Category talk:Asteraceae
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'm kind of dubious about moving species into the infrataxa. How am I supposed to know which species goes into which group? If I don't remember a genus name accurately enough to find it with a search, then I'm going to have to click on every single subgroup. Also, I note en:'s article doesn't even list these subgroups, nor is there is a source reference here, so the use of this organization is effectively unsourced and unverifiable. Stan Shebs June 26, 2005 23:46 (UTC)
- Hi Stan! Category:Asteraceae already had about 260 elements. So anyway these would not be shown on one single page.
The source of these subfamilies is Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. As a help to a visitor to find the right subfamily I added tribe names to the category page from [1] which source obviousely refers to the same classification, i.e. Panero & Funk (2002). However, I do not insist on this solution. It really needs some knowledge of tribal classification of Asteraceae. Though tribes like e.g. Senecioneae, Inuleae, Cardueae, Astereae, Anthemideae or Cichorieae (Lactuceae) have been used for a long time and are more or less unchanged in their circumscription. So I think these are quite well known - at least to botanists.
If you think that it is better to have genera alone as subcategories, please tell me and then I will revert subcategorisation. And you afterwards may delete subfamilial categories. Regards --Franz Xaver 27 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)- I guess if we achieve the goal of pictures for all species, even genera as subcats will break down in this family. It should be possible for non-experts to do things like link checking, so perhaps we just need better detail in the WPs. Stan Shebs June 27, 2005 12:26 (UTC)
- You are right, there are about 20 genera with more than 200 species. I think it will last some years until the first genus (Senecio ?) will reach this limit. E.g. now there is not a single photo of Cousinia which is a genus with about 600 species - most of them occurring in Iran and Central Asia. We need not worry now.
So, I do not know, how to proceed. Shall I continue as I started or shall I begin to revert subcategorisations? Will subfamilial subcategories finally be deleted? I really leave it to you. For me both will work. --Franz Xaver 27 June 2005 17:42 (UTC)- It's fine with me if you continue as you started. I think when more botanists realize that even if our current state, we provide a better image repository than most of their own institutions can, we're going to get a lot more species represented, so might as well prepare for it. I'm planning to make a little recruiting pitch to the Nevada Native Plant Society soon, those folks have already got pics of hundreds of types I'm still hoping to find for myself. Stan Shebs June 27, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
- You are right, there are about 20 genera with more than 200 species. I think it will last some years until the first genus (Senecio ?) will reach this limit. E.g. now there is not a single photo of Cousinia which is a genus with about 600 species - most of them occurring in Iran and Central Asia. We need not worry now.
- I guess if we achieve the goal of pictures for all species, even genera as subcats will break down in this family. It should be possible for non-experts to do things like link checking, so perhaps we just need better detail in the WPs. Stan Shebs June 27, 2005 12:26 (UTC)
Start a discussion about Category:Asteraceae
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikimedia Commons the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Category:Asteraceae.
