Talk:Hladnikia

Merging Hladnikia pastinacifolia into Hladnikia article

 * Don't merge – I don't agree with merge proposal. Hladnikia article should focus on evolutionary history view, genus placement in higher taxonomic ranks (eg. tribe, subfamily and especially family), appropriate cladogram and some debate about possible existence of more than just one species in this genus (some authors do list more than just H. pastinacifolia in Hladnikia genus, while others - especially Slovenian - support monotypic genus and placement of other species in separate genus, Grafia). Describing the species itself, its habitat, distribution and conservation in genus article seems non practical to me. -- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  08:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree - If the genus is just a monotypic genus - one article can cover both genus and species. 2 articles is a waste of space and effort - especially for a low class species/genus. DavidAnstiss (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, given that the current recognized position is that this is a monotypic genus, and we shouldn't use crystal ball arguments about how classifications might change. The articles are small enough to merge and still have a short article; splits are always possible if articles grow too large (which seems exceeding unlikely in this case). Klbrain (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, apparently I forgot about this merge proposal. Since I've noticed it is customary on English Wikipedia to deal with monotypic taxa in a single article, I have changed my opinion and consequently agree with the proposition. I will merge the articles, someone familiar with closing mergers please do the closing part.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  10:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)