User talk:TelosCricket/Draft Proposal

From this discussion at EdJohnston's Talk page
copied this conversation here so that conversation of the proposal/guidelines can continue here. (Unless there are objections.) TelosCricket (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'd be happy to help make an RfC happen, though taking the lead would be difficult with how little time I have at the moment. Whether for you or me or anyone else reading, I'll give just my initial thoughts. I'll be honest I'm actually even less optimistic that consensus can be achieved after reading the thread you linked. What I saw there was essentially a couple of people speaking up for policy and everyone else trying to decide what degree of original research and editorializing is acceptable in the interest of completeness. A huge part of the difficulty I think in both that discussion and getting people interested in the topic generally is that it has proved incredibly tedious to explain exactly how a lot of these etymologies constitute original research. I agree with Wimpus' assessment that some people who have gotten involved lack the foreign language comprehension meaningfully discuss the details. That is, I think a lot of people are recognizing that they lack the expertise to contribute, but a handful think they have it when they don't. As a result, they don't even realize when they're conducting original research. I was going to say it's like writing content while citing a source in a language you can't read, but then I realized that is precisely what is happening. But then I step back and realize that this sort of thing would never fly in other subject areas - we would say "no original research, hard stop", and call it a day. And perhaps that's a framing that would prevent non-experts from avoiding the subject. Start with a simple up or down, "should an etymology be provided that is not literally given in the cited source?" Just getting a consensus on that would be a huge help, and if the answer is no, it would at least focus subsequent discussion. In either case there would still be the lingering question of what to do when the person who named a plant mangled his Greek and said something false, although that is not a unique issue to this one part of Wikipedia. It's the same issue that's faced when a notable person in a significant work says something that's literally factually incorrect but no reliable sources have pointed out the mistake. By the way, I'm sorry if at this point I'm less responding to your simple question and more vomiting my stream of consciousness onto your talk page, but at the very least I think writing this has made me realize that everyone involved in this dispute probably needs to step back and stop discussing Greek and start discussing very basic policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Someguy1221, thank you for response and suggestions. Do you invite us to respond to "should an etymology be provided that is not literally given in the cited source?"? Wimpus (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * & EdJohnson, I was getting ready to start on a proposal this morning, when I saw y'all were talking about it. I was going to ask and  for help in drafting it. If neither you or EdJohnson object, and if Peter or MWAK is willing to help draft it, I'd be willing to take point. I admit Wimpus and I have already had disagreements involving etymology (see Talk:Dasymalla_chorisepala and Talk:Dendrochytridium, and if either of you think that makes me too involved to take lead, I can accept that decision. Or, if I'm too inexperienced, which is possible, I can accept that too. TelosCricket (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello TelosCricket. Please go ahead. If you drafting an RfC then you shouldn't be concerned about your prior involvement. From my scan of the prior discussion, it seemed to me that User:Peter coxhead was one of the people who understood the linguistic issues, though there may have been others. If editors follow policy carefully, my guess is that some people will be disappointed, because some of the published etymologies *are* less than ideal from a linguistic viewpoint, but our rules about WP:OR don't really permit Wikipedia editors to improve upon them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My own view is that this is too complex an issue to be handled effectively by an RfC. I can only repeat that I think that what is needed is a guidance page on writing etymologies in articles about taxa, probably kept under WP:TOL. Issues involved include (but are very much not limited too):
 * What exactly is the purpose of etymologies in taxon articles.
 * What to do when the original author includes an etymology which contains linguistic errors.
 * How to use other sources when the original author does not include an etymology.
 * Whether we should use sources which give etymologies for commonly used specific names/epithets, but not explicitly for the species in question.
 * How much original language (Greek, Latin, whatever) should be given in an etymology.
 * Whether it's permissible to combine sources to explain the origin and meaning of a scientific name.
 * When such a guidance page exists, then widespread comment on it can be invited and will (hopefully) lead to a consensus – i.e. the RfC should be on whether to accept a draft guidance page. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * courtsey ping Would you be willing to take part in drafting such guidelines? TelosCricket (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, yes, but right now I'm occupied with some non-trivial changes to the automated taxobox system (as per the long thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 3). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter coxhead addresses important issues. Thanks! I might want to add the following questions:
 * What to do when a secondary source provides an etymology which contains linguistic errors.
 * What to do when a number of secondary sources provide contradictory etymologies.
 * What are reliable sources for etymology?
 * How to interpret certain sources.
