This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Harpacochampsa is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota Low‑importance Harpacochampsa is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The describing authors state:
"Etymology. Harpaco (Greek), seize: champsos (Greek), crocodile, here feminised for euphony: hence Harpacochampsa."
As there are no words like harpaco and champsos in (ancient) Greek, the etymological explanation of Megirian, Murray and Willis can be considered as misleading and currently our readers are also mislead into thinking that harpaco and champsos would be actual words in Greek. I have tried to amend this by adding the correct forms from Liddell and Scott's Greek dictionary (besides mentioning the "opinion" of Megirian et al.), but Armind Reindl seems to disagree. Please notice that Megirian et al. are not well-known experts on the specific meanings of certain Greek words. We can only reliably assess what they think that certain Greek words might mean. Wimpus (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where the describing authors state an etymology, I don't believe it is necessary in an article about an organism to get into a lengthy refutation of that etymology's precise linguistic correctness. In this case I was easily able to find an academic source (Composition of scientific words; a manual of methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics by Rowland Wilbur Brown) giving "champsos" as Greek meaning "crocodile" - see https://archive.org/details/compositionofsci00brow/page/196/mode/1up?q=Champsos as well as "harpa[g/z]o" for "seize" - see https://archive.org/details/compositionofsci00brow/page/397/mode/1up?q=Seize

So while we might debate which source is more reliable for (ancient?) Greek spelling, we definitely seem to be disappearing down a rabbit hole that is not proportionately relevant to an article about a fossil reptile. I would advise against making changes of this kind here or in other articles, unless debate about the name has received significant coverage elsewhere. YFB ¿ 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly WP:OR. It doesn't matter if the exact conjugation of the ancient Greek used in the etymology is correct or not, because the rules of ancient Greek grammar do not apply to binomial names, which are entirely constructed and are not required to meet such specific criteria. The "expertise" of the relevant authors is in paleontology, which is the subject of this article, and any knowledge or lack of knowledge they may have with regard to ancient Greek linguistics is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, even if the authors' use of Greek in this case is completely wrong and misleading, it is not the purview of Wikipedia - which is an encyclopedia that stresses verifiability above all other criteria - to litigate such determinations (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong). If another researcher has commented on the apparently erroneous naming conventions, then it should be noted in the article. However, if no academics have raised any concerns about this, then it's a moot issue. If you'd like to criticize the use of classical languages in the construction of binomial names, there are avenues to do that (social media, blogs, forums, etc), but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for this type of discourse. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to understand that transliterations of Greek words are not always consistent and precise. I have been able to identify ἁρπάζω as the word in reference here, which is commonly transliterated as "harpazo" with a long z. The etymology could be given as "... from the [Ancient?] Greek word ἁρπάζω ("harpaco") meaning "to seize" ..." and then there is both no ambiguity about the authors intentions, nor the linguistic derivations. There is no exact science to understanding why specific spellings were used, but there also isn't a definitive science to transliteration from non-alphabetic languages, just our "best conventions". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YFB, thanks for tracking down the error in Brown's Composition of scientific words. Brown might not have double-checked this orthography with the assistance of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon, although he mentions this dictionary in the bibliography.

I think it is still worrisome that our readers are exposed to multiple incorrect orthographies due to silly mistakes in certain sources. One can read in Wikipedia: 1. champsos ("The genus name is a combination of the Greek words "harpaco" (to seize) and "champsos" (crocodile)"), 2. champsus ("is derived from the Chinati Mountains and the Greek champsus (crocodile)") and 3. champsai ("from Greek: πρῐ́στῐς prístis, 'saw' and Greek: χαμψαι champsai, 'crocodile'), while champsa (χάμψα) seems to be the only singular in ancient Greek. Otherwise, we could silently correct these mistakes in each single case and replace champsos, champsus and champsai by champsa (χάμψα), but that could be a violation of WP:OR, as readers can not discern anymore whether or not information corresponds to the cited sources. I thought my solution was rather transparent.

