User talk:Wimpus

Hello Orthoceras,

I do apologise for welcoming you to Wikipedia, then reverting one of your edits! Please do not take offence - Wikipedia needs more editors like you who are clearly knowledgeable (including about Ancient Greek).

Wkipedia requires references. In the case of the etymology of "Orthoceras", a reference was given. After the citation you added "There is no Greek nominative κέρως, only a genitive singular κέρως, an Attic contraction. Nominative singular is κέρας. The form -κέρως is a morpheme seen in compounds, but is not a simplex, as κέρας is." I am quite sure that you are correct - but that's only my opinion. Fortunately, or unfortunately - Wikipedia is about references, not opinions.

Roland Brown gives "keros, m. horn" on page 422. (His book can be accessed online here.) Other sources could be listed,^[1][2] but the Brown citation should be adequate.

Please feel free to discuss this either here or on my talk page. Gderrin (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Gderrin, first of all, thank you for welcome and thank you for directing me to the work of Brown. I am not familiar with this specific dictionary, so it could be possible that, due to unfamiliarity, I might misinterpret the content of the specific entry on p. 422. I can clearly see that he mentions "keros", a form that I can not find in Liddell & Scott as κέρος or κέρως, although the form -κέρως is seen as second member of compounds. In the Etymological dictionary of Greek (Beekes & van Beek, 2010, p. 676: κέρας) this second member is explained as "As a second member mostly -κερως [m., f.] < -κερα(σ)-ος seen in ὑψί-, ἄ-κερως, etc." Brown seems to indicate that keros is a simplex noun, instead of part of a compound. In ancient Greek one can find the adjective κεραός (horned). It might be that κεραός could be contracted to κέρως, but that would still be incompatible with the view of Brown that keros is a noun. Another possibility might be that Brown misread/misidentified κηρός (bees-wax).

Brown only mentions that "keros" can mean "horn", not that "keros" (instead of "keras") is used in the specific coinage Orthoceras. So, based on that specific entry on p. 422, keras and keros seem equally valid. Moreover, the ending -as in orthoceras, seems to hint at a compound with κέρας instead. It seems consistent with Beekes and van Beek (2010, p. 676: κέρας) "As a second member ... δί-κερας [n.] 'double horn' (Callix.) and the plant names αἰγό-, βού-, ταυρό-κερας [n.] (after the shape of the fruit, Strömberg 1940: 54)." Creating a compound orthoceras with κέρως as building block seems quite complicated, as you would have to add -ος to κέρας to create κέρως (<κεραός), while instantaneously delete -ος to return back to κέρας as in Orthoceras. Please notice, that Orthoceras is neuter, just like κέρας, while keros is identified by Brown as masculine. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - comprehensive answer appreciated. I've read that botanists often give names that do not follow the grammatical rules of the languages they use but Robert Brown (the botanist) probably wanted Orthoceras to mean "straight horn". I also noticed your corrections on some other pages, including for melanocephalus on this page. Thank you - much better to make corrections rather than just tag them "citation needed". Gderrin (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

An etymology should never be added to a taxon article unless the original descriptions explicit etymology section, or direct reference to the describing authors purpose in a name can be supplied. Anything else is a violation of WP:OR, since its the wikipedia author putting personal interpretation on something that is not actually ever defined. Linnaeus did not ever provide etymologies for taxa named, and many subsequent authors followed suit, with etymology sections in taxon descriptions only recently becoming commonplace. As such I removed the etymology on Atta cephalotes.--Kevmin § 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, you have to similarly delete the unsourced etymological information from the first part of Trypanosomatida (that refers to "trypano" while ancient Greek writes τρύπανον, trypanon) and the unsourced information from the taxonomy section (that refers to mastig, while ancient Greek writes μάστιξ, mastix). I appreciate your eagerness to use original sources (although in case etymological information is lacking in original sources, I think other vistas can be explored than simply deleting etymological information), but in some cases, the etymological explanation in the original source might still not be pleasing. In Acer castorrivularis (to mention another Wiki article you have recently edited/seen), rivularis is translated (with the original source as in-line citation) as the noun "rill" or "brook", while Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983) considers rivularis as adjective with the meaning: "pertaining to brooklets". In classical Latin, rivulus is attested with the meaning "small brook" or "rill". It could be, that the original authors have swapped rivulus and rivularis in their description. In those cases, citing the original sources, without any additional notes, will still give false etymologies. I have posted earlier an question regarding this issue. Wimpus (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You cant revise what the original authority say though, that is wholly against wp:original research. That some authors are using variations on how a root word is defined is not reason to "correct" the etymologies after the fact. That correction results is wiki putting a different meaning on the naming authors intent/etymology. It fails the OR test and is not allowed. Other vistas also would result in the same situation, as they to would be making suggestions or assertions of the describing authors intent with no actual reference by said author.--Kevmin § 01:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

So if you feel the need to change anything, go ahead. Serendi^podous 23:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I have checked only the Greek orthography. Other issues I have to check later (like δρομεύς is runner, not δρομαῖος, whether mimus has to be identified as source or the original μῖμος instead, et cetera). Wimpus (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wimpus,

Instead of deleting sections of articles that explain etymology, or inserting irrevelant statements, as you did here, can you please in future make edits that make a meaningful positive contributions? In particular, can I encourage you to refer readers to the correct derivation, such as κεφᾰλή? Thank you.

Samsara 19:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Samsara, in case I would like to make a positive contribution, I have to find a good source that would explain gynomorph. I doubt, whether I can find a source easily for this particularly word. Evidently, this word is derived from γυνή and μορφή, but one should use a source that explicitely states that. In Ancient Greek, γυναικόμορφος is attested, consistent with all other compounds in Ancient Greek that starts with γυναικ(o) (with γυναιμανής as exception). So, gynomorph seems to be an odd duck. But, writing the English form gynomorph with Greek letters as γυνόμορφ, seems to be merely some kind of joke. So, that part has to be removed, as it is merely vandalism. Wimpus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wimpus,

I appreciate your work and especially your knowledge of Ancient Greek but the content of Wikipedia articles must be reflected in the references. So whilst you may be quite correct in the difference between the nominative case and genitive case of ous and otos, botanists apparently do not distinguish. You will notice that at the end of the sentence there is a reference to the Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Garden. You may have difficulty accessing the journal so I will quote it directly (page 53): "Derivation of "Microtis" is from the Greek mikros meaning small, and otos an ear, and refers to the small membranous auricles of the column." I should note, the name is Microtis, not Microus. I also suspect that since Microtis is a word, rather than a clause or sentence, nominative case/genitive case is not an issue. It is simply a word derived from two Greek words.^[1] Please replace the original etymology. Gderrin (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Gderrin, it is not common to use the genitive case (by people that are familiar with Greek grammar), without using the nominative case. Therefore, Wilbur Brown does not mention the genitive case, without mentioning the nominative case (to prevent confusion).The other reference state: "otos an ear" (I can access the article via JSTOR), but that is actually incorrect as ὠτός means "of (an) ear". It seems merely that Bates might be not entirely familiar with Greek grammar. Other sources, do mention the nominative case οὖς, see this, this or this one from 1855. As Microtis was already coined in 1810, Bates his etymology can not be considered as the original etymology. Wimpus (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

With respect, it does not matter whether you or I think something is "incorrect" (including "not reliable for etymological information"). Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. It does not matter whether you know more about Ancient Greek, or I know more about botany - if it's in a reliable reference (as for example, the etymology references for Trichoglottis and Melaleuca calyptroides) it should stand. For example, I agree with you about the etymology of "calyptroides", but that's not what's in the reference. (I think you can download it here.) Please do not delete references because you don't agree with what's in them. Gderrin (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Gderrin, the link you used shows us that Trichoglottis: "is derived from the Greek thrix, tricho, hair and glotta, tongue, refers to the pubescent labellum in the type species.". Apperently, you did not agreed with their assessment, as you wrote: "The name Trichoglottis is derived from the Ancient Greek words trichos meaning "hair"8:392 and glottis meaning "tongue"8:466". You mentioned the form "trichos" that can not be found in keys.trin.org.au and wrote "glottis" instead of glotta. So, it seems that you neglected some key parts of keys.trin.org.au and prefered Brown instead. However, in Brown "glottis" is not found on p. 466, but on pp. 370, 538, 610, 799 and is defined as: "mouth of the "windpipe" ". So, there is clearly a mismatch between Wikipedia and its two sources. That seems like a violation of verifiability not truth. By no means on purpose of course.

Comparing these two sources, can be difficult, because we may wonder whether to use "thrix", "trichos" or "tricho" for hair. Familiarity with Greek forms can be advantage in such cases.

And is the assessment that Trichoglottis is composed of thrix and glotta valid? This source seems to contradict this as it writes: "The name from the Greek trichos, and glottis, a tongue." We have established, based on Brown, that the glottis is the "mouth of the "windpipe", a definition that is confirmed by the Greek dictionary of Liddle and Scott. So, currently each source seems to conflict with the other source. So, therefore my decision to remove this inconsistent etymology and my advice, to carefully study your sources, before writing down a specific etymology. Wimpus (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You have reversed my change of images for the reason "Image contains typo". I do not understand you. The quality of the image (File:Gray309-en.svg) is the same, and the explanation (with labels and arrows) of the image IS BETTER than File:Gray309.png. So I do not agree with your action. Jmarchn (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Condiloid is not the correct English form, as it is condyloid process. The correct genitive of fascia is fasciae, as in [Tensor fasciae latae muscle|tensor fasciae latae] and not fascia, written as tensor fascia latae in the added image. Patelar is written patellar in patellar ligament and [Patellar tendon rupture|patellar tendon], instead of patelar ligament and patelar tendon as written in the added image. Wimpus (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All errors fixed. --Jmarchn (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, what is the incorrect genitive case?. I'll correct it... --Jmarchn (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. You should read the three revert rule before contributing further to Eucalyptus leptopoda. The references back up the existing text, you need to take your concerns to the talk page of the article. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Leucaena leucocephala‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello Wimpus,

Thanks for your work. I do not profess to be an expert in either Latin or Greek, as you obviously are, but have had some experience in the use of Botanical Latin. Botanical Latin is different from Classical Latin and Ancient Greek. It does, however, have to conform to rules laid down in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. I think Article 23 of that Code may be relevant to the present discussion.

• 23.2 "The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source whatever, and may be even composed arbitrarily." (Some examples are given.)

There are some rules about the use of Latin and Greek in the Code, but I don't think any of the corrections you have made that I have seen, have been because those rules have been broken.

I do appreciate your extensive knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek and do not want to be involved in edit wars, but I do think a collaborative approach is valuable here. Gderrin (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gderrin, thank you for referring to Article 23. This rule deals with how names are composed, but does not give clear guidelines how to describe the etymology. In case I would name a new species Hamburger hamburger and would explain the name hamburger by writing down that hamburger is the name of the 45th president of the United States, than the editors of the journal will hopefully point out, that an hamburger is something completely different.

So, in case Dean Nicolle coins the epithet extrica and writes: From the Latin extrico - disentangled, free, one hopes that some editors will inform mr. Nicolle, that extrico is actually the first person singular of the verb extricare and is actually not an adjective. Maybe, the Code may not prohibit mr. Nicolle from constructing such a dog-Latin "adjective" extrica, it does not justify to provide false etymologies (although it actually does not mention it).

You clearly state: Botanical Latin is different from Classical Latin and Ancient Greek. I am not an expert in botanical Latin. My opinion on what botanical Latin might entail, is partially formed by the views of William T. Stearn, as expressed in his work Botanical Latin, that currently is on a pile of books besides my chair. Stearn emphasizes multiple times in his Botanical Latin that Botanical Latin is distinct from classical Latin (Stearn, 1983, p. 3: Increasing scientific need during the past 250 years for precision and economy in words bas made it distinct from classical Latin and it should be treated as such.) and thereby corroborates your statement.

