Talk:Elm

Description of species

Why was all the specific information on different species (e.g. height, leaves, bark) written here? They should belong in the article for that species. I prefer a clean simple look to the page, SCHZMO ✍ 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it needs to be moved to a seperate page, as it takes up way too much space and diverts attention from the more important text below. DWaterson 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Elms

I have put some information in the discussion page of the English Elm article. 78.149.220.232 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darvole Elm.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Darvole Elm.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Elm of Hokkaido Uni.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Great Elm of Hokkaido Uni.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species list

The main articles for the Taxonomy section are List of Elm species and varieties by common name, Alphabetical list of extant Elm species by scientific name, List of Elm species and varieties by scientific name, List of Elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars, List of Elm synonyms and accepted names. There badly needs to be a List of Ulmus species to replace some of these and organize the rest. The title "List of Ulmus species" follows the convention for most plant genera including others at common name titles. I don't have the patience to work on unifying and organizing the lists at present, but if somebody else wants to take it on that would be fantastic.Plantdrew (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can all be combined to be honest, like has been done at List of Acer species. I think having five different articles all covering the exact same material is excessive.--Kev min § 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elm. 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:

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) 22:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]