 * To illustrate my fourth question: Peter coxhead seems to interpret the word-forming elements in the glossary of Stearn's Botanical Latin as "Greek-derived", while others seem to interpret these word-forming elements as real (ancient) Greek. Wimpus (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that in any case Wikipedia should not state known falsehoods. If a source, even when it is the naming article, contains errors about e.g. the Greek or Latin, it is not a reliable source regarding these languages and we should not simply repeat the mistakes. In such cases we should use introductory phrases like "The authors give the following etymology" and then quote their etymology verbatim. The most practical solution, best serving the reader and the whole of Wikipedia policy seen as a coherent normative structure, would be to allow footnotes, sourced by dictionaries, to explain the correct etymology − and that such footnotes would not be considered a forbidden synthesis under OR.--MWAK (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the footnote idea. TelosCricket (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @MWAK, for some editors for example, it might be perfectly clear, that words on -osus can not be Greek (as -osus is a Latin suffix and -us is a Latin or a Latinized ending, with the exception of Greek υ-stems on -υς). A secondary source claiming that leprosus is Greek (instead of Late Latin word that is ultimately derived from Greek λεπρός with the addition of the Latin suffix -osus) can easily be disregarded as incorrect, but some editors are still unconvinced, despite multiple references (on the talk-page) provided for "-osus is a Latin suffix", "leprosus is Late Latin", "-osus was only borrowed from medieval times in Greek, but appeared as -οσος, -οσσος, -ωσος, οζος, -ωζος, -οζος", that leprosus can not be considered as a Greek word. We should try to establish, what kind of "evidence" is sufficient to demonstrate "known falsehoods" and "errors about e.g. the Greek or Latin", as some editors will never acknowledge that their favorite source might have made linguistic errors. Wimpus (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Such problems cannot be solved by formal rules but only by reaching consensus. By a gentle and earnest approach, you might make others realise that their lack of a classical education is an impediment to forming a well-founded judgement on such matters.--MWAK (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I can give more time and thought to a draft proposal in the coming days, but I wanted to say as soon as possible that I think it's important for any RFC to lead with the most general and straightforward questions. From experience, multi-part RFCs suffer from attrition as people work their way down the page, and so it is best to have the questions least likely to turn people away, come first. I think it is also worthwhile to present the questions in a way that is generalized for a broad understanding, rather than giving readers the impression that you have to be an expert in the field to have an opinion. And I do mean really generalized. I would have early questions along the lines of: As per usual, that was longer than I thought it would be. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All questions are in the context of article content that describes the origin and meaning of the name of a plant.
 * 1) If there are no sources that explicitly state why a particular species has a particular name, or what that name is supposed to mean, should this content exist in an article at all? Consider a tree named Foobarius, and suppose that although there are absolutely no sources that say why this tree got that name, foobarius happens to be a word in some language. Are there any circumstances in which editors may state that in the article and define it? (Another advantage of leading with this question is that its answer has the greatest potential to narrow the rest of the RFC.) Assuming the consensus on question 1 is yes:
 * 2) Is it acceptable to cite sources that do not mention the species under discussion? For example, suppose there is no source explaining why the tree is named Foobarius, but there is a botanical dictionary that defines foobarius in the context of a different tree. Assuming the consensus on question 2 is yes:
 * 3) Is it acceptable to cite sources that define portions of the name, but not the entire name? For example, suppose that no source defines Foobarius, but there is a source that defines both foobar and -ius. '''(Now getting into less generalizable questions) Again assuming that the consensus on question 1 is yes:
 * 4) Should dictionaries of commonly used botanical names be permitted as sources regarding species they do not specifically mention? This is as opposed to allowing editors to cite general dictionaries.
 * 5) If the person or group who named a species explained why in a publication, but made obvious factual errors in doing so, how should editors handle this if no source has pointed out their mistake? For example, suppose that the group that first described and named Foobarius stated that it is derived from WORD, which is found in LANGUAGE, and means DEFINITION. However, it is uncontroversial that the authors, who are experts in botany and not language, misspelled WORD, gave the wrong language, and botched the definition. For added benefit, imagine that Elon Musk stated in an interview that his company, Tesla, was named after famous Canadian electrician Nicolo Teslo, but no one corrected him.
 * 6) Simply leave out this content?
 * 7) Write as much as possible without repeating any mistakes?
 * 8) Write what the authors probably meant to say?
 * 9) Accurately report what the authors stated even though incorrect?
 * 10) Provide notes and corrections citing sources about the word itself?
 * 11) Something else?
 * 12) If there is a secondary source written by experts in botany (but not experts in language or etymology), and it is found to frequently make obvious mistakes regarding the form, spelling or definitions of foreign language terms, is that source still reliable for describing the origin and meaning of the name of a species? For example, suppose that a secondary source about trees in general frequently makes the types of errors as suggested in the previous question.
 * 13) If there is a secondary source that is widely considered reliable for describing the origin and meaning of species names, and it is agreed that this source has made a rare but obvious factual error, however minor, how should this error be handled, given the same options as question 5? Again, this is imagining something that anyone familiar with the context would consider an irrefutable error.