@A Cynical Idealist, I was actually quite surprised to see that you have corrected an etymological mistake without even mentioning it in the text. Here you have written: "Greek word "souchos" meaning crocodile.", while the original authors wrote: "souchous (Greek) meaning crocodile". As you are specifically referring to the original article, it seems like a deliberate choice. Is that your general solution for the problem I've encountered? That seems to amount more to WP:OR than the act of mentioning inconsistencies between sources.

As I saw inconsistencies in mentioning ancient Greek souchos in various Wikipedia articles, I stumbled upon your edit. Similarly, I saw multiple other instances of "corrections" and "miscorrections":

• In Bochuchus, "souchos" is written, while the original authors write: "combined with 'souchus' (Greek for crocodile)".
• In Aigialosuchus, the original text "Greek αιγιαλος, seashore, and σοκος, Greek transcription of Egyptian name of crocodile" became: "from the Greek αἰγιαλός (aigialos), meaning "seashore", and σοῦχος (souchus), meaning "crocodile"." The "orginal" σοκος is not the same as σοῦχος and "souchus" isn't a proper transliteration of σοῦχος.
• In Qianshanosuchus, the correct "'-suchus’ after ‘soukhos’, an Ancient Greek word for crocodile" is "miscorrected" to "the Greek suchus for "crocodile".
• In Bretesuchus, one can find: "and suchus, Latinized from the Greek souchos, an Egyptian crocodile god.", while the original authors write: "and Greek suchus, meaning crocodile." No mention of a Greek form souchos in the original publication.
• In Caryonosuchus, it is written: "and souchos meaning "crocodile"", while the original article mentions: "and souchus, meaning crocodile." The incorrect form "souchus" is corrected to "souchos" in the Wikipedia article.
• In Campinasuchus the original description "suchus from the Greek Suchos that refers to the Egyptian crocodile-headed god Sebek" became "and suchus, Latinized from the Greek souchos, an Egyptian crocodile god Sebek". The non-existing Greek form Suchos became souchos in the Wikipedia text.

