Talk:狭叶薰衣草

RfD

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Nominated as speedy, but clearly shouldn't be. If the definition is correct, keep. It's the Chinese name for a Scientific Latin botanical name isn't it? Don't we allow these as ==Translingual== entries? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, of course (if the definition is correct). Keep as Chinese: this is not a scientific name, as all scientific names are always written in Latin characters. And there is no reason not to create Lavandula angustifolia and common lavender too. Lmaltier 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We have been avoiding making two- or more-part taxonomic names. We welcome genus names like Lavandula, lavandula its Latin source, and angustifolia. Vernacular names, like common lavender are also welcome. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a rule? I was not aware of it (and I don't see the reason to refuse scientific species names). Lmaltier 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We have so little policy. Not having species (and subspecies and variety) taxonomic names or cultivar names is our way of letting wikispecies take the burden of keeping track of this and of off-loading encyclopedic material with little of purely lexicigraphic interest to WP et al. I have been following EP in this regard. We obviously have a long way to go before we have the components, let alone the combinatorial explosion of species- and lower-level names. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to refuse binomial (or even trinomial) names. But at the same time, we have little of value to say about them. Any links should probably go either to the generic/specific epithets or to Wikispecies (since all the user is going to find is a soft-redirect to WP or Wisp in any case). NB, the community has voted to delete cases like B. splendens, for reasons I'm not sure I understand. -- Visviva 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, based on w:zh:狭叶薰衣草. -- Visviva 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who nominated the above two Chinese entries for deletion. Can someone explain why they shouldn't be nominated as "speedy" deletions, and how to avoid doing this inappropriately? Obviously I'm biased, but I would delete both these entries as, in my opinion, they do not have any meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Tooironic 09:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine that there are many species of lavender that have narrow leaves, just as there are many species that may be common in some part of the world. But there is only one species called "common lavender", and likewise it would appear that there is likewise only one species called 狭叶薰衣草. If that's not the case, and this is actually a generic term for any lavender with narrow leaves, then I would support deletion. -- Visviva 10:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is reserved for anything that's undeniably unusable here. Empty pages, insults, patent vandalism (with no 'good' version in the history). This was neither, still keep from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this Mandarin term. 24.29.228.33 06:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep for sure if it means common lavender (as a species name). In case you dont understand, then this is the principle Tooironic: if we have a term like (deprecated template usage) common lavender which at first glances looks SOP but but is used as a common name for a specific species then it is included as a common name and translations into other languages are also welcome. It's just like how we have (deprecated template usage) sea ivory and (deprecated template usage) hammerhead shark.

We have been avoiding making two- or more-part taxonomic names. We welcome genus names like Lavandula, lavandula its Latin source, and angustifolia. Vernacular names, like common lavender are also welcome.

Just for the record I disagree with this. It is obvious though that to create entries for all species is a gargantuan task, especially when you also think about deprecated names. However, I have previously done a small amount of taxonomic work here on Wiktionary before and I always try to do enough research so that I can create an entry for a species and then work my way up (as opposed to down) through the taxa and create entries, e.g. species-->genus-->family-->suborder-->...50 Xylophone Players talk 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Kept as simplified Chinese entry.--Jusjih 21:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)