User talk:SageOst2024

Your submission at Articles for creation: Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SageOst2024! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

should I have just made it a summary and just described it as a complex? SageOst2024 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon

Xylaria hypoxylon already has an article. Could the information from your draft not be added there instead of creating a new article? Un assiolo (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

the complex is a completely different thing that has been debated by many people over the past few years. It's not Xylaria Hypoxilon exactly- it's usually close unnamed species or variations within the species. SageOst2024 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

i could probably make it a after mention in the main article- I just want it recognized on Wikipedia as it is in the scientific community. SageOst2024 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Compare Burkholderia cepacia complex. Could Xylaria hypoxylon similarly be transformed into an article on the species complex? Or do you think there should be separate articles for both Xylaria hypoxylon and the Xylaria hypoxylon complex? Alternatively, as it seems the existence of the complex isn't even settled (according to your draft article), maybe a section should just be added at Xylaria hypoxylon saying "Some believe Xylaria hypoxylon is part of a species complex along with" etc. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

it was resolved earlier this year. So I added that the debate has been resolved. SageOst2024 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have asked the editors at WikiProject Fungi who are more knowledgeable than me about the subject and they believe the information should be added to Xylaria hypoxylon instead of creating a new article. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi#Assistance needed. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

okay-I shall do that SageOst2024 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I edited it to Xylaria Hypoxion. SageOst2024 (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Great. I have performed some copyediting at Xylaria hypoxylon. You can check it out and confirm I haven't introduced any errors. I would like to ask whether the last reference ("what the complex is NOT.") is necessary. Wikipedia generally doesn't allow citing user-generated content such as forum posts. Would you mind if I removed that reference?

Also, if you no longer need Draft:Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon, you can have it deleted by placing {{Db-g7}} at the top of the article. Or, if you are using the Visual Editor, by clicking Insert, then Template, then entering Db-g7 (you can leave the Rationale empty). --Un assiolo (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was proposing removing the whole reference, including the link to the forum post, not just the text saying "what the complex is NOT.". I have now gone ahead and removed it, as it is not acceptable for Wikipedia. See WP:USERGENERATED. As I understand, all the content you added is covered by the remaining references. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

okay! can you look over my Vielle page? I need help with resubmitting! SageOst2024 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look. Do you want me to request deletion for Draft:Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon? --Un assiolo (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

yes please! SageOst2024 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vielle (Nitro Type) (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Iwaqarhashmi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vielle (Nitro Type) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waqar💬 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The fandom is the only source for Nitro Type because the site says for "Fairness" that they cannot just make official pages. This is why I sited what I did. SageOst2024 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

there are literally no other sources other than the player them-self and they don't talk to me usually. SageOst2024 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I did some digging. found official stuff! SageOst2024 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Vielle (Nitro Type)

I am afraid the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. You may want to read the whole thing, but the main principle is: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Reliable sources means books, newspapers, etc.

I don't think you will be able to find reliable sources covering this person. The reviewers at Articles for Creation go through many articles every day, so they don't have the time to investigate every topic in detail. If they see that an article doesn't have adequate sources, they decline it. They do not investigate whether adequate sources exist in the first place, which is why the reviewer didn't tell you this. So it's not your fault that you didn't manage to find reliable sources. They just don't exist for this subject.

Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and it does not accept articles that are only of interest to very niche groups such as people playing a specific video game. There are other wikis that have different standards from Wikipedia, and indeed Nitro Type has a wiki and the wiki even has a page for Vielle. You can work on improving that article if you want.

But I would encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia, in addition to any work on other wikis. The information you added on Xylaria hypoxylon has been accepted; perhaps you have more mycological knowledge you'd like to share with us. You can work on expanding existing articles – on fungi or on anything else you are knowledgeable about. Or you can contribute in other areas. The Task Center has plenty of things that need fixing. Un assiolo (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you've left Wikipedia for good – I hope not – but if you ever need help again, you can ask on my talk page. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you! I might come back sometimes for plant subspecies that are not on here later on! SageOst2024 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you tried to add some text with a reference in this edit. The proper way to add a reference (when using the Visual Editor, which you are using) is to press the "Cite" button at the top of the article. This will open a menu where you can enter the reference. The menu is pretty self-explanatory. Once you've inserted the reference, it will be numbered automatically and will appear in the reference list at the bottom of the article. I have fixed the reference you added, so this is just something to keep in mind in the future. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

been noticing a lot of gaps in the Lotus genus as a whole so I wrote up some stubs using reliable herbarium records and sources- I just need proper format with photo and grid. can you help with that? ty! SageOst2024 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you need help with? By "grid", do you mean infobox? It seems other people have already added infoboxes to your articles. (Apparently it's a special type of infobox called a Speciesbox.) --Un assiolo (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

k- yah, I meant infobox, I also want to know if I'm writing pages clearly enough. SageOst2024 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also curious why I seem to be the only one making notable plant related edits... SageOst2024 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

