Template:Did you know nominations/Hypericum sect. Androsaemum
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hypericum sect. Androsaemum, Aniculus aniculus
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Androsaemum androsaemum is utterly unacceptable, but Aniculus aniculus is perfectly valid? Source: "Androsaemum androsaemum = Androsaemum officinale", and "the repetition of a generic name as a specific name... has always been forbidden" A discussion on Tautonyms. "zoological... Codes have permitted tautonyms... for decades" Proposals to require initial lowercase letters for specific and infraspecific epithets, to permit tautonyms non-retroactively.
Created by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hypericum sect. Androsaemum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment: I'm afraid this hook just won't work. It plays with technical knowledge on too many levels, and is utterly confusing to the general reader even after they've read both articles. I had to spend a minute or so to figure out that it's playing on differences in botanic and zoologic nomenclature rules, where tautonyms are acceptable in the latter but not the former. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Paul 012: what about a simplified ALT1: ... that double names are allowed for animals like Aniculus aniculus, but "forbidden" for plants like Androsaemum androsaemum? Fritzmann (message me) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- That does make it more understandable to DYK readers, but it still needs to be better explained in the articles. The Androsaemum article, for example, only says, "A publication on botanical tautonyms by Ernst Huth in 1893 rejected the name Hypericum androsaemum, which meant that the new and invalid name Androsaemum androsaemum would take priority," which isn't nearly enough context. Why was it rejected? Why was it invalid? Why was this possible? What happened next? The sources also barely mention these specific examples (not at all in the case of Aniculus, as the source is just touching on the concept). While it's simple logic and I wouldn't regard it as violating WP:SYNTH, I don't think it's acceptable under DYK's rules. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Paul for the comments, they're very helpful. I would appreciate a second opinion, preferably as part of a full review, so I'm able to assess whether the required changes are fully necessary and if so, if they are feasible or if I should drop the hooks. Fritzmann (message me) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't agree with Paul_012 here. ALT0 is intriguing, which is the whole point of a DYK. It makes you want to click. We can't explain the intricacies of taxonomic nomenclature in 250 characters, nor should we even attempt to. Maybe "botanically unacceptable" instead of "utterly unacceptable"? But otherwise I think it's fun. I understand the desire for more context, but if the sources don't say why it was rejected (and they don't seem to, at a glance), then they don't say. Fritzmann2002, maybe you could expand a bit in the article and say something like "A publication on botanical tautonyms – which are forbidden by taxonomic standards in the field – blah blah". Or something like that, wording not required.
Once that gets resolved, I think we're good to go here. When nominated, first article was a new GA, and second article was a new article. Both long enough. No POV, CV, or other concerns in either article. Sources appear reliable at a glance - scientific journals and websites. QPQ complete. As I said, I think the hook is interesting enough to make people click, which is exactly what we want at DYK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review PMC! I've added a note in the article that explains tautonyms more explicitly. Let me know if there's anything else that can be changed. Fritzmann (message me) 18:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't agree with Paul_012 here. ALT0 is intriguing, which is the whole point of a DYK. It makes you want to click. We can't explain the intricacies of taxonomic nomenclature in 250 characters, nor should we even attempt to. Maybe "botanically unacceptable" instead of "utterly unacceptable"? But otherwise I think it's fun. I understand the desire for more context, but if the sources don't say why it was rejected (and they don't seem to, at a glance), then they don't say. Fritzmann2002, maybe you could expand a bit in the article and say something like "A publication on botanical tautonyms – which are forbidden by taxonomic standards in the field – blah blah". Or something like that, wording not required.
- @Paul 012: what about a simplified ALT1: ... that double names are allowed for animals like Aniculus aniculus, but "forbidden" for plants like Androsaemum androsaemum? Fritzmann (message me) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