 * Thanks! Hopefully I can pull something together by Sunday November 24, 2019. But, hey, Wikipedia has no deadlines! :) TelosCricket (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * and especially My thanks for your work on this. I do not want to throw a spanner into the works, but I have a problem with the phrases "obvious minor errors" (q.6), "obvious fundamental errors" (q.8, q.9) and "in fact" (q.8, q.9). Who decides whether something is an "error", or a "fact" or not? It seems to me, that it is not something Wikipedia editors should be deciding. Sometimes it is possible to find several reliable sources giving differing derivations of the same epithet. (For example, of adenostyla in Melaleuca adenostyla, I've found three - two agree, one differs.) If there are differing derivations, who decides which is "in error"?
 * I also have a problem with the use of Greek diacritics - they are not used in the English language, in botanical names or in botanical literature.
 * I therefore suggest that questions 6-9 be reworked without the words "error" or "fact" (or deleted), and that three further question be included in this proposal -
 * Question x If several secondary sources have differing derivations of an epithet, should both be included?
 * (For example, Telos et al. claim ophio- is Greek for "snake" and Cricket (2019) that ophios is Greek for "snake", should both be included or neither?)
 * Question y If there is a an interpretation of a Greek word in a reliable botanical source that differs from that in a reliable Greek dictionary, which should be included?
 * (For example, in the book Botanical Latin, Smith lists ophio- in B. ophioglossus as Greek for "snake" and Blogs's Greek Dictionary lists the word ophios as meaning snake, which should be included?)
 * Question z Should Greek diacritics be included in derivations?
 * (For example Blogs's Greek Dictionary lists χρῶμα as the Greek word for "colour".) Gderrin (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To some extent you've missed the point. This is not about difference of opinion between reliable sources about the derivation of a name, and in large part this is well in line with common interpretations of the reliable sources guideline. Specifically, there is no such thing as a source that is "reliable" for literally everything. As the wording of questions is meant to clue you in, an author can be a recognized expert in botany but also not a recognized expert in the ancient Greek language. If a botanist writing about the etymology of a name literally invents a new spelling for a Greek word (or invents an entirely new word), this is not a matter of opinion. Lexicographers of Ancient Greek get to have significant opinions on how to spell/translate/transliterate the language. Most other authors do not. And to make clear, those lexicographers are not Wikipedia editors, but authors of well regarded published works on the language. As a general comment on the RFC, I think it would be helpful to provide a simply worded title for each source that explains what it is and perhaps refer to the titles to aid a quick reading. Also, question 6 especially will likely confuse anyone not familiar with how content in this subject is normally presented, while at the same time that form of presentation is not actually important to the issues being discussed. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gderrin I do not want to throw a spanner into the works Well, if you'd use that spanner properly instead of throwing it.... ;) I have a problem with the phrases "obvious minor errors" (q.6), "obvious fundamental errors" (q.8, q.9) and "in fact" (q.8, q.9). Who decides whether something is an "error", or a "fact" or not? Honestly, I have a problem with the use of "error" too, but at the time of writing I couldn't think of a better way of putting it. Thank you for your suggestions!. What I was trying to communicate with "obvious minor errors" were things that could be attributed to a typo or misspelling. Such as an author using "choru-" rather than "chori-" or not putting the hyphen at the end of "dendro-". Error here would be along the lines of "produced by mistake". But I do agree "obvious fundamental errors" is problematic language. I will think on it. "In fact" is a turn of phrase, almost an idiom, and can be left out.
 * @Someguy1221: I am not sure I understand your general comment--the first one. By source do you mean the fictional ones I am using as examples? Or do you mean Brown, Lindell & Scott, Stearn, Short & George, and Sharr that have all been brought up in the various disputes that brought us here? As for question 6, good point. I will adjust the format to read easier. Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Telos. I'm referring to how we refer to the fictional sources for the example. In a number of questions only the author is given. While a completely normal way to refer to things, this may cause readers to basically go, "oh, which source was telos?" Especially if the RFC does attract attention, there could be a whole bunch of discussion between the questions. I also have no idea how widely people will immediately understand what a primer or grimoire is, especially for people who do not speak English as a first language, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. A final suggestion, if comments are to be limited in length, there could be an explicit suggestion to make lengthier comments on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. TelosCricket (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I do not agree with Someguy1221, although I do value the contribution. (I do not know which point I have missed. Also sorry I do not understand the second sentence, "This is not about...") There are people who are experts in botany and in Greek and Latin. (Those that aren't, consult those that are experts in both fields, when naming a new species.) They lecture at universities and write books on the subject of Botanical Latin, partly because until 2012, a new species had to be given a Latin diagnosis. One of those authors, Alex George, has written, "Whereas classical Latin is a dead language, botanical Latin is very much alive and kicking and has evolved to include a goodly smattering of Greek words - which are then 'forced' into behaving as Latin words instead of being declined in a Greek way, which can cause wincing, groans and horror in the Classical establishment." And botanists do, legitimately, invent names because there are so many species of plants, they run out of new epithets. Caladenia actensis and Melaleuca delta spring to mind. I'd suggest that Wikipedia articles about plants are read by people with a passing interest in plants or may be looking for published other sources of information - they are not looking for a lesson in ancient Greek, or in Latin declension. (The articles mentioned average one pageview per day.) I would also like to add I am trying to shine light on the subject, not trying to heat it up. Gderrin (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is one thing to invent a new word to describe a plant. It is another thing to invent a new word and pretend that it is ancient. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In the Work of Bob Chinnock, we can find for example poda as the Latin word for foot (Latin: pes, Greek: pous (πούς)), malae- as Greek for soft (Greek: malakos (μαλακός)), microphylla as Greek (Greek: mikrophyllos (μικρόφυλλος) for both feminine and masculine), chamae- as Greek (Greek: chamai (χαμαί)), -andrum as Greek (Greek: anēr (ἀνήρ) and in compounds also as -andros/on (-ανδρος/ον)), parvi for small (Latin: parvus/a/um), visca as single word (Latin: viscum is the simplex), -carpum as Greek (Greek: karpos (καρπός) and in compounds also as -karpos/on (-καρπος/ον)), oppositi as single word (Latin: oppositus/a/um), fasciata for a bundle (Latin: fascis), subfloccos as Latin (should be: subfloccosus/a/um), cordifolium as heart-shaped leaves (should be an adjective, not a plural noun), spongiocarpa as 'spongy fruit' (should be an adjective, not a singular noun). Those correct forms between brackets are not merely a matter of opinion. People with a passing interest in plants are evidently not helped by reading non-existing Latin and Greek words/word-forming elements in etymological sections. I do not doubt that Chinnock is a reliable source for botanical information, but for etymological information he is definitely not. Wimpus (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And we shouldn't make the situation even more confusing (when an original describing author makes an error) by using additionally secondary sources, that make other linguistic errors. This recent edit of Gderrin, it is stated that -phyllus would be Greek, which is impossible, as Greek o-stems do not end on -us (as -us is clearly a Latin ending). This edit asserts that podus would be Greek for "foot" (again not Greek at all). In case Chinnock is telling us that poda is the Latin word for "foot", you are not going to clarify this, by using another secondary source that incorrectly tells us that podus would be the Greek word for "foot". In this instance, you are going to create an even larger linguistic mess. Wimpus (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the simple solution would either be to leave the Latin/Greek part out or to claim that everything is botanical Latin and let interested readers consult a source on botanical Latin. TelosCricket (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Forms as mentioned in an etymological sections, like pous, kyklos or sphaira are not necessarily "botanical Latin". So, that is not a solution. Wimpus (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that leaves us with leaving out that bit altogether. Problem solved. TelosCricket (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * psssst, this is about etymology .... Wimpus (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ^Did you just make a joke? TelosCricket (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

