Talk:Tree (plant): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| cat_check = n | | cat_check = n | ||
| status = 4 | | status = 4 | ||
| | | underlinked = n | ||
| cleanup = y | | cleanup = y | ||
| by = [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:15, 8 March 2007 (CST) | | by = [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:15, 8 March 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 09:47, 8 March 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Biology Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | External article: from another source, with little change |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Larry Sanger 09:15, 8 March 2007 (CST) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
I think we should de-emphasise the "champion trees" and major tree genera. They might make decent article on their own, they might even be ok further down the page, but I don't think that they should have the sort of precidence they have now. Thoughts? Ian Ramjohn 12:38, 23 January 2007 (CST)
Go ahead, and we'll see. Sounds right. Nancy Sculerati MD 13:06, 23 January 2007 (CST)
Categories:
- Biology Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Biology Advanced Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Biology Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Biology Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Biology External Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Biology Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup