Talk:Magnoliopsida

message: This page has lots of technical detail but is lacking a general description useful to a non-technical user. -- cmh 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Info

message: OK, I'm going to revisit this old debate.  Specifically, I'm going to propose that Magnoliopsida be turned into a redirect to Dicotyledon.  I think that the latter already has enough information about what "Magnoliopsida" means and such, for example APG and Cronquist circumscriptions, although it could be expanded if people think that is needed (I certainly most often run into Cronquist or APG or variants of the latter, so I'd lean towards a mere mention of other systems rather than trying to go into detail).  My reasoning is to try to straighten out the taxoboxes.  My previous suggestion that taxoboxes point to eudicot, magnoliid, or one of the smaller groups went nowhere.   Fixes involving Rosopsida, Magnoliidae, etc seem to make things worse, in terms of the problems of discrepencies between different systems. The piping of Magnoliopsida to Dicotyledon (like this: Magnoliopsida) is used in perhaps half the taxoboxes, which has been my preferred solution (in the sense of not seeing a better way), but many taxoboxes just say Magnoliopsida without piping and the pipe seems kind of like a workaround anyway.  I don't think that making Magnoliopsida a redirect to Dicotyledon means that the two terms are always synonymous, any more than having Pepys Diary redirect to Samuel Pepys means that those two terms are.  It just means that: (1) the Dictotyledon article is where we discuss the term and/or concept magnoliopsida, and (2) in taxoboxes we'll link to Magnoliopsida for all the non-monocot angiosperms (which is already partially current practice). OK, fire away. (Just try to say what you think we should do, not just what is wrong with X, Y, or Z). Kingdon 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite surprised that this got no reaction, but rather than beg people for input, I guess I'll be WP:BOLD and make the change.  If people want to discuss further, go for it. Kingdon 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed before, and the cosensus was "Do not merge".  I don't think any of our opinions have changed.  At least mine didn't.--Endroit 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was one of the people who had said "do not merge" back then, so my opinion changed (for whatever that's worth).  Anyway, what are your suggestions about how the taxoboxes should be written?  Magnoliopsida (with a pipe)? Magnoliopsida (plain)? eudicot/magnoliid? Something else?  Right now I think we're probably about 50/50 between the first two. Kingdon 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic APG layout from Dicotyledon should go here too. I always arrive here via the taxobox and have to click around to get deeper in the system (e.g. to see whether something is eurosids I or II). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge redux 

message: After the section on the Cronquist system comes a section on Dahlgren and Thorne systems, but only the first sentence of this section refers to Dahlgren and Thorne systems.  The next sentence goes back to the Cronquist system.  And the third sentence expands this to "Cronquist-based systems" plural.  I am sure that many people already know what all this means, but the section should be re-written for people who do not already know it. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify the Systems