Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant species epithets (A–B)/archive1

List of plant species epithets (A–B)

Featured list candidates/List of plant species epithets (A–B)/archive1

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This started out as an attempt to get more out of Stearn's Botanical Latin, which is one of the sources for my first Featured List, List of descriptive plant species epithets (I–Z) ... and wow, it paid off more than I was expecting. I think it makes sense to keep both list series, they serve different (but overlapping) purposes ... but it won't bother me if you disagree. Not only is this list shorter than my other Featured Lists, but much of the reviewing work has already been done ... many of the rows (the ones without S- or – in the "S" column) are almost identical to the ones from List of descriptive plant species epithets (A–H). I'm hoping that these species lists are easier to read and review than the previous 9 FLC nominations for genus lists ... that's the idea, anyway. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is the difference between this "plant species epithets" list and the "descriptive plant species epithets" lists? As in, what is the inclusion criteria here that is different from those lists? The only difference between the leads is ", and the glossary of Stearn's Botanical Latin.", and as you say, many of the rows are the same- I think this list may actually just be a superset of the A-B "descriptive plant species epithets" rows, but it's not at all clear why, for example, abludens is in this list but not in the other. Additionally, and this probably should have been asked in the other lists' FLCs but is more prominent here- why do you exclude "some repetitive suffixes for plant parts and colours"? Given that you do include, for example, azureus (sky-blue) and bulbifer' (bulb) in both lists, I'm not clear on what's being excluded or included. --Pres N 06:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not doing a better job explaining ... I agree that it looks weird to have two list series with similar names and sources. There are complicated questions here, and my intention was to throw the questions to the reviewers and let them decide whether they prefer this new list series over the first one, or prefer the first one, or want to keep both in some form. John and I need a day or two to think about your questions, and then I think I'll ping likely reviewers and ask them about their preferences. Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ChrisTheDude, RunningTiger123, and Eewilson. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No obligation, obviously, but you three are my most recent reviewers so it makes sense to ask you for opinions. The simplest way to ask this is: do you prefer the format of List of plant species epithets (A–B) or List of descriptive plant species epithets (A–H), or should we be looking for some way to keep both? The second one is better for readers who want to use it as a dictionary or reference work; it fits on just two pages, so sorting works, and it's easier to look things up, and it avoids repetitive entries in the same way that dictionaries do. The first one (the current FLC nomination) works much better as a list of plant characteristics ... I think given PresN's comments above, I'll expand the list a little bit (should just take 24 hours), and when I do ... this page will be the first in a list series of 8 or 9 pages, with images for almost every descriptive species epithet that's illustrated on Commons and accepted at PoWO and mentioned in my sources. The images are crucial, I think, if we want non-botanists to get a clear picture of some of the terms that appear at Glossary of botanical terms. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation about Botanical Latin: over time, I found (and got support for the position) that the glossary is more useful than Stearn was letting on ... the words aren't just intended as definitions; the species epithets in the glossary do a very nice job of supplementing and expanding his Dictionary. I think this does undermine, a little bit, the selection criteria for the A-H and I-Z lists. At the point (if ever) when the current (A-B) list gets promoted, I think that promotion would undermine the selection criteria for the original two lists even more, and it's not my call, but I certainly wouldn't object to defeaturing them at that point. (Btw, I'm not seeing a problem with azureus or bulbifer; the original selection criteria only omitted some compounds with repeated words, not different words with similar meanings, or that was the idea, at least.) I have no objection to giving this new list series the longer name, List of descriptive plant species epithets, if people prefer that. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm finished adding things from Stearn's Dictionary. Any comments or questions from anyone? I let WT:PLANTS know earlier that I was starting a new list series, so I think everyone's been notified who needs notifying. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dank. I haven't had a chance to read these comments. I did look at a comparison of the lists when you first pinged me. I'll take a look more this week, or probably after the holiday. Keep up the good work! Eewilson (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, and everyone, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. This isn't something I do lightly, but there are too many problems to proceed for now. Thanks for your time. The list is now in my userspace, linked from my user page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. --Pres N 17:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.