User talk:Franz Xaver

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search



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in 1833 Asemeia rosea and A. carnea were not validly published, the selection by J.F.B.Pastore and J.R.Abbott cannot be superseded, if not someone can demonstrate, that Polygala grandiflora is not conspecific with Asemeia rosea (ICN Art. 10.2).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)


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, 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).


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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 ( ) 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)


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[edit]

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)