But is botanical Latin in such a way distinct from classical Latin, that verbs can easily morph in adjectives and adjectives can end on -o? Stearn mentions (1983, p. 3): The reader having no knowledge of classical Latin must first of all become acquainted with the PARTS OF SPEECH detailed in Chapters V-XII and the concepts of GENDER, NUMBER and CASE. Chapter V deals with nouns and chapter VI deals with adjectives and actually I can not find an adjective (from Latin origin) ending on -o in chapter VI. His declension tables follow closely the declension rules as can be found in grammars of classical Latin. So, it seems that the botanical Latin he describes is not completely different from classical Latin at all. Of course, there are words used, that were unknown by classical authors, specific orthography (stylus instead of stilus, sylvaticus instead of silvaticus, pyriformis instead of piriformis) accepted in botanical Latin that is condemned by classical scholars, but that is not on the same level as completely abandoning each single grammar rule. Stating that a word extrico in Latin exists, that means disentangled, free is merely an error based on ignorance (but imaginable as botanists are not trained in classical Latin), than based on some kind of a reliable botanical Latin source Dean Nicole might have used. Kevmin's remark: Botanical latin and zoological latin are NOT classic latin, they are what the authors make up on the spot is some extreme form of relativism, that actually implies that every author might have their own Latin language and each version being equally valid. So, in Dean Nicolle's Latin language, extrico really means disentangled or free, while similarly in my world, mr. Hamburger is really the 45th president of the United States. Both statements (extrico means disentangled or free and mr. Hamburger is the 45th president of the United States) are demonstrably false. And till now, nobody have made clear that the false etymologies I have identified, are actually true in botanical Latin. I do not see clear proof in Stearn that these lapsus are merely forms of botanical Latin.

In coining names, Stearn refers to a few works that might be of assistance (Stearn, 1983, p. 5): To provide a new plant with an apt name not already used becomes more and more difficult as more and more names are published. WORDS OF GREEK ORIGIN are just as likely as Latin ones to be preoccupied. For their formation see Chapters XIX and XX. If these and the Vocabulary do not provide enough material, Roland Wilbur Brown's Composition of scientific Words (1956) should be consulted for suggestions, together with Oscar E. Nybakken's Greek and Latin in scientific Terminology (1960); in any event, checking with Liddell and Scott's monumental A Greek-English Lexicon (new ed. 1940) is advised

So, he actually advises in any event to consult A Greek-English Lexicon (this work can also be found in the bibliography [p. 877] of Brown). In case ancient Greek would be entirely different than the Greek used by botanists to coin new names, than the advise of Stearn would be odd, but of course it isn't. It is clear that authors who would state that κέφαλος, instead of κεφαλή is the word for head, did not consult Liddell & Scott. I do not see a clear indication in Stearn that also the Greek of botanists, as used in their etymological explanation, is completely different from ancient Greek. So, it is demonstrably false to claim that κέφαλος means head in Greek.

But I see a clear difference in reporting what a primary source states considering the etymology and what a secondary tells us about the etymology. In the first instance, we can still report that Dean Nicolle thinks that extrico means disentangled or free. That is not incorrect, as he might have actually had that thought process. But it is demonstrably false, if we would state that extrico actually means disentangled or free. See also the remarks of Peter Coxhead in this discussion. So we have to present false etymologies with an additional note and make clear by the wording, that the original author thought that was the specific meaning. But in using secondary sources, we have to be more strict. In secondary sources, the authors might have read the original publication and only paraphrase the original statement, which results in some cases in the propagation of false etymologies. Alternatively, in secondary sources, the authors might have constructed their own etymologies. In case the later is a false etymology, it is actually of no use. For the specific epithet leucocephala, I can find cephalos, cephala, cephalus, kephalos or kephala. Can they all be true? Of course not. We have to try to determine what the original author might have thought and what the real form of head in Greek is. I have checked the publication of De Wit in Taxon (1961), but as leucocephala is not a new epithet and Leucaena leucocephala is a combinatio nova, that is nomenclatorially derived from Lamarck's Mimosa leucocephala, an etymological explanation of leucocephala is therefore lacking in De Wit's publication. As older publications lack most of the time a proper etymological explanation (although I have not checked Lamarck's publication yet), those etymologies that derive leucocephala from cephalos, cephala, kephalos or kephala are merely uninformed guesses. In those cases, we have to delete those false etymologies. Or do I have to add all these false etymologies as equally valid to the Wiki-lemma? Till now, I have only heard from other editors, that the sources I have removed, would be reliable sources and therefore can not be removed. But, are those really reliable sources, as we can find numerous other sources that contradict those statements. In case we leave out classical Latin and ancient Greek from the equation and do not try to in any event, checking with Liddell and Scott's monumental A Greek-English Lexicon, we could be adding etymological non-sense to Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I continue to hold strongly the view that truth matters, and we should not simply report as fact information in reliable secondary sources that is verifiably false. Unfortunately, there's a long history of confusion and even opposition to this view, as can be seen from the essay at WP:VNT. Wimpus makes some good points, but following policy in the English Wikipedia, we cannot simply "delete .. false etymologies" if they are widely reported in acceptable sources. We can, however counterpose them with alternatives, leaving the reader to decide.

An example of where I faced this problem can be seen at Polygonum § Taxonomy. I could probably easily find a dozen sources that would be acceptable under WP:RS that derive the genus name from γόνυ, including three on my shelf, but this is simply an etymological reconstruction. I think that the approach I took in that article is the one mandated by WP policies: report what 'reliable' sources say, whether or not you believe them to be true, plus the explanation you believe to be correct, all as neutrally as possible. (The "however" in the third sentence is probably not sufficiently neutral, on reflection.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Peter coxhead. In case "false etymologies" would be widely reported in acceptable sources, than it could be of importance. But I doubt whether the sources that I have removed are reliable at all for etymological explanations. In the aforementioned case of Leucaena leucocephala, I have removed the etymological explanation provided by WorldAgroforestryCenter. The actualy link was dead and writing that κέφαλος would mean head, is actually non-sensical. The editors (Kevmin and Mark Marathon that reverted back my edit, probably have not checked whether the link was working properly and have not checked the etymological contents of the site. I found, what is probably the updated link and the site does not state that κέφαλος is head, but actually writes: The specific name ‘leucocephala’ comes from ‘leu’, meaning white, and ‘cephala’, meaning head, referring to the flowers. Declaring that leu means white is even more non-sensical. The site is riddled with errors as here I can read that leptocarpa is derived: Greek 'lepos'-slender (omitting a t) and here it states that: The name tetraphyla is derived from tetra-four phylon-leaf, in allusion to the grouping of leaves in whorls of four. (omitting a l in phylon and in the epithet). The form carpus is declared Greek here, while on other pages they write this as carpos (with an incorrect transliteration of Greek kappa, while using k in a preceeding Greek word). These lapsus make this site an unreliable source for etymological information.

Another source of conflict was Themeda triandra. Gderrin stated: The specific epithet (triandra) is derived from the Ancient Greek word andros meaning "man" or "male"^[1]: 509 with the prefix tri meaning "three"^[1]: 798. His source (Brown, 1956) actually states: aner, andros, with the second form being the genitive case, explained by Brown in his introduction (Brown, 1956, p.5: The genitives of nouns are given only when they help to clarify the spelling of the root-stem or combining base. For this reason the genitives in -ae of Latin first and in -i of second declension nouns, and those in -ou of Greek nouns, are omitted.) Only mentioning the genitive case, without the nominative case is confusing, as andros does not mean male, but of a male, while a nominative Andros is the name of a Greek island or a Greek city. Therefore, I changed andros to aner, consistent with Brown. Mark Marathon however reverted my edit by stating: Source says "aner, andros, m. man, male". In this case andros is correct and thereby misinterpreting the source, before recognizing that the edit of Gderrin is OR ( Actually this is all OR since the reference doesn't mention this species], although adding a reference that is a mirror of Wikipedia (with a note on the specific site: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Themeda_triandra&oldid=860656656). In these conflicts I have to deal with editors, that do not recognize genitive cases and can not distinguish reliable sites from unreliable sites riddled with errors or even Wiki-mirrors.

In your example, the two sources that might give false etymologies, might be respectable sources, while in the aforementioned cases, I have removed sources that are clearly unreliable considering etymological information. Maybe we should make a list of sites that can not be used for etymological derivations as those sites are hit-and-miss. Editors without any knowledge of Greek or Latin can not judge the veracity of these sites properly. Wimpus (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: two points:

• Yes, having looked at it, I agree that www.worldagroforestry.org is not a reliable source of etymology, so I support your removal of it.
• I think you are being too picky about triandra. A precise etymology would be something like this. The epithet triandra is the feminine of triandrus, meaning "with three stamens" (Stearn [always an impeccable source], p. 516). Triandrus is a Botanical Latin adjective derived from tri- and -andrus, both ultimately of Greek origin. Stearn (p. 368) says "andro-, -andrus: in Gk. comp., male". The precise origin of the latinized andrus isn't explicitly given in any source I've yet found but it would be reasonable to deduce that it is formed, as adjectives almost always are, from the genitive stem of the noun, i.e. in this case the ancient Greek genitive ἀνδρός. I see no harm whatsoever in condensing this into something like the original. In this context, -andrus is indeed derived from the Greek word ἀνδρός, and it means "male (part)". What matters in explaining the meaning of Botanical Latin is not what the original Greek or Latin words meant (as Stearn notes, Ancient Greek κάλυξ originally had a much wider and looser meaning than the Botanical Latin calyx), but what it means now, in Botanical Latin.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, which edition do you use of Stearn? I use the third edition, sixth impression. I can not find the specific sections yet, but I recognize Stearn's use of a hyphen to indicate that he is using word forming elements. It is actually a misconception that compounds are (always) based on the genitive cases. Debrunner's Griechische Wortbildungslehre (see here, actually a must-read in case you are interested in compounds in Greek) tells us that they are actually based on the stem. The stem of ἀνήρ ends on r. The -os (=o-stem) in τρἰανδρος is not the same -os as from the genitive case, but a separate (different) suffix. In case the genitive would be used in Greek to form a compound, the sigma would remain, as in Διόσδοτος (an example mentioned by Debrunner) or μυοσωτίς. But these instances in Greek are very rare. In this specific case of triandra we do not know whether the person who have coined the epithet has made a compound by himself or merely Latinized Greek τρἰανδρος (that is a actually a noun). Additionally, mentioning the genitive case, as if it was the nominative case, is quite confusing. The specific form [=orthography] of ancient Greek does not change when providing an etymological explanation of a botanical Latin epithet. The form ἀνδρός is still a genitive case and did not miracously became a nominative case. It might be necessary however, to point to a broadening of meaning in botanical Latin or changes in orthography (stilus -> stylus, piriformis -> pyriformis). Wimpus (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin, 4th (p/b) edition.

It's of little or no relevance in an article about a plant what the original Greek meant, as I've pointed out above. What matters is what the Botanical Latin means. Epithets using -andrus/a/um are quite common, and refer to the stamens, and are derived from the the way the andr stem is used in Botanical Latin, including by Linnaeus. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek are of limited value when meanings have changed in this way. Rely on Stearn wherever possible. You also need to read WP:OR, because, like Gderrin, I don't think you understand how the English Wikipedia works. Its declared purpose is to report what reliable sources say, not what you or I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide a clear example in which I may have violated WP:OR? My opinion of what OR might entail, based on WP:OR, might be different from your opinion or particularly Gderrin's opinion.

WP:OR indicates that you can not state something that is not expressed by the source. When Gderrin is providing etymological information, he frequently uses Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words (actually a book recommended by Stearn). Brown does not analyses full compounds in most cases, but provides the orthography and meaning of single words. So in case of tetrandra or octandra Brown only provides information about tetra [sic], okto and aner, but does not explicitely tells us that octandra is comprised of okto and aner and tetrandra of tetra [sic] and aner. Thoses analyses seems to be made by Gderrin himself. This seems like a violation of WP:OR. But maybe you can make clear where our views diverge.

Using Stearn to explain certain epithets can also be questionable. In case of octandra and tetrandra, we can find the specific epithets. But using Stearn to explain epithets that can not found in full in Stearn, only the possible single parts of the compound, is equally OR. But even when the full epithet is found in Stearn, the possible etymological explanation might be different when combined with different genera. In case, it would be possible, it might be better to track down the etymological explanation of the original authors and use additionally a secondary source (in case the primary source is obfuscated or mistaken). Wimpus (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote Editors without any knowledge of Greek or Latin can not judge the veracity of these sites properly. To use your own knowledge of Greek or Latin would be OR. My objection to www.worldagroforestry.org is based on (1) it not being clear who wrote the material, where it was sourced, whether it was published or reviewed (2) internal inconsistencies showing at the least poor copy editing.

In the majority of cases, in my experience of reading the older original literature, from the time when botanists knew Latin, there is no explicit statement of the derivation of the epithet, doubtless because it's regarded as obvious. So all we can do is to say what the epithet means in Botanical Latin where there is a reliable source to support it. It's clearly better to have an explicit explanation of the entire epithet, but no source is going to list every combination of a numerical prefix with a root. So if the epithet is heptandrus, and the author did not provide an explanation, I would be happy to say that hepta- is a prefix meaning "seven" (with a ref) and that in Botanical Latin the stem -andrus refers to stamens (with a source). Readers can decide for themselves whether this is enough to interpret the entire epithet.

