Proposed by Canyq with reason: It appears that Hydnocarpus wightianus is not an accepted name, but a synonym of Hydnocarpus pentandrus. See [1] [2] [3] [4]. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to either target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the name Hydnocarpus wightianus is a synonym of Hydnocarpus pentandrus. Kolano123 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also Oppose The article Hydnocarpus wightianus is larger than Hydnocarpus pentandrus. Kolano123 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kolano123: Currently, you've both supported and opposed. Please strike out one of your responses. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose the name Hydnocarpus wightianus is more commonly used than Hydnocarpus pentandrus. Kolano123 (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two inherent proposals here: 1) Merge the two articles and 2) after the merge redirect one to the other. It doesn't look like you are opposing the merge itself, but for the second you are suggesting that Hydnocarpus pentandrus should be a redirect to Hydnocarpus wightianus. Have I got it right? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you have. Kolano123 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I request strike out all your previous statements and vote "Merge to Hydnocarpus wightianus" in that case. Thanks. That should be less confusing for the discussion closer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am expanding my reply to say that this is sort of correct. Kolano123 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am expanding my reply further to say that the article Hydnocarpus wightianus seems to be an independently notable article. Kolano123 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names seem to be currently accepted, and that Kew reference gives wightianus as a heterotypic synonym of pentandrus. I'm unsure of the policy in this case. Klbrain (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that H. wightianus is accepted? Neither POWO, WFO, or World Plants accept it as a correct name. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Obvious, uncontroversial move. Keeping H. wightianus as a full article is just going to confuse readers. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The merge is uncontroversial. Hydnocarpus pentandrus is accepted by POWO, WFO and World Plants (used by CoL), with Hydnocarpus wightianus given as a synonym.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• How to handle the merge is more tricky. As Hydnocarpus wightianus is a far more developed article, the history should be preserved. One way is to make the changes there and move the updated artice to Hydnocarpus pentandrus. However, there may be a way of merging histories available to admin (I vaguely remember seeing that done). [Edit: unsuitable here, see WP:PHIST.]  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a possibility of splitting off the bulk of the wightianus article as Chaulmoogra oil (currently redirects to wightianus). But the best way of doing this still seems to be to follow your suggestion and moving it to pentandrus first. On first glance, what we want from the pentandrus article are the photographs and the conservation status (and the taxon bar, but that can be changed after the move) Lavateraguy (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at the description, the only information in pentandrus that is not in wightianus as proper prose is the number of petals, sepals and stamens.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: POWO treats wightianus as a synonym of pentandrus, following a 1993 Flora of India. (Aside: there's been a history of treating Hydnocarpus as feminine, but according to Article 62.2 (ex. 3) of ICNafp it is masculine.) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]