Welcome to Wikispecies, Uleli!

We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting:

  • If you haven't done so, we strongly recommend you to create an account. Creating account is quick and free, plus it provides you more features such as preferences and the ability to keep a watchlist to track changes made to articles that interest you.
  • Have a look at Done and to do.
  • Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
  • Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.

Please ask further questions in the Village Pump.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.

We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies!

You can sign your messages with ~~~~.

Rocket000 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Grahamia (Portulacaceae) edit

nota bene: If the page name used the author of the taxon, instead of the family, then there would never be a need to rename the page or template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I just followed the previous rutine... I'll think of this next time Uleli (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
BTW - I'm thinking of starting an update to APG III. Is that something with which you'd be willing/able to help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I could be of help....of course Uleli (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doronicum edit

Can I ask what is your specific source for placing that genus in a tribe of its own (I don't see anything recent in Doronicum or Doroniceae about that)? The latest major phylogenetic words about Senecioneae (Pelser et al., 2007, Nordenstam et al., 2009, see in that tribe's article), although agreeing that the genus' placement is not entirely clear, specifically state that there is not enough unambiguous data to determine the precise placement in or out of that trive, and so leave it under Senecioneae. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've altered the position of Doronicum to Senecioneae following your opionion. I should have done a note of my reference.... I agree. Uleli (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't sweat it. It might still end up as a separate tribe, but it's just not clear yet. Senecioneae taxonomy has been a bit of a mess for the last 20 years or so with apparently non-stop merging and segregating. They're just starting to really gripe with what actually belongs to Senecio or not. Circeus (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well... I have put the name Doroniceae in the synonymy of Senecioneae for now on. Let's see what happens. Note from C. Jeffrey: Doronicum is morphologically and chemically anomalous in Senecioneae and molecular data place it outside the tribe. Either treat it as the only genus of tribe Doroniceae Panero, Phytologia 87, 1: 1. 2005, or add the name Doroniceae Panero to the synonymy of Senecioneae. [1]. Uleli (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

RE: Plantago edit

I was in error. I think I was copying and pasting too much. --Open2universe | Talk 21:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, next time the mistake is mine and I need your eyes Uleli (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, these are edits I made almost 5 years ago. I was unclear about infrageneric names. They would probably all be wrong. Sorry about that.

On a different topic, I notice that you edit the same article many times in a row. I just want to make sure that you are aware of the Show preview button. It lets you see the article without saving the changes and lets you keep editing if you want. Open2universe | Talk 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Template:A.Rich. edit

The way you've set this up, every page that includes this tempate will be categorized in Category:Author templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please look at Category:Author templates before making more of these author templates. You are creating a mess. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at how I modified the template I first brought to your attention. If you modify the authoer templates that way, then the pages where they're used will not also be categorized.--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Uleli (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Template:APD edit


I've modified it to accomodate direct links for taxa and to exclude "External link templates" category from the template body. Kuzia (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Acer edit

Hi Uleli - saw you'd started on adding an infrageneric classification for Acer. I'm not sure this is a good idea, as the phylogeny of the genus is still very uncertain, with recent genetic results not supporting the 'traditional' classification used in USDA GRIN; see e.g. Ackerly & Donoghue, Am. Nat. 152: 767–791 (1998); Grimm et al., Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2: 279–294 (2006); Li et al., Harvard Papers Botany 11: 101–115 (2006). I think for the time being at least, the genus is best left without any subdivisions. As an aside, the species list in GRIN is also based on a text which uses a highly conservative species concept not much followed by other Acer authors, with several species widely accepted as distinct, reduced to subspecies without good justification. - MPF (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have restored Acer. Uleli (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kniphofia uvaria edit

In this edit, I'm curious why you chose to eliminate the links for the authors' names. Please refer to Help:Name section, which explicitly notes that the author names in the Name section should be linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, just a failior from my side Uleli (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Typus edit

Please keep in mind that a "type" and a "type species" are not the same thing, so it is confusing to call a "type species" a "type". A "type" is a specimen or illustration, not a name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will stop using that phrase Uleli (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Buxbaumia viridis edit

Just curious about your source for the authority citation, since it doesn't match the recently published Flora of North America. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Flora of North America seems to be the exception and I can't find any explanation why FNA has choosen "(DC.) DC.". The basionym is definetly attributed to "Moug. in litt." and the authors of the work are Lamarck and de Candolle. So "Buxbaumia viridis (Moug. ex Lam. & DC.)" seems correct [2]. I have not been able to track Stirpes Cryptogamae Vogeso-Rhenanae to check, but most sources cites "Brid. ex Moug. & Nestl." or at least "Moug. & Nestl.", not mentioning de Candolle. I will try investigate this futher. Uleli (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd have tried to contact the FNA author, but Wilf Schofield sadly has passed away since writing the treatment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Begonia edit

It looks like changing all those pages over will be a lot of work for you. I can help with putting the new section template names on the species pages with AWB if you'd like. Koumz (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Uleli (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alismatales edit

It looks as though you're doing a thoroguh revision of the Araceae; is that correct? If so, that's great. I've started going through the other Alismatales, and was worried about the Araceae, since they're a much larger group and I know little about the current state of taxonomy with them. The Alismataceae alone looks as though it will take a couple of weeks (or longer) to fully sort out. Some well-meaning but misguided former contributor dumped in everything from IPNI, including obsolete taxa. I had to start by eliminating/redirecting all the non-taxa first. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my late reply. I come and go through the families and stop by Araceae from time to time to help building it up. As this is a Wiki I hope we can make the puzzle together. I tend to follow the World Checklist but sometimes other references, but do always cite the source Uleli (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I find that the World Checklist (at Kew) is most often reliable, usually more so than other databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dates for botanical taxa edit

The ICBN recommends placing the date in parentheses when cited, and does not use a comma. See the pages I'm creating at Calectasia for examples.

I can of course follow this recommendation, I just continued the form I saw elsewhere in the Wikispecies Uleli (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Can you tell me where in the ICBN this recommendation is stated? And for References, ICBN cite the same way I do, see [3] Uleli (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
When they give a full citation, they format it as you do. When they give only name, author, date, they format it with the date in parentheses. All examples given in Articles 47-50 of the Vienna Code do this when a date is included without a full citation of the publication.
I've been looking for the explicit statement of this since the point was raised on the English Wikipedia, but I have not found an explicit statement in the Vienna Code. It may be something added in the new version explicitly, but it is the norm for format in the Vienna Code, as I indicated above. I was not aware of this norm either until recently, and the point was made by people including some who attended the last Botanical Congress, whose judgment I trust to be accurate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I was just curious and of course I will follow your recommendation. I will look into ICBN and cite the same way here Uleli (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Template:WCL edit

Hello Uleli, I made a little modification in Template:WCL with a source, created by Liné1. A little problem: The nothospecies (×) link goes not automaticly to the right page in KEW. I'll ask Liné1 whether he can help.
Is this direct link o.k. for you? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course Uleli (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lysimachia borealis edit

Done, but isn't Lysimachia now in Myrsinaceae instead of the Primulaceae? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think so but I haven't checked into that Uleli (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Author templates edit

Not a good idea ... but this is more powerful Template:Auth ...Stho002 (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't follow.... Uleli (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Template:IPNI edit

Could you please change this template that the new and old version in function.Orchi (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it was the Template:MBG. I removed it as test. Orchi (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Contact Dr. Govaerts edit

You said, that you communicate with Dr. Govaerts. Following question: KEW writes Calochortus longibarbatus [4]. MBG and other write Calochortus longebarbatus. The original description says Calochortus longebarbatus also [5]. Can you help with your connection? Orchi (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll ask... sorry for the delay... I didn't notice a new message here. Uleli (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Orchi (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It goes back to the ICBN and the interpretation of article 60.8 and recommendation 60G. I tend to agree with Govaerts and regard Calochortus longebarbatus as a correctable misspelling for Calochortus longibarbatus. See ICBN
Uleli (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
..:.such a long time I didn't read in the ICBN. Thank you very much for your perfect research and answer!!! I changed the names in commons and wikispecies.
Just the next question: Is the spelling in the Template:Trib with "Template:Zfg" in botanical nomenclature o.k.? Orchi (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can't find anything that support the Template:Trib with "Template:Zfg. Uleli (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I will change it in the next days. Thanks.Orchi (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a suggestion edit

Since you are a botanist, might I suggest that you might like to contribute to getting all Phytotaxa articles on to Wikispecies, eg. ISSN_1179-3155/2012. If you feel so inclined, the easiest thing to do is to go through the list here copying and pasting all the article titles into each article template (i.e. click on 'reference page' for each article on ISSN_1179-3155/2012, click on edit, and paste the title). Then, you or I can go through them and add the authors last ... Stho002 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to incorporate this too Uleli (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

× Sedurbinia edit

Hi there, I was looking at the double redirects and found this. You created a redirect that redirects to itself. I imagine you had something else in mind. Open2universe | Talk 12:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? On my computor it redirects to × Sedeveria Uleli (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It was already fixed by Koumz... thank you for your eyes though Uleli (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

templates edit

I 'm confused a little about the tempates to KEW, MBG and IPNI. Could you give here three exact examples for copying please.
(By the way, I'm glad that there is a new co-worker in our „wikispecies“:user:Andyboorman) Orchi (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused too... our friend Andyboorman altered the date order in some templates without changing in all pages were they was used. It's a mess. I tried to fix the templates, but I have not gone through all the edits that Andy made with his new versions. The thing is that different date orders have been used and that may be confusing for editors... but that is life as one can't change the order without messing up earlier edits in articles. I always use YEAR, MONTH (in letters) and DAY in mine.
  • Tropicos.org 2012. Uleli. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published online. Accessed: 25 June 2012.
I would never use MGB as it's not a true reference template in my mind. I guess MGB can be replaced by template:TROPICOS.
template:KEW. I didn't find. Wasn't it just a bad version of WCSP?
template:WCL - the World Check List manager asked me to use WCSP instead, for consistency....
I welcome Andyboorman too and I'll give him the benifit of all my own mistakes through time.
Uleli (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

....thanks for your info. Now I will use my following "copy and paste" - tool:

I am used to dates as, for example; Accessed on 7th Oct. 2012, which is the usual way it is expressed in Britain. This is also the way dates often appear on Wiki. However, I am happy to go with the consensus as, having lived and worked overseas, I realize that this format is not universal (just as spelling realise with a z as opposed to an s!). Thanks for your help and patience with my mistakes, which I will correct as I come across them once all has been sorted. By the way I have started to tidy up the Tribes and Subtribes of the Subfamilies of Orchidaceae using primarily Pridgeon et al Genera Orchidacearum (vols 1-5), this classification now seems to consenual for the majority of contemporay botanists. This will also bring Wikispecies in line with Orchi's contributions on Wikicommons. There are still some unassigned genera and other detaisl wich maybe addressed in vol 6 (in press), but I will also dig around, but suggestions would be helpful. I hope that this also is acceptable. Regards Andyboorman

References edit

according to the template:KEW. o.k.
according to the template:WCL o.k.
according to the template:MBG. I think here is the advantage, that this template leads automatically (until without errors) to the same page of the Missouri Botanical Garden as the template:TROPICOS; only before to search the TROPICOS ID number of the plant. Orchi (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
About TROPICOS versus MGB - what I meant was merely that TROPICOS expess that they want to be cited Tropicos.org when we're using thir database, not a general reference to the botanical garden, which i belive we should follow. I have not compared how the templates works here Uleli (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
....o.k. I changed the name. Now the two templates with little different functions have the same name and same look.Orchi (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Orchi Uleli (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Orchi and Uleli. There is a problem with the templates if the page name is something like; Ponera (Orchidaceae), the link will not work as the three websites do not recognize the details. Any suggestions? Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, but I'll ask around Uleli (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
...please look Liparis (Orchidaceae). Orchi (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
....great Orchi. I would like to understand wiki code at a deeper level and have made some attempts, but all instructions are in English and soon I am totaly lost :-) Uleli (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
....Nice spot Orchi, thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Calochortus edit

Please help me. I did'nt find "Subsectio: Calochortus subsect. Calochortus" anywhere. Do you own a current list for the classification of all species to the subsectiones? Orchi (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is an effect of the Botanical Code: UCBN.: Division II, chapter III, section 3:

"22.1. The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat that generic name unaltered as its epithet, not followed by an author citation (see Art. 46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art. 6.8; see also Art. 7.6)."