Why do you think that triandrus, for example, would have a different meaning when used with different genus names?

I feel we've exhausted this subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Using my own knowledge of Latin and Greek without referring to any source, would be OR. But as you can see, I have tried to include links to different sources. And this is a talk-page, not a specific lemma. I can not think of a specific example for triandrus or something alike, but such a name as Dianthus could be easily misinterpreted as "double-flowered". Or is the source that states that Dianthus is derived from Dios [although the genitive case] and anthos mistaken (cf. διανθής)? Trichoglottis similarly poses problems, as I could explain this as a compound of γλωττίς, but also as a compound of γλῶττα with an additional suffix -ίς, gen. -ίδος (cf. παρωτίς = παρά + οὖς + -ίς). And does Polypodium consists of the diminutive πόδιον or is -ιον a neuter adjectival suffix (as seen in adjectival compounds like ἐπιπόδιος/α/ον: upon the feet)? But also brevistylis can give one a headache. Is it derived from Latin stylus (as corruption of stilus, see Stearn), is Greek στῦλος used, or its diminutive στυλίς? These issues can not be properly solved by some guesstimation based on Stearn. In those cases, only sources that try to explain the whole epithet has to be used. Wimpus (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot explain botanical epithets based on the original Greek, as you keep trying to do above. In an article it would be OR, and anywhere it's frequently misleading. Enough from me. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand - Wikipedia editors do not need any knowledge of Greek or Latin, nor do they need to "judge the veracity of sites". Nobody has to list their qualifications to be an editor here. Gderrin (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin: the first is of course completely correct. The second is not. We do have to judge the reliability of our sources, using such criteria as are given in WP:RS. It's not clear (to me at least) that an entry like Leucaena leucocephala is reliable: who wrote it? was it reviewed? So, like any website, it needs to be treated with caution; the errors Wimpus pointed out do cast doubt on it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, today I stumbled on multiple Wiki-lemmata in which you analysed etymologically specific epithets by using Wikitionary as source. In this guideline, it is stated:A wiki-based dictionary that anyone can edit without editorial oversight is not reliable, and that includes Wiktionary. I have removed those sources on a few lemmata, but regarding the other internetsites you have used, we do not always know whether these sites are reliable considering the etymology. Wimpus (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You turned up on my watchlist with some edits to verticordia, I see there is active discussion on this. I altered the first one I saw to add what Berndt and George state, the latter having literally written a book on botanical Latin I am comfortable with citing that. So without me ploughing through the above discussion, is there a concern with that? cygnis insignis 17:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cygnis insignis, thank you for your suggestion. I see that in your edit you have added: derived from Ancient Greek terms for small and foot, based on Berndt. But you did not mentioned which ancient Greek terms for "small" and "foot" are mentioned by Berndt. And when providing etymology, it seems to me imperative to mention the words from which the epithet is derived.

On this page, Gderrin added with the the same source as you have used: The name Platandra is derived from the Ancient Greek words platy- meaning "flattened" and -andros meaning "male" referring to the flattened anthers. So, it seems that Berndt is providing more etymological in her book. But if the content of this book is rendered truthfully by Gderrin in this edit (but please check), I have some reservations, as platy- and -andros are actually not words, but word-forming element. Maybe Berndt was not paying attention to the existence of certain linguistically separate categories. The proper words are actually πλατύς and ἀνήρ. I also wonder why Berndt has translated πλατύς with "flattened" and not with "flat". Πλατύς is translated by Stearn (Botanical Latin, 1984, p. 278) with "wide", "broad", not with the verbal form: "widened" or "broadened". Can you provide more information on the philological level of this book of Berndt or the book of George (which one actually?). Thank you very much. Wimpus (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the Ancient Greek to the first item,

then lost interest when you asked me to check that Gderrin had "rendered truthfully", but fwiw platy- can mean "flat" and that is what I expected the epithet to mean. Other than the describing author giving their own etymology, the work is an example of a near flawless reference: the summation of decades of research on the genus, which included Alex George's extensive contribution, and he is qualified to print a guess when the earlier author did not explain what they intended it to mean. cygnis insignis 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not entirely conviced. Please read, my comments below. The review of A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary mentioned: The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. and additionally listed: I can scarcely fault it, but I do question the feminine gender of chromosoma and periderma and the masculine gender of soma, which I think must be neuter like other nouns of Greek origin ending in -ma. I have found in the mean time, a pdf of this first edition on archive.org. And I have found, after a cursory inspection that chromosoma, periderma and soma are not the only mistakes, as cytoplasma, protoplasma, -desma (as band), regma and farina have also been given incorrect genders. There are also a few misattributions of declension classes for -cornu [presented as adj.], tempus, hospes, -oxylon, aerifer, raphe, pseudoraphe, res. And nowhere can one find Greek words, only word-forming elements that are derived from Greek (with Latinized orthography). So it seems, actually lightweight on etymology. Wimpus (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I read the review out of curiosity, what a mind to be able pick up all that. This is what I expect of the review process, so lacking in modern academic writing, he notes the misprints and exact number of errors in table 2, then finishes with the enticement to plant historians over taxonomists and the helpful note "Since this review was written a reprint of the book has been put in hand which will correct the errors referred to." The work by George I'm referring to was older, not close at hand, and has fallen down my list of things to read. I favour the opinion that botanical Latin should be maintained for plant taxa, so reading the defence of continuing to do so would be interesting, but leave the wrangling on how to all that de- and re-clining to those who publish opinions in a formal way (who I can blame for any error). Have a good one. cygnis insignis 10:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis:, I do think, that you are referring to A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary of Short and George, isn't it? I am not familiar with this work, but the first parts I could see in Google Books showed large similiarities to Stearn's Botanical Latin. This review states: The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. And are Alex George his own word-forming skills flawless, as the form Verticordia sect. Elachoschista, as explained by George (1991, p. 275) as: Named from the Greek elachys (little, short) and schistos (divided, cleft) seems remarkable, as the two known compounds in ancient Greek with ἐλαχύς have ἐλαχυ- as first part, i.e. ἐλαχυπτέρυξ and ἐλαχύνωτος (and not ἐλαχο-) and when σχιστός is combined with an u-stem word as πλατύς, the υ remains, as in πλατύσχιστος. Elachoschistos, given its etymology, seems also not fully compatible with the remarks of Stearn (1983, p. 268) when he is referring to the International Code: Before a consonant the final vowel is normally preserved in Greek (mono-carpus, Poly-gonum, Coryne-phorus) except that a is commonly replaced by o (Hemerocallis from hemera). This would indicate that usually the -y of the stem remains. I know that there are exceptions in ancient Greek (maybe related to the full or lenghtened grade of the u-stem or the existence of a related s-stem noun), but couldn't be Elachoschista a lapsus calami as he does not mention a certain specific reason to use -o instead of -y? So can we be comfortable with citing George for all etymological matters? Wimpus (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, this is a concern that has been raised before at wikipedia, but the grievance is with living and dead authorities elsewhere and cannot be resolved at wikipedia due to our policies. For example, we are at odds with a definition of platy- before the discussion progressed, my botanical sources give the primary sense as "flat" and you have asserted that can never be, this would be an intractable situation but for our established processes that avoid having to resolve this here by deferring to attributed sources. I have undone one of undos and advise you that I will do so so again with little hesitancy if it is a similar concern, yet hope that you will consider another way to contribute to improvements. cygnis insignis 00:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering πλατύς, I hace said: I also wonder why Berndt has translated πλατύς with "flattened" and not with "flat". Πλατύς is translated by Stearn (Botanical Latin, 1984, p. 278) with "wide", "broad", not with the verbal form: "widened" or "broadened". So, if you check, other sources, the statement: platy- meaning flattened becomes troublesome. The same with: The specific epithet (halophila) is "named from the Greek hals (salt) and -philus (loving) This implies that -philus is the Greek form. But here or here (for a lemma we have to use other sources) you can read: from Latin -philus, from Greek -philos or New Latin -philus, from Latin, from Greek -philos, which implies that -philus is the Latin form and -philos the Greek form. And if you would check a Greek dictionary (by simply searching for all compounds ending on -philus (-φιλυς) or -philos (-φιλος), you will see that no forms on -philus (-φιλυς) can be found. So currently sources are being used, that are sometimes (and sometimes often) hit-and-miss considering etymology. The work of Bob Chinnock might be impecable considering its descriptions, but considering its etymology with: Latin oppositi, opposite, Greek tetra, four, -andrum, male, Latin parvi, small, Latin brevi, short, Latin cordifolium, heart-shaped leaves, Greek glykos, sweet smelling, Greek, penta, five, -koelium, Greek, eremos, solitary, desert; -philus, loving, Greek strongyl- round, phylla, leaf, this source can not be taken seriously. Maybe you have to check some of these descriptions, to see what is actually incorrect, but everyone in botany would know, that phyllon is "leaf" and phylla is "leaves". It shows that Chinnock might be an expert on Myoporaceae, but considering etymology, he makes rookie mistakes. Wimpus (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You took a bold action. I reverted it. The next step is not to revert back but to discuss. I was just getting ready to ping you to the article talk page. I kindly request that you self-revert until we have discussed the matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. TelosCricket (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the lemma. It states that dendro would be ancient Greek. You have reverted my action, by referring to botanical Greek, whatever that may be. Wimpus (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what the lemma is. Please read WP:BRD. And, I invite you to join me on the article talk page to discuss this. TelosCricket (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Lemma.Wimpus (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wimpus,

I do not expect to change you mind about anything but ....

I think you should know that Alex George, whom you seem to imply invented the name Calothamnus phellosus, is a distiguished Australian botanist. He has taught botanical Latin and has published at least one book on the subject. In the days when botanists were required to write a Latin diagnosis of a new species, they relied on his advice.

I do not intend spending a lot more time checking the edits you make to plant pages but it may help to remember that the people who read Wikipedia pages about plants, are probably doing so to find out something about plants, not about Greek or Latin. I suggest that the rare person who is interested in those languages and reading your edits with probably respond with "Yay!" A plant person would be confused by many of them. A professional botanist (although I doubt many would bother) would either laugh or disparage Wikipedia - they know the reputation of George, Craven, Chinnock and the others.

Before you and I started tussling over these etymologies, most pages (including the one on C. phellosus) had an average of fewer than one reader per day. Seven people looked at the Eremophila acrida page in the last three weeks. So arguing about them is a bit pointless, isn't it? For me, it is much more important to write plant articles that don't exist yet and to expand those that are only stubs (with no etymology). I wish you well. You may find the section "Book Launch" in the article below as interesting as I did. I am sure you will find many etymological errors in it.^[2] Gderrin (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gderrin, I have read earlier the Book Launch section. As I stated a few (a lot) sentences ago:

The review of A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary mentioned: The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. and additionally listed: I can scarcely fault it, but I do question the feminine gender of chromosoma and periderma and the masculine gender of soma, which I think must be neuter like other nouns of Greek origin ending in -ma.

I have found in the mean time, a pdf of this first edition on archive.org. And I have found, after a cursory inspection that chromosoma, periderma and soma are not the only mistakes, as cytoplasma, protoplasma, -desma (as band), regma and farina have also been given incorrect genders. There are also a few misattributions of declension classes for -cornu [presented as adj.], tempus, hospes, -oxylon, aerifer, raphe, pseudoraphe, res. And nowhere can one find Greek words, only word-forming elements that are derived from Greek (with Latinized orthography). So it seems, actually lightweight on etymology.

And in the mean-time I found a lot more mistakes. I am actually flabbergasted, that those false etymologies, I have encountered the last couple of days, could even be published in journals, without any correction. Although some pages may not be read a lot on Wiki, there are actually multiple Wiki-mirrors, that copy the content (and even some editors are using those Wiki-mirrors as source) and all kind of amateur-sites are also copying content of Wiki. Wimpus (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be terrific if you could make the corrections to the etymologies or Greek transcriptions that you see as incorrect rather than remove contents entirely - you removed something as unsourced and I added what looks like a reasonable source and it can be examined online. Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort, in case you add information that you can not read (as you have made a copying error: φάγειν instead of φαγεῖν and did not correct the incorrect Romanized script), it would be better to refrain from editing. Wimpus (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Currently you are actively removing ANY etymology that you disagree with, while providing reference to what you base the assertion off of. you also refuse to discuss in talk pages anything that is reverted on you, rather you persist in edit-warring. The onus is on you to provide documentation when reverting a contested edit. You are failing at that.--Kevmin § 01:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You can doubtless read the Gothic face here better than I can (I hate having to try to read old botanical German sources printed this way, and have had to ask German colleagues before now). Is the usage here a German form of the French ornithogale? Is this connected, I wonder, with Obermeyer's use of "e" rather than "o"? Speculative, of course, and not for the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Mit den Ornithogalen". After mit in German (I am actually not German), the dative case is used. Neuter singular is mit dem, neuter plural is mit den. Plurals in German can end on -en, and that form of pluralization can also be used in loanwords. See for a similar example, the declension of Museum in Duden (please scroll down), that writes das Museum (nominative singular), die Museen (nominative plural) and den Museen (dative plural). It also of notice that Ornithogalen is written in Gothic face and amylon (a few lines below) in Roman script. In some older books, the German words are written in Gothic face, and the Latin (or Latinized words) are written in Roman script. As Ornithogalen is written in Gothic face, it might indicate, that the word is eingedeutscht, as it has a German and not a Latin or Greek plural. But this is only speculation, as it could also be a pluralization of the French word. So, I do not know for sure. Wimpus (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(I understand the German, including the grammar; I just find Gothic face hard to read. Sorry for the assumption about your nationality, based on your occasional use of German words instead of English.) I've now located my copy of H. Gilbert-Carter's Glossary of the British Flora, which I'd mislaid. (It's a book you would like, because it always gives the Greek with full polytonic accents, with the nominative singular and genitive singular where appropriate, unlike Stearn. As a Cambridge University academic and a former Director of the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, Gilbert-Carter knows both the classics and botany. It's a pity his book covers only plants found in the British Isles.) I knew that the general interpretation given to "bird milk" was that it was a euphemism for "bird droppings", but couldn't find what I regarded as a reliable source. Gilbert-Carter definitely is. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be echoed in Foster's (1893) An Illustrated Encyclopedic Medical Dictionary:

"O. umbellatum, O. vulgare. Fr., ornithogale en ombelles, dame de douze (ou onze) heures, ėtoile blanche (ou de mer). Ger., doldiger Milchstern. Common (or white) star-of-Bethlehem, eleven-o'clock lady, Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon; a species indigenous to western Asia and Europe, and naturalized in North America. The bulbs, radix ornithogali vulgaris, are mucilaginous and slightly bitter, and were formerly used roasted as a healing application to sores, abscesses, etc. They are supposed to be the dove's dung used as food by the people of Samaria (2 Kings, vi, 25), and are still eaten in Palestine.

Foster does not give dove's dung as an etymological explanation for Ornithogalum, as he only refers to ὄρνις, γάλα and to ὀρνιθόγαλον. I could not extract from the Biblical passage (2 Kings, vi, 25) that the dove's dung is related to the Ornithogalum umbellatum.

from the Septuagint:

"25 And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was [valued] at fifty pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung at five pieces of silver."

"καὶ ἐγένετο λιμὸς μέγας ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ, καὶ ἰδοὺ περιεκάθηντο ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν, ἕως οὗ ἐγενήθη κεφαλὴ ὄνου πεντήκοντα σίκλων ἀργυρίου καὶ τέταρτον τοῦ κάβου κόπρου περιστερῶν πέντε σίκλων ἀργυρίου."

In Payne, 2017, you can read about the use of the expression bird's milk as something expressing rare as hen's teeth and related to crop milk, also known as pigeon’s milk. Whether this pigeon’s milk is related to dove's dung is unfortunately not discussed. She does not reach to a conclusion on Ornithogalum umbellatum, but she presents some interesting loose ends. But does Gilbert-Carter's Glossary of the British Flora give more information why it would be a euphemism for bird's droppings and does he relate it to the Biblical dove's dung?

Regarding the orthography: Pliny's ornithogale, presupposes a Greek form ὀρνιθογάλη that is mentioned by Lewis & Short, but not by Liddell & Scott and is also absent in Oxford Latin Dictionary's ornithogale-lemma. Saalfeld's Tensaurus Italograecus marks this form with an asterisk, indicating that it is a reconstructed form. I could not find the asterisk in the online version, nor in my own physical copy of Lewis & Short. I thought that Pliny's ornithogale might be the source of French ornithogale, but the information from Larousse's Noveau dictionairre étymologique (1964) seems inconclusive as it points to the form ornitogalon from 1553 and ornitogale from 1680. It does not make clear whether the second form evolved from the first form or was a new loan (from Pliny's ornithogale). Wimpus (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And actually this source, source, source, and this source seem to corroborate the notion that Ornithogallum has something to do with avian excrements. Also of notice, is the Greek word ὀρνιθία, that means poisoning by bird-dung. It could be that not bird-dung is intended, but a poisonous species of Ornithogalum, but that is highly speculative, and is only a vista that can be explored later on. Wimpus (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Gilbert-Carter just says that the flowers of Ornithogalum nutans resemble bird droppings, without further explanation (the book has very short entries for each headword). If you look at the flowers, they are greyish green in the centre with white edges, which is somewhat like bird droppings, so it has plausibility. Somewhere I've read the explanation that the white flowers of species like Ornithogalum umbellatum, which grow facing upwards, often among grass, look like splashes of bird droppings, but I can't find the source right now. How far all of these 'explanations' are just speculations copied from one source to the next is an interesting question; I'd like to see an explanation in a much older source (e.g. Theophrastus, Dioscorides, or similar). However, it's clear that multiple reliable sources give the bird droppings explanation, whether it's ultimately right or not, so it's reasonable to include it in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pigeon's milk, according to Dr. Brewer, is the regurgitated food given to nestlings. It is also a fictional liquid, an errand for the gullible. ~ cygnis insignis 12:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My uncle used to be a pigeon-fancier, something we call in Dutch, a duivenmelker (literally: someone who milks pigeons). Thanks for the input. Wimpus (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I strayed here to solicit an opinion. This is the lead sentence to an article:

The '''thylacine''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|θ|aɪ|l|ə|s|iː|n}} {{respell|THY|lə-seen}},<ref>{{cite book | title = Macquarie ABC Dictionary | publisher=The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. | year = 2003 | page = 1032 | isbn = 978-1-876429-37-9}}</ref> or {{IPAc-en|ˈ|θ|aɪ|l|ə|s|aɪ|n}} {{respell|THY|lə-syne}},<ref>{{OED|thylacine}}</ref> also {{IPAc-en|ˈ|θ|aɪ|l|ə|s|ᵻ|n}};<ref>[https://archive.is/20120713232932/http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/thylacine "thylacine"]. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 30 May 2009.</ref> from Ancient Greek θύλακος thúlakos, "pouch, sack" + Latin -inus "-ine") (''Thylacinus cynocephalus''), now [[extinct]], is one of the largest known [[carnivorous marsupial]]s,

I love nomenclature, so it is fascinating to get these facts first, but I write for readers who want quick and dirty facts with access to deeper information. Your opinion, if it pleases you to give it, my new Dutch friend. ~ cygnis insignis 12:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I redirected your user page to your talk page, but you can ask for that to be deleted if it doesn't suit you. ~ cygnis insignis 12:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear cygnis insignis, the link you have used (but probably also your other source), seems to correctly identify θύλακος.

A few question|remarks:

• You have translitterated θύλακος as thúlakos, that is also my preference. But it seems that most people on EN-Wikipedia use υ -> y instead. I have therefore suppressed my preference and use on EN-wikipedia υ -> y instead. DO you know, whether it is actually necessary to use υ -> y on EN-Wikipedia?
• Your second source mentions: < Latin -īnus, -inus  < Greek -inos. This is correct for crystallinus [>crystalline], derived from κρυστάλλινος. But I doubt whether that is also correct for the other two words mentioned, i.e. equinus [>equine] and marinus [>marine]. In these words, Latin -inus is not derived from Greek -ινος, but is actually a native Latin suffix. I do not know whether the author that coined Thylacinus made use of the native Latin suffix or the Greek suffix -ινος. In the latter case, my preference would be to mention the Greek form -ινος, as you are also mentioning the Greek form θύλακος and not some Neolatin form thylacus. Does your first source indicate whether Greek suffix -ινος was intended, or the native Latin suffix -inus? Wimpus (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies, I can try to address what you ask, but I didn't create the lead sentence. I should have been explicit: is it useful to our reader to have this information first and foremost, before even stating what the article topic is about, a carnivorous marsupial. It is interesting to you, and to me as much as I can glean, but how important is it?
• The citation to the first description of the genus is messy, but this is where Temminck describes what he was up to Monographie de mammalogie … p.60 et seq The authors who preceded Temminck published cynocephalus and everyone discussed the anatomical resemblance to the familiar dog / wolf and doubt anybody bothered to define the etymology of that. Later authors combined cinus with words from local languages for a dozen new species of Thylacinidae that were dug up, referring to the name of the genus and family, and I only recall the stem kynos being noted in the Latinised form. I will see what else I can find. Cheers ~ cygnis insignis 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ad 1: It is not that important. But in case your first source was very clear, that it would derive from Greek -ινος, it would be better to refer to -ινος directly.

Ad 2: The stem is actually not kynos, but kyn-/kun-, as the nominative case is κύων [=kuōn] (=dog) and the genitive case is κυνός [kunos] (= of a dog). The Latinized from of the stem would be cyn-. The -o- is a so-called connecting vowel, that follows the -n- of the stem, when the second part of the word, begins with a consonant. The adjectivw κυνάνθρωπος/ον [=kunanthrōpos/on] (relating to dog-man) (see also here) has no connecting vowel as the second word (ἄνθρωπος = anthrōpos) begins with a vowel. So, that connecting vowel is not part of the stem in this case. The adjective and nominalized adjective κυνοκέφαλος [=kunokephalos] (=dog-headed) was already used by the ancient Greeks, but of course, not for Thylacinus cynocephalus. Wimpus (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I should have known that, those kind of slips is why I rely on published to state these things for me. I suppose I ought to have said transliterated as "kynos", not latinised. My only familiarity with Latin and Greek is from reading natural history and transcribing the bits that pepper older texts, and as I say, can roughly read other languages if it is about science, but it is becoming clearer that learning Latin is something I should try again. And I had forgotten about dog-headed men, and made a note to look into that again. I'm am a bit embarrassed that I am not able to give you a more interesting reply, but thank you again for yours. ~ cygnis insignis 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted reliable sources as defined here over a long period, from plant articles such as [ and and you have not engaged in consensus building with other editors. In spite of being asked not to revert articles without building consensus on an article talk page, you have nevertheless rereverted. I am advising you that I consider these to be signs of disruptive editing. Gderrin (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is quite disruptive if you add etymological information, and you do not know an iota what is actually intended by the authors. Misinterpretation of sources is detrimental to Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What is disruptive is editing without consensus and disregarding the efforts of other editors to reach a consensus. Please stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the edits of Gderrin, that clearly shows that he is again misinterpreting sources? I can explain that ores- is not a compound but part of a compound (see here), but actually that seems a waste of energy. A topic-ban for Gderrin for etymological edits would be more effective. I have amply demonstrated before, that he has overflooded Wikipedia with incorrect interpretations of certain sources. Wimpus (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether you, or indeed I, think that Gderrin's edit is correct is not the point. Wikipedia:Consensus requires editors to seek to reach consensus by discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So, I have to reach consensus with someone that does not know what a compound is? Maybe I can add all kind of Arab etymological sources, while admitting that I am not able to read Arab at all.Wimpus (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in editing Wikipedia you have to try to reach consensus with editors with different backgrounds and expertise. (By the way, Stearn – an utterly impeccable source – says "oreo-, ores-: in Gk. comp., pertaining to mountains", and gives oreophilus as an example. I think Stearn alone would be a sufficient source in this particular case.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thanks for catching the source on the brachypelma article- i misidentified Greek as latin, due to a misreading of the reference materials. I have corrected it to read that the "Brachy-" prefix derives from Greek. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

But the edit is OR, as you did not use a source that explained the full compound. Your other recent edits seems to be similar OR-etymologies. Why did you referred in Acentropelma to Latin "Centro-" (upper-case is unnecessary), while ancient Greek κέντρον would be more plausible? Or why did you referred to Italian here? Wimpus (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: although I agree that the edits explaining brachypelma have an element of OR, see the article now + the comments I made at User talk:Peter coxhead#Brachypelma. I think that the meaning of the components, plus the original description of the genus by Simon, do make it acceptably clear that the overall meaning is 'short leg' (presumably meant as a noun in apposition). Pelma seems to be used in connection with tarantulas to mean 'leg'. The earliest use I've found is by Ausserer (1871), whose description of the new genus Chaetopelma in Latin has "pedibus elongatis" but who then says in German "Die Füsse lang, schmächtig". Ausserer consistently uses Fuß to mean 'leg' thoughout the work; for example, he gives leg formulae (the leg number from the longest first) like "Füsse 4, 3, 2, 1". So this may be why he used "pelma" rather than something derived from πούς to produce chaetopelma meaning 'bristle-like leg'. Then other workers followed this pattern. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Peter coxhead, I really do appreciate your effort. But are the "legs" or are the scopulae of the spider intended? Here you can read (p. 153) : "The -pelma- of Koch, 1850 meaning "sole of the foot", "scopula" with the first part of the name indicating the state or characteristics of the scopula (eg. [sic] Brachypelma, Sericopelma, Acanthopelma, etc." and (p. 155) "So Brachypelma means "with a short scopula"." Whether it is a noun in apposition or nominalized adjective can not be reliably asserted as δίπελμος/ον and μονόπελμος/ον are also attested in ancient Greek. Without a source to explain the full compound, it is difficult to achieve certainty in specific cases, although your modus operandi to check the original publication and try to extract the intended meaning, is laudable. Wimpus (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC) I checked probaly ten other sources first (and did not found the whole compound), before finding this source.

