Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Template

Transferring discussion to project page

 * This has now been archived --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: All further discussion is now taking place at WikiProject:Plants talk --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Best place?
I'm not sure how helpful the move was - since it has now disappeared into the archives - I just added a link. I suppose specific ideas could be launched there. I will place a link to the main page for future reference. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Uses
Following some recent discussions concerning WP:MEDRS, I think it would be useful to keep content on traditional medical uses separate from uses supported by modern medicine. Some plant articles attract non-MEDRS modern medical claims. Claims about traditional uses don't have to be supported by MEDRS sources (but should still be supported by WP:RS). Separation could be achieved by suggesting headers for sections in the template. Would "Traditional medicine" and "Modern medicine" by good section headers? I welcome other suggestions.Plantdrew (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally keep the word "medicine" out of the section on traditional uses. One possibility is to put medical uses supported by MEDRS under "Uses", and herbal uses under "Culture".
 * Actually I find several parts of the suggested template a bit odd. "Cultivation" is separated from "Uses" by "Toxicity", whereas cultivation is surely a use. A more rational pattern might be:
 * Conservation (optional)
 * Biochemistry (optional) [not sure about the title, but should discuss all known chemistry of the plant; any well-supported evidence of metabolites with likely uses, including medical, could be put here]
 * Toxicity (optional subsection)
 * Uses (optional)
 * Cultivation (optional subsection)
 * Medicine (optional subsection, always supported to WP:MEDRS standards)
 * Culture (optional)
 * Associated legends and myths (optional subsection)
 * Herbal use (optional subsection)
 * The understanding should be that particularly long subsections can be promoted to full sections, but maintaining the ordering.
 * I'm not sure how many people watch this page; if there aren't many responses, we should perhaps move the discussion to the main WP:PLANTS talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit awkward to put "Herbal use" outside of "Uses". Personally, I think something closer to the original suggestion would make more sense...
 * Uses (optional)
 * Cultivation (optional subsection)
 * Medicine (optional subsection, always supported to WP:MEDRS standards)
 * Traditional medicine (optional subsection)
 * Alternative medicine (optional subsection)
 * Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Traditional medical use should certainly be connected with culture, in my view. If you put so-called alternative medical uses close to a section properly sourced to MEDRS standard, you're just asking for this information to be deleted as not meeting MEDRS. As part of culture it's a different matter. The medical use has to show efficacy; traditional uses only have to show what people did and believed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All three of these comments are good: "keep content on traditional medical uses separate from uses supported by modern medicine.", "keep the word "medicine" out of the section on traditional uses", and "Put... herbal uses under 'Culture'". But so is "It seems a bit awkward to put 'Herbal use' outside of 'Uses,'" which has the appearance of inconsistency with the first three comments. The apparent inconsistency can be resolved as follows.
 * The problem arises because the word "use" is ambiguous and to some may imply "usefulness", i.e., efficacy, when there is none or none is proven. To some, "it has been used for thousands of years by native so-and-sos to treat the common cold" means that it treats the common cold. This is almost identical to the problem that by simply calling something "alternative medicine" it means that it is medicine, with the implication that it is not useless.
 * A suggestion that resolves this problem and incorporates all of the above good comments is to have subsections under the general section title "Uses", as follows, and perhaps in the following order -


 * Conservation (optional)
 * Chemistry
 * Internal physiology
 * Interactions with soils and environment
 * Metabolites with uses
 * Toxicity (optional, comes after chemistry section to which it may refer)
 * Uses
 * Modern commercial use (optional)
 * Use as food (optional, comes after chemistry section to which it may refer)
 * Use in industry (optional)
 * Aesthetic use, landscaping (optional)
 * Use in medicine (optional, comes after chemistry section to which it may refer, specifying this is always supported to WP:MEDRS standards and linking to those standards in case editors are unaware of them)
 * Historic uses and use in cultural traditions (optional, with the following subsections if there is enough information to warrant an independent subsection)
 * Use in traditional medicine belief systems (very generally repeat toxicity info if appropriate, specify that wording must be in accordance with WP:MEDRS standards, and linking to those standards in case editors are unaware of them)
 * Use in alternative medicine belief systems (very generally repeat toxicity info if appropriate, specify that wording must be in accordance with WP:MEDRS standards and linking to those standards in case editors are unaware of them)
 * Historic use in tool making, construction, and arts and crafts (hunting tools, basketry, cultivation tools, construction, etc. (optional) (very generally repeat toxicity info if appropriate, such as using as a poison on arrow tips in hunting)
 * Use in ceremonies, dance, rituals, etc. (optional)
 * Use in literature, religious stories, and mythology
 * Use in etc. (optional)
 * Cultivation (optional, this comes after uses, but should not be a subsection of uses)