This makes Calochortus subsect. Eleganti illegitime. Uleli (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your info. I used [6] from 2003. Unfortunately I have no literature of this genus. I asked on the german WP for help, but I could not obtain further informations. The german and the polish WP use subsect. Eleganti also (probable: the typus Calochortus elegans ?). Orchi (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Most sources use Calochortus subsect. Eleganti. but it is illegitime as long as Calochortus elegans is included. The Ownbey monograph from 1940 is still useful, combined with WCSP. Uleli (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Citation edit

Maybe a small thing, but can we agree on a citation form? You use: Calochortus elegans var. major Hook., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 183 (1838).. maybe copying from WCSP? I was told tu use the form from the Botanical Code which would give: {aut|Hook.}}, Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 183. 1838. I can follow your way, but nicer if we use the same. Uleli (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have new messages
Hello, Uleli. You have new messages at Orchi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Language in wikispecies edit

Is there a rule to use in pages of wikispecies the English language only, besides the nomenclature?
Reason for my question: Can we use the templates like monotypic taxon or Type species: (or further) without translations in other languages? Orchi (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not opposte to this. I don't like all these cubes, but that is a matter of taste I guess. Uleli (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
...is it better? monotypic taxon . Orchi (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
for my taste yes, but I am not sure that my preferences are important in this matter. But I like it. Maybe I'm just old (45) but I tend to like the simple better when it comes to scientific texts. Some Wikis tend to look as pages with adds from sponsors :-). Uleli (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

.....I agree - keep it simple Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Redirects of synonyms edit

Hello Uleli, I do'nt know your way to create the redirects of synonyms. User:Rillke had me written a software for wikispecies to make this automatically. If you look here: User:Orchi/common.js. Than you find in the toolbox a new link named "Create Redirects". First click: you see the aim, second click: the redirects will be done. We must not use the brackets, only the italic apostrophes. Just I see here Gladiolus, that the typespecies of the synonyms must be later involved. Please excuse my bad description in english. I hope, you understand my info an test it. Orchi (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

P.S. ....just one click for Gladiolus communis — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orchi (talkcontribs) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC).Reply

Sound very good but I can't find "Create Redirects" in my toolbox. Uleli (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
did you create the page: User:Uleli/common.js with this User:Orchi/common.jscontent? Orchi (talk)
Tested and working - fantastic... deep bow!! Uleli (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
.....deep bow and thanks for Rillke!! Orchi (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Maybe in the future this software also manage subspecific names as: Gladiolus imbricatus subsp. galiciensis. Uleli (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll ask Rillke the next days for adding "var.", "subsp." , "f." and "lusus". In the moment we should test the script further. Orchi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is a good help as it is, thanks to Rillke. Uleli (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
....when you set the four apostrophes in front of and behind "var.", "subsp." , "f." and "lusus" later, you can create syn of var etc. too. (Epipactis helleborine subsp. helleborine) an then the "Create Redirects" link. Orchi (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is an easy way, thank you! Uleli (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Template:TSD and Template:TSN edit

Should there be any difference between Template:TSD and Template:TSN? Choess (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I guess I just forgot I made one and then made it again :-) Sorry! Uleli (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rosaceae subfamilies, tribes, and supertribes all wrong edit

The changes that you have made to a large number of templates in Rosaceae are wrong. I would have hoped that you would at least read my edit summaries and if you disbelieved my statement that the 2011 International Botanical Congress had made those changes necessary, that you would engage with me on my talk page. Please read example 5 of Article 19 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, which is here. This example was made quite elaborate in order to explain the implications of the nomenclatural changes for the phylogenetic work. A paper that summarizes the phylogeny is Potter, D.; Eriksson, T.; Evans, R.C.; Oh, S.; Smedmark, J.E.E.; Morgan, D.R.; Kerr, M.; Robertson, K.R.; Arsenault, M.; Dickinson, T.A.; Campbell, C.S. 2007. Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 266(1–2): 5–43. http://rd.springer.com/journal/606/266/1/page/1.  That paper uses the names that you have reinstated, the ones that are incorrect because of the subsequent Congress. Furthermore, you have used at least one of the illegitimate supertribe names, Pyrodae. Please check ipni.org for the information that Pyrodae, Kerriodae, and Rosodae are illegitimate (the descriptions stated that the DNA sequence was different, but didn't say in what way it differed). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh... I am sorry, I just found so many empty links so I tried to fix them following the AP-website. I didn't intend to make a mess. I missed your statement completely I'm afraid, my apologizes. I try to correct the names accordingly.... Uleli (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've made most of the corrections... I hope. Thank you for pointing this out to me Uleli (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to come on rather strong there. I see now that you weren't just reverting me, but were making useful changes so that a list of genera would show, which was something that I had thought of working on myself because it is clearly very useful. Yes, AP hasn't been updated, though NCBI has been. We here at the wiki projects are ahead of some of the expert-curated databases! Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The great thing with a wiki is that errors can be fixed:-) I'm glad you wrote and bit by bit Rosaceae will take form. Buy the way, I was unsure what to do with Gillenia... a genus hanging in empty space next to Maleae when Pyrodae died. I've put it in Gillenieae for the time being. Please let me know if you have better info Uleli (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good approach. I know some of the people, and as far as I can tell, they don't plan to make nomenclatural fixes such as describing Malodeae and validating Kerriodeae and Rosodae. Perhaps when they get around to publishing a major update to the phylogeny ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arbutus edit

