EDIT

I think the same accounts for book series etc.

the reference title cache ellypsis must not be applied to all reference types.

Which types need to be excluded?

done! please review.

All Titles are given fully up to a length of approx. 60 characters.

This is okay (i) because the the title can be identified, (ii) the full title can be checked by clicking the edit button.

Example:
Abhandlungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft zu Nürnberg
fully given
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturell, Nouvelle ...
truncated, full title is:
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturell, Nouvelle Série, Série B, Botanique

I can live with this.

Further issues:
Proceedings can not tested because of lacking data (ToDo WHK)
Series include Series and Jounals (This should be checked and tested by WHK)

I propose to set this ticket to 100% and close it, agreed?

All Titles are given fully up to a length of approx. 60 characters.

This is okay (i) because the the title can be identified, (ii) the full title can be checked by clicking the edit button.

It is also possible to skip the ellipsis completely in this case some titles could exceed the given space, though.
What is the best solution from the user perspective?

"It is also possible to skip the ellipsis completely in this case some titles could exceed the given space, though.
What is the best solution from the user perspective?"

In the following case:
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturell, Nouvelle ...
truncated, full title is:
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturell, Nouvelle Série, Série B, Botanique

it could be that an informative (=distinctive) part comes after the ellipsis. So to be on the safe side it would be better to skip the ellipsis completely for the given Reference types.

Ellipsis must not be applied to in-authors/nomenclatural author team.
Example:
How to correct
Kulikowski, Metzeltin & Lange-Bert.
to
Kulikowski, Lange-Bert. & Metzeltin ? See screen shot.

(Reference itself is okay)

Wolf-Henning Kusber wrote:

Ellipsis must not be applied to in-authors/nomenclatural author team.
Example:
How to correct
Kulikowski, Metzeltin & Lange-Bert.
to
Kulikowski, Lange-Bert. & Metzeltin ? See screen shot.

(Reference itself is okay)

This means implementing the rule that the ellypsis must not be applied to sections having an article as inReference. But what if the list of authors is quite long? I am thinking of cases with ~10 authors in the team. In this case the the text line shown in the combobox would be quite/too long again.

For a pragmatic approach (as of 16 May 2019):
Currently: only 20% authors can be recognized. That means that each needed section author team is newly established and produces duplicats or multiple entries.

If 20% of authorteams have one author, 20% = two authors, 20% = three authors, 20% = four authors, 20% >=five authors:

I need the correct author team, i.e. if nomenclatural authors are section authors, I need these, if nomenclatural authors are identical to bibliographic authors, I need those (but in the latter case, I can check the bibliographic reference)

If cut off after the second author = 40% of author teams can be recognized.
If cut off after the third author = 60% of author teams can be recognized.
If cut off after the fourth author = 80% of author teams can be recognized.
If no cut off = 100% of author teams can be recognized BUT the string is to long.

A pragmatic approach for users would be 80% (60% only if the developer has major problems)

Would using the acronyms or truncating the names of the section authors to acronyms be helpful?
e.g.:

• Kulikowsy M --> K. M.
• Lange-Bertalot Horst --> H. L-B.

During a phone call today we decided to give the following solution a try:

1. The section author team will be truncated after the 4th author name
2. Other reference types should be ellypsed 'normally'

IMPORTANT: The nom. reference combobox is showing bibliographic authors instead of the nomenclatural vaviant - this needs to be fixed!

The improvement is implemented, please review once the test server is updated.

six section nomenclatural authors
three authors "et al." displayed. This should be acceptable by users.
Authors are bibliographic (see above)

In the "Registration Workingset Editor" view the six nomenclatural authors are perfectly displayed.

Selection in the Reference Edior opening a section:
three authors "et al." displayed. This should be acceptable by users.
Authors are bibliographic (see above)

No issue: collector(s) in Specimen Typedesignation editor:

three authors "et al." displayed. This should be acceptable by users.
Authors are bibliographic (here this is perfect, because collectors can be bibliographic without being nomenclatural authors)

Technically the problem is solved.

As far as we keep the "bibliographic authors" issue in mind, we can close this ticket.

The issue of bibliographic authors being displayed for the nomenclatural reference is also fixed now.