User talk:Wikiklaas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia! 1.1 Additional tips 2 Magnolia 3 Stearn summary in Carolus Linnaeus 4 Magnol: clarification needed 5 (Magnolia) ext links 6 Nomenclature 7 A new template proposed

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

—Cuiviénen, 23:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnolia

Nice work; I've made a few mainly grammatical changes (converting to third person, etc), but also changed Catesby's publication date to 1731, the date it was first published - I presume '1930' was an error, or did you have other reasons for that date? - MPF 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stearn summary in Carolus Linnaeus

The wording is really awkward, independent of it being a paraphrase. As a summary, perhaps it would be best to say it first, and then give the reference, rather than the other way around as you have done. (I'm glad you're taking the time to shake things up on the article, though. I've wanted to, but haven't had the time.)--Curtis Clark 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I'll see what I can do. Don't understand though what you mean by awkward. Is it bad grammar? Or is is too familiar? I really hate those dry, uninspired, encyclopedia-texts. Is it style? Or don't you like the words I used? Wikiklaas 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think removing "William T. Stearn [1] gives an account on the name. What follows here is a summary of that account," and putting the [1] reference at the end, would make it read more smoothly. As it is, those two sentences just delay the reader getting to the important part.--Curtis Clark 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Following Berton's note, I saw Stearn's Botanical Latin on Amazon.com, but should point out that Timber Press are not the publishers, just licensed distributors, with the original publisher being David & Charles (as per my note on Berton's talk page, or here) - MPF 15:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On the back of my copy, it says 'Timer Press'. In the copyright part, it reads: 'Published in North America in 1995 by Timber Press, Inc. [..] printed in England by Redwood Books for David & Charles, Brunel House, Newton Abbot, Devon.' Assuming that Redwood Books is only the printer, we are left with three publishers: Timber Press, David & Charles, and Brunel House. On the cover text Timber Press identifies itself as the publisher. So I took Timber Press as the publisher in my reference because the copy I used was published by them. I cannot be sure that the page numbers that I refer to will be the same in an edition of David & Charles that I never got to see. Again, if I was referencing publications of new plant species, I would do my utmost best to obtain or get to see the very first occurence, as I did indeed with the species in the Magnoliaceae. But the reference that we are discussing now is about citing a source. I even added an ISBN, so there cannot be confusion about my copy. If there's an English edition by David & Charles, it will certainly have a different ISBN.Wikiklaas 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the important point to make here is that David & Charles was the only publisher of the first, second and third editions, and is still the primary publisher for the 4th edition; Timber Press didn't even exist when Stearn first wrote his book. For this reason, I think it is more relevant to cite the primary publisher, rather than some later look-in who has very little to do with the book other than reprint it under their own label. I find citing Timber Press a bit like crediting an Elvis song to an Elvis impersonator (obviously not directly comparable, but not entirely dissimilar either) - MPF 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. And I learned you've been praised for your scrutiny and so on but I really don't see why you can't see this point: I guess the only and utmost important point to make here is that contributors should cite their sources. My source was a copy of 'Botanical Latin', issued by Timber Press. Let's not spend too much time in criticising each other's soures but spend it to look for sources on statements that are not documented anywhere. There's still a lot of work to do. - Wikiklaas 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnol: clarification needed

As you have noticed I engaged in the translation of your entry on Magnol into Russian. I've got some questions and thoughts emerged as the tanslation is in progress. May I hope that you would not find it a burden to answer them here (I put this page on my watchlist for a while).

The first question is: in Pierre_Magnol#career you state: "Magnol was one of the founding members of the Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier (1706) and held one of the three chairs in botany." Does it mean that these chairs were within the Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier (which seems plausble if it only was modelled after the Academie Royale)? Or this pertains to his position within the University? I find the latter option quite unlikely, though I better ask. Quite unfortunately I do not have the sources you cite at hand, so I have to rely on your text only, and my English is not perfect enough to understand the subtle nuances.

I'll post some more questions as I formulate them. Tank you in advance for your consideration. Alexei Kouprianov 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite literally cited my source here, which is Tony Aiello's article on Magnol, for this statement. But at that time the name of the Paris academy was "Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris". The Montpellier variant was called "Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier" and it seems more than likely that the latter was formed with the former as an example. I'm quite sure the Société had its own chairs and Magnol occupied one. So this was not the chair of medicine he held at the university. The chair of medicine by the way, was the chair Magnol held to be able to teach botany. It was not until 1889 that in Montpellier an "Institut de Botanique" was created (see this link), before that time botany and medicine had been heavily intertwined. I'll try to find another french source to study Magnol's chair of botany at the Société in more detail. I'll let you know. - Wikiklaas 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I do know about the connection between botany and medicine. It should be noted, however, that there was a sort of the division of labor between the Professors of Medicine at that time. Say, one of them took botany and materia medica, while the other could take pathology, or something like that. Cf. example of Carolus Linnaeus and Nils Rosen who both were professors of medicine at Uppsala but taught different things. Alexei Kouprianov 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The second queston is about pronounciation of personal names. When one writes in Cyrillics, he or she faces the need to develop cyrillic versions of names according to their pronounciation in the native language. Meanwhile, I never heard how several names are pronounced, even though I saw them a lot of times spelled. The names in question are:

Guy-Crescent [Gai-Kressan] or [Gui-Kressan] (?), Petiver [Petive] or [Petiver]?, and Houttuyn (no idea) Alexei Kouprianov 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Guy-Crescent: [Gi-Kressan]. Petiver:[Petive] like in 'pet', the last 'e' would be an upside down 'e' in phonetic alphabet. Do we have the availability of phonetic in Wiki, b.t.w.? Nice cooperating with you, - Wikiklaas 13:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this query - the answer is yes; at IPA - MPF 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pronounciation hints. As for Houttuyn, it seems that his latinized name Hotton could be taken as a nearly-correct phonetic equivalent of Houttuyn? With this added, the Russian version of Pierre Magnol is nearly complete. I did not translate only the section on major contributions to science for I am waiting until I formulate something on the basis of his Prodromus. I'll write you some more after I translate more from the introduction to it. Alexei Kouprianov 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Magnolia) ext links

Hi Wikiklaas - MrDarwin just asked me almost exactly the same; here's my reply - such links are not outright banned, but they're not generally considered desirable; particularly not when the same user adds the same or related ext links to lots of pages without adding anything else, i.e., spamming. Generally ext links are best added only when they provide reference to something cited in the text of the page (which yahoo discussion groups don't). There are more detailed guidelines at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

Also worth adding, yahoo.com is a commercial site, supported by advertising (I'm in some yahoo groups myself, so know what they're like!), and groups postings are full of opinions, so Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid items #1 and #5 are relevant - MPF 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

I see you have been active with the entry "nomenclature". This is very unfortunate. By this time I had all the really bad errors out and I am not happy to see them reappear. Could you indicate what you are trying to achieve? Brya 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new template proposed

As a follow-up of our discussion on Magnol I tried to create the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. Shouldn't we try applying it whenever possible? Or is it too bold? Alexei Kouprianov 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)