Category talk:Taxonomic names

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Category:Taxonomic names

Since this is Translingual I think the title should bear some note of that. In the vein of the topical Category:Greek letter names, I propose moving the contents to the topically-named Category:mul:Taxonomic names. Others have said that it should be named non-topically as Category:Translingual taxonomic names. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. [[Category:Verlan]] and [[Category:Leet]] do not have a language label either, as all Leet is English, and all Verlan is French. Similarly, aren't all taxonomics names translingual? If ever there was an argument to expand es: -> Spanish (et al.) this is probably it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto undecided. I'm pretty sure that taxonomic names are different in Russian, Japanese etc (I've even seen differences in Italian). Do what you think best. SemperBlotto 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm Category:mul:Taxonomic names seems better to me, a taxonomic name is not a part of speech. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a topical category, so the name is correct but the contents are wrong! This is English (as we don't put :en:) so all the mul stuff needs to be in the red linked category above. How am I doing? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that all of our topic categories are named so as to refer to the referents of the categories' member words ("Birds", etc.) whereas all our POS categories are named so as to refer to the member words themselves ("Nouns", etc.). "Taxonomic names" refers to the words themselves, so looks like a POS category, but it's a topically themed category.​—msh210℠ 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Taxonomic names effectively indicates a couple of things that concern the semantics and other lexicographic attribute of terms or their entries:

1. We are prone to accept prescriptive definitions for this class of items.
2. We rely on Wikispecies for a more extended semantic network, in accord with the prescriptions of the biologist community.
3. The entry is a strong candidate for enhancement by sister-project links and images.

Further, the category may be useful as a way of selectively allowing Translingual entries to become members of now-empty Category:mul:Latin derivations (which has been suppressed by special exclusion in {{etyl}}).

To me, taxonomic names is more in the nature of the various grammatical categories that operate parallel or subordinate to the PoS header categories (themselves not mapping perfectly to grammatical categories). DCDuring TALK 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Semper's guess, the Russians and Japanese use exactly the same taxonomic names as everyone else because they're agreed upon internationally. I've been to Russian botanical journals which had recognizeable (to me) taxonomic names in Latin letters in the midst of a page of Cyrillic script. The same is true of the Japanese botanical journals.

So, the problem with relabelling this category as "Translingual taxonomic names" is that it implies there are taxonomic names specific to languages, which isn't the case. Taxonomic names happen to be Translingual, but the modifier isn't necessary because there aren't other-language taxonomic names. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus, still needs sorting out, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)