![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Discussion of a change in the template that sets off the author abbreviation for a botanist. Suggestion
The reason for the suggested change is that the involvement of a person in the publication of a botanical name may be in one of several ways. He need not have described the plant (or even seen the plant) and need not have published anything. He need not even be a botanist. In fact, the same list applies to names for fungi also: in which case it would be wrong to speak of a "plant". Also, author citation is used for names at any rank, so it may apply to a group of plants like a family rather than any single plant. Still, for whatever part he did play, he may be cited, and there is only the one list of standard abbreviations. By keeping the phrasing as neutral as possible none of these possible ways of involvement is excluded. Brya 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to do so, please edit the layout so that the template does not force across the full width of a page below an image, and thus create extensive white space (see e.g. Anders Sandoe Oersted (botanist)) - thanks, MPF 23:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this template supposed to be subst-ed? Ardric47 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is this "spoiler metadata"? This means that the sentence will not be included in print versions (append ?printable=yes or &printable=yes to the URL of an article using it and it disappears). There should be a better CSS class for this. Kusma (討論) 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this template redundant with the author_abbreviation_bot
option to {{
Infobox Scientist}}? True, most of the botanists this is used for don't yet have infoboxes, but it would seem to make more sense to use the existing format than to add a new template to all botanists.
grendel|
khan
16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
These authorities are for botanical names, they may not be botanists, but they are botanical names, so it should not be watered down to say nothing. Please change it to the line cited by Brya above and discuss any changes here first. This is the botanist template, not the any-taxon-in-the-world template. KP Botany 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As per the rules [1] I understand that the authority is appended to all plant taxa. Then, somebody called our attention in the discussion page, claiming that the same rule applies to animal taxa. Please, check it out. Jclerman 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the code specifically allows for dates in botanical names, however, this is not the change you made to the template, you changed it from botanical name to "taxon names" and a redirect to Botanical names. Why? What purpose does it serve to make the sentence ambiguous rather than straight forward? KP Botany 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This template should be deleted, unless somebody adds the proper documentation for the need to include parameter 2 and instructions on using it. This provides a sort key for the category which is added, and the ones without it are slopped together somewhere after Z in the listing.
For the sort keys,
The last name and other names are conventionally separated into quasi-fields by using a comma and a space. Use both of them, even if the sort order words are in the same order as in the article name (e.g., many of the Korean names on Wikipedia). Gene Nygaard ( talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[First four entries copied from User talk:Curtis Clark.]
Hi Curtis, This is an exploratory contact to find out how involved you are or were in the development of this template. I have written a number of articles on botanists and taxonomists and would like to propose some changes to the structure of the template. If I'm knocking at the wrong door, please let me know. ciao Rotational ( talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been an astounding response! Does anyone care or has it been a particularly long Easter weekend? Rotational ( talk) 07:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, what was the problem? Note that the pages for the botanists in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations who are sorted under '{' must be re-saved with a null edit for DEFAULTSORT to take effect (under my changes). I was doing this myself recently and everything was working fine.
« D. Trebbien ( talk) 14:53 2008 June 27 (UTC)
[[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations|{{{2}}}]]
, which automatically overrode the DEFAULTSORT to exactly {{{2}}}
(at least for
Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). Additionally, when no second parameter is specified, {{{2}}}
evaluates to "{{{2}}}", which is why there are botanists in the Category under '{'.[[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations|{{{2}}}]]
must go to [[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations]]
(inside an <includeonly/>
), and DEFAULTSORT is a requirement.This template includes a reference, which creates an error at the bottom of pages which don't have a reference section (like Ninzo Matsumura), and for some reason also on pages that use "reflist" instead of "references/" (like Augustin Pyramus de Candolle). It would be nice if this could be solved (and not by changing these two pages, but by solving the underlying problem obviously :-) ). Fram ( talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been documenting the issue: see
Help:Cite errors. This is a new update to cite.php. The error may be generated if the <references />
tag was not included at the end of the article, often included using {{
reflist}}; there are other ways to trigger this, see the help page.
The problem is that this template transcludes <ref>{{cite book}}</ref>. Simply add:
==References==
{{ reflist}}
at the end of the article to resolve the problem. I suggest updating the documentation, noting the error and the resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The template text says that "the template must be placed above the references section or" bad things happen. Because of this requirement, the "Botanists with author abbreviations" always shows up as the first item in the categories list. For people primarily known as botanists this is not a big deal, though there is an effort to always have the birth and death year categories first, e.g. for style conformity between articles. However, there are plenty of people, with a botanist abbreviation, who are botanist second, third, or last. A good example is Charles Darwin, whom few if any people would consider a botanist first and foremost. In other words, botanists are hogging the limelight. I suggest the template should not even create a visible category, as a link to the list of botanists by author abbreviation is already provided. An alternative is to fix it so that the template can be moved after the category listing. Afasmit ( talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
botanist}}
with {{
botanist-inline}}{{
Mergefrom|botanist-inline}}
I suggest these two be merged, since a parameter
inline=yes
could be provided to remove the blocking structure and leave just the sentence.
