This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BloxyColaSweet.
Status: Online
Welcome To Bloxy's User Page
Wikipedian - If my status is unknown, check my status page at the top.
Articles longer than a stub are divided into sections, and longer sections are divided into 2 or more paragraphs, if necessary.
Divisions like these improve the readability of an article.
Headings like == Heading ==, introduce sections and subsections, to organise content within an article as part of the table of contents. Short sentences and paragraphs, do not warrant their own subheadings.
Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list. To join the project, add your username to the list at WikiProject Plants/Participants or just jump in.
This WikiProject aims primarily to describe all plants, that is, all species and natural hybrids belonging to the kingdom Plantae. This project's scope also includes notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, botanists and botany-related articles.
Describe all ranks and notable clades (particularly orders, families, genera, species, and natural hybrids) of the kingdom Plantae.
For species, natural hybrids, and notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, describe botanical properties, distribution, usage (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information, and common names.
Develop and implement a robust method of naming plant articles for the ease of navigation and searching for Wikipedia users.
WikiProject Fungi is an analogous project concerning the Kingdom Fungi. WikiProject Fungi was originally modeled after WikiProject Plants, though modified to fit the needs of writing about mycological topics.
For the criteria used in assessing articles for this project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale. It is important to rate the quality of articles correctly; the number of Stub-class articles shown in the Statistics table near the top of this page is much larger than the number of articles which are actually stubs. It appears that editors who expand stubs often forget to alter the quality rating. Stubs are by far the largest class of en:wikipedia plant articles, represented in red in bar below.
Monotypic plant taxa have not always been treated consistently; see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. A brief summary is "use the lowest principal rank, but no lower than genus, unless the genus name needs disambiguating, in which case use the species".
Plant articles about groups of plants (taxa) are about the plants, not about the name of the group, and the opening of the article should reflect this (see WP:REFERS).
Right:
Lambertia formosa, commonly known as mountain devil, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae, ...
Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, ...
The Marsileaceae are a small family of ...
The radish (Raphanus sativus) is an edible root vegetable of the Brassicaceae family ...
Elms are deciduous trees comprising the genus Ulmus in the plant family Ulmaceae.
Wrong:
Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is the name of a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, ...
Marsileaceae is the name of a small family of ...
The MoS at WP:BEGIN says that where possible "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." So an article at the scientific name should begin with the scientific name; an article at the English name should begin with the English name.
Redirect pages should be created from at least all regularly used synonyms and English names, including alternative styling of English names, such as the use of capital letters, hyphens or apostrophes. (As of May 2014[update] the Wikimedia software automatically finds alternative capitalizations when these are typed into the search box but not when used as wikilinks. Although the policy of the English Wikipedia is to use lowercase for the English names of organisms, there are still many articles which don't. Thus there should be a redirect from Golden BladderwortGolden Bladderwort as well as from Golden bladderwortGolden bladderwort.)
Do not create redirects hybrids using 'x' for '×'. The Wikimedia software handles this without a problem.
The botanical name of a taxon higher than genus (i.e. from subtribe upwards) is plural in Latin.
A genus name (and hence a species or infraspecies name) is singular in Latin.
The botanical names of taxa are treated as proper nouns (noun phrases for species and below) in English, as is shown by capitalization, for example.
After an initial lengthy discussion and an additional discussion it is clear that there is no consensus, neither in reliable sources nor among members of this WikiProject, as to whether the grammatical number of the taxon name in Latin should be followed when writing in English. Accordingly, either may be used; for example, an article about a family may begin in either of the following ways:
Asparagaceae is a family ... It is/has ...
The Asparagaceae are a family ... They are/have ...
(The use of "the" follows the standard English grammatical pattern for proper nouns: "the" is required with those that are of plural form, e.g. "the United States", "the Netherlands", "the Smiths", but is usually omitted with those that are of singular form, e.g. "England", "John Smith", although there are exceptions.)
Sourced common names used in English are to be included in taxon articles. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
In some cases, the genus name has become the common name for a group of plants, particularly in a horticultural context. These cases include:
Using the common name for the genus as a whole, e.g. "hostas", "cannas".
Using the common name for only part of the genus, e.g. "pelargoniums", "rhododendrons" (as opposed to "azaleas").
Using the common name in a way that does not correspond to current genus boundaries at all, e.g. "geraniums".
Such uses should be explained in the lead, e.g. "Hosta is a genus of plants commonly known as hostas..." When a common name and a spelled-alike genus name refer to different groups this needs to be made very clear.
The singular of one of these common names is easily confused with an incorrectly formatted genus name and should be avoided as far as possible. When the plural means something like "those species and cultivars of the genus which are in cultivation" its use is more acceptable, as in "Hostas are widely cultivated, being particularly useful in the garden as shade-tolerant plants" meaning "Species and cultivars of Hosta are ..."
Dialects of English differ in whether they pronounce the "h" in words like "herb", "herbaceous", etc. Accordingly they differ in whether they use "an" (e.g. most US dialects) or "a" (e.g. most UK dialects). Experience shows that using either "a" or "an" in these circumstances leads to endless back-and-forth edits. Some ways to avoid such problems are:
use an adjective rather than a noun: X is herbaceous rather than X is a/an herbaceous plant
put another word between: X is a perennial herbaceous plant rather than X is a/an herbaceous perennial plant
use the plural: Herbs are ... rather than A/An herb is ...
Whenever a list of synonyms appears in a taxobox, a citation needs to be given to support the statement that these are synonyms. This will almost always be a single citation; it is not appropriate to accumulate a list of "synonyms" from multiple sources, since the separate sources may not be compatible with one another. In rare cases, it may be necessary and acceptable to include more than one citation, for example, if the synonym reference contains a misspelling, then a citation could be added that discusses the correct spelling.
There is as yet no single best source to cite for synonym lists for all plant taxa. The most appropriate source may be an authoritative monograph or flora, but assessing that type of publication requires care, and usually requires specialist knowledge. Databases are being developed outside Wikipedia to bring together summaries of the most thorough taxonomic work on all plant species, and these often provide suitable synonym lists.