Hi Uleli - the 'subgenera' you have added to Arbutus based on de Candolle, are unfortunately, invalid: de Candolle did not publish any description or diagnosis, nor indication of rank, for his names * Gerontogeae or ** Americanae, so they are nomina nuda which fail ICBN Art. 41.2. I'm not aware that any other subsequent author has validated any subgeneric or sectional names in the genus either, so I fear they'll have to be removed. A bit sad, as the species are indeed genetically distinct by that division (even leaving the genus paraphyletic: Hileman et al., Syst. Bot. 26: 131–143, 2001). No doubt someone will get round to formal publication of a new genus for the "Americanae" species eventually, but it hasn't happened yet. - MPF (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aha, I failed to check the validity of the names. I will get around to change the entries in time, or you are welcome to remove them. Uleli (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Done! - MPF (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Uleli (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reference templates edit

Hi, I think it would be better to use the authorship of the article for the name of the reference template (like I do), rather than their standard botanical abbreviations, because the authorship of new taxa in the article can vary, and you are mixing up article author with taxon authority ... Stho002 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I totally agree with this approach even though it may take a little research into expending the botanical abbreviation. However, we still have not fully standardised the layout of reference lists. Although lists are more or less similar, they are not identical by any means, as contributors use their own prefrences from the several versions of the modified Harvard system available. Is this important? Any thoughts?Andyboorman (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware that that there can be different taxon authors and authorships, I belive I solved that "xxx in xxxx", but I might have missed somewhere. I have no problem following your example Stho002. I'll check it out. Uleli (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Template:VN edit

I know what you're talking about. Unfortunately I don't have a solution to fix it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rosa cycle Laxae edit

What is the meaning of this?? Stho002 (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

"cycle" is the rank used by Juzepczuk in Flora SSSR/Flora of the URSS. I will confirm with IPNI how to regard this. There are other "unusual" ranks in the genus Rosa, as "groupe". Maybe these shall be treated as unranked, but I want to check this with the IPNI first. Until then I cite them as written in the source. Uleli (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, but we need to keep things simple. As long as the species binomina are searchable, we can ignore "odd" ranks Stho002 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dianthus monspessulanus edit

Hi Uleli - are you sure Dianthus monspessulanus is a synonym of Dianthus hyssopifolius? The Euro+Med PlantBase treats them as two distinct species: Dianthus monspessulanus, Dianthus hyssopifolius. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The application of the name has been confused for some time and there is not much agreement in the litterature. It started with Linnaeus who gave the same plant two different names i two different books, Dianthus monspeliacus (in Systema Naturae, ed. 10) and Dianthus monspessulanus (in Amoenitates Academicae).
To cite the The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project: "Laínz & Muñoz Garmendia (in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 44: 571-572. 1987) clarified the typification of D. hyssopifolius and they, and Bernal & al. (in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iberica 2: 426-462. 1990) have treated it and D. monspeliacus as synonymous. The typifications made by Bernal Cid for both D. monspeliacus and D. monspessulanus formalise this position."
I have followed this view here Uleli (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Sounds reasonable. - MPF (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pelargonium edit

I think you are the original creator of Pelargonium. Do you mind if I modify the page particularly removing synonyms and unresolved names? I appreciate using Pelargoinium The Plant List Version 1.1 is not completely robust neither is The Pelargonium Page, although there is a fair degree of agreement between these sources. I will endeavor to triangulate with other sources if I can. But it is a start and will considerably reduce the numbers of uncompleted species pages. I am not sure the existing sections are legitimate names - can you help with this? Any thoughts appreciated, regards Andy Andyboorman (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would hesitate using The Plant List as a source for "unresolved names". Many are easily solved by using other databases or floras. Also the degree of errors in The Plant List is huge, I'm affraid. Why remove synonymes? Uleli (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rhipsalis subgen. Cereorhipsalis edit

Skulle just radera Rhipsalis subgen. Cereorhipsalis, som du anmält till speed, när jag såg att den ixisterade i två versioner innan, funderar mest på varför, kan det vara en röd länk någonstans som initierar nya skapanden av filen? Dan Koehl (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jag är inte säker på att jag förstår... men anledningen till att sidan ska raderas är att vi använder förkortningen "subg." och inte "subgen." på wikispecies. Den rätta sidan heter [[Rhipsalis subg. Calamorhipsalis}}. mvh Ulf, Uleli (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Jag tänkte att det kanske fanns en länk någonstans med det namnet, eftersom nya sidor återkommande dyker upp.
Eftersom du är aktiv med att anmäla sidor fär snabb radering, får jag möjligen förslå dig som admin, så att du kan radera dem med en gång? Det verkar som antalet admins som verkligen är aktiva här, har sjunkit, det vore bra med några till? Jag föreslår dig gärna, och ordnar med formaliteterna.
mvh Dan Koehl (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hej igen. Du får gärna föreslå mig som admin, även om mitt fokus är att skriva in data, snarare än att debattera... om du förstår?. Uleli (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Jag förstår, tack för att du vill vara admin. Ordnar nu det formella, se nedan. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Admin edit

I have nominated you to become one of Wikispecies:Administrators.

Out of present 25 admins, 6 admins has not been active during the last 5 years. As Wikispecies develops there is a need of more sysops (active users).

If you accept, please confirm at nomination page below the nomination, and above the line support.

Dan Koehl (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are now an Admin. Congratulations. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I have to spend some time learning this new roll Uleli (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC).Reply
Congratulations by me also! Orchi (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanx! Uleli (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Delete edit

I was just going to delete Skimmia subsp. lutchuensis, when I thought, I shall leave it to you, soon you can do it yourself, haha :) Dan Koehl (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I am accepted :-) Uleli (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Excess Pages edit

Howdy Uleli, Since you are now an administrator, I recommend you delete the following redirected pages:

An example of how to delete the excess pages: Click "+ Crataego-mespilus" under "Crataegus." Once you are on the "+ Crataego-mespilus" page, you will see the option to delete the page if you mouse-over the downward facing triangle to the right of the options "Read," "Edit," "View history," and the star icon, on the top right of the page. Click "delete" and edit the comment why if you see fit.

I would argue that creating pages for synonyms and then redirecting them is a waste of time. If someone uses the search box, they will find any article that has that name in it. In essence, you are creating a lot of orphan pages. I see no need for any of these pages. Please inform me of your reasoning if you think any should stay.

