Talk:Plant evolution

There is (was) no important information in this article. It is also correctly marked as a stub. Therefore I redirect it to Evolutionary history of plants, where there is lots of information. Maybe we should move all that stuff to this article name. --Ettrig (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we should expand this article. The mechanisms and processes should be discussed here, which is why there is a separate article.  The Evolutionary history of plants should discuss the fossil record and patterns of evolution.  Conflation of pattern with process should be avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best solution I can think of is moving the content of Evolutionary history of plants to this article name. All that material is relevant for this article, as is evolutionary history of life to evolution, which is also manifested in the contents of evolution, a FA. When we do this, the article will be at the same time extremely unbalanced and close to the maximum size. A reasonable expansion of the part about general processes would necessitate a split. We don't need to solve that problem now. A sizable expansion of the general process part may be many years in the future. --Ettrig (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why the subject was split into three topical pages in the first place. As you say, merging will create a massive, unbalanced article, so that should not be done.  Much of the content you have recently added to Evolutionary history of plants does not belong in that article, sinc eit should cover the fossil evidence primarily, not the genetics.  This article (Plant evolution) should be the general article, explaining why and how plant evolution differs from that of animals and other organisms, and briefly summarizing the more detailed articles.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are arguing as if splitting is the first choice. I find the result very unfortunate. Now we have a lot of material on plant evolution in evolutionary history of plants. At the same time the article plant evolution is a miserable stub. Evolutionary history of plants is an immensely better article about plant evolution than plant evolution is. The obvious solution is to move that article here. When we discuss how to reduce the article size, the goal should be to achieve optimum size. For an article in general, what size do you think is ideal? --Ettrig (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposed nove makes no sense, as it moves an article with a descriptive title to a generic title that would broaden the subject of the article. This title / article is intended to be the main organizing center for all the pages on plant evolution, and should (eventually) contain a summary of the broadest content.  Moving content specific to a particular field into this title makes no sense to me at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages
Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk  17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move section "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" to Plant Evolution
The article Evolutionary history of plants has some of the material in it, in particular the section Evolutionary history of plants, that is more about evolutionary process and contributes little to understanding of evolutionary history. My personal view is that this section would be a better fit to this article, Plant evolution. Would it be acceptable to the editors to move "Coevolution of plants and fungal parasites" into Plant evolution? Plant surfer 15:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by C-ferns1202 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)