Template talk:Botanist

message: To avoid the problems of placement, I suggest that this template is modified to use parenthetical referencing -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't do that.  Parentheses are an integral part of the referencing itself, and their presence or absence carries specific taxonomic meaning.  Parentheses cannot be placed around the information without implying meaning that may not be intended.  Also, many authors are referenced by abbreviation, but have multiple works that can be implied.  That is, the abbreviation is a reference to the individual author, but not to a particular publication.  The abbreviation L. could mean any of a number of publications by Linnaeus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthetical referencing

message: It occurs to me that this template would be greatly improved if e.g. 'The standard author abbreviation Brot. is used to indicate this individual as the author when citing a botanical name' were changed to e.g. 'The standard author abbreviation Brot. is used to indicate Félix Avelar Brotero as the author when citing a botanical name'. The name would be taken from the title of the article in the same manner that the template:commonscat does i.e. using the title as default if no name is provided.  I think that the change would make the language less stilted, something that is certainly to be wished. Also, as Kaldari says "Wouldn't it work just as well if it were a simple inline template rather than a div with borders around it? Frankly I think it looks a bit odd in most articles."  Paul venter (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding the name would be a useful change.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as another parameter is available to replace the page name.  Page titles for botanists can include parenthetical qualifiers to disambiguation them from other individuals, and there are some botanists with the same name who may need additional qualifying remarks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The pipe trick might work for the title, but I agree that there should be a replacement parameter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we do it and see whether it carries general approval? Paul venter (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I support adding the full name as well as removing the borders. I also agree that an override parameter would be useful. Kaldari (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: It looks like there's a small problem. This template was originally created before the use of Defaultsort, so for the first couple years of this template's existence it took a 2nd parameter to set the category sorting. So a large percentage of the articles that use this template already have a 2nd parameter set. I would like to propose that we start with a clean slate and have a bot remove all the old 2nd parameters (which are currently unused) before we make this change. Then if someone wants to override the name, they can put it as the 2nd parameter, like . I can write the bot myself, I just need to get approval for it. In order to do that, I'll need to cite the discussion here, so please indicate if you think this is a good idea or not. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the second parameter is necessary. If the template appears before the DEFAULTSORT magic word, which normally appears just before the categories, then it will not work on the category included in the template and will incorrectly sort the names by given name instead of last name. I'm also not convinced that there is agreement to remove the border, as there was no consensus the last time around. It was meant to stand out among the text, much the same as the function of an infobox. Rkitko (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the border is a separate issue. I'm not familiar enough with template construction to know whether there could be identified parameters, e.g. .--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rkitko: I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. The DEFAULTSORT magic word works for all categories included in the article regardless of whether they are defined before or after the magic word. For example, Ernst Haeckel gets sorted fine even though it does not include the 2nd parameter. Besides, the 2nd parameter isn't currently used by the template anyway. So even if it was necessary, we aren't using it. Kaldari (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: @Curtis Clark: I think it would be better to keep the template syntax simple and avoid using named parameters if possible. Per my reply to Rkitko above, I don't think there is any reason we need to keep the existing 2nd parameters from the pre-DEFAULTSORT days. Kaldari (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More styling issues

message: The idea of providing a version with no grey line above and below was to encourage use of this template by editors who dislike this effect and want to put the information into a "normal" paragraph.  (Using the template is highly desirable because it ensures the presence of the relevant category and thus allows some automated processing.)
The recent change to add padding means that when  is specified, the information is not displayed in a normally spaced paragraph, but one with an extra space above and below.  This was not the intention of the addition of the borderless version.  I've reverted to the version without padding for now.  If padding has consensus, then it needs to be added only when the border is not suppressed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it simply due to the request at WP:VPT and have no comment on whether it should be included. --Izno (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. I'll ask the user who asked to comment here and if this is still wanted I'll add padding only if the border is present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of the borderless version. Can the code be written so the padding is only applied to the bordered version? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivially, and I believe I have done so. Peter, you are welcome to review on a live page or test page. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, does not seem to give a white space on Hugh Wilson (New Zealand botanist), even with a purge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the whitespace. Try bypassing your cache. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine now. However, this template is used on a lot of pages, and I think it would have been better to have checked here first to see if there were any objections to the change to the bordered version. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of padding 

