This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm unsure of the need for this list and the associated template, I have the 1992 list, and there are at least 550 botanists/naturalists that have named something. Many of whom may have done nothing else of note.-- nixie 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
< Jun-Dai 13:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)>I think this list would be easier to use if it were either formatted better (i.e., a long single-column list, or a table of some sort), or if it simply listed the author abbreviation, which could then link to the article for that botanist.
ex.:
or:
|
|
|
or:
- Ach. - A.Cunn. - Adams - Adans. - Adr.Juss.
Just my 2 cents</ Jun-Dai>
Many thanks for implementing that! VivaEmilyDavies 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is this list complete - or complete as of a specific date? ie, for historic botanists, if they aren't on this list can I assume they don't have an author abbreviation (Note: I don't even know the significance of a botanist having an author abbreviation...) Ga rr ie 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that there should be a disclaimer stating that this list is far from complete and far from accurate and that no one should rely on this list for legitimate citations of authorities. It is a good reference (thanks for putting this together!) but one would need to go to the original literature and cross-reference these abbreviations with currently accepted abbreviations used in various herbaria. The tough part is that not all herbaria agree. Take a look at IPNI (ipni.org). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjh13 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody add Robert Wight? 89.240.2.245 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be spacer after an abbreviation of the first name of the author according many examples in Saint Louis Code article 46. This means that there are authority written typhographically bad at http://www.ipni.org - they are following standard work "Authors of Plant Names" ed. Brummitt & Powell (1992) in which the editors state: "We recommend that no spaces be left after full stops.".
What is right solution for wikipedia? -- Snek01 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was created in April 2005 and was originally listed in alphabetical order sorted by abbreviation, then in April 2006 this was changed to alphabetical order sorted by surname. [1]. I propose to restore the list to its original sorting method as this seems more suitable for casual readers (as opposed to WP Project Plants editors) who come to this page with an abbreviation to look up and are not familiar with abbreviation conventions. Any objections? -- Melburnian 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What about bryologists? To me, it seems reasonable to include them, but i propose that phycologists and and mycologists should have their own list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.205 ( talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
ke onada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 ( talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The article keeps crashing my system because its so big, mostly on edits, and I'm sure this will only worsen as it expands. I would like to break it up alphabetically into smaller articles, but cannot do it alone as my system can't edit some (most?) foreign or specialized characters, garbling them beyond recognition.
I propose the following scheme, should anyone be interested:
Each represents three letters (exceptions with letters q and x, as they are exceedingly uncommon, and can be thrown in with their nearest neighbors)
A lot or all of the other parts (intro, see also section, etc.) could be included with each page to keep them consistent, and the original title would represent the eight, above. The rationale behind breaking it up into eight, as opposed to less (two, for instance), is to delay further splits in the near term, as this list appears to be growing fast, and splitting is a pain in the neck.
This kind of break-up is just one way to do it, so other schemes are encouraged. I just know it needs to be done sooner or later. Thanks for any input. Hamamelis ( talk) 13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the entry for G. R. Bhatti (sic) from the letter "G" to "B" as
However, according to IPNI this is his 'standard form'. Perhaps this is because Brummitt & Powell's Authors of Plant Names was published in 1992; IPNI's 'example of name published' shows a plant with this author in Fontqueria, 42: 5 (1995), and so the name could not be included (if no plant name was published by G. R. Bhatti previous to 1992, which, admittedly, I haven't taken the time to check). Also, I coudn't find anything for him at HUH. My question is, is it ok to place the name on the list or not? Is a 'standard form' acceptable in the absence of a B&P abbreviation? Hamamelis ( talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A California Flora by Philip Alexander Munz, David D. Keck contains various missing ones. Here's a sample page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I note that there was an earlier consensus that this page should be split up. It's now even longer and very difficult to edit as a whole. I propose to carry out a split (initially I think three parts will be enough) in the next few days. I have an idea how to do it: in particular to keep the A-Z table of contents in each alphabetic section and link to the appropriate page, so as to make moving around as easy as possible.
