Talk:sapiens

2010 RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

"of, or relating to the species Homo sapiens". How sapiens is a chimpanzee? Equinox ◑ 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not at all. Chimps are either (deprecated template usage) paniscus or (deprecated template usage) troglodytes. However, I'll see if I can add a Translingual section. SemperBlotto 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

EP has consistently followed and enforced the practice of displaying epithets used in taxonomic names only as Latin. These epithets apparently usually don't have an independent existence in multiple languages, which would be required for a Translingual section. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sapiens" is used as an invariant English noun meaning Homo sapiens. I don't know whether it ever appears in a context where Homo sapiens hasn't appeared before. If it only appears in such a context, having an entry for it is arguably like having as definitions for "Arthur" "King Arthur", "Chester A Arthur", etc. There are usages after "too", "very", and forms of "become" that are consistent with it being a true adjective. Some, but not all, of the adjective usage seems like mere wordplay. In addition, the usages all seem to suffer from the "Arthur" problem. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2017 RfD-sense discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

sapiens

sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep: it is a specific epithet, like platanifolia, gingivalis, lividans, etc. (these three were created as Translingual but you moved them to Latin), also guatemalae, livadus, laherparepvec, etc. They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:

1. Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
2. laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
3. Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
4. The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
5. There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.

DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• 1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin).
  (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
• 2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
• 4.
  • CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
  • Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
  • "Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
    • As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
    • Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H₂O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
• 5.
  • If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual.
    Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
  • The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
  • As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too.
    Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
  • "much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
  • Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated.
    So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?

    Possibilities and some arguments:

    • Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
      • It's consistent.
      • The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
      • By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
      • This is what Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted should already state or at least imply. -- Annotation: The about page could be changed.
    • Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
      • Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
      • It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
    • Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
      • It's consistent.
      • It might also be easy.
      • It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
    • Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
      • It's consistent.
      • It might also be easy.
      • In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
      • Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.

@Daniel Carrero:

• "They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.

-84.161.53.36 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)

@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.

1. "Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin."
   • It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
2. "laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
   • Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
3. "Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so 'taxonomic epithet' (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than 'specific epithet'."
   • Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
4. "The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they 'are' Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, 'cave canem', 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home."
   • I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
   • Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
5. "There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example."
   • Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
   • If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
   • If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
   • In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
   • If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuring TALK 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.

@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.

@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien.
Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect.
BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.

-84.161.63.142 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument "Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin" may work in this case. But: 1. There are many species epithets where it doesn't work, that is, the species epithets are not attestable in Latin but only in non-Latin taxonomics. 2. For Latin one could argue that "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" is not a specialised sense but just the meaning wise. Even for Translingual taxonomics one could argue that they simply use the Latin word meaning wise to form species names like Homo sapiens. So one could delete both, the Translingual entry and the taxonomic epithet sense.
Compared with Wiktionary:About Translingual ("Accepted [...] taxonomic names"), Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms (which contains some epithets) and Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet ("that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, presumed to be Translingual, ie, [= i.e.] not Latin"), one could argue that a Translingual entry sapiens is justified. -84.161.12.4 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: dahuricus was moved to Latin Dahuricus and a thereafter created Translingual dahuricus got deleted. What do you think of not having Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni if there is a Latin Dahuricus, Fleischmanni? If Translingual sapiens should be deleted because there is Latin sapiens, then Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni maybe should be too. -84.161.22.20 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care very much. I already incur the keyboard overhead in species entry creation of directing links from species epithets to the appropriate lemma and L2 (See {{epinew}}.) because I despaired of us reaching an easy-to-implement uniform policy concerning L2 placement of specific epithets. I hope that those who move a epithet definition or section also make the appropriate changes to the inflection line in species entries that link to them. DCDuring (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Really, it's just Latin. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Current results for this nomination of translingual entry, not the Latin one: keep: Daniel Carrero; delete: DCDuring, Μετάknowledge, Lmaltier, Jtle515. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Translingual sense deleted. bd2412 T 17:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2017–February 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

sapiens, ruber, germanicus

Language: Latin

Sense: "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" or "(New Latin) Used as a species epithet"

in germanicus: "(New Latin) Used as a species epithet to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany"

• There is the possibility that this was never used in Latin which would mean it should be deleted (compare with Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus). But this would be a matter of WT:RFVN. So assuming it was/is actually used in Latin:
• "Used as a taxonomic epithet" or "Used as a species epithet" is not a meaning, but just a context. And such contexts (usually) aren't included. English red is also used in animal names (see e.g. w:Red scorpionfish, w:Red snapper), yet red only has the general meaning "Having red as its color." and not also "Used in animal names" (as in "red scorpionfish"), or also "Used in reference to clothes" (as in "red dress", "red T-shirt").
• In "germanicus" it seems to be a bit more than a context. But again it's nothing which is (usually) included. In Latin terms "germanicus" just has the sense "German" too. This is similar to e.g. English German Shepherd, German chamomile, and also German Sea, German Autumn. Yet the English entry German has no meanings like "Used in animal and plant names" (e.g. "German Shepherd", "German chamomile") or "Used in political or geographical contexts" (e.g. "German Autumn", "German border", "German Democratic Republic", "German Sea").

-84.161.24.251 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, these are contexts rather than definitions, and are superfluous to existing content. All RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)