Talk:kilonensis

RFV discussion: September 2017
It's common practice that see-also terms just like derived terms (cp. WT:ELE) must be in the same language as the entry. That is, see-also terms in a Latin entry must be Latin terms.

But w:Pseudomonas kilonensis ("Sikorski, et al. 2001") probably isn't Latin and just English or Translingual. Maybe also note that it's common practice to list Translingual terms as descendants and not as derived terms, as for example in accipiter, aequoreus, alauda, bombyx. (And in advance, no I didn't add the descendants to these other entries.) But there was an admin insisting on listining "Pseudomonas kilonensis" as derived term and not as descendant, and later the admin moved it into the see-also section. -84.161.10.219 17:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC) It's to be verified or attested that "Pseudomonas kilonensis" is a Latin term, compare with Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus which failed to be attested as Latin terms. If "Pseudomonas kilonensis" can't be attested as a Latin term, then by WT:ELE it can't be a derived term of and by common practice it can't be a see-also as derived terms and see-also terms in a Latin entry must be Latin terms. My guess is that "Pseudomonas kilonensis" just like "iroquoianus" is too young to be attested as Latin term. -84.161.10.219 18:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems off topic for this page- what is to be verified? DTLHS (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not off-topic, it's a usual RFV. The only difference to a more usual RFV is that usually entries are nominated and not hyponyms, hypernyms, derived terms etc. without an own entry. But I can't see any problem with that. If doubtful hyponyms, derived terms etc. are added, there must be a way to challenge them. For example, if a German compound like Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftsraddampferkapitänskajütentürsicherheitsschlüssel is added as a derived term of Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft (compare with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän/Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän) there must be a way to RFV it. One way could be to simply RFV the derived term. Alternatively, one could create a German entry Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftsraddampferkapitänskajütentürsicherheitsschlüssel, or in this case a Latin entry Pseudomonas kilonensis, just to RFV it. But IMHO creating an entry just to RFV it seems to be worse than just RFV-ing a hyponym or derived term.
 * You're making some unwarranted assumptions. To start with, while linking to entries in other languages is discouraged, linking doesn't constitute a statement that the term linked to is in the same language. Second, different headers have different standards. While "Derived terms" or "Synonyms" have ironclad restrictions about what can be linked to, "See also" is intended to be the fallback when other headers are inappropriate. I haven't seen a definitive statement that "See also" can never be used to link to other language. More to the point: you're using rfv as an indirect means of winning an argument that has nothing to do with usage. Even if justifiable on narrow, legalistic grounds, it's an abuse of rfv: you're wasting time and resources that should be expended on more important things in order to get a predictable result. Robbie SWE took this to the Beer Parlour, which is where it belongs. You're just wasting everybody's time and testing their patience Chuck Entz (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't get all Platonic about this. We usually present taxonomic names as "descendants", which I have done. It would be God's work to clean these up. It should be possible to find most of them fairly efficiently using CirrusSearch, including "insource", "incategory" and "hastemplate".
 * BTW, not only is this not the right forum, but you should use the little plus on the display of a request template to insert the proper heading on the request page. That make it easier to jump back and forth between the discussion page and the entry. DCDuring (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't any other instances of this minor mis-formatting among Latin adjective entries, based on my search. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it does, it depends on the place. For example, for derived terms the linking constitutes such a statement (cp. WT:ELE). And the term first was given as a derived terms, impling it to be a Latin term. I can't link to any rule or vote and that would be my personal opinion too, but I've seen that users/admins removed see-also terms because the language was different. Rather recently it was a dialectal High German term added in a German see-also and linked with and not. The term was removed from the see-also by a user (apparently not someone from WT:Admin) with this reason: "Code  only covers transregional literary High German. Anything belonging to a natural High German dialect [...] would technically be a cognate, which traditionally go into the Etymology section [...]". Generalised from German it would mean that see-also terms must be in the same language as the entry. So maybe users/admins gave wrong information or presented their opinion as facts. That would indeed mean that this RFV would be somewhat unnecessary. If the term would still be a derived term (which it was, and to which it was reverted), then no. As it's now a see-also term, it depends on what information is correct. If you are correct about see-also terms, this RFV would indeed somewhat unnecessary. If you are wrong and if what others told is correct, then this RFV is not unnecessary. So who is correct, you or the others? If you are correct, must there be qualifiers for different-language see-also terms? For example, must German see-also terms in an English entry be qualified like " * German: " or " *   "? IMHO English see-also terms in an English entry don't need a label, but non-English terms should be qualified. If there must be qualifiers, then maybe this RFV wouldn't be unnecessary too. I mean, assuming you are correct. Then instead of using RFV, I would just add a qualifing "(Translingual)" or "Translingual:". But if that would again be reverted (and likely without good explanation or reason), then it would be a matter of RFV again. "BTW, not only is this not the right forum": It's the right forum to attest a term, and the best forum I could think of. If the term would still be given as a derived term, this place would be correct. As it's now a see-also term, it depends on what can be listed at see also.
 * "To start with [...] linking doesn't constitute a statement that the term linked to is in the same language"
 * "To start with [...] linking doesn't constitute a statement that the term linked to is in the same language"
 * "I haven't seen a definitive statement that "See also" can never be used to link to other language."
 * "it's an abuse of rfv"
 * @DCDuring: Indeed that's common practice and I have no problem with it. But someone reverted me for placing a translingual descendant at it's proper place.
 * I just saw that the entry good improved again (thanks @ DCDuring) and wasn't reverted again. So ATM this RFV isn't needed anymore and most of the crossed out text above isn't needed either.
 * There were other users/admins removing different-language see-also terms and giving other information, stating that see-also terms must be in the same language as the entry. Could you please tell me who is correct, you or them? Also, could you please tell me if different-language see-also terms must be qualified? For example, must German see-also terms in an English entry be qualified like " * German: " or " *   "?
 * -84.161.41.93 02:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)