Talk:Plant epithet

Plant epithet has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 30, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreliable source

Wikipedia cannot rely on personal websites; the applicable policy, WP:RS, makes it clear that we must use sources that are open and subject to scrutiny such as editorial overview or peer review.

Further, editors must not remove reliable sources and replace them with material from less reliable sources. It is obviously possible that the IP editor concerned is personally associated with the site they're trying to use, which would be a conflict of interest. In any case, the source is not suitable and any material from it must be considered improperly sourced. Since better sources exist already, they should be used. Any coverage of a particular surname should also be governed by WP:UNDUE - there is no reason for an extended analysis of one surname here, unbalancing the general coverage: that would be appropriate at that surname's article, but not here. In any case the minimal "reference" (a naked and incomplete URL) you have provided is broken. It appears to point to "Plant" in "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland" at http://www.oxfordreference.com.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring does not make your edits any more acceptable - you have broken the 3RR rule, please read the policy, and you are mistaken in a variety of ways. Reaney is a reliable source; it does not appear to be contradicted by other books on the same subject, and your website is not an acceptable substitute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Flower names" vs "Names"

@Chiswick Chap:, @Rui Gabriel Correia:, please discuss the issue here instead of edit warring. I get that Hazel and Holly aren't flowers Rui - do you oppose Chiswick's "Flower and tree" compromise for some reason? And do you two have some history elsewhere? I ask because OWNership doesn't normally get brought up at a second revert... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. I believe that the compromise was overlooked because of a missed word in the lead section. The wording as it now stands is in fact sensible. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Argento Surfer:, @Chiswick Chap:, Argento Surfer, thanks for the intervention. I cannot possibly have any objection to "Flower and tree" where this was applied, and am in full agreement. However, whereas Chiswick Chap effected these changes in several places, the specific (and single) place where I changed "Flower names" to a neutral "Names" to resolve exactly the very issue that he has now fixed elsewhere, this one instance was restored to status quo ante. However, on a second reading of the text above I get the feeling that, that is what is being referred to as the "missed word in the lead section". So, in good faith, I am willing to accept that explanation; it is plausible. As for history, no, none whatsoever; so if alluding to Ownership was an exaggeration on my part, I do apologise. I thank you both, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toponym

Hi @Chiswick Chap:, while I have your attention, would you take a moment to have a look at the way the term "toponym" is being used in the article? A person being called "Oak" by virtue of living near an oak tree does not constitute a toponym. Toponyms refer only to the naming of places and geographic features. Yes, you do indeed get toponymic surnames, but these require the existence of a settlement/ place with the relevant name that is then adopted as a surname. That being so, "Oak" would be a toponym only if there was a place called "Oak" after which someone was named, but the term "toponym" would refer to the place, not the person named after it. I don't of a specific term ending in "_nym" that covers the concept of "vicinity"/ association with" etc. In this article, "Oak" would at best be an anthroponym associated with a plant; or perhaps even a phytonym. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information at Toponymy, it does seem to be meant for places. Chiswick, do your print sources use the term for people's names as well? I'll leave it to you more interested fellows to decide how to adjust the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is in the body of the article, of which the lead is, as always, just a brief summary. The body says, with refs, that Oake, Oke, Oakes, Noke and Roke are placenames also used as surnames. For example, Noke (a name which delighted Tolkien, by the way) is from Old English Attenoke, [the place] by an oak tree, or the person who lived there, certainly a toponym. I've added some glosses to explain: one doesn't want to overburden the text with those, but of course we mustn't mislead either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missourced misinformation

In the "Flower and tree names" section we currently read: "Forms of the generic term flower are also popular, including for example Fleur, Flora, Florence and Flores, and in other languages Anthea, Blodwen, Kveta, Leilani, and Zahrah" (my italics). The second part of that sentence references a non-RS personal blog which in any case does not support the assertion that the non-English names are forms of the generic term 'flower'; indeed a visit to Wiktionary confirms that several are not: Zahrah (Arabic: 'shining or blooming'), Leilani (Hawaiian: 'royal child') and Blodwen (Welsh: 'white flower'). Accordingly I'm removing the offending assertion. --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]