Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Cypros (planta)" differant

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Linea 43:
::::::Probably the latter (as they are now, though inelegantly). Throughout the whole discussion, we should bear in mind that we don't want scientific articles, like the one treating the subject of "gravity," to begin this way:
:::::::'''Gravitas,''' vel '''pondus,''' est sociale virorum momentum, una ex nonnullis virtutibus quas hominum coetus honoratis honestisque tribuit singulis, inter eas [[pietas]], [[dignitas]], [[iustitia]].
:::::::'''Gravity,''' or '''weight,''' is the sociable influence of men, one of several virtues that human society attributes to honored & honorable individuals, among them piety, dignity, and iustice.
::::::ThatIf you're looking for the physical properties of gravity but get forced into a discussion of ancient Roman social status, that's more or less how it looks when you're seeking ''Lawsonia inermis'' and get forced into ''Alchanna.'' Perhaps parts of this discussion should be copied to Taberna. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:45, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::From the scientific view, one should prefer separate pages on "canis lupus familiaris" the family pet, "canis lupus" the species, and "canis (genus)" because this classification lays bare the current scientific understanding of the dog and wolf comprising a single species. These are obviously different ways of classifying existents according to different criteria.
:::::This should obviously be discussed more to obtain or reaffirm a prevailing consensus.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 18:56, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::A curious case, since the current definition of ''[[lupus]]'' begins in a strangely wordy fashion: "''Lupus'' (binomen a Linnaeo anno 1758), (-i, m.) (binomen: Canis lupus) est animal mammiferum generis ''Lupi.''" Anglice: ''Lupus'' (two-name by Linnaeus in the year 1758), (-i, m.) (two-name: ''Canis lupus'') is a breast-bearing animal of genus ''Lupus.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:33, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Not only that it mistakenly identifies the wolf as "canis lupus" whereas it is the subspecies "Canis lupus lupus". THis is surely a case where the ''biological species'' does not correspond to the concept named by the common name, for the wolf and dog are different subspecies within the same species. On the other hand, canis sensu latissimo refers to any animal of the genus canis. The right thing I think is to have a disambig page for canis which lists the genus canis, species canis lupus, the subspecies canis lupus familiaris, etc...--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 20:20, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Part of the trouble here is an inconsistency between the treatments of language-based taxonomy and scientifically-based taxonomy. "Wolf" and "dog" and "canis" and "lupus" are going to have different meanings in English and technical English and Latin and technical Latin and none of them are necessarily going to be "wrong" for being different. You say "mistakenly identifies the wolf as 'canis lupus' whereas it is the subspecies 'Canis lupus lupus'" — but in non-technical English "wolf" is any of thirty-seven or so subspecies of Canis lupus, not just Canis lupus lupus, as well as a couple of other Canis species, while in technical English 'wolf' is the grey wolf, Canis lupus, all subspecies included (and one would say a dog is a kind of wolf, as [[:en:dog]] does). I don't know in detail what the referents of the Latin word 'lupus' used non-technically are yet, but in the taxonomic Latin it's certainly 'Canis lupus' and I doubt the non-technical use of the word is stricter than that (I'm pretty sure the jackal was a kind of 'lupus', at least). —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 01:01, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::You have just made by point even stronger, en: like la: has been giving common names preference to scientific names, and this has resulted in terrible confusion in their articles.
:::::::::Neither wolf or dog captures the same idea as the species canis lupus, so trying to mash together the article on canis lupus with either the wolf or dog article is necessarily going to cause a mess, and it has both for la: and en:.
:::::::::For example en: identifies wolf with only the grey wolf and also canis lupus, but canis lupus is all of them, every kind of dog and wolf--they are all the same species. Evidently, a dog is not a kind of grey wolf, but rather the grey wolf and the dog are kinds of canis lupus.
:::::::::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]. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 15:41, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
::::::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)
Revertere ad "Cypros (planta)".