For some things you can improve on, you can look at what changes other people are making to your articles. For example, if we look at Acmispon tomentosus:

1. Someone added a "References" section, with the {{Reflist}} template.
2. Another person italicized the species and genus names, and added categories.
3. A third person added the Speciesbox and replaced one of the categories with a more specific one.

You may want to use the Source Editor instead of the Visual Editor for some things. For example, the Speciesbox doesn't seem to work properly with the Visual Editor. You can switch between them by pressing the pencil icon in the top right. Then you press Edit on a page with a Speciesbox and copy and paste it, changing the parameters as needed. You can also copy and paste the References section.

It seems you've figured out how categories work. When adding categories using the Visual Editor, there is an autocomplete feature so you can make sure the categories you're adding actually exist. You can look at similar articles for ideas on what categories to add.

Also note:

1. You shouldn't have a "General" heading at the top of the article. The lead section should not have a heading at all.
2. Headings use sentence case.
3. "This article is a stub" text is added using templates, not manually. {{Plant-stub}} is the most generic one for plants. There are also more specific ones like {{Legume-stub}}. You can find which ones exist using the template search in the Visual Editor. But the stub templates aren't even really necessary, if you don't want to bother with them.
4. You can also create talk pages for each of your articles. If it's a plant stub, you can just copy the entirety of Talk:Acmispon tomentosus. If it's a longer article (not a stub) or if it's on a different topic, you will need to change the parameters accordingly, or leave it to others if you're not sure how.

Several people are editing the articles you're creating, so I wouldn't say you're the only one making plant-related edits. You can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants to see what other people working on plant-related articles are doing. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed the comment someone else left below. Note that their comment assumes you're using the Source Editor. And {{italic title}} usually isn't necessary because {{Speciesbox}} does it automatically if the title matches the name in the box. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Some tips for plant articles

Hi! I see you've been making some new plant-related articles, which is fantastic! I wanted to drop by and offer a couple of formatting tips that might be helpful to take them up a notch in Wikipedia styling.

If you put {{italic title}} at the top of the page, just in curly brackets like that, it'll make the title of the page show up in italics, which is appropriate whenever it's the scientific name.

When scientific names appear in the body of the page, you can italicize them by putting ''two single quotes'' on either side. To bold the name the first time it appears on the page, as articles normally do, you can use '''three single quotes'''. And if you want both, you can combine them, for a total of '''''five quotes!'''''

It's also good practice to end your articles with a references section. You can do that like this:

== References ==

{{reflist}}

Finally, if you're citing the same source multiple times, you can give the reference a name and re-use it! The first time you refer to it, you write:

<ref name="PlantInfo">Citation information here</ref>

And after that, you can just write:

<ref name="PlantInfo" />

It saves you a bunch of typing, and makes for a cleaner page.

I hope this isn't overwhelming, and please feel free to ask if you have questions! I've spruced up Lotus becquetii a bit so you can take a look at that one and see how it's implemented. Happy editing!— Moriwen (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! SageOst2024 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Lotus × medioximus

Thanks for your work making stubs for members of the genus Lotus. With Lotus × medioximus (or any hybrid), it is felt by editors of WP:Wikiproject Plants that such articles need to tell the reader what the parent species (or suspected parents) are. Additionally, it is generally felt that hybrids do not benefit from the free notability pass that full species get. Consequently, it would be best to either not create stubs on hybrids, or to add a sourced sentence on why the hybrid is notable. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 02:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

calystegia x lucana will need a page because it is causing confusion on iNaturalist on over 100 observations because of a proposed subspecies that has not been in act , being taken as fact. If I do a detailed page on calystegia x lucana, is that okay? SageOst2024 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay? Sure, I mean I've made 48 articles on hybrids. But if you look at them, they include the parents and some indication of why they are notable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

okay! In the future I will pay attention to those two things! Thank you! SageOst2024 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Hi, I notice that you create a lot of plant articles, but you seem to base the text mostly on original research, by e.g. describing what you think you see in images. I have removed incorrect information here and here, but in general I can find in most cases no reliable sources for the descriptions you add.