Those other pelma-genera seem to be mentioned in this article. Maybe, this article could be used as source for the etymology, instead of a referece to dictionary.com. Although I have not studied this article carefully enough (or checked with other sources), to make well-informed edits yet. Wimpus (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good find! I had only traced the use of "pelma" in genus names back to Ausserer (1871), but on reflection, that was because I was mistakenly only looking at genus names in current use. Looking at now obsolete names, it does seem that Eurypelma may be the oldest, so Koch (1850) should be the starting point. So far, I can't see where Koch explicitly uses "pelma" for scopula as Estrada-Alvarez & Cameron (2012) claim. Indeed, Koch muddies the waters a little, because he describes the genus Eurypelma as "Die Sammetbürste der Fussohlen sehr breit" ('the scopulae of the soles of the feet very wide'), so using the German for scopulae (Sammetbürste, lit. velvet brushes) and for sole of the foot (Fussohle, more usually spelt Fußsohle). However, it is reasonable to infer that he meant Eurypelma to mean 'wide scopula' rather than 'wide foot-sole', but it seems still to be an inference.

So we could use Estrada-Alvarez & Cameron (2012) for all the -pelma names, but I'd really like to find a more direct source for pelma = scopula. And I think that it's clear that later workers did interpret it differently, using it either to mean 'leg' or just as a term used in tarantula names, as Estrada-Alvarez and Cameron say. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"I'd really like to find a more direct source pelma = scopula"

I tried to find a source that equated scopula with pelma, but have not found it yet. But, otherwise, when the scopula is wide, the sole of the foot might be similarly wide. But that is merely speculation.

Linnaeus uses pedes to refer to the legs of the spider. Maybe, the usage of Füße in the work of Koch, could mirror Linnaeus' use of pedes. Alternatively, in South-German and Austrian, Fuß is also used to refer to Bein (=leg) (in humans), see 1b (but as you already notices, pes is the common word in Latin to refer to a spider's leg). As I am not that familiar with spider anatomy, is the sole of the foot, the underside of the tarsus in spiders? Wimpus (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to have been a shift in the word used to match the Greek and Latin pod and ped components. Thus the German for "arthropod" (jointed leg) is de:Gliederfüßer, which will be an old coinage, whereas the modern German article on spiders at de:Webspinnen uses only Bein. (What's the difference between poot/poten which the Dutch article nl:Spinnen (dieren) uses, and been/benen which is what I thought was the Dutch for leg?) I had already thought that if the scopula is wide then the part of the leg bearing it must also be, so I agree with your speculative comment above.

It's not clear to me what the German arachnologists meant by Fußsohle/Fussolhe. If Fuß means 'leg', then presumably all or part of the underside of the leg – the ventral surface in modern English terminology – is meant. It won't just be the tarsus. I need to contact a German-speaking arachnologist – I think I have a contact. I'll post here if I get a response. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lewis and Short, when translating "pes": "The leg (late Lat.), in phrase: pedem frangere, Aug. Civ. Dei, 22, 22, 3; id. Serm. 273, 7.".

Liddell & Scott, when translating πούς: "but also of the leg with the foot, as χείρ for the arm and hand".

So, confusing foot and leg, seems to be not that uncommon. In Dutch been/benen are used for humans and poot/poten for animals (except for horses, as we consider them as noble animals). Poot is however not a cognate of pes or πούς, but is related to English paw (see here). When using such a vulgar expression in Dutch as "Je staat op mijn poten" (= You are standing on my "poten"), were are not referring to one's legs, but to one's feet.

Actually with "underside of the tarsus", I tried to refer to the contact area of the tarsus with the ground. In ancient Greek however, ταρσὸς ποδός can also mean: "flat of the foot. the part between the toes and the heel", which seems to be the the sole of the foot. And in this German Wiki-lemma Insektenbein, one can read: "Fuß (Tarsus, griech. tarsos = Fußsohle". Maybe, Fußsohle is used synonymously with tarsus. But, a German arachnologist could provide a more definitive answer. Wimpus (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern Greek uses πόδι for both leg and foot and χέρι for both arm and hand, by the way.

I had a very quick response from a German-speaking arachnologist, who also referred me to the German version of one of the major books on spiders, Rainer F. Foelix (1992), Biologie der Spinnen (which I only had in English). (Foelix is Swiss, I think.) Foelix uses Fuß for "tarsus" as per de:Insektenbein; thus book's index has "Fuß s. Tarsus". Foelix does not use the term Fußohle at all, nor Sammetbürste. My correspondent says he would read the whole phrase "Sammetbürste der Fussohlen" as "scopulae" – scopulae are defined by Foelix as the brushes of hairs at the end of the tarsi (although other sources use "scopula" for hair groupings elsewhere, e.g. Pocock (1901) refers to "plumose scopula on posterior side of trochanter of palp"). I've found several sources using "tarsal scopula" and "scopula" interchangeably, e.g. here. So I think it's clear that what Koch means by "Sammetbürste der Fussohlen" is, if spelt out, "velvet hairs at the end of tarsi" = "tarsal scopulae" = "scopulae".

So where does this leave us? Did Koch use pelma to mean the whole of his descriptive phrase, or just the Fußsohle bit? I.e. did he use Eurypelma for "wide tarsal end" or "wide tarsal scopula"? The truth seems to be that we don't know. We could here use Estrada-Alvarez and Cameron's slightly evasive: "An important term in this family is the Greek neuter noun "pelma" (stem pelmatos) meaning "sole of the foot", which in arachnological convention indicates the state or characteristics of the scopula." They don't actually say that "pelma" means "scopula" in spider genus names, just that it by "convention indicates". Hmmm...

(I trust you noted the claim that "pelmatos" is the stem of "pelma". :-) ) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This statement: "An important term in this family is the Greek neuter noun "pelma" (stem pelmatos) meaning "sole of the foot", which in arachnological convention indicates the state or characteristics of the scopula." would avoid claiming that scopula and pelma are the same (which is actually questionable). So, it seems like a good solution! Although I would replace "stem" by "genitive" :-) Wimpus (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Pelma is originally an n-stem, just like other words on -μα, such as αἷμα = blood, κῦμα = wave, σχῆμα = figure. That explains compounds like ἀναίμων/ον = bloodless, ἀκύμων = waveless, εὐσχήμων/ον = elegant in figure. In Proto-Indo-European, the stem ends on -mn (with a vocalized -n-) and vocalized -n- becomes -α- in ancient Greek. In Latin, a short -e- was inserted, hence words on -men, like nomen (cf. ὄνυμα/ὄνομα). In compounding, a last vowel can change from zero-grade (-mn is the zerograde of e-ablaut -men or o-ablaut -mon) to o-ablaut or from e-ablaut (with vowel-lengthening) to o-ablaut (e.g. γαστήρ -> γλωσσογάστωρ,πατήρ -> ἀπάτωρ). In Latin, -mn became extended in -mentum, which seems to add a to-suffix. The -t- in the oblique cases in πέλμα seems to be a similar process.

I have now written this up at Tarantula#The element pelma in genus names. Please have a look. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are edit warring on Eucalyptus leprophloia. Read WP:3RR and await the completion of the discussion. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Gderrin continues to make edits, while not answering my questions. Wimpus (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:3RR or you will be blocked. Gderrin has answered your questions you need to patiently wait his reply to your comments rather than reply on the talk page and immediately revert the text. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gderrin first discuss these issues, before making this edit (or this edit or this one)? Gderrin seems to make edits, while some issues are still undecided as Gderrin seems to be unable to clearly indicate what is intended by his sources. Wimpus (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Gderrin is attempting to address the issues instead of just reverting. You need to self revert your last change or you will be in violation of 3RR. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So, this edit is addressing all issues? Clearly not. Wimpus (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JarrahTree 21:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia is about accessible material for verification WP:V , not some obscure foreign language WP:POINTy edits. If you havent caught on to that yet, I am not sure why you are editing in english wikipedia? JarrahTree 21:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are not WP:POINTy edits. They are actual improvements. Wimpus (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not an improvement: -

,^[1]

The average editor does not read or speak dutch, and it is very pointy. Not an improvement. Read WP:3RR please, for your own sake. JarrahTree 22:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

accusing me of trolling to simply clarify that this is english wikipedia and we do not use dutch language language materials is so ironic in view of your editing. I leave it up to others decide, your assertions do not fit WP:AGF. JarrahTree 22:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You are accusig me of making WP:POINTy edits. Is MargaretRDonald also making WP:POINTy edits, by using the same source, in these three edits (, , )? Wimpus (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wimpus, you have reverted my edits to Dasymalla chorisepala three times. I remind you that Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people cooperate. Each time you have removed referenced statements because you do not agree with them. I want you to know that if you revert again, it will give rise to my requesting that you are blocked from editing. Gderrin (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gderrin (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Suciacarpa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your recent editing history at Acer castorrivularis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. You are already over 3rr on multiple articles within the last 24 hours, yet you continue to removed sourced and cited edits.--Kevmin § 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dasymalla chorisepala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wimpus. The complaint at the edit warring noticeboard has been closed with a warning to you. If you continue to revert about etymology at Dasymalla chorisepala or other biota articles without getting a talk page consensus first you are risking a block. There is no carte blanche for endless warring, even on a debatable question. You are supposed to wait for agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Gderrin, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It is time to stop this persistent harassment of other editors. Your condescending remarks have crossed a boundary. Please be advised that more of this will get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, please tell me why this would have crossed a boundary? Maybe, you can give me advise what to do. We have a responsility to protect Wikipedia from adding incorrect information. Should I ask for an etymological topic-ban for Gderrin? You can not deny that he has made hundredths of etymological mistakes the last few years. Wimpus (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wimpus, I am not going to explain why those sneers and personal attacks are sneers and personal attacks; they are rather obvious. I am not going to get involved with your dispute: I am an administrator and will not judge content, unless they are egregious policy violations. If you wish to make a case against another editor, claiming either incompetence, disruption, or both, you are welcome to do so at the appropriate forum, which these days is WP:ANI. In the future, you may well say that something is wrong; what you may not do is say things like, "you have to change your modus operandi, but that remains whishful thinking", and you may not drop loaded questions like this, "Why would I provide an answer to someone that does not seem to mind that he is systematically misreading, misquoting and misinterpreting sources and providing false etymologies?" Comment on content, not on contributors. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I could have phrased it differently, but I gave my response after Gderrin stated: "Sorry - not prepared to answer questions from somebody who removes material citing reliable sources, then wants to ask questions." and seemed to deny he was not telling the truth in certain instances. Wimpus (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxon says:

The term taxon was first used in 1926 by Adolf Meyer-Abich for animal groups, as a backformation from the word Taxonomy; the word Taxonomy had been coined a century before from the Greek components τάξις (taxis, meaning arrangement) and -νομία (-nomia meaning method).

