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)

Refrences[edit]

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

Regards,

PeterR 06:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed[edit]

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===
===Links===
==References==
===Primary references===
===Additional references===
===Links===

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