On Monday 23 August 2004 17:06, Benedikt Mandl wrote:
what content would this have that is not just as
appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that
boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every
sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I
could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all
out on that sort of thing.
Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and
generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia.
Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs
for field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.
I'd like to see the set of characters by which taxonomists determine that a
particular plant belongs to, say, the Rosales. Delta/Angio has this for
flowering plant families, but it's in highly technical jargon. Which suggests
another thing that should be in it: an explanation of all this jargon (cyme,
raceme, gamosepalous, bitegmic, Polygonum-type, etc.).
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa