Talk:evergladensis

RFV discussion: April 2019–April 2021
It seems that this was added on the basis of some taxonomic names. But we don't consider taxonomic names to be Latin, do we? I'm not sure if this can be considered Latin either if that's the case. —Rua (mew) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then move it. All we lose is the declension tables. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending to know all the relevant policies and practices. I'm asking for clarification, and for action to be taken depending on what is needed. —Rua (mew) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's never been any consensus. I don't really care. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The more common treatment seems to be to list such names as Latin, as seen for example for . Like is done for that lemma, I think names for which the use is confined to taxonomy should be labelled “” (with appropriate adjustments to the list of branches of biology – for evergladensis including mycology). Personally, I feel that including a declension table is over the top, though. --Lambiam 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My own thoughts is that they should be listed as Latin (without macrons &c), labelled as "New Latin", and that declension tables should be include only if any of the feminine and/or neuter, plural &c forms are also used (they're not in this case). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to attest Latin with random non-Latin usages is the same as trying to attest English * with usages of or * with. And that doesn't work out. and Church Latin more often capitalises adjectives while in non-Latin biological texts it's more often uncapitalised.
 * Talk:iroquoianus, Talk:albifrons + WT:CFI are quite clear: The term has to be attested in Latin to be Latin.
 * @Lambiam: 1. carolinensis or Carolinensis can be found and possibly attested in Latin, though its sense might be different (compare , , , , and also see : "acus Carolinensis, Karlsbader Insektennadel"). 2. People ignoring WT:CFI and (other) vandals don't change the rules because they ignore them.
 * --Brown*Toad (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not immediately see which clause from CFI applies here, but I have no problem with the L2 being changed to “Translingual”. I just reported on what appeared to be a commonly taken approach, based on inspecting a small sample of the most common epithets. If Carolinensis can be attested in Latin, it probably has a different etymology, being from without a detour through the .  --Lambiam 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The most plausible ways to get Latin attestation for specific epithets like this are through Catholic Church Latin (many placename adjectives) or from scientific Latin taxonomic descriptions (mostly 19th century and earlier). This term, unlike caroliniensis or carolinianus, is not likely to be found in such sources. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam: "including a term if it is attested" and "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning" - of course a Latin term has to be attested in Latin, with a use in a Latin media.
 * @DCDuring: Church Latin doesn't attest taxonomic terms regarding labels and biological stuff like "Discovered in or native to [region]" as in ,
 * --Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Following Beer parlour/2020/March, I added a note last year to WT:AMUL and WT:ALA that terms only attested in taxonomic names are not Latin but Translingual. As this does not appear to be attested in any inflected form or in Latin (after years here at RFV), it's RFV-failed it as Latin and I've converted it to Translingual. DCDuring or someone else might like to apply the usual taxonomic-name templates. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)