User talk:2607:FCC8:E84B:4700:9D6C:48A0:E8A6:643D

Botanical authorities
The botanical authorities you have been changing were all in accordance with the standards used here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Always use the standard abbreviation as per IPNI. Surnames are ambiguous; the standard abbreviation is not.
 * Dates are not used with botanical (ICNafp) authorities as opposed to zoological (ICZN) ones.

Reply: This is not botanical or taxonomic literature. Lot of non-botanists use these articles. Unexplained abbreviations and purposeful deletion of useful info. is not what a reference is supposed to be. Referring to "standards" is not sufficient justification for such user-unfriendliness. Just sayin'.
 * It's not "user unfriendly" if there is a wikilink that takes the reader to the right page. If you find an authority in a taxobox without a wikilink, do please add one. You can use lists starting at List of botanists by author abbreviation (A) to find the title of the article. The problem with just using surnames is that they are ambiguous; "L." and "L.f." are unambiguous, "Linnaeus" is not. We follow the international codes of nomenclature.
 * They aren't "references" – all authorities in taxoboxes should be referenced to a reliable secondary source, although they often aren't, unfortunately.
 * The real point is that there are long established conventions here that, when followed, ensure consistency. If you don't agree with the convention, then register for an account and start a discussion, e.g. at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)