This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It turns out that there is no such term as "Nomen illegitimum" in the botanical Code. "Nom. illeg." has been used quite a bit in the literature, so it should be explained somehow. Probably, this page needs to be moved to "Illegitimate name (botany)", or a similar name. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Peter, about consistency. The redirects will get them here either way, and the article will explain either way, but people who really need to look up this term would probably be better helped by having these terms in English, especially when there is no compelling reason to put them in Latin (Code only gives them in English). If we were comparing Google hits, then another way to look at it might be that if an author prefers the long spelling in Latin OR in English as the Code uses... either way he is still much more likely to abbreviate, so naturally abbreviations will have more hits, and so we shouldn't make the leap that if one abbreviation is more common then the full version in Latin must also be more common. In fact it's really not. If we compare both full versions, "illegitimate name" to "nomen illegitimum", apples to apples; they come out out about the same amount of Google hits; but if we do just a Google Scholar search it is 5:1 in favor of "illegitimate name". I don't think Google matters much though, since these are not common-language phrases that are controlled by common use and won't morph over time by common use. Rather, by agreement of nearly all who use them, they are controlled and restricted by one accepted authority. If the ICN wants to change the definition of illegitimate name, then we all agree to follow; so it just doesn't make as much sense to worry about common usage in this kind of controlled case, IMHO. I would support a move to Illegitimate name (botany). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would sure like to move it, otherwise we have to remove all the references in the article, because they just don't say what our article claims. That would be too bad, I think they're the best we can get. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A name can in fact be both superfluous and legitimate, if it has a basionym. See Art. 52.3 Aelwyn ( talk) 22:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It turns out that there is no such term as "Nomen illegitimum" in the botanical Code. "Nom. illeg." has been used quite a bit in the literature, so it should be explained somehow. Probably, this page needs to be moved to "Illegitimate name (botany)", or a similar name. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Peter, about consistency. The redirects will get them here either way, and the article will explain either way, but people who really need to look up this term would probably be better helped by having these terms in English, especially when there is no compelling reason to put them in Latin (Code only gives them in English). If we were comparing Google hits, then another way to look at it might be that if an author prefers the long spelling in Latin OR in English as the Code uses... either way he is still much more likely to abbreviate, so naturally abbreviations will have more hits, and so we shouldn't make the leap that if one abbreviation is more common then the full version in Latin must also be more common. In fact it's really not. If we compare both full versions, "illegitimate name" to "nomen illegitimum", apples to apples; they come out out about the same amount of Google hits; but if we do just a Google Scholar search it is 5:1 in favor of "illegitimate name". I don't think Google matters much though, since these are not common-language phrases that are controlled by common use and won't morph over time by common use. Rather, by agreement of nearly all who use them, they are controlled and restricted by one accepted authority. If the ICN wants to change the definition of illegitimate name, then we all agree to follow; so it just doesn't make as much sense to worry about common usage in this kind of controlled case, IMHO. I would support a move to Illegitimate name (botany). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would sure like to move it, otherwise we have to remove all the references in the article, because they just don't say what our article claims. That would be too bad, I think they're the best we can get. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A name can in fact be both superfluous and legitimate, if it has a basionym. See Art. 52.3 Aelwyn ( talk) 22:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)