User:Steveprutz/Sandbox

Tasks
This is for creation of a hatnote for COMMON NAMES of herpetofauna with >2 vernacular (English) names. Original idea credited to User:Jwinius.

Concept
or
 *  a.k.a. eastern coral snake  (if article is titled one of the common names)

Example concepts

 * Micrurus fulvius (at top)
 * User:Jwinius/Style/Intro3

Requirements

 * ability to use inline citations (e.g. )

Hurdles

 * What if the article is already titled by common name? Should the hatnote read "Other common names:..."?

Common names template?
I've seen a "common names hatnote" at the top of a handful of herp articles. Example -- ":Common names: eastern coral snake,[1] common coral snake, American cobra,[2] more."

...Does anyone else think this is a good idea to add to every article? StevePrutz (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When the reptile/amphibian in question has a lot of common names (≥3), yes, I'd say it would be good to implement some sort of template. bibliomaniac15 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * An example would be Agkistrodon piscivorus. This is a solution I originally came up with in 2006 to solve a number of problems with the snake articles that I work on. First, snake species often have so many common names that listing them all in the usual manner can make an introduction look rather awkward. Second, I remembered a complaint that when a scientific name is used for an article title, it was not possible to find a common name as quickly in the introduction (conversely, if one common name is selected for the title, it can be assumed that readers will have similar trouble finding any of the others). So, inspired by a book that I own, I experimented with a list of a few common names at the very top of some articles, terminated it with a link ("more") to a separate "Common names" section in cases where there were more than could fit on a single line. It seemed to work and soon two such articles even had GA status, the format not being seen as a great departure from MoS guidelines. The current form was even somebody else's idea, so I can no longer even take total credit for the solution, but the result is still that one or more common names can be found more quickly than before, while allowing the introduction to be reserved for a more relevant and descriptive summary of the article. Currently, some 500 snake articles share this format. --Jwinius (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be a good name and format for the template? ? StevePrutz (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The name sounds okay, but how much of the current concept are you planning to duplicate with this template? And, would this still work with the inline references (footnotes)? --Jwinius (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)