Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora): Difference between revisions
→Site-wide consensus versus consensus of flora editors: Then what did you mean when you write: "Yes, I created dabs, but this appears to be the most common name,..." |
|||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:::::::I looked, but couldn't find where it says that "The naming of articles are not directly covered by the [[WP:NOR]]". Since the only way to ascertain the most recognizable name is to research it, I doubt that there is a policy like that. What, are we supposed to use a Ouija board to find out, or ask our neighbor, or....? [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::I looked, but couldn't find where it says that "The naming of articles are not directly covered by the [[WP:NOR]]". Since the only way to ascertain the most recognizable name is to research it, I doubt that there is a policy like that. What, are we supposed to use a Ouija board to find out, or ask our neighbor, or....? [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::See the NOR "No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable '''in articles.'''" (my emphasis).--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::NOR covers material ''published'' by Wikipedia. That would cover articles ''and'' article titles. Like everything else, article titles need to be [[WP:V|verifiable]], using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If we are using "the most commonly used name", that has to be verifiable. If we are using the scientific name, that must also be verifiable. And these things need to be verified using reliable sources...it doesn't work if our source is "Uncle Fred", or "some guy on the internet". Or, for that matter, Google. (Google results aren't "reliable sources", after all.) [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::NOR covers material ''published'' by Wikipedia. That would cover articles ''and'' article titles. Like everything else, article titles need to be [[WP:V|verifiable]], using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If we are using "the most commonly used name", that has to be verifiable. If we are using the scientific name, that must also be verifiable. And these things need to be verified using reliable sources...it doesn't work if our source is "Uncle Fred", or "some guy on the internet". Or, for that matter, Google. (Google results aren't "reliable sources", after all.) [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::: See the section "[[WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name]]" in [[WP:NC]]. there is no requirement to use scientific names there is a requirement to use "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for ''readers'' over ''editors'', and for a ''general audience'' over ''specialists''." and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what [[WP:SOURCES|verifiable reliable sources]] in English call the subject." not that there is a verifiable reliable source that states what the common name is. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Now, if it had to do with parrots, [[Uncle Fred]] might be your man, but surely not plants.... [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::::Now, if it had to do with parrots, [[Uncle Fred]] might be your man, but surely not plants.... [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:33, 4 January 2009
Protected for 2 weeks
The edit warring is getting rather silly, and only serving to inflame the situation. Please discuss changes on the talk page (as in, here). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you thank you thank you. :-) Stan (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see what you have to be thankful for; the protection accomplishes the most extreme end, which I was trying to avoid: while protected, there is no reason even to treat this as a guideline: This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, maybe we could have gone for over 117 changes to a policy page in January. Yes, thank you Johnny. --KP Botany (talk)
- Heh, so you think there is going to be a torrent of page moves now or something? I think only an idiot would start renaming articles, given the near-certainty that they're just all going to be moved back. But go ahead if you like, at least you'll be working on the botanical articles rather than bugging other people about them. Stan (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see what you have to be thankful for; the protection accomplishes the most extreme end, which I was trying to avoid: while protected, there is no reason even to treat this as a guideline: This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know you folks are frustrated, but the "neener-neener" thing isn't all that much more constructive than edit warring :-). This guideline has served umpteen-thousand articles for a couple years now, and I protected it because even if it's going to be changed, it should be changed by cool, well-thought-out discussion, not an edit war. While it's not quite as much of a problem as editwarring over italics in the taxobox, it's really much better to discuss, agree, and then make any changes deemed necessary. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
More fun things to consideration WEEDS win again
Besides the fact that finding the most common common name will be original research with plants since they're not standardized, what's going to be even more fun is WEEDS!!!!
Yup, because the most commonly used vernacular name in English for most weeds comes from the area where they are a problem. This means, hold onto your hats, MPF was one of the best plant editors around, we'd get to call the Cytisus scoparius article Scotch Broom! after the American name, rather than Broom.
So, we won't be using the native common name for plants that originate in small areas of English-speaking countries, then become horrid weeds elsewhere.
Weeds rule everything.
--KP Botany (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait, there it is again, the gods of google declare Cytisus scoparius to be more common than Scotch Broom. This will be a fun policy, and easy to implement. No one will write articles. They'll simply discuss the names. Does anyone who doesn't know plants ever wonder why botanists and horticulturists don't standardize common names like birders do? Still, we get to list Scotch Broom first, then the silly ole name it's given in its native land falls way down the list....