I am not into botany, so perhaps there is good reasoning for what you are doing? Is there really a place for graft-chimaera here? Please enlighten me. --Totipotent (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the way, before sending you the message above, I deleted the page **, which was redirected to Hyoscyamus aureus. --Totipotent (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dealing with synonyms is, I belive, a necessary part of plant taxonomy. Every taxonomic work of botany does this and I was recommended by administrators some years to do this also for WS. This to allow the reader to find the plant she/he is looking for regardless of the name. Using redirects also help avoid duplicates.... and not much waste of time since there is a tool creating the redirect pages.
A place for graft-chimaera or not, well one can discuss that. But as these have been scientifically named I included them. Uleli (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Brassicaceae edit

You have entered tribes as sections in Brassicaceae. Is that an oversight or is there a rationale for it? (I am not a regular here, but I enter and edit many taxonomic and some corresponding vernacular names at Wiktionary.) DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just discovered this, it was just a slip and I have corrected it. Uleli (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad it isn't something new or obscure about taxonomy. DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
:-) No, just a testament to what sleep deprivation can cause. Uleli (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vote request edit

Hello, I’m Marius, an admin here at WS. I would like to ask you to contribute to an important ongoing vote which will practically decide the future of WS. As you probably know, the user Stho002, an admin, is forcefully endorsing his concept of the content and format of WS. His “system” includes a complex mesh of templates and links which is nowhere specified or written down, is not considered as a consensus, and is not easy or trivial to use, especially by newcomers. As my experience goes, when I save an edited page, Stho002 will delete or change it sooner or later, sometimes in a matter of seconds. This is no way of maintaining a healthy community. It is a lamentable fact that the aggressiveness by which Stho enforces his way deters many users and causes many newcomers leave this site.

The original WS help pages ([7], [8], [9]) contain a much simpler system, where the resulting taxa information is no less clear nor less detailed then Stho’s format, and which is being used successfully for years by experienced users as well as by novices.

If we decide that our current page format is outdated in need of improvement, we surely must make the change through collaboration and discussion. It is unacceptable that a single user will dictate his concept, however better-suited for our purposes he thinks it is.

We therefore have three options: (a) to make Stho002 system the official WS format; (b) to endorse the system specified in the help pages; (c) to devise a new system by mutual cooperation. After we reach an agreement, we’ll modify the help pages accordingly, resulting in a consistent way of doing things, without having to fight among ourselves, without having to resort to deleting and modifying each other’s work.

Therefore please read the discussion here and take a moment of your time and make your choice here. I think it is your obligation as an admin to participate in the vote. Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Clusiaceae/Calophyllaceae edit

There have been changes in these two families since your earlier contributions. Am I OK to go ahead and make changes? I have added some papers, but need to add doi and free to view links for them all. Andyboorman (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course.... we can only do this together. Uleli (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Redirects edit

I've changed your redirect of Cereus poselgeri‎ to include more details than just redirecting to Echinocereus poselgeri. What do you think of this format? Mariusm (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just don't understand why a name not in use should have an article of it's own. What is the purpouse? There are some 1633578 names in the IPNI only. Many of them are synonymous. Uleli (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Proteceae edit

I was adding some info to the pages you worked on/created in the above family. One of the things I undertook was to correct your unassigned pages to incertae sedis, as this term is more correct. However, Stho002 got rid of both my work and your originals, for example Roupaleae he hates the whole idea, not sure why. Are you OK with this? Andyboorman (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Incertae sedis isn't a taxon, and therefore should not get a taxon page. There are better ways to deal with it. Andyboorman needs to be less stubborn Stho002 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Maybe easily managed.... taxon at specific rank of uncertain attachment can be kept at the genus-page... look at the example on Osmanthus. Is this better? Uleli (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes this should work. However, could you please complete Osmanthus decorus so that I could see what the taxon layout looks like on its own page. The reason I altered your original work was only that Unassigned Genera is best read as incertae sedis. As it applied to multiple genera, it just seemed more effective on a single page, but Stho002 hated this approach, but did not appear to have an issue with your original contributions of separate Unassigned Genera taxon pages. However, as he is making this very unpleasantly personal, I am seriously considering following Franz Xaver and Koumz as his latest casualties and just walk for now. Andyboorman (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC).Reply
Completed.... Osmanthus decorus. I am sorry about all the trouble with Stho002. These things is not what Wikipedia is about. Uleli (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is still no good, but I will compromise. I have made some minor changes, but will leave it at that for now. Firstly, you don't need to put Sectio: Incertae sedis in the taxonavigation for Osmanthus decorus. If there isn't a sectio listed for the species in the taxonavigation, then it is obviously not assigned to a sectio. There is no need to say that it isn't when you can see that it isn't. Secondly, there is no need to put nothospecies under a special heading in species lists. Just list them at the end of the list. They are all marked with x anyway, so you can see that they are nothospecies. There is no need to say that they are when you can see that they are. Stho002 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I thought others wanted "sectio: insertae...", I do agree with you there and I have no personal opinion on heading "nothospecies". It is easy to leave out. Uleli (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Uleli, I have made some changes to Orobanchaceae following your advice. What do you think? have I got it right? Stho002 deleted my original page, I am sure he will revert what I have done, so a quick comment would be much appreciated. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It isn't a matter of whether you have got it right or wrong, it is rather more about whether or not it is a sensible/useful thing to be doing, and to that I suggest that it isn't. For a start, if you put the list there, then you possibly should call it Tribus incertae sedis. If you put it after the overview of genera, then you possibly should call it Genera incertae sedis. But I don't think it is worth doing at all. The genera concerned will not be assigned to a tribe in their taxonavigation, so you are adding no more information by listing them. All you are saying is that these genera are not assigned to a tribe, but that is already evident from their taxonavigation. There may be some small benefit to a specialist on the group to be able to see at a glance all the genera together which are incertae sedis, but such specialists will be few, and few if any of them will look here for that information. It just isn't worth bothering to do this given that there are about 1.5 million missing species pages on WS! You don't seem to have any idea of priorities. Stho002 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Also, you need a source for the incertae sedis list, and if you just link to the source, then the information will be there should anybody want it Stho002 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The source with a full paper link is in the References section, do I need to use an in-text citation? Andyboorman (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
My point was that the source itself is enough, you don't need to even mention incertae sedis Stho002 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is bedtime for me here in Sweden. I will reflect on this tomorrow. Uleli (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Back to basics edit

