Jump to content

Talk:Maize

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.14.212.141 (talk) at 23:40, 24 June 2015 (→‎Requested move 22 June 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Food portal selected


Maize vs. corn: Summary of arguments

Here are the leading arguments on both sides of the maize-vs.-corn debate. In the future, instead of saying, "This has all been argued before," you can provide a link to this section so that new disputants can quickly get caught up. Contra the usual talk-page policy, I give you my permission to edit this section to make the arguments clearer or more persuasive, or to add arguments that I omitted. Please do not edit to weaken arguments, please do not add personal invective, and please do not sign your contributions. This section is for a clear and concise statement of the reasons for each position, not for back-and-forth arguing or conversation. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-maize

"Maize" is precise, "corn" is ambiguous

"Maize" is the vernacular word that means the species of plant that this article is about, in all regional varieties of English. "Corn" has a confusing variety of meanings that vary by locality. In particular, one common meaning of "corn" is whichever cereal crop is the staple in a given locality.

Objection "Maize" doesn't mean anything in Standard American English. Most educated people are well-read enough to understand it, just like most well-read people know what hola and bonjour mean, but you'll never hear someone using it naturally, and plenty of less-educated people simply won't understand it.

3a. collective singular. The seed of the cereal or farinaceous plants as a produce of agriculture; grain.

As a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc., and, with qualification (as black corn, pulse corn), is extended to leguminous plants, as pease, beans, etc., cultivated for food. Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England ‘corn’ is = wheat, in North Britain and Ireland = oats; in the U.S. the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize (see 5).

5. orig. U.S. Maize or Indian corn, Zea Mays; applied both to the separated seeds, and to the growing or reaped crop. corn on the cob: green maize suitable for boiling or roasting; maize cooked and eaten on the cob.

Wheat, rye, barley, oats, etc. are in U.S. called collectively grain. Corn- in combinations, in American usage, must therefore be understood to mean maize, whereas in English usage it may mean any cereal; e.g. a cornfield in England is a field of any cereal that is grown in the country, in U.S. one of maize.

—Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "corn"

Wikipedia's guidelines for naming articles about plants favor using the scientific term unless the plant has a significant agricultural (or other) use, as this plant does; then, discuss towards consensus, favoring both precision and a vernacular term.

Pro-corn

Corn follows Wikipedia guidelines for naming an Article

WP:Title lists these five traits for an article title.

  • Recognizability: "Maize" is not recognized by many non-expert English-speakers outside the UK. "Corn" is recognized by almost 400,000,000 English-speakers. See below.
  • Naturalness: See below. Corn is more searched for on Google. It is the term that is most likely to be used in a search on the subject.
  • Precision: "Maize" and "Corn" are both precise and refer to one thing where each term is used.
  • Conciseness: Not at issue here.
  • Consistency: Other similar articles include sweet corn, popcorn, corn on the cob, corn flakes, baby corn, dent corn, flour corn, flint corn, pod corn, cornmeal, corn oil, corncob, etc. Corn is the most consistent term.


Shicoco (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corn is overwhelmingly more used than maize

English-Speaking Countries That Use Maize:

United Kingdom (population: 64,800,000)


English-Speaking Countries that Use Corn:

United States (population: 321,255,000)
Canada (population: 35,749,600)
Australia (population: 23,886,200)
New Zealand (population: 4,590,650)

English-Speaking Countries that Use Another Term:

South Africa (population: 54,002,000)


Population that Uses Maize:

64,800,000


Population that Uses Corn:

385,481,450


Population that Uses Another Term:

54,002,000


Additionally, corn was discovered in North America, where the term used is "corn". North America is the largest producer of corn and the largest trader of it. Shicoco (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corn is name used by the CME

Corn, not Maize, is traded.

Objection CME Group Inc. (Chicago Mercantile Exchange & Chicago Board of Trade) is a US 'derivatives marketplace' based in Chicago and in New York, thus one would expect CME Group to adopt US English language and usage. There are, of course, many similar markets outside the USA.

Reply to Objection I agree with the objection. I would note that the USA is the largest producer and trader of this crop. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/trade.aspx, however, I find this section of pro-corn to be irrelevant, and I am pro-corn. Shicoco (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Maize" is a formal, obscure word

Many more people know the word "corn" than know "maize". "Maize" is a somewhat formal, technical word, not as widely known. WP:COMMONNAME says that article titles should not be "pedantic".

Objection WP:Article titles, of which WP:COMMONNAME currently forms a subsection, states that one of the five characteristics of a good Wikipedia article is 'Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects'. Unlike the term 'maize', the term 'corn' is ambiguous, therefore 'maize' is to be preferred.

