Talk:core Caryophyllales

RFD discussion: April 2018–July 2021
Caryophyllales, like many higher plant taxa, has been undergoing revision in order to render it monophyletic. Some authors wish to discuss the monophyletic grouping without redefining the term (in order to avoid confusion), and therefore refer to it as the "core" of the taxon as usually defined. I don't think this kind of terminology is a true taxonomic name, just a delimiting noun plus a taxonomic name. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For that matter, it's also not Translingual — it's English. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The English problem might also be a matter of and its related terms, and several other terms like . -84.161.42.20 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a term with specific hyponyms and hypernyms, somewhat variable over time, and synonyms used much more specifically than core + Caryophyllales. DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost all the usage at indicates to me that core Caryophyllales is used in a manner clearly parallel to that of other taxonomic groups with names that follow the older taxonomic naming practices. That the name is used in two of the databases in the entry suggests that it has gained sufficient currency when referring to a particular group of families to be used for an entry or section title. The usage may turn out to be relatively short term, as Caryophyllales is used by more authors to have the same families as core Caryophyllales. As long as both concepts are being used, the need for a distinguishing name may continue. That the name can be interpreted as SoP in the minds of a broad population of readers does not mean that it is so interpreted by the authors and their fellow professionals. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a sum of parts.  As currently defined  in this sense is a Translingual word but I think it is English.  I have sent it to RFV to see whether it is really Translingual. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the Translingual entry, for reasons given above and because it doesn't seem to be translingual, as I commented at RFV. Whether an English entry would be idiomatic, eh, I'm inclined to say no, per Meta. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Questions:
 * Is core Caryophyllales used in multiple languages? It's a matter of WT:RFVN, but if it isn't used in multiple languages, it doesn't deserve a translingual entry. My guess is, it would fail RFV.
 * Is core used translingually? A matter of WT:RFVN again. If it is, could be SOP; if not, it can't be SOP translingually.  failed WT:RFVN, so  (if it exists) doesn't seem like SOP.
 * Is SOP? Could depend on the definition: If it's only given like "a main or prototypic form of Caryophyllales", it's SOP-ish. If it's given as "Caryophyllales with these specific features" it's less SOP-ish. Similar issue might arise with names of German dialects: Something like nördliches/östliches/südliches/westliches Schwäbisch defined as "Swabian spoken in the North/East/South/West" is SOP, defined as "Swabian with these specific linguistic features" isn't.
 * My conclusion: Keep, but move to WT:RFVN, where it likely fails. As for a possible English entry, use WT:RFDE for discussing it's SOP-ness. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)