I'm skeptical of that etymology, which I think would be more important to correct than quibbling over how Wikipedia represents the fact that "castorivularis" is intended to represent a place known in English as Beaver Creek. Plantdrew (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Plantdrew, do you doubt the etymology of "taxonomy" or the fact that "taxon" is a backformation of "taxonomy"? A common procedure in ancient Greek in word-formation is to combine two nouns with the addition of -ia (-ίa) , in this case: taxis (τάξις) + nomos (νόμος) + -ia (-ίa). The form taxonomy is however irregularly formed, as it is more common in Greek that i-stem words (τάξις (taxis) is an i-stem noun) end on -i- than on -o- in the first part of the compound (cf. the alternate French spelling taxinomie, Modern Greek taxinomia (ταξινομία) and English taxidermy (and not taxodermy). Wimpus (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting example, and relevant to how we apply policies like WP:NOTDICT. A full etymological discussion could usefully include the adoption of taxon as a second declension Neolatin noun (see Stearn), leading to the plural used by biologists being taxa. The modern meaning of taxon and its normal plural seems to me to be far more important information to be included in an encyclopedia than the kind of etymological details that would be expected of an etymological dictionary, however interesting I find the latter. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For taxon it could be sufficient to mention that it is a backformation of taxonomy (or probably German Taxonomie). Those other minutiae could possibly be mentioned in the lemma Taxonomy. The etymological section of the French Wiki is however quite extensive. But I was wondering whether Plantdrew doubt the backformation part or the formation of the compound. Wimpus (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I came across it when fixing links to taxis, which is based on τάξις, but is unrelated to the meaning in taxonomy. I also don't think linking to scientific method (piped from method) is appropriate. I'd never really thought about the etymology before, nor realized that taxon is a back formation. I'd thought of -nomy as meaning ordering/arranging/managing (cf. this etymology of astronomy, and -nomia). Astronomy and taxonomy are heavily descriptive disciplines; not so much the kind of hypothesis-testing stuff done in the scientific method. So in my head, I'd thought taxonomy="arrangement of taxa". Ok, that is wrong. "Arrangement of arrangement" isn't a helpful etymology. In the Wikipedia articles taxonomy (general) and astronomy, νόμος is presented as "law" (and economy says νέμoμαι = "manage"). Seems like there should be more consistency in how Wikipedia treats -nomia, and that use in English (or French) compounds has acquired a meaning that isn't well represented by a literal translation from Greek. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy seems to be used for the branch of science that describes/constructs those arrangements ("Taxonomy is, therefore, the methodology and principles of systematic botany and zoology and sets up arrangements of the kinds of plants and animals in hierarchies of superior and subordinate groups.") as well as for the arrangement itself. The first meaning seems compatible with the word taxonomy (just like astronomy is the "The branch of science which deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole") but the latter not. This is merely speculative, but similar processes might be at stake in: 1. etiology (aitia (αἰτία) = cause) is used for the study of causes as well as for the cause itself, 2. pathology (pathos (πάθος) = misfortune, calamity, here: disease) is used for the study of diseases, as well as for the disease itself. I have not checked whether Augustin Pyramus de Candolle used taxonomie originally for the science of arrangements of for the arrangement itself. Wimpus (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was planning on using Ophiodes ficiensis as an example taxon in the proposal being drafted. Given your expertise, I would like to know if it contains errors in it's formation, and, if so, what they are. Thanks in advance. TelosCricket (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

An author can create a correct compound, but can provide an incorrect etymology. Ophiodes is atttested in ancient Greek as ophiōdēs (ὀφιώδης), but in case an author would state that Ophiodes is derived from Latin opus, than it the etymology itself becomes questionable. So, are your actually referring to word-formation or etmology? Wimpus (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose both.TelosCricket (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be quite difficult in certain instances, to demonstrate that a word is ill-formed, while pointing to inconsistencies in an etymology (like stating that brevis is Greek, while a general Latin dictionary clearly shows it is Latin) is more easy. Wimpus (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem comes with many botanists and zoologists using incorrect forms. Best solution I can think of is using as many sources as possible to give the fullest picture. i.e. the science on to give an understanding of how the person came up with the compound as well as a Greek or Latin dictionary to correct or exact. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts of Grou and Eastermar here and here, please read my comment on the Dutch Wikipedia talk page of Grou for some background on the relevancy of the Taalunie list you added as a reference. I've have contacted the professor who authored that list a few weeks ago, and he replied that it is in dire need of revision, and that in the case of Grou specifically the Dutch name of Grouw is now indeed mostly a historical name (which you would know if you ever visited the lovely village). This is of course in addition to the name of the nearby railway station (Grou-Jirnsum), the names on the highway signage (Grou), and all other signage (Grou), the name used by the Dutch language locals (Grou), by the Dutch language village website (Grou), by the local Dutch language media (Grou, e.g., in the Leeuwarder Courant), the use in national Dutch language newspapers (predominantly Grou) and the official Dutch name used by all Dutch governmental layers from municipality to state, which is Grou.

The fact of the matter is, hardly anybody uses Grouw anymore. Right now the only reason people who never visited the place write Grouw instead of Grou, is because of Wikipedia!

I know that this is a tough battle on the Dutch Wikipedia, where the prevailing attitude towards the Dutch names used for places in Frisia bothers on xenophobia, but is it really necessary to repeat that here? Again, the Taalunie-list is outdated, and the only remaining source that calls the place Grouw in Dutch. The policy that lists the Taalunie as the sole authoritative source for these names is exclusively a Dutch Wikipedia affair, and has no meaning here on the English Wikipedia.

Honestly, answer me this: why persist on adding that obviously obsolete name in everywhere except in the context of a historical name? Is this some kind of personal crusade? Do you believe that is actually called Grouw in Dutch? I would love to understand, because it doesn't seem to be born out of a wish of informing people on the basis of facts and actual usage.

As for Eastermar, if you wish to contend that the Dutch name for it is still Oostermeer, please be consistent and move it to that name on the Dutch Wikipedia as well. The same arguments as those for Grou apply though. JeroenHoek (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on published sources. One could question whether a personal correspondence with one of the authors of this list, qualifies as published source and till the updated list is published, we do not know for sure whether certain suggestions are in fact incorporated. Wimpus (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources that claim Grou as the current official Dutch name. Surely you don't dispute that the official Dutch name of the village is Grou? Why would you insist on using the obsolete Dutch vernacular on the English Wikipedia?

Also, would you be so kind as to answer this question?

Why persist on adding that obviously obsolete name in everywhere except in the context of a historical name? Is this some kind of personal crusade, or do you believe that is actually called Grouw in Dutch?

By the way, I have fixed the settlement infobox on both pages. Unless you believe that these places should be called by their old Dutch names in English as well, please leave those be. JeroenHoek (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"There are dozens of sources that claim Grou as the current official Dutch name" I do not dispute that the Frisian name Grou is used in Dutch. But there is a difference between using a Frisian name by the Dutch government (= Nederlandse overheid) and indicating that a name is Dutch (= Nederlandstalig). So, please provide a published source, that indicates that Grou is the current Dutch (= Nederlandstalige) name. Wimpus (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at Ormeling, F. J., and A. P. Versloot. "Friese plaatsnamen als cultureel erfgoed." It Beaken. Tydskrift fan de Fryske Akademy 70 (2008). You will read that newer atlases and maps use Grou instead of Grouw.

Also, could you answer my question? JeroenHoek (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see my revert. There is a difference between Nederlands en Nederlandstalig. Leeuwarden is the only official name in the Netherlands, but the Frisian (or City Frisian) name is not Leeuwarden as well, despite that Leeuwarden is the only official name in Leeuwarden as well. Wimpus (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please leave the settlement infoboxes alone. The native name is correct; I thought we were in agreement on that?

This is not about a place with an official two name policy like Leeuwarden. I am not disputing that Leeuwarden is called Leeuwarden in Dutch; I live there. For Grou and Eastermar, the Frisian and Dutch names however are the same. You can always tell by the blue signs at the city limits, but it is published in the relevant official annals as well. There is a difference between vernacular and official usage, and I have attempted to clarify this on the Grou page, but you revert regardless.

Again, what is this about for you? You are evading the question. JeroenHoek (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the difference between Nederlands and Nederlandstalig. So, you have to use a source that clearly acknowledges this difference. Please notice that on the "Gemeenteblad van De Fryske Marren" it is stated about the blue signs at the city limits:

1. Alleen Friestalige plaatsnamen (zoals Boarnsterhim; Terherne)
2. De Friese naam boven en de Nederlandse onder (zoals in Gaasterlân-Sleat)
3. De Nederlandse naam boven en de Friese onder (zoals in Skarsterlân)
4. Alleen de Nederlandse naam (zoals in Lemsterland)

They clearly identify Boarnsterhim and Terherne as Friestalig and Lemsterland as Nederlandse naam (clearly intended as "Nederlandstalige" naam). You would probably misidentify Boarnsterhim and Terherne as Nederlandstalig as well. The names as used at the blue signs of the city limits are not necessarily Nederlandstalig. Wimpus (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way. I'll leave this pointless discussion until updated sources are available.

In the meantime, could you explain why you put the obsolete Dutch vernacular name as native_name in the infoboxes? Because the native name is clear in both cases. JeroenHoek (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It could also be interpreted as alternative name. Ljouwert is also in the infobox, despite the fact that the City Frisian name is only Liwwadden. Wimpus (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You are just interpreting that key to mean what you want it to. I still don't understand why though. Xenophobia? Just general bigotry? The edit-war notions on your talk page should have been a warning to me.

By the way, Liwwadden is not Frisian, it is Liwwadders, a local Stadsfries dialect distinct from Frisian. The official Dutch name is Leeuwarden, the official Frisian name is Ljouwert. The endonym is overwhelmingly Leeuwarden. I live here, remember? JeroenHoek (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please notice that on the Dutch Wikipedia, the infobox uses "altname". I referred to "Liwwadden" as "City Frisian". You should not accuse me of xenophobia or bigotry. Wimpus (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wimpus, I have a suggestion I hope you will take as a positive one, not meant as a criticism. You have been here for more than a year - about 18 months I think. In that time you have made nearly 2,500 edits. Most of them have been corrections, as you see them, to material written by others. There are many other articles that need either expansion or creation. I am certain that someone with your knowledge and education would be able to do that (create or expand) with ease. The article Greek Heroic Age has links to many articles that have statements with tags like "citation needed", or that need additional information - articles that are read by hundreds, sometimes thousands of people every day. For example, the articles Aeolic Greek, Ionic Greek and Homeric Greek are poorly written, lack citations for statements in the lede and only have a lede but no text. There are also many towns and villages in the Netherlands that do not have articles at all. If you are keen to contribute to plant pages, there are thousands of species that have no article at all. Even creating a stub for one of the thousand or so Dendrobium species (with an etymology of course), would be greatly valued, by me at least.

