Talk:Cirsium × przybylzkii

Non-English text in citations

@User:UtherSRG The non-English text is crucial for verification, since the text is not available anywhere else in machine-readable form. It is in the public domain, and is not extensive. Most of the text is in scientific Latin, and botanists might disagree with the translations. Also sometimes the text is very hard to locate within the citations. Ivan (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If you really need it, put it in in a way that isn't displayed in the article or in the references. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And in fact, it already is - it's visible in the history of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I will agree Cirsium × juratzkae's Latin and German quotations in the citations are prohibitively long, and I can probably reduce that.

But requiring a visit to the history of the article (which no one will look for) is an obtuse non-solution to a problem I resolved by including the quotations in the first place.

In addition, you did not bother to find and add {{rp}} citations, which would have been the bare minimum alternative. It is precisely because they are citations to old foreign-language works that it is necessary to include the full relevant text, since there is no machine-readable alternative that one could simply search+copy+paste+translate. The English language reader will find it difficult to find the relevant section to verify and/or expand from the source.

Please provide a policy quotation concretely supporting your removal of the quotations. I invoke MOS:ACCESS. A severely sight impaired editor cannot access most of these documents without extensive effort to perform or edit OCR into a readable form, sometimes requiring specialised software to do so. Ivan (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, {{rp}} are very useful. Please supply them. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I will shorten the quotations in the Cirsium × juratzkae references (requiring a return to my version).

But the source accessibility problem stands with your version. Ivan (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Note: the references in dispute are on the pages Cirsium × juratzkae, Cirsium × przybylzkii, Cirsium × reichardtii, Cirsium × scopolii, and Cirsium × stiriacum. I am the primary author but the version currently displayed is not the original. My version can be seen in this diff. Ivan (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

If we include page numbers for the sources, which I understand to be available online, then our text will be verifiable. Inclusion of quoted non-English material is not necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)