Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bringing the flora categories into agreement with the WGSRPD[edit]

Conversation copied from WT:PLANTS where it was getting a bit long but pertained only to this subpage.

Hi, all. I think User:Hesperian was one of the first to start working on bringing the flora categories into agreement with the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions back in 2006. It has the advantage of largely sticking with political boundaries while organized into a geographic hierarchy (e.g. the Flora of Greenland is under the flora of subarctic America instead of Denmark). This worked to our advantage when the fauna by European country categories were brought to CfD in 2007. In more recent CfD cases, newer fauna by country categories were deleted (spiders by European country and a current discussion on moths by European country) and invasive plant species by state were deleted with rationales and support votes noting that "species distributions don't stop at political boundaries" and citing WP:DEFINING in a manner that suggests the nominator just doesn't like the scale to which the geographic categories have been split to allow diffusion of the major continent categories (e.g. Moths of Europe is fine and apparently defining, but Moths of Germany is not).

Anyway, with all this in mind, I thought we should do our best to make sure our flora categories are following the WGSRPD, it being a reliable, published scheme in use elsewhere for categorizing plant articles by distribution. In recent years, a few editors have forced the category hierarchy out of agreement with the WGSRPD (though it never fully was implemented) by adding unnecessary categories or reshaping the category structure to suit political hierarchy instead of geographic. This will help us defend against the above rationales. I suppose most of all, the nominators and supporters of deletion are appalled at the serious category clutter that has been created. See the categories on Acalypha rhomboidea and the article's history for an example of an article that uses many finest scale categories instead of regional ones that closely match the distribution.

I have outlined the WGSRPD and added what I think are reasonable criteria for determining which categories should be chosen for an article at WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD. I have compared our current category hierarchy to what the WGSRPD would require for Europe and recommended some changes -- rearrangements, upmerges, deletions. I thought I'd notify everyone here before I go too far with the remaining continents. At the very least, I'd like to reaffirm consensus that we want to (roughly) follow the WGSRPD. Some changes may be necessary, but we can discuss individual cases -- I've already noted a few. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing with this, Rkitko; I think it's important. As you would have noticed, I have had a tendency to start big important project, make substantial inroads, and then lapse away from them without finishing up. Hesperian 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good idea. I'd be curious to read the old discussion that led to consensus, for different perspectives, but didn't find it after a bit of archive searching.
I think most "non-defining" delete arguments in the "invasive plants in state" CfD discussion took issue with any geographic level of invasive plants being defining, not with the state-level categories being too small. Another common argument was simply that the categories added "clutter". While the WGSRPD proposal looks good, my guess is that it would not have mattered in that discussion.
I have a suggestion for the Wikipedia:PLANTS/WGSRPD guidance at the top of the page: clarify how closely the smaller units have to match up with a larger unit before you should use the larger unit. For example Flora of the Northcentral US is comprised of ten states. If a plant grows in 5 states, should you use 5 state categories, or the Northcentral US category? Percentage and/or quantity guidance would remove the arbitrary/subjective decision-making of what categories to use. Right now WGSRPD is ambiguous, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Categories simply says to use common sense, and provides the single example that if a plant grows in 47 of 50 states, it should use the US category. Agyle (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'm open to ideas on the clarification you noted would help, but I'm afraid the level of precision you're looking for in the outline of the category hierarchy wouldn't be realistic. Each case is different and I'd rather avoid making suggestions that, for example, say "70% of the regional range should be covered before it can be included in the regional category" because the subcategories are not all equal. There are 13 categories in the Northeast US region, so if you find a plant that is not recorded as being from three of them, it matters whether it is the three smallest (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey) or the three largest (Michigan, New York, Pennyslvania). There's no easy answer. Wouldn't an attempt to generate more specific guidance when no simple and natural description fits be instruction creep? Rkitko (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Each case is different" seems like a good reason to provide guidance applicable to all of them. There are obvious cases where common sense is clear, but many cases where correct categories aren't clear. WP:CREEP suggests instructions strike a balance between being "as clear as possible" and being so complex they "will seldom be read and understood". The proposed guidance, in my view, is not clear enough. For example, your reply is the first time I've read geographic area (size) should be considered in choosing categories; area isn't mentioned in WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD, WP:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Categories, or WP:PLANTS/Categorization. Agyle (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to trying to standardize our messy flora category hierarchy, and WGSRPD is a good standard to follow. I do wonder what function and what users the flora categories are intended to serve. As I see it, there are two major functions: 1) Navigating between articles on plant taxa, categories give the range of each taxon. 2) Navigating the category tree, categories list the flora of a particular region. There are three groups of users: A) Readers B) Editors C) Machines. Readers are the most important users, but I'm not sure the categories help them much. For range of individual taxa (1), readers are probably best served by a range map. Prose descriptions of range can also helpful to readers. Categories at the bottom of the page don't help readers much. Building regional floras (2) on Wikipedia for readers is problematic (existing attempts are massively incomplete). Using lists for regional floras is likely better than using categories. If WGSRPD's hierarchical distribution categories are used correctly, plants occurring in Texas will show up in three different levels in the distribution hierarchy, and Category:Flora of Texas will necessarily be an incomplete list of Texas plants. For flora categories to be complete lists, every plant article would have to be categorized with every appropriate lowest rank in the WGSRPD hierarchy (with a resulting ridiculous level of category clutter).

