Talk:Macara dyari

Describer's name

@Biografer: I saw that you changed the describer's name from "Paul Dognin" to "Dognin". What's your reasoning for that? It seems to me that we should not be hiding part of the name from the reader, especially since we should keep in mind people who may be reading off line and wouldn't be able to click on a link. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to worry; I've fixed it. :) One can say a lot of things about Wikipedia's appearance, but listless ain't one of 'em! (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Shouldn't it be similar to Taxobox? Like, look for example at Hysterocladia unimana.--Biografer (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: I've seen it both ways but I thought we should be giving information to the reader rather than hiding it. It is a standard convention to only use a short version of the name when identifying the species or in an infobox, but I don't think that would restrict us from using the full name in the article's text. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I think for the scientific purposes we should hide it. An article on a species (although it doesn't contain original research) is still scientific. Wikipedia is popular science encyclopedia therefore it should stand to its scientific values. Besides, some have too long of a name, such as Louis Beethoven Prout. I will live current article alone, but the rest will go as planned by many.--Biografer (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: That's real counterintuitive to me. Why would we hide information? Why is a long name a problem?  SchreiberBike| ⌨  04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I think I already explained the reason behind it: Its scientific way of writing an article on the species. Sometimes folks write like Macara dyari feeds on L. alpinus instead of full name Lotus alpinus such example is in this article: Lotus alpinus. Why it became a problem with a taxobox? Maybe in taxoboxes we should write long name too? Why not? Besides, since Wilhelmina Will did that already to numerous or articles why can't we continue?--Biografer (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Do I understand that it seems to you more like scientific writing if we only use last names? I've noticed that convention in older articles and books, but I don't see it in more recent writing. It can be useful to abbreviate where the meaning is clear, but a last name alone may not identify an author. For that reason I think we should give the reader the information we have.  SchreiberBike| ⌨  21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Well, suit yourself. As far as I aware there is no consensus regarding this, since it only began last year. As far as last name alone may not identify the author, look at it this way: As long as it have a hidden full name, the reader will be able to click on it (if they want to). If not, that's fine too, since most of them will click on the taxobox binomial name. Either way, since there is no consensus, I wont touch this article as per WP:OWN conflict (I suspect). But will edit those where the ownership is neutral, (i.e. the rest).--Biografer (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: It looks like we disagree, and I've seen that you've recently hidden the author's full name in a bunch of articles I have recently edited. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8].

As I've thought more about it, I feel strongly that when we have the name of the describer in the article text, we should use the full name. We disagree. Should we seek a third opinion? Shall we both agree to stop making this kind of change until it is resolved? How would you like to move forward? Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Yes, we should seek third opinion. I already post it. Also, when editing taxoboxes make sure that you put English names underneath Latin ones. Or look into this example: Cassida bergeali. Redirects in taxoboxes in my opinion are useless. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am independent reviewer, happy to provide my suggestions. I have no emotional connect to this article or two parties. There are two things to note/learn, in academic world (I have lived in 5 nations across 3 continents) the common practice is to use only the last name for in-line citation for a quote, e.g. "Macara Dyari is blah blah kinda of moth" (Paul Dognin, 1980). If the article means to say that the work was done by someone (not a quote) then general convention is to either use full name or the lastname with year, but not the last name alone without the year. Most wiki articles, go with the way current version of the article has "It was described by Paul Dognin." This is how I have been using too in my own wikipedia articles. See this for more Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please do not be emotionally attached to the topic. Better to spend time in helping each other in expanding the article, than debating the name. hehehe. Hope this helps. Good luck guys. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Being.human. Does that make sense to you Biografer? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At first @Being.human: you said that If the article means to say that the work was done by someone (not a quote) then general convention is to either use full name or the lastname with year (that is exactly what I was doing), but user SchreiberBike was against it for some reason. Now you change your tune into go with the way current version of the article has "It was described by Paul Dognin.". My version had a year, therefore according to your first comment it should be It was described by Gognin in blah, blah, blah.--Biografer (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)