This (incomplete) overview of souchos shows that "corrections" might be far more common than one would supect. Actually, to well-seasoned editors Greek-labelled forms like suchus or souchus in a Wikipedia text might appear as typo's introduced by less knowledgable editors and without checking the original text, descrepancies result between the original etymological explanation and the etymological explanation in the Wikipedia article. I may have done in a few instances the same thing in the past, without being aware that the Wikipedia edit would correspond the an "official" etymological explanation, merely thinking that I would correct a previous uninformed edit. This overview also shows, that besides the correct form souchos (σοῦχος), incorrect Greek-labelled forms like souchus, suchus or suchos exist in Wikipedia and those inconsistencies might confuse our readers. Such issues should be solved. Wimpus (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when you switch alphabets, surely you're not also advocating moving Circe to Kirke Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ... Wimpus (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading your comments, I think the issue here is that you want the rendering “suchus” to be a transliteration of Ancient Greek, as if it is a Greek word. But it isn’t, it’s Neo-Latin, a convention in science in general descending from the Renaissance during a Classical Latin and Attic revivalism(/reinvention) wave Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by illustrating all these inconsistencies in the transliteration of "suchus" in various wikipedia articles. They are either consistent with the primary reference, or they are typos, in which case they should be corrected to align with the primary source. The case of my edit on Junggarsuchus is clearly just a typo, not original research, and therefore none of the examples you've given have any bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, you've done nothing to address the central point of contention, which is that, incorrect or not, it is not the purview of wikipedia to litigate these grammatical "errors". If you are frustrated by the inconsistent use and spelling of "suchus" and its various derivatives in the scientific literature, then that should be taken up within academia, not in an encyclopedia purpose-built to report and summarize information reported in other sources. Otherwise, the only course of action should be to make sure that all discussions of etymology within crocodile-related wikipedia articles are consistent with their primary source, not with original research. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you do not mind writing the obviously incorrect form souchous while making an edit? Wimpus (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. Are you asking me if I don't mind making typos? Everyone makes typos on occasion, and they should be corrected when found if this is the case. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the issue at hand. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking whether you don't mind making typos, but whether you don't mind writing down obviously incorrect information from certain sources. Wimpus (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler resolution is this: if the author(s) of a name provided an etymology, then quote it verbatim, using quotation marks, and link the citation. If the authors of a name did not provide an etymology, then make it clear that the etymology being provided by the editor is hypothetical, and not confirmed (e.g., "The name XXX could be translated as meaning YYY, if it is based on the Greek ZZZ"). If the source of a hypothetical etymology is a dictionary or lexicon, then it should be cited. Any other approach - including second-guessing the authors of a name - is definitely original research, and should not be allowed (though, obviously, if another person has published a paper criticizing someone's faulty etymology, then that can be cited). Or, better still, if an author did not provide an etymology, then don't suggest one. I know of dozens of genus names that just by coincidence happen to correspond to words used elsewhere, in any of a number of languages, but it would be extremely misleading to imply that this was the origin of the name. A good one that I got into a ridiculous argument about is the wasp genus Liris, which happens to be an archaic name for a river in Italy. Suggesting that the wasp was named after the river is an absurd piece of original research. I also know a number of genus names that look very much like real Latin or Greek, but the author who published it said that it was NOT Latin or Greek, in some cases they were just anagrams of already-published names, so there is no etymology as such, and suggesting one would be entirely misleading. A good policy on hypothetical etymologies would prevent editors from making suggestions like that. Dyanega (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In this case the authors (p138) directly provide an etymology: "Harpaco (Greek), seize; champsos (Greek), crocodile, here feminised for euphony: hence Harpacochampsa. The generic name alludes to the enlarged premaxillary teeth and their presumed function." As the transliteration (from Greek characters) and translations are both provided, there is no room for ambiguity regarding spellings that we can make without a published source to the contrary. That is why I limited myself to suggesting also providing the Greek words ἁρπάζω and χαμψαι to provide alongside, as the maximum amount of bending the rules of sourcing that we can do. From the Greek words, a reader could theoretically come up with the "correct" transliteration or pronunciation, but neither of those are something we can provide ourselves. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can include the source's error and explain the error (if another citable source explains it), or you can leave it out, but you cannot overrule the source (unless a clear typo, which this does not appear to be) and put in the actual derivation instead. This reminds me a great deal of "HTTP referer" ^{[not a typo, kinda sorta]}, which for the non-web geek was a typo enshrined in internet proposal RFC 1945 due to a misspelling in the original proposal by Phillip Hallam-Baker and the co-author Roy Fielding's remark that neither spelling was understood by the standard Unix spell checker at the time. To this day, that parameter is called referer, it is never going to change, and generations of computer programmers get this wrong in spelling tests. Maybe there's a third approach, here: finesse the source, by just leaving out the Greek part and saying: "adapted from the Greek for 'seize' and 'crocodile', or similar, which doesn't imply they passed Greek 101 (or even took it) and gets the important part across to the reader, without embroiling them in minutiae they don't give a rat's ass about. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain the error by using another source, but a general Greek-English dictionary like Liddell & Scott does not mention the full compound. It might be very difficult to find a philogically scholarly source that explicitely mentions the full compound as such compounds are concocted by present-day zoologists or botanists. Comparing Liddell & Scott with the information as provided by the original authors does however show that parts of the statements like "Harpaco (Greek), seize" and "champsos (Greek), crocodile" are demonstrably false. I am still not convinced why using Liddell & Scott to explain those two separate parts is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. In case I would use Liddell & Scott to explain the full compound and would analyse on face value that the compound would consist of (the stem of) harpazein/harpazō (ἁρπἀζειν/ἁρπάζω) and champsa (χάμψα) it would be more of a guess than simply countering Megirian et al.'s obviously incorrect statements that (to) seize is Harpaco in Greek and champsos would be attested in Greek. Etymological information from present-day zoologists or botanists are in some cases only reliable for stating that the describing authors think that word X meant Y in Greek, but not for stating that word X actually meant Y in Greek. Otherwise, I could easily add to the first line of the lemma Sobek the line "also attested in Greek as souchous, souchus, suchus, suchos and sokos (σοκος)" with reference to those aforementioned zoological articles. Wimpus (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:OR because you cannot cite any published source anywhere in the world that directly supports^[a] that meaning. Find the source, or give it up. You cannot look up the parts of the word yourself, and make a conjecture of what the word consisting of the combination of the parts means, regardless how persuaded you are that you are right, because that is WP:Original research. Note also that compounds do not always mean what the combination of the dictionary definition of the parts would suggest. Examples from ancient Greek and Neo-Latin:

• προσωπολήπτης (prosōpolēptēs) – literal meaning: face-taker; actual meaning: favoritism;
• aquafortis – literal: strong water; actual: nitric acid.

If those examples seems too foreign (or too ancient), it works in every language capable of forming compounds in this way. Here are a couple from modern American English:

• parkway – literal: a place to park a car; actual: a place to drive a car;
• driveway – literal: a place to drive a car; actual: a place to park a car.

So, if sticking to Wikipedia policies and guidelines isn't enough to persuade you not to engage in OR, then please don't because unless you are a scholar of ancient Greek, you don't really know what those Greek or Neo-Latin compounds mean solely by adding up their parts; they might mean something completely different than you thought. And if you just happen to be that scholar of ancient Greek, you still can't do it, until you publish your book on meanings of compounds in ancient Greek first, and then you can cite your book. But no published source, then no mention of your theory in Wikipedia. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of Megirian et al. "Etymology. Harpaco (Greek), seize: champsos (Greek), crocodile, here feminised for euphony: hence Harpacochampsa" can be deconstructed into various single statements:

• " Etymology. Harpaco ... champsos": Harpacochampsa is derived/consists of harpaco and champsos.
• " Harpaco (Greek)": Harpaco is Greek.
• " Harpaco (Greek), seize": Harpaco means 'seize' in Greek. Or alternatively: 'seize' in Greek is harpaco.
• " champsos (Greek)": Champsos is Greek
• " champsos (Greek), crocodile": Champsos means 'crocodile in Greek. Or alternatively: 'crocodile' in Greek is champsos.
  

Whether or not harpaco is Greek can be checked by using a (for ancient Greek) more reliable source such as Liddell & Scott. Whether or not '(to) seize' is harpaco in Greek can be checked by using the same dictionary. In this specific example, Megirian et al. make claims about the supposed meaning of single words, like harpaco and champsos, besides a statement about the full compound. Such a dictionary like Liddell and Scott can only provide information about the claims of Megirian et al. about the single words, not about the full compound. Theoretically, Harpacochampsa could still consist of harpaco and champsos as building blocks from some unknown language. Therefore a source like Liddell and Scott can not be considered as a source for the etymological explanation of the full compound, but could be used as source to counter the statements of the original authours about the supposed meaning or orthography of single words. Wimpus (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a page number for the verifiable part of the etymology. Please include page numbers in all citations. I tagged another claim in that section as {{failed verification}}, as I searched the article and could not substantiate the assertion. Please remove that tag and replace it with a citation including a page number; alternatively, remove the assertion and the tag. For citations that are a reuse of a named reference where the original reference does not have a specific page number (or has a long page range that is irrelevant to the assertion), there are various solutions of which template {{rp}} is probably the easiest one in the context of this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editing behavior seen here is now being continued at Melaleuca ctenoides (see edit history) and comment on talk:Melaleuca ctenoides, and additional voices/opinions would be greatly appreciated, though its becoming harder to not see this situation as a wp:Not here issue. @Armin Reindl, Yummifruitbat, IJReid, A Cynical Idealist, Dunkleosteus77, KoA, Dyanega, and Mathglot:--Kevmin § 16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equally interesting is the fabricated etymology of Acer castorrivularis of @Kevmin:, in which he claims that the adjective rivularis is actually a Latin noun with the meaning rill or brook. He does not provide a source that mentions rivularis as noun, but instead refers to the noun rivulus in Lewis and Short. Accidently, he also misquotes Lewis and Short as they tell us that rivulus is a little brook (as it is a diminutive of rivus) and not a brook. Additionally, Lewis and Short do not explain the full compound castorrivularis, only the noun rivulus. Kevmin however claims that 'this is absolutely not misquoted, and is fully cited using botanical nomenclature sources'.Wimpus (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The full etymology is explained by Wolfe & Tanai, as sourced after that for 'rivularis'. "Type locality is on Beaver Creek". The Morrison Man (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the separate parts Castor and rivularis with their specific forms and meanings are not explained by

"Type locality is on Beaver Creek". That rivularis is a noun meaning 'brook' is unsourced. Wimpus (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so what does Castor mean? Anthropophoca (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kevmin, ""Castor" [is] the genus name for beavers". Although it might be obvious that the name Castorrivularis can be deconstructed into Castor (but is actually the Genus name intended?) and rivularis, a source is actually needed. And in this specific case, Kevmin makes a mistake as he misidentifies rivulus in Lewis and Short for rivularis. Wimpus (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the is explained by "Type locality is on Beaver Creek", what else could Castor refer to? The Morrison Man (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the Greek word κάστωρ instead of the Latin generic name Castor? The first describing authors did not provide any indication whether they used Latin or Greek. And is the nominal expression 'Beaver Creek' castorrivulus or castorrivularis in Latin? And is it an adjective or a noun in apposition? As Kevmin is explaining rivularis as some kind of noun meaning 'rill or brook', one could misidentify castorrivularis as noun in apposition to which different rules of the Code of apply. Wimpus (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So despite the authors citing the nomenclature as based on the type locality, Beaver Creek, and Castor being the generic name for beavers, you are proposing that they could actually have intended the name to refer to "son of Zeus (or Tyndareus) and Leda, brother of Pollux"? YFB ¿ 15:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. But the original authors are not referring to any separate Latin words in their etymological description. So claiming that castorrivularis consists of the noun Castor and a noun rivularis, that is evidently an adjective, is OR. Wimpus (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you about rivularis. If you're not proposing that potential meaning for the Castor element then why did you refer to κάστωρ? YFB ¿ 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Κάστωρ is the name for beaver in ancient Greek (besides the name of the son of Zeus). Wimpus (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So as an alternative to this ridiculous 5-year edit war you could have inserted "or Ancient Greek meaning 'beaver'" and changed "brook" to "of or pertaining to a brook"? YFB ¿ 16:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevmin persisted in inserting incorrect unsourced information. And when questionable information is unsourced, it can be removed. Isn't that the actual rule? Wimpus (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual rule is that if there is a dispute over sourcing, and changes have been reverted, editors are expected to move to the talk page and reach a consensus through constructive discussion. Typically consensus is arrived at by looking for a form of wording that is broadly acceptable. Editors who are here to build the encyclopaedia could have made the edits I suggested above, instead of engaging in a campaign of tagging, edit-warring, and longwinded argument over the grammatical minutiae of ancient languages. The latter choice gives the appearance of being more interested in making a point. YFB ¿ 17:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is entirely not acceptable to misquote a certain source and flat-out deny that. Kevmin's linguistic input was almost nil. Wimpus (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in the merits or otherwise of @Kevmin's linguistic input. I'm interested in improving articles. On the evidence of your edit history that does not appear to be your main focus. There must be lots of articles on Ancient Greek that someone with your interest in linguistics could improve, rather than fighting pointless battles over trivial etymological 'errors' (quotes because there is no consensus that these are errors in most cases). YFB ¿ 17:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen who started this latest thread? Wimpus (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is relevant. What is relevant is that, looking at your edit history, you're continuing to contest translations on numerous new pages even though there's an ongoing discussion about the broader practice here. (And whether these are 'etymological errors' in the first place). The Morrison Man (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yummifruitbat attempted to reword the section to address the purported specificity issues, and yet even that is not considered enough by Wimpus. its becoming very clear that only Wimpus' version of any etymology will be allowable in their view.--Kevmin § 00:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These etymological discussions are starting to become repetitive, and are a waste of everyone's time. Perhaps it would be good to centralise this discussion (which has by now sprawled across multiple talk pages) on one place so a solution that most agree with can be found for all relevant articles? The thread established at WP:TOL recently might be a good place. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree The Morrison Man, would you suggest collating the various discussions, or just link the various discussions in a new thread there about the "not here" and wp:Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behaviour?--Kevmin § 21:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would link the various discussions at the top and then discuss the underlying behaviour driving all of these issues, which is the disproportional focus on etymological minutiae. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not here, where no one will notice it. It is symptomatic of a more general problem and should be restarted at a more general venue, probably the WikProject Talk page, with a (very) brief summary of the essential dispute here, and a link to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing I said three messages up, so I agree. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the editor adding information. Any disputed info that is unsourced or incorrectly sourced may simply be removed, and at that point the citation requirement of verifiability policy comes into play and the information under discussion may not be restored without a specific citation to a "source that directly supports the material". If there is disagreement about whether a source does or doesn't support an assertion, that needs to be talked out here before it can be cited. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the related edits, and I agree with both your sentiments and Kevmin as well. I think a good reminder about WP:EXPERT is in order. If someone is getting to the point of saying X source as wrong, we really can't do that as Wikipedia editors, but those of us trained as scientists do that in real life. That's one area that can make switching between IRL and editing here tough. If you want to disagree with an author on language, you'd need to publish a source stating that rather than doing that here. We can assess WP:DUE if other sources disagree, but we do need to be careful about crossing the line into WP:OR. KoA (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My position is simple. The etymologies for taxa should be based exclusively on the published sources. Wikipedia is not the place to litigate whether or not a constructed etymology is "correct" (per WP:EXPERT and WP:NOR). Binomial names are not directly reflective of any true language; they are simply based on existing languages, with no requirement that they follow the rigorous conventions of those respective languages. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of castorrivularis, the current deconstruction into Castor and rivularis is not sourced and therefore OR. Wimpus (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to discuss the specific merits of a single case, that can be discussed elsewhere. This is obviously a wider-ranging discussion regarding your persistent disruptive editing of etymological explanations for binomial names. A persistent attempt to correct "obviously incorrect" (as you have previously stated) etymologies given in scientific papers is not appropriate for Wikipedia, as has been explained to you ad nauseam. This crusade you've undertaken is not only outside the scope of strictly encyclopedic content, but it doesn't assist readers or editors, and only serves as a drain on everyone's attention and effort. If you have a problem with how ancient Greek and Latin are used (or misused, as you clearly believe), then there are avenues you can use to express that belief (e.g. blogs, forums, social media, independent publishers, etc). Wikipedia is not the place for that, and continuing this behavior is starting to verge on vandalism. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have issues with taxonomic authors' grasp on Latin and Ancient Greek, you can directly email them your critiques. I encourage you to keep conversation civil. As for getting the name changed for grammatical reasons, you can take it up with the ICZN who will change the name if the issue is specifically gender disagreement with the genus. But, per the nomenclatural codes, "incorrect Latinization is not to be corrected (Article 32.5.1)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At the end of the day they can always claim that their names are an "arbitrary combination of letters", and i expect that your crusade will lead to many more people adopting this as convention. Anthropophoca (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Project WT:WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimpus Just curious, but do you contribute to Wiktionary? Your current efforts may be more valued in that project. Anthropophoca (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]