Talk:Katydid (disambiguation)
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Merge discussion[edit]
Entomological term has 3 meanings and biassed to N.American usage.Roy Bateman (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Roy Bateman: I can't quite follow what you're trying to do here. I've removed the template, but kept your explanation. Did you want Katydid to redirect to the disambiguation page, or something else? Does the term have other meanings within the field of entomology that aren't listed here? (and, if so, what are they)? I'm very happy to help with putting up the appropriate templates and stimulate further discussion. Klbrain (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "katydid" is not universally just an entomological term (hence the need for this dab page)
- neither (as I understand) is it exclusively a synonym of Tettigoniidae for American entomologists, possibly also meaning:
- Pterophylla camellifolia, the species from which onomatopoeic name katydid is derived: and the only meaning of "katydid" I knew of for perhaps the first 10 years of my entomological life! It belongs to the …
- Pseudophyllinae the subfamily known as "true katydids" apparently (if this is a widely-used term, it would be good to have a reference for it on that page). This is an important subfamily here in Asia and I have set up a number of genus pages - personally I prefer to use "subfamily Pseudophyllinae"; however, I realise that many editors prefer common names.
- in light of the above, treating "katydid" and Tettigoniids as effectively synonymous in WP, may have unfortunate consequences. Paragraphs frequently have to be inserted about how misleading vernacular names can be (and I was actually responsible for having grasshopper and Cricket (insect) moved to more appropriate taxa). Most bizarrely IMHO, I have found leading statements such as "XXX , common name YYY bush-cricket, is a species of katydids …" on more than one occasion!
- I agree with @Leschnei: at Talk:Katydid, is there any good reason why these pages can't be just merged into a disambiguation (like bush cricket)? Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Katydid (disambiguation) can't be merged into bush cricket because of the other non-insect meanings (like Katydids (band)) . If Katydid doesn't have a primary meaning, then it should redirect to this disambiguation page. I've had a go at expanding the page, based on the expanded scope you've suggested. Does this work, if we also change the page Katydid directs to? Klbrain (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the disambiguation page can't be merged into Bush cricket. If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at Katydid and the redirect at Katydid (disambiguation) (per MOS:DABPAGENAME). Leschnei (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Katydid (disambiguation) can't be merged into bush cricket because of the other non-insect meanings (like Katydids (band)) . If Katydid doesn't have a primary meaning, then it should redirect to this disambiguation page. I've had a go at expanding the page, based on the expanded scope you've suggested. Does this work, if we also change the page Katydid directs to? Klbrain (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Leschnei: at Talk:Katydid, is there any good reason why these pages can't be just merged into a disambiguation (like bush cricket)? Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The grouping of insects is by far the more common use for this term and should therefore remain the primary topic. As such, the redirect to the insect family works well, and the hatnote there pointing here serves well any need other than the insect. I see no need for any merger or page move. Contrast with bush cricket as it doesn't seem to have any non-insect meaning. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion: I was proposing that Katydid (disambiguation) should be merged into Katydid (bush cricket just another example, going to the same destination). Roy Bateman (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was not confused. I'm saying don't do that. Your proposal is to align katydid to how bush cricket is organized. Katydid has non-insect meanings, hence the need for a DAB that is distinct from the redirect. UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Uther here; the independence of the dabs for katydid and bush cricket is necessary for them both to function. I would further argue that just because one subfamily is referred to a "true katydids" is not valid support for the contention that having katydid redirect to the entire family is somehow misleading. To most English-speaking entomologists outside of the UK, any member of Tettigoniidae is a katydid, regardless of subfamily - and not used for any insects outside of Tettigoniidae. This is a fundamental asymmetry, in point of fact; "katydid" never refers to any insect that isn't a tettigoniid, but "bush cricket" DOES sometimes refer to non-tettigoniids. As such, it seems absolutely appropriate for "katydid" to point directly to Tettigoniidae. This is similar to the common names "cicada" and "locust" - the former ALWAYS refers to a member of the superfamily Cicadoidea, while the latter can refer to either Cicadoidea or Acrididae, in an entirely different order. I do, however, agree that it is confusing to have articles that simultaneously indicate that a species/genus is a bush cricket AND a katydid, and would sincerely urge editors to just use Tettigoniidae, verbatim (i.e., "xxx is a species of orthopteran insect in the family Tettigoniidae"), UNLESS the species does in fact have a documented common name that uses one or the other - and then use that one, for consistency. There are many similar instances in Wikipedia where the schism between sets of English-speaking common names is problematic, like the use of the term "wasp" (an entire suborder in one usage, a single genus in another; they could hardly be more different), but those other situations seem to be pretty stable at this point, and up until this discussion started, the katydid/bush cricket schism seemed to be non-controversial. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- With respect @Dyanega:, your assertion that "most English-speaking entomologists outside of the UK, any member of Tettigoniidae is a katydid" is simply not correct. For example, I happen to know that local (or Afrikaans) names are used for the many genera and species found in central-southern Africa: e.g. koringkriek / corn cricket, Nsenene (for which "conehead" may also be used - or should that only apply to Conocephalus?). The UK has a mere 9 genera (but includes the great green bush cricket, which is the type genus and species for the family ;-) ); the term "bush cricket" has been applied to species in the many dozens of European genera. I have just edited Phaneroptera falcata and Tylopsis lilifolia - do you concur with this form of words? I believe that you and I would agree that there are always going to be controversies about vernacular names: it was one of the reasons of course why scientific nomenclature was developed. You "urge editors to just use Tettigoniidae": I quite agree but prefer placing the subfamily or tribe as a scientific name. You have moved Asian genera to e.g. Tegra (katydid): why was this not "Tegra (Tettigoniid)"? I have finally found a reference for "true katydids" – at OSF – but am genuinely curious as to how many people actually use this expression: even in North America.
