Franz Xaver

Archives:

• Last version before cleanout on 9 January 2017.
• Last version before cleanout on 19 August 2017.

Asemeia

Hello Franz. I noticed that you deleted the type species Asemeia grandiflora from the genus taxon page citing problems with the typification. Would it not be better to have left the data on the page, but add a note stating the reasons for it being dubious? After all another editor could, in good faith, just re-add the data using the references and possibly cause bad feelings. The type species was selected by Pastore and Abbott seemingly in a robust manner. Where is the disagreement and has it been published? If this is not the case then your deletion could possibly be seen as OR. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Hello Andy. Don't worry, it's probably only for a short time, that this information is missing. As soon I am clear about it, I will add the type species. Anyway, as far as I see, the selection by Pastore and Abbott was a bit erratic: When Raf. established Asemeia he mentioned two names on page 79: Asemeia rosea and Asemeia carnea. These were nomina nuda at that place, but in 1836 Raf. gave descriptions in New Fl. 4: 88. It would have been straightforward to select the lectotype from the types of these both names, i.e. to select the type of Asemeia rosea. I have not yet managed to work through the typification of the synonyms of Asemeia grandiflora, but it seems, that Asemeia rosea Raf. is not homotypic with Polygala grandiflora Walter. Anyway, as in 1833 Asemeia rosea and A. carnea were not validly published, the selection by J.F.B.Pastore and J.R.Abbott cannot be superseded, if not someone can demonstrate, that Polygala grandiflora is not conspecific with Asemeia rosea (ICN Art. 10.2). So I will add the type for the genus again. As far as concerns the type of the sect. Hebeclada, I have not yet found out, where and by whom the type has been designated. OR probably does not apply to omitted information. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: Thanks for the explanation. I knew that you had a plan! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

BASEPAGENAMEE

Franz, should it really be {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} spelled with two EE, on Template:Gilg, 1903? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: I don't know. I copied this from other reference templates. It seem, that most reference templates are like this. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl and Franz Xaver: First and for clarity, please note that this is a matter of magic words, not templates. That's why the code string {{tl|BASEPAGENAMEE}} used above by Dan renders a red link. It's red since we do not have a local Wikispecies template named "BASEPAGENAMEE" – but the magic word still works since all magic words are handled globally by the MediaWiki servers. It's sometimes a bit confusing that some (and only some) magic words use {{curly brackets}} in the same way as commons templates do, but I guess we have to live with that... :-)

Secondly, the actual issue. This has to do with how the MediaWiki software handles page name encoding and HTML/XML. There are several magic word with the double "EE" ending: not only BASEPAGENAMEE but for instance also TALKPAGENAMEE. The difference is that the more common "single E" magic words converts page names using standard HTML/XML encoding, like we see on most web pages. In comparison, the "double E" magic words converts spaces to underscore, but it does not at all convert other "odd" ASCII punctuations and symbols such as ! $ ( and ) which are all allowed in wiki page names.

Examples, using the magic word TALKPAGENAME/E on this page (i.e. the page User talk:Franz Xaver)

The "single E" magic word {{TALKPAGENAME}} would render like this: User talk:Franz Xaver

The "double E" magic word {{TALKPAGENAMEE}} would render like this: User_talk:Franz_Xaver

A more thorough explanation can be found on MediaWikis' Manual:PAGENAMEE encoding page. Happy editing! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC).

Frage

Guten Tag Thiotrix,
guten Tag Franz,
darf ich um Hilfe bitten zu einer Nomenklatur-Frage. Es geht um den gültigen Namen von Prasophyllum exile oder Prasophyllum exilis Hier haben User:Gderrin und Rafaël Govaerts (KEW) das Thema angesprochen. [1]. Leider bin ich zum Thema ICBN nicht gut informiert.
Vielen Dank und Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Franz, vielen Dank für die perfekte Information zu meiner Frage auf der Seite von User talk:Gderrin. Danke und Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Orchi:Servus! Naja, ich bin ja zu spät gekommen. Die Frage hat aber eigentlich Thiotrix beantwortet. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons templates und Frage

Guten Tag Franz,
darf ich Dich bitten, Commons-template wieder auf die letzte funktionsfähige Version setzen zu lassen, bis die neue, angedachte Version funktionstüchtig ist, um sowohl Commons-Artikel als auch Commons-Kategorien wieder zu verlinken?
Weiterhin würde mich interessieren, ob es eine Möglichkeit gibt, Vandalismus wie hier: [2] vom 5. Nov. 2017, dauerhaft aus den Versionsgeschichten zu entfernen oder wenigstens den Text unsichtbar zu machen?
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Orchi: Servus! Die eine Version hab ich jetzt versteckt. Das kann nur ein Admin. Wenn du noch andere vergleichbare Fälle versteckt haben willst, kann ich gerne helfen. Was den Commons-Template betrifft, ist mir nicht ganz klar, was da jetzt nicht funktionieren soll, bzw. was die letzte funktionsfähige Version sein soll. Ich hab die Vorlage ja nicht verändert. Im Übrigen braucht es zum Zurücksetzen auf eine ältere Version ohnehin keine Administratorenrechte. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Franz, vielen Dank für das Entfernen des Vandalismus. Mein Vorschlag wäre, diese und ähnlich gelagerte Texte generell sofort zu löschen.

Die Frage zu Commons: Diese Diskussion: Commons category templates. Im Moment wird man nach den Änderungen vom 13. November 2017 im template:Commons nicht mehr zu den Gallerien in Commons gelenkt, sondern immer zu den Commons Kategorien. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

...ich sehe, Du hast den Schwachsinn der IP Nummer schon entfernt. Leider ist der offensichtlich am gleichen Ort Lebende, mit anderen IP Nummern Tätige, hier auch unterwegs gewesen:

[3] - [4] - [5]

Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Orchi: Ja, ich hab einige dieser Versionen versteckt. Aber es sind wirklich sehr viele und das Löschen dieser Versionen macht nicht lange Spaß. Wenn du hier hineinschaust, wirst du noch mehr davon finden. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

...ich habe die Seite auch gerade noch gesehen. Vielleicht kann ein Bot helfen. Grüße Orchi (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Orchi: Naja, Admin-Aufgaben per Bot durchzuführen, damit wäre ich vorsichtig. Stell dir nur vor, was da jemand anrichten könnte. Und es soll ja schon vorgekommen sein, dass eine problematische Persönlichkeit Admin-Rechte besessen hat. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

...wo Du recht hast, hast Du recht. ;-) Orchi (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

---

@Franz Xaver:
Hallo Franz,
ich bin der Meinung, Dir muss ein Riesenlob ausgesprochen werden! Du hast die Sisyphusarbeit auf Dich genommen hast, Wikispecies von dem verbalen Schmutz eines armseligen Menschen zu bereinigen. Ganz ehrlich gesagt, wenn ich gewusst hätte, welchen Umfang das für Dich nun angenommen hat, hätte ich das Thema für meinen kleinen Orchideenbereich nicht angesprochen.
Leider muss man wohl davon ausgehen, dass der Schwachkopf keine Zurückhaltung zeigen wird. Aber vielleicht könnte es zu einer Vereinbarung unter den Admins kommen, in Zukunft nach Bekanntwerden, schnellstmöglich diesen oder gleich gelagerten Unsinn sofort zu beseitigen.
Nochmals für Dich ein herzliches Dankeschön, erhole Dich schnell von dem Gewaltakt und beste Grüße für Dich. Orchi (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Naja, war halb so schlimm, auch nicht viel langweiliger als vier Stunden Autobahnfahren. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Acasta undulata

I notice you had changed visibility on several author pages I had made, and on Acasta undulata. This was for comments made by some individual known only by ISP. Taxon page struck me as unusual. What was this person saying? Neferkheperre (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: The same as he was saying here. In my opinion, it is not appropriate, that this would be visible in the version history. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This same hooligan seems to show up weekly, with no other thing to say. I suspected that was it. It will spam numerous pages, sometimes even creating them. Very good move, and hasn't been done before. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Lachemilla

Hi Franz. I thought Alchemilla killipii was a synonym of Lachemilla killipii, but WS is short of references and indeed the whole circumscription of Lachemilla. See here page 6 and of course Hassler (2017) [6]. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Hi Andy. After having seen the paper by Gehrke et al. (2008) – see DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.004 – I have come to the conclusion, that the wider circumscription of Alchemilla has the better arguments. So, following these authors, Lachemilla and Aphanes better are included in the synonymy of Alchemilla. Of course, some American species, as Alchemilla killipii, look different, but others, as e.g. Lachemilla orbiculata (= Alchemilla orbiculata), at first glance are very similar to the European species of Alchemilla. Anyway, Lachemilla and Aphanes could be rescued by creating a new genus for African Alchemilla. However, it seems this has not happened yet. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As you can see I am aware of Gehrke et al. (2008), I created the template, but was not sure how much it has been accepted in the wider botanic community, for example COL. Hence I got no further in my edits there. How many formal transfers are required if any? Andyboorman (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: As Lachemilla still is upheld by most botanists in the Neotropics, new species usually are described in this genus. Even Katya Romoleroux, who was one of the co-authors of Gehrke et al. (2008), later continued to describe species in Lachemilla. However, most species originally were described in Alchemilla, before Rothmaler in 1937 changed his mind. Anyway, probably not more than a handful of the species of Lachemilla require a formal transfer. I checked it for Colombia: Three of the 30 species of Lachemilla listed in Catálogo de plantas y líquenes de Colombia (http://catalogoplantasdecolombia.unal.edu.co ) don't have a name in Alchemilla. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Have the types of Lachemilla and Aphanes got combinations in Alchemilla? This situations seems to be one of those unresolved taxonomic opinions. Messy. Andyboorman (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Yes, both Aphanes arvensis and Lachemilla nivalis have got combinations in Alchemilla. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Grüße

Hallo Franz Xaver,
schon wieder ist ein Jahr vergangen und Weihnachten steht vor der Tür.
Ich wünsche Dir ein frohes und friedvolles Fest und hoffe,
dass Dir das neue Jahr 2018 viel Freude und viel Gutes bringt.
Beste Grüße.
Orchi (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:de Candolle, 1825

