Talk:List of Ranunculus species

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizing principles?

I'd like to add a few species to this list, but I'm unclear on some of the organizing principles. Why are certain species bolded and others not? Should authorities be linked once per row? Per table? Per page? Some clarification from the original author would be appreciated. Choess (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back to updating this table, but I think that my intent was to show the accepted names in bold face and synonyms in normal, but as you can see I didn't get very far with that. Ideally it would be those names with links that are the accepted ones, but I think there were are few Ranunculus articles using synonyms as titles, so I wanted make that clear. However, I'm not sure how good my sources were at the time, since I did a poor job of footnoting. And I probably didn't handle subspecies consistently. So it may be best to go back and un-bold all of them or somehow make it clear what the bold-face means. In fact, it's likely that there are so many synonyms that to be both consistent and realistic we wouldn't show any of them. But then of-course commonly used synonyms could not be looked up and would probably get added by someone at some point anyway. So I'm open to any idea you might have about how to proceed.

As for the author links, I think the standard is that only the first appearance in the article gets a link. But since this is a big list, maybe the first instance in each letter's table would be good. As a reader, I don't like looking back to see where there might be a link to something I'm curious about, so I wouldn't be opposed to linking them all, but once per table would probably be more acceptable.

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies and please let me know any thoughts that you may have on improving this list. — Nonenmac (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a few cases, I was listing synonyms under accepted Ranunculus species names, but I think this is where we would run into trouble trying to fit in all synonyms, and they looked too much like subtaxa anyway, so I think I'll remove synonyms under the accepted species (unless one of their listed subspecies is itself a synonym). But I will leave any synonyms that have a row of their own, and then just provide a link to the accepted species name. — Nonenmac (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Ranunculus species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324034951/http://www.bonap.org/BONAPmaps2010/Ranunculus.html to http://www.bonap.org/BONAPmaps2010/Ranunculus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranunculus cincinnatus

Found in Scottish lochs. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the list

On the list are not 500-600 species, but less then 160. Now how many Ranunculus sp. are in reality? DenesFeri (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DenesFeri: I posed your question at WT:PLANTS#Ranunculus_species. Not sure there's a definitive answer to this (yet)! Declangi (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: Thank you! I'm already colaborating with someone on the Wikispecies. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date species list

It appears that this species list, and the reference cited, including The Plant List are out of date and do not conform with Plants of the World Online. (This editor only interested in Australian flora.) Gderrin (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Plants of the World Online lists 1691 species. The tabular format of this list makes it exceedingly tedious to keep up to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonenmac: I appreciate all the work you did creating this article the way it is, but there were only 168 entries treated as full species (i.e. with wikilinks), so far as I can tell, whereas Plants of the World Online lists 1691, so the overwhelming majority are missing. (Also some listed here are not in this genus now, and have been removed, so there are now under 168.) I'm really not sure what is the best approach. Maybe give the full "unadorned" list from PoWO, and then treat the table here now as "selected species"? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]