|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
One of the statements in the Wiki policy on wikilinks is that there shouldn't be too many. An average of 1 per line is many; the links will be more likely to distract the reader's attention. That's why I did not link the same names several times (like Tournefort), also an advise that is given in the Wiki policy.
Now I see that wikilinking dates also has the effect that the reader gets the date in the format he/she chose, so that's a good change. But I don't see a point in wikilinking ALL years that are mentioned in the text. Especially the years of birth and death are purely informative (to make clear which person is meant in case there are several persons with the same name for example); they are not meant to link to further wiki-information. Especially not since linking to a year takes the reader to a very plain level of information, nothing special in connection with this article. It would be a different thing if the year 1696 the year that Magnol became director of the Montpellier Botanic Garden, would take the reader to a page with the history of the garden in chronological order, saying "1696 is 103 years after the garden was established" or likewise. But that's not the case, So I'll remove those links.Wikiklaas 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're perfectly right. The only thing that comes to my mind is that if someone just of pure curiosity wants to know what else happened this year. Sometimes the parallels are revealing but they pass unnoticed unless someone pays attention. This is not to revert your changes to your by all means excellent article. Just a thought.
- What I find great too is your warning about the standard author abbreviation. I guess such warnings should be inserted in any article dealing with the pre-linnaean botanists. It always puzzled me before: Surely there were some standartized abbreviations for the pre-linnaean botanists (some of them date back to pre-linnaean times, others were established in his Bibliotheca Botanica) but they certainly are no longer applicable because the names published by these authors are nomenclaturally unavailable unless they were used in or after Spec. Plant. Now I see an elegant solution. Alexei Kouprianov 11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Alexei Kouprianov
J. H. Lavater is dubious
The correspondence with Lavater is of a somewhat dubious importance. This is definitely not Johann Kaspar Lavater and we may only guess which one of the following:
Lavater, Johann Heinrich 1611 bis 1691 Beruf / Lebensstellung: Physiker; Stadtrat Konfession: reformierte Familie
Fundstellen: NDB Bd. 13, S. 745 Familienartikel;
NDB-Nebeneintrag Lavater, Johann Heinrich 1697 bis 1774 Beruf / Lebensstellung: Mediziner; Regierungsrat in Zürich Konfession: reformierte Familie
Fundstellen: NDB Bd. 13, S. 746*;
NDB-Nebeneintrag Lavater, Johann Konrad 1628 bis 1691 Beruf / Lebensstellung: Apotheker Konfession: reformierte Familie
Fundstellen: NDB Bd. 13, S. 746*;
No 1 seems most plausible for No 2 was still too young and I, am afraid, unimportant when Magnol died in 1715... Do you have an immediate access to Neue Deutsche Biographie? "Physiker" looks unclear (may well be a physician, then he definitely fits better). To reject No 3 we must be certain about the absence of misspellings (time period and offupation fits the requirements).
Alexei Kouprianov 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Did Bernard as well as Antoine de Jussieu study with Magnol?
It's established that Antoine did, but Bernard was much younger, born 1699, while Magnol died in 1715. That doesn't rule it out, but if (as Wikipedia has it) he studied medicine in Montpellier and graduated in 1720, then he'd have had to start his medical studies aged 15 even to have caught Magnol in the last year of his life. Anyone have authoritative information on this point? NatGoodden (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)