courtesy pings, I apologize if y'all have this on your watch lists now.

First, @EdJohnston, I totally agree with you that it needs to be shortened. However, I'm struggling to do that while also keeping it comprehensive of all the variations of this dispute taking place. I suppose I could merge and generalize some of the questions. Thoughts?

Second, @Someguy1221, I opted for "Source 1, Source 2..." instead of using author names and titles. This probably doesn't help, though, does it? Do you have any suggestions on how to short it up?TelosCricket (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I am not sure who all to include under the list of drafters. TelosCricket (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Question 1
If there are no sources that explicitly state the origin of a taxon's name, the meaning of the taxon name, the components from which the name was derived, or the meaning of the components from which the name was derived (i.e., the name's etymology), should this content exist in an article at all? For example, Telos et al. name a plant Ophiodes ficiensis but do not explain the etymology nor do any subsequent sources that mention the plant. Are there any circumstances in which editors may state the etymology in the article?


 * Depends - if it is in any way obscure or unclear, then no. However, we do have the observation that You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Hence if an organism is named, say, Calvatia gigantea and its common name is "giant puffball" (so is blindingly obvious where the species name comes from, and let's say I can't find any fungal source explicitly stating the derivation, is it okay to head to my Liddell's lexicon and pull out γιγας/gigas "giant"? Does that help the reader understand and learn and is it unequivocal? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 2
Assuming the consensus to Question 1 is "yes", is it acceptable to cite sources that do not mention the taxon under discussion but do explain the etymology of similarily named taxa or taxa belonging to the same hierarchical group. For example, no source gives the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, but a source does give the etymology of Ophiodes. Can that source be used to place the etymology of Ophiodes in the article? As a second example, no source gives the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, but there is a source that explains the etymology of Chorioides ficiensis. Can that source be used to give the etymology of ficiensis in the article on Ophiodes ficiensis?


 * Tricky one, I think I have done this before but one has to be careful with meanings and how it relates to the taxon. Better avoided but could feasibly see a situation where is ok...? Would need case by case basis I think, but generally no. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 3
Assuming consensus of Questions 1 and 2 is "yes", Is it acceptable to cite sources that define portions of the name, but not the entire name? For example, no sources give the etymology of "Ophiodes ficiensis", but Deireadh's botanical dictionary gives the etymology of ophio-, -oides, fici-, and -ensis. Can an editor cite Deireadh and provide an etymology for Ophiodes ficiensis?


