Content deleted Content added
FloraWilde (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Stemonitis (talk | contribs) →Renamed to Leptosyne bigelovii: a larger undertaking |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Renamed to ''Leptosyne bigelovii''== |
==Renamed to ''Leptosyne bigelovii''== |
||
Jepson 2nd ed. 2012 has this renamed to ''[[Leptosyne bigelovii]]''. Is there a reason not to rename this article? [[User:FloraWilde|FloraWilde]] ([[User talk:FloraWilde|talk]]) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Jepson 2nd ed. 2012 has this renamed to ''[[Leptosyne bigelovii]]''. Is there a reason not to rename this article? [[User:FloraWilde|FloraWilde]] ([[User talk:FloraWilde|talk]]) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Well, there is often variation in how genera are treated in different floras. In this case, the ''Flora of North America'' still considers the species to be in ''Coreopsis'', which might be an argument against. There may also be issues relating to consistency with other articles. At the moment, ''[[Leptosyne]]'' redirects to ''[[Coreopsis]]'' as a synonym, and all its species are likewise treated as ''Coreopsis'' species. I think you would have to propose moving ''all'' those articles, and amending the ''Coreopsis'' article to reflect its narrower circumscription (which may also have knock-on effects requiring other genera to also be recognised, for all I know). That's quite an undertaking. I'm not saying don't do it, but, ideally, don't do it piecemeal. Perhaps ask at [[WT:PLANTS]] if anyone familiar with the local flora (which I am not) has any opinions. --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] ([[User talk:Stemonitis|talk]]) 18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:02, 11 June 2015
Plants Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Renamed to Leptosyne bigelovii
Jepson 2nd ed. 2012 has this renamed to Leptosyne bigelovii. Is there a reason not to rename this article? FloraWilde (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there is often variation in how genera are treated in different floras. In this case, the Flora of North America still considers the species to be in Coreopsis, which might be an argument against. There may also be issues relating to consistency with other articles. At the moment, Leptosyne redirects to Coreopsis as a synonym, and all its species are likewise treated as Coreopsis species. I think you would have to propose moving all those articles, and amending the Coreopsis article to reflect its narrower circumscription (which may also have knock-on effects requiring other genera to also be recognised, for all I know). That's quite an undertaking. I'm not saying don't do it, but, ideally, don't do it piecemeal. Perhaps ask at WT:PLANTS if anyone familiar with the local flora (which I am not) has any opinions. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)