76.66.193.69 ( talk) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not certain why we need an inline version. I believe Hesperian's point at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 31#Template:Botanist-inline2 could be applied here as well. There does appear to be consensus (or at least good reason) not to use templates for article prose. So instead of making a switch for an inline version, we could take the objections to this template to heart and come to some agreement on a redesign or some other option. First we could start out with acknowledging the purpose of this template: explain the botanist abbreviation briefly, bold the author's abbreviation, make it stand out for easy recognition... Could these objectives be carried out in a better way? -- Rkitko ( talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have used 'inline' because it was a quick and dirty way of getting the titles Author citation (botany), List of botanists by author abbreviation, Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and the ref for Brummitt & Powell. I had assumed that the wording was the same as the consensus version in {{ Botanist}}, discovering otherwise has reinforced my prejudice regarding templates of this kind. I have used this template to grab its contents in preview, then add them to the article in a way that can be 'edited by anyone'. I wonder why is it necessary to isolate the information with a boxed version, the emboldened target of redirects and dabs should be in the body of the article. cygnis insignis 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed, since {{ botanist-inline}} has been deleted. Debresser ( talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
botanist-inline}}
on TfDFYI, {{
botanist-inline}}
has been nominated for deletion.
70.29.213.241 (
talk)
05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The automatic citation (Brummitt & Powell, 1992) is problematic as some author abbreviations are more recent and wouldn't have appeared there, e.g. Stewart McPherson (geographer). mgiganteus1 ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This includes a ref so cannot be placed after the reflist. Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Is there any reason this template retains the old "spoiler warning" style? Why does it need grey lines surrounding it? Wouldn't it work just as well if it were a simple inline template rather than a div with borders around it? Frankly I think it looks a bit odd in most articles. Kaldari ( talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Discussion of a change in the template that sets off the author abbreviation for a botanist. Suggestion
The reason for the suggested change is that the involvement of a person in the publication of a botanical name may be in one of several ways. He need not have described the plant (or even seen the plant) and need not have published anything. He need not even be a botanist. In fact, the same list applies to names for fungi also: in which case it would be wrong to speak of a "plant". Also, author citation is used for names at any rank, so it may apply to a group of plants like a family rather than any single plant. Still, for whatever part he did play, he may be cited, and there is only the one list of standard abbreviations. By keeping the phrasing as neutral as possible none of these possible ways of involvement is excluded. Brya 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to do so, please edit the layout so that the template does not force across the full width of a page below an image, and thus create extensive white space (see e.g. Anders Sandoe Oersted (botanist)) - thanks, MPF 23:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this template supposed to be subst-ed? Ardric47 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is this "spoiler metadata"? This means that the sentence will not be included in print versions (append ?printable=yes or &printable=yes to the URL of an article using it and it disappears). There should be a better CSS class for this. Kusma (討論) 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this template redundant with the author_abbreviation_bot
option to {{
Infobox Scientist}}? True, most of the botanists this is used for don't yet have infoboxes, but it would seem to make more sense to use the existing format than to add a new template to all botanists.
grendel|
khan
16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
These authorities are for botanical names, they may not be botanists, but they are botanical names, so it should not be watered down to say nothing. Please change it to the line cited by Brya above and discuss any changes here first. This is the botanist template, not the any-taxon-in-the-world template. KP Botany 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As per the rules [1] I understand that the authority is appended to all plant taxa. Then, somebody called our attention in the discussion page, claiming that the same rule applies to animal taxa. Please, check it out. Jclerman 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the code specifically allows for dates in botanical names, however, this is not the change you made to the template, you changed it from botanical name to "taxon names" and a redirect to Botanical names. Why? What purpose does it serve to make the sentence ambiguous rather than straight forward? KP Botany 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This template should be deleted, unless somebody adds the proper documentation for the need to include parameter 2 and instructions on using it. This provides a sort key for the category which is added, and the ones without it are slopped together somewhere after Z in the listing.