 * Yes as the latter source is pertaining to more than one taxon (like a Latin or Greek dictionary would). There could be cases where this is a problem so better not take as absolute yes - again some may require discussion and if an editor challenges a particular case for ambiguity and the consensus is that this is so then I'd drop it I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 4
Assuming the consensus of Question 3 is "yes", how should that etymology be presented in the article? For example, is this sentence acceptable: "Telos et al. named the plant Ophiodes ficiensis. According to Deireadh, ophio- means "pertaining to snakes", -oides means "like", fici- means "relating to figs", and -ensis indicates an origin or a relation. " Alternatively, is this sentence acceptable: “Telos et al. named the plant Ophiodes ficiensis. Ophiodes means "snake-like", and ficiensis means "originating from figs ".


 * The former is preferable (unless for some reason this can't be done from the source) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 5
If a source provides a reason for the name but does not break the taxon name into its respective components, is it acceptable for an editor to do so? For example, Telos et al. describe the plant Ophiodes ficiensis and state that the specific epithet "refers to the fern always being found in the shade of Ficus spp.". Can an editor provide the meaning of fici- and -ensis citing a botanical dictionary?


 * Best is to use a Greek or Latin dictionary to augment the meaning (possibly provide the correct stems) and use both sources. Sometimes, however, this might not be possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 6
If the publication that named a taxon provides an etymology and made obvious, minor errors that no secondary source has corrected, can editors correct the errors? For example, Telos et al. explain Ophiodes ficiensis as "Gr., ophio=snake;Gr., -odes=like;Gr., ficu=fig;L. -ensis=location". There are two errors: ophio- is missing a hyphen, and fici- is spelt wrong. Is it acceptable for an editor to correct the mistakes without indicating changes from the original source were made? Is it acceptable for an editor to correct the mistakes and make note of the changes from the source in a footnote? E.g., [1]=The original authors state "ophio=snake" and "ficu=fig". The correct spellings were taken from Cruicead, T. 1989. Primer on Botanical Latin..


 * Yes. One can provide the information as faithful to sources, either as a footnote or in the body of the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 7
Similar to Question 6 but concerning secondary sources. If a secondary source provides an etymology and makes obvious, minor errors that no other sources have corrected, can editors correct the errors? For example, in giving the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, Cricket (2019) misspell fici- as ficu-.


 * No, we can't say that a source misspells a derivation unless another source has said so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 8
If the publication that named a taxon provides an etymology and made obvious, fundamental errors (such as stating the wrong definition or citing the wrong language of origin) that no secondary source has corrected, how should editors handle the mistake? For example, Telos et al. claim fici- is Latin when it is in fact Greek. For another example, Telos et al. claim ophio- = "snake" when a more precise translation would be "relating to snakes". A third example, Telos et al. claim ophio- = eye when it means "relating to snakes".
 * Sub questions to consider
 * Should the etymology be left out altogether?
 * Should the editor write as much as possible without including the error?
 * Can the editor accurately state what the authors stated even though incorrect?
 * Can the editor write what the authors proably meant to say and indicate the corrections made in a footnote?
 * Can the editor state what the authors say and, in an adjoing sentence or footnote, provide notes and corrections sourced from botanical dictionaries?


 * We can only say what sources say. Correct thing would be to provide what all sources say (after finding dictionary sources - a few people here have Liddell's lexicon or Cassell's Latin dictionary so a much more helpful appraoch is to augment pages rather than complain about them) - so provide the source from the botanical/zoological work with the problematic derivation, and then a dictionary ref providing the correct words and languages. Problem is a whole swathe of Latinised Greek words than anyone familiar with classics would automatically see as words of Greek derivation that are actually latinised. sphaerocarpa being a case in point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 9
Similar to Question 8 but concering secondary sources. If a secondary source provides an etymology and made obvious, fundamental errors (such as stating the wrong definition or citing the wrong language of origin) that no secondary source has corrected, how should editors handle the mistake? For example, Cricket (2019) claims fici- is Latin when it is in fact Greek. For another example, Cricket (2019) claims ophio- = "snake" when a more precise translation would be "relating to snakes". A third example, Cricket (2019) claims ophio- = eye when it means "relating to snakes".


 * Depends here - most ones are regarding langauges are easy to clarify. If it gets murkier we'd have to look at it on a case by case basis and gain consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unreasonable example makes RfC not neutral nor fully relevant
I think it's unreasonable to use one wholly hypothetical example, "Ophiodes ficiensis", throughout, when its relevance varies. It biases the RfC and renders it not neutral.

For example, one case is where there can be no sensible dispute about the meaning of the word, but the meaning is not explained by the original author nor is it explained in its full context (e.g. in the genus) in other sources. An example for this case would be something like trying to explain the meaning of the epithet grandifolia in a new name Ophrys grandifolia (which IPNI says doesn't exist). We know what the components grandi- and (masculine) -folius mean, because Stearn and many other sources tell us. The relevant question is something like "Can we say that the original author did not explain the meaning of the epithet, but that grandifolia is derived from the Latin origin components grandi- (large) and -folius/a/um (leaved), referencing a reliable source like Stearn? Is not being able to source the full binomial a bar, or not? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sketch of an alternative RfC
I think there are two related but separate issues that need to be clarified. I feel the best format for the RfC would be to propose an agreed text to be part of the guidance at WP:TOL and its descendant WikiProjects and try to gain consensus on this text. This is the approach we have taken successfully on similar issues at WP:PLANTS.

I see two related but slightly different issues that need to be addressed.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the purpose of etymological information about scientific names in organism articles?
 * 2) Once there is an agreed answer to (1), how should the etymological information be presented and referenced? In particular, what kind of sourcing is acceptable? I suggested earlier that there is a hierarchy of sources, which I would put in order as follows. The question is how far down the order should we go?
 * 3) The original author's explanation. PC comment: there are at least two relevant issues. Early authors, writing in Neolatin, often could not have given an 'explanation' since the word they used was one used in the description, so any 'explanation' would have been a repetition. Thus Linnaeus's trivial names include adjectives taken from the phrasal name. Even if they could have given an explanation, they mostly had no reason to, because their readers necessarily knew Neolatin. Recent authors often don't know Neolatin, let alone Ancient Greek, and so when they try to explain, not infrequently make mistakes.
 * 4) Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name in context (e.g. the full binomial when explaining a specific epithet). PC comment: however, there are so many binomials, for example, that no glossary is ever going to list all of them, so is it reasonable to expect the full context?
 * 5) Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name but not in context (e.g. explain the whole epithet but not in the genus under discussion).
 * 6) Glossaries that give components of scientific names but not an explanation for the complete name (e.g. explain the meaning of the components grandi- and -folius; but not grandifolius).

Greek compound
considering your edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATelosCricket%2FDraft_Proposal&type=revision&diff=960139719&oldid=929160085 "Stearn does not list -phyllus as "Greek"; he says "in Gk. compounds" which is quite different"]; could you please try to explain what a "Gk. compound" is and why we can not equate this to "Greek"? It seems that this label "in Gk. compounds" leads to confusion. See the similar case in which concluded (inter alia based on Short and George: "-phloius (adj. A, in Gk comp.)")
 * "All of which leads me to the conclusion that phloios is Greek for "bark" and -phloius Greek for "-barked"."].

Other lexica like that of Sharr and George write for example: "oliganthus: G oligos few + -anthus -flowered:" Can we also assume in that case, that "G." is not always Greek, like -anthus (while oligos is clearly Greek)? The wording in the name space seems to neglect this aspect:
 * "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the ancient Greek oligos meaning "few" and &#8209;anthus meaning "&#8209;flowered". "

In case I would be unfamiliar with Latin or Greek as reader, I would assume that "oligos" and "-anthus" are both the Greek forms. Wimpus (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure why you are asking me this, since I'm sure you could explain it as well as, or better than, I can. However, since you asked, I will answer.
 * The glossary entries in Stearn are necessarily brief, and summarize what is explained earlier. Stearn discusses the formation of compounds involving Greek elements in a section beginning on p. 258 of the edition I have. He first refers to the ICNafp (in the version then current), quoting the phrase "A compound word or epithet combining elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words" and then goes on to give examples. The ICNafp makes it clear that botanical names and epithets are treated as if they were Latin. So "in Greek compounds" in the context of Stearn's text means "in botanical names or epithets, treated as if they were Latin, which contain elements derived from Greek".
 * On p. 259, Stearn gives the example of platyphyllus (πλατυφυλλος), saying that the element platy- (πλατυς, broad) indicates the kind of phyllon (φυλλον, leaf). [Stearn does not use the accents in the Greek; better would be πλατύς and φύλλον.] Stearn does not say that platy- and -phyllus are Greek; the second is clearly not, as it has a Latin case ending. They are elements derived from Greek.
 * So if we were explaining the botanical epithet platyphyllus, several levels of explanation could be produced based on Stearn alone.
 * platyphyllus means 'broad leaved' – meaning only, no etymology
 * platyphyllus is a compound of the Greek-derived elements platy-, meaning 'broad', and -phyllus, here meaning 'leaved' – outline etymology
 * platyphyllus is derived from the Ancient Greek πλατύς (platys), meaning 'broad', and φύλλον (phyllon), meaning 'leaf' – original Greek
 * The problem with explanations like (2) is that "Greek-derived element" is often reduced to "Greek" in the article, possibly also in the source. To those who understand the language and the derivation process, the shortening is perfectly clear, but we should avoid it. The problem with explanations like (3) is that they can require the reader to know the declension of the Greek. Thus (using a Stearn example again), gynandrus is derived from γυνή (gynē, 'woman') and ἀνήρ (anēr, 'man'). But just saying this requires our readers to know that the genitive is ἀνδρός (andros), so the Greek-derived element in the botanical Latin gynandrus is -andrus, not e.g. -aner.
 * So possible explanations of gynandrus are:
 * gynandrus means that the stamens are joined to the pistil – meaning only, no etymology
 * gynandrus is a compound of the Greek-derived elements gyn-, meaning 'woman', 'female', and -andrus, meaning 'man', 'male', used to describe the situation where the stamens are joined to the pistil – outline etymology
 * gynandrus is derived from the Ancient Greek γυνή (gynē), meaning 'woman', and ἀνήρ (anēr), genitive ἀνδρός (andros), meaning 'man', and is used to describe the situation where the stamens are joined to the pistil – original Greek
 * I don't think our readers really need explanations at level (3), and they are not always easy to source without what may appear to be WP:OR (although giving the genitive without a source is hardly original research). But if we do give such explanations, then changes in the stem need to be made clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explanation. Similarly, I do recognize that Stearn would probably refer with "in Gk. compound" to Latinized Greek word-forming elements, however I do not think that the distinction between "Gk." and "in Gk. compound" is consistently used in Stearn and therefore I doubt whether we can claim that "in Gk. compounds" is "quit different" from "Gk.". The original wording of TelosCricket wasn't therefore necessarily incorrect.
 * On p. 272 (Stearn, 1983: section on "Greek word elements") we can find "...Aden, adenos (ἀδην, ἀδενος f.)", which might give the reader of Stearn the impression that in this section, he uses real Greek words (and not Greek-derived words), as it spots a Greek and not a Latin genitive. But the casual reader might begin to doubt his assessment while reading "...Acis, acidos (ἀκις, ἀκιδος f.): pointed object)", as the word has a Latin c instead of a Greek k, although the reader might be familiar with Stearn's modus operandi to render κ with a c instead of the more common k. But in the following examples (p. 273): "'botryoides (βοτρυοειδης)", "caenos (καινος)", "Cneme, cnema (κνημη, f), Stearn seems to have clearly Latinized the Greek words, although some forms (like caenos) still have Greek markers. Thix mixture of real Greek, partially Latinized Greek and fully Latinized Greek, does not make the editor's task easier, when consulting Stearn. In the case of gynandrus, I can similarly claim, that gyn- is a (real) Greek word-forming element and not necessarily Greek-derived, as γύνανδρος, spots the same gyn- (γυν-).
 * In the aformentiond example of "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the ancient Greek oligos meaning "few" and &#8209;anthus meaning "&#8209;flowered". " I can not easily replace "ancient Greek" by "Greek-derived", as oligos is real Greek and not Greek-derived. Please note, that in the original version of Sharr's Western Australian Plant Names and Their Meanings, Sharr unequivocally derived oliganthus from "G oligos few" and "G anthos flower", while in the third edition, edited by Alex George, this became: "oliganthus: G oligos few + -anthus -flowered", with a double meaning of "G" as "real Greek" and "Greek-derived" within the same sentence. Editors using such a source (but also using Stearn) should be fully aware that "Greek" can be used polysemously, and in each single case, they have to think really hard whether to use the label "Greek" or "Greek-derived". In case we would use sources, that clearly label unequivocally single words as Greek or Latin, tiresome discussions whether or not something is Greek will be diminished. Wimpus (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think, to be quite frank, that this is somewhat pointless nit-picking (of interests to pedants, like me and you, but not to the vast majority of readers and editors).
 * You can't use the choice of transcription from the Greek alphabet to the Latin alphabet to make decisions about what language the author regards the word to be. In βοτρυοειδης, for example, υ could be transcribed as u or y; ει as ei or i. In words like καινος, αι is regularly transcribed as ae. Thus Gilbert-Carter (1955), Glossary of the British Flora, states (p. xiv): "αι is transcribed ae, ... and ει as e or i. The transcription choice tells you nothing about the assumed language.
 * The distinction between "Greek" and "Greek-derived" is essentially no distinction at all in many cases. The word ὀλίγος is Greek. The element ὀλιγο- is also Greek (as e.g. in Aristotle's use of ὀλιγόθερμος for modern 'cold-blooded'). However, the element oligo- is used in Botanical Latin in combinations quite unknown in Greek. You could say that in the epithet oligocephalus, oligo- is Greek, because κεφαλή is a Greek word. On the other hand, no adjective ὀλιγοκεφαλος meaning 'few-headed' is attested in any source I can find, so the combination oligocephalus is purely Botanical Latin. This is even clearer in the epithet oligosepalus, meaning 'few-sepaled', 'with few sepals', as in the binomial Aechmea oligosepala, where sepalum is an invented Botanical Latin word. So, yes, not surprisingly, you can interpret what Stearn and others abbreviate to "G." or "Gk." applied to word elements as either 'Greek' or 'Greek-derived', but this is a "distinction without a difference".
