User talk:Ushakaron

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ushakaron. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Obsidi♠n Soul 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Plants

Hello, Ushakaron and thank you for your contributions on plant- or botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Plants, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Obsidi♠n Soul 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And great job with your recent contributions. :) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

A suggestion: please include a reference in new articles, heh. Even just one is good enough. It will only add more work for other people really to have to reference them again. Best to do it right the first time. See WP:Referencing for beginners if you don't know how.

I have also reverted your changes to Drynaria. Polypodium is an ancient genus (in terms of taxonomical history anyway) and much abused. A great deal of genera have been split off it in modern classification. A long time ago really. Drynaria is one, and it's certainly very distinct from Polypodium. I suggest you doublecheck your references (especially if you're using references published on paper before the 21st century) against online databases like ARS Germplasm Resources Information Network, to ascertain synonymies and whatnot, check which are the accepted names and which have been invalidated. Just remember that a lot of those are outdated as well, so check journals once in a while too. Other resources (and taxonomic conventions) are present in the WikiProject Plant's main page. Also note that some higher classifications are controversial, and its best to discuss them in the WikiProject's talk page, before making bold edits.

In genus-level articles, it's usually not recommended to include unranked taxa past the familia level. At family-level, unranked taxa beyond the ordo level, etc. etc., as the classification becomes more and more irrelevant the higher you go up the hierarchy for the bottom taxa. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some articles use an {{Automatic taxobox}} like the article Drynaria, this is to make it easier to keep different articles consistent with each other without manually editing each. I have already relinked Polypodiaceae to Eupolypods I. Though it will not show in articles below the family level unless forced. You may want to read its documentaion for usage instructions.

Another project you may be interested in (deals with taxonomy and whatnot) is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. It's the 'mother' WikiProject really for biology-related articles excluding human biology and medical sciences.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, figured that out, heh. No worries though. Automatic taxoboxes, have complicated instructions but once a certain hierarchy has been inputted, they automatically apply to any taxon they are used in. Makes it easier to update things in bulk.

Some things are deliberate though, like the dispute between Pteridopsida or Polypodiopsida in academic circles. To maintain neutrality, this is instead pointed out, rather than choosing one over the other. I have fixed one of the articles you created here. You can look it over for hints as to proper referencing and structure of the lead.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I can talk here? That makes me feel a little better. I don't want to clutter up your page with my noob crap. :P Ushakaron (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic taxobox is kinda cool. lol Ushakaron (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yeah, you can talk here. And no, I'm just another volunteer, everybody is really. Actual WMF employees seldom interfere with actual content, and if they do, they do it as volunteers, not employees. And I'm not even a biologist, much less a botanist. :P I only started seriously editing last year, so I'm still technically a sub-noob. I'm just a wee bit more experienced.

Just don't take this the wrong way though, heh. Just giving advice. :) I did lots of the same stuff you did now. Better you learn the rules early, haha. Makes it more worthwhile and makes it less likely that you piss off other editors as I did before. LOL

And no, you don't need to learn how to make autotaxoboxes, though knowing how to is nice as well. You can use manual, just make sure you aren't removing any other useful information when switching between the two. Like synonymies, authority information, range maps, etc. Those are important. And it's not that hard as auto and manual are basically the same anyway, same syntax except for the fact that you don't need to enumerate higher taxa in autotaxoboxes, they automatically generate it. Make sure you are also complying with the agreed upon taxonomical convention used in other articles. When unsure, ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants for input by other editors. Especially when making edits to a large number of pages.

Main advice: be bold when editing, but ask when unsure. Lord knows, we need more people working on bio articles, haha. Ferns, especially, are badly covered in Wikipedia. But yeah, need to at least follow convention as well to avoid problems.

