Talk:Apocynaceae
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
List of genera formerly in asclepiadaceae edit
What's the point in the section entitled "The following genera used to belong to the family Asclepiadaceae :? It should be made clear that this list is only partial, or maybe just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.85.54 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sources for list of genera edit
@ Peter coxhead:
Why is your unreferenced tag not a repeat of the unreferenced tag at the beginning of the article?
Why do you consider this list doubtful? Only doubtful material should be tagged per WP:NOCITE.
Why does a list of internal links to WP need sources? It is not a list of external facts: it is a list of WP pages. The list of genera is a list of WP pages (existing or missing). This is distinct from lists of other things or concepts. It serves as a guide and index to WP. Missing pages are a task list for WP expansion. If a WP page for a genus lacks a source regarding it's inclusion in a family, that should be corrected. Or if a WP page for a genus is missing that should be addressed by creating the page.
This list (except for missing articles) should be generated from taxoboxes. Perhaps there is some reason why this is difficult to implement.
If you have a reference for a complete list of Apocynaceae taxa, maintained in real time, why did you not add the reference yourself per WP:UNSOURCED?
Please respond or your edit will be reverted.
Thanks, Ggpauly (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Haven't been around WP lately.) Sorry, I missed the tag on the article as a whole, so my addition was redundant and can rightly be removed.
- On the second point, a list of subtaxa within a taxon article is information, not an index. All lists of species within genera, genera within families, etc. need to be sourced. The fact that an article exists within Wikipedia doesn't show that the species is currently accepted; there have been and still are incorrect names used as article titles. (Note that one Wikipedia article must not be used as a source for another, so the fact that there may be a source in the subtaxon article doesn't remove the need for a source here. See WP:WPNOTRS.)
- The Apocyanaceae aren't my area, but I'd look to something like The Plant List as a secondary source. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Lists moved to list-style article edit
I created a subfamilies and genera lists article, then WP:Bold moved the lists to List of subfamilies and genera of Apocynaceae. If there was a reason for a long list in this otherwise narrative-paragraph-style article, please undo my edit, referenced here[[1] so it can be easily found and undone. FloraWilde (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"Pachypodium, have clear sap and no latex" edit
This statement is unsourced and is contradicted by Plants of the World online: Pachypodium Lindl. which states "Latex present". Please find a source. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)