Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Monday 23 August 2004 17:06, Benedikt Mandl wrote:
And finally, 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.).
"Characteristics" rather than "characters" :-)
Explaining these should remain a part of Wikipedia, even with a Wikispecies. What Wikispecies may be more suited to is the development of differential keys with questions like, "Does the leaf have smooth or serrated edges?"
Ec