If there are strong objections, please say so now. Otherwise I'd like to try it out and then invite comments on whether this is the right way to do it; I think it's easier to comment on and improve pages that exist rather than an abstract description of how it could be done. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
First step I have now split off the entries for P–Z. I'd welcome comments on the way I've done it before I split off another third. (I think a split into three pages is enough for now.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I am now in the process of splitting each of the three pages into two, making six in all. Each was over 50kB. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
huh? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to adjust {{ Botanist}} to allow for two abbreviations? Please see Olav Johan Sopp#Botanist abbreviation for an example. I tried to deal with it, but it just doesn't look good or read well. I've also posted this message at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 08:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to include additional information in this list. [2] This is just the list of the botanists by author abbreviation, nothing more, and the additional information is not needed in order to locate an abbreviation or clarify an abbreviation. It should be removed and just be put in the father's and and son's articles. -- AfadsBad ( talk) 04:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Over the past few months, in relation to my work on Wikidata, I've been trying to increase the number of inline interlanguage links we use here on the English Wikipedia. I can go into my rationale for this if people are curious, but suffice it to say it's a hobby of mine to try to replace redlinks with {{ ill}}s, {{ ill2}}s, or {{ ill-WD}}s (the last of which I created). At the moment, you can see all three templates in action in the "a" section here. I don't consider this particularly controversial, since the templates benefit our multilingual readers (of whom there is a surprising a number), and are very easy to ignore for our monolingual ones; plus, Google Translate can do a decent job, and a machine-translated foreign article is better than nothing at all. However, User:Peter coxhead has raised the concern that my use of three different templates with three different parameter setups will make this confusing for editors, and especially for the offline tools that he occasionally uses to clean up formatting errors and inconsistencies, and he thus proposes that we only use {{ ill-WD}}. I'm certainly sensitive to his concerns, but, in the spirit of putting the reader first, I feel it makes the most sense to use all three ({{ ill}} for one link, {{ ill2}} for two or three, and {{ ill-WD}} for four or more). Hopefully, once T49930 is fixed, it'll be possible to make {{ ill-WD}} serve the purpose of all three, but, until then, I don't see any way around it. So, having reached a respectful impasse, Peter and I agreed it would be best to seek input from others. For the time being, I'm going to continue to use all three, but if there's a consensus that it's preferable to only use the one, then obviously I'll defer to that. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The A–C page (the first page) is now over 50 kB in size, so perhaps needs splitting, particularly for the benefit of those who view Wikipedia on a mobile device. Unfortunately, the B entries are the largest, so an equal split would involve something like A–BL and BM–C. Keeping the initial letters together, A–B and C is the best split.
Any views please? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The question was posed above of whether mycologists should be included in this list? Not sure if consensus was reached on this somewhere. If mycologists should not be included then perhaps the excellent List of mycologists could be prominently linked to from here, to assist those looking for an abbreviation but unsure of which side of the fence the author is on. Declan Declangi ( talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name? I don't see Luís Wittnich Carrisso on the list. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the reference section seems to occur twice on the list. Tried unsuccessfully to remove it - but did not want to fiddle too much with the template. Or is it just me who sees it ? DavidAnstiss ( talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
jaap vermeulen , orchidology, bulbophyllum [3] Pieter B. Pelser- Julie Barcelona- Leonard co — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabbustamante ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that the botanist author abbreviation pages are a wonderful resource and I feel very thankful that the effort was spent to put them together so well. Regularuk ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I love this page. I like learning about the history of botany through authors. I add their details to the plant Speciesbox, and other appropriate places. But sometimes I do it wrong. I just copy the wiki heading name off the list and go John Smith|Smith. So far so good, but it may actually be John Smith (botanist)|Smith. I don't notice the difference on this page, only if I am researching more on the author and follow the links. May I request that where the correct wikipage is John Smith (botanist), or whatever, that we write it here for the lazy/ignorant editors such as myself. Thanks to all who have created this resource, well done. Brunswicknic ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
K.Rosenth. – Käthe Rosenthal (1893-?1943): Her life is recorded at IPNI as "1893-?1843", she published in 1916 and 1919, I presumed that 1843 is a typo for 1943, and I wonder if she died in a concentration camp. Brunswicknic ( talk) 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Would adding Bruce K. Holst be acceptable? See this reference for instance. -- Jeran Renz ( talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have ripped off the Italian Wikipedia article on the British botanist Mark James Elgar Coode. Never done it before, used another botanists page as template, google translated the Italian, and I pasted. But, problems, notes instead of <ref>, the authority box or whatever it is at the bottom and other stuff. Please, could someone fix what is wrong? Brunswicknic ( talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been finding more and more "Li" in biology articles, but the List and the surname page and this page didn't help much. Anybody have any ideas? Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
okay! Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm unsure of the need for this list and the associated template, I have the 1992 list, and there are at least 550 botanists/naturalists that have named something. Many of whom may have done nothing else of note.-- nixie 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
< Jun-Dai 13:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)>I think this list would be easier to use if it were either formatted better (i.e., a long single-column list, or a table of some sort), or if it simply listed the author abbreviation, which could then link to the article for that botanist.
ex.:
or:
|
|
|
or:
- Ach. - A.Cunn. - Adams - Adans. - Adr.Juss.
Just my 2 cents</ Jun-Dai>
Many thanks for implementing that! VivaEmilyDavies 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is this list complete - or complete as of a specific date? ie, for historic botanists, if they aren't on this list can I assume they don't have an author abbreviation (Note: I don't even know the significance of a botanist having an author abbreviation...) Ga rr ie 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that there should be a disclaimer stating that this list is far from complete and far from accurate and that no one should rely on this list for legitimate citations of authorities. It is a good reference (thanks for putting this together!) but one would need to go to the original literature and cross-reference these abbreviations with currently accepted abbreviations used in various herbaria. The tough part is that not all herbaria agree. Take a look at IPNI (ipni.org). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjh13 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody add Robert Wight? 89.240.2.245 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be spacer after an abbreviation of the first name of the author according many examples in Saint Louis Code article 46. This means that there are authority written typhographically bad at http://www.ipni.org - they are following standard work "Authors of Plant Names" ed. Brummitt & Powell (1992) in which the editors state: "We recommend that no spaces be left after full stops.".
What is right solution for wikipedia? -- Snek01 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was created in April 2005 and was originally listed in alphabetical order sorted by abbreviation, then in April 2006 this was changed to alphabetical order sorted by surname. [1]. I propose to restore the list to its original sorting method as this seems more suitable for casual readers (as opposed to WP Project Plants editors) who come to this page with an abbreviation to look up and are not familiar with abbreviation conventions. Any objections? -- Melburnian 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What about bryologists? To me, it seems reasonable to include them, but i propose that phycologists and and mycologists should have their own list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.205 ( talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
ke onada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 ( talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The article keeps crashing my system because its so big, mostly on edits, and I'm sure this will only worsen as it expands. I would like to break it up alphabetically into smaller articles, but cannot do it alone as my system can't edit some (most?) foreign or specialized characters, garbling them beyond recognition.
I propose the following scheme, should anyone be interested:
Each represents three letters (exceptions with letters q and x, as they are exceedingly uncommon, and can be thrown in with their nearest neighbors)
A lot or all of the other parts (intro, see also section, etc.) could be included with each page to keep them consistent, and the original title would represent the eight, above. The rationale behind breaking it up into eight, as opposed to less (two, for instance), is to delay further splits in the near term, as this list appears to be growing fast, and splitting is a pain in the neck.
This kind of break-up is just one way to do it, so other schemes are encouraged. I just know it needs to be done sooner or later. Thanks for any input. Hamamelis ( talk) 13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the entry for G. R. Bhatti (sic) from the letter "G" to "B" as
However, according to IPNI this is his 'standard form'. Perhaps this is because Brummitt & Powell's Authors of Plant Names was published in 1992; IPNI's 'example of name published' shows a plant with this author in Fontqueria, 42: 5 (1995), and so the name could not be included (if no plant name was published by G. R. Bhatti previous to 1992, which, admittedly, I haven't taken the time to check). Also, I coudn't find anything for him at HUH. My question is, is it ok to place the name on the list or not? Is a 'standard form' acceptable in the absence of a B&P abbreviation? Hamamelis ( talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A California Flora by Philip Alexander Munz, David D. Keck contains various missing ones. Here's a sample page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I note that there was an earlier consensus that this page should be split up. It's now even longer and very difficult to edit as a whole. I propose to carry out a split (initially I think three parts will be enough) in the next few days. I have an idea how to do it: in particular to keep the A-Z table of contents in each alphabetic section and link to the appropriate page, so as to make moving around as easy as possible.
