Talk:Hitchcockella

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Expand soon

This article is in dire need of expansion. I've mentioned this article on the Plants WikiProject and hope to see some major changes soon. I shall keep watch on this article and if it doesn't improve I shall mention it to an admin. DotComCairney 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.9% of our articles are in dire need of expansion. I think this is may a job for DotComCairney. Hesperian 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a few articles could be merged i.e if there is a few articles on various plants which all belong to the same species. I shall start looking at other articles in the Plant WikiProject and see if I can work something out. DotComCairney 08:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't merge articles on valid taxa. Every taxon is inherently notable, and information on them is too hard to develop if we merge to higher taxa. Hesperian 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more sympathetic to merging (in general) than Hesperian is but I don't see how it would work here. Even if the subtribe Nastinae is well-accepted and different enough from other subtribes to make an article about it coherent, it has some 14 species from different parts of the world. That would make it hard to write an article about the whole group (or so it seems to me, I don't know bamboo well enough to say specifically). Do note that whether to merge is primarily based on how long the article could or should be, not how long it is now. Kingdon (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't want to impose as I don't know a single thing about the subject. I suppose the article is still quite notable so it should need any thing major i.e. deletion. DotComCairney 08:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]