Talk:Pinales

Plants Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

"merge Pinophyta" - done; there was no content not already in Pinophyta - MPF 14:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change. That proposal is silly. There is always a need to have articles on higher orders in taxonomy. Merging would only make sense if there was one class, one order, one family, and one genus. That much of the content is elsewhere is beside the point. Your proposal seems to be going in the direction of having just one article on everything about conifers, when there could and should be dozens - Marshman 17:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for removing vague[edit]

After [this Google Search|http://www.google.com/search?q=order+taxales&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&start=10&sa=N], I could not come up with definate dates. I therefore gave a disclaimer to wrap it up. Please post any contradictory evidence.Willy625 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split?[edit]

Should the scope of this article be split per the classification in Christenhusz (2011) [1]--Kev min § 00:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pinales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129030910/http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Pinales_Order.asp to http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Pinales_Order.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Gymnosperm Classification and Its History Needs to Be On The Gymnosperm Page[edit]

The discussion of the development of Gymnosperm classification here is very good (I had been looking for a treatment of this), but it is odd to find in on the page for Order Pinales rather than for clade Gymnosperm, a page that provides no information about the history of its classification, nor insight its current status.