At present, the categorization scheme is most useful to editors (B), and standardizing to WGSRPD really serves editors more than readers (A) or machines (C).

Machines (C) ultimately serve readers (A). Maybe there should be a distribution scheme on Wikidata? Or a hideously complicated template with |yes/|no parameters for every WGSRPD single entity on Wikipedia that editors here can implement and Wikidata can parse?

I'm not sure who the categories serve, or what functions they should accomplish. Would some functions or needs of particular users be best fulfilled by something besides distribution categores? Plantdrew (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The split of level 4 flora between three or four levels of categories, both in the current and proposed system, precludes many practical uses, and so would having state categories with 2,000 species spread over ten pages if they weren't split. :-) Personally I've never found broad categories (e.g., "flora of X" or "fauna of X") useful as either a reader or editor. I have found narrower categories useful, for example some similar to Category:Critically endangered flora of California, but when variations on "flora of X" like that make the categories small enough to be useful, they're deleted as non-defining. Lower taxa categories like "orchids of X") have better survival rates.
Wikipedia doesn't handle relational database sorts of uses well, but a template may be of some use. The syntax could be simple enough, like
  • {{wgsrpd | edition=2 | binomial=Examplia specifica | level4=Cuba,Florida,Alabama | level3-all=South-central United States | level3-partial=Mexico}}
It could accept both WGSRPD codes like TEX or common names like Texas. You could enter nothing but level 4 designations, and it could figure out the appropriate categories to add (this would require specific guidelines on categorization groupings, discussed above.) If you didn't know the level 4 detail, but knew level 3 detail, you could enter just the higher level categories. And if a species filled every level 4 area in a level 3 or 2 designation, you could just add the higher level category if you know the name. I'm doubtful that another project would find this useful, because Wikipedia's information is notoriously unreliable, and more comprehensive databases exist, but it is technically possible.
Regarding the usefulness of a map or prose description, a referenced indication of range is already a prerequisite for proper categorization. Most plant articles probably ignore the guidelines, but WP:CAT says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate of if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category."
Was there a consensus on what names to use for the WGSRPD regions, or are the ones in Wikipedia:PLANTS/WGSRPD just a proposal? I noticed lots of little differences. Expanding/renaming abbreviations used by WGSRPD seems in keeping with WP's style guidelines, but renaming Northern and Southern America to North and South America seems likely to confuse casual readers or editors who may mistakenly think they refer to the traditional geographic continents. It's also a bit inconsistent, if Northern Europe isn't similarly renamed North Europe.
As a general suggestion, it may be informative to include a sentence at the top of level 1-3 categories, explaining that it's a WGSRPD category, and listing the area or subdivisions it includes (and perhaps even areas it may unexpectedly exclude in a few cases), or at least do so when it's not obvious from its name (e.g. Mexico is obvious, Northern America or South-central United States are not. Agyle (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of the template, but it might take a while for duplicate edits adding [[Category:Flora of X]] to stop or for those editors to switch to the template. I suppose that's not unique to this situation.
Any differences from the WGSRPD are my work alone and are either mistakes in transferring names or were updated to our standards -- like you noted, changing St. to Saint, Is. to Islands, adding "the" in a few cases as it seemed like the norm ("the Southeastern United States" and "Flora of the Cook Islands"). Some small and inconsequential changes were made to reflect current categories we have. Other choices, such as Northern Europe, were mine alone and can be returned to the WGSRPD title if folks think it necessary; I just thought it sounded better and still had the same regional meaning. Yes, WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD is very much a proposal and so far only my work -- this notice was a way of letting other PLANTS members that I've completed the list and everyone is welcome to edit it into a formal draft. I was also looking for feedback, and as I noted, a reaffirmation that we want to follow the WGSRPD for the flora categorization. A hatnote explaining the scheme in each category is part of the plan, see Category:Flora of Australia for an example of a good description, including the category's scope.
I also have no objection to splitting the categories by taxon and geography, e.g. Category:Orchids of Papua New Guinea and Category:Grasses of India, though only the largest taxa should be split this way into the hierarchy: Flora of X → Angiosperms of X → Monocots of X → Orchids of X. A step too far might be breaking Orchids of X down by subfamily, tribe, or genus. Rkitko (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Flora_of_Australia opening is nice. It says it includes only native flora taxa; Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Categories and WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD don't say that – maybe clarify? Same with genus-or-higher taxa needing to be being endemic to the category's region.
WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD has several changes to WGSRPD's hierarchy, where level 3 & level 4 divisions share the same name (e.g., France). If the proposed hierarchy doesn't follow WGSRPD, that seems to undercut one of the purposes mentioned (i.e. that using WGSRPD would defend against people who wanted to deviate from WGSRPD). Agyle (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of where the proposal deviates from WGSRPD. I've included an alternative "renamed WGSRPD" approach in the middle.
WGSRPD unmodified Renamed WGSRPD approach Current WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD approach
Agyle (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Header break, new discussion[edit]

