This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchreiberBike/sandbox. |
J DED BH D
— A.
April 8, 2017
Should there be some direction for how authority names are formatted in short form, for instance I've seen "L. B. Prout" and "Prout L. B." and I've standardized on the former, but just because it is more common, not because I've seen a rule for it.
Similarly, is there guidance for when to just use a surname and when to use one or more initials? For instance there were two people named "Prout" who were authorities on Lepidoptera: "L. B. Prout" and "A. E. Prout". Should we never use "Prout" by itself?
WT:TOL
For instance, should a moth be under both Lepidoptera and insects? or should an ape be under both Primates and mammals?
I monitor a bunch of lists ranging from List of Lepidoptera of Albania to List of reptiles of the Recherche Archipelago. They are mostly quiet, but conflict comes up in five areas:
These ideas would apply to flora, flora, funga, etc.
Usually the consensus has been to include:
I've come up with the sentence below to add to such articles, but I'm open to suggestions.
This list includes all wild Lepidoptera species of Albania which maintain a self-sustaining population and which are extant or became locally extinct after 1500.
Of course the appropriate clade would be substituted for Lepidoptera and whatever place substituted for Albania. This would not include subspecies (it says species), humans or domestic species (it says wild).
Standard sentence for inclusion of List of organisms of place articles.
I just ran into the phrase fought with in an article and it wasn't initially clear if they "fought on the same side as" or "fought against". I've found the phrase used both ways.
Examples from the first page of search results for "fought with":
Should this be on a list of phrases to avoid? Should I search all these out and fix them? Or is there a better solution?
We have templates for variety of English and date format. I've imagined having a block at the top of articles which would establish usage of:
Should MOS:... say something about preceding and trailing ellipses? I often remove them (as here for example) where they are unnecessary. We know that a quote is only part of a larger work. The reader doesn't need a "..." to tell them there was something before or after the quote.
MOS:... now uses the example "He continued to pursue Smith ("...{{nbsp}}to the ends of the earth", he had sworn) until his own death.
". I'd say that ellipsis is unnecessary. What say you?
Additional notes from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A way of resolving "No consensus" - not used
I also found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 24#Consistency from 17 years ago which discussed flipping a coin to resolve problems which could not reach a consensus.
I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that in the past those who close RfCs often made difficult choices and resolved problems whereas recently a conclusion of "No consensus" means the closer does not choose to stick their neck out.
Recently someone asked why we use ... as an ellipsis instead of …. It was an arbitrary decision early in the history of Wikipedia. Neither is really better than the other, but a decision had to be made. There are a lot of things like that.
This will come up again. If there's a new RfC, what would be a good way to gain more useful data? Already it's occurred to me to search Google Books deeply in addition to the searches I did above.
This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchreiberBike/sandbox. |
J DED BH D
— A.
April 8, 2017
Should there be some direction for how authority names are formatted in short form, for instance I've seen "L. B. Prout" and "Prout L. B." and I've standardized on the former, but just because it is more common, not because I've seen a rule for it.
Similarly, is there guidance for when to just use a surname and when to use one or more initials? For instance there were two people named "Prout" who were authorities on Lepidoptera: "L. B. Prout" and "A. E. Prout". Should we never use "Prout" by itself?
WT:TOL
For instance, should a moth be under both Lepidoptera and insects? or should an ape be under both Primates and mammals?
I monitor a bunch of lists ranging from List of Lepidoptera of Albania to List of reptiles of the Recherche Archipelago. They are mostly quiet, but conflict comes up in five areas:
These ideas would apply to flora, flora, funga, etc.
Usually the consensus has been to include:
I've come up with the sentence below to add to such articles, but I'm open to suggestions.
This list includes all wild Lepidoptera species of Albania which maintain a self-sustaining population and which are extant or became locally extinct after 1500.
Of course the appropriate clade would be substituted for Lepidoptera and whatever place substituted for Albania. This would not include subspecies (it says species), humans or domestic species (it says wild).
Standard sentence for inclusion of List of organisms of place articles.
I just ran into the phrase fought with in an article and it wasn't initially clear if they "fought on the same side as" or "fought against". I've found the phrase used both ways.
Examples from the first page of search results for "fought with":
Should this be on a list of phrases to avoid? Should I search all these out and fix them? Or is there a better solution?
We have templates for variety of English and date format. I've imagined having a block at the top of articles which would establish usage of:
Should MOS:... say something about preceding and trailing ellipses? I often remove them (as here for example) where they are unnecessary. We know that a quote is only part of a larger work. The reader doesn't need a "..." to tell them there was something before or after the quote.
MOS:... now uses the example "He continued to pursue Smith ("...{{nbsp}}to the ends of the earth", he had sworn) until his own death.
". I'd say that ellipsis is unnecessary. What say you?
Additional notes from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A way of resolving "No consensus" - not used
I also found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 24#Consistency from 17 years ago which discussed flipping a coin to resolve problems which could not reach a consensus.
I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that in the past those who close RfCs often made difficult choices and resolved problems whereas recently a conclusion of "No consensus" means the closer does not choose to stick their neck out.
Recently someone asked why we use ... as an ellipsis instead of …. It was an arbitrary decision early in the history of Wikipedia. Neither is really better than the other, but a decision had to be made. There are a lot of things like that.
This will come up again. If there's a new RfC, what would be a good way to gain more useful data? Already it's occurred to me to search Google Books deeply in addition to the searches I did above.