message: The template doesn't generate the correct IPNI link when the author abbreviation includes spaces. See António Luiz Patricio da Silva Manso. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include a non-breaking space between the individual parts of the abbreviation (e.g. "Silva|Manso" = "Silva|non-breaking space|Manso") the ref will at least display properly on WP, but it still makes for an error at the IPNI link. Hamamelis (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces 

message: I fail to understand why this template is being considered for deletion (Proposed deletion of Template: Botanist). To date any modifications considered necessary have been discussed here and acted upon. If there is a problem it can probably be fixed not deleted. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: This template does not show up in the mobile view see for example . I think its something to do with the 
which are not displayed in mobile view. How necessary is the metadata class?--Salix alba (talk): 18:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it isn't necessary. My suggestion is that the template be changed so that the default is a plain text paragraph, i.e. without the borders which are not usual now (this is an old template and reflects old styles). I've already provided  which can be used to present the text inline rather than as a separate paragraph. Comments? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile view 

message: Looking at the usage of the template, many people have used as follows;

which makes me wonder if earlier versions required entering both fields. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see it did. But including the second parameter does no harm. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue, as ever with templates, is maintaining backwards compatibility with all variants in the pages containing the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter 2 

message: The current output in the Reference section: "Author Query for 'author abbreviation'". International Plant Names Index.
is somewhat awkward, places an external link icon in the middle and is too long for sfn type referencing.
I am therefore proposing replacing it with a simpler output that places the link icon at the end and more closely resembles a sfn type display such as "Stearn 1956. Epimedium"
This would be in the form: IPNI. author abbreviation --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference display 

message: This template is redundant with the author_abbrev_bot parameter of the  template (in addition to the  template, and often the article text itself). I would like to propose that the additional functionality of this template (creating a reference linking to the IPNI and adding the article to :Category:Botanists with author abbreviations) be added to , so that botanist articles which include an infobox don't need this template. Kaldari (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm generally in favour of removing redundancy (I used to teach this as part of software engineering, so I should hold this view!), I thought infoboxes are ideally summaries of what is in the article, i.e. the information in infoboxes should generally be duplicated in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing redundancy 

message: How about a parameter to replace "this person" (the default) with another text? The editor could simply specify the text to be used. I can't think of a good name for the parameter, but I think it would work best as freeform. Examples here are William Wright Smith and Vicki Funk:
Default for William Wright Smith (parameter blank or not used):
:The standard author abbreviation W.W.Sm. is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name.
Editor passes "Smith":
:The standard author abbreviation W.W.Sm. is used to indicate  as the author when citing a botanical name.
Editor passes "him":
:The standard author abbreviation W.W.Sm. is used to indicate  as the author when citing a botanical name.
Default for Vicki Funk (parameter blank or not used):
:The standard author abbreviation V.A.Funk is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name.
Editor passes "Funk":
:The standard author abbreviation V.A.Funk is used to indicate  as the author when citing a botanical name.
Editor passes "her":
:The standard author abbreviation V.A.Funk is used to indicate  as the author when citing a botanical name.
Eewilson (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a parameter to replace "this person" if desired? 

message: Wouldn't it be better to assume inline=yes by default? Most editors don't bother to enter it, even if it seems to be intended in most cases I've seen. When not specifically using it, a border is added, which looks ugly and distracting (compare Pieter Willem Korthals, which has the border, and David L. Jones (botanist), which doesn't). There are comments on this talk page, dating back to 2012, which argue for this change. I have not seen any convincing arguments why it should be kept as it is. I have not seen a single case where the border is useful, or intended. I'd be interested to see one. Renerpho (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline parameter 

message: IMO, your change here looks fine. Can you update the documentation and purge the test cases page? You also may want to consider making the same change in the rarely used but necessary botanist2 template. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update documentation and purge test cases 

message: Why does this template put grey borders above and below the text? It looks weird and sticks out like a sore thumb. Can we make the borderless version the default instead? Nosferattus (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that this format was designed to be placed outside the normal text of an article; the grey borders show that it's a separate 'unit', so it's intended to "stick out". It seems to me to work well in, e.g., Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo. In James Dickson (botanist), the borders serve to indicate that the statement about his botanical abbreviation doesn't really belong to the "Works" section. If the default were made no borders, the editor's intention would be retrospectively changed, which seems wrong to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders