User:Stanskis/User:Stanskis/Own Sandbox

The Mandrill and the Dog's Dinner
I appreciate the huge ongoing effort to maximise the use of Taxoboxes, but, taxonomically, the wording is still a bit of a dog's dinner - as on the Mandrill and genus Mandrillus pages. These are discussed above, including Gdr's quote from George Wald, and his conclusion, "...that types may be [a] bit too technical to put in the taxoboxes". This word "type" is part of a huge legal imbroglio, as I explain above.

I've posted some advice; apparently it's indigestable. Sorry; consult the ICZN manual and advanced primers, and try again. Or, can we take a few points at a time, initially those mistakes in the Mandrill Taxobox that I class as simply wrong - on the assumption that they are intended to convey taxonomy in a conventional and helpful way, but are not doing so. I will not change these in the Taxoboxes, at least until I get strong support form you editors that the points have been sorted satisfactorily.

First "wrong":

On the Mabdrillus page: cf, < Ritgen, 1824 versus Ritgen, 1824. There are 3 items here, 1) "Ritgen" is a man who created a college for midwives; 2) "1824" is the year that foretold ooooo, and 3) "Ritgen, 1824" is a literature reference relevant to the taxonomy of Mandrillus. Which do you choose to use.

Note: 1) to be good taxonomy, in a non-technical encyclopedia, it would not he it is not wrong to omit any reference to the naming authority, original (as here) or current (if different).

Note 2) good taxonomy would not require that there be a link to the full bibliographic reference to which Ritgen,1824 points.

Note: 3)The users of this information must have confidence in the correctness of the whole species reference < Mandrillus, Ritgen, 1824 >, or, equally, in just  with this usage implying that this is a genus in current use for one or more species for which it forms one part of the binomen. Only if there is uncertainty or current dispute about which bibliographic reference is the correct one, is it necessary to use, and defend (ie, solve the problem) the use of a reference.

The Mandrill page still contains several mistakes that are taxonomically confused, confusing or unnecessary.