CZ Talk:Botany Subgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Dalton Holland Baptista (New page: {{Botany Subgroup}}) |
imported>Dalton Holland Baptista No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Botany Subgroup}} | {{Botany Subgroup}} | ||
== To do list == | |||
#Invite editors and authors | |||
#Make a nice home page for the subgroup | |||
#Add ''botany'' to metadata of articles that belong here (can a bot do this?) | |||
#Add important articles needed to the list | |||
#Find a good soul to develop [[Botany]] article | |||
What else? Lots for sure [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
==To think== | |||
As we start running we might have on home page things like: | |||
#Photo of the week | |||
#Most recent approved botany article | |||
#Our own type of ''plant-a-thon'' or ''seed-a-thon'' [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Discussion of Plant Naming Conventions== | |||
Common names in Botany are different from animal common names because mostly there is no primary source for them and because they are highly variable from place to place. Therefore we think scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except when: | |||
#Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussels sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, each one of the products will have its article and a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea). | |||
#Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. (Of course they need linking to each other). | |||
#Where a genus is unispecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognized. | |||
Common names are to redirect to scientific names. | |||
*English sundew → Drosera anglica | |||
All known current English common names for a taxon should be listed in the plant article. | |||
*Hesperoyucca whipplei (Our Lord's Candle, Spanish Bayonet, Quixote Yucca, Common Yucca) is a species of flowering plant... | |||
In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used. | |||
'''Note:''' Spanish and Italian WP use sci names for all forms of living beins; English and French Wikipedia have a name convention like this already established for plants; Portuguese wikipedia does not have this rules set but generally follows them. This proposal is based on English WP naming convention. Should CZ, that is a much more reliable source, name its articles is a misleading and confusing way that not even wikipedia uses anymore? I don't think so. | |||
This in an important issue and the sooner it is resolved the better. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:04, 8 March 2009
Main article | Home | Talk | All articles (42) | Citable (4) | Members (2) | Recent changes | |
Affiliation: Biology (Recent changes) |
To do list
- Invite editors and authors
- Make a nice home page for the subgroup
- Add botany to metadata of articles that belong here (can a bot do this?)
- Add important articles needed to the list
- Find a good soul to develop Botany article
What else? Lots for sure Dalton Holland Baptista 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
To think
As we start running we might have on home page things like:
- Photo of the week
- Most recent approved botany article
- Our own type of plant-a-thon or seed-a-thon Dalton Holland Baptista 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of Plant Naming Conventions
Common names in Botany are different from animal common names because mostly there is no primary source for them and because they are highly variable from place to place. Therefore we think scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except when:
- Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussels sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, each one of the products will have its article and a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).
- Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. (Of course they need linking to each other).
- Where a genus is unispecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognized.
Common names are to redirect to scientific names.
- English sundew → Drosera anglica
All known current English common names for a taxon should be listed in the plant article.
- Hesperoyucca whipplei (Our Lord's Candle, Spanish Bayonet, Quixote Yucca, Common Yucca) is a species of flowering plant...
In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.
Note: Spanish and Italian WP use sci names for all forms of living beins; English and French Wikipedia have a name convention like this already established for plants; Portuguese wikipedia does not have this rules set but generally follows them. This proposal is based on English WP naming convention. Should CZ, that is a much more reliable source, name its articles is a misleading and confusing way that not even wikipedia uses anymore? I don't think so.
This in an important issue and the sooner it is resolved the better. Dalton Holland Baptista 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)