Talk:Platycarya

Requested move 25 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Although the discussion is a bit muddled, this RM sets up an opportunity for some editor initiative. My suggestion is to create the necessary species articles 1st and then adjust the genus article as necessary. Moving the genus article at this point seems premature given the nature of the discussion. Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Platycarya → Platycarya strobilacea – The genus is not monotypic, with a number of fossil species having been described Kevmin § 14:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Then I think the better solution would be to expand the article to cover the entire genus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs a move. Can't the article just be rewritten? It's a stub anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes and FunkMonk:, The article as it stands now, and its associated history are for the extant species, so it should be moved to the species name, and a more encompassing genus article should be written to reflect the known fossil record and species articles generated for the extinct species, as is typical practice for extinct species in extant genera.--Kevmin § 15:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm not a plant specialist but I still don't see the need for a move. The lowest bar of effort is just to say that there is one extant species and mention/list extinct species in passing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are we lowbaring the effort though? This isn't the same situation as say Megalonyx where the genus and species are all extinct, and so there is little gained from separate articles, This is much more like Betula and Betula leopoldae, Carpinus and Carpinus perryae, Fagus and Fagus langevinii, instances where detailed data exist for a sand alone article, and it is an inappropriate level of detail for a likely already (or should be) expansive genus page.--Kevmin § 15:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see the need for a move either. The article can perfectly well mainly cover the genus and the sole extant species, with a section on the evolutionary history and the fossil species. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I said over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Talk:Platycarya_move_discussion_started - (in regards to the guideline (rule?) that extinct species are to be covered at the genus level only, and to not have their own species pages) I agree with what Hemiauchenia said. It should not be a hard rule, but rather just a general guideline. If there is enough information on the separate extinct species, and someone has the motivation to create separate species articles, that should be fine. In regards to Platycarya, if someone is willing to make the effort, then I agree with having separate genus and species articles, where the genus article can also talk about extinct species, and the species article can be dedicated to the one extant species. And if there is a lot of information about the separate extinct species, and someone takes the effort to make separate detailed articles for them, that should be fine, too. But until that, covering the extinct species at the genus article should be sufficient. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with others that unless there is substantial effort to make non stub articles for the fossil species then they should all just be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Expand genus article to roll in extinct species. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. So should the one extant species get its own page? Cougroyalty (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'd say this is fine with the extinct species put in. I doubt there's much to say about the extinct taxa, so a set of stubs wouldn't add much to WP. Therefore treat it as a monotypic genus with a note on extinct species. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt there's much to say about the extinct taxa

--Kevmin § 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I can't cite what's not there ;). YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move and split - I know everyone is scared that the genus article will not be very large, but i think there is value in having them separate. There is precedent for this out there as well. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: can you spell out what you see the value being? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: well as it stands now it is a very muddled article. It can’t even decide if it’s monotypic or not. And there is no information on the traits that all members of the genus share. Splitting would force those questions to be addressed without just distracting readers with text that only concerns the extant species. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that their appears to be a second extant species in this genus, P. longzhouensis. Anyways, the original article was clearly exclusively about P. strobilacea, even if Wikipedia convention means that the article is at the genus page. As such it should have been moved. It is muddled now that genus-related information has been added, but now most of the content of this page should be removed and placed at a new page for the species, which makes attribution more challenging than if the page had just been moved in the first place.Somatochlora (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. You can still just move it to a species page, and then the genus-specific information can be removed and then added to a new genus-level article. And per the "Trees and Shrubs Online" website, P. longzhouensis was considered a junior synonym of P. strobilacea, but yeah, maybe it should be mentioned. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that PoWO accepts two species [1], so this justifies a genus article, including the extinct species, plus articles on each extant species. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, do you now support a move and split Peter coxhead?--Kevmin § 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I support three articles: one covering the genus and the extinct species, and one each for the two species. How this is best achieved I leave to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.