Talk:facultative
Add topic
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
In biological terminology, an obligate X is inherently only able to be an X, while a facultative X is inherently something else, but can also be an X (our entries aren't very clear about this, but that's how I've seen the terms used).
Thus, a facultative biped is normally not a biped, but they're capable of being a biped (that's not what our entry says, but that's because it's basically a duplicate of the facultative quadruped entry and has it backward).
It follows then, that an obligate biped is only capable of being a biped
Again, an obligate carnivore is only able to eat meat, while a facultative carnivore (we don't have an entry for that one) is a non-carnivore that can eat meat.
I'll leave the others as an exercise to the reader, since it's very easy to figure them out from what I've said so far
There are details in the entries about why these are one or the other, but they're not necessary to the definitions.
Judging by the error at facultative biped, it would seem that these entries were basically created assembly-line style, which wouldn't be worth the trouble if the parts weren't interchangeable.
Finally, I should add that there are facultative and obligate herbivores, omnivores, etc., and there are any number of things that organisms can be obligate or facultative with respect to. Not all of the combinations are SOP, but all of the above definitely are. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Chuck's understanding of the use of the terms in biology is completely correct (unlike the SOP entries). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per the above comment and the OP. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. per above. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, but doesn't the translation target rationale apply to this as it is claimed to do in so many other cases? If it does, on what basis (other than the whimsical one of voting) do we distinguish this from other cases? DCDuring (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I created several of these on the basis that they were terms defined in a published glossary of biology; the definitions paraphrase the definitions that were offered in that text. bd2412 T 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose not every entry in every glossary warrants an entry here. Single-word terms may have definitions that are covered in other definitions we have. MWEs may just be transparent, but use words not part of the ordinary vocabulary of the users of the glossary. I think glossaries just expend more effort in customizing/elaborating definitions for their field. 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- All RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)