PS Wikipedia ought to adopt a policy to prevent this, something about the big countries of English speakers don't get to trump the native speakers in smaller English-speaking countries everywhere.
(above unsigned comment by ...?)
Arguments about which name is the most common name occur in all areas of Wikipedia, not just concerning names of organisms. They mostly boil down to interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and they are truly tedious. I have been tracking some that come to Wikipedia:Requested moves and involve disambiguation pages, here. --Una Smith (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- They are tedious and unnecessary discussions. This isn't an encyclopedia for only well known organisms with common names. It's an attempt at encyclopedia with all species, the well-known and poorly known. Scientists adopted scientific names for precisely the reason we're fighting right here, right now: common names don't work when trying to organize and understand organisms and share knowledge about them. People will fight this until they're blue, but it will never change. Common names don't work, because they don't precisely define an organism. And encylopedia articles about organisms are attempts to precisely describe them. The demand that this be done as imprecisely as possible is pointless, because the people who have the knowledge to do it know what a monumental waste of time, what a complete exercise in futility it is. Disrespect the expert knowledge all you want, but when it comes down to it, the people qualified to write the articles Wikipedia claims to want will have to use scientific names to do so. Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time discussing reinventing the wheel instead of writing articles. It's not going to happen. --KP Botany (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we agree that vernacular names don't work for many plants. But for some they do; that's why they're common. Nobody has ever suggested that this is an encyclopedia for only well known organisms with common names; but it is (among many other things, most having no reference to plants at all) an encyclopeda for well known organisms with common names. Whether these are "rare" is a question of the measure applied: there may be more species in Laminaria than in Acer, but readers will consult us for maples far more often than the (as yet unwritten) stubs on individual species of kelp. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As for weeds, it would be useful to have direct access to crabgrass under that name; but Digitaria will be fine if there is no predominant name. (I note, however, that Digitaria, after the title and first paragraph, calls its subjects crabgrasses.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Site-wide consensus versus consensus of flora editors
The problem here is that we seem to have a bunch of people who are specialists on one area who think somehow that their own field's standards for naming should overrule Wikipedia's standards for naming articles. That's not how things work here. We always pick the most common name, regardless of whether people think another name is somehow more accurate. Always. Consensus is the way we do things around here, but a local consensus on a subset of articles does not overrule a site-wide consensus. The idea that "Common names are to redirect to scientific names" with the example of "English sundew → Drosera anglica" is just completely at odds with how things are done here. And, frankly, it doesn't even pass the simple common sense rule. Sure, it'd be more accurate to list actors' names by their full legal names and redirect their stage names, but that's not done either, and for good reason. If you were taught to write things MLA style or AP style, or whatever, that's fine for you personally, but Wikipedia has its own style that might contradict the way you think things should be done. You adapt to how we do things, you don't ignore them. Unless you get the community site-wide consensus to change the naming policy you can't ignore it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't what WP:CONSENSUS said at the time WP:NC (flora) was created. That wording was added later in 2007. Regardless, ever since 22 Sep. 2006, WP:NC, which is indeed a policy page, has made an exception for this guideline, WP:NC (flora), specifically when it comes to the practice of using "the most common name," and this has been regarded as a practical, acceptable solution.
- Despite the fact that the current efforts to undermine this situation have been overwhelmingly condemned, you and your wikilawyering friends persist, and for what? The good of Wikipedia? Your condescending attitude towards these "specialists" is pathetic. Instead of chasing them away, these "specialists" are exactly the kind of people who need to feel welcome here, or else Wikipedia will never live up Jimbo's ideal of one day containing "the sum of all human knowledge." --Jwinius (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually you haven't read the guidelines and policies on naming conventions, if you say "we always pick the most common name," and you're not following this.
- Plant editors don't pick scientific names over common names because the plant editors prefer the scientific names, we pick them because we work with plants and know the reality and futility of trying to work with common names. How is it that so many of the editors arguing for common names are so hostile to plant editors, don't write plant articles, and will never bother to listen to the plant editors, but are fine with pointint out tha plant editors are so bad for Wikipedia? How is it that the plant community in the English speaking world has spent hundreds of years trying to figure out how to standardize common names for plants, has failed, and a bunch of editors on Wikipedia think they can solve the issue by making it an "us versus them" issue on Wikipedia, a bunch of editors not interested enough in plants to edit the articles, and who show very little knowledge in the area of plants, to the point of considering them just like animals?
- We've already adapated to how Wikipedia does things. We've made naming guidelines and followed them. That's that. --KP Botany (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- DreamGuy, how do you think Wikipedia policy tells us to determine what is the most commonly used name? Here it is, from WP:NAME:
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
- A search on Google Books gives 700 results for "Drosera anglica", most of them reliable sources. It gives only 134 results for "English sundew". So what are you talking about? The most common name for that plant is "Drosera anglica", according to the only metric Wikipedia recognizes, WP:Reliable Sources. It may be fine for you personally to use a name that you like, or that all your friends use. But Wikipedia relies on policy, and verifiable sources. That's what this discussion is about - it's not about 'experts are scum', or plant people are out of touch. It's about using verifiable sources. First Light (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- So regular google hits won't work? "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." Well, that reduces it to gardening plants will get common names, except for those also used as genetic research organisms and other plants will get scientific names.
- Actually the most reliable sources for plant names are in the botanical literature, because the common names, in English, other than in a few places are not codified. --KP Botany (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I just figured that the people who think that experts are scum, and stupid to boot, might think otherwise when they see that Google agrees with the experts, aka "Reliable Sources". First Light (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no way to get consensus and find reliable sources for something that isn't standardize, and that would probably be what it came down to: ghits win. :)--KP Botany (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all surprising. Incidentally flora would be far from the only project that accepts reliable sources as authoritative over allegedly "common" understandings - I work in the Australian geography project and we periodically have similar issues, but the RSs always win. Orderinchaos 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no way to get consensus and find reliable sources for something that isn't standardize, and that would probably be what it came down to: ghits win. :)--KP Botany (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I just figured that the people who think that experts are scum, and stupid to boot, might think otherwise when they see that Google agrees with the experts, aka "Reliable Sources". First Light (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- A search on Google Books gives 700 results for "Drosera anglica", most of them reliable sources. It gives only 134 results for "English sundew". So what are you talking about? The most common name for that plant is "Drosera anglica", according to the only metric Wikipedia recognizes, WP:Reliable Sources. It may be fine for you personally to use a name that you like, or that all your friends use. But Wikipedia relies on policy, and verifiable sources. That's what this discussion is about - it's not about 'experts are scum', or plant people are out of touch. It's about using verifiable sources. First Light (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
From what has been said here can we agree to add to the start of the guideline a general section followed by a specific section that says something along the lines of:
- General guidance
The naming
policyconventions statesuse the most easily recognized name. Determine the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
- Specific guidance
...
--PBS (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Subtle, but it's not the naming policy, it's the naming conventions. One is prescriptive, the other indicative (and changes with the weather). Orderinchaos 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- The naming conventions is the name given to the naming policy. I used "policy" for clarity, but we can strike out the word policy and put in conventions if you think it more appropriate. --PBS (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's amusing and a little ironic to find myself lumped in with the "experts". I originally did lots of fish and insect articles for WP (among other topics), only learned botany so I could more accurately identify the desert plants for which I was taking and uploading pictures. So when I say that plant naming works differently from animal naming, I am speaking as a non-expert who has nearly six years of experience with both the theory and practice of WP's naming conventions. Stan (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Orderinchaos do you have any objections to the modified wording? Has anyone else any objections to adding such a section? --PBS (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, can you list some verifiable reliable sources that list common names for plants, so we can get an idea of what this means in implementation about what "the most easily recognized name is?" --KP Botany (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure you are far more qualified than I to know if there exist any verifiable reliable sources that list commonly used name for plants as opposed to common names. Sometimes such surveys are carried out by a reliable source in which case deciding on the name of a Wikipedia article is a piece of cake. But usually the best way to see what impact a change in the wording of a guideline has is to see what the outcome would be on the name of some articles with a borderline name (some plant articles that have been through a recent requested move would probably be suitable candidates). A member of the project is much more likely to be able to select such examples than I am. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know of any surveys carried out by reliable sources that list most commonly used name. I've never come across one, so, you'll have to provide this.
- However, what this guideline is asking for is "the most easily recognized name," and that, like the surveys by reliable sources of "commonly used plant names," is not something I know about. So you'll have to provide this, also.
- --KP Botany (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- You made an edit to Talk:Vegetable Lamb of Tartary at 10:06 on 1 January 2009 how did you determine that Vegetable Lamb of Tartary was the most common name? Perhaps if we were to run tests you used for you last move (09:30, 2 January 2009 moved Short-spiked bamboo to Brachystachyum densiflorum) on the last 50 moves you have made we can see if it would have made difference to the outcome of the move. --PBS (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't determine that Vegetable Lamb of Tartary is the most common name. So I can't say how I determined what I didn't.
- You made an edit to Talk:Vegetable Lamb of Tartary at 10:06 on 1 January 2009 how did you determine that Vegetable Lamb of Tartary was the most common name? Perhaps if we were to run tests you used for you last move (09:30, 2 January 2009 moved Short-spiked bamboo to Brachystachyum densiflorum) on the last 50 moves you have made we can see if it would have made difference to the outcome of the move. --PBS (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure you are far more qualified than I to know if there exist any verifiable reliable sources that list commonly used name for plants as opposed to common names. Sometimes such surveys are carried out by a reliable source in which case deciding on the name of a Wikipedia article is a piece of cake. But usually the best way to see what impact a change in the wording of a guideline has is to see what the outcome would be on the name of some articles with a borderline name (some plant articles that have been through a recent requested move would probably be suitable candidates). A member of the project is much more likely to be able to select such examples than I am. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then what did you mean when you write: "Yes, I created dabs, but this appears to be the most common name,..."?[1] --PBS (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please do feel free to test and contest any, the last 50, or all of my moves. If you disagree with any, post a note on the article talk page, and a note on my talk page indicating you have done so, and a note on WP:Plants, and we will be glad to discuss the moves with you.
- Now, back to my request, please name your sources that you expect us to use while we create Wikipedia articles in the manner you deem edit-warrior fight worthy.
- Name the reliable verifiable sources you require us to use. --KP Botany (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of books mention commonly-used names for plants, none that I know of have the temerity to claim that any one name is most commonly used. Why do you think people here throw up their hands in exasperation on this whole issue? We've read the books, we've looked at the authoritative websites, we've made good-faith attempts to figure out what the most-commonly-used name might be - and for plants it's simply a nice theoretical concept that cannot be determined in practice. Stan (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just an historical note: there were endless discussions and edit wars for years about the "proper" common name for various plants. One example that comes to mind is how "Boxelder" was improper (since the tree "is neither a box nor an elder"), and so the article was for a time "defended" as "Manitoba maple". In this part of Pennsylvania, you can find regions within an hour's drive where Fraxinus pennsylvanica will be referred to using 3 different names. The thing is, none of the common names are any more "proper" than any other commons name (picking one and insisting on it is actually WP:OR, or perhaps against WP:NPOV), but the binomials themselves have no regional bias. There are a number of plants (like Lettuce and Pea) that do have more or less universal common (or "vernacular", our "country" names), but most don't (think of the trouble Barack Obama got into asking for "arugula" rather than "rocket"... which is actually a good example of how arguing over a common name can cause friction in the real world). --SB_Johnny | talk
- After reading more comments here, and re-reading some of the main policies of Wikipedia, it's clear that PBS's suggested change is an impossibility. To rephrase what people here have already said (mostly for my own sake):
- There is no reliable source that states " 'such and such' is the most commonly used name in the english speaking world for Fraxinus pennsylvanica". Using Google searches to show what is most used—even Google Scholar, which is mostly reliable sources—is extreme Original Research. The scientific name is the only one that fulfills Wikipedia's core policies of Verifiability WP:V and No Original Research WP:NOR. First Light (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just an historical note: there were endless discussions and edit wars for years about the "proper" common name for various plants. One example that comes to mind is how "Boxelder" was improper (since the tree "is neither a box nor an elder"), and so the article was for a time "defended" as "Manitoba maple". In this part of Pennsylvania, you can find regions within an hour's drive where Fraxinus pennsylvanica will be referred to using 3 different names. The thing is, none of the common names are any more "proper" than any other commons name (picking one and insisting on it is actually WP:OR, or perhaps against WP:NPOV), but the binomials themselves have no regional bias. There are a number of plants (like Lettuce and Pea) that do have more or less universal common (or "vernacular", our "country" names), but most don't (think of the trouble Barack Obama got into asking for "arugula" rather than "rocket"... which is actually a good example of how arguing over a common name can cause friction in the real world). --SB_Johnny | talk
- The naming of articles are not directly covered by the WP:NOR (as that is a content policy not a page naming policy). It is necessary to have a name for every article. It would have been possible to give every article a sequence number and then link as a redirect all possible names to that sequence number, but that is not the scheme that was decided upon for naming articles. So articles have names and it is agreed project wide that the name an article ought to be the commonly used name for the topic of the article. This is justified by the naming policy in the section "Use the most easily recognized name" "This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --PBS (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I looked, but couldn't find where it says that "The naming of articles are not directly covered by the WP:NOR". Since the only way to ascertain the most recognizable name is to research it, I doubt that there is a policy like that. What, are we supposed to use a Ouija board to find out, or ask our neighbor, or....? First Light (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- See the NOR "No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." (my emphasis).--PBS (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- NOR covers material published by Wikipedia. That would cover articles and article titles. Like everything else, article titles need to be verifiable, using reliable sources. If we are using "the most commonly used name", that has to be verifiable. If we are using the scientific name, that must also be verifiable. And these things need to be verified using reliable sources...it doesn't work if our source is "Uncle Fred", or "some guy on the internet". Or, for that matter, Google. (Google results aren't "reliable sources", after all.) Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- See the section "WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name" in WP:NC. there is no requirement to use scientific names there is a requirement to use "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." not that there is a verifiable reliable source that states what the common name is. -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now, if it had to do with parrots, Uncle Fred might be your man, but surely not plants.... First Light (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To move or not to move that is the question
User:KP Botany here is a list of the last 24 article moves you have made with a quick and dirty Google search on scholar, books and web. I did this so that we would have some data on what would go where if the common name was to be used.
As you will see in most cases the name you choose to move them too appears to be the most common name. But I have not looked carefully at the content returned, and the editors of the pages might consider some other sources not found by a Google search to be important to consider and to discount most/many/some of those returned by a Google search (It would take a much deeper look at at the sources than my cursory scan to make such a decision). For example I have not checked the other names in the articles to see if any of those are the most common name.
This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.
From | To | Scholar | Books | Web | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short-spiked bamboo | Brachystachyum densiflorum | non | 36 | non | 19 | 71 | 467 |
Mockernut Hickory | Carya tomentosa | 393 | 532 | 663 | 670 | 8,420 | 4,750 |
Guggul | Commiphora wightii | 820 | 179 | 667 | 233 | 268,000 | 3,960 |
Sleepy grass | Achnatherum robustum | 81 | 43 | 623 | 19 | 2,880 | 799 |
Carnauba Palm | Copernicia | 143 | 1,100 | 662 | 849 | 3,710 | 65,200 |
Gao (palm) | Ancistrophyllum secundiflorum | ? | ? | ? | 121 | ? | 404 |
Water Hickory | Carya aquatica | 241 | 135 | 658 | 563 | 11,500 | 6,580 |
Oriental Plane | Platanus orientalis | 207 | 1,280 | 764 | 798 | 7,710 | 13,800 |
Manila Palm | Adonidia merrillii | 49 | 18 | 136 | 101 | 13,900 | 3,960 |
Myola Palm | Archontophoenix myolensis | non | 6 | non | 3 | 152 | 542 |
Lister's Palm | Arenga listeri | non | 13 | 1 | 15 | 495 | 251 |
Ipot Palm | Areca ipot | non | non | ?? | 71 | ?? | 529 |
Arrack Tree | Clinostigma savoryana | ?? | 3 | 69 | 14 | 128 | 379 |
Big Mountain Palm | Hedyscepe canterburyana | 1 | 18 | 6 | 138 | 75 | 949 |
Curly Palm | Howea belmoreana | 7 | 48 | 167 | 329 | 1,000 | 1,370 |
Palmiste Poison | Hyophorbe indica | non | non | 62 | 178 | 69 | 1,110 |
Bottle Palm | Hyophorbe lagenicaulis | 41 | 78 | 336 | 46 | 12,300 | 5,470 |
Central Australian Cabbage Palm | Livistona mariae | non | 38 | 5 | 176 | 10 | 1,110 |
Millstream Palm | Livistona alfredii | 1 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 97 | 881 |
Black Palm | Normanbya normanbyi | 358? | 45 | 717? | 53 | 101,000? | 2,330 |
Thief Palm | Phoenicophorium borsigianum | non | 34 | 56 | 44 | 1,530? | 540 |
Palma De Pasobaya | Parajubaea torallyi | non | 23 | non | 41 | 5 | 2,130 |
Sunkha Palm | Parajubaea sunkha | non | 10 | non | 19 | 49 | 439 |
The common name probably the same as the scientific name. | |||||||
The common name is probably not the scientific name. | |||||||
The common name would definitely need more research to determine what it is. |
If this guideline did not exist and the general naming conventions were used, as you can see 17 out of 25 would probably move with 4 possible no moves and 3 difficult to determine with a simple Google search ((for example "Black Palm" seems to be the common name for more than one plant (and there is a lot of noise returned by Google) so it would almost certainly need to be under another name eg Normanbya normanbyi). It seems to me that if you were to accept the suggestion I made above about using the "General guidance" above and in the "Specific guidance" add in some other points about precision and the stuff on regional problems using the MOS section "Opportunities for commonality" in WP:ENGVAR as a template. Then the guideline would be compatible with the policy and in practice -- if the above table is an indicator most plant articles would be under their scientific names. --PBS (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Guggul is a plant secondary metabolite and has a long history in Indian medicine. I write articles about traditional healing herbs from Siberia, Central and South Asia, and this redirect was probably a prelude to writing an article about guggulipids research.
