Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Cypros (planta)" differant
Content deleted Content added
m movit Disputatio:Cypros (arbustum) ad Disputatio:Cypros (planta): Vide disputationem |
m bot: replace user signature per Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag with user permission |
||
Linea 10:
::I've had little time to spare in the last few days so I haven't studied carefully yet, but I am worried, too, by some recent moves. Two questions are in my mind:
::#Iacobus, are you consciously changing the older practice, which was (normally) to adopt classical and "common" Latin names for res naturales?
::::See the remarks above. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:48, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::You seem to have moved several such pages, privileging the botanical/zoological name. If so, I think this needs discussion. Botanical and zoological Latin are "dialects" of the language we are using here: they are often handy but they aren't our sole authority and up to now they haven't been our overriding authority.
::#Have some page moves been made by copy-and-paste? That seems to be the case (I noticed it with [[Blitum]] last night). Are these moves being marked as "minor" by pure error, or for some other reason? As Fabullus says, this is not the way to go about it. Pages must be moved, not copy-and-pasted. If deletion is necessary first, then request deletion -- and don't mark the request as "minor". Again, if there's some problem here, it needs discussion.
::::In at least one case, I requested deletion, but deletion didn't happen. The mark of "minor" slips in inadvertently from force of habit. You'll recall that when I published [[Cultura]], ''Vicipaedia's longest article,'' I marked it "minor"! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:48, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::It didn't happen because, if a trusted editor marks changes as minor, it's likely that no one will review or notice them. Up to now, if you or others have needed a deletion quickly, you've requested it on the Taberna. That is always noticed.
Apart from the theme, I've been told by a zoologist that the recently named species ''Electrolux addisonii'' has got its name from a well-known washing machine, because the fish in question literally "sucks in" its food like a washing machine. Be that as it might -- and I do think it's very funny -- on a more serious note, what this tells to a Latinist is that, though modern zoologists without doubt haven't run out of ideas, it looks like they're running out of ability to express them in Latin, which may detract somewhat from their authoritativeness. --[[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 12:37, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::They're authoritative by fiat! ''Electrolux'' is wonderfully inventive! Linnaeus named a singularly ugly bug after one of his enemies. My favorite weird-looking genus-name is ''[[Abudefduf abdominalis|Abudefduf]],'' from the Arabic. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:48, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Nice one, Neander! OK, let's organise the issues mentioned above. I see four, and I'll try to set out where I stand on them.
== Marking edits as minor ==
In my view, marking edits as minor is not appropriate if they involve adding facts or deleting facts -- even temporarily --; nor if they are preparation for a move. We may all do it occasionally; it's easily done. But we must try not to. If an editor wanted something noticed or acted on, and marked the request as minor, and no action resulted, it's that editor's fault.
== Copy/paste vs. move ==
Wikipedia is potentially in breach of its license if the history of articles gets deleted, and this is a real risk in these circumstances: a redirect could at a later stage easily get deleted, complete with its history. By doing correct moves we avoid this risk. It is considerable labour to go back and re-do incorrect moves while trying to retain whatever later work has been done on an article. This labour should not be loaded unnecessarily on to others, so, we must not copy/paste to make a page move -- even temporarily --: we must do it the proper way, even if that leads to delay.
== Not having articles under scientific names ==
Iacobus proposes this, above, in order to oppose it. No doubt we all oppose it. Of course we should have '''articles or redirects''' under relevant scientific names.
:Perhaps the argument wasn't clear. This is it: the ''lemma'' of an article that treats any scientifically named form (species, genus, family, etc.) should ''be'' or ''begin with'' the scientific name, and that should be ''title'' of the article. All other names are historical curiosities, and they should be treated as such, sometimes perhaps in their own articles, but always subsidiary to the currently valid name. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:53, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
== Moving articles from "common" and classical Latin names to scientific names ==
This is the issue that really needs discussion. It's been discussed long before and I think that agreement was reached: perhaps it needs discussing again. The impression I have is that moves are being done hastily, without getting the views of earlier editors of the page, and sometimes hurriedly shifting the emphasis of the article. Discussion may be needed first. Sometimes the discussion will result in more articles (e.g. one about the plant, one about the product; or one about the scientific species, one about the nebulous but important classical concept) but where's the harm in that?
:If agreement was reached, it wasn't with my consent; or if I consented, I've reconsidered. :) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:00, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Iacobus that when when only one article is needed, that it would be better to organize the information under the scientific name, with the common names listed afterwards, with such phasings as vulgo, olim, saepe, melius, or corrupte indicating the status of the common name. Common names are often confusing and changing in meaning over time and between different cultures. The scientific name by contrast should be perfectly specific in aeternum.