Just ask if you need help with anything... from anyone. Most Wikipedians will be really glad to help out. We're crazy people who do things for free. :P

So um... what would you like to do at this time? Create stubs for redlinks? Again, the best advice I can give if you plan to do that is to always provide references. That's the number one rule in Wikipedia. Everything else can be sorted out later. And yeah, though a stub is nice, a fully fleshed article is also more helpful.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: things I wish I'd read when I was new and things I highly recommend you read now, heh: Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anything the wrong way. Don't worry ;) I think I'm already getting the hang of the auto taxoboxes. A lot of the articles I've been creating, I don't really think of them as stubs (although they are), but as hubs for links. I like filling gaps. Things like red links have always bothered me. Although there isn't much text, they do help show relationships to other things, and it's nice to at least have something instead of nothing or a redirect. --if that makes any sense Ushakaron (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, though. At first I thought you were just some stupid greeter robot thing (no offense) lol. Ushakaron (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Sorry for that, I kinda use templates a lot for welcoming people. XD And yep, 'hub' articles are a good thing. Especially for 'in-between' taxa like subfamilies, etc. Their absence can break the 'chain' between higher taxa and their members.

Just make sure you try to enumerate the subtaxa (if possible, some of them have thousands of members, so linking only the most notable members would be saner). A good example for a 'hub' kind of stub, is an article of mine from a while ago. Here: Naucleeae, it's a tribe. Note how it has a short description, includes a list of members, and most importantly is referenced.

Another thing is to add the appropriate tags. I added a {{Fern-stub}} template, for example, in here. I also added the relevant WikiProject in the article's talk page here. Makes it easier for the other project members to keep track of it.

And yep. Autotaxoboxes are relatively easy (and nifty) once you understand it. :)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page break

I'm converting all the stuff to auto taxoboxes. I'm starting at the top. Everything is going to be made simpler. Ushakaron (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I highly recommend against doing that. See the warning on this page: Template talk:Automatic taxobox. Do it only for articles you wrote or are currently revising, i.e. only when necessary. Please please don't touch the higher taxonomies without discussion. It's been a cause for flamewars in the past.

Ask in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants first.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S***. My bad. There's too many little pages to read. At least the stuff will be in the database for future use.

Heh. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#If there's something I or anyone can help you all with, please don't hesitate to ask. Try asking for tasks from some of the users there. But yeah, try to build on existing stuff in the autotaxoboxes, don't revise unless necessary LOL, and discussion is almost always required before doing so. Anyway have to sleep. Good night and good luck. :) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxoboxes

Just to add to the comments about this issue. I share your enthusiasm for automatic taxoboxes, and I personally wish we could convert many more articles (perhaps not all, since there are problems in areas where the taxonomy to use is unclear or highly contested). I hope that in future there will be more areas of the tree of life where we can get a consensus to carry out this conversion. It is possible to get agreement; I managed to convert a large number of Asparagales articles, for example, without any reversions. But Obsidian Soul is right to warn you that there have been editors who objected very strongly, and it's important to proceed cautiously at present. "Softly softly catchee monkey." Peter coxhead (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lulz. And for the record, I <3 autotaxoboxes and would prefer to use them everywhere as well.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that conversion means that you need to reatain information from the taxobox, such as taxon authorities. Also, when moving a page to a new location, you need to Move the page, not copy-and-paste contents as you did for Marattiopsida. A "Move" will retain the edit history with the move. A copy-and-paste will eliminate the edit history, and this violates the licensing of Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to do that is to not remove anything else other than the ranks. e.g. remove and replace kingdom, phylum, classis, ordo, familia, etc. but don't touch anything else. As I said earlier, the two are basically the same, except that autotaxoboxes generate those info automatically. The rest of the fields though, like fossil range, subdivisions, images, IUCN classification, synonyms, type species/genus, diversity, range maps, authorities, etc. are not automatic, so please retain them.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have a lot to catch up on. lol Ushakaron (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Blechnales a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Eupolypods II. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, somebody else told me about that problem. I haven't made any edits for a while. I'm just kind of waiting to see what happens and collecting feedback like yours on my talk page :) Ushakaron (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and more guidance

Hey, regarding your edits to Drynarieae, let me point out that articles actually need to have content. A taxobox is not enough for an article to stand on its own. Try and study my improvements to the page. I converted it to an autotaxobox, added authorities, references, and most importantly, a readable text. No matter how limited it may be, there should be enough so a reader will know what it is about.