Hi Uleli, we need to get "back to basics", one of which is that if one looks at a page, one needs to be able to see very clearly where the information on that page came from. The Justification box is a good way to do that, so please use it. Imagine that WS is enWP. If you write something unsourced on enWP, it gets deleted very quickly. Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Has Orobanchaceae got enough references? I thought a list of references were used to point users to the sources of information. Andyboorman (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of that, so I will use the justification box. However, old records may need to be back checked. I would hope that anyone pointed out the lack of references before deleting... as in the "ordinary" wikipedia... like "citation needed" before deleting any edits. I belive this is common courtesy, to ask before erasing someone else work. This is a wiki, anyone should be able to develpe as an editor. If we delete all thing we do not agree too, Wikispecies would soon be out of editors. Uleli (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am not aware that I have ever deleted unsourced material. I just add a source. Please point out any examples where I have deleted unsourced material. Stho002 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, I am not the one stating you did. Just telling I would appreciate a note if I got lazy Uleli (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thermofilum pendens edit

....please have a look here: Thermofilum pendens. Thanks und greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added some data... but this is an bacteria and I only know plant taxonomy so... Uleli (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Monsteroideae edit

In 2010 you edited the above page. which uses the weak source Grin. However, evidence presented by

show that the current tribes do not match up with the clades they obtain from their evidence. See also Mayo et al. (2013), Nauheimer (2012) and the APG website on Araceae. Perhaps it would be best to dispense with the tribes, as I cannot find a taxonomy that correctly allocates genera with valid tribes. I am finding this problem cropping up all over Araceae. It is not the business of WS to create new combinations, so where we get conflicts between the weak source Grin and the journals, I would assume we ought to just use the next robust taxon, in this case the sub-family on its own. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is a choice between using the traditional classification or explain why not using it as it it out of date. I realy can not say which is best. One could argue that we should use the implemented classicification until a new is published, or make a note why we cant not use it. As I see it no way is wrong. Leave a note of your choice... that's all. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uleli (talkcontribs) 23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC).Reply
Why get rid of template tysp in favour of TS? I do not have a problem with informative templates or links myself, for example nom. cons.. I did not create tysp but have made a load of them and will continue to do so. I will not revert your edits, as that is not my modus operandi, just interested in why you are doing these time consuming minor edits. Andyboorman (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's reinstated, sorry Uleli (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Look no problems. Do we need to raise it on the pump? If the consensus template tysp is a load of rubbish we could ask for a bot to revert the whole lot. I will ask about template nadi on the pump very soon and I think there maybe a discussion soon re date formats. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
A collective standard would be nice. Maybe not important, but I do try to follow what I have seen as the most usually used ways (even if it was my own template in this case). I tend to follow the instructions I was given years ago - "keep it simple".... I use some templates because it makes things easier. Do raise it, please. Uleli (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for its creation, I think it is an excellent template, as it links to a detailed explanation of type species. It uses the power of a wiki to link out and WS is a wiki after all . Why not use this power? Of course keep it simple, but surely not simplistic? Andyboorman (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I might do that. Uleli (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Please do Andyboorman (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

WCSP edit

You ought to use et al. not & al., although the italics are optional these days, although & al. is OK it is not used on WS. The use of : after dates is non-conventional in-spite of what another thinks - see a discussion with Alan on Thorpe's pages. The conventions are either (DATE) or (DATE). or even DATE. I have reverted your edits as these were format and style and we have basically agreed to not edit out creators formats unless they are nonsensical! Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK I'll check Alan on Thorpe's. I did follow other examples here on WS and I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I did just return from Vietnam so I might need some sleep first. Happy New Year! Uleli (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Also the current WCSP format is agreed/recommended by Govaerts and Kew. (I have improved my grammar etc in the above!) Hope you enjoyed Vietnam and Happy New Year. Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

template:Tysp edit

Could you rearrange template:TG to look similar to "tysp", please. I'm not so good coding.? Uleli (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think that it would be easy to do, but there is a linked template Tysp/title which essentially is a LandSwitch and links to multi-language definitions of type species on WP. Type Genus will have to be translated for all the languages. "tysp" itself should just be copy/paste and a bit of tinkering. I wonder if @Tommy Kronkvist:, @Epibase: or @Orchi: can help, but I have a feeling that at least one of the later has gone dormant! Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Will you or should I ask around, I am not so good with the technical terms, as you are? Uleli (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I will ask around and have a go, but leave it with me for a couple of days, if that is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for this Andy! Uleli (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
A few minutes ago I created template:TG/title, but it still needs some work. I'll continue with it (and template:TG) but needs a few days too. If we help out, it shouldn't take very long. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thank you Tommy! Uleli (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
...pardon, just I tested the same without seeing Tommy Kronkvist's work. You can see and delete my changes. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I undid your edit, since the IW should link to an article on the German Wikipedia specifically about type genus, rather than type specimens in general. Sadly there's no such article on German Wikipedia yet – nor in my "native" Swedish Wikipedia, for that matter. I might go ahead and create them in the next couple of days, if I get around to it. As for the Wikispecies templates I'm currently not 100 percent certain how the linking to the non-English language versions of WS should be constructed, but I'll look in to it in the near future. After all it's only wiki code, so surely it can't be that hard… :-P Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC).Reply

TG works really well good luck on TG/Title. See collaboration is great and quick n'est pas? Andyboorman (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for engaging you in this templete. Looks great. Uleli (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Scientific names for plants edit

