Talk:Thymelaeaceae

None of the obsolete genera that i deleted on 9Mar2009 has a Wikipedia page. I forgot to mention that in my edit summary. The genus list should function as a guide to Wikipedia pages on the individual genera. 128.171.106.179 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's about this edit. I'm no expert on the Thymelaeaceae, but following a recent published classification (in this case, two, those of Stevens and Herber) is probably a good idea. As for those old names, whether we would like a Wikipedia:Redirect from the old genus names depends on whether those old names are still widely used, I would think. Kingdon (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think we need to include redirs from any genus that was ever plausibly used or published. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent trying to track down a name on a botanical garden label that hasn't been touched in forty years (I'm looking at you, UCBG), or for instance Kearney & Peebles' Arizona flora, which dates from 1951. It's a little disturbing when a name in a authoritative reference has no Google hits at all... Stan (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've seen a way to do that, in wikipedia, without pages getting really cluttered. A site which is set up more like ITIS or GRIN is better-suited to it. Maybe wikispecies (although wikispecies has its own set of problems). Kingdon (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If we restrict ourselves to the last 50 years (well, OK 60 for your example) that makes it a lot easier. Kingdon (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A close-to-the-bottom section for synonymy, with comma-separated names, seems sufficient to me. It's really more of an administrative thing where we're channeling readers to the right articles, catching redlinks from other articles, etc. (I think it also conveys a useful message to random readers, that there are lots of synonyms.) Stan (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]