 * This puts the toxicity and medicine section after the chemistry section each may refer to.
 * This puts traditional and alternative medicine in a natural location immediately after medicine, but keeps the separation from medicine. A remaining problem is that alt med and trad med are commercial uses in the same way as proven-effective medicine is, but are not in that section It is awkward not to have traditional medicine and alternative medicine immediately follow medicine. Editors who participate in these "belief systems", but who do not read the template, will put info in the medicine section, and should not object to starting a subsection immediately below where it was placed by the believer. Readers who participate in the belief systems will expect the information to be near medicine.
 * One way to deal with the ambiguity in "Uses" that may imply "usefulness" to some, and the ambiguity of the word "medicine" in "traditional medicine" that may imply medical efficacy to some, is to somehow append ing the accurate expression "belief system", or something similar that indicates it is based on belief, not science. FloraWilde (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that "belief system" is biased the other way, and it's not accurate in that it doesn't necessarily include actual use of a plant or drug; also those who use a treatment may not share the underlying belief system. (Not plant-based, but the best example I could think of quickly: those in the West who try acupuncture for pain relief are unlikely to share the traditional belief in qi, etc.) The of the words "medicine", "medical", etc. by Western scientific medicine should be resisted. It's culturally biased. "A medicine" is "a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease". It doesn't have to have been shown to be effective to called "a medicine". Effectiveness is a completely separate issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the rhetoric of saying science "appropriated" the word medicine, that Wikipedia is the place for a "resistance" movement against medical science efforts to stop abuse of misleading terminology, or that belief in objective standards of efficacy for calling something medicine may show a "cultural bias", but your example points to the fact that Wikipedia is not the place to try to resolve these issues. I struck the expression "belief system" in my proposal above. FloraWilde (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that science appropriated the word "medicine" and related words such as "medicinal" or "medical", merely that it's wrong and biased to appropriate the words to particular kinds of treatment, and thus arbitrarily restrict their use, when there are reliable sources (e.g. articles in journals like the Journal of Ethnoparmacology – such as this one, the Journal of Ethnobotany, etc.) that use "medicine" and related words in the normal broad sense. Efficacy is, as I said above, a different matter. I believe both in objective standards for measuring efficacy and that we must only ever report efficacy backed by high quality research in line with WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Peter coxhead - You may be right. I am not sure. I struck my contentious comment. FloraWilde (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I work on health related content all the time and use MEDRS regularly. I have no problem with content sourced from plain old RS about traditional medicinal uses of a plant being placed under a section heading like "Use in traditional medicine" or "Traditional medicine", with the content stating clearly that this is "folk medicine" or the like. This is anthropology, not "medicine." I do have a problem with there being content in such a section in WP's voice that makes an actual health-related claim like "Aloe vera is useful to treat skin lesions of all kinds, including skin cancer". I would edit that to make it historical/anthopological "Aloe vera has been used among X people to treat skin problems for centuries." If there are current claims about alt med uses, then those claims can be stated as true or false under a "Medical use" section based on MEDRS sources, if there are any. If there are no MEDRS sources, then the content about health should