Hello. Please do not take this the wrong way. I have noticed that you have edited out the scientific names for a lot of my page edits and creations preferring the simplistic author + date format instead. This could be considered a loss of information. I did not think that I was wrong in assuming that the Name Section was meant to contain the scientific name in its abbreviated form not just the taxon name in Latin, originating author and date. The later is not the scientific name IMO. I think that rather than editing down pages you ought to discuss this on the pump with reasons this should avoid edit wars. Also IMO the abbreviated scientific name is not a duplication of the originating reference as this is a full citation of the article hopefully with a BHL or other link where available. What do you think? I have tried to raise this on the pump before but with no real discussion. If it is a format preference I promise not to change your preferences if you do not change mine! Andyboorman (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm sorry Andyboorman! I did use you way before but was told to simlify the name section to just the scientific name and the author + year. maybe there is a new sense today. My preference is to use the format of most botanical scientific papers... to do as you do and present the publication place next to the name in the name section... but as I was told this was wrong I adapted. The info of the original publication should be in the reference section, I was told. I have no problem to follow and other guides, but I do prefer uniformity for the reader. Uleli (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Also I was told that Panthera leo would be the guideline for pages. Uleli (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Do you like this better? Chaenostoma_cordatum Uleli (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • I do like it better! If you look through the synonymy you can see why the scientific name can be important. It is less so for animalia where there has been far less changes in in nomenclature. I have added the originating article with its BHL link, but I can live with the way that you have presented these in a Wikipedia like format. I seem to remember that we agreed on the Pump to place the originating description as the first in the list of references and always add it. Contrary to Thorpe. I also think that a number of us plants people are aiming to put the IPNI link in the reference list as well. It is about 99% accurate and up to date and they always check and add if you email them with a problem or suggestion. It is far better than any other repository of names. Dates in brackets, full stops - no consensus! The trouble with Thorpe is that he simplified the essential data and complicated formats, did not listen and so on! Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea what you mean with "If you look through the synonymy you can see why the scientific name can be important". I always add the valid scientific name with their original publication place. I just did not add the publication place in the name section, but put it in the reference section. I will gladly put the full reference in the name section. However, I see no real reason to put it both in the name and reference section. Also, I see no need to add the full reference with publication data in Type species: [[:_ |_]] _, a matter of taste I guess. I have been collaborating with the IPI for almost 25 years... I know the trade, but thank you! Uleli (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
By the way, older IPNI records often lack basionym reference, so be aware of this when citing and check against other references. Uleli (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I guess we are not a million miles apart and both have had "advice" from an ex-contributor with his own agenda. What I meant by including scientific names in the list of synonyms is that it will give the committed user clues about where to go in order to explain and disentangle synonymy and name changes, if they wish to head down that trail. I spotted from your contributions that you "know the trade", probably better than me and I always try to cross check everything including peer reviewed journals, as you do - just good discipline even if it cause more angst. My contributions on Proteaceae are a nightmare in places as a key reference for the infra-familial circumscription has some "holes" for a number of minor genera. I do not want to make original combinations! What are your thoughts when the original type species has been reduced to synonymy or described some time after the genus? Andyboorman (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I hope my way of putting words didn't offend you (English is not my first language!), we are all in the together and I do appreciate your comments! My view of when the type species has been reduced into synonymy... I realy don't have a personal view other than it happens - because even the type species name might have other names in priority... it's an affect of the code... as simple as that. Even illegitime names serve as type names, it is not a big thing to me... just what happens under the rules of botany. As long as the congress (of botany) does not deside otherwise, the botanical code is what it is and I follow. Uleli (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Name section edit

Most editors, that I've seen, type the name under the name section without a period mark infront of the name. I see that you have another way. What is the reason? Also, using your way of edit, should not the info of the type be subordinate information about the name?

Oh I see what you mean now! I am wrong to use the period in front of the nmae it makes the type species less subordinate. Big mistake on my part, d'oh. Andyboorman (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Compare: Taraxacum officinale and Arracacia. Uleli (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My use of the period for the genus or species name has no reason except that when I first begun to contribute I followed what I came across! I am happy to change of course and a bot would help to clear up these format idiosyncrasies. I thought that I made the type information subordination clear by using the period. Surely the type belongs in the Name Section, as WS is laid out? There is no separate section heading for type after all. Please give me an example to compare. Your English is much better than my German or French and I do not take offence.
Please, take a look at Pseudomiltemia filisepala or Moussonia, could this be ideal? Uleli (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Another very different point. I have been trying to find the original publication for Eucarpha deplanchii and Eucarpha strobilina (See Eucarpha). They are not on IPNI and they think the combinations may not have been validly published. Do you have full text access to journals via Athens or the like? My Athens expired a few months after I retired last year. The combinations may have been covered in Johnson & Briggs (1975), but I cannot get past page 100 when they dealt with the separation of the Eucarpha species from Knightia excelsa. Hope you can help. Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll take a look... Uleli (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blanked pages edit

Uleli, you seem to have blanked a number of pages, which I guess should be deleted, but I cant be sure, so I remind you about them, so you can delete them yourself. You can find them in the beginning of the listings, with files 8 Kb, at short pages. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am aware that I yesterday created two planks and was aiming to edit them, but I fell alseep :-) Doing them today. Are there more? Uleli (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didnt count, but yes, I think there may be more than two. If you have time to spare, go through the first in the list at short pages, marked with 8Kb, it is in that category you may find your blanked. I guess we must all go through those lists, but theres hope that a bot can do some of the preparations. But the ones with almost no info at all needs attention ASAP. I did put the stub template on some 300 pages yesterday, its not very exciting... :) Dan Koehl (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bignonieae edit

I have come across a reference for the above tribe Bignonieae - Lohmann, L.G. & Taylor, C.M. (2014). It will require a lot of edits on your work. Some red links will disappear fortunately, but some existing blue links will also have to go or be heavily modified. Lohmann is a key worker in this area and the work has also appeared on WCSP so it is authoritative. What do you want to do about this? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let's follow WCSP and Lohman... step by step without loosing any data. I have no problem with others changing my edits as long as a reference is added too. This is a wiki and my edits are just a step along the way Uleli (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your change in "Spage" edit

Hi Uleli, did I translated anything wrong in discussions? According to your request (??), I just remove this formatting with a lot of effort. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just added an asterix - wrong? Uleli (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought the name should stand alone and tysp etc. should have asterixs. Orchi (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have been following examples of Andyboorman lately. And they say Panthera leo is the standard.... then with asterix Uleli (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
...the last changes of Andy in plants are without asterixs. There are certainly major problems elsewhere :-) .Orchi (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
:-) just please tell me what to do. Uleli (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
...let us ask Andy. Orchi (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good idea... Uleli (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Care needed edit