Linea 55:
:::::::::In the narrow sense in both languages, "Wolf" = "lupus" mean "carnivore that howls and barks and hunts in packs common in temperate climates", and "dog" = "canis" ="domesticated variety of wolf bred for certain traits"; in the widest sense both dog and wolf refer to the species canis lupus. --[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 04:38, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Again, though, not all wolves are Canis lupus—some are Canis rufus, for example, and there are a couple of wolf species in Canidae outside of the genus Canis. Canis lupus is the Gray Wolf [technical term]; it's not the same thing, it's just the wolf [nontechnical term] species κατ' εξοχην. Canis lupus lupus is the Common Grey Wolf; the ''subspecies typica'', the 'most wolf-like wolf'. A dog [nontechnical term] is not a kind of wolf [nontechnical term], but the Domestic Dog [technical term] is indeed a subspecies of Gray Wolf [technical term]. Actually, in nontechnical language a wolf is a kind of dog, being a member of the dog family. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 12:26, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::Shome mishtake shurely. The page is [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawsonia_inermis&redirect=no]. The history is [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawsonia_inermis&action=history].
::::::I suspected the historia might survive somewhere! In cases where the process of editing deletes it, though, perhaps it were better to direct your complaint to the programmers who made such deletion possible. Unfortunately, they seem lately to be an unresponsive lot, as none of them has responded to my requests (in Taberna) that they correct how taxoboxes are misprinting. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:53, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::::It is specifically to preserve and make easily available the history and the discussion of a page that we endeavor always to "move" a page and not simply create a new page and make a redirect from the old page name.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 18:46, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I have no complaint! Neither the page nor the history has ever been deleted. Both remain accessible; they always have been.
:::::Lawsonia inermis should be redirected to [[Cypros (arbustum)]], or vice versa - as Iacobus wants -, not to [[Alchanna]], which is a kind of disambiguation-page to either [[Lawsonia inermis]] or [[Alkanna tinctoria]]. --[[Specialis:Conlationes/86.88.177.214|86.88.177.214]] 17:18, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::Quite right, as ''alchanna,'' like many other old words, formerly lumped together plants of multiple species and even genera—biological forms that modern taxonomy carefully distinguishes and that I was trying to get Vicipaedia to distinguish (but the waters have become muddy again). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:57, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The page was marked "delete": I preferred to make it a redirect rather than delete it. Anyone is free to edit it, e.g. to alter the redirect.
::::::::Maybe the "delete" was a mistake, as the article can reasonably be interpreted as a disambiguation page (as 86.88.177.214 points out) and should therefore perhaps formally be made into one. But then Vicipaedia should have a separate article on ''[[Lawsonia inermis]],'' a title that at the moment has been caused to redirect to [[Alchanna]]. ''Lawsonia inermis'' isn't, and never was, exactly the same thing as ''alchanna.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:10, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::That makes very good sense, I think. Whenever you want to write that article, just go to the page (this link [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawsonia_inermis&redirect=no] may help) and edit.
== Cypros or ''Lawsonia inermis''? ==
Linea 77:
:::''Etymology'' there is shorthand for "cultural concepts and uses," etc.: see the statement (above) that denies "that ancient (mis)understandings don't deserve their own articles." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:41, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:Iacobus is absolutely right that there is terrible confusion in en:wiki, because of the rule there that the commonest English names must be used. We're in a different position, since Latin is our language and Latin includes botanical as well as classical. I think we could avoid that confusion by acknowledging the need for more than one article in these cases.
:So, to bring the topic right back to your heading above, I suggest, maybe, "Cypros (arbustum)" ''and'' "Lawsonia inermis".
::I agree with you in general, but in the case of a non-ambiguous identification such as here, having two articles might result in an unnecessary doubling of articles, unless we define specifically what information belongs under which heading.--[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 10:30, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::By the way, Andrew, could you delete [[Disputatio:Cypros (arbustum)]], which is virtually empty, so that the present discussion may be moved there, where it really belongs? --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 10:30, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, quite true, and I wouldn't press for two articles in this specific case.
:::OK, I'll move this as you suggest.
:Given, especially, the facts of the language we're working with it might be best in general to do as the Spanish Wikipedia does and put all species under their scientific Latin names; in each article we could discuss the names used (and other species those names referred to) whether "correctly" or not. (Even 'classical' names are not always accurately identified.) But I think the current state of affairs does prefer the non-technical term when we have one. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 12:26, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::It might be worth adding (whichever way we decide) that redirects can be put in a category. We don't often do it but it's perfectly possible. Thus, for example, if we decided in this case to put the article at '''Cypros''' and the redirect at '''Lawsonia inermis''', it is still possible for ''Lawsonia inermis'' to appear in the category listing at [[:Categoria:Lawsonia]].
:::If Cypros is indeed so important a classical reference and yet simultaneously ambiguous as to exact species, then I think this should argue for a separate short page cypros that states as much. Cypros is a plant or plants thought to be the same as the species Lawsonia inermis, bla bla...Then add the information why the species identification isn't unambiguous with a reference. And add a couple of quotes showing its important to ancient living.
:::And the Lawsonia inermis page can talk about the species itself, including all the possible ancient references. I realize that since the pages amount to stipula there is a wish to unite them into a larger page, but uniting such distinct creatures causes trouble. Especially this is the case if they are united under a non-scientific name whose referent is uncertain. That is why when there is only one page to be had on a species it should be under the scientific name, since the referent is unambiguous in the current state of knowledge.
| |||