Talk:List of botanists by author abbreviation (A)

message: I'm unsure of the need for this list and the associated template, I have the 1992 list, and there are at least 550 botanists/naturalists that have named something. Many of whom may have done nothing else of note.--nixie 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is helpful because it lists all those who do have a WP article, and also gives the name of that article. Most people won't use this as a reference but some people filling in botanical articles come across the author abbreviation for the species they are writing about and want to link that article to the botanist concerned - which raises questions like "does this botanist have an article on WP?" and "if so, where can I find it?". This list avoids multiple possible transpositions and also disambiguation pages for example. VivaEmilyDavies 09:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're, right, the formatting changes make it much easier to read too. If you need any author abbreviations checked leave me a message on my talk page and I can look them up.--nixie 23:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: Can somebody add Robert Wight? 89.240.2.245 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hesperian 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Wight

message: There should be spacer after an abbreviation of the first name of the author according many examples in Saint Louis Code article 46. This means that there are authority written typhographically bad at http://www.ipni.org - they are following standard work "Authors of Plant Names" ed. Brummitt & Powell (1992) in which the editors state: "We recommend that no spaces be left after full stops.".
* false: J.Agardh
* correct (according Saint Louis Code): J. Agardh
* false: H.E.Ahles
* correct: H. E. Ahles
What is right solution for wikipedia? --Snek01 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation of the author 

message: This article was created in April 2005 and was originally listed in alphabetical order sorted by abbreviation, then in April 2006 this was changed to alphabetical order sorted by surname.. I propose to restore the list to its original sorting method as this seems more suitable for casual readers (as opposed to WP Project Plants editors) who come to this page with an abbreviation to look up and are not familiar with abbreviation conventions. Any objections? --Melburnian 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the current order has always seemed rather strange to me. I support changing it back. Hesperian 12:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, have been puzzled by the collation, and support changing it back.--Curtis Clark 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Melburnian 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetical order

message: What about bryologists? To me, it seems reasonable to include them, but i propose that phycologists and and mycologists should have their own list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.205 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What botanists?

message: I moved the entry for G. R. Bhatti (sic) from the letter "G" to "B" as
* Bhatti - Ghulam Raza Bhatti (born 1959)
However, according to IPNI this is his 'standard form'. Perhaps this is because Brummitt & Powell's Authors of Plant Names was published in 1992; IPNI's 'example of name published' shows a plant with this author in Fontqueria, 42: 5 (1995), and so the name could not be included (if  no plant name was published by G. R. Bhatti previous to 1992, which, admittedly, I haven't taken the time to check). Also, I coudn't find anything for him at HUH. My question is, is it ok to place the name on the list or not? Is a 'standard form' acceptable in the absence of a B&P abbreviation? Hamamelis (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The list contains many names added to IPNI after Brummitt & Powell (1992).  Indeed, they are very pleased to be told about authors not in their list, whereupon they will add them, making up a new standard form.  I've had a dozen or so paleobotanists added (the coverage of this group is poor).  See e.g. Mey.-Berth. in IPNI. You need to give them a full bibliographical reference to a name created by the author. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kew for an explanation of how Brummitt & Powell is being kept up-to-date, including in IPNI. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peter and Nadia! Hamamelis (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable abbreviations

