Jump to content

Talk:Gee's golden langur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondary and Tertiary Sources and Capitalization

[edit]

I have changed the name of the page from Gee's Golden Langur to Gee's golden langur. The convention in mammal studies is unanimously not to capitalize; in other words, the capitalization so common in bird classification does not carry over to mammal studies. I am adding below a list of secondary and tertiary sources. (I will obviously need to take this up on a Wikipedia-wide level since a number of mammal pages have already been capitalized.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd Edition. Don E.Wilson and DeeAnn M. Reeder (eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2005, 2,142 pp., 2 vols., ISBN 0-8018-8221-4. In the review of MSW3 by B. D. Patterson (J Mammal Evol (2007) 14:67–69 DOI 10.1007/s10914-006-9022-6), Patterson states, "Like its predecessors, the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) is a product of the Checklist Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. ... Information in each account of MSW3 follows a standard format that lists sequentially: scientific name, author, year and publication details; common name; type locality, sometimes verbatim but more often standardized; distribution, listing all range countries in which the species occurs; conservation status, denoting the most recent CITES, U.S. ESA, and/or IUCN listing for the species; any designated synonyms (including their authorship and year of publication) and recognized subspecies; and comments, ... The potential to link the edition’s rich taxonomic information with the extensive biological details of Walker’s Mammals of the World (also published by Johns Hopkins) and with the IUCN’s assessments of species status and threats is rich."

Sources that do not capitalize:

  • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. See their Species Information: Neofelis nebulosa (Clouded Leopard). Note that in the taxonomy section, they write the common names in block capitals: CLOUDED LEOPARD (E), PANTHÈRE LONGIBANDE (F), PANTHÈRE NÉBULEUSE (F), PANTERA DEL HIMALAYA (S); however, in their detailed documentation, "clouded leopard" is not capitalized. (e.g. " The clouded leopard historically had a wide distribution in China, south of the Yangtze ... The clouded leopard is found from eastern foothills of the Himalayas through most of southeast Asia ..." (Boldfacing mine.)
  • Macdonald, David. 2006. The Encyclopedia of Mammals (searchable on Amazon). Facts on File. 976 pages. ISBN 0199206082. (David Macdonald is Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Oxford, Founder and Director of the Wildlife Conservation Unit at Oxford, and creator of the documentary Meerkats United.) The only instances of capitalization are either in the titles of articles or in the table of contents, but never in the text. This goes for all mammal species, big and small, well known and little known.
  • Gould, Edwin, George McKay, and David S. Kirschner. 1998. Encyclopedia of Mammals. Academic Press. ISBN 0122936701. (See index on Amazon). (Edwin Gould is Curator Emeritus of the National Zoo, Smithsonian Institution, after 16 years as Head of the Department of Mammalogy.)
  • Perrin, William F., Bernd Wursig, and J. G. M. Thewissen. 2002. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Searchable on Amazon). Academic Press. 1414 pages. ISBN 0125513402. (William Perrin is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)).
  • Mammalian Species published by the American Society of Mammalogists, with 25-35 individual species accounts issued each year. Each uniform account summarizes the current understanding of the biology of an individual species including systematics, distribution, fossil history, genetics, anatomy, physiology, behavior, ecology, and conservation. The accounts vary from 2-14 pages depending upon what is known about the species (See their editorial board here; it includes Kristofer M. Helgen, Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.)
  • Journal of Mammalogy also published by the American Society of Mammalogists. (ISSN 1545-1542, Bimonthly, the journal the flagship publication of the American Society of Mammalogists. Published since 1919, the highly respected international scientific journal promotes interest in mammals throughout the world by the publication of original and timely research on all aspects of the biology of mammals; e.g., ecology, genetics, conservation, behavior, and physiology.) Read the abstracts here. Not capitalizing vernacular or common names has been a long-standing convention in the journal. Here is the relevant instruction from the Suggestions for Preparation of Manuscripts Page, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1935), "3. Do not capitalize vernacular names of animals or plants. Examples: raccoon; song sparrow; red maple."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harv. vs cite

[edit]

