User:TelosCricket/Draft Proposal

Hey all, posting this as the rough beginnings of a draft. I am no where near "finished" with it. If you see spelling and formatting errors, feel free to correct them. Otherwise take proposed changes to the talkpage so we can discuss them.

This is NOT yet open for comment. We are still discussing the final wording.

Future Request for comment

Drafters: User:TelosCricket User:Someguy1221 User:Peter coxhead

Poster: User:TelosCricket TelosCricket (talk)

Notifications sent: TelosCricket (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In recent months, there have been several conflicts centered around the etymology of taxa across several WikiProjects. Some discussion has taken place. For those interested, here are links to some of the relevant discussions: [Tree of Life Project Talkpage] [ANI thread] [Proposal Draft Talkpage] [TelosCricket's Talkpage subsection Proposed RfC]

From these discussions, some core questions that need addressed emerged. It is the purpose of this RfC to allow broad community discussion of those questions. From that discussion, guidelines can be drafted that can then be voted on in a second RfC.

This RfC is formatted such that discussion of each question can take place under that question.

This RfC makes use of the following fictional taxa and publications to provide examples:

• Source 1 describes the new species Ophiodes ficiensis
• Source 2 is a book about Ophiodes species and related taxa
• Source 3 is a Botanical Latin dictionary
• Source 4 is a Ancient Greek dictionary

Please limit your responses to 100 words or less. If further discussion is warranted, please start a new section on the talk page.

Questions to be answered

Each question is allotted its own subsection so that discussion can take place under it. Some questions only require "yes-no/up-down" !votes. Other questions are more complex and may be amendable to multiple different solutions/answers. Some questions assume the consensus of a previous question is "yes".

Question 1

If there are no sources that explicitly state the origin of a taxon's name, the meaning of the taxon name, the components from which the name was derived, or the meaning of the components from which the name was derived (i.e., the name's etymology), should this content exist in an article at all?

For example, Source 1 names a plant Ophiodes ficiensis but do not explain the etymology nor do any subsequent sources that mention the plant. Are there any circumstances in which editors may state the etymology in the article?

Question 2

Assuming the consensus to Question 1 is "yes", is it acceptable to cite sources that do not mention the taxon under discussion but do explain the etymology of similarly named taxa or taxa belonging to the same hierarchical group.

For example, no source gives the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, but Source 2 does give the etymology of Ophiodes. Can that source be used to place the etymology of Ophiodes in the article?
As a second example, no source gives the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, but Source 2 explains the etymology of Chorioides ficiensis. Can that source be used to give the etymology of ficiensis in the article on Ophiodes ficiensis?

Question 3

Assuming consensus of Questions 1 and 2 is "yes", Is it acceptable to cite sources that define portions of the name, but not the entire name?

For example, no sources give the etymology of "Ophiodes ficiensis", but a dictionary of Botanical Latin gives the etymology of ophio-, -oides, fici-, and -ensis. Can an editor the botanical dictionary and provide an etymology for Ophiodes ficiensis?

Question 4

Assuming the consensus of Question 3 is "yes", how should that etymology be presented in the article?

For example, is this sentence acceptable: "Source 1 named the plant Ophiodes ficiensis. (reference)  According to Source 3, ophio- means "pertaining to snakes", -oides means "like", fici- means "relating to figs", and -ensis indicates an origin or a relation. (reference)"

Question 5

If the publication that named a taxon provides an etymology and made obvious, minor errors that no secondary source has corrected, can editors correct the errors?

For example, Source 1 explain Ophiodes ficiensis as "Gr., ophio=snake;Gr., -odes=like;Gr., ficu=fig;L. -ensis=location". There are two errors: ophio- is missing a hyphen, and fici- is spelt wrong. Is it acceptable for an editor to correct the mistakes without indicating changes from the original source were made? Is it acceptable for an editor to correct the mistakes and make note of the changes from the source in a footnote? E.g., [1]=The original authors state "ophio=snake" and "ficu=fig". The correct spellings were taken from Source 3 (a botanical Latin dictionary).

Question 6

Similar to Question 5 but concerning secondary sources. If a secondary source provides an etymology and makes obvious, minor errors that no other sources have corrected, can editors correct the errors?
For example, in giving the etymology of Ophiodes ficiensis, Source 2 misspell fici- as ficu-.

Question 7

If the publication that named a taxon provides an etymology and made obvious, fundamental errors (such as stating the wrong definition or citing the wrong language of origin) that no secondary source has corrected, how should editors handle the mistake?

For example, Source 1 claim fici- is Latin when it is in fact Greek. 
For another example, Source 1 claim ophio- = "snake" when a more precise translation would be "relating to snakes".
A third example, Source 1 claim ophio- = eye when it means "relating to snakes".

• Sub questions to consider

• Should the etymology be left out altogether?
• Should the editor write as much as possible without including the error?
• Can the editor accurately state what the authors stated even though incorrect?
• Can the editor write what the authors proably meant to say and indicate the corrections made in a footnote?
• Can the editor state what the authors say and, in an adjoing sentence or footnote, provide notes and corrections sourced from botanical dictionaries?

Question 8

Similar to Question 7 but concerning secondary sources. If a secondary source provides an etymology and made obvious, fundamental errors (such as stating the wrong definition or citing the wrong language of origin) that no secondary source has corrected, how should editors handle the mistake?

For example, Source 2 claims fici- is Latin when it is in fact Greek. 
For another example, Source 2 claims ophio- = "snake" when a more precise translation would be "relating to snakes".
A third example, Source 2 claims ophio- = eye when it means "relating to snakes".

Question 9

How should we understand and convey what it means when a dictionary of Botanical Latin lists a term/expression as "Greek" For example, Stearn lists -phyllus as "Greek". However, a -us ending is not Greek; the Greek ending would be -ος. With the understanding that all taxa names are treated as Botanical Latin (or equivalent in other nomenclature codes), can we infer this to mean "Greek-derived"? Can we call it "Greek-derived" in an article? [Need a correct example if this question is to be asked; Stearn says "in Gk. compounds".]