Talk:List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species

	This article is part of WikiProject Hypericaceae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant family Hypericaceae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.HypericaceaeWikipedia:WikiProject HypericaceaeTemplate:WikiProject HypericaceaeHypericaceae articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

Should it be a separate article?

There are few enough descendants of this taxon that I would rather just put this information at the taxon article (Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum) instead of as a separate list article. (Though if we do have it as a standalone list, it should be called List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species.) Thoughts? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: and I are discussing this at Talk:List of Hypericum species. Basically what we came to the conclusion of is that List of Hypericum species is far too bulky to be a candidate for Featured List, so we thought we could try to make some top-tier lists from some of the larger sections. Feel free to add in your thoughts there or we could find another place to discuss it. I do think this table would be a bit too bulky for the main section article though. Thanks, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hyperik and Fritzmann. Since people are talking about taxon lists right now at WT:PLANTS, I'll raise the issue there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could get some kind of resolution at WT:PLANTS; we haven't (yet). So I guess my answer is: it's not my call. I'm just here to help Fritzmann with various FLC criteria, and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Table width: I just looked at a lot of FLs to find the widest tables; the winner (by a mile) was London station group. Reviewers had no problems at all with its main table width, so I'm assuming you could do the same thing here and get away with it ... but to get the same width as they had, you'll have to lose several columns, equivalent to almost the width of your last 3 columns combined (the reference column and both image columns). If you decide you want to include even more than you have now, then I'd suggest adding a text row below each data row. If not, it should be possible to reduce, combine and eliminate some columns to get the right width ... just tell me what you want to do and I can code it. (Just some thoughts: the nickname column is currently nearly blank, so you could lose that column and write in nicknames after the binomial names. The journal column might not be necessary. You can narrow the reference column by using {{abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} for the column label. One image per row might be enough.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... to make the table sort correctly, I'm going to have to create an additional column for the subsection, I'll do that now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made some of those changes ... we can always change things back. Now it sorts correctly. If you click on, say, Author, it will magically change the subsection name (some of which span 11 rows) into individual rows, so that the subsection name can move along with its row to its new place in the table. I'll be back in a few hours. Questions so far? - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The width of the table is fine now, just barely ... but feel free to make changes. I'll keep adding links for authorities. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. The introductory section needs to have more to pass FLC; I'll just throw out some ideas, but it's up to you. Say something about this section of Hypericum ... is it mainly genetics or morphology that ties the species in this section together? If morphology, describe how this section differs from other Hypericum sections. Say something in general about St. John's wort and how people have used it. If this section has changed over time, talk about that. If the main botanists involved in classification (such as Robson) had to overcome some kind of difficulties to finish the job, that might add a touch of human interest. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with linking authors now (but there were quite a few that aren't in Wikipedia's list). Ping me if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]