World Flora Online. World Flora Online replaces The Plant List, but continues some of its faults; for example as of 16 April 2024[update] it gave both Rosmarinus officinalis (here) and Salvia rosmarinus (here) as accepted names with separate entries. The records are stated to be derived from WCSP (now obsolete) on different dates. POWO correctly identifies these as synonyms.
USDA GRIN Taxonomy: superb reference for agriculturally important crops and weeds, but as of 2014[update] the taxonomy is not being updated as rapidly as in the other databases
Don't use The Plant List (TPL): it was last updated in 2013 and is now obsolete; it drew a subset of its information from other databases and has compilation errors that do not accurately represent those databases.
Note: IPNI: (seed plants and lycophytes) is not an appropriate source for synonym lists (or species lists) because it aims to list all published names regardless of taxonomy; similarly, Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) is also not an appropriate source for a synonym list; rather, it aims to list all published opinions on synonymy. Tropicos also lists published opinions on synonymy and acceptance and doesn't endorse any single taxonomic point of view.
It is desirable to discuss and fully disambiguate many of the large number of names found in botanical or gardening reference works that appear to be scientific names of plants, but synonym lists in publications often contain many elements that are not synonyms as the term is used in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and these lists can be both difficult to interpret and confusing. The following approach is suggested:
The taxobox synonyms area (the synonyms parameter of the Automatic taxobox and Speciesbox templates) should be reserved for two kinds of names that are usefully considered to be synonyms of the taxon name used on the Wikipedia page:
Names that are heterotypic synonyms as defined by the Code of Nomenclature, and
Validly published names of a different rank that have the same type (specimen) as the taxon name used on the Wikipedia page, are well-known, and don't have their own page.
A section of the text area of the page could be used to explain interesting or difficult aspects of nomenclature. This section could be called Taxonomic history or Nomenclatural history.
For taxonomic (heterotypic) synonyms, which are synonyms only in the opinion of a particular author or authors, it is important to include one or more citations to the source(s) of these taxonomic opinions (the synonyms_ref parameter of the taxobox templates can be used for this).
For nomenclatural (homotypic) synonyms, which involve the same type (specimen) and are less debatable, it is also desirable to include a citation to the source(s) from which this information was obtained.
Cedrus libani var. brevifolia Hook.f. could be discussed on the Cedrus libani page as a case of debatable taxonomic placement, and also listed as a synonym in the taxobox on the page for Cedrus brevifolia.
Banksia latifolia var. minor Maiden & Camfield could be listed in the taxobox as a synonym of Banksia oblongifolia (or as a synonym of Banksia oblongifolia var. minor if a page about that variety were created).
The tribe Amygdaleae could be listed as a synonym of subfamily Amygdaloideae (a homotypic synonym at a different rank).
The synonym list would include synonyms of subordinate taxa
This is because in a Wikipedia taxobox (as in many other reference works) homotypic and heterotypic synonyms are not distinguished. For example, if a single cited source states that :
Spiraea densiflora Nutt. ex Greenm. is a synonym of Spiraea splendens Baumann ex K. Koch var. splendens and
Spiraea arbuscula Greene is a synonym of Spiraea splendens Baumann ex K. Koch var. rosea (A. Gray) Kartesz & Gandhi
then the taxobox would list both Spiraea densiflora Nutt. ex Greenm. and Spiraea arbuscula Greene as synonyms of Spiraea splendens.
Some cases to exclude from the taxobox (an incomplete list)
Misidentifications would not appear in a synonym list, and often would not require mention. For example:
Crataegus pubescens Steud. nom. illeg. and Crataegus gracilior J.B.Phipps are very commonly misapplied to Crataegus mexicana DC., but if that situation is rectified it may no longer warrant discussion.
Names that do not satisfy the technical definition of a botanical name, and uncorrected forms, would be excluded:
Orthographic variants can be handled by redirects to the page with the correct spelling, and should not require any mention on the page. For example:
Pereskia opuntiaeflora, the original spelling used by de Candolle, could redirect to Pereskia opuntiiflora, the corrected spelling specified by the code of nomenclature (article 60.8).
Populus section Aegiros, a common misspelling, could redirect to Populus section Aigeiros.
Nom. inval. or nom. nud. signals a name that was not validly published as a botanical name. Few of these have become well known without being validated by a later publication, but a small number are well known, and these may warrant discussion. For example:
Crataegus macracantha Lodd. need not be listed; the validated name is written as Crataegus macracantha Lodd. ex Loudon or Crataegus macracantha Loudon.
Subfamily Prunoideae Burnett was not validly published because Burnett compiled a list of comments about the (group at the rank now considered to be a) subfamily but did not provide text that qualifies as a description, according to the requirements of our modern codes of nomenclature (and he did not provide a diagnosis or refer to a previous description).
Certain names published in suppressed works (opera oppressa) are considered invalid, and do not belong in the taxobox. It may be useful to discuss some of these in the page text. For example:
Michel Gandoger earned some renown for publishing a vast number of species names in the genus Rosa in his suppressed work Flora Europae terrarumque adjacentium. It could be helpful to discuss these with Rosa canina, which is sometimes noted as a species that caused taxonomic confusion.
Nom. rej. and/or Nom. illeg. can signal a name that has not satisfied some of the rules of the code of nomenclature. Nom. rej. can also indicate names that have been explicitly rejected (articles 14 and 56). Some such names may be best omitted, and others may justify detailed explanation. For example:
On a page about the genus Hierochloë R. Br., it might be desirable to discuss Savastana Schrank, Torresia Ruiz & Pav., and Disarrenum Labill. These names are rejected in favour of Hierochloë, but a different taxonomy could consider them to be separate from Hierochloë, in which case they are valid and legitimate botanical names.
In addition to a unique cultivar name (regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), many cultivated plants have "selling names" or "marketing names"; the ICNCP calls these "trade designations". Trade designations are not regulated by the ICNCP; they are often different in different countries and can change over time. The ICNCP states that "trade designations must always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets." They should never be set in single quotes. Some are also registered trade marks (which cultivar names never are). There is currently no consensus as to how to represent trade designations in Wikipedia.
The template {{tdes}} can be used; one advantage is that if a consensus is reached in future, consistency will be easy to achieve.
The RHS uses a different font face. This is the default for {{tdes}}. ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth}} → Syringa vulgarisLudwig Spaeth.
An alternative different font face can be produced using ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|roman}} → Syringa vulgarisLudwig Spaeth. However, the font will only be noticeably different if the main text is in a sans-serif font.
The ICNCP specifies use of a different font face, and illustrates this with use of small capitals. ''S. vulgaris'' {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|smallcaps}} → S. vulgarisLudwig Spaeth. Small capitals are generally disliked in Wikipedia.
Plain text can be used, making clear the nature of the name. It is still useful to mark the name in the source as a trade designation. ''S. vulgaris'' 'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as {{tdes|Ludwig Spaeth|plain}} → S. vulgaris 'Andenken an Ludwig Späth' is often sold as Ludwig Spaeth.
For the categorization of redirects using "R templates", see below.
Most articles on higher taxa already exist. For new articles on genera and species, put the article in at least the following categories (replacing capitalized words by actual names):
New genus articles
Normally [[Category:FAMILY]] but may be higher for small families (e.g. [[Category:ORDER]] or [[Category:CLADE]]) or lower for large families or the APG3 "lumped" families (e.g. [[Category:SUBFAMILY]]).
Normally [[Category:FAMILY genera]] but may be higher for small families (e.g. [[Category:ORDER genera]] or [[Category:CLADE genera]]) or lower for large families (e.g. [[Category:SUBFAMILY genera]]).
New species articles
Normally [[Category:GENUS|SPECIES]] but may be higher for small genera (e.g. [[Category:FAMILY]]).
[[Category:Plants described in YEAR]] where YEAR is the year of first description, regardless of later changes of name (see WP:PLANTS/Description in year categories).
Redirect pages involving the scientific names of plants should be placed into a "redirect category" using an appropriate "R template" as shown in the table below, unless the redirect is concerned with the accepted names of monotypic taxa. "Scientific name" is here interpreted broadly as meaning "Latin name", which may or may not be a valid taxonomic synonym.
WikiProject Plants has a number of components, these include taxa, botanical topics, and botanists. When describing taxa with authorities, the authorities should be checked against the List of botanists by author abbreviation, and if necessary, added. Authorities should be linked, and if red linked, consideration should be given to creating a biographical page. Wikipedia has no specific criteria for botanists, although it has for scientists in general. In most cases recognising an author by linking their name to a species as an authority is a form of notability, and any requests for deletion should be directed to this section.
Botanist biography pages should at a minimum contain the following, the {{infobox scientist}} and {{botanist}} templates (the latter in turn creates a Reference to "Author Query" at the International Plant Names Index), a list of publications, including the ones that give them botanical authority status, and links to taxa they named, or are named in their honour. The botanist template will also generate a category (Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). In the Talk page the use of the {{WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=|botanist=yes}} template will link it to the project.
The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden has provided a centralized guide for editing and creating biographical articles for botanists.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Less Unless, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Other than leaving your own comments, you should not edit other editors' talk pages.Schazjmd(talk) 06:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to start new articles on various redlinked plant taxa. I noticed you’ve placed some useful text on your userpage as a template to help you start each new article. Please don’t use it in that form again as the structure of the English is not very good and it lacks the correct formatting. A few simple changes should get you sorted. See Festuca alpina edits to view the changes from your templates text that were necessary. The taxon name should be first (in bold), with a few words saying what kind of thing it is. There is no need to say the taxon name is “accepted” because if it were a synonym it should be a WP:REDIRECT to the valid name. Do check you’ve transcribed the authority names fully (I had to fix your templated example for you). Finally, avoid words like “seem to” unless that lack of certainty is explicitly reported by scientific sources. I spotted one recent example where it sounded to me more like you were describing ‘’your own’’ uncertainty about something. Hope this helps you make better plant stubs in future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, so I don't think you're intending to do damage. But somehow you have deleted large chunks of other users' talk pages whenever you posted there. See this diff for when you posted on my talk page, and this diff for when you posted on Schazjmd's talk page. Plus there's a warning above about this edit to @Less Unless's page. We need to get to the bottom of this asap, or you're going to get blocked for disruptive editing, whether you intended to do this, or not.
So please explain what system you're using to edit from and how you're doing it. Are you visiting via a normal computer browser, or a mobile app? Please list any scripts you have loaded up, or any browser extensions that might be deleting stuff when you try to edit. I believe Schazmd already asked this when they wrote "perhaps you have a script installed or some sort of browser extension that is causing the problem, because you made the same incorrect changes to my talk page when you posted your message. I suggest you figure out the problem and fix it. You may be able to get assistance at and WP:HELPDESK or WP:VPT. " The place to look first is anything you've added to your COMMON.JS or COMMON .CSS files (which only you can see), but another problem could be if you are using Grammarly, or some other automatic text-checking/editing tool. If so, please try deactivating it. Some (rather unclear!) information is available at WP:NOGRAMMARLY.
I would say that, whenever someone posts to your talk page, you should answer them there, and not on their own userpage as you did with me today. Its rather unhelpful to reply somewhere else as it spreads discussions into different places, and I personally still want to follow up our discussion and steer you to use better species stub text than your current templated text which I raised above and which you responded to on my user page.
Finally, as an aside, but on the subject of templates: Can I ask you if you would let me delete User:BloxyColaSweet/SpeedyDeletionNotice! (SDN!) VIEW and the redirect to it? It's not at all helpful and, to be honest, rather suspicious to see. I notice you've not used it recently, so I suggest you agree to me removing it as we never want to see it being left for any other users again.
Hoping this makes sense. In the meantime I advise you not to post to any other tlak pages until we can get to the bottom of how you're doing all this weird deletion when using Source Editor. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I am again sorry, I promise I have no trolling intentions, literally. I didnt know how I deleted others content on their talk pages, I will be figuring the problem now. I am terribly sorry. As for the topics, I will sure take note of others talk pages. Terribly sorry. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You just said this 7 minutes ago, and then did this two minutes ago. Explain yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
And I'll note that this one was clearly intentional and more than just removing content - you changed Pppery's signature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae, the other edits were the same apparently "intentional" changes. It is possible they're using some sort of browser extension that makes automatic changes. (When I first began editing, I had to disable a widget that automatically replaced a certain politician's name with something else when I discovered it was making that change in articles I had open to edit.) But BIoxy, you need to troubleshoot this and figure out the problem before editing any more talk pages. Weird that it doesn't do it when you edit your own. Schazjmd(talk) 00:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
No really, I seriously dont know how I am deleting content then and their. I am trying to fix things, for now I wont be replying to others talk pages this week since this is really destructive. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Also I am removing all my browser extentions even if Grammarly isnt present anywhere. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
You can post on my talk page if you want to test if you've fixed the problem, I'll understand what's going on. After you post, look at the page's history...if you see numbers in red by your edit, it means your edit is still removing a lot of content. Schazjmd(talk) 00:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have replied to your talk, Is it still deleting your content? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Update : I have removed all my browser extentions. No, I dont have scripts installed, I highly suspected it was my Copy-To-Paste clip board extention. I still doubt that I can comment talk pages without deleting content. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It worked. Your edit to my talk page didn't change anything else on the page or delete anything. Schazjmd(talk) 00:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Terribly sorry for the inconvience that was cuased earlier. Ill make sure to be careful next time. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It's okay, just glad it's resolved. It would really hamper your editing if you couldn't post on talk pages. But you're good to go now. Schazjmd(talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Me too. I'm pleased you sorted it. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you resolved the issue above. Following on from my comments about using templated text to make stubs articles, here are a few observations which I hope you'll take on board. Firstly, avoid using just a bare url as a reference. Make it a really good one using the Cite button in [[WP:VE, or the Template>Cite web or Cite Journal in Source Editor. Try to get as full a reference as you can. To help you, there's a 'look-up' magnifying glass icon you can click after pasting in the url . It attempt to retrieve as much of the citation as it can, though you may have to add a few extra bits like page number, access date. A 'Ref name' is always worth adding so that you can reuse the same citation later on and find it again easily whilst doing later edits.
Avoid stating the obvious, but do spend 10 minutes or so, reading through your sources. You found a really interesting on for Festuca alpina which I've used to copy edit what you started. It's always worth trying to extra as many of the basics as you can. These aggregate groups can be quite confusing, so don't delve too deeply if you're not sure about it, but always check for the same name being used by different authors to refer to different taxa - many of which are no longer valid.
I'm still not hugely keen on your wording of the templated example on your userpage. The English is still a bit clunky. You can put the family link as a wikilink to the type of plant that it is (e.g. grass), which avoids stating the obvious or using the word 'species' three times in three consecutive sentences. But all in all you're doing ok. Shout if you need any other help.
BTW:On your own talk page, I'd suggest removing the NOTOC template as you'll find it helps people to navigate your talk page. You can set up auto-archiving, but I recommend leaving past discussions on your page for quote a while. It helps others help you to see past discussions. If I think of anything else to suggest, I'll come back and add them to this thread. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Nick Moyes, I am already taking note of those tips, I am really rusty. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, Most of the stub pages I do are all rarely-recorded. But im getting there. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I am starting to use non-bare urls on one page about a mushroom. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about Agaricus alabamensis and a few other very short stubs you are rushing to create right now? My view is that they offer virtually nothing to a user in their current form (except to prove that the taxon exists, and to make you feel good that you've created some stubs). Now, that might sound harsh, but a really good editor would take their time, find sources, check other language wikis and do their utmost to add something worthwhile. To be frank, telling us that Agaricus alabamensis is in the genus Agaricus and the family Agaricaceae is not that helpful; one can deduce all that just from a redlink at Agaricus!
So what I'd like to suggest is that you ask yourself what it is that someone would want to know. Where does it occur? What does it look like? Is it rare, common or endangered, and what serious sources exist about it? Now, for this mushroom, I found very little, except its likely distribution, and the size and colour of its spores. Many other sources I found on Google and in Google books searches were only previews, so it was hard to glean much at a quick check. But this Google result would let you explain about spore size/colour and give an additional reference that a student with access to a university library might then be able to follow up. Another trick is to see if a page exists on any other language Wikipedia, and see what those pages say. I simply go to Google and type the species name you want to write about, followed by 'wiki'. Thus, by searching on Agaricus alabamensis wiki, I found this on ceb-wiki. It doesn't tell us a whole lot more, apart from date of naming, but it has additional references, and you can improve your version over it by adding the spore information I gave you above.