I don't like my chances! I think that because I have challenged your changes to the derivation of plant names, I am not a person to be listened to. Nevertheless, I wish you the very best for Christmas and the New Year. Gderrin (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas, and a Prosperous 2020
	Merry Christmas Wimpus. I hope 2020 and the decade ahead bring you peace, success and happiness. Gderrin (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. As a Commissioner of the ICZN, it bears mentioning that the Code of Zoological Nomenclature has explicit provisions for cases like this, and they cannot be ignored. Specifically, names such as the present Lasioglossum name fall under Article 31.2.2: "31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1). Example. Species-group names ending in -fer and -ger may be either nouns in apposition, or adjectives in the masculine gender. Cephenemyia phobifer (Clark) has often been used as C. phobifera, but the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer; since Oestrus is masculine, phobifer in that binomen may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition; hence it is to be treated as a noun in apposition and not changed when combined with the feminine generic name Cephenemyia." In this case, the name was originally published as Halictus rubricaudis by Cameron in 1905 without any express indication as to its adjectival status; as such, it is to be treated as a noun under Art. 31.2.2, even if it could potentially be construed as an adjective, because "caudis" is demonstrably a noun as well as an adjective, and "rubricaudis" can be (and therefore must be) a noun phrase. This may work differently in the botanical Code, but in zoology, names that can be interpreted as either nouns or adjectives are always nouns by default, and only adjectives if the original author indicated so. I hope this clarifies the matter before I restore the correct spelling to the two affected articles. Dyanega (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dyanega:, this seems to be Talk:Merrifieldia oligocenicus#Incorrect names all over again in terms of the lack of an (online) source which contains the correct spelling. IPNI does well with noting spelling corrections mandated by the botanical code. Is there any reason ZooBank couldn't do the same? Plantdrew (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's similar, and suffers from a bit of the same basic problem, but it pertains to a different part of Article 31 (and an order other than Lepidoptera, which is significant because lepidopterists refuse to follow gender agreement rules). This falls into a class of names in a "grey area". There are two reasons it's a grey area: (1) the Code implies, but never explicitly comes out and says, that it only considers terms from actual Greek and Latin lexicons as meaningful, and not "New Latin". It makes sense to exclude New Latin because its inclusion can result in circular reasoning (e.g., "Word X is a Latin term because biologist Y published it in 1943 and said it was a Latin term"). Because the Code does not prohibit New Latin, many such names create minor controversy as to whether or not they fall afoul of ICZN Article 31.2.2 or 31.2.3, which could potentially apply. (2) ICZN Article 11.9.1 says that all Latin/Latinized nouns must be, or be treated as nouns in the nominative or genitive singular case. In cases where a name exactly reproduces the nominative or genitive singular form of a noun (e.g., a name like "xanthobasis"), then it is obvious that the epithet is either a noun by definition, or a noun by default (under 31.2.2). The problem with names like "rubricaudis" and "albitarsis" is that they represent the dative or ablative plural form of the nouns in question. They can be technically construed as nouns, but of a form that would not realistically be compliant with Article 11.9.1, which leaves them sort of in limbo. Some Commissioners tend to be very conservative in the application of the Code, in which case a name like this would be considered a "noun because it is not a genuine known Latin adjective", while other less conservative Commissioners might treat it as a "noun by default only", and a very liberal interpretation might be "strictly adjectival". I adhere to the middle camp, where at the very least the original author could potentially have declared it to be adjectival. As a second option, one could make an easier case for the adjectival interpretation than the "has to be a noun" interpretation. I looked again at the list of Lasioglossum names, and it's a mish-mash of names that are definitely correct, definitely incorrect, and ambiguous. This one example is the tip of the proverbial ambiguous iceberg, and for now I suppose a case could be made (as Kevmin might favor) to cite a single source and NOT to try to apply the ICZN Code in the absence of a cited usage. Since Lasioglossum is a bee genus, the one online resource that could be considered definitive is this one. I could probably be okay with accepting the names as they appear there, if external support is considered necessary. Dyanega (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that rubricaudis would be a noun or a noun-phrase. Would you consider the myriad of words on -formis as potential nouns or noun-phrases (as formis is also the ablative or dative plural of nominative singular forma)? Rubricaudis as noun-phrase would be something like "with tails [ablative plural] of red [genitive singular]". We could potentially suggest a noun like rubricauda (= red-tail) in the ablative plural case (rubricaudis = with red-tails). Or we could even suggest that the genuine adjective rubricaudis is nominalized (rubricaudis = red-tailed -> something red-tailed) and therefere became a noun. In the latter case, each single adjective could potentially be a noun and therefore we (or any authority) can never change an epithet and each single change to an epithet must be considered as unnecessary. With that line of reasoning, we could similarly declare oligocenicus in Merrifieldia oligocenicus as noun in apposition (being a real noun or nominalized adjective). Wimpus (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not entirely about grammar, however, it's also about what the rules do or do not say. For genus names, for example, the ICZN is very explicit about source material: e.g., Article 30.1.1 specifies "the gender given for that word in standard Latin dictionaries" and 30.1.2 specifies "the gender given for that word in standard Greek dictionaries". A few other Articles even refer to "lexicons", but these provisions are inconsistent. The result is that it isn't always clear what is or isn't an acceptable source when deciding whether a name is a noun, adjective, or both. In this case, you won't find "caudis" in a Latin dictionary except as a noun, even though I agree it can be used as an adjectival suffix. It only confuses the issue when there are other adjectival forms, like "caudalis" and "caudatus", as these are unambiguously adjectival. Sorting things like this out in the taxonomic literature is also further confused by people who blindly change endings when cataloguing, resulting in changes which are definitely not appropriate such as "-basis" to "-base" or "-capitis" to "-capite". My point is that there are cases which are certain in their interpretation, and others which are not, and while "-caudis" is unlikely to be intended as anything other than adjectival, that's not a safe assumption; a statement by the author specifying "this is adjectival" (as required under Art. 31.2.2) would remove any need to rely upon assumptions. Historically, the Code used to contain a large section showing readers naming examples and outlining grammatical rules, and that section was removed from the newer Code editions. A few of us on the Commission have had discussions about expanding upon this as an adjunct to the online Code, to make cases like this as explicit as possible, though (not surprisingly) one of the hurdles is arriving at a unanimous interpretation for some of these terms. One reason for lack of agreement is dissent from some Commissioners who propose that gender agreement should be abandoned entirely in the future, which is an extremely contentious matter - and it may in turn hinge upon whether or not a system of mandatory name registration can be implemented in the future. If names are officially registered, part of that registration could be the requirement to specify whether or not epithets are nouns, and if not, what the alternative spellings are, in which case gender agreement wouldn't require that users of names need to consult Latin/Greek dictionaries. Until then, some of this is always open to debate, which is unfortunate. Dyanega (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we disagree on whether the slightest possibility that rubricaudis could be considered as noun, is sufficient to treat rubricaudis as a noun. Such a stance would open the floodgates to treat each single adjectival epithet as possible noun and would necessitate to change adjectives back to their original gender. Even such adjectives as "caudalis" and "caudatus" could be considered as possible nouns, as I can not find caudalis and caudatus in a standard Latin dictionary (like Lewis & Short) and there are numerous classical examples of nouns on -alis/-aris (admissionalis, angularis (adjective and noun "angular vessel"), molaris (adjective and noun "molar"/"grinder")) and -atus (aemulatus, ancillatus, apparatus). I would like you to ask, not to lower the bar to to such an extent that each single adjective could possibly be considered as noun, thereby hindering the application of gender-agreement. In case it is far from likely that an epithet would be a noun, we shouldn't label such an epithet by default as noun. Additionally, I think you might got confused by the wiktionary-entry for the dative/ablative case of cauda and overestimated the likelihood that words on -caudis might be nouns. Wimpus (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wimpus, thanks again for pointing out the Lewis&Short entry I hadn't noticed at Anolis stratulus. I'd like to pick your brain on this edit of yours: here. What's wrong here grammatically/philologically (besides the anatomy (not strictly true) & the sourcing (bad source))? In the original description, Harlan states he chose the name to reflect what he considered the most defying characteristic, the tail: so οὐρά would be the most logical etymology for at least part of the name. He doesn't give a step-by-step etymology for Cyclura, but in his description of the two species he ascribes to this genus he spends much words describing the ringed nature of the tails, so the most reasonable thing we can expect Harlan to mean is "ring-tail" or "ringed tail". The other common characteristic he describes is the spines on the tails or both species, so there is a (slim) possibility he is deriving cycl- from some word for a spine? I'm thinking you may have been wrong here and Father Sánchez is (in any case partially) correct in his derivation -Harlan may not have been grammatically proficient in Greek when constructing his name. Thoughts? Groeten, Leo Breman (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Pityrodia canaliculata shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'm sorry to do this as it seems like you are acting in good faith, but you need to follow Wiki's rules about dispute resolution. Your behavior on Pityrodia canaliculata and Eucalyptus deglupta is inappropriate and approaching edit war behavior. I kindly ask that you stop and address your issues in the talk page. You have made changes to a page which I believe are inappropriate. The appropriate way to handle this is to revert the pages to the most recent consensus form, discuss in the Talk page and make changes only after a consensus has been reached. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Those edits were made by a user not quite familar with Latin and Greek and a history of repeated misquoting and misinterpretation of sources. It must by quite clear that caniculata is not a noun meaning "little channel" as it is an adjective. So, I was quite surprised that you added an ad-hoc reference that stated similarly that caniculata is (treated as an) adjective, while trying to support the statement that it would be noun meaning "little channel". Wimpus (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This explanation, along with a general request and justification for removing the definition you removed as Original Research needs to be posted on the article's talk page so that other editors can follow the conversation. Also, you just have to stop reverting the edits. I see this is a thing you do in the past and I assume its because you don't like Wiki's policy about these things, but I'm sorry that's the rule book we have to follow here. Even if you are right, you need to leave the page as it is and discuss it with me on that page's talk page. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See also this discussion, in which the editor (Gderrin) was told by editor Future Perfect at Sunrise:

"I disagree with the implied claim here that the principle of consensus requires prior discussion and seeking of consent in cases of simple, straightforward corrections (including removals) of edits that are just, simply, incontrovertibly wrong, as was the case in, for example, this edit. If you see an entry like that, and you have the expertise to understand why it's wrong, then the only correct thing to do is exactly what Wimpus did: remove it, with a matter-of-fact and informative edit summary. Accusing Wimpus of disruption for such edits is not appropriate. The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed."

Considering deglupta as infinitive or caniculata as noun are clear mistakes. To interpret the source (Brown) otherwise, is merely Original Research (but we can also consider this as misquotation or misinterpretation). Similarly, considering your behavior, it is highly questionable to use a source, in your edit that does not support what is written in the lemma. Wimpus (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And I do not think it is necessary, in each single instance that editor Gderrin provided an OR-etymology by using a source that did not address the full compound (as commented by administrator Someguy1221 in the previous discussion: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon"."), to address this first on the talk page, before removing his OR-etymology. Wimpus (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your removal makes sense on Pityrodia chrysocalyx though on many other pages you seem to have a tendency to remove etymologies because they miss represent the grammatical details of their Greek or Latin roots, this is not appropriate as is mentioned in the noticeboard discussion. What was done on Pityrodia chrysocalyx does appear to be OR or at the least information for which there is not a reliable source, however, not accurately reporting the Greek or Latin grammar in an etymology which is meant for consumption by the general public is not OR... its a minor a mistake and it should be treated as such. It should be corrected, not removed. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It certain instances it can be corrected, but do not underestimate the effort it takes to find appropriate sources. In various instances, the original etymology of the first describing author would be most apt, but in older publications explicit etymologies are (most of the time) lacking. I can not correct an etymology, by merely correcting the mistakes as made by subpar secondary sources (without providing a source for these corrections), because in a considerable number of cases, these etymologies can actually be found in the original publications (that in numerous instances I can not access), in which the botanical author used unknowingly some kind of pseudo-Latin or pseudo-Greek. Wimpus (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm following... I'm all for removing or correcting etymologies with no source, or where a more reliable source proves a less reliable source wrong. The issue I take with your edits is that you seem to have a tendency to remove etymologies not because they lack citation, but because they don't adequately explain the parts of speech at play in the mother language. In the instance of Pityrodia canaliculata, you don't seem to dispute that 'canaliculata' can be traced to the diminutive from of 'canalis', instead, you seem to take issue with saying "the word 'canaliculata' means 'little channel'" since this would imply 'canaliculata' is a noun instead of an adjective. At least, this is what I understand to be the problem in your eyes. If this is the issue, removing the reference and the etymology from the article is inappropriate. The issue of Latin grammar is not particularly important for the etymology, but if you want to correct it you should do so by altering the etymology and not removing it. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that 'canaliculata' can/could be traced to the diminutive from of 'canalis',but the current source does not explicitely lists 'caniculata' as noun or adjective on p. 274. It seems likely that

