Talk:Agapanthoideae

To merge or not to merge
I think it is better to preserve a structure of families and genera even when there is only oneMgoodyear (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One's preference in this is almost entirely subjective and it is hard to give any compelling reason one way or another. WikiProject Plants does have a relevant naming convention, which i happen to agree with. 128.171.106.252 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no support for merging. Further, the current uncertainty and 'churn' in the classification of angiosperm families means that it's much more convenient to have a separate page which can be changed if the family assignment changes and on which the family assignment can be discussed.  So I have removed the "merge" template. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The APGIII system seems to have settled down, although not totally accepted. So this subfamily should be discussed under its sole genus, as is normal for monotypic taxa above genus level. I have made this page a redirect, and will add any extra information to Agapanthus – although this page was almost entirely a subset of that one. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see this issue has come up again, when I started a major overhaul of Amaryllidaceae, I discovered a lot of problems with navboxes and other links when there was only one page for genus and family (or tribe etc). Some other language versions maintain the structure too. I realise it might seem unneccessary duplication, but in the long run it makes family maintenance much easier. So I have made separate pages for several monotypic taxa in this family.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, but Naming conventions (flora) is a well-established and well-followed policy. (It's followed for animals as well; it originated as a WP:TOL guideline.) I'm not convinced that this case is so exceptional that the policy should be ignored. What exactly are the "problems with navboxes and other links"? I think this would need discussion at WT:PLANTS to be acceptable, otherwise I won't be the only one to revert such a change! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't aware that it had become policy since we last discussed this here. But you are right that these issues always need looking at in the broader context. And in this case a review of the family shows that it arises on multiple occasions. The navigation issue is one of having to constantly revise links including things like cladograms and navboxes if the relationship with higher taxa changes. For me the distinction is one of separately discussing say, a genus and its construction within a higher taxon. The need to merge may be more based on description than phylogeny. I will investigate the policy you refer to. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't been around Wikipedia much lately, so I've been slow in picking this up again. The policy of treating monotypic taxa in one article has been around for a long time, as I noted above, in the context of the WP:TOL and WP:PLANTS. What is newer is moving the WP:PLANTS guidelines upwards to a Wikipedia policy.
 * I remain unconvinced of the need for two articles:
 * The genus and subfamily can be discussed at Agapanthus, as usual: Description, Taxonomy, Distribution and habitat, Ecology, etc.
 * The higher level phylogeny can be discussed at Amaryllidaceae.
 * I don't see why there would be the need to constantly revise links if Agapanthoideae redirects to Agapanthus. Yes, there will be work to do if (as seems increasingly likely) it turns out that the lumped Amaryllidaceae isn't in the end accepted by botanists, but how does having a separate subfamily article help with this?
 * The key question for me is why clear policy shouldn't be followed in this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well there is an emerging discussion now at WT:PLANTS as you suggested. I haven't got to working this page up yet, as I am still bogged down in Gilliesieae.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)