I never did respond to Agyle's comments above -- so sorry about that! I'll do that here. The above conversation was copied from WT:PLANTS.

Good points on noting restriction to native taxa and endemic genera. I'll take care of that now for the lede.

Yes, there were several changes made necessary by WP:SMALLCAT. Some of the proposed level 4 regions probably won't ever include enough flora articles that wouldn't otherwise be included in their parent level 3 category. The best way to deal with this is not strict adherence to the WGSRPD but to describe the parent category's circumscription appropriately. Some, like your suggestion of Category:Flora of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands would be a container category just for the sake of containing those two subcats. If the flora is similar between those two islands and there is a low rate of endemism such that each category would otherwise be too small on its own, then perhaps the "Flora of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands" would be the only necessary category there. And since the ACT is wholly included within NSW, there's no need to include it as a subcategory -- it can be raised to satisfy our normal category guidelines and policies. Thus, I'm not quite sure about the "Greater" categories. Yes, the WGSRPD separates them, but as I read it, the Western Australia category would contain itself and the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. There would be no need for an intermediate "Greater Western Australia" category because the circumscription of WA only includes WA flora; the subcategory for the islands is where those species would go. Anyway, I've made some updates to a few of the sections recently -- specifically in Western Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Siberia. The WGSRPD used names that our main Wikipedia articles on those regions, republics, or states don't use for their title. Categories typically reflect the name used on the main article. Thoughts? Rkitko (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this proposal and its implementation[edit]

We are not a scientific plant database. There are considerations other than this schema for categorizing plants on WP. I also dont understand how a set of proposals is being implemented prior to their adoption. This seems like a case of a wkiproject defining how others will organize and categorize information here. wikiprojects have absolutely no authority to do so, they can advise and i suppose consent, but they dont dictate. If there is consensus among a wide variety of editors to remove smaller locales, i may disagree but i can accept the consensus process and the debates that may go along with it. this seems like administrative fiat.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not endeavoring to be a plant database. For the most part, the category structure was already in place. For example, all countries in Africa already had their own category but they needed to be aligned with the WGSRPD regional categories for consistency. The Australian category hierarchy has been using this scheme since 2006. There was, however, a proliferation of categories in California that led to severe overcategorization and a scale so fine that its meaning became lost. Your points are well-taken, but small-scale categories such as the flora of the San Francisco Bay area becomes rather irrelevant when you reduce the overcategorization by upmerging plants native to larger regions. For example, Douglas fir (current version) was included in three California-specific categories. It remains with far too many categories and should be upmerged to regional categories. The readers are not well-served by the too frequent problem of having so many categories at the bottom of an article that it becomes difficult to navigate or quickly find the one you want. Rkitko (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lots to think about, but i totally agree that if a plant exists in more than one state or, placing it in each state separately is overwhelming to the category tree, such as douglas fir, and should be upmerged (ive done this at times, even while also trying to place articles in more narrow categories). the only articles which will always have "too many" categories are articles on people. we humans are endlessly fascinated with ourselves, when we might benefit from being more fascinated with other life forms. "canis lupus from Portland, oregon in science fiction" would be a nice category to be able to debate in the future:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals: Flora of Tropical Africa[edit]