I was hoping you might correct this template Template:de Candolle, 1825 so that it actually works. I tried to create it along the lines of your Template:de Candolle, 1824 to use with Hovea elliptica but failed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: I just now made some minor changes to the template and to the Hovea elliptica page. Please check, if it is OK for you. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: Wonderful. Thanks very much Franz. I am hoping you can explain how to find the text reference number (in this case 153397) which I do not know how to find when I go to BHL and have found a text that I want. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Hi! When you are at a certain page at BHL, e.g. [7], somewhere to the left you find a small box with the header "URL for Current Page". Here you can copy this number you need. Never copy from the browser line at the top of the screen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Franz Xaver's advice is very good, since the "direct page" URL is a lot shorter and, well... more direct. However one must remember to add the full URL string after the .org/ top domain: adding only the number will not work. So for the above example one should write {{BHL|page/153397}} (example: BHL) rather than {{BHL|153397}} (example: BHL) since the latter one will only end up on BHL's "404 page not found" page. Please note that in some rare cases the name of the document's folder isn't "page" as in the above example, so copy and paste is your friend here. :-) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks, Tommy. Very helpful MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Übersetzung von Taxa authored 2

Hallo Franz Xaver, mit deiner geänderten Übersetzung von "verfasste Taxon-Namen" in "Taxon-Namen unter seiner Autorschaft" schließt du nun wirklich die (weibliche) Hälfte aller Biologen komplett aus! Ich bin dafür, die vorige Fassung wieder einzusetzen, falls uns nichts Besseres und genderneutrales dazu einfällt. Was hältst du von "beschriebene Taxon-Namen"? Viele Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thiotrix:Servus! Ja, das Problem ist mir inzwischen auch aufgefallen. Ich hab auch schon ein wenig experimentiert - ohne abzuspeichern - , wie man das Problem lösen könnte: Ein zusätzlicher Parameter könnte hier helfen. Wenn man bei weiblichen Autoren {{Taxa authored 2|g=f}} verwendet und in der Vorlage in die entsprechende Zeile | de = Taxon-Namen unter {{#ifeq:{{{g|}}}|f|ihrer|seiner}} Autorschaft hineinschreibt, müsste das Problem gelöst sein. Ich hab das jetzt umgesetzt - siehe Caroline Kathryn Allen. Der Schönheitsfehler in der Umsetzung ist jetzt zwar, dass (vorerst einmal) nur bei Frauen ein eigener Parameter verwendet wird und Männer jetzt als die Default-Variante dastehen, aber man kann ja auch irgendwann einmal mit einem Bot überall dort, wo jetzt kein Parameter verwendet wird, ein "g=m" hineinschreiben, oder gegebenenfalls auch noch irgendetwas für Leute, die im Lauf des Lebens ihr Geschlecht gewechselt haben. Was meinst du?

Von der Übersetzung "beschriebene Taxon-Namen" halte ich nicht viel, weil das, was beschrieben wurde, nicht der Taxon-Name ist, sondern das Taxon. Und einen "Namen verfassen" kann man eigentlich auch nicht, sondern nur einen Text. Deutsch ist halt oft etwas unhandlich. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hier hab ich das jetzt auch umgesetzt. Passt das so? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Franz: Looks good, as far as I can tell. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC).

Hallo Franz Xaver, danke dass du eine Lösung gefunden hast. Allerdings empfinde ich "Taxon-Namen unter seiner/ihrer Autorschaft" als reichlich sperrig und umständlich formuliert. Ich bevorzuge eher etwas Einfacheres wie "erstellte Taxon-Namen" oder "Autor folgender Taxon-Namen" , wobei "Autor" (ebenso wie alle Berufsbezeichnugen) genderneutral gemeint ist. Es wäre mir am liebsten, wenn wir die Übersetzungen so einfach wie möglich halten könnten. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: Servus! An die Variante "Autor folgender Taxon-Namen" hab ich auch schon gedacht, nur folgt dann eben keine Liste von Namen, sondern nur ein Link zu einer Kategorie. Genau genommen ist das eine Ankündigung, die dann nicht exakt eingehalten wird. Einen "Namen erstellen"? Naja, ich weiß nicht .... Eher könnte ich noch "veröffentlichte Taxon-Namen" akzeptieren, aber da hab ich logische Skrupel bezüglich Namen mit "ex" und "in", wo also derjenige, der den Namen veröffentlicht hat, nicht derselbe ist, dem die Autorschaft zugeschrieben wird. Und auch bei späteren Kombinationen in der Zoologie ist da ein logisches Problem. Die hat der geklammerte Autor auch nie veröffentlicht. Vielleicht findet sich ja noch etwas Besseres. Ich denke, wir müssen das jetzt auch nicht über's Knie brechen. Die jetzige Lösung empfinde ich selbst auch nicht als sprachlich besonders elegant, aber die Lösung hat, außer dass die Formulierung umständlich ist, wenigstens sonst keinen Fehler, soweit ich sehe. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Franz Xaver, für die Botanik würde vermutlich "vergebene Taxon-Namen" sprachlich am besten passen. Aber du hast Recht, dass bei den Zoologen ja der Erstautor bleibt, auch wenn das Taxon in eine andere Gattung verschoben wird. (was übrigens auch in der französischen und spanischen Übersetzung von Taxa authored 2 nicht berücksichtigt wird). Ich würde die Überschrift deshalb einfach "Autor von Taxon-Namen" nennen. (Meinetwegen auch Autor/Autorin. Allerdings wird der/die Leser/in dann auch erwarten, dass alle Berufsbezeichnungen mit richtigen Gender-Endungen übersetzt sind und es wird kompliziert). Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Naja, wenn's technisch möglich ist, wäre es schon gut, überall die richtigen Gender-Endungen zu haben. Das gibt es ja in sehr vielen Sprachen – nur halt nicht in Englisch. In Fall von "Taxa authored 2" hab ich das ja schon einmal ausgetestet, wie das geht. Und das kann natürlich innnerhalb derselben Vorlage auch für andere Sprachen verwendet werden. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Hello again, Franz Xaver and @Thiotrix. At the moment there is an English phrase in the localization database that reads "List of taxon names authored by $1". It is used by the {{Taxa by author}} template in "Taxa named by author"-categories, and on those pages the $1 parameter is automatically replaced with the actual author name (regardless of gender). As an example the first line in the Category:Caroline Kathryn Allen taxa page says "List of taxon names authored by Caroline Kathryn Allen" and that whole sentence is inserted automatically by the template.