To be honest, one link to an entry on GBIF doesn't seem that useful to me. So, the more effort you are prepared to can put into each new stub you create, the more respect I would have for you as an editor, making really worthwhile content, and with a much better list of sources that other users can then investigate for themselves.Nick Moyes (talk)
OK. I just spotted Lotus aduncus, too. I'd be interested to hear what more you could add to that before you move on. My feeling is that you should attempt to hone in on where it is a native, describe its habitat (maybe Google books has some info - it's not listed in my copy of Flowers of Europe by Polunin). Check for synonyms (I'm a bit confused myself about any relationship to L. gebelia), and check for pages in other language Wikipedias. That should lead to two things happening. If other pages for that taxon exist, you should get them automatically linked via the Language tool in the lower left part of the Wikipedia menu in desktop view. You should then check each of those pages out to see how they might have handled synonymy (if at all), or what other information they have added. Then take a look at the references they've cited and add that extra information from them, not by a direct translation of the other Wikipedia. Can they be used to enhance information you've already given? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about Agaricus alabamensis, as I think that was before you gave me the tips on not stating the obvious on that same day. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the greetings! Happy Holidays to you too! I saw your user page and I hope you are doing well, Apologies if I was late im currently not well at this time. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thank you for creating plant stubs. Its nice that you seem to be stepping up your pace of contributions. However, I note that you inserted two superfluous sources into Limonium bourgeaui; one was already in the article, and the other was a generic, computer-generated treatment on caring the plant that was not supporting any statement in the article. I also note that you aren't italicizing species names in the references; species names are to be italicized everywhere that they occur, even if the references didn't do it. Keep up the good work. Abductive (reasoning) 12:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will for sure note the reliablity of sources next time. And make all the plant names italic. I am for sure going to take note of this next time I create stubs. Im surpised that im not getting in trouble or banned for creating stubs. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No prob. I've created over 1500 and nobody banned me, but they did remonstrate with me over formatting. Editors are willing to cut a lot of slack for people who create only a few articles, but once someone starts to mass-produce, it's expected that they carefully follow WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! (for new users)-- Quisqualis (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you for your reply, I will for sure make a summary next time I edit. Thank you for your feedback. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. STOPBloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. WarningBloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I have tidied up Festuca minutiflora to conform with WP:PLANTS consensus on what a plant stub should look like. In particular, the list of synonyms should not include the extraneous publication information. And as I mentioned above, species names should be italicized. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, editors kept remonstrating with me about formatting. I tried to make better stubs, but the lack of a clear guide was frustrating for me. So I asked around for consensus, the result of which is in WP:WikiProject Plants/Template, where it says "an example of a basic stub on a species of flowering plant, with the minimal requirements and templates, can be found at Syzygium racemosum." Abductive (reasoning) 09:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You posted a Welcome! for User:A12922391 who has been active for many years. I reverted it. The reason the Talk page was empty was because A12922391 had blanked it. I suggest you check View history for editors before posting a Welcome on Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Your DOING THE WRONG THINGS!BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Also, im not new to wikipedia. Why are everyone saying 'Welcome to Wikipedia'? When ive been here over 100 days. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tylose into Tylosis (botany). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellis habanera until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! I noticed that you are signed up for the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. However, you're going to be unable to participate if you do not have the New Page Reviewer permission. If you are still interested in participating in the backlog drive, then I encourage you to request the permission at WP:PERM/NPR. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi BloxyColaSweet! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
More Specific Taxon From Family To Species
This File was uploaded by me for the taxonomy of plants.
For many species of grasses. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
My User Page Edits
You may only edit my user page when necessary.
Editing User pages are not for vandalising!
If you think it is somehow funny to Cause grief then I would Happily report you!
Don't revert my user page without permission!
08:3708:37, 11 August 2024diffhist+618 N
Festuca violacea←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = violacea |authority = Ser. ex Gaudin }} '''''Festuca violacea''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1808. This species is native to Europe.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca violacea'' Ser. ex Gaudin |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403718-1 |access-date=2024-08-11}}</ref> == Ha...'
08:3108:31, 11 August 2024diffhist+599 N
Festuca versuta←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = versuta |authority = Beal }} '''''Festuca versuta''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1896. This species is native to East Central USA.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca versuta'' Beal |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:297796-2 |access-date=2024-08-11}}</ref> == Habitat == ''Festuc...'Tag: Disambiguation links added
08:2908:29, 11 August 2024diffhist+626 N
Festuca venusta←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = venusta |authority = St.-Yves }} '''''Festuca venusta''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1929. This species is native to South Siberia, and Mongolia.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca venusta'' St.-Yves |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403703-1 |access-date=2024-08-11}}</r...'
08:2708:27, 11 August 2024diffhist+617 N
Festuca varia←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = varia |authority = Haenke }} '''''Festuca varia''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1789. This species is native to the European Mountains, and Caucasus.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca varia'' Haenke |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403698-1 |access-date=2024-08-11}}</ref>...'
08:2508:25, 11 August 2024diffhist+668 N
Festuca vaginata←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = vaginata |authority = Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd. }} '''''Festuca vaginata''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1809. This species is native to East Central Europe, and Ukraine.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca vaginata'' Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd. |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:nam...'
08:2308:23, 11 August 2024diffhist+658 N
Festuca trachyphylla←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = trachyphylla |authority = (Hack.) Hack. }} '''''Festuca trachyphylla''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1915. This species is native to North, Central and East Europe.<ref name="kew">{{cite web |title=''Festuca trachyphylla'' (Hack.) Hack. |url=https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60451281-2 |acces...'
02:3602:36, 10 August 2024diffhist+5,187 N
User talk:BloxyColaSweet/Archive 3←Created page with '__NOTOC__ {{User:BloxyColaSweet/top}} 1000 x 1000 px|center == Welcome! == Hi BloxyColaSweet! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful: {{Clickable button 2|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=mar...'current
02:0002:00, 10 August 2024diffhist+12,320 N
User talk:BloxyColaSweet/Archive 1←Created page with '== Welcome == <div style="margin:1px;width:100%;background-color:#F5FFFA;border:1px solid #084080;display:flex;flex-flow:row wrap;text-align:left;"> <div style="background-color: #CECEF2; font-family: sans-serif; border:1px solid #084080;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;width:100%;margin:5px"><p>Hello, BloxyColaSweet, and '''Welcome to Wikipedia!'''</p> <p>Thank you for your contributions to...'
01:4001:40, 10 August 2024diffhist+897 N
Festuca tatrae←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |status = LC |status_system = IUCN3.1 |status_ref = <ref name=iucn>{{Cite iucn |title=''Festuca tatrae'' |access-date=2024-08-10 |url=https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22486445/44521794}}</ref> |genus = Festuca |species = tatrae |authority = (Czakó) Degen }} '''''Festuca tatrae''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. The species was first published in 1904. This species is native to...'
