Talk:Plant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent significant changes

Jmv2009 made some signficant changes to the article in this series of edits. "Plant" is such an important article, and linked from so many places, that changes of this nature need to be discussed. I'm particularly concerned that the edits don't give due weight to alternative views, including those employed in most "plant" articles.

A separate issue is that primary sources should not be used as references for the authorship of taxa. The original paper in which a name appeared does not show that it is valid under the nomenclature codes: the name could be a homonym, it might not be properly published, etc. (There's also some confusion between authorship and sensu. A name authored by X does not have to be used in the sense intended by X: the nomenclature codes are clear that names do not determine circumscription, beyond any type involved.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead reverted the senso stricto -> senso lato change. The main issue I have is that currently Plantae typically includes Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta, making it equivalent to archaeplastida rather than viridiplantae. See eg. [1] and [2]. Please provide suggestions to fix this other than undoing the coxhead revert. I have no opinion about the authorship references.Jmv2009 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of a couple of basal clades should not impact the validity of links from other articles. I have not found recent alternative authorities which are at odds with this. Jmv2009 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What's important is not what a couple of primary sources say (especially when one of them is Cavalier-Smith, whose views have long been controversial) but what the preponderance of secondary sources says (as per WP:PSTS). It may well be that there's a move to treating kingdom Plantae as the clade Archaeplastida, but (a) this needs to be demonstrated with appropriate sources meeting WP:RS and (b) there needs to be a consensus among editors. I've flagged this discussion at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly we mustn't take sides with one or another primary source here: our job is to summarize the situation, not jump into a partisan camp. The section "Plant#Current definitions of Plantae" summarizes the positions of both Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida, as well as the strict Land plants (Embryophyta), not to mention the now-obsolete sensu amplo meanings of Linnaeus, Haeckel etc. I'd suggest that we should summarize this helpful section in the lead of Plant so as to make clear we know different definitions are available and we aren't taking sides. If of course there's overwhelming evidence from review papers that one of V or A (or some newer view) has now taken over in the minds of almost all botanists, then we should document that, but it doesn't seem we've quite reached that point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it would help if involved editors could also hold off from making related (possibly partisan) edits to Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, Charophyta, Streptophyta etc, all of which I see have been edited very recently in this way, while this discussion is ongoing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Chiswick Chap on both points above. I think that, at least for now, it would be best not to take any position in the lead section as to the meaning of "plant", simply say that there are alternative definitions. This does mean changing the lead, but not from one definition to another. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'll add that the change to the last cladogram mirrored the one made in Prasinophyceae where the structure of the cladogram was changed without justification. The cladogram now differs from the stated source in making Mesostigmatophyceae a sister of Chlorokybophyceae.   Jts1882 | talk  12:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the sources for that change in Prasinophyceae.Jmv2009 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. All you had to do was add the sources when first making the edit. In doing so you build up trust in your edits. The Leliaert et al (2016) has some other potential changes for the Prasinophyceae cladogram, including a whole new grouping.  Jts1882 | talk  14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another (secondary) source with Plantae equal to Archaeplastida: [3]. I'll try to find more references (both ways).Jmv2009 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [4]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Another source: [5]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [6]. I never see Rhodophyta discussed as e.g. sister to Plantae.Jmv2009 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [7]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: Rather than adding a list of hard-to-follow DOIs (at least one of which is broken, so it's unusable) to unseen papers, could you rather document the papers by name and author, and state how we know they are reliable and what they actually show. What is required is evidence that a widely-accepted change in botanical usage has occurred, not that A or V are in use (we know that already). Then I suggest we delete the existing list above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As a general point on Plantae, we can come up withlong lists of papers using Plantae sensu stricto and sensu lato to refer to the Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida, respectively. None are wrong as they use the names in a particular context. For instance, you often find different uses of taxa for people working on extinct and extant forms. The important point here is that this article and other Wikipedia articles use Plantae sensu stricto. It would require something significant to justify a change.   Jts1882 | talk  14:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The references above using DOI Wikipedia reference generator:, , , , , ,   Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms , Rugiera et al [8] discuss the following: For decades, taxonomists have debated the boundary between Protozoa and Plantae. We accept the view that it should be placed just prior to the evolutionary origin of chloroplasts and that Plantae should comprise all eukaryotes with plastids directly descending from the initially enslaved cyanobacterium, i.e., Viridiplantae (green plants), Rhodophyta (red algae), and Glaucophyta (glaucophyte algae), but exclude those like chromists that ...

All random articles I found (e.g. after 2013 on scholar.google.com "Rhodophyta Plantae" search) follow the Plantae senso lato convention. Usually not much need to change in the other wikipedia articles despite the large number of references. In the taxobox the problem only occurs if both Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae are present, and Plantae is used for the latter as the "proper" Kingdom name. This only occurs mostly near the root of the Viridiplantae.Jmv2009 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be wary of any opinion that still uses protozoa as a valid taxon.

Your search wasn't random. You searched for "Rhodophyta Plantae", which is biased to pick up articles that include Rhodaphyta in Plantae. People who are studying Rhodophyta and don't consider them as members of Plantae would have no reason to include Plantae in their article.   Jts1882 | talk  15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Only two of those papers are taxonomic papers (one of which by Cavalier-Smith). Again, it would require something significant for us to change the current Wikipedia classification system. Two taxonomic papers and a handful of papers about environmental physiology in algae do not constitute a "significant" change in the literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, a less biased search appears to give the first results (searching for "Plantae" only on scholar.google.com, but such a search is much less specifically confined to the root obviously):

e.g. [9] [10]

and Rugiera et.al appears quite authoritive and is definetately a secondary source.[11] Jmv2009 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing more searches on google scholar on both "plantae viridiplantae" or "plantae archaeplastida" the overwhelming majority appears to refer to viridiplantae. Viridiplantae is assigned to be a "subkingdom" often as well.Jmv2009 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Kingdoms are rapidly becoming an archaic grouping (like their political counterparts). For historical reasons we have the kingdom plantae, which has either a subkingdom viridiplantae or superkingdom archaeplastida depending on definition of plantae as equivalent to viridiplantae or archaeplastida. The best solution to the confusion would be to abandon Plantae as a taxon. So my preference would be to name this article Viridiplantae and have a short article for plantae explaining history and the different definitions and pointing to the land plants, viridiplantae and archaeplastida articles. On the other hand, for a popular encyclopedia, plants should direct to the most relevant article and this is it. You could go further and argue that land plants is what most people think of as plants.

