| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unplaced in APG II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Timing
editWhen i wrote the article, it was intended to be an update to APG II, and i assumed that it would be several years before the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group revised its classification. This proved to be an extreme example of bad timing. I finished the article on 3 Oct, and APG III was published online on 8 Oct 2009. When i finish reading APG III, i will add a section to this article to say how APG III dealt with the issues discussed herein. I will leave it to others to decide the ultimate fate of this article. It contains hardly any useful information after the publication of APG III. 128.171.106.105 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. The information here is useful, although most of it probably belongs in the article for each genus rather than some kind of overall angiosperm classification page. By the time you read this I probably will have turned the paragraph on Pottingeria into a stub article, and a similar thing could probably be done with the rest. Kingdon (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)