Talk:Bennettitales

message: This article is not coherent in the use of these two terms. It starts with the phrase “Bennettitales (the cycadeoids)”, implying that the two terms are equivalent, but later suggests that the Bennettitales are subdivided into the cycadeoids and “relatives of Williamsonia”. I have removed the irritating circular reference (cycadeoid linked out to a stub that links back to Bennettitales), but this link should be reinstated if a separate article for cycadeoid is created. FredV (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennettitales v. cycadeoids 

message: The article, following a source, says "first appeared in the Triassic period and became extinct in most areas toward the end of the Cretaceous".  Thus they did not extend throughout the whole of the Triassic and Cretaceous, i.e. between 252 to 66 Mya according to current dates for these periods. Hence it's my view that the article is right to then say "i.e. they existed around 250 to 70 million years ago"; the rounding of the years to 10's shows that the range is approximate. It would be spuriously accurate to say "around 252 to 66". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approximate time span 

message: This article is lacking structure. I propose that the sections 'Evolutionary History and Relationships' and 'Morphological Information' be added to bolster the structure. --Nattesd1 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dividing up the article is a good idea. There's a standard template for articles about plants (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, although this does need some modification for extinct plants. The normal sections would be "Description", followed by "Taxonomy", which includes classification, evolution and phylogeny, possibly as subsections. See e.g. Aglaophyton or Horneophyton as examples of structuring. (A minor point: we use 'sentence case' for titles in the English Wikipedia.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennettitales Expansion 

message: I came across a most pleasant admonishment at the top of a different wiki article; it said: "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details."
I love that; there are getting to be more and more wiki articles which seem to be written by experts for experts, and the general public be damned. A case in point is this article here, where "bisporangiate" and "monosporangiate" are dispensed without any explanation (at least "strobili" has been wikilinked) and wiki itself (nor wiktionary) has no explanation. I had to do a google search to find "When a flower or cone produces both megaspores and microspores, it is said to be bisporangiate. Most flowers are bisporangiate." 
Is there some way of attaching a link to the word "bisporangiate" in the text so that an explanatory text such as quoted above could appear when hovering over it, in the way wiki entry snippets now appear when hovering over wikilinked words? Or something similar. Anything to make the barriers lower for real unlearned but honestly curious laypeople seeking to educate themselves - we live in a world now where the ignorant have largely given up trying, and are now becoming loudly proud of their willful ignorance. Anything that can be done to undermine this trend is direly needed, and every little bit helps. 172.103.138.179 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisporangiate