Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-09/All plants and animals to meet CFI

For example?

What sort of plant and animal names are supposed to be included by this vote that would otherwise be excluded as SOP? This vote is mentioned at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#apricot tree, but the name of the plant in question in that discussion is apricot, not apricot tree, so I don't see that this vote would save the latter entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On the requests for deletion page the following are mentioned in the discussion re apricot tree: " apple tree, oak tree, pine tree, cherry tree, ash tree, fruit tree, almond tree, chestnut tree, plane tree; crabapple tree, elm tree, maple tree, beech tree, willow tree, peach tree, apricot tree, hawthorn tree, birch tree, black birch tree, sycamore tree, red oak tree, white oak tree, London plane tree, Japanese maple tree, sycamore maple tree, swamp oak tree." Some of these may satisfy the current criteria for inclusion but others might not. For example, 'oak tree' would be OK becuase of the alternative form 'oaktree' exists. I am saying that even if there is no alternative form without a space that these should stay.

To explore some examples in more detail:

• pine is a synomym of pine tree - in other words the first part of 'pine tree' contains the whole. I think it would be hard to argue that pine tree is not 'sum of parts'and yet I think it should be included.
• hammerhead lists hammerhead shark as a synomym. Possibly the longer form came before the shorter form and that might be an argument to keep in some specific cases. Perhaps you could argue that the longer form is marginally clearer in that it avoid any possible confusion with other meanings of hammerhead (such as the fruit bat or the fresh water fish).
• panda bear is considered colloquial while grizzly bear is not (and nor is panda).
• hawthorn can mean hawthorn tree but hawthorne is often used for hedges so the longer form might clarify the appearance of the plant e.g. if you are giving directions.

There are quite a lot of nuances when you look at specific cases. I am seeking a general rule that editors can rely on without having to go into detail on every case.

John Cross (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC) typo corrected John Cross (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If your goal is to permit inclusion of terms like the ones you mention above, I don't think the current wording will achieve that. The proposed wording is, "The names of species of plants and animals and other living organisms can be included even if...", but the vernacular name of Prunus armeniaca is "apricot", not "apricot tree", so "apricot tree" wouldn't be protected by this vote. Incidentally, if hammerhead shark is older than the relevant sense of hammerhead, then the longer name is protected by the "in a jiffy" test. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tightened up the wording and included an example for clarity. John Cross (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the current wording is still problematic, in that I do not see how it protects pine tree, which is merely the name of a pine that is of a certain level of maturity (as opposed to being a pine sapling, say). The genus Pinus is still called pine in both formal and informal English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to be explicit that it is okay to keep pine tree even though pine can by itself mean pine tree. This is regarded as SOP by some current editors, but I believe it is an error to consider such terms as SOP, rather they are synonyms. SOP is a case where x+y = x+y, or where the compound can be easily reworked into the formula "an y that is x" or similar (e.g. university education = "an education from a university"). A pine tree is not "a tree that is a pine" nor "a tree that is a pine tree", it means "a pine", so x = z and x+y = z. They are synonyms, hence x = x+y. We need to have both entries. Traditional print dictionaries often record both forms, OED for instance records both "neem tree" and "neem", "pine tree" and "pine", "Wellington boot" and "Wellington", etc.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What good for normal users is accomplished from having entries for both apricot and apricot tree, rather than a proper entry for apricot and a redirect? Is it some need to conform to a formal definition of idiom? Is it satisfying or useful for linguists? Why and how? DCDuring (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

All the examples are for words or word sequences that will be accepted under the normal rules. The proposal seems to allow neologisms and wordy descriptions made up by anyone. So are there examples for what would be accepted that would not normally meet the attestation criteria? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)