You also use unreliable sources like here but also on Hosackia repens where you use "Selina Wamucii" as a source. This seems to be computer generated content taken from other sources with added nonsense. For example, at Hosackia Repens (a plant native to Mexico), [1]it first claims "a perennial herb native to the Mediterranean region." and later "can be found in the tropical and subtropical regions of India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka". Both are incorrect.

Please stick to reliable sources, and only summarize what is written down in those sources, not what you see or think you see or think to be correct. Fram (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

okay-that will be a lot of stubs without descripton is the problem- some plants dont have good descriptions and likely only have a few records. what should i be doing in that case? SageOst2024 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Write an article without a description, or don't write an article until you find a more detailed source than those online databases. If there are no good sources providing a description, then how do you know that these images from iNaturalist or other such "post your photo of this plant" sites are correct and representative? For animals, there are usually field guides with lengthy descriptions, and I presume that at least the scientific paper introducing plant X or Y will also have a description of the species. But in any case creating a description of the plant based on some photos is original research and not allowed. Fram (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example of the issues with providing your own description based on photos found on websites: for Lotus jolyi, you write "Apparently this plant can also perennialize in Libya, where it also has darker flowers." based on this site. Not only is not clear to me that these are darker flowers (and of course colour and brightness of a picture depends on many things), but these pictures are not even from Libya, they are taken from here showing pictures taken in Morocco, not in Libya. Fram (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I should have payed better attention. I will do so in the future. SageOst2024 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hosackia hintoniorum : is this what you had in mind? SageOst2024 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You've copied the description of Hosackia hintoniorum verbatim from the source. Copying sources is often going to be a Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. While it is possible to avoid a copyright violation by rewriting what the source says in your own words, it is particularly difficult to do so with a technical description of a plant (or other organism) where there is a very precise meaning to the words used by the source.

Older sources (pre-1929 under US copyright law) may no longer be protected by copyright and you can them quote them verbatim. You may be able to find description of plants that are out of copyright at biodiversitylibrary.org.

There are also licenses that are less restrictive than a strict copyright that would allow you to quote them verbatim. The source you've used in Hosackia hintoniorum does have a more permissive license, but it is still has a restriction that prohibits it from being used on Wikipedia. The source has a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial (or CC-BY-NC) license. Wikipedia does not allow sources with a Creative Commons Noncommercial restriction (you can cite them of course, but you can not copy them verbatim). Wikipedia accepts sources with either Attribution (BY) or Share Alike (SA) restrictions.

worldfloraonline.org does host some description of plants that have licenses that are compatible with Wikipedia. But they don't have them for every species. The WFO page for Lotus strictus has a description from Flora of China that is licensed CC-BY (scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the license; there are 5 different sources (labelled [A] through [E]) that were used on the page. Flora of China is [B], and there are two other sources that have licenses compatible with Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You may find this useful

There is a script to automatically add the Speciesbox and other stuff to articles on species. You need to go to Preferences > Gadgets > Advanced and then check "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files" if it's not checked already. Then go to the script page and there should be an Install button. After installing it, you go to an article and open the menu in the top left, and there should be a Run SpeciesHelper button. This adds everything automatically. The only thing it doesn't add is a References heading above the {{Reflist}}, so you have to add that manually. Un assiolo (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Lotus latidentatus moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lotus latidentatus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it requires more content and more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Azarctic (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

k- Its gonna take some digging SageOst2024 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good luck on it! I hope all goes well and the draft is accepted. I see you put a lot of hard work into your other articles so I’m sure it will do fine :) Azarctic (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Images

1. When adding an image to an infobox, use just the filename, without the File: prefix, brackets, or anything else, as in this edit.
2. When uploading images to Commons, you need to make sure they have an appropriate free licence. See Commons:Licensing, which has a table of acceptable licences. For photos you took yourself, you can release them under a free licence, so File:Hairy Brackenfern.jpg and File:Cottonbatting Plant.jpg are fine, if they really are your own work, as claimed. The other files you uploaded are all licensed under CC BY-NC, which is a non-free licence and is therefore not acceptable for Commons, so they will have to be deleted. You incorrectly labelled them as CC BY, which would be acceptable, but they were not released under that licence. If you want, you can contact the person who uploaded an image and ask them to release it under one of the free licences listed, either on the website to which it was originally uploaded or directly to Commons.

