Talk:Araliaceae

This page is a really good illustration of why it is unwise to add a lot of irrelevant detail. Circumscription of this group is very much in flux, and this list is out of date. Any such list has the risk of going out of date quickly. PvR 19 Sep 2005

Not true; it is relevant detail and there's no problem in this listing. As and when new data becomes available, the list can be edited to reflect this. If you are aware of publications that update this listing, please cite them. - MPF 10:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the classifation as of 1997? It is out of date. You can do your own homework, if you like having irrelevant data, that is.

With appreciation for the erudition, it's nevertheless the sort of Wiki article that has limited value to Wiki readers. Whereas it's fine to have up-to-date taxonomic information (I'd always double-check that with a major up-to-date government database anyway), the fairly abstruse detail wouldn't be as important as the inclusion of the major familiar plants in this family, for example. Something as simple as that. It's fine as far as it goes, but some condescension to the laypersons and gardeners and high school students would be much more relevant. With respect, that would make a more professional article. NaySay 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]