Template talk:Botanist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of a change in the template that sets off the author abbreviation for a botanist. Suggestion

The standard author abbreviation {{{1}}} may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name.

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)

I'm in favor of the change; everything Brya says is correct. It's also more succinct.--Curtis Clark 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2 years on, is there a reason this didn't happen? I've just seen this template in an article and it didn't look right or even make that much sense to me, this suggested version seems much better.<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the history to be sure, but I believe it was changed to exactly that, and subsequently changed several more times.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Note how pic forces botanist tag to bottom of page leaving huge white space (desired position indicated by coloured arrows)

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)

Looks fine to me, MPF. Could it be a browser issue? Or has it already been fixed? (a screenshot taken right before this post) -Rkitko 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be an Internet Explorer issue (it looks fine in Firefox). I don't see anything immediately problematic about the HTML, but I'll look closer.--Curtis Clark 03:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It had an extra included div, which is evidently the way Wikipedia deals with making the <center> tag valid XHTML. I moved the centering to an in-line style and now it seems to work. Let me know if there are still problems.--Curtis Clark 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Super, works perfectly now, thanks! - MPF 07:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution

Why is this template supposed to be subst-ed? Ardric47 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I un-subst it wherever I find it, as subst'ing is against the purpose of a template like this.

[edit] Metadata

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)

[edit] Redundant?

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)

[edit] Botanical names

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)

[edit] taxa nomenclature

Changes to Template:Botanist. As it stands at this, the wording makes no reference to botanist, botanical, or plant, so the implication is that it could refer to taxa in any code of nomenclature. I'm not sure where you're headed with your changes, and in general I like them, so I wanted to bring it to your attention rather than try to change it.--Curtis Clark 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As per the rules [1] I understand that the authority is appended to all plant taxa. Then, somebody called our atention in the discussion page, claiming that the same rule applies to animal taxa. Please, check it out. Jclerman 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My memory is that the authorities for animal taxa are not abbreviated, hence "Linnaeus" rather than "L.". I'm not aware of the same level of standardization as exists for the botanical abbreviations. At any rate, the name is Template:Botanist, and if it is to represent all authorities, perhaps the name should be changed.--Curtis Clark 23:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think animal authorities are abbreviated, and animal authorities also include dates with them. Thanks Curtis.[2] KP Botany 01:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Botanical names frequently also include reference and its date. Jclerman 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A full taxonomic citation for either plants or animalshould include a date and the publication, however, the usual system is "author date, with parenthesis possible," for animals, and "auth." or "(auth.) someone" for plants.Circeus 03:51, 5 July 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)

Either it's a template for ICBN names, or it isn't. I, for one, believe there needs to be a template for ICBN names: ICZN authorities are not abbreviated and not as well standardized (and I don't remember how the bacteriological code handles authorities), so the statement "standard author abbreviation" is meaningless for zoological names. If you'd like a separate template for zoological names, by all means create one, but please leave this one unambiguously useful.--Curtis Clark 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

May I agree that the template be restricted to botanical authors and also suggest that the wording "The standard author abbreviation Levyns is used to indicate this individual as the author when citing a botanical name." be changed to something less stilted e.g. The standard abbreviation Levyns is used for this botanical author. and perhaps not be bounded by two lines. Whether the template is justified at all is another moot point, my feeling being that the abbreviation could readily be included in the body of the text. It's not an excessively important bit of information, though the present treatment seems to make it appear so. Raasgat 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing documentation--parameter 2

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,

1. you need to use proper name order for sorting (last name first, and for these cases the abbreviation used is a clue as to what to use for last name), with things like "Jr." at the end and not between last name and given name, and
2. you need to strip all diacritics using nothing but the 26 letters of the English alphabet (first one always uppercase)

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)

I think "should be deleted" is rather extreme, since hundreds of pages include it. It would be better to fix it, but it does not function exactly as you describe (or rather what you describe is a subset of its behavior). I spent some time looking at the names listed under "{" on Category:Botanists with author abbreviations, and some of the properly categorized ones (end of "S" through "Z") on the same page. Indeed some of the properly categorized ones include the second parameter, but some don't. At this point it seems that correctly sorted names have the DEFAULTSORT template immediately after this template, with no intervening text. Some of the entries in "{" also have DEFAULTSORT, but it seems always to be separated from this template by text. I'd appreciate it if others could verify.

I agree that we need to document the use of the second parameter, but we also need to figure out its interaction with DEFAULTSORT.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed enough of them to know what was going on there. The properly sorted ones which did not include that parameter in the template included an explicit addition of Category:Botanists with author abbreviations below the template. That listing either had its own sort key listed or used a DEFAULTSORT key. Only the last listing of a category on the page shows up in the category listing, using its sort key. That's all that was going on there. Each article will only appear once in each category, earlier listings are ignored.

Redirects can be categorized, however; they now appear in italics in the category listings. That should be done in some cases when the articles name would ordinarily sort in a different place, as I have done with the redirect you can see by looking in the category for "Carolus Clusius" (whose abbreviation is "Clus.") indexed as Clusius, Carolus. But just using that as parameter 2 here would result in an odd-looking, apparently out of place listing at that location in the category. It is best in those cases to categorize the redirect. In this particular case, you could also quibble about whether the main article itself should appear under the letter "D" or the letter "L" or the letter "E" in the category.

So the documentation only needs to include adding the information on what parameter 2 does and how to add it. Maybe a mention that if you do so, the category doesn't need to be added again, but don't dwell on that too much.

I've noticed that most of the templates have now gone to a separate documentation page which is transcluded on the template page, so that the documentation page can be edited without danger of inadvertent editing of the template page. I don't know all the details of accomplishing that so would rather not attempt it, but you could just still add some documentation to the existing template page without using that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Edit away at Template:Botanist/doc.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An in-line version?

[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)

I didn't develop the template, but I've made some major contributions to it. I'd be interested to know what you propose.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - the main problem I have with the present form of the template, is its being bounded by the two lines. This means that it can't form part of the body of the text. Was there a reason for this structure? Rotational (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that many editors expect and even want it to be in a separate div, and certainly if it were converted to have inline properties, all the non-substed instances (which would be almost every use, since the instructions don't say to subst it) would break article layout.

But I do see your point. It would be trivial to make a separate inline template, but then there would likely be content forking as they were independently edited. A way around that would be to transclude the inline into the shell of the current one, but there are evidently limits on how deeply transcludes can be nested.

I'm copying this to Template talk:Botanist so others can weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for a lack of response from the editors who are interested parties, is the absence of a system whereby certain interest groups can be notified of anything that merits their attention....... One solution would be to unilaterally change the template and await the outcry. Rotational (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just revert it.

I'll post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:53, 25 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)

I suspect that there were only two other editors besides me who had an interest in the page, and they have both left Wikipedia. I'll make the inline template later today, transclude it in the existing one, and test.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the existing template, but see no problem with an inline version. I have suggested in the past also consulting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, as the biography project might be more interested in botanist articles that the Plants Project. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Template:Botanist-inline. If you're satisfied, I'll transclude it (and fix the doc link so both refer to the same doc).--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)