I've just noted an inconsistency in the opening to the lede, where kingdom plantae is equated to unranked clade viridiplantae. If they are the same the clade is ranked.   Jts1882 | talk  16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would hope we would vie to educate people, rather than follow what most people think. Unfortunately, there is a difference. The biggest problem actually occurs in the taxoboxes which are still following the biological taxonomy system. I would like to avoid the Plantae moniker there as well, specifying less ambiguously either the Archaeplastida or the Viridiplantae. In the taxoboxes no senso stricto or senso lato is mentioned. Unfortunately this appears to be unacceptable as well.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If that means synthesising our own view from primary evidence, that is forbidden on Wikipedia. We are only allowed to "educate" from reliable secondary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, but unfortunately I'm getting very little feedback here on the SCIENTIFIC consensus on what Plantae currently is. There is a lot of beating around the bush. For secondary sources: I'm again referring to Rugiera et.al . There is also the reference work. This is another one: Are there any recent authoritative secondary counter-sources?Jmv2009 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a current consesnsus on any very old topic will necessarily be very difficult to explicitly achieve. By the very nature of science and scientific literature, it will be much easier to locate specific challenges to the established view, than to find statements of the established current view. If a view is that well established, it won't make it into the literature, because it isn't original research, which is what scientific journals publish. So while journals may be the best place to look for novel or original views, they are not a suitable place to look for the established view. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Jmv2009: unfortunately, I can't access many of the papers on your list, as they aren't open access and aren't subscribed to by my institution. Those I can access don't always seem to me to support your case. The most interesting is Thuesen et al. (2015), which I was aware of. I'm rather sympathetic to their attempts to produce a complete classification, but as they explicitly use paraphyletic groups as major ranks, I doubt that their proposal will find widespread acceptance, and I certainly see no evidence so far that it has.
  It's hard to produce a good Google search, because Google ignores parentheses, so "Plantae (Viridiplantae)" is the same as "Plantae Viridiplantae", but I get twice as many hits for the search "Plantae Viridiplantae" OR "Viridiplantae Plantae" as for the search "Plantae Archaeplastida" OR "Archaeplastida Plantae", whereas it's the other way round if I search in Google Scholar. In neither case are they all what I really want, i.e. showing treatment as synonyms, which can only be seen by looking at individual cases. The core problem is that neither Plantae = Archaeplastida nor Plantae = Viridiplantae are well supported in secondary sources, which are always behind changes in scientific consensus, but these are the sources we need to use here.
  I can only repeat my previous view, namely that the article should be made neutral between alternative views in the lead, although when describing "plants" a decision has to be taken. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm more convinced by the Ruggiero et al (2015) position [this is the same as Thuesen et al ((2017). The doi reference utility prefixes the editor for some reason]. From the perspective of someone working on the many groups of eukaryotes they want to assign kingdoms to the major groupings. And Archaeplastida is one of the major eukaryote groupings. If you accept that for historical reasons Plantae has to be a kingdom then Plantae needs to be used sensu lato for the Archaeplastida. The alternative is a ridiculous number of kingdoms or a subkingdom Plantae.

That is not to say that this article needs to be changed. It already deals with the different definitions near the top of the article so it is clear and accurate. It clearly states the convention used in the article and that there are alternatives. The choice used by researchers seems to reflect their field of study. Those like Cavalier-Smith studying a variety of eukaryota prefer to use Plantae sensu lato for Archaeplastida, while those studying land plants tend to use Plantae sensu stricto for Viridiplantae. More people study the latter so it will return more google hits. Neither is right or wrong.

I would favour using Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae as the taxa in the taxoboxes. Plantae sensu lato/stricto could be added in parentheses.   Jts1882 | talk  08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please give some examples of where they use sensu stricto? If so, are they using sensu stricto or sensu strictisimo? And is it actually clear what they are using? When studying only land plants, it may not actually matter how big the group actually is. It matters more when you are studying the contrasts to outgroups, e.g. Rhodophyta or green algae, depending on the stricto or strictisimo usage. I concur with the proposed taxobox usage, and actually tried to change it, but it got changed back as Plantae is arguably the established kingdom name, despite the multiple meanings.Jmv2009 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the sensu use in the table in the article is really based on sources: it's descriptive of the particular set of terms given in the table, and not meaningful when one term is isolated from the others (latus compared to what?).

As far as I can tell, there's no consensus in sources for calling Archaeplastida or Viridiplantae "kingdoms"; they are clades. So putting "Kingdom: Archaeplastida (Plantae sensu lato)" would be wrong. Also, throughout the Tree of Life Wikiprojects, the consensus has been against trying to put alternatives in taxoboxes.

Jmv2009 is, in my view, right in saying that in many circumstances the circumscription of "Kingdom Plantae" doesn't matter, e.g. in taxoboxes for angiosperm taxa. It matters when the article is about major eukaryote subdivisions, and then it's best to follow what seems to be the majority of sources and not use "kingdom" or "Plantae" at all, just the clade names. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Synonyms

Related to the discussion above, but slightly separate, is the issue of the list of "synonyms" in the taxobox. The taxobox says its target taxon is "Plantae sensu Copeland, 1956"; there's a difference between alternative names that correspond to this sense, e.g. Viridiplantae Cavalier-Smith (1981), and those that are alternative names of other senses of Plantae, e.g. Metaphyta Whittaker (1969), which more closely corresponds to the article's Plantae sensu strictissimo, and hence to Embryophyta Engler (1892). I think it's misleading to have a list here; it would be better to add a "synonyms" column to the table of definitions in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi i am govind kumar verma i join to wikipedia

Hii i joines wikipedia🤗 Govind kumar verma (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414142437/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/ to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.cshl.edu/archives/archives/bmcbio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616151737/http://ntbg.org/plants/choose_a_plant.php to http://www.ntbg.org/plants/choose_a_plant.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

In the "Botanical and vegetation databases" section, the dead link for African Plant database can be changed to: http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/recherche.php?langue=an TravelingMel (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Mycorrhizal symbiosis

I think the role of mycorrhizal symbiosis needs more prominence in the article, and deserves a section of its own, rather than being buried in Plant#Ecological relationships. The evidence is that this form of symbiosis has been present since land plants appeared, and was essential to their success, not just a feature of their ecology. I don't have time to work on this now, but it would be good if someone could. See Mycorrhiza and Arbuscular mycorrhiza for material and sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Rrigb5 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To rewrite.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What is source for "300–315 thousand species of plants"?

I can't find a source for this 300–315 figure, and the given ref says 321,212.[12] Another ref says 400,000.[13] I have a good source that has lots of info, click https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BDbgcCBC_NyLDkVo8In6y6EtMdJl1-pFPuaAkWGA62k/edit#slide=id.g427fdc3489_0_16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catguy101 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've updated the text. The "about" seems more than justified in the context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.environmentalpollution.in/environment/5-ecological-factors-that-constitute-the-environment-of-an-organism/178. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Begoon 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

i want edits please i'm very smart 4804206117gigabite (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 07:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

hi_sisters is the new jeffry stares — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4804206117gigabite (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

h8uyuhohuhjuhu9huhuh7ihuh8ihh8iuhhubub7g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.171.40 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

These two sentences are inconsistent:

Plants that produce grain, fruit and vegetables also form basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia.

