Help talk:Reference section

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ongoing discussion[edit]

There's a discussion for a new idea about the references section at: Wikispecies:Village Pump#Pages for taxon sources?. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kempm (talkcontribs) 09:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

How to mark a reference as doubtful?[edit]

As a newcomer I miss information or a link to how one marks a reference as doubtful, when the original reference is not there. -- Slaunger 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


If you have one author you wright Razowski, Józef Are there more than you wright Razowski, Józef & Janusz Wojtusiak This is international standard


PeterR 06:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Removed the statement "volume numbers bold" from the references citation guidelines. This appears to have been inserted without consultation here, and is a format which is hardly ever used by other scientific publications (I'd say I see it used in less than 5% of biological journals). If people want to put the volume number in bold they can if they wish, but it is nonsensical to make it a requirement. - MPF 11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

et al[edit]

Do you ever ever use "et al" in taxonomic references? Rocket000 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Primate taxonomy[edit]

I don't know if anyone is even monitoring this page, but I would like some opinions on how best to handle strepsirrhine taxonomy. Currently we use the taxonomy by Groves (2005) from MSW3 on Wikispecies, however, that taxonomy is generally not used any more and was based more on morphology. Unfortunately, no one has really dared to write anything formal about primate taxonomy that covers the infraorders and superfamilies. Indeed, primate taxonomy is notoriously disputed. I tried to discuss this on Wikipedia's Strepsirrhini article.

We probably shouldn't be using Groves' taxonomy, but I since no one else has published a source that discusses primate taxonomy at this level—one that meets this page's criteria for a trustworthy source—it seems like we're stuck. On Wikipedia, I made a strong argument for going with a popular taxonomy that is usable by both primatologists and paleoanthropologists published by Cartmill in a chapter called Primates Classification and Diversity in Primate Neuroethology (2010). Unfortunately, he does not give the taxonomic authorities for the different ranks or cite sources. However, this is the best, recent primate classification publication that I've found... and I do a lot of searching. Under any other taxonomy, you get into problems with incorrect generalizations about strepsirrhine primates, often due to an over-emphasis on living species and the lack of a clade name for lemurs and lorises (to the exclusion of adapiforms). Thoughts? Maky (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Maky, my thoughts are that Cartmill's treatment is very well thought out and explained. I imagine that you can find authorities for the various levels of his classification elsewhere. If he were actually making new names here, he would surely have to fix and define them. I only work in a small area of Lepidoptera, so major structurings like this do not come around very often. I think there is a good case for applying Cartmill if you can source the additional data needed. It seems more tractable that sticking with Groves. Accassidy (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I assume that by sourcing the additional data, you mean providing sources for the authorities? If so, I can work on that. (I need them for the Wikipedia articles I plan to write for them anyway.) Or are you talking about higher taxonomy, all the way up to Superregnum? Please let me know what I need. Also, if you can point me to a "perfect" taxon entry (with the latest templates and following the preferred layout), I'll do my best to model after that. Maky (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Good that you maintain your interest. We need more conscientious editors. Have a look at this page. You will see hat the higher levels of the classification, above Family, have been hidden for brevity. If you click on Expand at the top line you will see a lot of superior clades. If you go to these you will see various citations for authorities of the higher taxonomy. For most people who are interested in butterflies, the higher taxa/authorities are a bit of unnecessary detail - "everyone knows what a butterfly is"!!! Each level in the classification has a Template that means that changes made in the higher taxonomy can then appear on all subordinate taxa if the modification is done at the Template, not the page itself. So, if I wanted to move a species to a different genus, I'd change the species Template, not the species page. Have fun. Accassidy (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation: please assign section titles for translation[edit]

I wish someone would assign those lines to translate so that I can put them into ja using Translate extension.

===Primary references===
===Additional references===
===Primary references===
===Additional references===

--Omotecho (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not use templates cite book etc?[edit]

Can anyone please explain why templates like template:cite book etc. are not used on Wikispecies? The use of these templates makes the reference machine-readable, as far as I have understood. So why not use it here, like on Wikipedia etc.? --Dick Bos (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Dick Bos: and please excuse my rather late reply. As I guess you have noticed, we use reference templates as described in the Help:Reference section guideline (specifically the Help:Reference section#Reference Templates subsection on that same page) instead of for example {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}} templates. The reason why we have chosen this method is that some publications are referred to on many, many of our pages. For example, some scientific works may describe a new genus together with perhaps 30 or more new species within that genus. Now consider that after a few years perhaps the nomenclature gets revised – maybe the genus is split into several subgenera, or some of the species are moved to entirely different genera. Or something else. In that case we may have to update all of the 30 pages where that particular {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}} reference is used. That takes a lot of time – and more importantly it's easy to miss a few of them, which would then make those particular Wikispecies pages inaccurate, showing old data.
Instead we have opted for a system where we make one specific page for each particular reference. We do this in the form of templates. That way, if we need to update a citation we only have to make one change to that single template (instead of having to add the same update to, say 30 separate pages...) and the update will automatically be shown on every page where that one reference template is used. For an example of such a template, see for instance Template:Kottelat, 2000. If you a look at the stats for it you'll see that it's currently used on no less than 53 pages. That's a lot of pages to update, should we not have the template...
Another great benefit with the Wikispecies reference templates is that they can be made more versatile than the (almost always) static {{Cite…}} templates. In most cases there's no need for it hence most of our templates doesn't have those extra functions, but in some cases it can be very handy! For instance, if you only add the "clean" template {{Linnaeus, 1758}} without any extra parameters, it will only result in mentioning the book as such:

However if you add a page number parameter to it for example {{Linnaeus, 1758|549}} then the template will automatically also show that particular page number, complete with an online-link to that specific page:

It even works with page ranges, like so: {{Linnaeus, 1758|41|64}} i.e.:

This functionality is not necessarily limited only to pagination, but can be extended to also involve volume numbers, different editions of print, separating out single authors from a joint group of authors who all contributed to the same publication, showing links for either DOI, BHL or ISBN depending on relevance, and so forth. And all from within the same reference template, if need be! Hence a single reference template can be used to show all sorts of different information on a lot of independent taxon pages, and in a tailor-made way depending on what particular data is relevant to each specific taxon.
So all in all using our type of reference templates equals less work, and minimizes the risk of the odd page being left behind with outdated data. We still keep the "traditional" Wikipedia type {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}} templates around, but that's only for compatibility reasons if and when stuff gets imported from Wikipedia without also being properly reformatted in the process.
I think that about covers it, but you're of course welcome with any further questions you might have. And now I have this page on my watchlist, so in the future it wont be several weeks before you get an answer... :-) Of course you're also welcome to contact me directly on my talk page, or join the whole community at the Village Pump. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC).