User talk:Vigilius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Vigilius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Σαι ( Talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "(genus)" disambiguator

You really should have talked to somebody before taking it upon yourself to rename hundreds of articles. We don't use disambiguators like "(plant)" or "(genus)" unless absolutely necessary because of ambiguity with other meanings, and "(genus)" is a poor choice because there are a number of cases for which there is both a plant and an animal genus of the same name, as allowed by the rules of nomenclature. Stan (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right about "talking". I originally thought it to be much fewer changes, but then got a bit caught in consistency. I also do not yet know where and to whom to talk to for this kind of topic. Yes, I realize that genus names in different codes of nomenclature are independent, and where necessary, this can be added as in "(plant genus)" or "(genus, botany)/(genus, zoology)". This adds more specific disambiguation only where necessary, i.e. where accepted homonyms exist in zoology as well as botany or bacteriology. I personally think "(genus)" is not a bad choice for scientific taxon names because it allows the disambiguation between common names and scientific names. I find it a better choice than having "(plant)", "(herb)", "(pea)", "(palm)" etc. However, please note that I did not make a choice myself, but only followed the majority, i.e. that most scientific genus names needing disambiguation use " (genus)". If that majority usage should change, we should discuss this. It would be good to have a naming standard for this somewhere. Vigilius (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The main project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life, with subprojects for different specializations, and the main naming convention page is Wikipedia:Naming conventions, with plants and animals in more detail at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). I've had to disentangle links a couple times when somebody didn't realize "(genus)" alone was sufficient, so I've been encouraging more specific words as disambiguator, but don't think it's been enshrined as an official part of the convention. Stan (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for being bold, even if the consistency you're shooting for will be rather more easily attempted than achieved. I have at least a couple of dozen flower articles on my watchlist, and only one got moved. Speaking of which, I honestly don't see why Narcissus (genus) is in any way preferable to "Narcissus (flower)". If the vast majority of Web surfers and WP users were scientifically literate, perhaps it would be all right, but it really seems counterintuitive. Most people (I daresay even botanists who enjoy gardening) think of it as a flower first. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) is a bit ambiguous, since the threshold for "sufficiently significant economically or culturally" is subjective; besides, two separate articles on narcissus would be absurd. In any case, how do you propose to deal with Narcissus (disambiguation), which still lists "Narcissus (flower)", not Narcissus (genus), necessitating a redirect? And what do you think about Homo sapiens redirecting to Human—should there be two separate articles there? Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Consistency being achieved": I agree, I was myself underestimating the problem and am learning about problems of scale in wikipedia... The problem of common and scientific names I view as a separate problem. What I meant about being able to understand whether something is a common or scientific name are things like fungi (pronounced differently, to indicate whether referring to the taxon or the common term which are differently circumsscribed), Cosmos, etc. Also, I believe "namespace" and "which name is redirected and which preferred are separate issues:

• I believe consistency should be sought in scientific names. Scientific species names have disambiguation problems only extremely rarely (because of their two-worded structure), the problem is mainly higher taxa with Genus names being most problematic. Several solutions are possible for this. Using rank names like "(genus)", "(order)" where conflicts with common, personal, geographic names, etc. exist, and extending this only where a conflict exists between codes of nomenclature was what I thought was most common on Wikipedia. I personally would prefer always to use a term specific to the code of nomenclature, like "(zoology)", "(botany)", "(bacteriology)", and ("virology") for disambiguation. I would avoid using "flora" or "fauna" - many fungi or plant/animal microorganisms would look misplaced then.
• In common names, "Mercury (plant)" the (plant) is ok with me (the question whether it is appropriate to use common names for genera, see below.
• The question of redirection between a common and a scientific name is a separate one. For species, if a common name is truly in common use, linking common to scientific name is a good idea (Human is ok). I understand that WP requests also creating the scientific name and adding a redirect, which is sufficient for all kinds of uses.
• However, for genera I have some doubts. The common name is often not truly equivalent with the circumscription of a genus. The genus concept is always worldwide and sometimes even through time. In some cases a true equivalence between scientific and common genus names might exist, but having an article about "Grass of Parnassus" instead of "Parnassia" seems to me not a good solution. On Narcissus (genus), the scientific name has been preserved, redirecting "Daffodil" to it, since not all Narcissus species are called Daffodil. I like this better.

What I think should be avoided is using highly variable and context specific terms as disambiguators like "(Flower)" (which is misleading, since the article would be about the entire plant, not the flower alone) or as I found "(plant)", "(herb)", "(pea)", "(palm)". It would be ok with me if a fixed set of agreed terms like (spider) (insect) (plant) (fungus) (virus) (bacterium) exists. However that list is really difficult to create because of many many small basal groups in taxonomy. Vigilius (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, "flower" isn't really misleading. It would be inaccurate used in a scientific journal, but it is generally taken to be synonymous with "flowering plant": ("flower: a brightly colored and conspicuous example of such a part of a plant together with its stalk, typically used with others as a decoration or gift" —Oxford American Dictionary.) And the fixed terms you mention aren't comparable to one another, since kingdoms, orders, and classes don't mix. I don't mean to nitpick; I just think we should be extra careful when dealing with article names, as opposed to content, since they affect the structure and usability of WP. Your larger points are well taken. As long as redirects from likely common names—such as "Narcissus (flower)"—are kept, and disambiguation pages are written for the general public and make clear where one can find the relevant article, I think what you're describing is workable and probably for the better. Perhaps it deserves to be a project, and you could get some help. Rivertorch (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bigger project. The first seems to be get a Naming convention agreement for scientific names. On which page should a discussion on this be started? Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life? Vigilius (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You might try putting a query on the talk page there. Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages

Thanks for showing up at WT:PLANTS, but more people will see your questions if you add new sections at the end of the talk page, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (feel free to move the comments you added earlier today if you want). Kingdon (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images at Graphics Lab

Sorry it took us a while to get to your request. Would you like to revisit Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve and comment on the icons? Dhatfield (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for contacting me back here, I had indeed stopped stepping by regularly. The more thanks for still keeping the request up and creating such good results. I personally like them very much and will in turn point some people to it now! --Vigilius (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)