The term "plant" generally implies the possession of the following traits: multicellularity, possession of cell walls containing cellulose, and the ability to carry out photosynthesis with primary chloroplasts.

Please add a serial comma to the first sentence (after "fruit") or remove it from the second sentence (after "cellulose"). 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:CDA2:D771:CB53:B57A (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

119.93.22.199 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: Please describe the change you want made to the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Another Language

Hi! I wrote this article on the Zulu version of Wikipedia and I was trying to link it to this one as a new language but I can't because this one is locked. Can someone help me? SmangaMbongwa (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SmangaMbongwa, interwiki links are now handled through wikidata, see [14]. CMD (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind doing it for me? SmangaMbongwa (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

SmangaMbongwa, this needs to be done from the Zulu Wiki. Go to the page you created, and on the left there is a Languages/Ezinye izilimi header. Click Edit links/Faka ama-links there, and input English into the language field and Plant for the article title. CMD (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That is how I was doing it from the first place but it keeps on telling me that I cannot edit the page because it is locked. I figured it was because of this page. SmangaMbongwa (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is the Wikidata page is protected, not the en.wiki page. You should bring up the issues on one of the wikidata boards where they will be better able to help you. CMD (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay... thank you SmangaMbongwa (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ferns are "Polypodiophyta" and not "Pteridophyta"

In the Diversity paragraph, lycopods are called "Lycopodiophyta", while ferns (and allies) are called "Pteridophyta" instead of "Polypodiophyta". "Pteridophyta" is actually a taxon that used to include both lycopodes ("Lycopodiophyta") and ferns ("Polypodiophyta"), and it's not considered monophyletic. I suggest to change "Pteridophyta" into "Polypodiophyta", since clicking "Pteridophyta" will direct you to the "Polypodiophyta/Polypodiopsida" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedling98 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Pteridophyte is used in the informal group column so Pteridophyta there is both inaccurate and redundant. Surprised this hasn't been caught before. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avarosellini.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GraceHarnett21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecologystudent99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 15 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cderenne18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Algae are not plants

Hello, the section on algae in this article does not mention that algae are not in the kingdom Plantae; I feel this is important to mention, and would request that it would be changed .16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read Plant#Current definitions of Plantae where it is explained that algae are part of Viridiplantae, the definition being used here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We still need to provide more clarity earlier in the article. The definition mentions Linnaeus as creating the basis of modern system of classification, but only mentions that "since then, it has become clear that the plant kingdom as originally defined included several unrelated groups". There is no date or citation. Then it says: "However, these organisms are still sometimes considered plants, particularly in informal contexts.". What needs a citations is the former sentence, but does the latter sentence need a citation if it is easy to prove with any usage? Here's one in a PubMed paper[15]). I can't edit this, but please understand that editors on other articles rely on a clear definition in this article so that we can avoid "fights" like this one [16] Slythfox (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Plant/Jung

This file is protected - I am cautious about altering but would like to insert near the top :-"Jung was a man of great intellect, he defined a plant as: "A plant is a living non-sentient body, attached to a particular place or habitat, where it is able to feed, to grow in size, and finally to propagate itself." Please advise lest I should not enter this. Morton1945 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

evaluation

Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants

Plant

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] I chose this article because I have a passion for plants. specifically houseplants. I work at a local nursery and work in a greenhouse everyday with hundreds of different species of plants. I think this article is important because it can help people better understand plants and gardening. my first impression of this article is that it was very informational and continued a wide array of different sources.

Evaluate the article[edit] (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

the lead introduces the topic and give clear understand of what the article is going to be about. the content in this article is very pertinent to the topic and useful to understanding the article at large. from what I can tell the article is completely neutral and contains no bias or one sided arguments or claims. while this article is sourced from trustworthy and scholarly sites, they do seep to be slightly outdated. the sources come from many different places and appear to be in working order. this article is well written and easy to read but due to the sheer amount of information, one may consider it to be lengthy. the media included plays a large part of the understanding of the topic. after viewing the talk page, this article has an edit that was due to an incorrect image that was displaying the wrong plant for a description. this article is also part of a wiki project. overall, I enjoyed this article and its contents. I think the best part about this article is the wide array of information that it contained. its downfall is that it is rather lengthy and may deter a reader, I think a more concise version would be beneficial. this article is very well developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjdoane (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022bhjn

217.20.22.166 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please describe the change you want made to the article. Kardoen (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"The latter"

Mistaken or confusing back reference here: "The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants...." Problem: the phrase "the latter" is most naturally construed with the phrase "green algae" at the end of the previous sentence. But the green algae do not include the Embryophyta etc.. If "the latter" is read as a back reference to Glaukophyta, then it is no longer true that Glaukophyta "consists in green algae" -- it includes the green algae as well as the Embryophyta, but does not consist in the green algae. I would replace the phrase "the latter" with an explicit noun, and then decide whether Glaukophyta do or do not include Viridiplantae. Right now, the sentences do not make sense. 2600:1017:B010:D64C:82EB:6853:B2FC:B0BC (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Green algae does include Embryophyta; the sentence is correct. Kardoen (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Green algae usually excludes the Embryophyta (e.g. in the cladogram). I think it should say "includes green algae and Embryophyta. The latter includes". The problem was introduced with this edit, before which the embryophytic groups were listed along with green algae. Restoring that version is another option. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Plant

Plantae. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; however, all current definitions of Plantae exclude the fungi and some algae, as well as the prokaryotes (the archaea and bacteria). By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin name for "green plants") which is sister of the Glaucophyta, and consists of the green algae. The latter includes the Embryophyta (land plants) which include the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns and their allies, hornworts, liverworts, and mosses.

Plants 202.164.132.81 (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

In the text "Musk Thistle are invasive species in texas." under the photo of the musk thistle, Texas is written with a lowercase "t" instead of the correct "T". Change "texas" to "Texas", please. Kikiswikis (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)  Done. Next time, WP:FIXIT. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Towards Good Article status

I hope I'm not the only editor who feels that this article on a major and very heavily-visited topic (5424 visits per day, just shy of 2 million visits per year) should be improved to Good Article status. That it is still at an accurately-assessed grade C (detailed, but inadequately cited) after all these years is actually remarkable. Still, it offers quite detailed (110 kBytes) and apparently accurate coverage of the subject, in a structure that is at least not totally unreasonable, and we can work on it. Of course we can freely rewrite garbled, uncited, or obsolete sections. If anyone would like to join me in this task, I'd be happy to collaborate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Evolution

Wondering if anyone if has any thoughts on the following information in the evolution section. It doesn't seem like it's neutrally written and might also be undue towards the alternative theory? For more than a century it has been assumed that the ancestors of land plants evolved in aquatic environments and then adapted to a life on land, an idea usually credited to botanist Frederick Orpen Bower in his 1908 book The Origin of a Land Flora. A recent alternative view, supported by genetic evidence, is that they evolved from terrestrial single-celled algae, and that even the common ancestor of red and green algae, and the unicellular freshwater algae Glaucophytes, originated in a terrestrial environment in freshwater biofilms or microbial mats. This seems to read as if the the original theory is being discounted for the alternative one. The reference used for the alternative theory is this [17] which appears to be an opinion written in the journal. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The paper is one piece of primary research, and it is proposing an interesting hypothesis that might possibly be correct: or maybe half-right, or simply wrong. We certainly should not be giving it weight, let alone supporting it in Wikipedia's voice. We could perfectly well insist on waiting for reliable secondary sources like review articles or textbooks before accepting it at this level --- the article on land plants might reasonably give it more space Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually the more of this I touch, the more of it comes to bits in my hands. There is far too much POV writing, primary sourcing, and hobby-horse excess detail on abstruse topics (with intricate primary WP:recentism), and far too little clear explanation for the ordinary earthling of what plants are about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, as most of the research I came across seems to be supporting Bower's theory. And while I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I also didn't want to preemptively discount the alternative theory if it is in-fact an emerging/accepting view and there are better sources, to achieve WP:BALANCE. (If there are) Then that section can probably be written more objectively. @Peter coxhead @Plantsurfer would you have any thoughts?

Also, regarding your second point, it does seem that way and that some sections may be lacking clear scope? For example, in the section "structure, growth and development" the placement of the "plant cell" subsection seems a little off, especially when looking at how other encyclopedic articles like https://www.britannica.com/plant/plant have organized the information. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be agreed that we should feel quite free to edit everything for balance, placement, coverage, accuracy and whatever else may need to be done. We have no need either to discount or to promote any theories; but at this top level (there is a whole template full of plant articles) we should focus on the introductory, the generally agreed, and the "key points", leaving minor details, recent ideas, and most of the academic controversies for articles lower down the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That works and makes sense, as it will help make this broad topic a bit more cohesive. Thanks! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who is working on this topic. It's not my comfort zone (I'm much happier just working on single species where I don't need a big idea, and try sidestep all taxonomic disagreement), but it is very much needed. MtBotany (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Either the bit about multicellularity in the section on plant cells should go back in, or the first statement in the second paragraph of the lead should come out, since it is no longer in summary of the text.Plantsurfer 10:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Primary cell walls of plants are not stiff. Consider wilted spinach, for example - its cell walls are incapable of providing mechanical support in the absence of turgor pressure, they only have tensile strength.Plantsurfer 11:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead will certainly be rewritten once I've gone through the article body. On stiffness, of course you're right; like many other things, it was in there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative concepts

Under Alternative concepts, the statement Plants in the strictest sense include the liverworts, hornworts, mosses, and vascular plants, as well as fossil plants similar to these surviving groups (e.g., Metaphyta Whittaker, 1969, Plantae Margulis, 1971). is supported by sources more than 50 years old and counting, and is increasingly challenged by the alternative perspective that land plants are algae.Plantsurfer 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We have several possible options with that. We could move the Concepts material to a new article and summarize it briefly here; mark that old stuff as purely historical; or just cut it. Would you like to have a go at one of those things? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, but you guys are moving so fast I cannot keep up at the moment, so don't let me hold you back Plantsurfer 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing has turned into a near-total rewrite; on the concepts, see below, we're probably ok as we are really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The definitions may be 50 years old but they are still actively used. It certainly isn't obsolete. The major dictionaries have definitions that fit the tradition kingdom, with multicellularity or having stems, leaves and roots as part of the definition. Remember common names, not latest scientific opinion, is the main criterion for Wikipedia article titles. The major botanical gardens such as Kew and Missouri also to use Plantae in that sense (e.g. their global plant databases don't include algae). The use of different definitions of plants is important, so removing it from the article is a bad idea, as the article must be neutral and present the different concepts of what a plant is. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's label it as an older concept, then. Unless you can find more recent sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, not sure if marking it as an older concept would be correct. I have come across sources that are still using these definitions [18] [19] [20]. And based on the comment above, while there is a new emerging perspective that's growing it seems like it hasn't replaced the old one entirely yet? Perhaps this section needs to be in a written format vs table to better help explain how the definition of a plant has evolved, how it's used in the different ways (as mentioned in the table) and current emerging perspectives? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill; the phylogeny section below says more anyway, and renders most of the arguing about "plant" obsolete. This is an introductory article that has to cover a very wide swath in its few words, and the table concisely introduces the idea that the concept of "plant" has evolved. I'd say that was enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Was just a thought. But agree, less is more due to the breadth of this topic. I think the subheading you added is helpful. It also looks like that section needs additional reference(s) since the only one that's cited is the the dictionary for the definition. I can try to find some. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

the concept of land plants as algae is raised in the lead of Viridiplantae, citing among others Delwiche & Timme 2011, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.04.021 Plantsurfer 21:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The concern was about including the Embryophyta row in the table, not the Viridiplantae. The cladogram in Viridiplantae has 11 citations, suggesting that something is seriously wrong in that article, by the way. But its sources support the simple observation that concepts continue to vary, which is all we need for the existing concepts section; it admirably sets out the possibilities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A strong argument for the continued relevance of the traditional concept of plant = Plantae = Embryophyta seems to me to be the title "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants", separating plants from algae. I don't see any dispute that the embryophytes form a clade, so are a legitimate target.

On a different issue (the cladogram in Viridiplantae), I've long been concerned by some of the cladograms that Jmv2009 constructs and adds to articles. They appear to be based on synthesising sources. We've discussed this issue before somewhere; it may be justifiable to add a complete subtree from a different source to expand a cladogram, but it has to be clearly identified and separately referenced, which, I agree, is problematic with so many sources given. Do they all agree exactly as to both the precise shape and nomenclature of the cladogram? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems very unlikely (aka, impossible) that they all agree in that extreme case; best say so over there at Talk:Viridiplantae. But since we have here a cladogram that does not have the same problem, I've just copied it to there: feel free to do with it as you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Biochemical details

An editor has asked if we should discuss details of plant biochemicals in this article. My view is very simple: at this top level, the great-great-granddaddy of all Template:Botany articles, it's not appropriate. Instead, we paint the broad-brush picture. We mention Chlorophyll without going into the individual photopigments; we mention Photosynthesis without analysing the Calvin cycle; we mention Medicinal plants and briefly touch on Alkaloids without going into the dozens of varieties. I think this is exactly as it should be: the reader gets the big picture, and links to the articles at the next level (or the next two levels, perhaps). The finer detail is in the lower-level articles: there's no point keeping a dog and barking yourself, to coin a phrase. I do hope everybody is clear about this and happy with it: there isn't actually much alternative if we're trying to construct a picture that gives an overview for the general reader (we mustn't assume they know anything about biochemistry, for instance) and which leads gently into the large number of more technical articles in the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Plant Evolution

Evolutionary Scenarios skips from Devonian directly to Permo-Triassic extinction without a mention of the Carboniferous, surely a notable period in the evolution of land plants. Plantsurfer 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, tried to be bold and added some information about it. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to know how far to go ("just one more..."). I've added an image from the Carboniferous, one from the Jurassic, and one from the Cretaceous adaptive radiation; it seems to tell the story a bit more convincingly. Actually the story is distributed across multiple articles at present and none of them tell it specially clearly, so the image sequence here is at least a good start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's better, and probably all that is required here, but I have re-phrased it a bit (a) because clubmosses were already well established by the Devonian (it was the dominance of arborescent forms that characterised the Carboniferous) and (b) to emphasise the appearance of seed plants. Plantsurfer 12:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I think we're about done really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Replace Cherry Blossom Festival: About. National Cherry Blossom Festival. Archived from the original broken link with updated relevant link https://whattheplants.in/cherry-blossom-festival/ Machinezoned (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, but the link is already archived, and it's to a different website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Note: An email address machinezoned@gmail.com likely belong to Machinezoned is listed on the "Contact us" subpage of whattheplants.in. So I suppose he may want to add spam links to promote his website. -- NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow contributor, i appreciate your keen eyes and thank you for pointing out at my email address, i have now moved to a professional email address and coming to the spam links, i request you to go through my blog it is a very relevant and up to date article. The current link is no more working. so request you to approve this update. Machinezoned (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What my (volunteer) colleague is politely indicating is that contributors to Wikipedia are not allowed – are strictly forbidden – from attempting to use the global encyclopedia to promote their business, advertise, or otherwise indulge in any form of marketing or advocacy of anything whatever. There are many forums, discussion groups, chatrooms, and social media available for such activities: Wikipedia is one of the places where those activities may not be practised. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood, Thank you for your patience and kind explaination. As it was my very first edit i hope i will be pardoned. Will try and strictly stick to what you stated. Machinezoned (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, blogs aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, see WP:SELFPUB for further information. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Adding to medicinal or new section?

Hello! Some plants are not medicinal itself, but are drugs. Tobacco, coffe, tea, cannabis or coca are crops used for their psycoactivity. Should we add a sentence to the "medicinal" section, or open a new one? Theklan (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all 'medicinal'; indeed, all medicinal plants yield drugs of some sort, that's what they do. We certainly don't need another section for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Theklan H'm. We haven't agreed any addition, nor am I at all convinced any such is needed here, given that we have a whole article on Medicinal plants already (many levels down in the very large hierarchy of articles on plants, there are thousands and thousands of pages, and this is the top level!). But even if we agreed, it would a) be reliably sourced and b) not be in the lead section, which is purely a summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add it in the lead section, but in the correspondent section. Not mentioning tobacco, coffee or tea is quite strange, as they are widespread crops with billion-dollar-industries. Theklan (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an article about crops; we have still other trees of articles about agriculture and horticulture. But I agree they deserve a brief reliably-cited mention in the 'Importance' section, I'll fix something up now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Scientific uses

I don't know if it fits below scientific uses, or should be added in the ecology section, but many bioremediation techniques use plants. It should be noted in one sentence. Theklan (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, I really don't think so. Once again (see the thread below) we have a sub-topic of a sub-topic of a sub-topic. You are right that one of those sub-level topics would be Human uses. Obviously the key human use of plants is food and agriculture (food for animals). The other topics in "Importance" cover other practical and symbolic uses, each very briefly in a single paragraph. Very much more could be said, but for the reasons stated in the thread below, aren't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. I was trying to help proposing ways to improve this article, but it seems that the gate is closed. Theklan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Er, yes, bioremediation is certainly a human activity, conducted to fix a human-caused problem. See the thread below for the sub-sub-sub- issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's why adding a sentence in the "Scientific uses" section is not harmful but good. Theklan (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Less is more." Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not if you are missing an important part of current scientific research. But, however, they were only improvements proposals as you were asking for how to make it GA. I have added those changes to the Basque translation, which would be proposed to FA soon. Theklan (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"important part of current scientific research": one among thousands of plant-related topics, many obviously way bigger: but we're in danger of original research here, rather than starting from the sources which tell us what's "important". I wish the Basque Wiki well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Plant blindness

It could be part of see also, but I would add a section below Negative effects about plant blindness. This is an interesting phenomenon completely related to the article and not treated elsewhere. Theklan (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where you're coming from here, but this is at best an extremely minor sub-aspect of a sub-aspect, concerning not even the "Importance" of plants to humans, but some feeling that some humans are not appreciating that importance, a cultural eddy of a backwater far from the main current of the river. We are trying here to create a brief, concise, focused, top-level overview of a very large topic covered in great detail by an enormous number of Wikipedia articles. We are exactly not trying to say everything up here. Instead, "less is more": the purpose is to say as little as possible, giving the person who wants to know the basic outlines of the concept "plant", what it is, how it came to be, what it relates to. I don't think for a moment that this tiny aspect of "negative effects" comes into that picture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

History of research

It may be interesting to add a history of research section, which would be equal to summarizing the article about botany. Theklan (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That is properly covered over at Botany as you say, and there is yet another extensive tree of existing articles on the history of science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The term botany is mentioned in the lead section of the article, so it should be expanded further in the article itself. Actually the lead section in the Botany article gives a very good summary:

Botany originated in prehistory as herbalism with the efforts of early humans to identify – and later cultivate – plants that were edible, poisonous, and possibly medicinal, making it one of the first endeavours of human investigation. Medieval physic gardens, often attached to monasteries, contained plants possibly having medicinal benefit. They were forerunners of the first botanical gardens attached to universities, founded from the 1540s onwards. One of the earliest was the Padua botanical garden. These gardens facilitated the academic study of plants. Efforts to catalogue and describe their collections were the beginnings of plant taxonomy, and led in 1753 to the binomial system of nomenclature of Carl Linnaeus that remains in use to this day for the naming of all biological species.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including methods of optical microscopy and live cell imaging, electron microscopy, analysis of chromosome number, plant chemistry and the structure and function of enzymes and other proteins. In the last two decades of the 20th century, botanists exploited the techniques of molecular genetic analysis, including genomics and proteomics and DNA sequences to classify plants more accurately.

Modern botany is a broad, multidisciplinary subject with contributions and insights from most other areas of science and technology. Research topics include the study of plant structure, growth and differentiation, reproduction, biochemistry and primary metabolism, chemical products, development, diseases, evolutionary relationships, systematics, and plant taxonomy. Dominant themes in 21st century plant science are molecular genetics and epigenetics, which study the mechanisms and control of gene expression during differentiation of plant cells and tissues.

Theklan (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No doubt all worthy and true, but certainly way WP:UNDUE here. We are trying to say less, not more and more. There are plenty of other places, both on Wikipedia and in whole libraries of books on botany, for such material. I've added a mention of "Botany" to the links in "In science", and I'll put a brief sentence there; it's for the Botany article to discuss its subtopics like biochemistry and all the rest that you've bluelinked, not this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, "plant" is an article high in the article hierarchy, so a comprehensive introduction to everything related should be expected. Theklan (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

1) It can't be comprehensive; I know that the FA criteria use that term where GA wisely doesn't, but of course it's impossible to be such in any high-level article, where there are literally thousands of subsidiary articles. 2) In particular, no top-level article should ever attempt to reproduce the hierarchy of articles in its tree. It should link to the second-level articles, saying very briefly what those are if it's not clear from the context, and stop. Going down to further levels is already a disaster. 3) As for a word on Botany, I've already agreed, so if you'll let me get on with it, I'll add that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to review this. This will probably take a long time, so your patience is appreciated. Cessaune [talk] 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune: Do you have comments on this article, or a timescale for when they can be expected? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Very, very sorry, real life is just being a bitch right now. Will 100% finish before 12:00 Monday UTC. Cessaune [talk] 05:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your exceptional patience.

I'm not at all knowledgeable about anything in this topic region. So some of the questions I ask or stuff I say may seem naive, dumb, wrong, etc. I don't really know what I'm talking about. Please feel free to critique my critiques.

I'm reasonably sure this is written in British English, so the template {{British English}} should be included on the talk page.

As a blanket concern pertaining to the whole article, I feel there is a general lack of soft pauses (commas, dashes, semicolons, etc.)

Yes, that's the language variant concerned; added the template. It may be worth saying that the article's diction is also inevitably, and I'd cheerfully say rightly and consistently, British; that may well sound slightly foreign to speakers of other language variants. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune: Many thanks for the review. I've replied to all the comments below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Since the lead is the most visible part of the article, I will go into extensive detail.

Re-formatting:

Plants are eukaryotes, predominantly photosynthetic, the eukaryotes that form the kingdom Plantae. Many are multicellular¹; they are predominantly photosynthetic. Historically, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi.; all current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae². By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the green algae and the embryophytes or land plants. The latter include (hornworts, liverworts, mosses, lycophytes, ferns, conifers and other gymnosperms, and flowering plants). A definition based on genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the red algae and the glaucophytes, in the clade Archaeplastida.

Green plants³ obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common⁴.

There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines⁵. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.

Somewhat edited version:

Plants are the eukaryotes that form the kingdom Plantae. Most are multicellular; they are predominantly photosynthetic. Historically, as in Aristotle's biology, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi; current definitions exclude the fungi and some of the algae. By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"), which consists of the green algae and the embryophytes or land plants (hornworts, liverworts, mosses, lycophytes, ferns, conifers and other gymnosperms, and flowering plants). A definition based on genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the red algae and the glaucophytes, in the clade Archaeplastida.

Green plants obtain most of their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Chloroplasts perform photosynthesis using the pigment chlorophyll, which gives them their green colour. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, but asexual reproduction is also common.

There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen and are the basis of most of Earth's ecosystems. Grain, fruit, and vegetables are basic human foods and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants have many cultural and other uses, such as ornaments, building materials, writing materials, and, in great variety, they have been the source of medicines. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.

Used this text.

---

1. Many is not quantifiable or informative. For comparison, if the sentence There are about 380,000 known species of plants, of which the majority, some 260,000, produce seeds became 'There are about 380,000 known species of plants, many of which produce seeds'... it's suboptimal. If most is an equally true statement, then use most, as, at the very least, it tells the reader that an absolute majority of known plants are multicellular. If most isn't a true statement, or if plants are about equally split between multicellular and unicellular (this isn't the case as far as I'm aware), then the sentence shouldn't be included. In the body, most is the preferred word (Most plants are multicellular) However, a quick search online leads me to believe that the phrase has too much nuance to it to be leadworthy at all. The consensus seems to be that, under the strictest definition of plants, all plants are multicellular, but if algae is considered, only the vast majority of plants are multicellular. Rather than cramming this information into the lead, something about this should be included in the Alternative concepts section.
   1. Removed from lead. Added info on cellularity to the Alt concepts table.
2. All current definitions? This needs a citation.
   1. Removed.
3. Green plants specifically, or all plants? If it's only green plants that this is referring to (I'm like 70% sure that this is the case), then linking green plants (even though Viridiplantae is linked) would be useful for readers who are unaware that green plants and Viridiplantae are the same thing. I am aware of the phrase (Latin for "green plants") that is included immediately after the mention of Viridiplantae; I feel like an average reader would wonder whether or not "green plants" refers to Viridiplantae or to green-colored plants specifically. Worst case scenario: just switch green plants to Viridiplantae, and switch Green plants provide a substantial... to 'Plants provide a substantial...', which is equally true.
   1. Said "Vididiplantae (green plants)" so it's clear they're the same.
4. If plants are characterized by sexual reproduction, but standalone asexual reproduction is "common" (not quantifiable and only minorly informative), are plants really characterized by sexual reproduction? I would imagine that the vast majority of plants reproduce sexually based on the phrase characterized by, but it makes little sense to me that a group could be wholly characterized by X, yet Y is still considered "common" within the same group. Is there something I'm missing here?
   1. Edited. I wouldn't agree with the "wholly"; footballers are characterized by playing football, but they also eat, sleep, have babies, and all the rest.
5. This sentence is worded very weirdly. Potential rewrite: Plants are often used as building materials, writing materials, and medicines; they feature prominently in human culture (see plants in culture), and often hold symbolic and religious importance.
   1. Reworded.

Other stuff

1. Things I would add to the second paragraph are:
   • A quick definition of photosynthesis
   1. • Added.
   • A quick definition of parasitic plant
   1. • Already in that sentence.
   • Info on plant size variation
   1. • Added.
2. I would add info on the shifting definitions of plants, starting with Aristotle and moving forward. Those facts are very, very important and IMO more than just simply leadworthy. Lead-necessary.
   1. • Added Aristotle and discussed later definitions
3. All text from Historically, the plant kingdom to in the clade Archaeplastida should be moved. The second paragraph would be moved up, and would continue on from they are predominantly photosynthetic; the other text would become the new second paragraph. The contention over what should and shouldn't be considered a plant should come after the reader knows what plants generally are, and what they do/how they function.
   1. • Done; I'm a bit queasy about this as articles normally begin by saying what something is and then go on to functions and interactions; indeed, you yourself say "after the reader knows what plants ... are", which implies starting with definition not function.
4. The lead needs to mention other animals in relation to plants (food chain, herbivores/omnivores or the fact that animals consume plants in general, etc.)
   1. • Added.

