Talk:Ancistrocladaceae

merge Ancistrocladaceae

Per standard policy, if there is only one genus in Ancistrocladaceae we should generally just have one article for both the genus and the family. The article asserts the family is monotypic and I didn't run into any fossil genera either. But I probably didn't look everywhere. Kingdon (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merger completed. WTF? (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancistrocladaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close, Plantdrew can do a merge if necessary DrStrauss talk 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancistrocladaceae → Ancistrocladus – Per WP:MONOTYPICFLORA, the genus name should be the title for the article covering a family that contains a single genus Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Or revert page Ancistrocladus to text? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard:, sure, that works. I guess both titles have substantial edit histories, so it'd be better not to wipe the history of one by moving. I've copied this article back to Ancistrocladus. Not quite sure where to go from here; if you close the RM, I'll turn Ancistrocladaceae into a redirect. Or should the RM stay open for others to chime in? Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.