This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have confirmed with John McNeill, the Rapporteur Général of the Nomenclature Section of the International Botanical Congress, that the correct name for the code is "International Code of Nomenclature FOR algae, fungi, and plants", although it has been reported differently elsewhere. Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If this page is to deal with the history of the codes, then it should include the pre-1905 history, and also the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature that was so important to the Type Concept. Nadiatalent ( talk) 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all clear that the page move was the correct thing to do; it should have been discussed first. Yes, the ICBN has become the ICN, but that didn't automatically mean that there should be only one article. I think there are two options:
Ultimately, either solution appears to be workable. At present, the single article solution is problematic, because the referencing has to be to the Vienna Code, so that significant content which appears in the article is technically WP:SYNTH – it says things about the Melbourne Code which are sourced to the Vienna Code.
One argument for ultimately preferring the single article solution is that most existing wikilinks to the ICBN seem to be related to the rules themselves rather than to the history. However, wikilinks can be changed. Peter coxhead ( talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this really a title that should be italicised? International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (a C-class article) forgoes such formatting, but from my cursory glance at the WP:MOS it seems to be a bit of an edge case Bawb131 ( talk) 14:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
At present the first photo in the article is "Carl Linnaeus's garden at Uppsala, Sweden" which, while nice, has no real relevance to the topic I would say... Thoughts RE potential removal? Tony 1212 ( talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have confirmed with John McNeill, the Rapporteur Général of the Nomenclature Section of the International Botanical Congress, that the correct name for the code is "International Code of Nomenclature FOR algae, fungi, and plants", although it has been reported differently elsewhere. Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If this page is to deal with the history of the codes, then it should include the pre-1905 history, and also the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature that was so important to the Type Concept. Nadiatalent ( talk) 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all clear that the page move was the correct thing to do; it should have been discussed first. Yes, the ICBN has become the ICN, but that didn't automatically mean that there should be only one article. I think there are two options:
Ultimately, either solution appears to be workable. At present, the single article solution is problematic, because the referencing has to be to the Vienna Code, so that significant content which appears in the article is technically WP:SYNTH – it says things about the Melbourne Code which are sourced to the Vienna Code.
One argument for ultimately preferring the single article solution is that most existing wikilinks to the ICBN seem to be related to the rules themselves rather than to the history. However, wikilinks can be changed. Peter coxhead ( talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this really a title that should be italicised? International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (a C-class article) forgoes such formatting, but from my cursory glance at the WP:MOS it seems to be a bit of an edge case Bawb131 ( talk) 14:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
At present the first photo in the article is "Carl Linnaeus's garden at Uppsala, Sweden" which, while nice, has no real relevance to the topic I would say... Thoughts RE potential removal? Tony 1212 ( talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)