message: A California Flora by Philip Alexander Munz, David D. Keck contains various missing ones. Here's a sample page. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the page and above, the list is incomplete. The recent addition, Pierre Jules Fourreau, appears at IPNI and is worth noting if it didn't (see discussion above). If the page of that flora contains some biographical data it could, of course, be used to create the article. I say 'if' because, unlike IPNI, the google link to the page is not available to all (at least not to me). cygnis insignis 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the IPNI is definitive for botanical author abbreviations. Some sources appear to have made up their own or to have made mistakes, so should always be cross-checked with an IPNI author search. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants doesn't rigidly prescribe particular abbreviations, but recommends that abbreviations be used, and suggests the earlier list that forms the basis of IPNI's list. This page is clear that it follows that scheme. There have been in the past and still are, other schemes, and I think it would be unfortunate for Wikipedia to be more rigid than the ICN is. Ideally, I would like to see the Botanist template allow for older abbreviations to be listed as well as the standardized ones; Medicus/Medikus, and Carl Koch/Karl Koch are very frequent examples of multiple abbreviations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I can see that there is a good case for including historically used abbreviations, so that people who come across these can use this page as a source of information. On the other hand, I come across quite a few abbreviations that are simply errors (typos, etc.). So I'm not quite clear what the criterion would be for adding names other than those in IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it might not be good to have L. Linn. and Linnaeus all listed, but perhaps just for people whose name was Latinized in more than one way ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: huh? Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in alphabetical order, given that the abbreviations are "identifiers" to be taken literally, not names. As a  "A.B.Jacks" is the same as "A B Jacks" or "Jacks, A. B.", etc. As an author abbreviation, they are different. What different order would you suggest? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For botanists themselves listed alphabetically, have a look at list of botanists. Hamamelis (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this page in alphabetical order? 

message: Does anyone know how to adjust  to allow for two abbreviations? Please see Olav Johan Sopp#Botanist abbreviation for an example. I tried to deal with it, but it just doesn't look good or read well. I've also posted this message at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that this was answered at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations; there is now a template  which handles two abbreviations. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  One person with two abbreviations 

message: I don't see any reason to include additional information in this list. This is just the list of the botanists by author abbreviation, nothing more, and the additional information is not needed in order to locate an abbreviation or clarify an abbreviation. It should be removed and just be put in the father's and and son's articles. --AfadsBad (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm often unsure what to include or not include on this list because it is somewhat different than most articles. In the case of this article, there hasn't been much discussion on this, so I would welcome a discussion on limitations. As to my last entry that AfadsBad points to, I don't mind it being removed. But we should make clear, as precisely as possible, what information should and should not be included. Some  'additional' information, sometimes, I think is helpful (such as when names are very similar, e.g. A.Cabrera = Ángel Cabrera; Cabrera =  Angel Lulio Cabrera). Hamamelis (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think though, the father/son information you added did not clear up anything, it just added information which is not part of the article. However, I see no hurry to change, and we can get more input, as I am an inexperienced editor and may not see everything. Thanks for responding here. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite (or partly owing to) the apparent lack of interest in this, I've decided to remove the additional information from the entry for "Lank." as it admittedly isn't adding that much, and it will please at least one editor—so I deem its removal to be a net plus. Hamamelis (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I slightly prefer a "clean" list, although I'm not really bothered either way. When there was a single article, you could use it "in reverse", i.e. search for a name in order find the abbreviation. Now this is awkward with the list split across several articles, so I see the main use being abbreviation → name, in which case disambiguating names is not as useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it may not seem like it, but I also prefer a "clean" list (or at least, as clean as possible). I'm wondering if there would be any objection to paring down the added information, especially in cases where entries already have articles linked to them (on en.wikipedia), and therefore the added info is redundant. Also, where possible, I would like to make the entries more uniform in appearance. Please, comments/discussion from anyone? If not, I'll just proceed as time permits me. Hamamelis (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary information 

message: Over the past few months, in relation to my work on Wikidata, I've been trying to increase the number of inline interlanguage links we use here on the English Wikipedia. I can go into my rationale for this if people are curious, but suffice it to say it's a hobby of mine to try to replace redlinks with s, s, or s (the last of which I created). At the moment, you can see all three templates in action in the "a" section here. I don't consider this particularly controversial, since the templates benefit our multilingual readers (of whom there is a surprising a number), and are very easy to ignore for our monolingual ones; plus, Google Translate can do a decent job, and a machine-translated foreign article is better than nothing at all. However, User:Peter coxhead has raised the concern that my use of three different templates with three different parameter setups will make this confusing for editors, and especially for the offline tools that he occasionally uses to clean up formatting errors and inconsistencies, and he thus proposes that we only use . I'm certainly sensitive to his concerns, but, in the spirit of putting the reader first, I feel it makes the most sense to use all three ( for one link,  for two or three, and  for four or more). Hopefully, once  is fixed, it'll be possible to make  serve the purpose of all three, but, until then, I don't see any way around it. So, having reached a respectful impasse, Peter and I agreed it would be best to seek input from others. For the time being, I'm going to continue to use all three, but if there's a consensus that it's preferable to only use the one, then obviously I'll defer to that. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is useful to provide links to other Wikipedias instead of red links, so I support your general approach. I would prefer a single template, so let's hope that the bug can be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  One template or three? 

