Talk:List of authors of South African botanical taxa

[Untitled]
The problem with this list is that these authors appear to be going exclusively on this list, not on the List of botanists by author abbreviation also. Why is it necessary to exclude South African botanical authors from the list of botanists by author abbreviation? Having a single list of authorities for botanical names is useful, if it is then decentralized by nationalities, this forces users to seek the nationality of the author when adding to the list. What is the justification for putting all South African botanical authorities in their own list only, or some in their own and some in both? And for splitting this list off from the main list? How does this benefit users of Wikipedia seeking general botanical information to have to now search two lists? KP Botany 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When I compiled this list it was done from sources outside WP, and not "split off" from any larger WP list, so there was no decision to exclude the South African authors from any larger set. If any editors wants to update one list from the other, they are, of course, free to do so. Paul venter 06:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not my concern, that you split off from a larger list outside of Wikipedia, my concern is that on Wikipedia, we now have plant botanical authors in two places. Those from all over the world and some from South Africa on one list, and some of the South African ones on their own list without being on the main list.  Users who are interested in the South African ones can go there, that's fine, but can you simply add them to both lists when you add to the South Africa list and ask others to do the same?  Otherwise, additional editors may decide only to put them on the South Africa list, which makes it difficult for users who might think that a list of botanical authors was not exclusive of those from one single country.
 * If this list is on Wikipedia, I think that it cannot be an option, but rather only an addition, names go on both lists, not only on this one if they're South African, and the other if they're from anywhere else in the world. Also the name should be in agreement with the name of the primary list.  KP Botany 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced. The situation you describe is common on Wikipedia - to belabour one category, you find Botanists, British botanists, English botanists, Scottish botanists, Irish botanists. There are sets and subsets, sometimes with an enormous overlap, and the rationale for this is that editors and users all have pet interests. Ideally it would be nice to have thousands of editors cross-indexing frantically, but practically that's not going to happen except through the medium of intelligent robot software. A partial solution, although not ideal, is to note the existence of similar lists on the page as a "see also" item (which was done for the South African list on the global list). If you see an easy solution to the problem, then please suggest it. Oh another thing - the naming of the South African list was quite a headache since it was not a list of botanists (many of them were taxonomists, explorers, collectors etc; also the authors were not all South African (they came from all over the place). The idea was to cover all authors who had named South African plants - if you have a better name, please let me know. Cheers,  Paul venter 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the bot is the easier solution, however, for now, could you put a note requesting all entries be added to the primary list, and simply add them to the primary list when you add them to this list?  Yeah, the intent of the list is what is really problematic, because I'm guessing there are few botanists or taxonomists who named only South African Plants, atlhough probably some specialists.  I was hoping you had simply not considered the name and could easily come up with an alternative more in line with the other article's title, because, no I don't see a better one, but it does not seem quite right.  KP Botany 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is Richard Salisbury (Salisb): He named dozens of Proteaceae, as well as other plants in the Iridaceae, Crassulaceae, Ericaceae and others amounting to over 400 names.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.55.117 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When you notice something is missing, just add it (with a reference if possible). &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Title
The title of this list doesn't make sense. "South African plant botanical authors"? What exactly does that mean? If I didn't know it lists authors of botanical names from South Africa, I wouldn't have a clue what is this about just from looking at the title. Because the title is supposed to convey a clear information about the content (and not let the reader guess whether it lists authors of plants (genetic engineers?)), I suggest to rephrase it as "List of South African botanists by author abbreviation" or "List of South African authors of botanical names". --Yerpo (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the title is confusing, but the listed authors are not all South African, the plants are South African. Perhaps List of authors of South African botanical taxa? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections or alternative suggestions by the end of November I intend to make the move. Please ping me with replies. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been no comments, and specifically no objections, so I will go ahead with the move as uncontroversial. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)