Section headings also have to start off with the first header level (==HEADER== not ===HEADER===, note number of = signs).

Try and fix the article Platycerioideae and I'll give you feedback. Also it seems you haven't yet learned how to use inline references. That is actually quite important. See WP:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Or see the collapsible table below:

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations
All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code </references> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in 2 or 3 columns using {{Reflist\|2}} or {{Reflist\|3}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>`Citation text.`</ref><ref>`Citation text2.`</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">`Citation text3.`</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> ==References== {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations.^[1]^[2] Multiple^[3] citation^[3] use.^[3] References_________________ ^ Citation text. ^ Citation text2. ^ ^a ^b ^c Citation text3.
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Basically it's as simple as adding a <ref> at the end of the sentence or paragraph you want to prove, insert a link immediately afterwards (or a Citation template), then add </ref>.

Then you create a ==References== subsection and add a {{Reflist}} template immediately below it. Any text or links placed between the <ref> and </ref> tags will then immediately be listed wherever you placed the {{Reflist}} template. See my example at Drynarieae above. Again, feel free to ask questions if it's unclear, heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if there are no sentences? like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selligueeae Ushakaron (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point, LOL. You need to have sentences, text, an article. Otherwise, it would still pretty much be pointless. A taxobox does not justify the existence of an article, hence why a lot of subtaxa are simply redirected to their parent taxon which contains more in-depth descriptions of them (that is actually preferred in most cases). That is also why creating articles is usually slow work, because we do actually have to read the sources, process the information and then put it in our own words on Wikipedia (note: do not plagiarize, copy-paste, etc.) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh. I didn't see the first part you typed. It gets hard to tell when one post ends and another begins. I guess I thought that since it did add information even though it was just a taxobox, it would be of some help to people. The lists of genera are pretty much the most info you'd get, but not all of that was on the page it formerly redirected to. Ushakaron (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC) One other question. Why would you do "see text" instead of listing the genera in the taxobox? I thought that was only for cases with large numbers of genera. Ushakaron (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To indent text, add a colon at the beginning of a paragraph. Add two to indent further and so on and so forth. It makes discussions easier, knowing who is replying to whom.

Anyway: Template:Taxobox contains instructions for how taxoboxes should be handled. You can use a 'See text' instead of listing the members when the subdivisions are already listed in the text, when the members are too controversial/variable for it to be summarized (i.e. when several authorities disagree on the member subtaxa), or when the article text is too short, and the taxobox takes up too much of the space. The last bit is mostly aesthetic, but it helps if the text and the taxobox are at least balanced (without sacrificing info in the process). Taxoboxes, like all infoboxes, are summaries of the text. They are not intended to replace the text, but instead, complement it. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes).

I see you got the point in your last edits. However, there are still stylistic problems. e.g. This is your original text in Selligueeae:

Selligueeae are characterized by opaque stem scales. Fronds are monomorphic. This tribe contains at least two genera.

First, you need to bold the subject of the article. Second, it sounds a bit... telegraphic. LOL. Try to write in full sentences. Third, you need to introduce the subject. Otherwise, if a random person comes across the article, they wouldn't know what you're talking about. It's like telling someone your life history before you tell them your name, heh. Also wikilink words a layman will be unlikely to understand. Remember, our articles are aimed at ordinary people, doesn't mean we should dumb it down (we shouldn't), but we should try our best to make it easier for an average high school student to understand it. Try:

Selligueeae is a tribe of ferns in the subfamily Polypodioideae of the family Polypodiaceae. They are characterized by opaque stem scales. Their fronds are monomorphic. This tribe contains at least two genera.