12:0512:05, 9 August 2024diffhist+2,363 N
Festuca subverticillata←Created page with ' {{Short description|Species of grass}} {{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = subverticillata }} '''''Festuca subverticillata''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. This species is native to and Minnesota.<ref name="min_wild_flower">{{cite web |title=''Festuca subverticillata'' |url=https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/grass-sedge-rush/nodding-fescue |access-date=2024-08-09}}</ref> == Habitat == ''Festuca subverticillata'' is perenn...'
22:3422:34, 7 August 2024diffhist+700 N
Festuca subulifolia←Created page with '{{Short description|Species of grass}}{{Single source|date={{subst:August}} {{subst:2024}}}}{{Speciesbox |genus = Festuca |species = subulifolia |authority = Benth. }} '''''Festuca subulifolia''''' is a species of grass in the family Poaceae. It is native in West South America. It is a perennial and mainly grows in montane tropical biomes. It was described and published by George Bentham in 1846.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Festuca subulif...'Tag: Visual edit
22:1422:14, 7 August 2024diffhist+376 N
Exidia aeruginosa←Created page with '{{Short description}} {{Speciesbox |genus = |species = |authority = ... }} '''''Exidia aeruginosa''''' is a species of fungi in the genus ''Exidia''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open Herbarium - Exidia aeruginosa |url=https://openherbarium.org/taxa/index.php?taxon=459832 |access-date=2024-08-07 |website=openherbarium.org}}</ref> ==References== {{Reflist}} {{Plant-stub}}'Tag: Visual edit
If you need me, please talk to my user page. And please remember to be respectful at all times.
I will not tolerate any kind of disrespect or trolling.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Less Unless, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Other than leaving your own comments, you should not edit other editors' talk pages.Schazjmd(talk) 06:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to start new articles on various redlinked plant taxa. I noticed you’ve placed some useful text on your userpage as a template to help you start each new article. Please don’t use it in that form again as the structure of the English is not very good and it lacks the correct formatting. A few simple changes should get you sorted. See Festuca alpina edits to view the changes from your templates text that were necessary. The taxon name should be first (in bold), with a few words saying what kind of thing it is. There is no need to say the taxon name is “accepted” because if it were a synonym it should be a WP:REDIRECT to the valid name. Do check you’ve transcribed the authority names fully (I had to fix your templated example for you). Finally, avoid words like “seem to” unless that lack of certainty is explicitly reported by scientific sources. I spotted one recent example where it sounded to me more like you were describing ‘’your own’’ uncertainty about something. Hope this helps you make better plant stubs in future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, so I don't think you're intending to do damage. But somehow you have deleted large chunks of other users' talk pages whenever you posted there. See this diff for when you posted on my talk page, and this diff for when you posted on Schazjmd's talk page. Plus there's a warning above about this edit to @Less Unless's page. We need to get to the bottom of this asap, or you're going to get blocked for disruptive editing, whether you intended to do this, or not.
So please explain what system you're using to edit from and how you're doing it. Are you visiting via a normal computer browser, or a mobile app? Please list any scripts you have loaded up, or any browser extensions that might be deleting stuff when you try to edit. I believe Schazmd already asked this when they wrote "perhaps you have a script installed or some sort of browser extension that is causing the problem, because you made the same incorrect changes to my talk page when you posted your message. I suggest you figure out the problem and fix it. You may be able to get assistance at and WP:HELPDESK or WP:VPT. " The place to look first is anything you've added to your COMMON.JS or COMMON .CSS files (which only you can see), but another problem could be if you are using Grammarly, or some other automatic text-checking/editing tool. If so, please try deactivating it. Some (rather unclear!) information is available at WP:NOGRAMMARLY.
I would say that, whenever someone posts to your talk page, you should answer them there, and not on their own userpage as you did with me today. Its rather unhelpful to reply somewhere else as it spreads discussions into different places, and I personally still want to follow up our discussion and steer you to use better species stub text than your current templated text which I raised above and which you responded to on my user page.
Finally, as an aside, but on the subject of templates: Can I ask you if you would let me delete User:BloxyColaSweet/SpeedyDeletionNotice! (SDN!) VIEW and the redirect to it? It's not at all helpful and, to be honest, rather suspicious to see. I notice you've not used it recently, so I suggest you agree to me removing it as we never want to see it being left for any other users again.
Hoping this makes sense. In the meantime I advise you not to post to any other tlak pages until we can get to the bottom of how you're doing all this weird deletion when using Source Editor. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I am again sorry, I promise I have no trolling intentions, literally. I didnt know how I deleted others content on their talk pages, I will be figuring the problem now. I am terribly sorry. As for the topics, I will sure take note of others talk pages. Terribly sorry. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You just said this 7 minutes ago, and then did this two minutes ago. Explain yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
And I'll note that this one was clearly intentional and more than just removing content - you changed Pppery's signature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae, the other edits were the same apparently "intentional" changes. It is possible they're using some sort of browser extension that makes automatic changes. (When I first began editing, I had to disable a widget that automatically replaced a certain politician's name with something else when I discovered it was making that change in articles I had open to edit.) But BIoxy, you need to troubleshoot this and figure out the problem before editing any more talk pages. Weird that it doesn't do it when you edit your own. Schazjmd(talk) 00:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
No really, I seriously dont know how I am deleting content then and their. I am trying to fix things, for now I wont be replying to others talk pages this week since this is really destructive. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Also I am removing all my browser extentions even if Grammarly isnt present anywhere. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
You can post on my talk page if you want to test if you've fixed the problem, I'll understand what's going on. After you post, look at the page's history...if you see numbers in red by your edit, it means your edit is still removing a lot of content. Schazjmd(talk) 00:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have replied to your talk, Is it still deleting your content? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Update : I have removed all my browser extentions. No, I dont have scripts installed, I highly suspected it was my Copy-To-Paste clip board extention. I still doubt that I can comment talk pages without deleting content. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It worked. Your edit to my talk page didn't change anything else on the page or delete anything. Schazjmd(talk) 00:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Terribly sorry for the inconvience that was cuased earlier. Ill make sure to be careful next time. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It's okay, just glad it's resolved. It would really hamper your editing if you couldn't post on talk pages. But you're good to go now. Schazjmd(talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Me too. I'm pleased you sorted it. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you resolved the issue above. Following on from my comments about using templated text to make stubs articles, here are a few observations which I hope you'll take on board. Firstly, avoid using just a bare url as a reference. Make it a really good one using the Cite button in [[WP:VE, or the Template>Cite web or Cite Journal in Source Editor. Try to get as full a reference as you can. To help you, there's a 'look-up' magnifying glass icon you can click after pasting in the url . It attempt to retrieve as much of the citation as it can, though you may have to add a few extra bits like page number, access date. A 'Ref name' is always worth adding so that you can reuse the same citation later on and find it again easily whilst doing later edits.
