Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)

Overhaul

I have overhauled the convention. My main purpose was to add a statement of principle at the top, in order to harmonise this guideline with the broader policy on Wikipedia:Article titles—more details on that below. However in doing so I got sucked into a long-overdue major restructure and copyedit. I think you'll find it acceptable. If you don't, revert me and we'll talk about it. Or just go ahead and fix it.

Now, about this statement of principle:

A while back there was a protracted and bitter dispute over this guideline, because our general naming policy of the time said "use the most common name", and this was being interpreted as "use the lowest-common-denominator vernacular name preferred by the man in the street". Under this interpretation, our naming convention was in conflict with the broader policy, and we had to fight long and hard for the freedom to follow the nomenclature of our field.

Since then the general policy has been revised, and "use the most common name" is now being interpreted as "follow usage in reliable sources." This is an excellent outcome for us, as indeed for all Wikipedians. However some people remember the battle we fought back then, and have come to the rather odd conclusion that we are opposed to following usage in reliable sources, and have adopted a policy of consistency-for-consistency's-sake. This is, I believe, wrong. But it has to be said that our convention was not very clear on this point. Therefore I have added a statement of principle to our guideline, saying that following usage in reliable sources is our guiding principle, and our specific guidelines emerge from that.

I believe this to be an uncontroversial reading of what was consensus back then, and as far as I am aware consensus has not changed since.

Hesperian 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable here. Thanks for doing the update. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did small additions, but overall Ithink you did an excellent job. Circéus (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You might like to consider a few words on graft hybrids, and nothotaxa in general. (Nothogenera are like nothospecies, except for the location of the multiplication sign; I'd have to look up how e.g. nothosections and nothovarieties are treated. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it a lot. I'm still flogging the pining horse of "taxa" versus "plants": I think making that distinction could clarify some of the rest. I may take a stab at wording that later.

Please note this; it may be a good forum to put the rules into action. On initial inspection, it does seem that a single standardized common name is more used in reliable sources, and it would make a good contrast to Joshua tree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. The new wording is just clearer in many cases, and does a better job of explaining why we name articles as we do (part of what has sometimes made this guideline controversial was the poor writing rather than the substance). Kingdon (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well, but there are two points I don't see addressed explicitly. Either these points are missing, or are not fully expounded upon so I'm not finding them where they are. (1) the issue of potential confusion from use of common names for article titles. Sequoiadendron is a possible case for this, since the common name "Giant Sequoia" harkens to the genus Sequoia but it is not a member of that genus. (2) capitalization of common names in article titles and within the article. Have we adopted a standard, and what is it? If we don't have a standard, we should at least say so and explain why. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The latter is dealt with: "There is currently no consensus regarding capitalization of common names in articles." Hesperian 03:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's partly dealt with. That text doesn't address article titles. It also doesn't explain why there isn't a consensus, and the very good reasons for this ought to be summarized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. The old version never went into further detail on this point, and expanding it was not a priority for me. Hesperian 03:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few days, and I'll see what I can do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a proposal on WT:AT, which has turned into a discussion of whether to change the policy on consistency to

• Consistency When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

This may have a significant effect on this guideline. Comments are welcome here. (The scope of the section has changed since it was titled.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oreocallis

I am out of my depth with extra-aussie species - anyone have any books on flora of Peru or Ecuador to add some details to this article (monotypic genus with now one species but unusual history)? I need to sleep now...buffing it or DYK...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added one of my usual sources for Ecuador (in Spanish). It has a botanical description if you want to bring in some/all of that (I never know how much of these to include, although I do find them a bit too detailed to include in their entirety), and common names in Spanish (although I think our usual practice is just to do English in the English wikipedia). Kingdon (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of common name

See Talk:Synsepalum dulcificum#Moving this article to Synsepalum dulcificum was incorrect for a discussion of moving Synsepalum dulcificum to its common name Miracle fruit. Does any of that discussion suggest changes that could advantageously to be made to this guideline? --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranks

I've puzzled over this bit in the article: "Taxa of minor rank that contain a single taxon of major rank are treated at the article on the major rank. Similarly, taxa of major rank that contain a single taxon of minor rank are treated at the article on the major rank." Minor ranks contain major ranks (1st sentence) and major ranks contain minor ranks (2nd sentence)?? Can someone explain it to me, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I found the answer in the article Taxonomic rank. It provides an example, Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, and presents a detailed taxonomic breakdown.

At the beginning, it explains that it gives the eight major ranks in bold, and gives several minor ranks as well. The major ranks are the familiar ones: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The minor ranks given are subphylum, subclass, suborder, and subfamily.

I suspect you took the terms major and minor taxa to mean the higher and lower groupings respectively--as I would have taken it myself. But apparently, this is not the case. The minor ones are apparently lesser used ones stuck here and there in between the major ones to deal with more complicated cases. 72.83.149.28 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Or, to put it in diffeent words: If a family contains a single subfamily, there shouldn't be an article on that minor rank (subfamily); treat the subject instead at the family article. Or if there are several subfamilies, but one of them contains a single genus, that genus article should cover the subfamily instead of giving the subfamily a separate (repetitive) article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very clear example, which explains policy much better than the project page! I'm going to add it there. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Organism capitalization synch

FYI: Pointer to related discussion.

I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms, WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species WP:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, WP:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus common names, etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

Please centralize discussion at WT:Manual of Style#Organism capitalization synch

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)