 * In case we would use sources, that clearly label unequivocally single words as Greek or Latin, tiresome discussions whether or not something is Greek will be diminished. Yes, undoubtedly if we have sources that use complete words (and for Greek they should be in the Greek alphabet) we can use the approach in my form (3) above. Otherwise I think it's safer to use my form (2), since, repeating the point immediately above, oligo- is a Greek-derived element used in Botanical Latin, whether or not the element ὀλιγό- is Greek.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In case you would claim; "You can't use the choice of transcription from the Greek alphabet to the Latin alphabet to make decisions about what language the author regards the word to be.", you couldn't similarly assess whether these aforementioned examples are transliterations of Greek at all (or something else) and such a list with "Greek elements" becomes useless.
 * I do think, based on other chapters, that Stearn uses a Latinate transliteration (that can be considered as some sort of Latinization) instead of transliteration that would/should be used in an English language text (Oxford dictionary of English uses: "kainos", "knēmē", "akis"). But the spelling cnema is not merely a transliteration (as -η is not transliterated as -a, otherwise you should similarly "transliterate" -ος as -us) and writing "...Oenos (οἰνος, m.)" (p. 277) seems inconsistent with "...oinidion (οἰνιδιον) (p. 275)". So, we can label all kind of words as "Greek-derived" (to be sure), but as I stated earlier, that is ad absurdum for words that are really Greek. Wimpus (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * what is "absurd" about stating oligo- is a Greek-derived element used in Botanical Latin (with an appropriate source, of course). It's a fact. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "For words". So, if we would change "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the ancient Greek oligos meaning "few" and &#8209;anthus meaning "&#8209;flowered" into "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the Greek-derived oligos meaning "few" and &#8209;anthus meaning "&#8209;flowered" it would become absurd. Wimpus (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * well, it would be somewhat poorly worded, although not "absurd". But it misrepresents what I proposed. My model (2) above in this case produces oligantha is a compound of the Greek-derived elements oligo-, meaning 'few-', and -anthus, here meaning '-flowered'. (I'm assuming that we don't need to explain that the -a is because the epithet is feminine.) Why is this "absurd"? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My remarks concerning "absurd" referred to (real) Greek words. And I would still consider labelling oligos as Greek-derived as absurd and not merely "somewhat poorly worded". I wouldn't call your suggestion oligantha is a compound of the Greek-derived elements oligo-, meaning 'few-', and -anthus, here meaning '-flowered' absurd, as technically oligo- and -anthus are Greek-derived elements. But I do think that readers might confuse these Greek-derived elements with Greek elements (as oligo- is also a Greek element) and such an etymology is unnecessarily incomplete. In case, such a distinction would be clear, why would editors add etymologies like "The specific epithet (microphyllum) is from the Greek microphyllus, micro- meaning "small" and -phyllus meaning "leaved". " or  "The specific epithet (leprophloia) is derived from the ancient Greek words leprosus meaning "scurfy" and -phloius meaning "barked". "? Wimpus (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you are just creating "straw men" by repeating things I did not propose and examples I have never endorsed. It would be more useful if you would engage with my specific proposals. I put forward three models of how we could write about the etymology of scientific names, depending on what sources were available and correct. Please engage with those. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already made clear earlier, I prefer to mention the real Greek words (so, in this case option 3), instead of Greek-derived elements. And I tried to make clear by using various examples that the distinction between Greek and Greek-derived might be difficult to understand for our readers and for various editors and would ultimately lead to confusion. Wimpus (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could make clear, in which specific cases, you want to use option 2 and in which specific case you want to use option 3. In Rhubarb for example, you seem to prefer option 3, as you did not explain rhubarb as a "compound of the Greek-derived elements rhu-, meaning 'rhubarb', and -barb, meaning 'foreign'. `Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the sources available, as always. My personal preference is 3 – 2 – 1, but my proposal is that all are acceptable where appropriate sources exist. (As an aside, rhubarb isn't a scientific name, so my models aren't meant to apply, but you have made me aware of a point I should have made. In many cases, the Greek- or Latin-derived components are widely used in scientific names, so there is merit in acquainting readers with them in their own right; poly- and -anthus for example. In other cases, the components are one-off or very limited in use; rha- in the epithets rhabarbarum and rhaponticum for example. Model 2 is of less value to readers in such cases.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When there are reliable (and correct) sources to support model 3, I would use it. (Sadly, as we know, not all sources that meet the test for reliability in other respects are entirely correct or have sufficient correct linguistic detail to support model 3.)
 * Many, if not most, editors find it difficult to enter Greek characters, especially using the polytonic alphabet, and don't understand grammatical features like declensions and stem changes in either Greek or Latin. Many reliable sources (including Stearn) don't always give the original Greek words, and sometimes the usage of the components in scientific Latin is significantly different from the original usage. In these cases, model 2 is better.
 * Wherever possible, model 1 should be a minimum.
 * Thank you for your explanation. In those cases we would use option 2, we should be consistent. It has to be clear, how to label such word-forming element. We can not label (-)phyllus in some cases as a Greek word, in another case as Greek word-forming element and in another case as Greek-derived word-forming element. Editors unfamiliar with Latin and Greek might misinterpret such word-forming elements as words (I had to remove on numerous occasions the word "word" in etymological sections that described word-forming elements). Additionally, editors unfamiliar with Latin and Greek that are using sources that label such word-forming elements like -phyllus as "Greek" (like Sharr and George's Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings) do not recognize that these word-forming elements are not Greek, but merely Greek-derived. Such an etymological description like "The specific epithet (microphyllum) is from the Greek microphyllus, micro- meaning "small" and -phyllus meaning "leaved"." shouldn't be deemed acceptable (and I do not suggest that your proposal finds it acceptable), but it would be very difficult to construct a proposal that prevents such types of mislabelling. Wimpus (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)