message: The question was posed above of whether mycologists should be included in this list? Not sure if consensus was reached on this somewhere. If mycologists should not be included then perhaps the excellent List of mycologists could be prominently linked to from here, to assist those looking for an abbreviation but unsure of which side of the fence the author is on. Declan Declangi (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these lists are really "lists of authors with abbreviations in IPNI", regardless of what they worked on.  As far as I can tell, although the taxon names are limited to "seed plants, ferns and lycophytes", the authors relate to the whole of the ICN, which includes fungi. Certainly all the abbreviations I tried from the List of mycologists were in the IPNI author search. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List mycologists here? 

message: Hi. Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name?  I don't see Luís Wittnich Carrisso on the list. Thanks. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, only botanists who have authored a name under the ICN have an abbreviation. Secondly, IPNI isn't complete. If you know that he has authored a name, send the citation to IPNI and they will add him. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name?  

message: Hi. I noticed that the reference section seems to occur twice on the list. Tried unsuccessfully to remove it - but did not want to fiddle too much with the template. Or is it just me who sees it ? DavidAnstiss (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is being caused by the Yobot bot which adds a duplicate Reference section in the wrong place if it "corrects" a reference. I've notified the owner of the bot. There's no point in trying to fix it (as I did!) until the bot is sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you DavidAnstiss (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: reference query

message: jaap vermeulen , orchidology, bulbophyllum  
Pieter B. Pelser-
Julie Barcelona-
Leonard co — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabbustamante (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: see J.J.Verm. – Jaap J. Vermeulen (born 1955) is listed added - 5 May 2015‎ 21:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

text: See also "Pelser" and "Barcelona". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Some botanist working on Philippines species not listed here

message: I just wanted to say that the botanist author abbreviation pages are a wonderful resource and I feel very thankful that the effort was spent to put them together so well.Regularuk (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks 

message: I love this page. I like learning about the history of botany through authors. I add their details to the plant Speciesbox, and other appropriate places. But sometimes I do it wrong. I just copy the wiki heading name off the list and go John Smith|Smith. So far so good, but it may actually be John Smith (botanist)|Smith. I don't notice the difference on this page, only if I am researching more on the author and follow the links. May I request that where the correct wikipage is John Smith (botanist), or whatever, that we write it here for the lazy/ignorant editors such as myself. Thanks to all who have created this resource, well done. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation suggestion 

message: Would adding Bruce K. Holst be acceptable? See this reference for instance. --Jeran Renz (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine. B.Holst merits inclusion here. Plantdrew (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  B.Holst 

message: I have ripped off the Italian Wikipedia article on the British botanist Mark James Elgar Coode. Never done it before, used another botanists page as template, google translated the Italian, and I pasted. But, problems, notes instead of <ref>, the authority box or whatever it is at the bottom and other stuff. Please, could someone fix what is wrong? Brunswicknic (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark James Elgar Coode 

message: I've been finding more and more "Li" in biology articles, but the List and the surname page and this page didn't help much. Anybody have any ideas?Leomk (Don't shout here,  Shout here!)  02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , there are dozens of botanists named Li, but (apparently) none with a standard abbreviation of just "Li". If you're asking about the Li who described Lobophytum pygmapedium and Lobophytum anomolum, you'll find that their initial is "C." if you follow the taxonbar link to WoRMS. But the Lobophytum Li is not a botanist and would not belong on this list. Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Li?