Avoid stating the obvious, but do spend 10 minutes or so, reading through your sources. You found a really interesting on for Festuca alpina which I've used to copy edit what you started. It's always worth trying to extra as many of the basics as you can. These aggregate groups can be quite confusing, so don't delve too deeply if you're not sure about it, but always check for the same name being used by different authors to refer to different taxa - many of which are no longer valid.
I'm still not hugely keen on your wording of the templated example on your userpage. The English is still a bit clunky. You can put the family link as a wikilink to the type of plant that it is (e.g. grass), which avoids stating the obvious or using the word 'species' three times in three consecutive sentences. But all in all you're doing ok. Shout if you need any other help.
BTW:On your own talk page, I'd suggest removing the NOTOC template as you'll find it helps people to navigate your talk page. You can set up auto-archiving, but I recommend leaving past discussions on your page for quote a while. It helps others help you to see past discussions. If I think of anything else to suggest, I'll come back and add them to this thread. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Nick Moyes, I am already taking note of those tips, I am really rusty. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, Most of the stub pages I do are all rarely-recorded. But im getting there. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I am starting to use non-bare urls on one page about a mushroom. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about Agaricus alabamensis and a few other very short stubs you are rushing to create right now? My view is that they offer virtually nothing to a user in their current form (except to prove that the taxon exists, and to make you feel good that you've created some stubs). Now, that might sound harsh, but a really good editor would take their time, find sources, check other language wikis and do their utmost to add something worthwhile. To be frank, telling us that Agaricus alabamensis is in the genus Agaricus and the family Agaricaceae is not that helpful; one can deduce all that just from a redlink at Agaricus!
So what I'd like to suggest is that you ask yourself what it is that someone would want to know. Where does it occur? What does it look like? Is it rare, common or endangered, and what serious sources exist about it? Now, for this mushroom, I found very little, except its likely distribution, and the size and colour of its spores. Many other sources I found on Google and in Google books searches were only previews, so it was hard to glean much at a quick check. But this Google result would let you explain about spore size/colour and give an additional reference that a student with access to a university library might then be able to follow up. Another trick is to see if a page exists on any other language Wikipedia, and see what those pages say. I simply go to Google and type the species name you want to write about, followed by 'wiki'. Thus, by searching on Agaricus alabamensis wiki, I found this on ceb-wiki. It doesn't tell us a whole lot more, apart from date of naming, but it has additional references, and you can improve your version over it by adding the spore information I gave you above.
To be honest, one link to an entry on GBIF doesn't seem that useful to me. So, the more effort you are prepared to can put into each new stub you create, the more respect I would have for you as an editor, making really worthwhile content, and with a much better list of sources that other users can then investigate for themselves.Nick Moyes (talk)
OK. I just spotted Lotus aduncus, too. I'd be interested to hear what more you could add to that before you move on. My feeling is that you should attempt to hone in on where it is a native, describe its habitat (maybe Google books has some info - it's not listed in my copy of Flowers of Europe by Polunin). Check for synonyms (I'm a bit confused myself about any relationship to L. gebelia), and check for pages in other language Wikipedias. That should lead to two things happening. If other pages for that taxon exist, you should get them automatically linked via the Language tool in the lower left part of the Wikipedia menu in desktop view. You should then check each of those pages out to see how they might have handled synonymy (if at all), or what other information they have added. Then take a look at the references they've cited and add that extra information from them, not by a direct translation of the other Wikipedia. Can they be used to enhance information you've already given? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about Agaricus alabamensis, as I think that was before you gave me the tips on not stating the obvious on that same day. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the greetings! Happy Holidays to you too! I saw your user page and I hope you are doing well, Apologies if I was late im currently not well at this time. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thank you for creating plant stubs. Its nice that you seem to be stepping up your pace of contributions. However, I note that you inserted two superfluous sources into Limonium bourgeaui; one was already in the article, and the other was a generic, computer-generated treatment on caring the plant that was not supporting any statement in the article. I also note that you aren't italicizing species names in the references; species names are to be italicized everywhere that they occur, even if the references didn't do it. Keep up the good work. Abductive (reasoning) 12:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will for sure note the reliablity of sources next time. And make all the plant names italic. I am for sure going to take note of this next time I create stubs. Im surpised that im not getting in trouble or banned for creating stubs. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No prob. I've created over 1500 and nobody banned me, but they did remonstrate with me over formatting. Editors are willing to cut a lot of slack for people who create only a few articles, but once someone starts to mass-produce, it's expected that they carefully follow WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! (for new users)-- Quisqualis (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you for your reply, I will for sure make a summary next time I edit. Thank you for your feedback. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. STOPBloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. WarningBloxyColaSweet (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I have tidied up Festuca minutiflora to conform with WP:PLANTS consensus on what a plant stub should look like. In particular, the list of synonyms should not include the extraneous publication information. And as I mentioned above, species names should be italicized. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, editors kept remonstrating with me about formatting. I tried to make better stubs, but the lack of a clear guide was frustrating for me. So I asked around for consensus, the result of which is in WP:WikiProject Plants/Template, where it says "an example of a basic stub on a species of flowering plant, with the minimal requirements and templates, can be found at Syzygium racemosum." Abductive (reasoning) 09:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You posted a Welcome! for User:A12922391 who has been active for many years. I reverted it. The reason the Talk page was empty was because A12922391 had blanked it. I suggest you check View history for editors before posting a Welcome on Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BloxyColaSweet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Your DOING THE WRONG THINGS!BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Also, im not new to wikipedia. Why are everyone saying 'Welcome to Wikipedia'? When ive been here over 100 days. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tylose into Tylosis (botany). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellis habanera until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! I noticed that you are signed up for the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. However, you're going to be unable to participate if you do not have the New Page Reviewer permission. If you are still interested in participating in the backlog drive, then I encourage you to request the permission at WP:PERM/NPR. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi BloxyColaSweet! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
At my talk page I do allow critisism or feedback, however I dont tolerate any type of disrespect such as...
Disrespect
Trolling
Griefing
Rasism
Anti-LGBTQ
and more...
If you feel like one of these, i'd reccomend talking a breather or just relaxing/taking a break for a while
before replying to my talk page or other's talk page. If your not respectful to me anyway I will have to report you.
WikiBullying is unacceptable and against wikipedia, wikipedia should be a bully-free website
where you can read and write articles and expand the scope of wikipedia.
WikiBullying
Using Wikipedia to bully- regardless of whether they're an editor or not
Explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policies
This page in a nutshell: Bullying is not permitted on Wikipedia, and any violators will be blocked from editing.
Wikipedia should be free of bullying
WikiBullying is using Wikipedia to threaten and/or intimidate other people, whether they are Wikipedia editors or not. Doing so violates Wikipedia's civility policy, and is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.
If you feel that you are being bullied, or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly handled. However, see "What bullying is not" below, to properly distinguish between a complaint about bullying versus other kinds of complaints. All complaints about bullying – even those which turn out to be unjustified – should be treated with seriousness and respect; any WP:BOOMERANG on individuals who have complained they are being bullied is contrary to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. No one should ever be afraid to come forward to make the community aware of a bullying concern, and no one should ever feel (for one reason or another) that they can't come forward and report it.
There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large.
On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view.
Stating a real policy when it is necessary is not considered WikiBullying.
There are experts, or those otherwise very knowledgeable of a topic, in every field who create and make major contributions to the articles relating to that topic. They may be familiar with where to find sources of information to establish notability and vouch for accuracy, and have better overall knowledge (see WP:STEWARDSHIP). But this does not constitute ownership of any articles. No article on Wikipedia is owned by any editor. Any text that is added to Wikipedia is freely licensed under WP:CC-BY-SA and other users are free to add, remove or modify it at will, provided that such editing is done responsibly. While there may be disagreement, generally consensus will determine the final outcome.
Point of View (POV) railroading refers to the use of bullying tactics to discredit or eliminate an editor with an opposing viewpoint.
For the bystanders: Do careful assessment. If you are an administrator or editor active in dispute resolution and come across a conflict, keep an open mind on every case. Take time to examine the diffs carefully and in depth, and look at the talk page to see the context of those diffs. Make sure the alleged offender is not being bullied, goaded or taunted by more experienced editors who may be gaming the system.
False accusations are a common form of bullying on Wikipedia, although people do sometimes make honest mistakes. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack.
"WP:STRAWMAN" redirects here. For strawman sockpuppets, see WP:STRAWSOCK.
Quoting others out of context, and implementing other forms of "straw man arguments" are against Wikipedia's civility policy. Again, try to find out if there has been a misunderstanding.
Another form of wikibullying is to issue "no-edit orders" which are not supported by current policies or guidelines, or any active sanctions or editing restrictions (see also Wikipedia's page on contentious topics). A "no-edit order" is a message sent to a single editor (who is not banned), to a group of editors, or the Wikipedia community in order to tell or "order" them to not edit Wikipedia, a particular page, or part of a page - either at all or in a particular manner. These messages can be sent to a user's talk page, placed on an article's talk page, or in hidden text that would not be missed if an editor attempts to edit the targeted article, page, or section. No editor may unilaterally "take charge" over a page or part of a page and its content, nor may they claim or exhibit ownership of any page or part of a page (even if they were the page's creator), and no editor may "command" or discourage others from making edits or changes by sending or communicating "no-edit orders" of any kind.
There are some no-edit orders that are acceptable. For example, if a consensus has already been formed regarding a topic, and a single editor has constantly stubbornly defied the ruling, politely discussing this one-on-one on the user's talk page is acceptable in order to kindly curtail the behavior.
If any kind of edit war is in progress and in cases where the consensus is unclear, the users involved (or the entire group) are strongly encouraged to form a discussion with the primary goal of attempting to achieve consensus. It is also highly recommended that such discussions exhibit coming to a peaceful resolution, even if some compromises are made, as a primary objective or expectation.
Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors by maliciously joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may regularly contribute to and in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is usually done with the intent to create irritation, annoyance, fear, or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place-to-place on Wikipedia, and often can be identified by reviewing the offending user's contributions. If they are suddenly joining multiple discussions that the intended "recipient" regularly, or even recently, participates in and with no evidence that they had participated or even expressed interest in those subject areas before, and if this sudden participation is usually, if not solely, met with battleground conduct, incivility, hostility, or disruption toward the editor and the discussion – it is likely that the user you're investigating is participating in Wikihounding.
Hidden text is frequently used to give editing instructions. There are some acceptable and unacceptable uses for hidden text. Hidden texts may be suggestions, in which case they should not to be taken as law, or they may be notes about current consensus among editors, or about policies or guidelines; policies should normally be followed, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. There can be exceptions to the rules, however.
Some unacceptable uses are:
Telling all other editors not to edit the page
Telling others not to remove a section of the article, as if the section were written in stone
Telling others that a page should not be proposed for deletion, when this may be doubted by others
Writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page and branding them as "policy." In the past, policies that have been proposed for a single article have failed to attain a consensus.
If you complain of bullying, admins will look at your own edits and check to see that you have not been engaging in tendentious editing or stonewalling debate.
Don't make unfounded complaints of bullying. For one thing, they undermine your own credibility. But more importantly, they trivialize the harm done by actual bullying.