In your opinion, how should we best translate the phrase "List of taxon names authored by $1" into German? I struggle with the verb "authored" because of the same reasons you both discuss above: the English phrase is somewhat incorrect since it's really not possible to "author" a name in English – in the same way as it sounds odd to "verfassen" a name in German. So in your opinion, what would be the best German equivalent? If possible it should be gender-neutral, but I think almost any translation is better than no translation at all. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

By the way you can find the actual database item listed here: Wikispecies:Localization#Templates, in the last line of the "Templates" section. As you see most of the language links for that phrase are red. We currently only have it translated into English and Swedish, and more languages would be welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

Hello Franz Xaver and Tommy Kronvist, I think the translation "Liste der Taxon-Namen unter Autorschaft von ..." will be ok. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fragen

Hallo Franz Xaver,
zu unserem Gedankenaustausch am 9. April 2018 versuche ich einige Fragen, Antworten und vielleicht auch Anregungen zu geben.
1. Zunächst: Genera Orchidacearum werde ich in Zukunft nur zitieren, wenn ich mir sicher bin. Ich versuche über eine Ausleihe bei der DOG mir Kopien der Inhaltsverzeichnisse zu beschaffen (wird etwas dauern).
2. "br />" oder "br>"
In Commons war ich vor längerer Zeit belehrt worden, dass br> nicht HTML konform sei.
Nun fand ich folgendes Zitat:
Der HTML-TAG br /> ist XHTML-konform. „Vorgänger“ in Form von br> ab HTML5 sind wieder valide und können jetzt wieder so genutzt werden (ich werde meine Vorlagen ändern).
3. Im template für Bilder: "Image" groß Schreiben. ok.
4. Der Unterschied zwischen „Synonyms“ oder „Synonymy“ ist mir nicht bekannt.
Bei den Wiki markups wird „Synonyms“ mit drei Geichheitszeichen ohne Leerzeichen angeboten.
Sollte man die Wiki markups ändern und wie in Commons mit Leerzeichen versehen?
5. Ist es beschlossen, in Wikispecies die Bezeichnungen von Abschnitten in der Landessprache zu definieren?
Die Übersetzungen:

Synonyms

sind, wie ich zufällig in den letzten Tagen gesehen habe, bereits existent. Sollten diese templates dann in den Wiki markups übernommen werden?

6. Wie ist der Begriff „Primary reference“ ins Deutsche zu übersetzen und zu verwenden?
7. Wie sollte der Begriff „Taxonavigation“ ins Deutsche zu übersetzt werden?
8. Soll die Erstbeschreibung, wie bisher gehandhabt, bei den Referenzen zitiert werden, oder nur beim Namen genannt werden?
9. Nach welchem Kriterium sollten die Referenzen sortiert werden?
9 a. Weblinks sollten, wie Du vorschlägst, separat erfasst werden.
10. Du verwendest „nadi“ vor den Referenzen. Sollen wir das ändern? Aus Zeiten mit neuseeländischem Einfluss hatte ich „nadi“ bewusst nach hinten verlegt.
11. Bei den „Natürliche Verbreitungsgebieten“ werde ich in Zukunft, wie Du vorschlägst, die Begriffe: Continental: und Regional: ebenfalls nicht mehr verwenden (vielleicht kann ein Bot helfen).
12. „Vernacular names“ würde ich, wie in Wikidata und Commons, ins Deutsche mit „Einheimische Namen“ übersetzen.
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Servus @Orchi:,

Ich antworte jetzt nicht auf alle Punkte, sondern nur dort, wo ich zusätzlichen Erklärungsbedarf sehe.

ad 4) Zu "Synonyms" vs. "Synonymy" hat es vor einiger Zeit auf "Village Pump" eine Diskussion gegeben. Ich hab mich der Argumentation angeschlossen, dass "Synonymy" (Synonymie) die Sache etwas besser trifft, weil es unter dieser Überschrift oft mehr gibt als eine reine Liste von Synonymen – siehe z.B Berberis goudotii. Diese "misapplied names" sind ja streng genommen keine Synonyme.

ad 5–7) Die Übersetzungen sind derzeit im Gange. Sofern ich es mitkriege, verwende ich das dann auch. Ich kann bis auf Weiteres aber auch mit einer Mischung verschiedener Sprachen gut leben. Für "Primary reference" fällt mir nix Gescheites ein, "Taxonavigation" ist eine Neuschöpfung und würde ich gar nicht übersetzen. Immerhin gibt es die Wörter "Taxon" und "Navigation" auch im Deutschen.

ad 8) Ich gehe da so vor, dass bei den Namen ein Kurzzitat, gegebenenfalls mit Links zu den betreffenden Seiten, und unter "Primary references" das volle Literaturzitat in Form einer Vorlage (Template) kommt – siehe z.B Chromolaena tacotana. Beim Kurzzitat mit Seitenangabe lässt sich besser auf die jeweilige Seite verlinken, aber eine Vorlage in voller Ausführlichkeit hat dafür andere Vorteile.

