Talk:Q754353

English label

@Brya: You keep changing around things in a way that doesn't conform to facts. I added a space after the '×' in the English label, but you changed it back, even though all sources I could find (English Wikipedia, [1] and some Google results) do in fact have spaces around it. Please explain your reverts. Intgr (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the link you posted provides a good answer. It treats the Atemoya as a hybrid between two species, with the hybrid formula Annona squamosa × Annona cherimola. A hybrid formula conforms to the format "[first parent]  [space]  [multiplication sign]  [space]  [second parent]". The spaces serve to indicate that there are three separate elements, and that the multiplication sign does not belong with either species (either element).

        In contrast, what we are dealing with here is not a formula, but rather a formal scientific name, the name of a nothospecies, Annona ×atemoya, and here the multiplication sign belongs with the epithet (the second element), and not with the generic name (the first element), as the hybridization occurs within the genus (the genus is unaffected). It cuts down on confusion to place the multiplication sign close to the epithet to emphasize this. Inserting a space makes the thing look like a formula. There may be some sources which don't follow this (and, as always, "Wikipedia is not a source"). - Brya (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Brya: You say "Wikipedia is not a source", but I'd like to remind you that so far you have provided no sources, but an argument which looks like original research so far. Wikidata does in fact frequently rely on Wikipedias as the source, which is better than no source. Further, it makes sense to strive for consistency within Wikimedia projects. And here are some more sources that contradict your edits: [2] [3] [4] [5]. I have found no sources to support your version. Intgr (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, this is straight by the book and directly from the book (see Art. H3 of the ICNafp). As to the links you posted, like I said, there are sources which don't follow this. It is possible to find examples of any style, and even worse, it is possible to find sources that use a small letter "x" instead of a multiplication sign, which definitely is not allowed ("not Code-compliant"). In fact, you already found two sources (or one-and a-half, to be precise) which do use a letter "x", which shows they don't have a clue.

        This letter "x" comes from the time when people used typewriters, without a multiplication sign. I would guess that is where this space comes from, in a typewritten text it may be confusing to type an "x" without a space before a name or epithet. And when people shifted to wordprocessors, they kept doing what they were doing with a typewriter. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Brya: I have no way of assessing how important or relevant these recommendations are, but I can't find any instances of this style used on English Wikipedia (e.g. w:en:Category:Hybrid plants). Nor have you or I been able to locate any sources to support your label "Annona ×atemoya". I find it difficult to believe that everyone else is wrong and you are the only one on all Wikipedias and online resources who is correct about this. What you're doing is original research and it goes against all the sources I have found. Wikidata:What Wikidata is not says that original research is not permitted on Wikidata, so as much as you may think you're correct, Wikidata is not the place for this. Intgr (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So summing up: you base your position on

• your inability to understand the provisions that apply to this, and your unwillingness to accept a source
• a few sources, half of which are demonstably in error,
• usage at enwiki (the "there are some people who jump off the bridge, so I am going to jump off the bridge too" argument)

What else have you got? - Brya (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Brya: I am entirely able to accept sources, if you were to provide any sources to directly support your claim. I'm not accepting this one source you provided, because that requires original research (w:WP:synthesis). If you truly believe that the English Wikipedia is in error, start a discussion and build consensus to change this naming convention, on e.g. w:WP:WikiProject Biology or one of the related WikiProjects. But only changing English data on Wikidata behind everyone's backs, in a way that contradicts established English Wikipedia conventions and all available sources, is not the proper way to go about this. Intgr (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, w:WP:synthesis defines a new synthesis as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." and neither is the case here. What you insist on is rather that everything is copy-and-pasted, on a case-by-case basis, which is just what Wikipedia should not be doing.

        Anyway, in the same breadth you admit that this is a matter of a "naming convention", so something that is not dealt with on a case-by-case basis but across the board.

        I am not doing anything "behind everyone's backs" but rather openly and in the proper fashion for a Wikimedia project. Wikidata aims at providing reference data, it is not there to import data from Wikipedia's (there is a shocking amount of error in Wikipedia's), so this is perfectly all right. If a Wikipedia is going to import data from Wikidata every Wikipedia can format the data in whatever style that particular Wikipedia prefers (or import data based on a particular, selected taxonomy). So there is no problem in this respect whatsoever. If enwiki is wise it would prefer the hybrid formula over the nothospecies name, anyway. And Wikidata is not there solely on behalf of Wikipedia's, but also for other users. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Brya: That quote from "WP:synthesis" is exactly what's happening here. We have multiple sources saying that the name of the hybrid is "Annona × atemoya". You're combining information from these sources, and the rules given in another source (the ICNafp article), to conclude that it should be written as "Annona ×atemoya" even though no source supports the latter version.

I accept that this could be overridden if there was an established naming convention on Wikipedia/Wikidata, formed as a consensus between multiple established editors. But given the lack of such convention, sources should take precedence. Intgr (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, "a consensus between multiple established editors" can establish a "naming convention", a brave band of brothers making their way though a host of problems besetting them, making their own evaluations. Well, that may work out well, and it may not; there are all kinds of "established editors", ranging from well-educated users who do careful research and can write precisely without losing themselves in detail to users who can barely manage a copy-and-paste (if that) and who band together to protect the way they work. In the latter case, they may well be "establishing" No Original Research policy violations. Those who say "Wikipedia is not a source" have ample reasons to do so.

        And on the other hand, the authoritative source that explicitly deals with this is to be disregarded because it does not provide a list of all umpty million names that it governs? Well, ... a textbook case of Wikilawyering, if ever I saw one. - Brya (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"a brave band of brothers making their way though a host of problems besetting them, making their own evaluations" Well, better than one person deciding single-handedly, surely?

Besides, nice attack on Wikipedias, it appears you're not familiar with the concept of w:tertiary sources, but it's not really relevant here. Intgr (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)