Disputatio:Wallabia bicolor

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possibilities[fontem recensere]

For your article template in the future, Hendrice, here are some possibilities (please, others, say which are better latin or which you'd prefer to read):

  • ... est animal marsupiale herbivorum Australianum (... is an Australian marsupial herbivorous animal)
  • ... est species marsupialium herbivororum Australianorum (... is a species of the Australian herbivorous marsupials)
  • ... est marsupial herbivorum Australianum (... is an Australian herbivorous marsupial)
  • ... est Macropus marsupialis herbivorus Australianus (... is an Australian herbivorous macropod marsupial, like the first sentence of the English article)

I prefer the last because it follows the English page, contains all of the necessary information and doesn't include any grammatical cases which could confuse. Harrissimo 16:18, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

well, if i chose the last one, it's about macropods, but not all marsupials are from macropodidae you have also Dasyuridae and others, i prefer a line usable for the whole group, Hendricus 16:29, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Then another variant, maybe a little more explicit and therefore easier to decipher, is
  • ... est marsupialis herbivorus Australianus e familia Macropodidarum. (... is an Australian herbivorous marsupial from the family of the Macropodidae).
Wherever a family name ends in -ae (and they nearly all do) you just change the -ae to -arum for genitive plural.
I have two further comments.
  1. Because it's better to write articles that non-specialists can approach easily, I prefer to put in the extra words around the scientific name (as I have done in the current edit of the article) meaning: ... (a binominal name devised by Desmarest in 1804) ... Vicipaedia gives us room to write proper sentences and to say exactly what we mean, so let's do it, I think. Others maybe disagree.
  2. I think that adding the English (or whatever) names right there in the first sentence, along with everything else, makes it rather a complicated sentence. However, I'm not saying "don't do it". Rather, I'm saying, in the vicifuture when the article is expanded, the English name may come out of that spot and be placed later in the article. Again, others may well disagree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:33, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
  • It's also possible to get the English name and the former names out of the tekst and beeing placed in the lower area in sepperate subheaders, there is a special name for former names i think,Hendricus 16:48, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Nomen ambiguum or maybe nomen novum, Hendricus 17:03, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
OK, but those do not have quite the meaning you want.
For alternative names in general you could use the heading Alia nomina (other names). Within this, the technical term for former Latin names would be Synonyma. The technical term for names in English or French or whatever would be Nomina communia ("common names" -- a misleading term, but that's the one they use). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
If we can keep it somewhat technical or scientific, they're former official names, not just common and they can be found in older literature, Hendricus 17:14, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. The former official names are synonyma. The English [etc.] names are nomina communia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:56, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I think it's possible to ignore the nomina communia completely (that's why we have wiktionary and interwiki links). Is there something in {{Taxobox}} for synonyms? It's quite a sprawling formula but I'll have a look so we don't have to have a whole section to just explain one previous name. Harrissimo 18:02, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
There is. And a happy new year to all! Harrissimo 18:07, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
And the same to you, Harrissimo. Yes, I'm with you on the nomina communia question: the fewer the better, even down to zero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

A rationale for putting English synonyms in Vicipaedia articles[fontem recensere]

A rationale for putting English synonyms in Vicipaedia articles is that readers using the quaerere box may not know the Latin term but, since English is a universal language, may know the English one (and may not have bothered to start in the English wiki so as to find a link to click)—and of course where subjects have particular importance in the English-speaking world, as do the wallabies, this rationale has extra strength. IacobusAmor 18:10, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree with you on rationale (a), because I think our aim here is to use Latin as the said universal language. Rationale (b) -- give common or vernacular names in places where the species is important -- is OK, I think. But, even in this case, I would argue it's best to enhance the Latinity of the article by putting the common name a bit lower down. That's why I agreed with Hendricus's point originally. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:16, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The synonyms in the taxobox, i like that, Hendricus 18:22, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
At the other hand i don't think we have to give all common names, as matter of fact - i think it's enough to add the 'official' common name wich is given at some governmental sites like the IUCN just swamp wallaby - i think, Hendricus 18:40, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
There are at least two situations in which we do want to put a non-Latin name right up front:
1. When we've used a Latinized name; e.g.
Samoa Americana (Anglice: American Samoa; Samoane: Amerika Sāmoa) est. . . .
Iohannes Sebastianus Bach (Theodisce: Johann Sebastian Bach . . .) fuit. . . .
Nicolaus Copernicus (Polonice: Mikołaj Kopernik; Theodisce: Nikolaus Kopernikus) (14731543) fuit. . . .
2. When an etymology is useful for showing how non-Latin speakers conceive of something; e.g.:
Cithara Havaiiana (Havaiane: ‘ukulele 'pulex saliens') est. . . .
Nafanua (Samoane: Nafanua, e 'celatum' et fanua 'in terra'). . . .
Other patterns may come to mind. IacobusAmor 18:54, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
  • We can also create a template like they use at wikispecies for vernacular names, useable in every article about plants, animals, persons and places, Hendricus 19:00, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I think i prefer the most common name also given at the IUCN site, Hendricus 19:47, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

"Statut de conservation IUCN"[fontem recensere]

Go to the French wiki's taxobox and see this factoid. Good to add here? and to all zoological taxoboxes? IacobusAmor 18:35, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

These formulae already exist and are used in some articles—they would be the ones to upgrade. —Mucius Tever 00:31, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I was indeed thinking of that info, it's also given at the english box, we should create a similar template for these kind of info. For using the template it should be enough to add it's number, - every species known to IUCN has a explicite specimen registrationnumber, Hendricus 18:43, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)