Template talk:Botanist/Archive 1

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


 * The standard author abbreviation  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. &lt; Karlww ( contribs 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 request
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 &lt;center&gt; 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)

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.

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)

Redundant?
Is this template redundant with the  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)

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)

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 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)
 * 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. 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)

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)

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)

Using DEFAULTSORT versus a second parameter
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)


 * Please read this section. I had argued the same way you did, but Gene Nygaard disagreed, and at some point convinced me. I'll have to go back and review the issue, and you might want to bring Gene Nygaard back into the discussion as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, both of you seem certain that your way is the best. What I want is a method that correctly sorts the list without DEFAULTSORT having to be manually added to every page that contains the template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. However, when I checked approximately 20 botanist articles in the Category, all had DEFAULTSORTs. Also, there is no way to generate a sort key from the title, as there are too many possibilities. For example, José Antonio Molina Rosito prefers to write his last name as "Molina R."
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 20:35 2008 June 29 (UTC)


 * I think all three of us (I left a notice on Gene Nygaard's talk page, but he hasn't responded yet) agree that the article title never generates a good sort key by itself, and there is no way to generate one algorithmically that will always be correct (the /doc page talks about this as well). It seems to me there are only two approaches: always insert a sort key as a second parameter, as Nygaard suggests, or always place a DEFAULTSORT, as you suggest. When the parameter existed and was omitted, it evidently wasn't always rectified by a DEFAULTSORT. I'm concerned that, even without a parameter 2, if the template were inserted above the DEFAULTSORT (which is likely, given the way it is used), it wouldn't sort properly. Have you tested this?


 * Given that DEFAULTSORTs are always desirable for biographical articles, your solution would seem to be the best if it consistently works, and if there aren't too many articles that include it that also lack DEFAULTSORT.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I am suggesting always using the DEFAULTSORT, not "[placing] a DEFAULTSORT". (I am sure you meant this.)
 * I just tested whether DEFAULTSORT works if placed after Categories and it does. (See User:Dtrebbien/Sandbox and Category:Sandbox. Thus, placing botanist before (above) the DEFAULTSORT will cause no problems.)
 * Note that the reason why omitting parameter 2 does not allow DEFAULTSORT to take over is that the template's markup had, which automatically overrode the DEFAULTSORT to exactly   (at least for Category:Botanists with author abbreviations). Additionally, when no second parameter is specified,   evaluates to "  ", which is why there are botanists in the Category under '{'.
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize now that when you wrote "always place a DEFAULTSORT", you meant always placing a DEFAULTSORT in the article. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So if I understand correctly, a DEFAULTSORT placed in its usual position with the categories (which is almost invariably after the placement of botanist) will always correctly specify the sort if there is no second parameter in the template? If the second parameter is eliminated from the template, what happens to all the instances where it is used? (I assume it is ignored.) If by making this change, it will only break instances where the article lacks a DEFAULTSORT, I support the change, and will rewrite the /doc to make clear that DEFAULTSORT in the article is a requirement, not an option. Let me know.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct.  must go to   (inside an  ), and DEFAULTSORT is a requirement.
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

References in templates give errors in some articles
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)


 * That seems to be a factor of the ref tags themselves. It must be a relatively new error, since I've never seen the error on pages with ref tags and no references section. I don't see one on Augustin Pyramus de Candolle, but it could be showing up on some platforms because the template is placed below the references section, which is inadvisable. See if that solves the second problem. As for the first, I don't know that there's anyway to solve that except for including a references section on pages that lack it or removing the reference from the template. --Rkitko (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the second one: error is "Cite error: tags exist, but no tag was found", and platform is Firefox 3.0. Fram (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's odd. I'm using Firefox 3.0.5 and I don't see the error on Candolle's article. Still, I moved the template on that page so that the reference will show in the reflist. Do you still see the error now? --Rkitko (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it is gone on that page, so let's consider that one resolved. The first problem still exist, and I feel that it is up to the template to solve it, as that is the one causing the problem (most editors will have a hard time finding out where the error comes from, since there are no "ref" tags in the edit box of the article). Fram (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I already said, I don't think there's anything this template can do about it. It seems that there was a recent change in the cite.php structure on errors so that it could detect this and alert people. The fact is that the error is present for a reason. The only solution is to add reflist or to the pages where you see the error. The other alternative is to gut the reference from the template, which is not a solution I like. I think the error message is clear enough that editors can figure out what's causing it. --Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. John William Heslop-Harrison just lost its template, apparently in an attempt to fix the ref error. Rl (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've fixed the template on that article and have asked for some input at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. This new error code seems to be more trouble than its initial worth, perhaps. --Rkitko (talk) 22:41, 3 February 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 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. 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)


 * Using CatScan to check for the intersection of Category:Botanists and Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references generates a list of pages with the error: . --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to catscan - hadn't known about that before. I knew everything else and had already updated the documentation. I also just took the time to fix all the broken refs on those articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing this. I just came across (and corrected) another one, Michael Zohary... Fram (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems as if the error categories are still being propagated, so we'll find more as we go along. Check the catscan link given by Gadget850 above. I emptied it the other day, but it has more listings in it now. I'll check back with it periodically to fix those that show up. --Rkitko (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Special:Statistics. With the current job queue at 1.4 million, it may take weeks to for this to fully propagate. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Placement
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)


 * The only way to "fix" the template so that it can be placed after the references is to remove the reference, which I don't think anyone would lobby for. I honestly don't think the order of categories is such a big deal. Are there any MOS guidelines on this? If anything, readers will just gloss over the categories they're not interested in. Ideally, yes, the category would be in the correct spot, but removing the reference so that the template can be placed elsewhere isn't the right way to go. I've never been a fan of the template at the very bottom of the article, either. Maybe others would like to chime in? --Rkitko (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If Darwin had touched nothing in his lifetime but the plants he touched and wrote about he would still be considered one of the leading biologists of his or any time, for the contributions he made to plant ecology. Indeed, Darwin was a grand botanist.  His theory of evolution via natural selection may overshadow this factoid, but, indeed, Darwin was a botanist.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

merge with 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)


 * If you can implement that, I'd support the merger.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Try out:
 * Template talk:Botanist/sandbox
 * and
 * Template talk:Botanist/testcases
 * 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "inline" version is not truly inline; it's still wrapped in its own paragraph tag. I left the mess on the testcases page so you can see what I mean.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone better at template coding than I will have to take a look at it... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone can point me to the "else" syntax, I know how to fix it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not certain why we need an inline version. I believe Hesperian's point at Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 31 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, too, see no point in an inline version, but I see even less point in a separate inline version.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger I like this template and the wording. I do not like the wording for the inline template which I agree is unneeded. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 8 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 TfD
FYI, has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_16 is to substitute and delete the template. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate citation
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)


 * If that's the case, we should allow this to be switched off via a parameter. SP-KP (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or we could just add a general IPNI reference (or switch them). But as I understand it, the Brummitt & Powell reference lays the ground rules for author abbreviations and lists all known at that time. The database at IPNI is seen as an extension of this reference. I'm partial to replacing the Brummitt ref with IPNI, since this is likely where all of our information actually comes from, anyway. --Rkitko (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've taken a stab at it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref
This includes a ref so cannot be placed after the reflist. Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC).


 * This is a known issue and is mentioned in the documentation. Rkitko (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Styling
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)