the second term in B. canaliculata is intended as an adjective, but in Mytilus canaliculus, the second term is probably a noun in apposition (which probably numerous people would misidentify as adjective). In Neo-Latin there are adjectives that are derived from diminutive nouns, that actually refer to the non-diminutive word, e.g. testicularis refers to testis, appendicularis to appendix, lenticularis to lens (gen. lentis), vascularis to vas. I can make all kind of assumptions, but considering that an direct explicit translation is lacking, we have to be carefull. Please remember, Brown is a secondary source, that does not explicitely deals with the current name Pityrodia canaliculata. It would unsound to still use (in this specific case) such a source for such etymological analysis. Wimpus (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This issue of noun vs. adj. seems like a minor thing which is not of particular importance to this article or etymology. The important point of the citation and etymology given is that the term 'canaliculata' in P. canaliculata is related to the Latin word canalis and likely specifically related to the diminutive form of the word. Removing any trace of a connection in meaning because of a lack of certainty of the parts of speech meant by the scientific name doesn't constitute an improvement to the article. Why not just reword the sentence to make it clear that there is not a perfectly understood relationship between 'canaliculata' and 'canalis' and it's deminutive form? –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be non-sensical as that would imply that scientists in the field are uncertain about the specific connection, while actually, we are dealing with a secondary source that is rather vague (and does not even pretend to explain canaliculata in Pityrodia canaliculata). In case we would deal with the primary source, it could make sense to mention that the describing author does not make clear connections. Wimpus (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"that would imply that scientists in the field are uncertain about the specific connection" — No. All it implies is that we here at Wikipedia are working with an unspecified connection. If the general linguistic connection is clear it should be mentioned. If a scientist names a frog discovered in Seattle, Washington F. washingtona but we don't know if it's meant to refer to the state, the district, or the president specifically, it's not inappropriate to mention its linguistic connection to the word Washington. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not consider that as inappropriate, when dealing with the primary source, but now we are using a secondary source, that does not even mentions the name Pityrodia canaliculata, nor gives a translation of canaliculata. Wimpus (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, on a completely unrelated note. I've noticed that when you add Greek (and I assume Latin though I haven't been checking those) words and their romanizations you leave them as plain text in the article. As per the WP: MOS they should be enclosed in a Lang Template. You can use lang code 'grc' for ancient Greek, 'grc-Latn' for romanized ancient Greek, 'el' and 'el-Latin' for modern Greek (if you ever need that), and 'la' for Latin. If possible, you should consider using that template as part of your standard edit practices. I spend a lot of time cleaning that up across Wiki and so I try to spread the word when I can. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not familar with this specific rule (WP: MOS), but is there a specific necessity to use this kind of formatting? Wimpus (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not that there is one specific thing affected by the use this template, instead, it's the case that there are many broad-reaching (though usually quite minor) effects. The broad systems of wiki operate under the assumption that any foreign terms in an article will be cited in the template with the appropriate language code (or in a language specific template like Template:Lang-el). For example: these terms get treated differently in the code when formatting the page for some screens, or when translating the page, or when previewing the article in a popup, etc. These templates are also really helpful to bots that deal with cataloging and improving foreign language use on Wikipedia. None of it is critical, and nothing will break today if you don't do it, but it's surprisingly tricky to fix later with a bot and wiki's systems assume the template is being used. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot make heads or tails of this: "in herbario cathedrae plantarum cryptogamicarum Universitatis Mosquaensis conservatur". My attempts at translation, guided heavily by google translate, end up with something like: in the garden chairs of the university president Mosquaensis", which I am quite sure is wrong. TelosCricket (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket: It means "it is preserved/conserved (conservatur) in the herbarium (in herbario) of the Chair of Cryptogamic Plants (cathedrae plantarum cryptogamicarum) of the University of Moscow (Universitatis Mosquaensis)".

• Cathedra here refers more to the department than the professorial chair, which is the literal meaning. Thus the herbarium abbreviation "MWG" refers to the institution called in English "Herbarium of the Department of Biogeography, Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University" (see here). Here is a specimen labelled "ex Herbario Cathedrae Biogeographicae Universitatis Mosquensis (MWG)", so "Cathedrae Biogeographicae" is "of the Department of Biogeography".
• Mosqua (adjective mosquensis rather than mosquaensis according to Stearn) is used in Botanical Latin for "Moscow".

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just wanted to let you know that you've entered a contentious topic area at Gender_reveal_party. TelosCricket (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wimpus! Thanks for your edit to Pachysandra axillaris. I went back and looked at my source, and it definitely says that the name Pachysandra comes from Greek, and it shows the Greek words it is derived from. I can't read the Greek alphabet, though (it's all Greek to me!). My best guess is that it's a dodgy translation of pachy-anthus that stuck due to the 'earliest name is correct' rule of the ICBN. I hope you won't mind if I add this etymological explanation back to the page, as I am citing a respected source - Gledhill is the etymological source of choice for WikiProject Plants participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethnobotanical Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly on an effort to eliminate the term "pregnant people", even when such language is used in the source. These are non-neutral edits, and seem to erase not just trans men but cis girls. If you continue such edits, the issue will be raised with administrators, and you may face sanctions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In multiple instances, 'woman' or 'women' was written, but some editors changed that to 'person(s)' or 'people'. Those edits are clearly non-neutral and ideologically inspired. Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

See also this discussion. Wimpus (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless you think that women aren't people, or the reader won't know what "pregnant" means (in which case more changes will be called for), there was no reason for doing those edits... as your lack of edit summaries yesterday suggests. Please be less concerned about whether Wikipedia is politically correct by your politics, and more concerned about whether it is factually correct. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

'Women' is factually correct and there was no necessity to change the wording by those other editors. Wimpus (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Except the part where it leaves out girls and trans men... --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Trans men are biologically women, as well as girls.

Do you want to get your account blocked? Stop with the transphobia, please. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, do not make any baseless accusations. Wimpus (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. In the preceding section, you cited this discussion as a rationale for your edits. However, that same discussion did not reach a consensus, so it's a moot point to make since the user who closed the discussion wrote that "the use of gender-neutral terms in articles is encouraged" as per MOS:GNL. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wimpus. For the record, that discussion is here, and concerns a series of edits involving a wording choice between pregnant women and pregnant persons. While that discussion is ongoing, it would be a good idea not to make edits of that type (in either direction). Perhaps you've already stopped doing so; I haven't checked. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wimpus. You've been around long enough, that you don't need to be informed about assuming good faith on the part of other editors who you might disagree with on some content issue, but if you need a refresher, please follow this link to WP:AGF. As far as edit summaries are concerned, you're pretty fair on the use of edit summaries, with slightly over half of your edits containing summaries; see if you can do even better, and get that figure up into the 90% region.

One thing for you to watch out for, is what you say in some of your edit summaries, which I think has been getting you into hot water lately, and may have indirectly influenced your being taken to ANI about a separate issue. Take this edit of yours at Gender reveal party for example, where you started off with, "Reverted gender activist edits..." and went on from there. Ouch! that was a really cringeworthy edit summary, as it started out making accusations about other editors. Anybody on the receiving end of that, would surely feel up in arms, unless they had really thick skin. Also, that would be a definite violation of WP:AGF if it appeared on a Talk page, and a possible violation of WP:NPA as well; and it's certainly WP:UNCIVIL. An edit summary is not the place for this; per WP:SUMMARYNO, please "[a]void incivility[,] snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries".

Next time you write an edit summary (which should be every time you edit ) please don't make any comments that could be interpreted as saying something negative about an editor, named or unnamed. Instead, think about the answer to this question: "How does my edit make the article better?" and use that as your edit summary. As it happens, your subsequent edit summary where you stated, "Please read the rest of this article. Mutiple times "fetal sex' is mentioned and a discussion that the name is a misnomer}} was better, because it was reasonably WP:CIVIL, and because you gave an explanation in line with guidelines. Even better, would be to leave the other editor out of it (you were still telling them what to do, i.e., to "read the article"). When you say, "Please read the rest of this article", it sounds like, "Read the rest of this article, you big dummy". There's no need to address the other editor at all; just say how you're improving it, for example, instead you could have said: "The rest of the article confirms that 'fetal sex' is mentioned multiple times, and explains how the 'gender' name is a misnomer.". See how that sounds neutral, and better, and doesn't bring in the other editor at all?

Please stick to more of the latter kind of wording, and less of the former. Nobody likes someone who is in your face, or making accusations; I know you know how to write a good summary, because you've proved that you can. I think if you do that regularly, and avoid the uncivil stuff, and stop referring to other editors at all in your summaries, you'll have smoother sailing here, and you'll end up having more time to just improve the articles you want to work on, and spend less time at ANI or getting warnings on your Talk page. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to reply, or to start a discussion on my Talk page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wimpus. Your ANI thread has been archived, which means it is highly probable that there won't be any admin action about it now, such as a block, a logged warning, or anything of that sort. The discussion was quite long, as I'm sure you noticed, and there were a fair number of editors who were pretty irked by your behavior. The fact that it lasted for nearly two weeks while it slowly worked its way up to the top of the page without closure, means that admins were watching, and trying to decide whether or not to do anything about it. In the end, they did not, and it was archived.

My guess is, that your behavior was in a gray area, and there were some editors that supported your behavior, or at least, were not certain that you had violated any policies that called for blocking you, and as a result, the admins erred on the side of giving you extra slack, i.e., doing nothing. But that doesn't mean that you've "gotten away" so to speak; you're on the radar of a lot of admins, now (and regular editors) so this might be a good time to just reflect, think about what happened, maybe reread the discussion again (it's now in Archive 1116), and think about how to avoid something similar happening again. If you're not clear on what happened, or if upon rereading, you just don't get why certain editors objected to your edits to the point they were in favor of blocking you, that would be something to try to work on. (I wasn't in that group, but I understand why some others were.)

Wimpus, I noticed you haven't edited since the ANI discussion, and if that spooked you in any way, I'd just encourage you to get back in the saddle and edit again whenever you feel like. Or, maybe you were just away for the holidays; I hope you had a good one! It's been a couple of years since someone placed the DS notice above, so I'm going to add it again; it's a good reminder about how this whole area of gender-related topics is a sensitive one, and how you have to be extra-careful when editing article in that area, in order not to get into trouble.

If you have any questions about this incident, or about editing going forward, or anything at all, feel free to reply below, or at my Talk page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, again. As promised just above, here's a new notice about editing in gender-related topics, which is a sensitive area requiring extra caution in editing and in discussions with other editors. Please read it, and follow the links; you're welcome to delete or archive it afterward.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm MtBotany. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Stylidium oviflorum have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. I checked one of the sources you gave for stating that "The proper word for 'flower' in classical and botanical Latin is however flos". I checked the second, third, and fourth editions of Botanical Latin by Stearn and it does not state that. On page 113 of the forth edition it lists "-florus" as meaning "flowered" and it being derived from Latin. Yes, in a proper Latin description flos is the right word for flower, as Stearn expands upon at length, but that does not mean that florus does not mean flowered in Botanical Latin. I crammed this comment into a warn template even though I corrected instead of purely reverting because I see from prior comments that this is an issue that may need to be documented. I hope this was a case of misremembering of what was stated in Stearn. Please be more careful in the future. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear MtBotany, it seems that you have added incorrect information instead of me. First of all, 'flower' is not the same as 'flowered' and the original author (Bean) didn't mentioned 'flowered' but 'flower' for florus. In my third edition of Stearn (1983, p. 85), one can see clearly the declension table of flos, as well as on p. 429 ("Flower: flos"). Second, 'ovi' is not an adjective. In my third edition of Stearn (p. 475) one can read "ovi-: in L. comp. egg-". This is not an adjective, but a word-forming element. It seems that you have misinterpreted Stearn. Additionally, you have added 'is a Botanical Latin compound formed from pauci- meaning few and flora meaning flowered'. In Stearn (p. 478) one can read:"pauciflorus, few-flowered", but that does not necessarily mean that this specific compound is derived from the (non-compounded) adjective 'florus/a/um' (= 'flowered'). In classical Latin multiflorus already existed and according to Lewis & Short this compound was derived from multus and flos. So, where does Stearn unequivocally state that the similar pauciflora is compounded with an adjective florus/a/um? Wimpus (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you've added "combined the Botanical Latin suffix -anthus, meaning flowered which was derived from ανθος". Where can you find in the cited sources the full etymological explanation of Bolusanthus? In Gledhill the compound Bolusanthus is completely missing and in Burkhardt, only the Bolus- part seems to be explained. So, this seems like OR. Additionally, your explanation is also incorrect, as Bolusanthus is not an adjective meaning Bolus-flowered but a noun meaning Bolus-flower. Wimpus (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This edit ("Botanical Latin uses florus for flowers though did not have this meaning in Latin.") is also incorrect. 'Flowers' in botanical Latin is flores, not florus (= 'flowering' in botanical Latin). You seem to confuse an adjective with a noun in Latin. And this edit ('The species name, parviflorus, is a common Botanical Latin compound meaning "small-flowered". Botanical Latin uses florus to mean flowered though it did not have this meaning in Latin.') is also problematic, as it is not clear cut from Gledhill that he refers to florus/a/um on p. 293 ("pauciflorus -a -um few-flowered, paucus-florum"). In most instances he seems to mention florum (genitive singular of flos or neuter singular of adjective florus/a/um?) as etymological explanation for those adjectives on -florus/a/um, but Gledhill is rather inconsistent, as one can find various -florus/a/um-words explained by flora in Gledhill ("syringiflorus -a -um lilac-flowered, Syringa-flora" "triflorus -a -um three-flowered, tri-flora", "tubaeflorus -a -um with trumpet-shaped flowers, tubae-flora", "abundiflorus -a -um flowering copiously, abunde-flora", "angustiangustiflorus -a -um narrow-flowered, angusti-flora"), or by the nominative plural flores ("stoloniflorus -a -um' flowering on creeping stems, stolonis-flores"), or by the adjective floreus ("albiflorus -a -um, albiflos white-flowered, albi-floreus"). One can not reliable determine what is actually intended by Gledhill, so a more reliable source is needed. Wimpus (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Wimpus. You have new messages at Sminthopsis84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

See talk page of Acer castorrivularis as Kevmin is repeatedly adding an fabricated etymology. Wimpus (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)