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.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

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

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

Invitation to join WikiProject Plants
And great job with your recent contributions. :) --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Just remember that a lot of those are outdated as well, so check journals once in a while too.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)


 * P.S. Some articles use an 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 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)

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)

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)

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


 * 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)


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

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)

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)


 * 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 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)

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)


 * 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)

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. 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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

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 Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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:

{| class="wikitable" Multiple citation use.
 * + Formatting references using inline citations
 * - valign="top"
 * colspan=2 | 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 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 tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: .  In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code or, most commonly, the template, Reflist which can be modified to display the references in 2 or 3 columns using  or  . Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
 * - valign="top"
 * Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'
 * What it produces when you save
 * - valign="top"
 * width="300"|Two separate citations.

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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * There's been some discussion about deleting the "language" templates that flag up articles on other Wikipedias which might be useful (see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5). 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)

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

New fern initiative
I have laid down plans for a project to improve fern coverage at 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Golygon drawing
Hi Ushakaron - Thank you for replacing my sloppy Golygon image with your much better version at. 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.
 * Conway_criterion_prototile
 * Decomino_with_two_axes_of_symmetry
 * Non-tiling_nonomino_1
 * Non-tiling_nonomino_2.

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)


 * 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)

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fern cladogram
Template:Fern cladogram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fern cladogram.show(Orders)
Template:Fern cladogram.show(Orders) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fern cladogram.show(Outgroups)
Template:Fern cladogram.show(Outgroups) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)