That make sense? Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style

And lastly, again, for the References subsection or any main subsections really use two equals signs. e.g.. ==References== and NOT ===References===. Don't skip levels. Use the 2 first, then 3 when creating a subsection of a subsection, 4 when creating subsections of a subsection of a subsection, etc. etc. See Help:Wiki markup-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OOHHH! My bad. I hope I'm not being a burden for you. But, I guess my intention of creating the tribe pages was to make it easier to group the genera. I get the impression from Polypodiaceae that they don't list all of them. I'm trying to make it easier for people to navigate the family. I also made some big changes to Cladoxylopsida. I don't think they will be a problem because I have them sourced with a book written in 2009. The Germans have way better articles on that stuff than we do. Ushakaron (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you can't find anywhere with a definite list of member genera, it's okay to just list the ones you can get from sources. But be careful to let the reader know that it's incomplete. That is why such lists are usually best left in the text rather than in the taxobox. Because then you'd be able to put a header before it. For example:

"The following are some genera included in the tribe X:" or

"The family X includes the following genera:" or

"The following is the list of families included in the order X and some notable genera classified under them:" etc.

In other words, make it clear that the lists are not complete when appropriate. In contrast, if you place such lists in the taxobox, the default assumption is that those are all the subdivisions, which is only the case in less controversial taxa. Also be a bit careful when compiling such lists, some databases contain a fair bit of synonymy or outdated names/classifications. Requires a bit of judgement and digging as well, to decide which sources are more reliable/have more consensus and which are unreliable/outdated/fringe.

To use the article you mentioned, Cladoxylopsida, as an example, you currently included both orders and a genus in the subdivision box. It's confusing, imo. Foozia is there, but it did not include Wattieza which is mentioned in text. That makes it clear that there are other genera known, so why is particular importance given to Foozia? :P Is it incertae sedis? Or is it classified under Iridopteridales? Were you planning to list all the member genera of a classis in the taxobox? o_O *gasp*

It's cases like this where an explanation in the text is better. It's good that you already did it partway, by explaining that Hyeniales is now considered a part of Pseudosporochnales. However, you didn't explain Iridopteridales and Cladoxylales, heh. It's okay if you can't, but placing them in text (usually as bulleted lists) at least gives it a chance to be described further, in contrast to the taxobox where an explanation simply won't fit.

And nah, I've way too much free time, LOL. But yeah, the easiest and fastest way for you to get what I'm talking about is to really look at examples of similar articles you consider are good (there are a lot of quite bad articles there though, so choose wisely). I mean really look at them, see how they're put together, how it's all coded, how the contributors worded stuff, arranged stuff, what they included and what they didn't, how they handled lists, subdivisions, etc. etc. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae sedis. That's a good idea. I'm gonna go do that. I tried to indicate that the list may be incomplete by saying "This tribe contains at least . . ." I have no explanation for cladoxylales :/ . I really need to get a hold of that book used in the references. From what I've seen, it's fantastic. Ushakaron (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I never did like the way that thing looked on Cladoxylopsida. Adding the incertae sedis looks much better.[reply]

Hmm yeah... from what I can see, the placement of Iridopteridales seems to be traditionally controversial. Not a lot of sources, some contradicting each other... Meh. Guess it's okay. Some articles have a lot less than that.

A suggestion may be to search for possible academic papers discussing the two with Google Scholar (academic papers are preferred as sources anyway). If they aren't free to download, you can usually request a copy of those from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Can't see anything you might be able to use though, but keep that in mind in the future if you have difficulty accessing some papers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Fern article

I managed (after some efforts!) to get the link to the German article right in the template you added to Fern – you need to add the parameter "Farne" to get to de:Farne. However, it's not clear to me that there is anything much there to be used – for once the English article seems better to me. Or have I missed something? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for a way to link the articles like that. I didn't find one. I know some German, so I can find my way around there. I'm gonna look at it to see what I found. (cuz I forgot lol)Ushakaron (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh. That was because of the data they had on Rhacophytales, Coenopteriden, Stauropteridales, and Zygopteridales. The English page had no data on them. I thought there might be some use in adding them. Ushakaron (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion about deleting the "language" templates that flag up articles on other Wikipedias which might be useful (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5#Template:Expand_language). I personally think that they are very useful; I greatly expanded the Asparagales article using the Spanish version after seeing a notice like the one you added to the Fern article. However, it seems that these notices do annoy some editors, so I think it's best to use them on the article only when the English version is clearly poorer and in need of expansion. In a case like Fern, I suggest instead putting a note on its talk page, where you can explain the particular bits which would be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea Ushakaron (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New fern initiative

I have laid down plans for a project to improve fern coverage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. Since you've contributed some material on Osmunda, I thought you might be interested. Choess (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Plants Collaboration of the month

I'm attempting to revive the Plant article COTM, and since you're a member of WikiProject Plants, you're being notified about this hopeful revival. Please feel free to propose articles for collaboration, and thanks for your consideration! Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current WikiProject Plants collaboration article is Carnivorous plant.
Last month's collaboration was: (none).
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphenophyllales

You have deleted the only information about the family. Please restore that information to the taxobox, where it belongs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is only the one family, it needs to be treated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamatophyton verticillatum

Is Hamatophyton verticillatum the only species of Hamatophyton? If so, then the two articles should be merged as Hamatophyton, in accordance with the guideline at WP:FLORA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ginkgoales

The Ginkgoales page should remain as a redirect. If the order is not showing up in other taxoboxes, you need to edit the internal coding for subpages of the automatic taxobox template. This is complicated, and I can never remember how to do it myself. That is one reason I opposed its universal implementation. You'd need to look for help at Template:Automatic taxobox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you list all the children (included families), and create taxobox templates for them? I assumed you had simply made an error, since the taxobox you added included only the single family and since I've not heard of any other included families. If there is more than one family, you'll need to include them in the taxobox by creating templates for them as children of the taxon. Note that when you "undo" my "undo", the category originally listed for the page was incorrect, and I have since made that correction. Someone had decided that ginkgos are angiosperms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one further thought: It looks as though you edited Ginkgoales first and then created a child taxon. In such cases, it can take the server a while to catch up and recognize the dependent edits. That might be the problem here. If so, then you can avoid this issue in future by editing the children first and then editing the parent information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is: if you create the children first, and then edit the parent template, the server will seek out children templates immediately. If you do not edit the parent after creating the children, then there will be a server lag of an hour (or even a day) before the parent template is checked again by the server and children are recognized. Any template that calls on other templates will not immeditely register a change in those other templates unless it is edited. Otherwise, there is a delay in the response from the software. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you need to edit the /Ginkgoales template (not /Ginkgoaceae) now that /Karkeniaceae has a taxobox template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to add at least some text to the pages on Ginkgoales and Karkeniaceae, even if it's only a statement of basic relationships. An article cannot consist of only a summary box, without any article text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golygon drawing

Hi Ushakaron - Thank you for replacing my sloppy Golygon image with your much better version at File:Golygon.png. I do not have the right kind of software to create these kind of images correctly.

If you are so inclined, you are welcome to redraw several other similar pictures that have the same defects and replace my inferior versions.

The first two images should also probably be uploaded to wikimedia commons–something that I failed to do. IAC thank you for your great work.--Foobarnix (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SVGs seem like they're perfect for this type of thing. You can create them in any text editor such as Notepad, and they're very precise and clean. Wikipedia seems to prefer them, and the syntax is fairly simple for creating things like lines and circles. I was surprised by how easy they were to make. Ushakaron (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ushakaron. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]