Talk:darwinii

darwinii
As with the others, wrong part of speech, wrong format (not a lemma page), no real definition, and just a list of species names that ought to be in an appendix rather than in a Latin entry. Please move to an Appendix and delete. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really very helpful. I've changed the language, changed the part of speech. I can't think how else to define it. SemperBlotto 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really helpful for you to be creating pages where you don't know enough of the language to even get the part of speech right. We block less experienced users for creating such nonsense.  Please set a good example and stop creating pages where you don't have a clue. --EncycloPetey 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pete – this is a ridiculous way to talk to a fellow editor, especially someone who is manifestly working in good faith and, I might say, who never loses his own temper. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not ridiculous when this has been going on for months without acknowledgement or change on his part. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, these should all be kept and improved.
 * Language - Translingual makes most sense (whatever language in Etymology section)
 * Part of speach - Adjective (whatever is in Etymology section)
 * Definition - Only English words have definitions. These should have translations - as adjectives
 * so - sapiens = thinking, nudiflora = having naked flowers, darwinii = Darwin (attributive) and so on
 * Derived terms - this is obvious place to put list of species. 85.12.64.148 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are useful as an expression of an opinion, but what are the arguments in support of the assertions? We have been following a fairly consistent practice about such entries.
 * We have been avoiding two-part species names because they are much better maintained by Wikispecies, which is better even at tracking etymology and coinage. We have virtually nothing of interest to say about two-part species names.
 * These epithets are most commonly initially used as part of species descriptions and in two-part species names, both following Latin grammar (esp., inflection).
 * As EP has pointed out, not all of these are adjectives, most pointedly those that are nouns, but also those that are verb forms.
 * The glosses for these terms often are more definition-like than those for some other non-English terms because there is no one-word English equivalent {eg, nudiflora) or they involve possessives of proper names (eg, Darwinii, Sieboldii).
 * We have no problem providing links from the Latin entry for an epithet to wikispecies for the two-part species names that are its descendants or derived terms.
 * Translingual is not a language. It is an attempt to avoid having many language sections for terms that would be essentially identical in numerous languages. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel as though it should have an entry, being a word that is used, but I'm not sure as to its pedigree as part of "real" Latin. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "it" should have an entry? The Translingual "adjective" with the "meaning" of "a specific epithet"? Or are you referring to having a Latin entry for this word?  No Latin entry has been nominated for deletion, only the Translingual entry with no meaningful definition, wrong part of speech, and a list of species names. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm probably arriving late at a long discussion, and can't see the content of the deleted words. As all these seem to be real words (though I'm not sure what language or part of speech!) wouldn't it be better to just correct them? BedfordLibrary 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That did occur to me. This word might actually be in use, but what language? Contemporary Latin? English? Translingual. Essentially we'd be excluding a word that meets WT:CFI because we can't decide what language it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)