Talk:Unplaced in APG II

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 1 October 2009 by reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs).

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Timing[edit]

When 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)[reply]

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)[reply]