If there are strong objections, please say so now. Otherwise I'd like to try it out and then invite comments on whether this is the right way to do it; I think it's easier to comment on and improve pages that exist rather than an abstract description of how it could be done. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
First step I have now split off the entries for P–Z. I'd welcome comments on the way I've done it before I split off another third. (I think a split into three pages is enough for now.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I am now in the process of splitting each of the three pages into two, making six in all. Each was over 50kB. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
huh? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to adjust {{ Botanist}} to allow for two abbreviations? Please see Olav Johan Sopp#Botanist abbreviation for an example. I tried to deal with it, but it just doesn't look good or read well. I've also posted this message at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 08:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to include additional information in this list. [2] This is just the list of the botanists by author abbreviation, nothing more, and the additional information is not needed in order to locate an abbreviation or clarify an abbreviation. It should be removed and just be put in the father's and and son's articles. -- AfadsBad ( talk) 04:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Over the past few months, in relation to my work on Wikidata, I've been trying to increase the number of inline interlanguage links we use here on the English Wikipedia. I can go into my rationale for this if people are curious, but suffice it to say it's a hobby of mine to try to replace redlinks with {{ ill}}s, {{ ill2}}s, or {{ ill-WD}}s (the last of which I created). At the moment, you can see all three templates in action in the "a" section here. I don't consider this particularly controversial, since the templates benefit our multilingual readers (of whom there is a surprising a number), and are very easy to ignore for our monolingual ones; plus, Google Translate can do a decent job, and a machine-translated foreign article is better than nothing at all. However, User:Peter coxhead has raised the concern that my use of three different templates with three different parameter setups will make this confusing for editors, and especially for the offline tools that he occasionally uses to clean up formatting errors and inconsistencies, and he thus proposes that we only use {{ ill-WD}}. I'm certainly sensitive to his concerns, but, in the spirit of putting the reader first, I feel it makes the most sense to use all three ({{ ill}} for one link, {{ ill2}} for two or three, and {{ ill-WD}} for four or more). Hopefully, once T49930 is fixed, it'll be possible to make {{ ill-WD}} serve the purpose of all three, but, until then, I don't see any way around it. So, having reached a respectful impasse, Peter and I agreed it would be best to seek input from others. For the time being, I'm going to continue to use all three, but if there's a consensus that it's preferable to only use the one, then obviously I'll defer to that. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The A–C page (the first page) is now over 50 kB in size, so perhaps needs splitting, particularly for the benefit of those who view Wikipedia on a mobile device. Unfortunately, the B entries are the largest, so an equal split would involve something like A–BL and BM–C. Keeping the initial letters together, A–B and C is the best split.
Any views please? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The question was posed above of whether mycologists should be included in this list? Not sure if consensus was reached on this somewhere. If mycologists should not be included then perhaps the excellent List of mycologists could be prominently linked to from here, to assist those looking for an abbreviation but unsure of which side of the fence the author is on. Declan Declangi ( talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name? I don't see Luís Wittnich Carrisso on the list. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the reference section seems to occur twice on the list. Tried unsuccessfully to remove it - but did not want to fiddle too much with the template. Or is it just me who sees it ? DavidAnstiss ( talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
jaap vermeulen , orchidology, bulbophyllum [3] Pieter B. Pelser- Julie Barcelona- Leonard co — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabbustamante ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that the botanist author abbreviation pages are a wonderful resource and I feel very thankful that the effort was spent to put them together so well. Regularuk ( talk) 10:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I love this page. I like learning about the history of botany through authors. I add their details to the plant Speciesbox, and other appropriate places. But sometimes I do it wrong. I just copy the wiki heading name off the list and go John Smith|Smith. So far so good, but it may actually be John Smith (botanist)|Smith. I don't notice the difference on this page, only if I am researching more on the author and follow the links. May I request that where the correct wikipage is John Smith (botanist), or whatever, that we write it here for the lazy/ignorant editors such as myself. Thanks to all who have created this resource, well done. Brunswicknic ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
K.Rosenth. – Käthe Rosenthal (1893-?1943): Her life is recorded at IPNI as "1893-?1843", she published in 1916 and 1919, I presumed that 1843 is a typo for 1943, and I wonder if she died in a concentration camp. Brunswicknic ( talk) 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Would adding Bruce K. Holst be acceptable? See this reference for instance. -- Jeran Renz ( talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have ripped off the Italian Wikipedia article on the British botanist Mark James Elgar Coode. Never done it before, used another botanists page as template, google translated the Italian, and I pasted. But, problems, notes instead of <ref>, the authority box or whatever it is at the bottom and other stuff. Please, could someone fix what is wrong? Brunswicknic ( talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been finding more and more "Li" in biology articles, but the List and the surname page and this page didn't help much. Anybody have any ideas? Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
okay! Leomk ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)