As of earlier this month, I largely disassembled this into Africa, WGSRPD regional or country specific categories. There are a very few entries left there. The category could be deleted as it's a tempting one to get repopulated over time. Declangi (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Thanks for doing that! The category is empty at the moment. If it remains so for at least four days, we can tag it with {{Db-c1}}. Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals: Flora of the Himalayas[edit]

I've disassembled this into Category:Flora of East Himalaya, Category:Flora of West Himalaya, sometimes wider regional categories or more specific subsidiary ones. As of now, one entry left in the category. Declangi (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Thanks! If I had noticed this earlier, the category probably wouldn't have been repopulated so quickly. It may take a bit more effort to rid us of this category. I'll make a dent in it this evening, then we can do the same above, or take it to a deletion discussion. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Notes and proposals copied from the project page[edit]

Europe[edit]

As per my comments below (under Comments) I see no great harm in strict subcategories of the lowest WGSRPD categories, should there be a consensus for them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments below (under Comments), I would delete it. It is equivalent to Category:Flora of Great Britain + Category:Flora of Ireland + Category:Flora of the Channel Islands. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now almost emptied this category, and I think it could easily be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Africa[edit]

Temperate Asia[edit]

I'm currently working on Category:Flora of East Asia. I've created Category:Flora of Eastern Asia as the proper WGSRPD region and am sorting the entries in Category:Flora of East Asia. "East Asia" is a vague geographical area, but this category will probably still be needed, at least for a while, since some sources don't give enough detail to put into the correct WGSRPD regions. Category:Flora of Northeast Asia should be sorted afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Asia[edit]

Australasia[edit]

Proposals here.

Pacific[edit]

North America[edit]

South America[edit]

Proposals here.

Antarctic[edit]

Proposals here.

Comments[edit]

I doubt there is a consensus to only use the WGSRPD, so there are several kinds of non-WGSRPD categories to consider:

  1. those that subdivide the lowest WGSRPD categories
  2. those that fit between WGSRPD categories but maintain the hierarchy
  3. those that are inconsistent with the WGSRPD

I don't advocate any of these, by the way.

I see no great problem with (1), provided that the subdivision is sufficiently notable and will produce a reasonable sized category. So, for example, subdivisions of US states might be acceptable, as would counties within the UK.

(2) also seems to create few problems, if there were a consensus for such a category. Thus we could have "Flora of the Americas" made up of "Flora of Northern America" + "Flora of Southern America" or "Flora of Temperate Eurasia" made up of "Flora of Europe" + "Flora of Temperate Asia".

The real problem is (3) because such categories don't fit within the WGSRPD hierarchy and categories need to be strictly hierarchical. As a British field botanist, I'm naturally attracted to "Flora of the British Isles" because the 'bible' of the British flora is Stace's New Flora of the British Isles. But the definition of the British Isles includes the Channel Islands, which botanically clearly belong to France. I would oppose having an incorrect category made up of GRB Great Britain + IRE Ireland, since this just creates confusion: the traditional "Flora of the British Isles" = GRB Great Britain + IRE Ireland + FRA-CI Channel Is. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

I've now created most of the missing maps of WGSRPD regions, and added them to the project page and to the relevant categories. See also commons:WGSRPD maps. The missing maps are the four regions of the Pacific. At present I can't find a sufficiently detailed map of the Pacific islands to draw the boundaries accurately. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of the Maldives[edit]

There's a note next to this category in the listing: should there be a "the" in this name? I think this is fine for now, as it follows the existing pattern of categories under Category:Maldives, i.e. with "the". In the similar case of Seychelles, where we have Category:Flora of Seychelles, the categories of Category:Seychelles are without "the". At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maldives there have been posts indicating a preference for not using "the" for any Maldives names. I think this would be fine, but this pattern should be adopted (or not) for all Maldives categories at once, for consistency. Declangi (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject page is being cited in a deletion discussion[edit]

This page is being cited at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 16#Flora of the Mediterranean as a rationale to delete. Editors from this project and especially those who contributed to this guideline are encouraged to participate in the discussion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being cited at CfD for "Category:Flora of the Sahara" as a rationale to delete. Editors from this project and especially those who contributed to this guideline are encouraged to participate in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020[edit]

2601:583:4280:28E0:C875:D9D5:EB1:8782 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No change requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020[edit]

2601:583:4280:28E0:4907:5395:1FB:BEF (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Africa Eurasia Asia Australasia Pacific North America Latin America Antarctic

 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. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/World_Geographical_Scheme_for_Recording_Plant_Distributions&oldid=972220307"