Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not provide a reason why we should not observe the relevant guideline, WP:DAB#Partial title matches, in this case. WP:USEFUL is not enough: the guideline explicitly states that disambiguation pages are not search indices. Sandstein 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miserabilis

None of these topics exist, all point to genus and higher, and species epithats do not get their own pages anyway-- they always include the genus as well. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion proposal. A binomial name is the minimum that should be used to identify a species of animal or plant. Species epithets are not unique. For example, over 1000 species have the epithet "speciosa" or "speciosus" in their names.--Wloveral (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC) All text copied from article talk page. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree - serves no purpose. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The taxonomic literature is vast, and the number of specific names that have been used is also very large. Neelix is to be commended for his idea and effort, but I don't think this sort of article is practicable or, more to the point, encyclopedic. Tim Ross (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While none of these have separate articles, it doesn't seem unlikely that someone may search for this term. This article would point them to the discussion of each species, even if they're not species-specific articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems fairly reasonable that a readers may type in Miserabilis when looking for any of the entries on this page, if they had half remembered the name. Indeed they may even think that the bee or spider or butterfly they are seeking is actually called "miserabilis". IMHO this is an acceptable, if slightly marginal, use of a disambiguation page. Abtract (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Abstract. Disambiguous page are very useful when you don't have the exact page title, and you can't always create all the redirects needed. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete disambig pages are never used for every word in an article title. Ditto for scientific names. Shyamal (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a clear violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Deor (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAB#Partial title matches is particularly applicable when the topic is never or rarely referred to solely by the partial title. It is not that unusual to refer to the species name alone where the context is clear (and the original context can easily get lost these days).older ≠ wiser 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst this does no harm. At best, it is not that unusual to refer to the species name only when the context is clear--and considering how communications are so rapidly transmuted, it is quite easy for the original context to not be so clear. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a case of a partial title match. Species epithets can be used by themselves, as has been pointed out. As such, species epithet disambiguation pages are valid disambiguation pages. Neelix (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please cite a reliable scientific journal article that says that species epithet can be used by themselves. I believe that we can't use a user's opinion as this will be OR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Miserabilis is merely a Latin adjective meaning "wretched"; it has no scientific significance in itself. We don't have articles with adjectival titles, and we shouldn't have such dab pages either. I've never seen species names "used by themselves", except perhaps in a journal article discussing multiple species of only one genus, and even then the almost invariable practice is to abbreviate, rather than omit, the genus name (as, for example, "A. miserabilis" for Andrena miserabilis). Organisms' binomial names are, in effect, inseparable compounds. Deor (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New data. Page Migratorius has just appeared. It also distinguishes species by only the species epithet. This is a disambiguation page where partial title match is once again in evidence.--Wloveral (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Binomial nomeclature says that the species name is a two-part name. As Deor says, species names are meaningless on their own--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not uncommon for species in specialized literature to be referred to as "X. species", where X. is the first letter of the genus name and species is the species name (cf. "T. rex", "D. melanogaster"), but this would suggest that it would be useful to have a DAB page for, e.g., C. miserabilis, but not for "miserabilis" alone. Doing it this way seems to violate WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviated scientific name should never be used except after a first complete name mention and there is little use for disambiguation pages with abbreviated names either. Shyamal (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's entirely possible someone has access to an excerpt or a portion of a document which does not include the "first use" in the text in question. In such a case, a DAB page for these could be very useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that for some well-known species, it is likely that most people have heard of the abbreviated name and won't remember or be able to spell the full name (for example, E. coli, T. Rex). A redirect or disambiguation page would be very useful in such cases. --Itub (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is under discussion here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is if we are discussing it. It's directly related to the discussion about this particular article and other similar ones, of which many are springing up, so it seems entirely on point. If you don't want to discuss it, I suggest you not discuss it; no one's forcing you to join the stream of discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "G. species" style of disambig is different from this specific-epithet-only style of disambig. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus. --Itub (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we cannot encourage users in this style of searching, since it goes against 255 years of established worldwide scientific practice. It will only get worse, heaven forfend if people start wikilinking to it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete As with canus I don't believe any of these species are actually referred to as "Miserabilis" (feel free to prove me wrong), and thus this is merely a page on a latin word. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a latin dictionary, for that matter. Danski14^(talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid disambig page. Can't see what harm it is doing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.