In my opinion, we should not worry about "schism between sets of English-speaking common names"; I question the Wikipedia policy that attempts generally to give priority to English names over scientific terms. Whereas the policy is understandable for common vertebrate species, it may become very problematic (and I suggest a waste of editorial time) when applied to less-well-known invertebrates. My main concern here is about also generating a false universality for names such as "katydid". You make an interesting point about "wasp" (where we have arrived at a satisfactory but convoluted solution) – I wonder how "fly" and Diptera became synonymous?! … but let's not go there today. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)- A few things: (1) names in Afrikaans (or any other non-English common names) are not what I was referring to when I said "English-speaking entomologists outside of the UK"; I myself use names like "esperanza" - the common name in Mexico - when working in Mexico, but that doesn't count, nor would Afrikaans names if I were in South Africa. But that's a very minor point, regardless. (2) Your edits are fine; it's mostly a matter of eliminating contradiction. (3) I had forgotten about the changes to dab-titles, and that is not at all easy to fix, because two practices butt proverbial heads, with no objective path to resolution. That is, the usual thing for dab-titles is to avoid things like "XXX (insect)" or "XXX (genus)" (which is even worse) and use a high-ranking common name, like "XXX (bee)", "XXX (beetle)", "XXX (butterfly)", etc. - but there is no single definitive common name for katydids. At the time I moved genera like Tegra, I admittedly was not thinking about "bush cricket" as a common name at all, but only trying to align the tettigoniid dab-titles with things like "XXX (grasshopper)" and "XXX (cricket)". You are entirely correct that this was presumptuous on my part, though I am not sure what alternative is appropriate; if we devolve back to "(insect)" this seems like a very poor compromise, but neither "(tettigoniid)" nor "(orthopteran)" are really desirable, either, because these go against the normal dab-title practice of using a common name for disambiguation that people will recognize. I'm open to suggestions. Dyanega (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- With respect @Dyanega:, your assertion that "most English-speaking entomologists outside of the UK, any member of Tettigoniidae is a katydid" is simply not correct. For example, I happen to know that local (or Afrikaans) names are used for the many genera and species found in central-southern Africa: e.g. koringkriek / corn cricket, Nsenene (for which "conehead" may also be used - or should that only apply to Conocephalus?). The UK has a mere 9 genera (but includes the great green bush cricket, which is the type genus and species for the family ;-) ); the term "bush cricket" has been applied to species in the many dozens of European genera. I have just edited Phaneroptera falcata and Tylopsis lilifolia - do you concur with this form of words? I believe that you and I would agree that there are always going to be controversies about vernacular names: it was one of the reasons of course why scientific nomenclature was developed. You "urge editors to just use Tettigoniidae": I quite agree but prefer placing the subfamily or tribe as a scientific name. You have moved Asian genera to e.g. Tegra (katydid): why was this not "Tegra (Tettigoniid)"? I have finally found a reference for "true katydids" – at OSF – but am genuinely curious as to how many people actually use this expression: even in North America.
- I have to agree with Uther here; the independence of the dabs for katydid and bush cricket is necessary for them both to function. I would further argue that just because one subfamily is referred to a "true katydids" is not valid support for the contention that having katydid redirect to the entire family is somehow misleading. To most English-speaking entomologists outside of the UK, any member of Tettigoniidae is a katydid, regardless of subfamily - and not used for any insects outside of Tettigoniidae. This is a fundamental asymmetry, in point of fact; "katydid" never refers to any insect that isn't a tettigoniid, but "bush cricket" DOES sometimes refer to non-tettigoniids. As such, it seems absolutely appropriate for "katydid" to point directly to Tettigoniidae. This is similar to the common names "cicada" and "locust" - the former ALWAYS refers to a member of the superfamily Cicadoidea, while the latter can refer to either Cicadoidea or Acrididae, in an entirely different order. I do, however, agree that it is confusing to have articles that simultaneously indicate that a species/genus is a bush cricket AND a katydid, and would sincerely urge editors to just use Tettigoniidae, verbatim (i.e., "xxx is a species of orthopteran insect in the family Tettigoniidae"), UNLESS the species does in fact have a documented common name that uses one or the other - and then use that one, for consistency. There are many similar instances in Wikipedia where the schism between sets of English-speaking common names is problematic, like the use of the term "wasp" (an entire suborder in one usage, a single genus in another; they could hardly be more different), but those other situations seem to be pretty stable at this point, and up until this discussion started, the katydid/bush cricket schism seemed to be non-controversial. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was not confused. I'm saying don't do that. Your proposal is to align katydid to how bush cricket is organized. Katydid has non-insect meanings, hence the need for a DAB that is distinct from the redirect. UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)