when things are a bit less hectic :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)