ad 9) Ich sortiere die Literaturzitate (Referenzen) alphabetisch nach den Autoren und, falls es mehrere Publikationen desselben Autors gibt, nach dem Datum der Veröffentlichung. Das ist in Literaturverzeichnissen von wissenschaftlichen Publikationen allgemein so üblich.

ad 10) Die Verbreitungsangaben sind im Allgemeinen durch die angegebenen Quellen belegt. Mir erscheint es logisch, dass die verwendeten Referenzen dann erst nach der betreffenden Verbreitungs-Information aufgezählt werden.

ad 11) Die Übersetzung "Einheimische Namen" für "Vernacular names" gefällt mir nicht. Ich würde de:Trivialname als Übersetzung vorziehen. Es gibt ja auch deutschsprachige Namen für Arten, die im deutschen Sprachraum nicht einheimisch sind, beispielsweise für Zimmerpflanzen. Das Wort "einheimisch" stellt dann Assoziationen her, die einfach nicht zutreffend sind.

Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Übrigens finde ich "Literaturnachweise" als Übersetzung von "References" nicht gut, wenn das auch die Weblinks mit umfasst. "Quellennachweise" wäre meiner Meinung nach besser. Ich werde schauen, ob ich das ändern kann. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallo @Franz Xaver:,

vielen Dank für Deine klare und schnelle Antwort. Ich werde in meinen Vorlagen Deine Anregungen und Empfehlungen übernehmen.

Mit der logischen Begründung von "Einheimischen Namen" hast Du natürlich recht.

Sollte man Literaturnachweise und Weblinks nicht generell trennen?

Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Ich hab inzwischen die Übersetzung von "References" auf "Quellennachweise" geändert. Unter diesem Titel kann man die Weblinks natürlich schon mitgehen lassen. Was hältst du von "Primärliteratur" für "Primary references" und "Weitere Literatur" für "Additonal references"? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:,

...mir fällt es schwer zwischen diesen beiden Literaturhinweisen zu unterscheiden. Wo gehört die Erstbeschreibung hin? Orchi (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Erstbeschreibungen gehören zu "Primary references". --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:,

...werden Erstbeschreibungen dann an die erste Stelle gesetzt oder alphatetisch einsortiert? Orchi (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Unter "Primary references" sollen eigentlich ausschließlich Publikationen aufgelistet werden, die entweder Erstbeschreibungen, Neukombinationen oder Neubenennungen (auch illegitime) enthalten. Also so wie ich vorher schon geschrieben habe: Innerhalb dieses Abschnitts alphabetisch nach den Autoren. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

...ich danke Dir. Orchi (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

weitere Fragen und Bitten

Hallo Franz Xaver,
ich habe mit meinem wenigen Wissen zur Software-bearbeitung in meinem "User:Orchi/common.js" versucht,
die Zeile === {int:Synonymy} === zu integrieren. Leider ohne Erfolg. Kennst Du den Weg?
Außerdem möchte ich Dich bitten, einen === {int:} === - Link für "Homonym" und == {int:External links} == (für Nicht-Referenzdaten)
zur Vereinheitlichung anzulegen. (Natürlich jeweils mit zwei geschweiften Klammern).
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Nein, leider kenne ich auch keinen Weg, wie man das in "User:###/common.js" integrieren kann. Ich mach es halt so dass ich die Überschrift auf die alte Form rückändere, dann eine Voransicht erzeuge und die Weiterleitungen aus der Voransicht heraus erzeugen lasse. Vor dem Abspeichern wird die Überschrift dann wieder "internationalisiert".

Was die Homonyme betrifft, müsste die Überschrift dann wohl "Homonym(s)" bzw. "Homonym(e)" heißen? Es kommt ja – zwar selten – doch immer wieder einmal vor, dass es zu einem Namen mehr als nur ein Homonym gibt. Kannst du mir zu diesen "External links" ein Beispiel zeigen, wo das vorkommt? Ich kann mir darunter nicht viel vorstellen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:, hier ein Beispiel für "External links": Cyrtostylis oblonga. Oder bist Du der Ansicht, dass ähnlich gelagerte Seiten zu den Referenzen-Links gesetzt werden können? Gruß. Orchi (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: So etwa in dieser Art würde ich ganz normal bei den Weblinks unter den Referenzen unterbringen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: ok. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Ich hab inzwischen zu den Homonymen eine Version im Singular und eine im Plural angelegt. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

....danke Dir. Orchi (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Format of book title

