Talk:Nomenclature codes

Shouldn't the title of this page be Biological Nomenclature Codes? DGG 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Having done some work on the related pages, I'm not sure of the need for it though. It does

fill in a step in the categories, but it doesnt add much. DGG 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The example of some rulebooks

• http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=2qh3891.Wnw41TYkBR8WUdCxtH8_0375047501_1:82:524&bq=title%3Diupac%2520nomenclature%2520of%2520organic%2520chemistry%2520iupac%2520nomenclature%2520of%2520organic%2520chemistry%2E%2520international%2520union%2520of%2520pure%2520and%2520applied%2520chemistry%252C%2520organic%2520compound%252C%2520%2E%2E%2E%2520ester%252C%2520amine%252C%2520amide%252C%2520cycloalkane%252C%2520carbonyl

--222.67.205.32 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"In force"

Resolved

 – Legalistic wording replaced.

What's the source for the hyperbolic "in force" wording? A nomenclature code is not a law or a treaty. This phrasing is a WP:OR and WP:NPOV problem. I suggest picking something else like "in use", "approved", "published", "accepted" or whatever makes sense in the context provided by reliable sources on the matter, which this article has a dearth of. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Whatever makes sense in the context" is that the rules of the code are "in force", or "take effect". This is not OR nor NPOV nor hyperbole nor silly. It is simply a way of saying that if the rules aren't followed as of that date, to quote the code itself, a name thus formed "has no status" in botanical nomenclature. The use of the code is voluntary, but the application of laws and treaties is also voluntary, agreed to by various societies. To quote the code again, these are "the rules that govern scientific naming in botany". Since you object so strenuously to the use of "in force", I will change it to "take effect". Nadiatalent (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Take effect" works fine. i would have just changed it myself, but there could have been a reliable source, e.g. some ICN-related press release I didn't see that actually used the phrase "in force". I wasn't disputing the facts of when the ICN took effect, only the non-voluntary implication of "in force". It's not the only example of such inappropriate legalisms when it comes to nomenclature codes; I keep encountering things like "official binomen"; weird usages like that are okay on talk pages, but they shouldn't be used in articles, because there is no government and no international treaty which made the ICN, ICZN, etc., "official" in any meaningful sense of that word. PS: Laws and their various side forms like regulations, treaties, etc., are not voluntary except in the least useful (i.e., most self-destructive) interpretation of that word; you can't go to jail or be fined or be shot by armed government agents not following a nomenclature code. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed test sections

Formerly, there were 2 test sections. I removed these for being unrelated to the article. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)