Talk:Tree (plant): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Ian Ramjohn No edit summary |
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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? [[User:Ian Ramjohn|Ian Ramjohn]] 12:38, 23 January 2007 (CST) | 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? [[User:Ian Ramjohn|Ian Ramjohn]] 12:38, 23 January 2007 (CST) | ||
Go ahead, and we'll see. Sounds right. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 13:06, 23 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 14:06, 23 January 2007
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)