Hello Franz. As I understand it, Revisio Generum Plantarum… is the name of the actual book (not an article in a journal) in the same way as for example Linnaeus' book Species Plantarum. Therefore the title should be presented in italics, or am I wrong? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Probably we did have the same discussion already before, but I cannot find it now. In my opinion, book titles should be handled the same way as titles of journal articles. It is not uncommon, that taxon (genus, species) names occur in titles of botanical books. So, if the book title is in italics, the taxon name either would not be marked by a different style or it would not be in italics. Anyway, italics for names of journals it chosen for a better optical distinction between the title of the journal article and the journal name, which follows immediately. This need does not exist for making a distinction between contributions in books and book titles, as in such citations there is given some other information in between, i.e. book editor and/or page range. In my understanding, using italics is not an end in itself, but is used in order to make optical distinctions between different kind information. And it should not be used at all, where it is not useful. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift answer. I understand your point, however Help:Reference section (i.e. our user guideline in the matter) clearly states that "Names of journals or titles of books should be italicized". This is since long consensus and the preferred style of citation for Wikispecies, in the same way as for example Muhlenbergia, Copeia and other journals have their own standard formats. However I will not revert your edits, since this is not a matter of huge importance. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: You're absolutely right: italicizing book names is widely customary in biology articles & catalogs and is the standard at WS. At the very least the book names should be enclosed by single or double quotation marks. Mariusm (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: There is no problem with journal names like Muhlenbergia or Copeia. In this case, these are not taxon names but the names of the journals are a reference to Gotthilf Henry Ernest Muhlenberg, Edward Drinker Cope etc. Moreover, the guideline you are citing could cause problems, when it is applied to such publication series, which are rather book series than journals, e.g. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany. As an example see Template:Nicolson, 1991: "Flora of Dominica, Part 2: Dicotyledoneae" in this case is a book title, not a journal article. Should it also be in italics? --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mariusm and Tommy Kronkvist: There is no general consensus across biology journals concerning this issue. For example, Phytotaxa does italicize book titles, but Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden ([8]), Novon ([9]), or Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution don't. How did this come into the guidelines? I don't remember, if there was any discussion on this special point. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For my pennies worth. I have always used Harvard Referencing where both book names and journal titles are in italics. WS seems to use a modified Harvard. I do not think we can change long established practice without going to the pump, but as has been said above it is not a major issue. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Just a note: I didn't say that there is a problem with journal names like Muhlenbergia or Copeia. I wrote that "Muhlenbergia, Copeia and other journals have their own standard formats". In the same way as you later wrote that Phytotaxa, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Novon and Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution also have their own standard formats. And so does Wikispecies! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

Edittools

@Franz Xaver:
Hallo Franz,
Tommy Kronkvist hat auf Anregung von User:Rosičák viele Edittools in mehrsprachige Werkzeuge umgewandelt. Grundsätzlich finde ich die Idee gut.
Eine winzige Nachfrage: Wir hatten seit einiger Zeit damit begonnen, vor und hinter den Gleichheitszeichen bei den Templates ein Leerzeichen einzufügen (wie in Commons).
(einige User verfahren hier ebenfalls so)
Gäbe es einen sinnvollen Grund, so weiterhin zu verfahren und die Edittools entsprechend anzupassen oder die Form ohne Leerzeichen zu übernehmen?
Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Servus! Ganz ist mir nicht klar, worum es dir bei dieser Frage geht. Du schreibt oben von "Leerzeile". Hast du da vielleicht "Leerzeichen" gemeint? OK, ich verwende hier auch immer Leerzeichen. Aber hat das denn etwas mit diesen "Edittools" zu tun? Kannst du mir Beispiele angeben? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

....natürlich "Leerzeichen".

Beispiele:

wir schreiben. == Name == , === Synonymy === etc.

neue Edittools: ==Name== , ===Synonyms=== etc.

...ist das verständlich??

Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Nein, immer noch nicht ganz. Mir ist nämlich nicht klar, welche Bearbeitungen durch Tommy Kronkvist du meinst. Geht es da nur darum, dass er bei seinen Edits eigene Präferenzen bezüglich Leerzeichen hat? Oder geht es um irgendwelche Edits mit größeren Auswirkungen. Soweit ich sehe, wird eh alles gleich dargestellt, egal ob mit oder ohne Leerzeichen. Und von Wikispecies:Localization wird sowohl Synonymy als auch Synonyms unterstützt. Hat es da etwa schon einen "Editwar" gegeben? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:...oh, es ist so schwer, Kleinigkeiten zu beschreiben.

es geht um diese Veränderungen: angefordert hier: [10] - durchgeführt hier: [11]

Wir beiden schreiben diese Edittools mit Leerzeichen, die neuen angebotenen Edittools nicht. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Kein Editwar.

@Orchi: Jetzt verstehe ich endlich das Problem. OK, man kann ja dieses "Wiki markup" über die Fußleiste einfügen und dann nachträglich bearbeiten, wie man es gerne haben möchte, also auch die Leerzeichen nachträglich einfügen. Die Überschrift mit {{int:Synonyms}} muss man ja sowieso ändern, damit "Create Redirects" funktioniert. Ich hab meine Zweifel, ob etwas herauskommen würde, wenn man über diese Leerzeichen eine große Diskussion anfinge. Was spräche für das Eine, was für das Andere? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

---

@Franz Xaver:
Hallo Franz,
....mir ist es im Grunde egal, welche der zwei Formen man benutzt. Ich hatte mich letzlich an Deiner Art, die Seiten zu gestalten, orientiert. Meiner kompliziert formulierten Frage ging der Wunsch voraus, hier einheitlich zu schreiben.
Das würde die Arbeit bei einem eventuell erforderlichen BOT - Einsatz erleichtern. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Also ja, ich werde jedenfalls so weitermachen wie bisher, also die betreffenden Leerzeichen einfügen. Aber ich weiß nicht, ob ich es noch erlebe, dass ein Großteil der Seiten nach einem einheitlichen Muster angelegt ist. Vielleicht ist das ja auch gar nicht erreichbar. Man kann aber in Abwandlung des Kategorischen Imperativs nach Kant selbst so editieren, dass es für andere als Vorlage dienen kann. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

....dann werde ich meine Vorlagen auch nach Deinem Stil beibehalten. ;-) Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Franz Xaver and @Orchi:

1:

I would also prefer to use the spaced version. In my opinion it looks better, and it is easier for bots to use code formatted as === {{int:Synonyms}} === instead of ==={{int:Synonyms}}===. The problem is that if I add the spaces to the MediaWiki:Edittools panel, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between the many available commands. To put it short: with spaces the words "float together" more and it is difficult to tell them apart.

Example, without spaces:

<s></s>         <code></code>   <blockquote></blockquote>   <includeonly></includeonly>   <translate></translate>   {{#translation:}}   <tvar|></>   <languages/>
=={{int:Name}}==   ==={{int:Synonyms}}===   =={{int:References}}==   ==={{int:Primary references}}===   ==={{int:Additional references}}===   =={{int:Vernacular names}}==

Example, with spaces:

<s></s>         <code></code>   <blockquote></blockquote>   <includeonly></includeonly>   <translate></translate>   {{#translation:}}   <tvar|></>   <languages/>
== {{int:Name}} ==   === {{int:Synonyms}} ===   == {{int:References}} ==   === {{int:Primary references}} ===   === {{int:Additional references}} ===   == {{int:Vernacular names}} ==

In my opinion the bottom version with "extra" spaces is harder to read than the version without surrounding spaces, which makes it easier to make a mistake and click on the wrong link. What do you think?

2:

The "Create Redirects" function works by importing code from the createRedirects.js JavaScript at User:Rillke/createRedirects.js here at Wikispecies. I think it is possible to include the "new" code strings with int: to that script, so that we don't have to change the Synonyms Überschrift after using the Edittools. Unfortunately Rillke hasn't made any edits to Wikispecies since December 2015. I am both administrator and bureaucrat here at Wikispecies, but due to new Wikimedia rules (discussed here) only users of a new user group called "Interface administrators" can edit JavaScript and CSS files (except for JavaScript and CSS files that belong to their own user account). Wikispecies doesn't have any Interface Administrators at the moment, so the only user who can edit the createRedirects.js file is Rillke himself. Could perhaps any of you two contact him and ask if he is willing to update the createRedirects.js file so that it also looks for the {{int:Synonyms}} and {{int:Synonymy}} text strings? He is still quite often active at Wikimedia Commons, and speaks an excellent German. You will find his Commons' user page here.

Freundliche Grüße. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC).

@Franz Xaver:@Tommy Kronkvist:

....I have written an E-Mail to User:Rillke. For an answer here immediate info. Regards. Orchi (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:@Tommy Kronkvist:

Rainer Rillke asks, what he should change. I suggest, if possible, changing the term "===Synonyms===" in User:Rillke/createRedirects.js to "=== {{int:Synonyms}} === and === {{int:Synonymy}} ===". Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: I think we should have two variants of each of the basic terms "synonyms" and "synonymy": one variant with "int:" and one variant without. So in effect four different variations:

1. Synonyms
2. Synonymy
3. {{int:Synonyms}}
4. {{int:Synonymy}}

(...and of course the three equals signs === on both sides of each, but I don't think the script needs to take them into consideration.) If it is done in that way, Rainer Rillke's createRedirects.js script will always work, regardless whether an editor choses to add "int:" or not. This is important since almost all of the taxon pages created in the future will have the "int:" version, but thousands of old pages does not have it (unless a bot fixes them). The script is very useful and should of course work for the old "non-int:" versions as well. Otherwise I'm sure a lot of users may become confused and wonder why the script works great in some instances, and other times doesn't work at all... By the way, please say a big "thank you" to Rillke from me, since his contributions are very much appreciated. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Pamphalea

Franz. Would you be so kind as to review the taxon page for Pamphalea D.C. (1812) and make corrections and edits, as I am not sure that I have got it taxonomically correct. The genus has both been known as this name as well as the earlier published Panphalea Lag. (1811). Both protologues are instructive as well as Platt et al., (2016), although I can not get hold of the full text of the later. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: There is no easy solution. I made some changes in accordance with the recent paper by Platt et al. (2016). However, I am not sure, if their arguments finally will prevail. Anyway, it is clear that Lagasca (1811) has priority over De Candolle (1812). Obviously, DC. had ascribed the new genus to Lag., but he was not aware, that Lag. already had published the genus in the meantime, since he had received a manuscript from Lag. So, the author of the genus anyway is Lag. and DC. only made an orthographic correction. Platt et al. (2016) argue, that "the name Pamphalea is a compound word formed by the agglutination of the Greek roots “pan” and “phalos” and, in this process, the consonant dental “n” in juxtaposition becomes the labial “m” (Jacob 1841: 10, Greenough & Kittredge 1894: 3 & 7, Gildersleeve & Lodge 1903: 5)." Also, Katinas et al. (2008), who used the variant Panphalea, admitted, that Pamphalea would be the linguistically correct spelling. Their positions differ, in how far the correction by DC. is in accordance whith the code. Platt et al. (2016) tell that "Candolle (1812) effected an orthographic correction in accordance to the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants—Melbourne Code (McNeill et al. 2012, Art. 60.1), and the spelling Pamphalea must be maintained because this correction was widely accepted by the botanical community". This acceptance ended only recently, when Crisci (1974) took up the original spelling and promoted its use in the recent literature. On the other hand, Katinas et al. (2008) state, that "those who want to use “pam” must propose conservation, documenting overwhelming usage of “pam” (Dan Nicolson, Smithsonian Institution, personal communication)." Anyway, as far as I can see, Art. 60.1 principally allows "correction of typographical or orthographical errors". So, Platt et al. (2016) might be correct. However, if it turns out, that their point is not generally followed by the community, conservation of orthography (or return to the original spelling) will be necessary anyway. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, with which I fully agree. I may add a note on the discussion page. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Grüße

