Talk:Equisetales

Merger proposal

I believe that this page satisfies criteria 2 and 3 at Wikipedia:Merge.

In terms of Criterion 2 (Overlap), there is huge overlap with the parent group Equisetopsida, and this page contains absolutely no new information not contained within that page.
In terms of 3, there is not else much to be said about the clade that is better said here than in a smaller or larger page, as far as I can think of; I would be surprised if any notable expansion occurred.

I feel it is more useful to have two good articles on the Equitopsdia and Equisetum than a poorer quality article at each level on the hierarchical level, so propose this merger. There is always Wikispecies for short one-line stubs about taxonomic groupings. Your comments would be welcomed.

Verisimilus T 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is not huge overlap here. The Equisetales includes not only the living Equisetum but also the major fossil family Calamitaceae, which is not in the same family. Although the page contains little new information now, the potential for significant quantities of information exists which should not be covered elsewhere. The Equisetopsida is a larger group still, and includes the Sphenophyllales, which has significant mophological differences from both the Equisetales. The general working principle for WP:PLANTS has been to merge plant taxa only when the includes species are the same for both pages, and there are guidelines for which name should be retained in such cases. In this situation, Equisetales is not the same group as Equisetum (Equisetales) includes two additional families besides the Equisetaceae) nor is it the same group as Equisetopsida (which includes two additional orders to the Equisetales). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I've not made myself clear. Of course the groups are not the same entity, but the Equisetopsida article already contains details of the Equisetales; what's more, it places it in the context of its sister groups, and provides a better forum to discuss the differences between the groups. Perhaps you could give an indication of what sort of information may eventually be added to this page? Verisimilus T 13:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going ahead with merger: taking lack of further response to be agreement. Verisimilus T 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please defend your reversion of this merge. Verisimilus T 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. You proceded with a merger out of process, and without consensus, therefore it was reverted. The WP:PLANTS group prefers separate pages for separate taxa unless the membership is identical, which it is not in this case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(from Third opinion): Being bold is generally to be commended, especially with unglamorous time-consuming tasks like mergers, but this seems to be a case where two separate articles are justified even when one of them is just a stub. The topics are substantially and irremediably different, and both pages include prominent links to the sub/super taxa. At least where I live, the fossil record for these plants is rich and varied, and the article for the order should contain additional specifics not necessarily covered by the similarly-named family and genus. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your opinion. In that case, could you give me an pointer towards some information I could use to expand this specific article? Thanks, Verisimilus T 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]