not exist in the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we fundamentally agree, but precise wording has been a real issue in this matter, and one bit of what you wrote above is potentially problematic: If there are no MEDRS sources, then the content about health should not exist in the article. This can be interpreted to mean that you can't write that "X has been used to treat Y (among Z|since D| etc.)" as this is "content about health". I would prefer it to be clearly stated that any claim of efficacy or wording which implies efficacy is only acceptable if supported to MEDRS standards, but that properly sourced reports of historical or contemporary usage are fine as historical/anthropological/ethnobotanical reporting. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for bringing that up - that is not what i meant! I meant a statement  like "X is (not) useful to treat Y" should not be included in a "Health" or "Medical use" section if there is no MEDRS source to base it on.  In my mind "X has been used to treat Y among Z|since D| etc." is anthropological and can go under "Use in traditional medicine" or the like based on just RS; it is not a statement about whether X is actually useful (or not) to treat Y. A statement like  "X is (not) useful to treat Y"  should not be in a "Use in traditional medicine" section at all.  I think we are on the same page.Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so too; good. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There should be an explicit link to WP:MEDRS in the template, to make sure editors are aware of it. "X has been used to treat Y, among Z|since D| etc." should read "X has been used in the belief that it treats Y, among Z|since D| etc." (Has this language choice issue already been hashed out somewhere else at WP?) FloraWilde (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like the belief qualifier should do the trick. Editors would have to be careful that people don't try to shoehorn veiled medical claims with the setup, but that all depends on careful placement of content as has been described above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's useful to give several examples, especially while you're still seeking the ideal wording. In this case, you might consider giving examples along with an explanation, like this:
 * "Aloe vera is useful to treat skin lesions of all kinds, including skin cancer" – This claim of medical efficacy must have a MEDRS-compliant source to support it.
 * "Aloe vera has been used among X people to treat skin problems for centuries" – This description of historical and cultural facts can be supported by any normal WP:Reliable source.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two related topics being discussed here, with apparent consensus on each topic. One is that the template should have a section structure that makes a clear separation between medical use (with MED:RS standards for sources), and use in traditional or alt medicine (with RS for sources, qualified to make clear these are anthropological statements about use and beliefs). The other topic is what wording to suggest goes in the trad/alt med section. Summing the above comments on this second topic -
 * "Claims about traditional uses don't have to be supported by MEDRS sources (but should still be supported by WP:RS)"
 * "As part of culture... traditional uses only have to show what people did and believed"
 * no problem with content sourced from plain old RS about traditional medicinal uses... This is anthropology, not 'medicine'"
 * "give several examples"
 * "the belief qualifier should do the trick"
 * A section structure is suggested above. Here is a concrete proposal for how to word content in a traditional medicine or alternative medicine section -
 * I am not totally satisfied with this wording, but am putting it up to have something to make changes on. FloraWilde (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not totally satisfied with this wording, but am putting it up to have something to make changes on. FloraWilde (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested revisions
(Transferred to Wikipedia talk:PLANTS – widest audience there. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC))