Un assiolo (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

oh. okay-apologize... ok- yah. dang- i was going off this

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ SageOst2024 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

yah- those are my work

https://inaturalist.lu/observations?place_id=any&subview=table&taxon_id=52684&user_id=sageost&verifiable=any

https://inaturalist.lu/observations?place_id=any&subview=table&taxon_id=53089&user_id=sageost&verifiable=any

I'm fine with anyone on Wikipedia using my works btw- tho they have licences- SageOst2024 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

it was a tough decision though tbh SageOst2024 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, noncommercial licences are not accepted. Commons wants images to be usable for any purpose, including commercial purposes. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

oh-ok-ill only use my photos in the future then... SageOst2024 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here. You can add photographs that others have released. You just need to make sure they fall under the right license to be uploaded to commons. I also made a mistake uploading a non-commercial use picture to commons early on. I've uploaded 761 pictures since then. To find pictures that can be used iNaturalist allows users to filter by license type on the desktop version of the site. Review the information about license type at commons to make sure you understand it and you can work on adding some of the many, many, many pictures that Wikipedia needs from sites like iNaturalist. If you need help, ask either here on or commons. I'm also available to give advice on plant editing. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Large number of stubs

You are creating a large number of WP:stub pages that are badly formatted and poorly sourced. Please work on improving the pages you have already created instead of making more problems for other editors to clean up. Specifically you have repeatedly cited Plants of the World Online as a source for descriptions of plants when the page does not contain a description of the species. You also do not properly format the citation leaving in lots of web cruft. It may be a great deal better to use the Template:Cite POWO to create properly formatted citations when using Plants of the World Online. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

the issue is that my goal is to get a stub for each non hybrid species within the Lotus genus then go back as needed. I will try to focus on my older articles and make like 5 new articles a day? when I'm done I will deep dive as needed. this goal is so that information on this huge genus is available in summary to less specialized people. again, I will go over old articles when specified and/or I feel the need to go back if I think of the species.

The formatting is bad because my experience in making wiki pages was from a small subwiki that I head admined and the dynamic was that I pumped out pages, with information and recognition that other people had not been creating, then we had four admins to do clean up, and one person just to do the boxes. It was taken down because of fandoms notability index on April fools. It will take me a minute to get into the flow of things on here tbh-

I also cannot for the life of me figure out taxon boxes. Like legitimately I can't make them,which is why the pages in part look bad... SageOst2024 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I will have a more thoughtful reply tomorrow. Right now I have some questions about what is going wrong for you trying to use the species or taxo box. Are you editing using the visual editor or the text editor?

Second, have you heard the Wikipedia saying WP:There is no deadline? It is an essay about not getting in too much of a hurry. I take it to mean that I should be more Ent like here. Less hasty. Especially in judgement.

But the main thing is that I would like to see your referencing and speciesbox using skills to be worthy of your enthusiasm. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yah, I use the visual editor. even when I was on my old site, I could not use the source editor. I fr don't know how... SageOst2024 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to do a lot of serious editing it is good to dip your toes into using source editing. It is my understanding that occasionally the only way to fix something that has gone wrong is to directly edit the source. I almost always use text editing because I'm old so I'm going to quickly run through using the visual editor to insert a species box on a new page and see if there are hang ups using Lotus maroccanus as my example. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've created it as a draft at Draft:Lotus maroccanus and it was a pain to use since I've never used it before, but it has mostly worked. If you go into the history you'll see that I had to edit it twice to fix an error I made. That is something I should have suggested to you. When I'm working on a page I mostly start them off in the draft space rather than directly publishing. If you don't like the draft space (learn more about it here at WP:Drafts) you can also create a page in your sandbox and experiment before you move it to the mainspace. Personally, I like to use drafts because that is my signal that other editors may work on what I'm in progress on. Frex Draft:Sphaeralcea parvifolia where it is mostly me editing but another editor came by and inserted a photo. I'm going to do a guide about using the visual editor now. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The first draft of my Visual editing species articles is available in my sandbox. It will keep getting updated and added to until I'm really to officially put it in the Wikipedia space. Ask questions of me or chat in the sandbox talk page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See #You may find this useful for how to add speciesboxes. Don't forget the References heading. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Also note that articles on Wikipedia need to meet notability standards. Species are automatically presumed to be notable, but subspecies in general are not, unless they meet the general notability guideline from the linked page. (The vast majority of subspecies don't.) The two articles on subspecies you created have been redirected to their parent species, so you can add the content there, assuming it doesn't duplicate what's already present. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)