Taxa do not have authors, it is scientific names that have author citations. Author citations may include persons who have made descriptions, but they may also exclude them (lots of the names that Linnaeus gave were not for taxa first described by him). Author citations may also include persons who did not themselves publish anything. (Taxa have taxonomists who circumscribe taxa, and a given taxon may have been circumscribed anew any number of times.) - Brya (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- So, what do you want? :) --Izno (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that is the question, isn't it? Obviously, first of all, awareness that "taxon author" is a misreprestation and is misleading to the reader. Secondly, I would be much happier if this could be replaced by "author citation" (or at a pinch by "authorship", which is less accurate but shorter). - Brya (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I hope what Brya wants is to replace "taxon author" with words with specific and known meaning. It is an "author citation" that goes with the validly published scientific name of a taxon; it is not the "taxon author," which I assumed, initially, was describing the person who named the taxonomic rank (Riv. ex L. or something!).
- I realize this is in its early stages, but creating odd phrases like "taxon author" to mean something else will create problems when you try to build on it.
- I just wonder why wikidata is creating new and different names and ways of doing things. I thought the idea was to make a database with use across projects and throughout cyberspace. I am not sure.
- --AfadsBad (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I gave this some further thought and I came to the conclusion that what is needed is a field for a text string (as in the field below the label "enter description"). I do not have any idea how easy it would be to make this, from a technical perspective, but it appears to be the only way to handle this.
- Author citations may accompany scientific names. Scientific names are governed by Codes of Nomenclature. There are about half a dozen of such "Codes", all different from one another.
- Author citations are not part of the scientific name, and as a rule do not convey any (real) information. If all author citations were deleted from all Wikipedia's this would not decrease the information in these Wikipedia's. However, author citations have been added on a large scale in all Wikipedia's and they are here to stay. As author citations have been (fairly) strongly standardized, they are very suitable for inclusion in Wikidata.
- There may be many elements in an author citation as in the abovementioned:
- Andinobates Twomey, Brown, Amézquita & Mejía-Vargas, 2011
- Kniphofia uvaria (L.) Oken (1841)
- and an indefinite number of further examples may be added
- Andinobates daleswansoni (Rueda-Almonacid, Rada, Sánchez-Pacheco, Velásquez-Álvarez, and Quevedo-Gil, 2006)
- Bruniaceae R.Br. ex DC. (1825)
- Gentianales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820)
- etc, etc
- None of the Codes of Nomenclature require a year to be added to the author citation, although the Bacteriological Code does recommend doing so. The zoological Code and the 'botanical' Code lead by example, mostly using the formats "Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi, 1819)" and "Linum radiola L. (1753)". In the Bacteriological Code two years may be included: "Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg 1835) Cohn 1872"
- I don't see how this can be encompassed in a data structure. Anyway, there is no such thing as a "taxon author" (taxa do not have authors) and there is no particular relationship between "the author citation" and the "author(s) of the first scientific description" (Linnaeus is the author of many names of taxa that were first scientifically described well before his time, and he gave credit where credit was due).