Talk:Plant

Biochemical details

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

Plant Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Adding to medicinal or new section?

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific uses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant blindness

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

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

History of research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Thank you for your exceptional patience.

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

Re-formatting:

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

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

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

Somewhat edited version:

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

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

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

Used this text.

---

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

Other stuff

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

Taxonomic history

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

Alternative concepts

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

Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.

Diversity

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

Reworded.

Everything else is fine; sources are adequate.

Evolutionary history

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Phylogeny

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Plant cells

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Plant structure

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Photosynthesis

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

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

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

Reworded.

Growth and repair

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Reproduction

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Disease resistance

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

Genomics

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Ecology

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

Importance

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

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

Moving on:

Food

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Medicines

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Non-food products

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

Ornamental plants

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

In science

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

In mythology, religion, and culture

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

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

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

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

Negative effects

Y Sources and prose are adequate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sensu what?

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

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

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

ferns mainly gametophyte?

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

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

Great to get feedback, thanks!

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