Taxonomic history

Y Sources are adequate, and the prose is as lengthy as I think a GA requires.

Alternative concepts

1. What it seems like to me is that most articles focus on "plants in the strictest sense" (Embryophyta) while this article focuses on "plants in a strict sense" (Viridiplantae), without making it clear that other sources often exclusively focus on Embyrophyta when talking about plants. For example, the picozoa article states that [picozoa] probably belong in the Archaeplastida as sister of the Rhodophyta, which suggests to me that explicitly stating that picozoa are plants will confuse many readers. If you search online, some publications do not include green algae in plant classifications, while some do not consider them either plants or animals. Though not all the sources online that I read are reliable, the average reader may be confused by such a clear discrepancy. To combat this, more needs to be said about the disagreement over whether algae are considered plants, plant-like, animals, etc. This would then allow the article to state that its focus is on plants as defined by the clade Viridiplantae, and would clear up the algae isn't a plant! confusion. I guess the bolding in the table is supposed to signify this but I think that it needs to be explicitly stated.
   1. The GAN process focuses on just one article at a time, or it would never get anywhere. The table makes it very clear that conflicting alternative concepts exist, and these are all reliably cited, so the reader knows immediately that authorities can disagree. The text further makes it clear that this article focuses on Green plants/Viridiplantae, which it directly equates. We can't say "plant-like" or any such phrase, as that is circular, prejudging what the term plant means.

Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.

Diversity

1. I would rewrite the second paragraph: Plants range in scale from single celled organisms such as desmids (from 10 micrometres across) and picozoa (less than 3 micrometres across), to megaflora such as the conifer Sequoia sempervirens (up to 380 feet (120 m) tall) and the angiosperm Eucalyptus regnans (up to 325 feet (99 m) tall).

Reworded.

Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.

Evolutionary history

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Phylogeny

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Plant cells

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Plant structure

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Photosynthesis

This section is worded weirdly. Potential rewrite: Plants photosynthesize, manufacturing food molecules using energy obtained from light. Plant cells contain chlorophylls inside their chloroplasts, which are green pigments that are used to capture light energy. The chemical equation for photosynthesis is:

${\ce {6CO2{}+6H2O{}->[{\text{light}}]C6H12O6{}+6O2{}}}$

This interaction causes oxygen to be released into the atmosphere. Green plants provide a substantial proportion of the world's molecular oxygen, alongside the contributions from photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria.

Reworded.

Growth and repair

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Reproduction

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Disease resistance

Y It could probably include a bit more but it's alright; sources are adequate.

Genomics

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Ecology

Y Ecology as a whole is good and I see no issues with the sourcing or the prose. I quite like the gallery of images included in the middle.

Importance

As a blanket concern, I feel that this section is too human-centric, and forgets about the fact that plants are important to essentially all living beings. This statement applies to all sub-sections.

The section is intentionally about human interactions with plants, so I've renamed it to "Importance to humans". The interactions of plants with other organisms is discussed in the section "Ecological relationships", with numerous wikilinks to subsidiary articles; I've added a "main" link there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving on:

Food

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Medicines

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Non-food products

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Ornamental plants

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

In science

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

In mythology, religion, and culture

This section needs to be fleshed out a bit. I think it should generally mirror Plants in culture#Symbolic uses.

Ok, I'd beg to differ here, as that article has the human aspect as its entire focus, where this article's subject is plants as such; it therefore links and summarises subsidiary articles which provide additional detail. You have already commented that the "Importance" section gives rather a lot of weight to humans, which would be made worse by extending this subsection. I've added a "further" link to the article and section you name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well then, I would suggest using a better example of plants in culture than the relatively obscure columns of Ancient Egyptian architecture. Perhaps the World Tree mythos or allusions to paganism? Cessaune [talk] 14:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Negative effects

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Cessaune [talk] 08:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. As a final point, I really dislike the phrasing many cultural and other uses, but if you wish to keep it that way, it's fine. Cessaune [talk] 01:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Good job! I think this article satisfies the GA criteria.

Are you going to do a DYK nom? If not, I wish to do so. Cessaune [talk] 15:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A section on climate change and general conservation pressures is badly needed

Not sure if I should be making comments like this on the (upcoming) GA Review or here. Regardless, it's the same point I made while reviewing Flowering plant, and it should be self-explanatory. Remarkably, we have at least one corresponding sub-article - Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity - yet neither of the two articles links to it.

However, that article is also badly outdated (nearly every reference is from early 2000s) and will likely need to be rewritten almost from the ground up, perhaps as an article with slightly broader scope (i.e. Decline of plant biodiversity, to match Decline in amphibian populations, Decline in insect populations, and perhaps impending articles on mammals and reptiles.) In its current state, it may be useful to provide inspiration, but probably shouldn't be excerpted or have its citations carried over without a search for an update.

Lastly, while I don't feel overly comfortable recommending my own work (having written >80% of the article), I think Extinction risk from climate change#Plants can serve as a useful starting point for creating such sections. It refers to the most current assessments I know of, and I believe that in particular, Plants People Planet meta-analysis from the year 2020 may be of great help here. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can link to it. I'm not convinced we need much of a mention of the topic here, not least because it's well covered over there already, and insofar as it concerns plants, it's more relevant to plant ecology than this, the top-level article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

sensu what?

According to my knowledge, "sensu" means "in the sense of" in Latin. It is usually followed by an adjective to provide a more specific meaning. However, in this case, there is no such word, so the meaning of "sensu" is unclear. I noticed that this term was added in Special:Diff/644848541, but this user has not been active in recent years. I wonder if there are any other users who can help clarify this issue? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 14:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume it is trying to convey that this is kingdom Plantae in the sense of Copeland 1956, rather than the wider (=Archaeplastida) or narrower (=Embryophyta) definitions discussed in the alternative concepts section. While "Plantae sensu Copeland 1956" is acceptable way of expressing this, it probably shouldn't be that way in the taxobox. By stating the authority it is obviously meant as used by that authority. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for such a fast reply. Just as you said, this term is indeed redundant. The botanical author citation has already indicated different definitions of the same name. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 14:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ferns mainly gametophyte?

