User:AndrewT/GenusFormatting

From Wikispecies

Stapelianthus formatting:

1. . A.C. White, vs. A. C. White
2. . Link Choux multiple times? Link to pre-ex/post-in authors?
3. . Choux, in A.C. White or Choux in?
4. Use aut template for citation of author in the name section? Seen this done a few places, but not generally.
5. . Stapeliopsis-indicate "nom. illeg." (per my reference)? "junior homonym"? "nomenclatural synonym"? "later homonym" Most of the "synonyms" I've seen don't indicate why they are considered such.
6. . Handling dates. Use zoological style? Cite reference in name section? Cite reference in reference section (with or without a line reading something like "Date of effective publication: 1933" in the name section)
7. . Reference: invert first author? (not done for Panthera tigris-Asian name though, which makes it tough)
8. Foreign ref handling-invert Asian names? guidelines for tranliterating Cyrillic, etc.? Oh yeah, can use Cyrillic here. Is it ever appropriate to tranlate/transliterate? City names for book publications?
9. . Reference: Use full date if available (Oct. 2004)? Just year? Write out month if used, or use X, or Oct.?
10. . Reference: no period after journal title?
11. . Reference: no space between colon and page range?
12. . Provide exact page number [425] when citing a reference that is not the original description?
13. . Reference: abbreviate journal titles? promote standard reference for abbreviations? I'd deprecate abbreviations, but wouldn't go to too much trouble to write it out. Looks like practice here pretty strongly favors abbreviation.
14. . Cite synonym publication? How to handle this if cited? In references? Following synonym itself.
15. . Standardize formatting for books and journals?
16. . Italicize titles of journals and books?
17. . Author lists "and" vs "&"? Not used at all if more than 2 authors? (see ref in Panthera tigris)
18. . Double space after period (looks like no)
19. Templatize references????
20. . Formatting press and city for books? Any standard?
21. . Basionym? I'm inclined to set this appart (sub heading under synonymy?)
22. . Lecto/neotypification-set this apart somehow if applicable?
23. . Synonyms?Synonymy?other variants?
24. . How much of the typical monograph info should be presented? I want to do it all, but descriptive material probably better for the Dichotomous Key project. Original diagnosis is important taxonomically, but copyright issues? Photos aren't doing taxonomists much good, not sure why these are considered good for Wikispecies. Oroginal description would be more appropriate
25. . ISBN formatting-use dashes to split the blocks of numbers? See Panthera tigris for an ISBN (dash free, but most ISBNs on here uses dashes)
26. . ISSNs? Cite? Are there any used here? Is there a page a la ISBN to search for them?

Is it good practice to make templates for taxa I don't expect to have children (species with no infraspecific taxa)?

Species page format questions:

1. Ordering of information in name: Type locality precedes in Holotype in Lonchophylla orcesi. I'd be inclined to flip that. Where do Basionym, Holotype, Neo/Lectotype fit in
2. . Gah. Not sure if Bruyns and Klak are actually designating a lectotype. Sounds more like a neotype to me. If it is actually a neotype, should I deviate from what the authors say? Suspect most editors here don't read the codes and would just follow the publication. Per ICBN 9.9 and 9.10, lectotype seems correct. Neotypes must be pretty rare if illustrations from publication count (39.1, 1958 is the date of required illustration). ICZN considers the illustrated specimen the type, never the illustration itself, so this wouldn't apply.
3. . Any format for citing an illustration as the type? Might be the first to have done so, just following Bruyns and Klak here
4. . Translate "Planch" in type? Leave in French?
5. . Type locality? Pretty sure this is not an ICBN term. Citation of specimen includes locality as well as date, given as "Type" in B&K.
6. . Ugh. Cite missing Holotype as well? Guess I'll do so, following B&K (e.g., locality included in Holotype). Need to compare B&K's format to other refs
7. . No institution cited for Holotype. Hopefully will have that for another sp. of Stapelianthus.
8. . Would be nice to indicate that a ref is the original description.
9. . Would be nice to indicate what ref lectotypifies.
10. . Handling of journals with different series?
11. . In genus notes above, but date of publication? Use zoological format?
12. . IUCN. Well, no objections per se, but seems to be straying from the Charter
13. . R.Br. Madness. At least they've found an appropriate source, and I suppose slavishly following the source will cause less problems than leaving it open to interpreation.
14. . Type. Help:Name section gives a link to a page for the type repository, not this ridiculous Holotype page. That's the way to do it.
15. . Handling dates (see 5 in genus section above). Well, Help:Name section seems to be written from a zoological perspective, but at least that's a guideline.
16. Host/Substrata/Locality in Name section (and other taxa specific issues I might not be considering). Ordering information again. I don't think the / is what's actually intended, and something could easily have both a host and a locality (I think. Or do parasitologists only give host).
17. . Set basionym apart

