Dear All, I'm finally having a moment to respond to Jane's post. I think if she is willing to do a Reference page for us it would be a good addition to the wiki. I'd link it to the home page. I think we could do it in stages. First would be to have a list of references. Later we could link them to the wiki pages. And I agree with Arnold that when we add the links that having volunteers to help would make the process go a lot faster. If no volunteers come forward, then I anticipate genus pages would get linked to references only if someone was especially interested in that genus. That is the nature of the wiki and why some pages have more information and pictures on them than others. For now please send the information about your best reference books to Jane: janemcgary at earthlink.net. I include below the information she has suggested. A lot of us have many bulb books. I certainly do. But I find that some I refer to often and others rarely. Let's start with those books we really use. For the most part I agree with her recommendations to stick to books, but it seems useful to include current revisions of a genus even if it is a journal article. I am thinking of the revision of Ferraria and Romulea for example that were done within the last few years. Could there be an exception for those? This is where you probably will find the latest information about names. >If we limit the references to books (no journal articles) the size should >remain manageable. The basic information needed is author(s) with FULL >NAMES, please (not just initials, you scientists), date of publication, >and full title (including subtitle). It also helps to have the publisher's >name, because some books are published by different presses in different >countries (known as copublication; typical example is Timber Press in the >USA and Batsford in the UK) and the ISBN number, which is a quick way to >order a book. All this information can normally be found on the reverse of >the title page. Once references start to come in I think Jane could start to add them to the wiki which would save a lot of us having to send information for the same book. If she already had it listed, then you wouldn't have to send it again. And although I really like the brief annotation idea, since this will be in the public domain should we be careful about what we write? For example might it be better just to say "Useful for color photos" instead of "Riddled with errors, but useful for color photos." I know we are eager to expose some of the books that drive us crazy, but would there be a liability issue? I see what Boyce means when he says we could use whatever words we wanted to in a link, but if our page of references got to be long, it would seem that the easiest way to find the reference on the page would be searching for whatever first word Jane uses. If she makes it alphabetical by author then you'd want to list the author in the link. If she arranges it by title, then a title. Otherwise you'd have to scan the whole page. But you could solve the dilemma of which reference of an author by referring to the book in the link as well. eg. (Manning, Goldlatt, and Snijman's Color Encyclopedia) Mary Sue PBS List Administrator, Wiki Worker, TOW Coordinator (Whew!)