In the sexual repro section it is stated that "in mosses and ferns, the sexual gametophyte forms most of the visible plant"; actually, in ferns the gametophyte is the small prothallium, and the sporophyte is the "main fern", isn't it? WolfGreg9 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Fixing it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Great to get feedback, thanks!

In the "mitochondrion" article, I posted a few mistakes as well, if this is also "your area"! WolfGreg9 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not me. Best ask on the relevant WikiProject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

opening paragraph fix: there are plenty of plants that parasitise off fungi networks, and ive heard of some that parasitise off animals. 84.66.216.95 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hard cases make bad law" - the function of the opening paragraph of the lead is to give a clear, simple overview to build a general understanding. It is not to go into every imaginable exception, which would only build confusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I started reading the article today as it was good to see a vital topic getting attention at DYK. But I balked immediately at the lead sentence which read:

Plants are the eukaryotes that form the kingdom Plantae; they are predominantly photosynthetic.

There are some issues with this.

1. Words like eukaryote and kingdom will be confusing for the general reader. This is the sort of article that might be read by a young child and so should start with appropriate language per WP:JARGON and MOS:INTRO.
2. It doesn't clearly define what a plant is. It talks about photosynthesis but indicates that this is not essential. And the reference to Plantae just seems to be saying that plants are plants.

I looked at the OED, which is the first place I usually go to get a good general definition. It says

gen. and Biology. A living organism other than an animal, able to subsist wholly on inorganic substances, typically fixed to a substrate and moving chiefly by means of growth, and lacking specialized sensory and digestive organs; spec. (more fully green plant) such an organism belonging to a group (the kingdom Plantae) which comprises multicellular forms having cellulose cell walls and capable of photosynthesis by means of chlorophyll, including trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, and ferns (the vascular or higher plants), and also mosses and liverworts (the bryophytes). Frequently spec.: a small (esp. herbaceous) organism of this kind, as distinguished from a tree or shrub; (in informal use) such an organism grown for or known by its foliage or fruit, as distinguished from a ‘flower’.

It then goes on to explain that bacteria, fungi and lichens were previously included so the definition is not set in stone.

Britannica has a definition with 6 elements. There's some overlap but it's different.

Plant, (kingdom Plantae), any multicellular eukaryotic life-form characterized by (1) photosynthetic nutrition (a characteristic possessed by all plants except some parasitic plants and underground orchids), in which chemical energy is produced from water, minerals, and carbon dioxide with the aid of pigments and the radiant energy of the Sun, (2) essentially unlimited growth at localized regions, (3) cells that contain cellulose in their walls and are therefore to some extent rigid, (4) the absence of organs of locomotion, resulting in a more or less stationary existence, (5) the absence of nervous systems, and (6) life histories that show an alteration of haploid and diploid generations, with the dominance of one over the other being taxonomically significant.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. "Alternative concepts" are discussed in the article text, and summarized in the second paragraph of the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the lead and found it quite confusing. In the first paragraph, we're told that plants are a kingdom. Then in the second paragraph, we're told that it's actually the clade Viridiplantae. But then it promptly says that they might be the clade Archaeplastida instead. And the infobox says that the clade is a third one – Diaphoretickes. These all have separate articles and so they are not synonyms; they are something else, right? I am reminded of Haddocks' Eyes!

An anomaly which was part of the puzzle was the number of species. Para 3 says that "There are about 380,000 known species of plants" while Viridiplantae gives the number as 450,000–500,000. Archaeplastida doesn't seem to give a number while Diaphoretickes says over 400,000. Are these differences due to differences of definition or uncertainty in the data?

As we seem to have a variety of definitions which are all detailed separately, this article is or should be a broad topic written in a more general way, I reckon.

The last paragraph of the lead is the only one which won't baffle the general reader because it doesn't get lost in such jargon and contradiction. But in addressing human uses of plants it seems to have some significant omissions such as fuel (firewood and biofuel) and fabric (cotton, linen, jute, &c.)

I'm going to keep working through this as it seems good to really understand something so fundamental but am jotting down these observations as they occur to me. More anon.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition

Why it was defined as Viridiplantae rather than Archaeplastida in the taxobox? And why not redirect Viridiplantae to this article? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 07:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And there are images of red algae and Glaucophyta, which are classified in Archaeplastida but not Viridiplantae. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 13:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Interaccoonale: as well explained at Plant#Alternative concepts, the term "plant" has multiple meanings. "Plant" = Viridiplantae is clearly stated to be the usage of the article. I think that "plants" = "green plants" is closest to most people's understanding of the term. Naturally there are images related to other usages, but they aren't shown as included in "plant" = Viridiplantae.

Note also that every single taxobox that shows "Kingdom: Plantae" (via Template:Taxonomy/Plantae which has almost 100,000 transclusions) uses the definition "plant" = Viridiplantae, so this is a very deeply embedded decision.

Whichever choice is made could be argued against. Why do you think that "plant" = Archaeplastida would have been a better choice? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Google scholar search results:

• "Plantae (Archaeplastida)" 106
• "Archaeplastida (Plantae)" 117
• "Archaeplastida or Plantae" 54
• "Plantae or Archaeplastida" 67
• "Plantae (Viridiplantae)" 61
• "Viridiplantae (Plantae)" 15
• "Viridiplantae or Plantae" 1
• "Plantae or Viridiplantae" 5

——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 07:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the very small numbers of hits show anything much. If a change were warranted, and I don't think it is, there are better arguments now for "plants" = Embryophyta. For example, the change of name for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

What does seem to me to be clear is that "Plantae" is much more widely used than any of the more specific terms, suggesting that it's generally used rather vaguely. Consider this Google Ngram result, or the Google hits I get:

Plantae 51,300,000

Embryophyta 962,000

Viridiplantae 761,000

Archaeplastida 580,000

So I conclude that any article corresponding to "Plantae" needs to cover all these definitions. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that all definitions should be covered, while I think that's beside the point. We are talking about the taxobox. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 08:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Interaccoonale: the taxobox has to reflect a single consistent taxonomy, consistent with the main choice made in the article, and this is Plantae = Viridiplantae. As I pointed out above, this view is embedded in a vast number of taxoboxes in articles, so even if we agreed on a change (which we don't), making it would be very, very disruptive. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Google scholar returns 145,000 results for "Plantae" alone, so less than 1% specify the definition. A standard Google search finds 761,000 results for Viridiplantae and 579,000 results for Archaeplastida, whereas there are 25 million for "Plantae" (this number is quite varied). I don't think these searches provide particularly useful information for which is the most common use. It's also worth noting that this article is at the vernacular "plant". Dictionary definitions tend to be more restrictive, which might suggest plant as the Wikipedia common name should use a narrower definition. I think the status quo is fine and reasonably representative of the traditional kingdom. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. If there is a viable alternative, based on common usage, I suspect it's "plants" = Embryophyta, as I noted above. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)