Talk:Eucalyptus leptopoda

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Eucalyptus leptopoda 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Etymology

Please discuss concerns regarding etymology here. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Euclid reference states: ORIGIN OF NAME: Eucalyptus leptopoda: Greek lepto, narrow or slender and podos, foot, referring to the slender pedicels this is essentially agreeing with the text, what corrections do you feel need to be made? Hughesdarren (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lepto is not a proper word in Greek. The nominative case is leptos λεπτός. Podos is not a nominative case, but a genitive case, with the nominative case pous (πούς). Liddell and Scott show additionally ποδί and πόδα (dative and accusative). In case the primary source would give the erroneous etymology, you could give that erroneous etymological derivation (that is of importance, because it will tell you what the original authors were thinking while coining the name), but add that the proper words for thin and foot are leptos (λεπτός) and pous (πούς) in ancient Greek. But, to use a non-primary source that provides an incorrect explanation does not add anything of significance. Wimpus (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren, this edit is incorrect, as the source does not state that podos means of the foot. This source might not be a reliable source for etymological information at all and alternatively other sources have to be used instead. Wimpus (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit back to agree with reference. Am I to understand that you are saying the Euclid reference is incorrect? Hughesdarren (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous entries on Euclid that are incorrect considering the etymology. The reference to Liddell and Scott, that shows leptos λεπτός and pous (πούς) are actually the correct forms, already shows that they did not have checked with a standard Greek dictionary, whether the information they provided was correct. They may be experts in the field of eucalyptology, but they may be laymen in the field of etymology. So, this source may not be so reliable after all considering the etymological derivations. Wimpus (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source used is a reliable seconday source but other sources also indicate the same for lepto:

lepto- word-forming element used from 19c. and meaning "fine, small, thin, delicate," from Greek leptos "small, slight, slender, delicate" (see lepton). [1]

and

Greek lepto-, combining form of leptós thin, slight, fine, literally, stripped[2]

That's three secondary sources providing the same information.

No, they are not providing the same information. Euclid seems to indicate that lepto is a single word, while Etymonline.com and Dictionary.com state that this is a combining form and use appropriately a hyphen to indicate this, give the full form leptos additionally. Wimpus (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to indicate is a bit thin, if a hyphen were added to the text them this would resolve the issue then? Hughesdarren (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the source is not writing a hyphen. It could be a typo in the original source, but given all the inconsistencies (see also the phloia versus phloios inconsistencies I have mentioned here) and the fact that they seem to confuse the genitive and the nominative case for pous, we can only conclude that Euclid is a very unreliable source for providing etymological information. Wimpus (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can leave it as the source says then. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Botanists could consider that Euclid (published by CSIRO) is a reliable source, especially for an article on a plant. You can reword the referenced text to take your opinions into account but you cannot keep removing referenced text.Hughesdarren (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. It is not my personal opinion that podos is not the nominative case and that lepto is not a proper word in Greek. Each single Greek dictionary will support this. And a quick search already reveals that some botanists (here and here) also agree. Wimpus (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add in the reference from Manual of Botany for North America as an additional reference into the text then? It basically confirms the use of the description used in Euclid (where the stem is the pedicel)? Hughesdarren (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]