Talk:List of Rhododendron species

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mid importance

I suggest that Low importance is sufficient for a list of species of this nature. There really is no information other than the species names, and Rhododendron, the genus, might be horticulture mid-importance, but not plants in general. -Fjozk (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information on subgenera

In my opinion, the information is included in the genus article, and this list is an unsorted list of the species, without reference to what subgenus they belong to. So, you give this information, the names of the subgenera, in the article, but you don't associate any of the species with their subgenus.

All this is, is a list of species. The description of the list should only describe what the article is, nothing else, especially something not further addressed with the list. The information can go in the genus article. -Fjozk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best list articles (and these are list articles, not just lists) about a particular genus should include a comprehensive discussion of the genus, its subdivisions, and the history and ongoing evolution of how the genus is being reclassified. Look at List of Salvia species, List of Nepenthes species, List of Acacia species as examples. The introduction to this list article actually needs to be expanded, rather than deleted/contracted, to include recent cladistic studies and how they are changing the view of Rhododendron classification and sub-classification. See: [1] ; [2]. First Light (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think/hope that discussing the subgenera in the introduction will encourage the expansion of the list to include that information. For anyone interested, here is the best online list of Rhododendron species, divided into subgenera, which could be used as the source: [3]. First Light (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I call the lists articles.

Of the three articles you cite, the Salvia list dismisses the subgenera, the Nepenthes list does not use them, and the Acacia list is incomprehensible prose.

I think for Rhododendron a division into subgenera would be useful, see my comments at the AfD; but I disagree with including information where the reader cannot discern the purpose. This article does not use the subgenera, and no prose discusses it, so, too me, it is just confusing to the reader. The papers you cite here seem to indicate that the subgenera are in taxonomic flux, also. -Fjozk (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many reliable sources still divide Rhododendron species into those subgenera, along with the most notable Rhododendron society, for us to just ignore the subject in an article about Rhododendron species. The developing cladistic story also needs to be told—we owe it to readers to have more information rather than less in this article. That's just my opinion, but it is a strong one. If a consensus of knowledgable plant editors disagree, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. First Light (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no arguments that the genus is subdivided. I just don't agree with putting the information in the article now, without further context. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to disagree with you here, particularly as you obviously feel strongly about including the information. Go ahead and leave it in, develop it later if you get the chance, you're obviously a competent editor focused on creating the encyclopedia, no additional discussion is needed. -Fjozk (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have added the info on cladistics, and added the comment (referenced) that the 'old' taxonomy of 8 subgenera is still the consensus among authorities (unlike the no-longer-accepted Salvia sectioning, which you allude to above by comparison). First Light (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e/c —As an aside, here's an excellent resource from Kew Edinburgh on the entire genus, with descriptions of every species and the ability to select by subgenus, country, altitude, etc.:

Edinburgh Rhododendron Monographs
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
http://data.rbge.org.uk/service/factsheets/Edinburgh_Rhododendron_Monographs.xhtml

— First Light (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R minus/carolinianum

At present there is insufficient information here to support making these synonymous, so I am removing the synonyms, and the redirect. Note that the North Carolina State University still lists them separately.^[1]^[2]

References

[1] R carolinianum

[2] R minus

[1]

[2]