Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant family names with etymologies/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of plant family names with etymologies

edit

List of plant family names with etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last Featured List nomination of plant names and meanings for a while (see my user page) ... and this one is only about a third as long as the others, since there aren't that many plant families (so, it's easier to review!) I'm expecting new, extensive sources to appear within this decade, but until they do, I'm happy with the lists in their current form. Fun fact: if you want to test your knowledge of Latin and Greek influences in English, stare at the photos in the right-hand column and see if you can match up the picture with the given name ... then you can see if you guessed right by clicking on the arrow. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Also: the rows with namesakes come from my previous four plant lists at FLC (with minor tweaks), so they should be good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image review – Pass

edit
Apart from these issues, other images are appropriately licenced. Overall, an excellent piece of work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks. Removed all three. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Pass for image review. Would appreciate any comments at this FLC. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh, changed my mind on File:Chumash basket, circa 1800.JPG. I admit that there's a lot that I don't know, but if the image tag is accurate, I can't stomach the modern trend of snapping a photograph of something in the public domain and claiming copyright to undermine the status and purpose of "public domain". We're not talking about Ansel Adams here ... we're talking about a common kind of attempt to steal copyright. Whether Wikipedians get the joke, I don't know, but I can't be a part of this. I'm restoring the image. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank – Well, I wasn't too sure about that one either (as I already have mentioned before). For the image of basket, we need 2 licence. One of the basket (object), second for the image of that object. I see a valid licence for the object, but not for the image of the object. Any other interested reviewer can verify this. Thanks! (and please do let me know if I'm wrong) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current license tag says "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States". If anyone believes that tag is in error, all they need to do is remove it or replace it, and then I'll be happy to pull the image from the article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't know a lot about image reviews, but the general rule on the English Wikipedia is that if someone thinks something should change, then the burden is on them to change it. Without an edit history, there may not be any way to gauge consensus. I get that image reviews don't necessarily follow the usual rules, but there are downsides to that. Consider this a minor protest vote, but not one that I feel strongly about (and I'm too busy, and too lazy, to research it). - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Added "if the image tag is accurate" above. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank – Hi again. I asked User:Nikkimaria about the copyright status of the image, and it was concluded that the object is in public domain due to its age, but the image is not, due to the Flickr licensing. Thus, the image is nominated for deletion by Nikkimaria. About other images, I guess you can use File:Xyris tenn.jpg after updating the source link on commons. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, I've removed the bowl image here and from another list ... I'm sorry to hear it can't be used, but I trust Nikki's judgment on these things. And I was actually happy for an excuse not to use File:Xyris tenn.jpg, it's not one of my favorites. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

I don't really have any outright issues with the list, but there are two stylistic concerns I have.

  • I find the mix of abbreviations and references in the Ref. column somewhat odd. Is there a reason the citations can't all be in <ref> tags?
    • I like to be consistent, and the previous 10 featured lists all have a column with symbols like "Bu", "St", etc. Two of those also mixed in ref citations, but I have no objection to separating these (all of which go to Christenhusz or Plants of the World Online) into a second reference column, if you prefer that. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is there a different symbol other than ← that could be used in the image captions? On mobile devices, the images may display above the table, making the arrows less useful.
    • I have no objection to some kind of code that detects whether the reader is using mobile and inserts a different character if so, but I don't know how to do that. The ← symbol seems ideal if the images are to the right of the table. We've had 24 supports so far in my previous lists for this format, but I have no idea what supporters thought about this ... it could have been anything from "I really like this" to "I don't like it, but I'm not familiar with the issue and don't want to make waves". I wouldn't want to just change it without asking for previous opinions. - Dank (push to talk)

Other than that, everything seems to be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eewilson

edit

This list is full of good information! I have some comments and questions, which I will give in the order they come to mind. I tend to get detailed.

  • I am finding the centered columns difficult to read. I think with so much info, it would be better left-aligned.
  • This may be a function of images via a browser in Wikipedia, but if I decrease the width of my browser window enough, the images all precede the list and push the list down to the bottom of the section. In an app, they would all show before the table as well. I have seen this format in list articles – with a scattering of thumbnails to the right – and in normal circumstances (with wide resolution, wide browser window, on a laptop or desktop), it seems fine. What would your desired effect be under less common circumstances? I love images, but what is the function of them in this article as they are?
    • Above my pay grade; this is the way most FLC lists handle columns of images. (Your question is perfectly reasonable, but I think it's a question for the WMF, the whole community of coders and page designers, and the community of FLC writers and reviewers.) Since my list of right-side images is longer than in most FLs, I've added clickable left-arrows on each image caption that take readers to the proper row in the table. As a bonus ... for readers who know a little about Latin and Greek root words and want to take a minute to try to puzzle out how the word matches the picture before we give them the answer ... this format (usually) preserves the mystery until they click. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is this a list of plant families and their type genera and orders? A list of plant families and their etymologies? Or is it a combined list for both purposes? As I said, it is full of good information, but it appears to be doing too much of one and not enough of what the article title says it should do. The purpose of each item could be explained in the Key section, renaming the Key section to Conventions (or something similar), so the reader will understand how everything fits.
    • A feature of Featured Content, I think, is that it has to be suitable for readers of the Main Page ... and that's a really mixed bag. Botanists know without giving it any thought that the Greek for "thorn flower" didn't include "ceae"; that's just a botanical suffix. But if I lead Main Page readers to believe that "Acanthaceae" means "thorn", most of them won't know any better, so I need to be clear about that ... I'm giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names. Key section: above my pay grade, that's usually what it's called at FLC. But I'm open to adding any information on conventions you'd like to see. Tell me a bit more about your impression of how it all fits together. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Aha! "I'm giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names." That's one piece I did not understand, and neither the lead nor the list says that (unless I have completely lost all levels of comprehension, but I read it several times). One of my first comments was going to be (but I removed it), "The lead is missing something, but I don't know what..." I think this is part of what the lead is missing. It may not be appropriate for the lead, but could be in the Key section. Let me meditate deeply (not really) for a bit and see if something clearer comes to mind. Eewilson (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that descriptive section (Key, Conventions, or maybe Description?), include the text you have from your efns in the table so this information isn't hidden. First two examples I saw. Make it a nice prosey paragraph.
        • Page numbers are omitted for book references other than Plants of the World, since they all list genera alphabetically.
        • "(Language) name" means the name of some plant originally, not necessarily in this genus.
Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Latin name", "Greek name", etc., aren't giving the meaning. Perhaps, "Latin for..." and "Greek for..." including the definition would give a better etymology. Conversely, when giving a definition, such as "thorns" for Acanthaceae, it would make some sense to say that it was derived from the Greek ákantha, for example. Having the source languages (including indigenous ones), root words, and meanings would cover the etymologies. For sorting purposes, three columns may go well.
    • I'm not completely dug in on "Latin name", etc., but I'm working on my next list series as we speak, and I think the new list series is a better place to attempt translations of these names (because then I won't be forced to make insufficiently supported guesses, I can choose the words and the context). There weren't many Wikipedians around in the first century asking Pliny and his friends what they meant by the plant names they used. Some modern authors have been willing to guess, of course, but these are only guesses. The big difficulty has been the fact that modern sources often disagree. I'd rather not include Greek words like "ákantha" ... it's a long list of reasons, I can be more detailed if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I understand about the guessing and about the conflicting sources. The latter can be dealt with by citing both sources individually. This table example is kind of what I was talking about regarding language, root word, meaning. This is probably way too much and too big of a change, and maybe you don't have the data for this, but for example. Also, is the Order column needed? I left it out of this example. Again, this is just my attempt to explain what might be lacking. Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Families
Family Original type genus Category Derived from Meaning Ref
Acanthaceae Acanthus [Greek or Ancient Greek or whatever it is] [ákantha or whatever] [for example] thorns CS
Achariaceae Acharia [person] Acharius, Erik (1757–1819) [— or just blank since meaning would not apply to a person's name; I may prefer the dash so it appears intentional] Bu
Achatocarpaceae Achatocarpus [some language] [word in that language] agate fruit [src]
Acoraceae Acorus Latin [or Ancient Greek?] [word in that language - acora/corea?] [word meaning - pupil/cornea?] CS


