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)