You wrote in your summary "i need the page numbers without the references mushrooming. OK?" Huh? Why do you need this? Why must you use a format that's not used in the rest of the primate articles? And you don't need to put citations on the subspecies, the source of that information is MSW3, so that's good enough, and I'm going to change it to that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, MSW3 doesn't have the individual articles listed. For the geei subspecies, a link is provided to Khajuria's old (and inaccessible article), but the link is to the bibliography, which doesn't have even that article listed. (See here) Same with subspecies bhutanesis, all it says is Wangchuk, Inouye, and Hare 2003, but again the paper is not listed in the bibliography. MSW3 online unfortunately has problems. My references are not only more modern and accurate, but also more accessible. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for using out-of-line citations instead of the inline citations? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to mention different page numbers accurately, each citation is different, the cite format reproduces the entire reference each time; the harvard format produces only the compact form. Also, in the Harvard format the references are all there in one place for everyone to see clearly, not hidden in a clutter of notes. In any kind of detailed article, the Harvard format is much better, in my opinion. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you don't "need" them, you prefer them. The page numbers are not really all that relevant. I really dislike the clutter the separate listings makes, and it is inconsistent with the rest of the primate articles. Go ahead and keep working. When you're done, I'll fully inline the citations. I had thought you were done, but I'll wait until you say you're done (or several days go by without edits). - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do need them, and please don't put words in my mouth. Page numbers are important, they create accuracy and keep people from adding less than reliable content. And no, they don't create clutter; they create order. Clutter is what you have in the abysmal Chimpanzee and Gorilla pages. Tell me how a general reader is going to figure out what the main references are by looking at the mess you have there. In contrast, look at the Golden Langur; the references are all there in one place. Please don't push this. You might have your inner compulsions about seeing certain kinds of superficial order in your pages of interest, but they are not mine. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do find what's on those other two pages more helpful. I can click on the reference mark in the text and it brings me to the citation directly, instead of to an intermediary. I can click on the citation, and it brings me to the link in the text. With yours, I can only go fully in one direction, then if I see another interesting citation, I have to scan through the Notes to find it and then I can pop up to see where it is used. Mine is a one step process, yours is a two step process. Mine is easier to find what I'm looking for in either direction, yours only allows full information seeking in one direction. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go to the intermediaries only for references that you plan on citing more than once. The point of the intermediaries then is to save you from going to the same long reference many times. For references like a Time magazine article, that you mention only once, you keep the entire citation in the Notes (and not in the References; some people call the Notes "Cited References" and the References "General References" ) and you can do that either in the cite or harvard format–they are equivalent in terms of work. It is the second time that the reference is cited (and important references usually are) that Harvard makes a difference. There are many articles like Peru or Lion who use the Harvard two-step format for their many times cited references, without using the Harvard template. As for the Harvard format not being two-way, what is the "back button" on the browser for? It takes you back to exactly the middle-step, highlighted at the top of the page. Many Biology FAs that I looked at: Beagle, California Condor, Common Raven, Darwin, Guinea Pig, Lion, Alfred Russell Wallace, and Tooth Enamel, use some version of the Harvard System. In contrast Cougar cites the same 421 page report (without page numbers) ten times (footnote 14). How is that going to help a reader who is really interested? But more importantly, how is that going to help other editors (including that editor himself)–when they revise the article? How will they know exactly which parts of the 421-page reference were used (especially if the words are paraphrased)? If writing and editing is taken seriously on Wikipedia, it is essential to provide page numbers, even for 20-page articles, let alone thick tomes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UtherSRG: I have already told you in no uncertain terms above (to which you never replied) that precise page numbers are important for an article to be both accurate and be judged so by others who later edit it. Please don't revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. The article is 8 pages long. There's no need to have a different citation for 2 different pages from that 8 page article. I did not see a response from me as needed. I said that, after several days of inactivity, I would remove the intermediary references. You hadn't edited in several days, so I did as I said I would do. Further, while on some articles that have many references, I do see the benefit of this system. However, there are far too few references on this article to merit the redirection. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't edited in several days only because I am awaiting some hard-copy interlibrary loan references, which I don't have immediate access to. They are needed because the are essential to addressing the early controversy about the golden langur's taxonomic classification.
I was the one (not you) who made the last reply on this page, explaining why precise page numbers are important. The Wangchuk reference, for example, about the GL's phylogeography is over 300 pages long. Initially, when an article is in development, the Harvard system can seem like an overkill, but I am not done yet, and haven't told you that I am. You should have brought it up on this page rather than unilaterally reverting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself: "I had thought you were done, but I'll wait until you say you're done (or several days go by without edits)." So I will say the same now. When several days go by without edits, I will re-evaluate the need for the intermediary notes, and decide if they are needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. Actually, I'll make it easier for both of us. I will edit on my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Gee's Golden Langur. That way you won't have to keep checking the page, and the page itself won't look unsightly (as it presently does with the template and empty sections). When I'm done, we can both decide what format is appropriate. I am therefore rolling back the page to what it was before I started editing it on October 22. Since my additions were unfinished, I personally would prefer that to merely rolling it back a few days. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gee's golden langur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gee%27s_golden_langur&oldid=1207374572"