For the sort keys,
The last name and other names are conventionally separated into quasi-fields by using a comma and a space. Use both of them, even if the sort order words are in the same order as in the article name (e.g., many of the Korean names on Wikipedia). Gene Nygaard ( talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[First four entries copied from User talk:Curtis Clark.]
Hi Curtis, This is an exploratory contact to find out how involved you are or were in the development of this template. I have written a number of articles on botanists and taxonomists and would like to propose some changes to the structure of the template. If I'm knocking at the wrong door, please let me know. ciao Rotational ( talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been an astounding response! Does anyone care or has it been a particularly long Easter weekend? Rotational ( talk) 07:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, what was the problem? Note that the pages for the botanists in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations who are sorted under '{' must be re-saved with a null edit for DEFAULTSORT to take effect (under my changes). I was doing this myself recently and everything was working fine.
« D. Trebbien ( talk) 14:53 2008 June 27 (UTC)
[[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations|{{{2}}}]]
, which automatically overrode the DEFAULTSORT to exactly {{{2}}}
(at least for
Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). Additionally, when no second parameter is specified, {{{2}}}
evaluates to "{{{2}}}", which is why there are botanists in the Category under '{'.[[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations|{{{2}}}]]
must go to [[Category:Botanists with author abbreviations]]
(inside an <includeonly/>
), and DEFAULTSORT is a requirement.This template includes a reference, which creates an error at the bottom of pages which don't have a reference section (like Ninzo Matsumura), and for some reason also on pages that use "reflist" instead of "references/" (like Augustin Pyramus de Candolle). It would be nice if this could be solved (and not by changing these two pages, but by solving the underlying problem obviously :-) ). Fram ( talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been documenting the issue: see
Help:Cite errors. This is a new update to cite.php. The error may be generated if the <references />
tag was not included at the end of the article, often included using {{
reflist}}; there are other ways to trigger this, see the help page.
The problem is that this template transcludes <ref>{{cite book}}</ref>. Simply add:
==References==
{{ reflist}}
at the end of the article to resolve the problem. I suggest updating the documentation, noting the error and the resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The template text says that "the template must be placed above the references section or" bad things happen. Because of this requirement, the "Botanists with author abbreviations" always shows up as the first item in the categories list. For people primarily known as botanists this is not a big deal, though there is an effort to always have the birth and death year categories first, e.g. for style conformity between articles. However, there are plenty of people, with a botanist abbreviation, who are botanist second, third, or last. A good example is Charles Darwin, whom few if any people would consider a botanist first and foremost. In other words, botanists are hogging the limelight. I suggest the template should not even create a visible category, as a link to the list of botanists by author abbreviation is already provided. An alternative is to fix it so that the template can be moved after the category listing. Afasmit ( talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
botanist}}
with {{
botanist-inline}}{{
Mergefrom|botanist-inline}}
I suggest these two be merged, since a parameter
inline=yes
could be provided to remove the blocking structure and leave just the sentence.
76.66.193.69 ( talk) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not certain why we need an inline version. I believe Hesperian's point at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 31#Template:Botanist-inline2 could be applied here as well. There does appear to be consensus (or at least good reason) not to use templates for article prose. So instead of making a switch for an inline version, we could take the objections to this template to heart and come to some agreement on a redesign or some other option. First we could start out with acknowledging the purpose of this template: explain the botanist abbreviation briefly, bold the author's abbreviation, make it stand out for easy recognition... Could these objectives be carried out in a better way? -- Rkitko ( talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have used 'inline' because it was a quick and dirty way of getting the titles Author citation (botany), List of botanists by author abbreviation, Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and the ref for Brummitt & Powell. I had assumed that the wording was the same as the consensus version in {{ Botanist}}, discovering otherwise has reinforced my prejudice regarding templates of this kind. I have used this template to grab its contents in preview, then add them to the article in a way that can be 'edited by anyone'. I wonder why is it necessary to isolate the information with a boxed version, the emboldened target of redirects and dabs should be in the body of the article. cygnis insignis 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed, since {{ botanist-inline}} has been deleted. Debresser ( talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
botanist-inline}}
on TfDFYI, {{
botanist-inline}}
has been nominated for deletion.
70.29.213.241 (
talk)
05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The automatic citation (Brummitt & Powell, 1992) is problematic as some author abbreviations are more recent and wouldn't have appeared there, e.g. Stewart McPherson (geographer). mgiganteus1 ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This includes a ref so cannot be placed after the reflist. Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Is there any reason this template retains the old "spoiler warning" style? Why does it need grey lines surrounding it? Wouldn't it work just as well if it were a simple inline template rather than a div with borders around it? Frankly I think it looks a bit odd in most articles. Kaldari ( talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)