This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I agree that the extensive list of publications seems unnecessary but have held off deleting it as I haven't done any other editing on this article; are any other botanists (or any scientists for that matter, living or dead) treated so thoroughly??
Actually, this is rather a short list, taking into account he has more than 650 publications under his name. Don't forget he named over 2800 new species and is one of the most prominent botanists on Asteraceae. In my opinion these are only the most important publications and Wikipedia should be proud to list them. This way we can truly distinguish ourselves from other encyclopedias. (BTW please sign your entry with four tildes). JoJan09:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Second answer : Yes, there are other botanists treated so thoroughly : e.g. look at Ernst Mayr. This centenarian continued publishing until he was 98 years old ! We should not treat someone who has hundreds of important publications the same way as someone who had only a few publications ! JoJan09:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I still don't see how the list of publications is necessary (unless specific reference is made made to individual publications within the body of the article); is this a biographical/informational entry or a CV? There's no need to prove that Dr. Robinson is "prominent" botanist and I don't understand the rationale for including most of them, as several of the articles are quite minor publications such as new nomenclatural combinations, a 1-page article describing a couple of new species, and a 1-page article of chromosome numbers! Why not just provide an external link to his staff page at the Smithsonian Institution, where anybody who is especially interested can get a nearly-complete list of his publications? Since I'm new to Wikipedia and have not contributed to this particular entry I am taking no action; I'm not questioning whether Robinson is a prominent botanist, but rather how the list of publications adds anything to the article. I certainly hope other botanists who have arguably been far more influential in the field of botany even though they may not have published nearly as many individual articles (e.g., Arthur Cronquist), will ultimately get treatments anywhere approaching this level of detail. MrDarwin17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