"Sleepy grass" is a common name for multiple grasses. This page would eventually be a redirect. When you checked, did do a google search for "sleepy grass" and "Achnatherum robustum"? Doing that I only come up with 522 articles on google. There's actually a Stipa with the common name "sleepy grass" that is more probably the "sleepy grass" coming up in your searches if you didn't limit them to potential references that identify this grass by its common and scientific names.
I think "water hickory" is a pretty solid common name for Carya aquatica. However, I've never researched this tree for its common name.
"Manila palm" would have to also be done in a search with its various scientific names to show that these are references to one specific plant, however, in spite of its rather generic sounding vernacular name, I think this is probably used for just that, one specific plant.
"Gao," like many common names in English is the name of a important city, an ancient city in Mali, from which Westerners may first encountered products made from the palm tree, meaning the name is already, more than likely, taken. No, readers will not be able to type in this common name, and head directly to the article on the plant. This is one fine plant, though, and certainly deserves a bigger article. Still, readers aren't typing in "Gao (palm)."
"Bottle palm" may be limited to one species.
"Black plam" probably refers to a couple of hundred species.
So, ultimately what you are saying is that you want a policy that is impossible for plant editors to implement, that will wind up with a confusing policy that nobody understands, and your support for it is a bunch of google searches? The goal is that policy here be the same as the policy elsewhere? No matter that plants and animals are not the same and the natural world has never bended to the demands of small classification schemes?
I guess that's why you want the plant sentence removed from the common names general policy so badly. Which, again, means the removal is not insubstantial, if that is your primary goal of the removal.
Please do provide the reliable verifiable references you know of for the world-wide accepted common names in English of plants, by the way.
By the way, the moves I do to scientific names are generally related to plans to work on an article. For example, right now, a genus I am researching, an important and major genus, Coreopsis is under the common name "Tickseed," which is actually a common name for a number of plants. My botanical reference on the plant, however, lists "tickweed" as the common name, not "tickseed."
--KP Botany (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I seem to remember hearing of Beaucarnea recurvata called "bottle palm"--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Bottle palm is generic enough that I probably should have thought one more second about. --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Setting aside the fact that Google hits are not a reliable source for "usage in English", when you have a margin of 11,500 to 6,500 I really don't think anyone can reasonably conclude that this constitutes a "difference" is usage. No idea what the actual margin of error is on Google results, but I can't imagine that it's small enough to be reasonably confident that there's a difference. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- An issue with google, though, is that it gets top heavy with names in modern advertising campaigns. I never used it even as a starting point for plant common names, because of this. It could mean I was promoting some other garden's plant. --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing about Google hits for common names - if you look through the actual hits, you will find things like the ingredient list for smoked salad dressing (liquid smoke (water, hickory smoke)), references to the wood (The family room has vaulted ceilings, white water hickory hardwood floors), which needs to be considered separately from mention of the species, and street names (314 water hickory way), which also don't refer to the species. In addition, of course, searching for "carya aquatica" might miss cases where more than one Carya species are mentioned and Carya aquatica isn't the first species mentioned. Then you are likely to end up with mention of C. aquatica...something that would be missed by simply searching for "Cary aquatica". Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I note that Google finds 520 unique instances of "water hickory" and 521 unique instances of "Carya aquatica".[2][3]
- "The common name would definitely need more research to determine what it is" provides no useful guidance and is the result more than 10% of the time in the table. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the fact is, these google searches weren't done to find the common name, they were just done to see if the common name exists on the web. They don't mean that even one of these sources is a reliable, verifiable reference for the common name. Running the searches with both the common name and scientific name in quotes, then screening for the reliable might help there. Still, PBS, we're waiting for what sources you consider reliable and verifiable references for the most common name in English. You haven't provided even one. And you're using google for some reason. --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
PS to PBS
Thanks for taking the time to put together this chart for discussion. I appreciate that you made the effort. --KP Botany (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
When the most common name is the wrong name
Oh, the most common name for the fern Cyathea leucofolis is the incorrect scientific name Alsophila leucolepis. This is also a problem with some of the Scrophs. One of those things that those unwanted experienced editors keep coming across while gathering experience in the field: reality.
So, one more thing there will be exceptions to, or "NO exceptions!" common name always? Will the policy require the most common name in some cases, in all cases, when there are no problems. This issue arises more often with plant names than with animals names (oh, the differences, they are not the sam at all), because of gardeners. There are billions of gardeners, but not such a large number in animal husbandary. So, in botany, you wind up with plants being called by no longer valid (ie, unofficial) scientific names in horticulture, while they have their official scientific names being used in the botanical literature.
So, there, we have it, we're now designing a policy whereby we will call articles by their wrong names.
Should we start moving plants that have more common invalid scientific names (that are used) as their common names to their invalid scientific names as article titles to comply with the "use the most common name in English" rulers?
This is one of the oh-so-many issues considered by botanists, naturalists, and gardeners. The folks with the knowledge to write about the organisms. --KP Botany (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, that's a good point. The Spring Mountains checklist I'm working through uses up-to-date names, and it's thrown me several times, when the obsolete name is far more common. For instance Senecio multilobatus gets 6,900 ghits vs Packera multilobata (970) or "lobeleaf groundsel" (1400), with other names, like "basin butterweed", getting fewer. All my print sources still say Senecio too. Anybody want to insist that WP use superseded scientific names? Stan (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Similarly, Pilosella v. Hieracium, Aster v. Symphyotrichum, Argentina and Fragaria vs. Potentilla, Eupatorium vs. Eutrochium to name a few examples involving widespread plants. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, it's one of the things you come across all of the time when you actually work with plants. These names hang on for a long time with plants that are popular in the horticulture trade. This made frustrating doing the names for horticulture signs when my training had all been in botany. There is a lot here that isn't said about the difficulties of working with "common names" for plants over scientific names. However, there has been no room in this conversation for raising these issues against an onslaught of advocates against scientific names who aren't now and never were listening to anyone with any level of expertise in the subject. The real experts, of course, are the folks who write all the botany and horticulture texts who have explained for hundreds of years just why plant books use scientific names over common names. No, it's not a sinister plot against the layman. It's a matter of necessity because of the nature of plants, which are not just like animals. --KP Botany (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Similarly, Pilosella v. Hieracium, Aster v. Symphyotrichum, Argentina and Fragaria vs. Potentilla, Eupatorium vs. Eutrochium to name a few examples involving widespread plants. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The edit warring has been taking elsewhere
They're now working on the main naming policy page, trying to get the plants naming convention into that, but with the same methods, changing the policy page without discussion, using wrong information, and reverting each other.[4] I figure they'll be there for a month and a hundred or so edits before moving on to animals or insects.
Anyway, writing plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is now protected as well. --Una Smith (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested substantive changes affecting plants being made by User:PBS at common names
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Paphiopedilum_hookerii.jpg/177px-Paphiopedilum_hookerii.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Staphylococcus_aureus_01.jpg/179px-Staphylococcus_aureus_01.jpg)
User:Philip Baird Shearer has suggested, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) that editors accept what he calls the User:Hesperian version of the policy page over the version now protected.[5] Philip Baird Shearer states that "there are no substantive changes to general guidance of the page up until the version by Hesperian," but neglects to point out that User:PBS edited this sentence out:[6]
"Plants, following disputes over the proper "common" names to use, are now automatically placed at their botanic name: Verbascum thapsus (Not Great Mullein), Ailanthus altissima (not Tree-of-heaven). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)"
Maybe this sentence shouldn't be in that guideline. Or maybe it should be.
But I do think that if this user is willing to edit war over it, that the removal of the sentence should be considered a substantive change that others may want to discuss fully first, before agreeing to.
So, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) --KP Botany (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)