Talk:Sempervivum

Hello Sempervivum-interests,

I began to set this article. Did you add more relevant informations? Do you have informations and hints for me?

Thank you in advice,

Manuel Werner, Germany

Moved from main article:
 * Copyright (c) 2004 Manuel Werner, Germany


 * Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.


 * A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

How about moving the species list out of the taxobox? Brya 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on which format gives the most compact page (least page scrolling); here, with a lot of text, placing the list in the box makes the page more compact - MPF 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The photography in the Taxo-Box seems for me not to be Sempervivum tectorum, it is a Jovibarba.

Manuel Werner, Germany

The article uses the phrase "more local" as if everyone is in the same unspecified location.

Stephen Boisvert, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.7.208 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos and classification/Taxonomy
This is an article about the genus Sempervivum. In the moment in this english Wikipedia you separate the genus Jovibarba from the genus Semperivum (this is contraversial, the other possibility is to integrate the Jovibarba as subgenus into the genus sempervivum like in the german Wikipedia, so that Jovibarba globifera subsp. hirta then is called Sempervivum globiferum subsp. hirtum - it is the same species). In the moment the genera or subgenera are separated here as genera, so it is not useful in the moment, to show in the Taxo-Box a Jovibarba, better would be then a picture like this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Sempervirum_tectorum1.jpg

The Sempervivum tectorum-photo aktualy in the article shows Sempervivum with big etiolement and is therefore not optimal ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.237.196 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Schratmaki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.18.169 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Species list
Why no species list?

Older version of the article had it, why take it out? There is a brief mention of cultivars, but no basic species... 2001:1970:4000:D4:C906:45C2:74D:80BD (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)