Unassigned/Incertae sedis-need to look at this Systematic problems:

1. Eald Englisc. Is this a fucking joke? Why not have a Pig Latin, or Swedish Chef version too? (I've got no problem with constructed languages, or even moribund languages with 1 living speaker, but the only appropriate dead language here is Latin). God, I hope nobody is wasting time on an Old English Wikipedia. Heck, I came across an SCA wiki recently, and they don't write in Old English.
2. . Language highlights a larger problem. Seems like a good 25%+ of the edits here are adding vernaculars or images. Nothing wrong with that, and I gather part of the point to WS is tying into other wikimedia. But, there's something wrong when that is a large fraction of the edits. THis project is just about dead.
3. . This project is just about dead. Wikipedia might have more taxa (it probably does for plants, might not for animals). ToL project on Wikipedia is far more active, and what's worse, is deprecating WS. If Wikians overall aren't behind Wikispecies, it's dead.
4. . Wiki barrier for professionals. Insurmountable. Wikis have a bad rap, but I don't see that changing. Vandalism/lack of vetting is a very legitimate concern here. Village Pump had an admin citing vandalism revert rates on Wikipedia as a defense for Wikispecies. 4 minutes (or whatever) is NOT going to apply with the user base this small. No vetting going on here either. Everybody just does there own thing, and garbage stays up for years. (some guy had a bot that would be "taking all the colons out soon" 2 years or so ago-he left, never finished).
5. Knowledge base of editorship. Enthusastic amateurs, but there's clearly a lot who don't understand taxonomic practice and concepts (e.g., parens in basionym, Holotype: Lectotype). Any professional who comes by is gone.
6. . No feedback. Talk pages are dead. New users ask a question and leave discouraged
7. . Lack of citation
8. . Rank based issues. Mixed sourcing of ranks will turn some knowledgable people off (this is unavoidable though-ITIS has same issue). Use of ranks at all will turn off a lot of the age range (cladists) that would be editing wikipedia. Obsessing about ranks, and adding useless stuff like subgenera that just make navigation more difficult turns me off. Forget higher taxa, species are what needs to be done (yeah, obviously the structure of Wikispecies means ranks need to used)
9. (cont), mixed sourcing explained. Anybody attempting a full top down classification is inevitably going to piss off specialists in some group. Going bottom up, it'll never be a complete classification. Have to mix multiple bottom up approaches
10. . Useless ranks. Adding subgenera seems to be a symptom of the editor-base. Mostly computer types who like lots and lots of boxes to puts things in. Again, gets back to cladist debate. Cladist are the people doing the box thing in biology now, but they don't like rank based boxes (on the + side, WS probably has more taxa than ToL). Me, I don't like any more boxes than I need to do my job.
11. Lack of standards. Why hasn't this been hashed out already?
12. . Lack of tools (bots, reference templates)
13. . Attracting editors. Instructions are not userfriendly for non-Wikians. Main page isn't that hot. Need to highlight some good articles (and there need to be some good articles)