Guten Tag Franz,
ich wünsche Dir festliche Feiertage und für das Jahr 2019 alles erdenklich Gute.
Möge das neue Jahr uns allen ein friedliches Miteinander bringen.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Ich wünsch Dir ebenfalls Frohe Weihnachten und alles Gute für 2019! Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Pump discussion

Hello Franz. Have you noticed my post at the Pump regarding Dracaena and Sansevieria? I also notice that GLOVAP Nomenclature Part 1 has not attracted universal agreement - see Cornejo, X. 2018. Notes on the neotropical Capparaceae: an answer to Global Flora. Harvard Papers in Botany 23(2): 179-185 PDF . Any thoughts? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Making genera monophyletic in most cases can be done either be splitting or by lumping. In GLOVAP largely a lumping approach has been followed. However, at the end it will be rather the splitting option, that will prevail, as the specialists working in the respective groups usually prefer a higher level of differentiation. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. However, splitting into numerous small genera on small morphological differences rarely stands the tests of time even though it boosts the authors' publication rates! The better botanists use biogeographical and other data, as we see in the flora of Madagascar - easy with islands of course! Mind you, take the splitting of Nothofagus in that country and accepted only there, but is hated by foresters, conservationists and indeed the public at large. Now that is a totally unnecessary and unwarranted case of political splitting, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Maybe, you are interested to read the following review: [12] Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you an interesting piece. I notice that the reviewers intend to "bite the bullet" and implement the proposed changes. In a year or two we may be wondering what all the fuss was about for the majority of proposals, but some may be a step too far, for example, an expanded Pyrus to include most of Maleae! Mind you that would solve the nothogenera problem at a stroke. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics?

@Franz Xaver: Hi Franz Xaver. I've seen that you're an active user on the WikiProject Linguistics, so I thought you could help me to understand a thing. In the Help:IPA/Italian page I read in note 5: "the n in /nɡ/~/nk/ is a velar [ŋ], and the one in /nf/~/nv/ is the labiodental [ɱ]". I was wondering why in the symbol list does appear ŋ but ɱ doesn't, but I've read in the same note: "but for simplicity, ⟨m⟩ is used here". Why such a distinguo is made here? In Italian a nasal always assimilates to the following consonant, so ŋ can be found just before k and g while ɱ can be found just before f and v. If it's for simplicity, then also ŋ should be transcribed as n (since, unlike in other languages, in Italian this sound can't be found elsewhere). But this makes the transcription less accurate. Then, why doesn't ɱ have its own place in the list? It's weird to me such a different treatment... Could you enlighten me about this issue, please? Thank you if you will! 2001:1640:5:0:0:0:2:35 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot help with this question. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Franz Xaver,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikispecies and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Franz Xaver,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Franz Xaver,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Acacia s.l.

Franz. I have added numerous references outlining the segregation of Vachellia, and other genera from Acacia see Acacieae. Why are you undoing this work via your removal of redirects? I appreciate that a few secondary sources, such as APD do not accept the segregation, but most others do. Surely you do not want to go over old arguments Acacia s.l. versus Acacia s.s.? Do you have papers undoing Acacia s.s? If not you will be creating many duplicate names for a taxon. Andyboorman (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to remove these redirects, one in Acacia schweinfurthii and the other in Acacia sieberiana, because they pointed to non-existing articles. So, Wikidata does not work properly. I am OK with Vachellia. It is only because of technical reasons. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

OK I get it. I am not concerned with WD so did not realise this problem. I will create the required articles and than re-create the redirects to maintain taxonomic consistency on WS. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Grüße

Hallo @Franz Xaver:,
Für die kommenden Weihnachtstage wünsche ich Dir alles Gute.
Möge uns das neue Jahr 2020 hier und überall ein friedliches Miteinander und eine erfolgreiche Zeit bringen.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

please block

please block this ip for an extended period of time, they are a persistent xwiki vandal. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Melastomataceae

No doubt you are aware of this paper Guimarães, P.J.F., Michelangeli, F.A., Sosa, K. & de Santiago Gómez, J.R. 2019. Systematics of Tibouchina and allies (Melastomataceae: Melastomateae): A new taxonomic classification. Taxon 68(5): 937-1002. DOI: 10.1002/tax.12151. It will affect many of your edits in the genus and I have made a tentative start, as acceptance of the re-circumscription is spreading, for example Pleroma. There has also been a lot of recently published work on the family which I am sure you know. Any comments? Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks for your notice. I have come across this paper in June. Anyway, I have reduced my activity during the last months and so I have postponed to do the necessary adjustments. I have welcomed your start in Chaetogastra, as all the "Tibouchina" species , which I have photographed in Colombia, belong there. I will add a photo. Best wishes. --Franz Xaver (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. My activity here is beginning to diminish as well, but I am still somewhat active at the family and generic level for now. Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Franz Xaver. 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 06:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)