Hi Uleli. I think we have to be careful about making changes to the taxonomy and classification of particularly well known genera based upon a single reference. I am thinking about Salvia of course. IMO it is OK to note the proposed changes in WS, but perhaps not to go "hell for leather" implementing the changes when they are still being debated by the wider community. Hence my note for Pleudia. The way I read it is not that there is a problem with Salvia and other genera in Mentheae, but how this is to be resolved. It is the same old "lumper and splitter" debate. of course. Stevens on APG web puts as; "How Salvia is to be treated presents a challenge - perhaps Rosmarinus, Thymus, Mentha, and Origanum are to be included (Walker et al. 2006; Walker & Sytsma 2007), however, Mentheae are so big that sampling will have to be improved to get at generic limits, although these are evidently suspect." Will, M., Schmalz N., & Classen-Bockhoff, R. (2015) are proposing an approach not a solution, IMO, so it is a bit early to take this as accepted and surely it is, at the moment, a contribution to the debate and not an end to the debate. IMO WS reflects it does not lead or take sides, therefore I add a note or make an entry in the discussion page where there is still debate. I also do not fall into the trap of stating that it is in a peer reviewed journal therefore it must be right, whereas the half a dozen leading authorities and experts know nothing! What do you think? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I admit, the thought struck me. Why start the challange with too few reference data. And I also admit the smaller "bit" appelled to me as it made it easier to manage and to get the data into the system. I'll try to rearrange back to Salvia in a few days, but I'll probably need the weekend time to do so. Right or wrong, the smaller units it's easier to handle.... and why on earth did I fall for the temptation do deal with Salvia (smile). Thank you for you note here. Uleli (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have removed Pleudia and trasfered your commit with a few changes to Salvia. Uleli (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have added the references. If you look at Pandanaceae you will see that I have added Benstonea on the back of a reference by Callmander et al., (2012). However, their circumscription is now accepted by WCSP and Tropicos, so we are on safer grounds I feel. Whether the dismemberment of Salvia goes as smoothly I have my doubts! There are lot of species to sample after all and many botanists will be unhappy with Will's approach of chipping away at the edges, without a major review of the whole genus. Walker et al., (2004) pointed out the problem, but the work on the solution has yet to really materialize. Therefore, like you I am going to avoid Salvia for the near future! Thanks and regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have included Pleudia in Salvia again and await the fututre solution of this genera. Uleli (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gesnerioideae edit

Hello I notice you removed three tribes from the above subfamily. I assume that you are using Weber et al., 2013. However, the changes in this paper are a proposal, which I am not sure has been accepted as yet. At least, I think you need to add Weber et al. to the Reference lists. However, I think it would be better if you were able to get hold of an additional reference or two that use or confirm the proposals. The deleted tribes are still referred to in the scientific literature as late as this year, but few of the replacements can be found via Scholar. For example, post 2013 the deleted Sinningieae has eight pages, but Ligeriinae has only three including Weber et al.! I must admit it is difficult when you come across something like Weber et al., it is just you have to be careful. Try contacting Olmsted - I did for another proposal and they did reply very quickly Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes refferences will be added. Uleli (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Acacieae edit

Hi I notice that you have made a number of edits this page and on the taxa associated with the tribe. I have edited the above page to bring it firmly in line with Acacia s.s. - it was half way there anyway. I do appreciate that this recircumscription is still controversial, but Acacia s.l seems to have less and less acceptance post Melbourne, 2011. Unfortunately there were a number of Acacia species pages that had to be redirected to as yet red linked pages in the other genera. Will you be coming back to genera in Acacieae? Anyway I hope my work has been of some help and I am somewhat confident that species in all genera are correct late 2015. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am sure you made good edits. I might be coming back... but I have no idea when... I go from task to task and take pauses (right or wrong?). As I spend much time here it must be interesting, even fun.... At the moment it is mainly Cactaceae. It is not an easy choice, to use more modern or old standard structures... but this is a wiki. Everything can be changed when things settle. And the data is there to be rearranged, whatever the systematics will be in the future. I have no idea if I make the right choices for Cactaceae as there are soooo many views at present. We do the best we can! Uleli (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Good luck with Cactaceae another taxon undergoing major changes! Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
The same to you! Cacteaceae has been a mess for ages, partly beause of its horticultural value.... I spent 15 years reaseaching one of the genera..... never published... so still a mess :-) Still, somehow, I feel our work here is important, the fundation of something. Uleli (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Opuntia cochinellifera edit

Opuntia cochinellifera is a misspelling by you of Opuntia cochenillifera. --Succu (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

C / Tolpis edit

Hello Uleli, I was wondering why you redirected the page "C" to Tolpis? [10] Korg (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Korg: Must have been a mistake. I deleted C. --Murma174 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Korg (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Application for Checkuser edit

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another application for Check User edit

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additional Checkuser Application edit

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Standing for role of checkUser edit

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFC on Checkusers edit

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME edit

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Subgeneric classification of Salvia edit

Hello @Uleli: there is a strong feeling that the subgeneric classification of Salvia is out of date and due to recent work can not be sustained - see VP discussion. Please join in and make your views known before the changes are made, particularity as you made the original pages and circumscription and have an investment in the status quo. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies Oversighter edit

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oversight nomination edit

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

De-adminship warning edit

Dear Uleli. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Wikispecies because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Wikispecies:Administrators/Inactivity Section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Wikispecies:Administrators/Admin Review.

Thank you. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As per the Admin Review Policy a request to the Stewards has been made (here) to remove your admin user rights. Many thanks for the time you put into Wikispecies and we hope you may have time to coninue in the future. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Stewards have removed your admin flag, with many thanks for your past work with Wikispecies. We hope that the in the future you may have time to help here again. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Muehlenbeckia h Standley vs I M Johnston edit

long ago we use M hastulata I M Johnston (vide my ed as M h var hastulata), I hope that the type err in 1928' printing doesnot deserved major comments and I believe that citing a syn. is enough--Penarc (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Penarc. Please note that Uleli hasn't been active in any Wikimedia project since June 2016. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC).Reply