Talk:Passiflora herbertiana subsp. insulae-howei

This redirect 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

Australia: New South Wales / Biota

	Australia portal Passiflora herbertiana subsp. insulae-howei is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject New South Wales.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Merge proposal

It's very rare to have a subspecies given its own page in Wikipedia. This is because there just isn't enough distinctive text that can make up anything more than a stub. The article seems destined to remain a stub in perpetuity. Wikipedia doesn't really like perpetual stubs (though there are many of them).

I propose merging this page into its parent page Passiflora herbertiana. There would be no loss of data; on the contrary, I believe it would improve the coverage of the main article, to present the text for both species and subspecies on a single page. The resulting article would still be relatively short.

Unless there are persuasive arguments to the contrary, I will perform this merge. Regards, Darorcilmir (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose leaving the article as is. Nothing wrong with stubs, perpetual or otherwise, and there may (or may not) be opportunities to expand it it future. Cheers. Maias (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge on the grounds that the discussion of the subspecies will benefit from the context of the species article. Otherwise we have duplication of common description. I also note that Short text is a recognized justification for a merge. My view is that readers will be best served by having the material in one place. Klbrain (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]