Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decurrent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep, nominator withdrew and there was no other support for deleting, so closing early. —David Eppstein 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw this AFD. Outcome is obviously going to be keep, page has improved quite a bit since I listed it, so there's really no reason to drag this out any longer. - TexasAndroid 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Decurrent? DELETE! (ha, I'm...mildly funny...sometimes) per nom. Obvious dicdef.--Sethacus 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Descibes actual phenomenon. Must be moved to decurrence, per wikipedia "no adjectives" style. Mukadderat 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why are you suggesting moving it to a term that is not used in the botanical sciences? The term used is "decurrent," not "decurrence." I have three botany books with morphology glossaries, every one of them has "decurrent" and not a single one has "decurrence." Please explain your proposal for making the term everyone would be looking up, and what the article would be discussing, to naming it for a term not generally found in the literature, and not used. KP Botany 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually seems to be used, just very rarely. Circeus 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, very rarely, but that's no reason for Wikipedia to take the lead in establishing it as the term to use, thereby misleading our readers. There is another word, though, that is more often used when discussing the noun, but I can't find or think of what it is. KP Botany 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I come across the term decurrent {http://www.efloras.org/browse.aspx?flora_id=1&text_str=decurrent } many times each year when keying out plants and its used in a number of the books I have on plants but I have never come across the term decurrence{ http://www.efloras.org/browse.aspx?flora_id=1&text_str=decurrence }. Hardyplants 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This term is very important in the identification of certain liverwort genera. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I come across the term decurrent {http://www.efloras.org/browse.aspx?flora_id=1&text_str=decurrent } many times each year when keying out plants and its used in a number of the books I have on plants but I have never come across the term decurrence{ http://www.efloras.org/browse.aspx?flora_id=1&text_str=decurrence }. Hardyplants 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, very rarely, but that's no reason for Wikipedia to take the lead in establishing it as the term to use, thereby misleading our readers. There is another word, though, that is more often used when discussing the noun, but I can't find or think of what it is. KP Botany 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually seems to be used, just very rarely. Circeus 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why are you suggesting moving it to a term that is not used in the botanical sciences? The term used is "decurrent," not "decurrence." I have three botany books with morphology glossaries, every one of them has "decurrent" and not a single one has "decurrence." Please explain your proposal for making the term everyone would be looking up, and what the article would be discussing, to naming it for a term not generally found in the literature, and not used. KP Botany 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note regarding this debate has been left to WikiProject Plants. Circeus 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just because it is mildly Dict-def-ish right now doesn't mean it's not a notableconcept of its own. Circeus 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, it's used extensively in botany. I think it ought to be merged, probably into an overall article on tree habit, except that the term is used so extensively in studies of Angiosperm lateral buds. Also, the noun is not generally used. KP Botany 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be merged into an article about tree habit, because liverworts aren't trees, yet the term is highly relevant for describing their patterns of leaf attachment in certain genera. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, that's correct, only the part about tree habit can be merged into that article, and the part about morphology would have to go into a leaf article, but that's not really appropriate for liverworts either, because the leaf anatomy article is biased towards Angiosperms--it doesn't even cover gymnosperms, much less liverworts. KP Botany 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how this isn't good for a Wikipedia article. Seems better than Wiktionary in the first place.Silver seren 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and move per Mukadderat. Realkyhick 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possibly turn into disambiguation page. The term per se is a rather general (although in narrow domain), so accusation in "dicdeficity" are not without merit. Wikipedia does not have articles for adjectives. They are handled in two ways: if it is a "single-meaning" term, it is redirected to the noun, even if the noun is less used: e.g., lipophilic->Lipophilicity. The second way is to disambiguate between notable specific usages, see eg Oblong (a rather poor example, but I have to time to look for better one). Since decurrent leaf, decurrent gill and decurrent crown are rather distant topics, I suggest a disambig page here, with the standard link {{wiktionary}} `'Míkka 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Where is this rule about adjectives? What is the point of making an article about a noun, when the noun isn't used? We create usages here just to rigidly adhere to abstract rules? KP Botany 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The relevant information (speaking as a botanist) would not be retained on Wiktionary (speaking as an admin for en:wikt). It might be possible to merge this into another article somewhere; but the information should not be deleted. --EncycloPetey 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Skysmith 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, but we've got to find a better way to deal with these botanical terms.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fr: has a fr:Glossaire botanique (lit. "botanical glossary") and use that to redirect to more appropriate articles, but I don't know how well that would work. In include material, for example, that we already redirect to other articles (e.g. protandry → dichogamy), or words that we would never use because they are way too jargonic (e.g. "anemogamous", "barochory"). Circeus 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Offer to withdraw There is obviously some useful discussion still going on here, so if people would like, we can leave this AFD open to allow the discussion to continue. Or I am at this point willing to conceed and withdraw the AFD. Either way, it's blatantly obvious that the page is going nowhere. :) - TexasAndroid 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Obviously some discussion about the page needs to take place, but this is not necessarily the most useful place and timing. KP Botany 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep much more than a dictionary definition, provides encyclopedic context. Burntsauce 21:57, 10 August 2007 (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.