Plant field guides and manuals do not meet WP:MEDRS standards
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:PLANTS. FloraWilde (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested revision to Description, Morphology section
This is a suggested addition for the Description section, Morphology subsection -

Please discuss. FloraWilde (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Plant article template - Don't hide the family name
MOS says use plain English. But that does not mean we should not include the technical term after the plain English. I propose that the plant article template suggest the lead first sentence include both the common name for the family and the the scientific name, visible in the sentence, in parentheses, with a link. Many of our articles have a common English name for the family, linked to the article on the family, but hiding the scientific family name. An example of a proposed diff from the "hidden" family name "Don't", to the fully displayed family name "Do", is - Sarcodes. FloraWilde (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cultivation/Uses
I think this is very confusing. I have tried to tidy it up several times, but I think it needs rewriting from scratch. The issue is really the difference between growing a domestic plant in the house or garden, versus commercial cultivation, which is a use. I tend to keep the two quite separate. Obviously not all plants require either of these sections. Suggesting using either to editors is only confusing.

I suggest Cultivation be kept for house and garden use, how to grow in other words, and commercial use be kept for Uses. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that as it is now it's confusing – and, in my view, wrong: logically, "uses" come before "cultivation" – you don't cultivate a plant unless it's of some use. (Also why is "toxicity" interposed between the two?)
 * However, I don't really see the basis for the distinction between "domestic" and "commercial" cultivation. If a plant is cultivated as a house plant or garden plant, surely that's a just as much a use as if it is cultivated commercially for food or a by-product; it's being used as an ornamental plant. Plus many plants grown in gardens are also grown commercially, both for food and ornament.
 * I skimmed through some of the relevant FAs and GAs at WikiProject_Plants. For food crops (e.g. Cabbage, Durian) it does seem more usual to discuss "cultivation" first followed by "uses" (including culinary uses). I find the ordering at Durian particularly illogical: a great mass of material (on cultivars, cultivation, availability, flavour, odour and history) assumes the reader knows that durians are used for eating before finding "culinary uses" lower down. Articles like Acacia pycnantha (just recently promoted to FA) use my preferred opposite order to the template, which I think clearly works better.
 * So in my view, yes, there's a problem with the template, but I would prefer to fix it differently. "Uses" come first; "cultivation" afterwards. The number of sections depends on the amount of material: for many garden plants one section is enough (probably titled "Cultivation"); for other plants there might be several sections/subsections on different uses as well as on commercial and domestic cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the important thing, regardless of order, would be to distinguish between domestic and commercial use, if there is enough material. Obviously there is overlap, we plant daffodil bulbs in our garden but there is a major industry producing them. As long as it is clear what is intended.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox images
I had inserted the suggestion that it was a good idea to prioritise type species in the taxoboxes. I noticed one of my changes was reverted, admittedly partly because of quality. However I don't think we ever had a community discussion on this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this comment when you made it. I assume you mean in genus taxoboxes? If so, I would say that what is helpful to readers is if the species chosen is as well known as possible and as "typical" of the genus as possible. If it's also the type species, even better, but I don't personally see this as the most important criterion. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for regional flora and plant list articles
I propose we add to the template - "Plant lists in regional flora article sections should either be alphabetical by binomial name (scientific name), or alphabetical by plant family then by binomial name within each family. Plant lists should not be alphabetical by common name, unless the list is specifically about those common names (as in 'List of common names of lichen genera')." The reason for this proposal is that I found this (unhelpful) mix of (non-unique) common names and binomial names in the flora section of the Mojave Desert article. FloraWilde (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. When editors try to make the entire list based on "common" names, they are almost always forced to use names that are actually not "common". Vernacular names should be included; readers can always search for these. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for lists, topical floras, and regional floras
I propose that we suggest a possible structure for regional flora articles with sections as in "Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone". A similar structure is being developed for Flora of the Mojave Desert (in construction). Suggestions for improving these structures would be appreciated. I propose that this be suggested as a possible structure for regional floras, with ideas for other meaningful structures to be encouraged. FloraWilde (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how useful or notable these kinds of list article are; what exactly is their purpose? How do they serve readers? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These flora articles are narrative, not lists. Here is a discussion of notability. These articles expand information in the flora section of the Sierra Nevada article. Here is a comment on the expansion of the flora section of the Sierra Nevada article, made by a local ecologist who found it useful. Here is a comment on it by another editor who found the it useful.
 * These regional flora articles have information typically published in field journal articles with similar titles, and field botany books (or chapters of regional natural history books) that are typically sold in a national park or state park bookstores. These regional flora books are used to take when hiking in that park, or to use as preparatory reading to better appreciate what may otherwise be overlooked if hiking in ignorance. A narrative flora article serves the reader who may be visiting a region or park, by giving a readable narrative to take hiking by which they can understand and recognize the features when in the field. I am combining information from several such books for these articles.
 * The corresponding list articles, e.g., (List of flora of the Mojave Desert), are non-narrative lists. Many (or most) US federal and state parks have such a list available for free at the park headquarters, compiled over time by the biologists of that park. Such lists are typically taken in field trip by botanical societies such as CNPS. These are very helpful to have in the field to quickly identify plants, without having to key them out, assuming the user already has background information and knowledge. FloraWilde (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed and helpful response. As an enthusiastic amateur field botanist, I understand why such information is useful. What I'm still not sure about is what such articles should contain, given that they are agreed to be notable. In the deletion discussion you referred to above, a key point seems to have been that there have been academic studies of the flora, and I would strongly support articles which have the purpose of collating and explaining such academic studies, i.e. which are concerned with botany. But Wikipedia is explicitly not supposed to be a guidebook, so part of your rationale above doesn't seem quite right to me. We shouldn't be aiming to replace field guides or checklists produced by parks, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(Peter coxhead may be an "amateur" field botanist, but he is an expert at getting to the point and suggesting language that hits the nail precisely on the head.) Proposed suggestions for writing plant lists, regional floras, and topical floras -