Those are the four biggies for now: left-alignment, image function or placement, list scope, and etymology coverage. I am looking at this list as standalone, not as an extension of or attempt to be similar to previous ones you have done, which I think is fair considering the reader would do the same. You are doing great work! I hope my input can help make it even better. Eewilson (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you liked it! I've aimed to give to-the-point answers above, but we can go into more detail on anything you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can short-and-sweet the question about saying "Greek name" instead of giving a meaning: my Greek professors used to tell me that most of Greek scholarship (including etymology) is based on surprisingly fragmentary evidence. The evidence for the names and even the identities of ancient plant genera is worse, and modern sources disagree about many of these genera. Trying to answer more than the basic question here (namely: where did these words come from?) would be courting trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, you can only go on what the sources tell you. Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment before my internet goes down again: my internet has been going down randomly for periods of time all week (since Comcast had issues beginning Tuesday). I can't do much Wikipedia editing on my phone. It's up now, though, so I'll save this then try to review your comments. If I disappear for a time, send help. Eewilson (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The order column isn't absolutely necessary, and we could lose it to create an additional sortable column. Beyond that, I can't commit to anything yet, I'll need to give it some thought. - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can say this much. Most of my sources are much quicker to guess at, and spell out, Latin words than Greek words, and I'm going to follow their lead on that ... I'll only give a Greek word when the word is likely to be of some actual service. If that works for you, then I'll get started creating a sortable column, then self-revert so we can discuss it. - Dank (push to talk) 05:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think Latin is fine if that's what you have. Whatever you can pull out of the sources. Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new sortable category column is a single-letter column: 1. that's the way other plant FLs do it, 2. I don't want to have to discard the orders column, because orders are the parent taxa for families, and plant FLs generally give parent taxa. 3. I want to avoid the strangeness of "Greek ... Greek name". - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single letter is fine. Keeping Order is fine. Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been studying the sources today, and I'm sorry, I have no confidence at all that the sources can tell us where classical and pre-classical writers got their words from, in general. It's not usually hard to give etymologies for classical words that were assigned to genera after, say, 1700 (either the authors told us what they thought the words meant, or other authors were willing to guess). But cultivated plants have changed quite a lot over 2000 years, and even for the plants that haven't changed, we usually can't know for sure which classical names go with which plants ... even when the sources are willing to take a guess. And FLC requires some kind of consistent approach here, even if there are a few where we can come up with clever arguments. I don't feel ownership over this list (if I felt that way, I wouldn't choose Wikipedia for my articles), and if other people want to edit the list to try to do more with classical names, that's fine by me. But I think that would be a bad idea. I think it's fine to have a list like this one, as long as standards are consistently applied. I also think it's important to understand that the readership of the Main Page isn't the same as the readership of Stearn's Dictionary and the other sources here; it's not a safe or conservative approach to just copy words, because our intended readership isn't as sophisticated. (This is of course not an elitist position; it's the opposite, I think.)
Okay, back to you. I added the notes to the "Key" section as you asked, and I added an extra sortable column. I'm open to further changes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t give a good reply until my new modem comes in and I get it set up. I’ve had a very annoying lack of WiFi week. So I’ll be back soon. Eewilson (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've used a bit of bolding. There are a couple of new comments above, but most are here. As you can see, I'm back online (YAY). A few more things I want to bring up.
    • In a note above, you explained to me that you are giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names. Can you make that clear in the Lead?
    • "The third column gives a meaning, derivation or person associated with this word." It is now the fourth column.
    • In the table, can you move what is in parentheses for items "(food for the) onager", "(prominent) stamens", and "(stamens) around a disk" to the end for sorting?
    • People are being sorted by last name. Can you list them last name first for clarity when sorting?
    • In the definition/person column, it's still unclear to me what exactly "Latin name", "Greek name", etc., are supposed to mean? (I'm not trying to be dense. It's just coming naturally.) "'(Language) name' means the name of some plant originally, not necessarily in that genus" isn't clarifying it.

—Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both look strong throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. The source review has been passed with flying colors. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_plant_family_names_with_etymologies/archive1&oldid=1056469330"