Language for taxonomic names, redux

[Arthur Reutenauer]

	Andy,

  I think it would be useful if, instead of replying to Michael
tit-for-tat, you would list actual use cases where a subtag would help.
Wikipedia is one of them, and your position, if I’ve understood it
correctly, is: the subtag can be rolled out instantly in infoboxes by
changing the template, and it would be up to Wikipedia contributors to
use it in running text, according to Wikimedia guidelines and
long-standing practice.  That’s one example, and nobody denies that it
is a legitimate one.

  We need more.  You’ve referred several times to earlier discussions,
some of which contain concrete suggestions, but if you want to convince
the contributors to this list you’ll need to actually write them down
instead of just giving pointers.  This is not a peer-reviewed article,
nobody is going to check your references, and besides your emails don’t
come with a bibliography at the bottom.  In any case, if all you write
is “see the points made by ...” said points are not actually part of the
discussion.

  It would also be useful if you acknowledged that the system for which
you wish to have a subtag is not in any way a language, variety, or
dialect.  It has no syntax, no parts of speech except for nouns and
adjectives, no autonomous pronunciation.  It is a specialised lexicon
which, as Karl pointed out, is sufficiently “language-like” to warrant
separate tagging.  Binomial names currently appear in contexts where (as
I understand it) language tagging would be appropriate because other,
similar pieces of content are marked with their own tag.  The previous
sentence is intentionally vague because I don’t actually know what these
situations are; this is precisely what you should illustrate with
concrete examples.  People on this list are receptive to these
arguments.

	Best,

		Arthur