I cited articles I am familiar with as examples. There are likely better examples that other editors may suggest. FloraWilde (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

About a plant
"About a plant" Actually the page addresses many taxa ranks other than just species, so should be worded accordingly. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate listing of "propagation" subheading in "Cultivation" section
I have not deleted one since I am unsure which is the intended ideal position that it will occur in the list, however one of these subheadings needs to be removed. Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence boilerplate
There is a very frequent boilerplate construction of the first sentence (probably from PolBot and editors influenced by seeing PolBot's style):

"Examplus macrophyllus, the largeleaved example is a species of flowering plant in the family Examplaceae."

or more generally: "Scientific name, the vernacular name is a 'rank' of 'plant term*' in the 'parent rank' 'parent taxon'."

"plant term*" should be a word that indicates to a reader with no knowledge of botany that the subject of the article is a plant: flowering plant, shrub, tree, moss, fern...

Not necessarily advocating that this should be included in the template, but wanted to jot this down somewhere while I was thinking about it. The "plant term*" is sometime omitted, when that is probably the most crucial part of the sentence for a non-expert reader. There are other groups of organisms where this is a bigger problem (more frequently omitted) than for plants. At one point Wikipedia had a lead sentence reading: "Cordulegaster bidentata, also known as sombre goldenring or two-toothed goldenring is a member of the Cordulegastridae family." Inclusion of the "goldenring" vernacular names in that case does nothing to tell a non-expert what the heck the article is about. Plantdrew (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding a template should help Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  16:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

FQA coefficient of conservatism for North American species in Ecology
Removed - moved to project talk page--Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove deprecated parenthetical reference style?
In September 2020, Wikipedia deprecated parenthetical referencing. Should it be removed from our Taxon Template as an acceptable reference style? —Eewilson (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for view on 'Uses'
I propose that all manners of how a plant is used is described under 'Uses' whereas all the different manners of plants are cultivated is kept under 'Cultivation'. A plant can be cultivated in different ways depending on the purpose of cultivation just as it can be used in different ways for use depending on the purpose of using the plant. As a landscape architect, I don't see garden use as a way of cultivating plants but as a first and foremost architectural/aesthetic use as many plants are used for both space formation and the experience of users of spaces. It is common practice in the horticultural litterature and encyclopedias from eg the RHS, universities, botanical gardens and commercial sources like Gardenia.net to describe the cultivation requirements (i.e. soil, exposure, space needed and so on) and the use (e.g. containers, borders, slopes, naturalised areas) and styles (cottage gardens, prairie gardens, traditional formal gardens and so on). John Green (SLU) (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , if I'm understanding you correctly, that is already how I'd interpret the guidance here. While the Uses section doesn't currently mention ornamental/landscape uses, I think ornamental use does belong in a Uses section. And the Culivation section should cover cultivation requirements. However, if there isn't much content about one aspect of either Cultivation or Uses it might be appropriate to discuss that in a section about the other aspect. E.g. if Wikipedia says something like "Foo is grown as ornamental plant in situations of full shade", that sentence might go under either Uses (as an "ornamental") if no other Cultivation information is provided and there are other uses discussed; conversely, if there are no other Uses, but additional information about cultivation requirements (beyond "full shade") is provided, that sentence could go under Cultivation. Plantdrew (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What is the prevailing view about the use of pronunciation templates on the first line of the lead in plant articles, as in Gymnosperm. Personally, I find this stuff irksome, since it interrupts the flow of the introductory sentence. Plant surfer 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Short description
I've been shortening short descriptions that are very long, such as these:

One user pointed out the guidance page here recommends "Species of X" rather than just "X". I believe the "Species of" could be dropped in many cases. According to WP:SDESC, short descriptions should be very brief to better serve as a search guide.

Examples that already drop the "Species of": Jackfruit, Carallia brachiata, Banksia sphaerocarpa. There are also famous specific trees, but the SD for these generally notes their exact location.

Speaking of location, I almost always see it getting cut off. Location as a short disambiguator works well for politicians, not so well for films, and not at all well for plants. Wizmut (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)