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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.
I don't think the Thanikaimoni references are suitable for this article. They've no direct bearing on the content of the article, and if we all added similarly specific works of mnay other prominent palynologists then the article would quickly turn into a nonsense. Unless anyone can give a valid reason they should remain, I'll edit them out next week. NickW 08:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there some sort of consensus on whether to use Paleo or Palaeo? I noticed the link to paleoclimatology uses the "eo" rather than the "aeo" format (I fixed it since it wasn't working with "aeo").188.8.131.52 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I did the last chunk of edits. I hope you're all okay with them. I did it under "184.108.40.206" but then I got myself an account so that I'm not so anonymous. It would be nice if this section could get up to a high quality level so that palynology could get the recognition it deserves! Stealth cat 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I'm working on this, at least the discussion page now. I'd like to suggest that this is a Mid importance document, seeing as it is a sub-dicipline of Botany, but how exactly does this work? Is a sub-dicipline that is (admittedly) not hugely popular as important as a plant genus that is popular (Poplar)? It seems to be of fairly good quality, but that's just my own opinion. I'd like to work more on it though. 220.127.116.11 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merged. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Palynomorph and Palynology cover much of the same ground and should be merged. As it stands, the latter article says more about the former anyway, and trying to maintain two different articles would unnecessarily spread the coverage of a single topic too thin. — Æµ§œš¹[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
SupportPalynomorph doesn't seem to have much potential for expansion. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.