Reply to Objection "Maize" is not precise, because it is rather meaningless where "corn" is used. "Corn" is extremely precise; where the term is predominately used, it is universally understood to mean only the cereal crop in question. Even in the UK, according to the article, "corn" is sometimes understood as the crop in question. Shicoco (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searchability

Google searches show the word "corn" used much more than "maize". Consequently, readers are much more likely to look up "corn" than "maize". Titling the article "Corn" would make the information easy for most people to find. Titling it "Maize" makes it hard for people to find.

Objection On 1-Oct-2012, this article came up as the #1 result on Google and Bing, and the #2 result on Yahoo!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn redirects to Maize. Calling this article "Maize" is not presenting an obstacle for people looking up "corn", even for people who don't know the word "maize".

Reply to Objection The same could be said for people who search "maize" and end up with an article entitled "corn". Shicoco (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most prevalent usage in native English should be chosen

  • "Maize" is seemingly only used in the UK.
  • The U.S. has more native English speakers than any other country.
  • The U.S. produces a massive amount of this plant, more than any other country in the word. Within the U.S. itself, the U.S.A. produces more metric tons of "corn" than any other crop by far. Thus it's a relatively common subject-of-reference in U.S.-English conversation.
Among the top 9 countries in terms of "corn" production, the U.S. is the only one with English as the de-facto/primary language; so, the usage of the word "corn" over "maize" is not only dominated by the sheer numbers of U.S. English speakers, but also because people in the U.S. are, with good reason, more likely to reference this plant in a variety of conversations (e.g. "My first-ever job as a kid was detasseling corn" or "I'm sure the corn farmers will be happy with this rain") than people in other countries on average (as corn in other countries, and especially in English-speaking countries, is not nearly as ubiquitous).
  • Maize is an obscure word in the U.S.

Thus, titling this Wikipedia page "maize" seems a bit like titling a Wikipedia page "camellia" and then redirecting "tea" to that page. Or more precisely, it would be like if the Chinese grew a plant they called "foo", and (1) the most "foo" in the world was grown in China, and (2) China produced more foo than anything else they grew by far. However, the Standard Chinese Language wiki page for "foo" redirected to "paz", a word that most Chinese people were unfamiliar with. And the argument was that people in northern Singapore called spinach "foo" and people in the Borneo region of Malaysia called palm oil "foo" (not as the actual plant name, but in reference to the idea that they made a lot of it).

Objection The English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) does not favor any national variety of English; see WP:ENGVAR. The English language today is the world's leading lingua franca. English is a second language for the great majority of its speakers, most of whom do not live in the U.S. See English language#Geographical distribution and List of countries by English-speaking population.

Reply to Objection From WP:ENGVAR: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)." "Corn" is used in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and is understood in the UK. "Maize" is only widely understood in the UK, and is not used elsewhere. Shicoco (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with other usage

No one says "popmaize", "maize on the cob", etc. The WP:FLORA guidelines say to favor consistency.

Objection These examples actually illustrate the highly varied, ambiguous meaning of "corn". The definition below explains why no one says "peppermaize" or "barleymaize".

2. spec. The small hard seed or fruit of a plant; now only with contextual specification or defining attribute, as in barley-corn, pepper-corn, etc.

a. A seed of one of the cereals, as of wheat, rye, barley, etc.

—Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "corn"

It isn't unusual for regional terminology to vary according to context. For example, small sweets are called "candy" in the U.S. and "lollies" in Australia, but Americans and Australians alike enjoy "lollipops" and "candy canes"; no one calls them "candy pops" or "lollicanes".

Reply to objection - yet the term lollies redirects to Confectionery while Candy has a dedicated wikipedia page.

2nd Reply to Objection Where used for "maize", "corn" means only the crop in question. It is only when a qualifier is added that it means something else. Using "maize" produces inconsistency, because "corn" with a qualifier has to be used so much. Shicoco (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corn in non-U.S. usage

Some readers have offered anecdotes of personal experience, observing that if you asked for "maize" in a restaurant in England, the waiter would look at you funny. A reader offered a recipe from a British web site (no longer available) that listed "corn from 1 corn-cob, removed and toasted" among its ingredients. These show that in the present day, even outside the U.S., the specific sense of "corn" to mean maize has displaced its older, generic sense of any cereal grain or a local staple grain.

Objection These examples actually illustrate the complexity and ambiguity of the word "corn". The word "cob" provides context that shifts the meaning of "corn" to maize, even in England. People do refer to maize as "corn" outside the U.S., but usually with some sort of qualifier, such as "sweet corn".

Reply to Objection This is only true in the United Kingdom. Everywhere else, "corn" by itself means "maize". Shicoco (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other encyclopedias say "corn"

Britannica's article about this plant is titled "corn", therefore "corn" means the same thing in British usage.

Objection Despite its name, Britannica is an American publication, following U.S. usage.

Biblical mention of "corn"

Just curious about the America's being mentioned as first source of corn/maize. In the Bible in the old testament corn is mention many times and I cannot believe Europe was not exposed to corn from the Mideast. I ref KJV Deu 11:14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy CORN, and thy wine, and thine oil. Deu 33:28 Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of CORN and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew.

Perhaps my confusion is that corn in the ancient Mideast is not anything close to corn in the Americas? DM Hendrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMhendrix (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the confusion caused by the American use of the word "corn" for "maize" here above in section "Maize vs. corn". - Takeaway (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Bible reference, which version of the Bible are you referring to? Some older versions do use corn. This is actually very related to why we prefer use maize as the common name in agronomic circles because corn can be used to refer to grains in general. This is one of those cases, but it could be worth including as a one-liner somewhere with a Bible commentary as a source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the Hebrew word dagan occurs 39 times in the Old Testament.[1] The word is almost always translated as grain in modern translations[2], though the Complete Jewish Bible translation uses wheat for Deut. 11:14. Rmhermen (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal flowers

User Anthony Appleyard has written the section below for addition to the article. The content is not discussed in encyclopedic format but rather an internal wikisource reference is used (discouraged) and images are shown without using WP:CITE templates for exact references. I feel this is a lazy edit without encyclopedic context why it should be included; WP:NOTIMAGE and WP:NOTJOURNAL apply. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in maize, inflorescences are found containing both male and female flowers, or hermaphrodite flowers. Article about hermaphrodite and feminized maize tasselsHermaphrodite maize inflorescence: cob on the end of a long tassel[3][4]Hermaphrodite maize tassels

in my view the source is fine (wikisources are just public domain articles) and the formatting in this dif is fine too. 24.90.102.192 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I had hermaphrodite inflorescences on maize on an allotment that I formerly had in England: usually (1) a lateral cob with a tassel growing out of its end, and (2) an apical tassel with a few seeds round its base, (3) a cob with stamens among the seeds.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I interpret this information as esoteric and WP:NOTJOURNAL, I suggest that the images be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons per usual and you apply the appropriate WP:CITE template for the Wikisource reference (which I still feel is not a WP:SECONDARY source showing the origin of information). Currently, none of the references you added is cited properly for the References list. --Zefr (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is plenty fine as it is only being hosted on a wiki. The source itself is Popular Science, though it's a very old publication. Seed development on tassels is a relatively common sight for anyone who grows corn, so I would call it far from esoteric. Extension sources document this pretty well, so that should establish weight for inclusion: [5]. I do agree though that pictures should not be cited as sources as that is technically original research. We maybe don't need a whole section to this, but it's worthwhile to mention that yup, tassels to weird things sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shicoco argument summary 22 June 2015

Before I updated some the arguments, "maize" had only one argument for it, with a very strong objection, and "corn" had several arguments for it, with several objections, some weak, some strong. I understand both sides, but it seems everything boils down to this: "Maize" is used only in the UK. "Corn" is used pretty much everywhere else, and is understood and used to some extent in the UK. "Maize" is not widely understood and is not used outside the UK.

To summarize, "maize", while more proper, is limited in usage and understanding to the United Kingdom. "Corn" is almost universally recognized (though this is not always the case). Shicoco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever read a more biased and inaccurate summary of a long-running argument! fortunately the matter has been settled for years, and the community has little appetite for re-opening it. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am summarizing what is below. Please update below if you think necessary. According to below, the support is overwhelmingly for "Corn", but the request to move was left sitting for years. Shicoco (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2015

Maize → Corn – Much more support for this move than for staying. Corn is the predominant term. Please see top for current discussion. Shicoco (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not a consensus, then please add more support for "maize". Shicoco (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed repeatedly and the current name consistently upheld. The onus is on you to show what new arguments have appeared which would change the previous consensus. (The statement that "corn ... has a precise and single meaning, except in the UK" is simply false; you only have to look at the discussion above about the use of "corn" in translations of the Bible to see the potential for confusion.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the KJ translation of the Bible, a British translation that is hundreds of years old. Also, I understand what you are saying, but it appears as though there is a big consensus for "Corn", but little has been done about it. Please see the arguments above. Shicoco (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to my fellow editors for what I had above previously. It was misleading, and I did not mean it to be that way. I have changed the reason for the move. I understand that this move is contested, and has been for years, but the arguments weigh heavily in favor of the change, even before I updated them. Please, if you disagree, edit the argument section above. I want to be unbiased and fair to both sides. Shicoco (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look Shicoco, you have made it very clear that you feel strongly about this. But the issue has been discussed many, many MANY times on this talk page, even since the discussions you participated in way back in 2011. Please check the archives. There has been, and is, no consensus to change the name. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use the argument section above to determine the state of the consensus. If there is an argument in the archives you wish to bring up, please link to it above. Shicoco (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has been discussed again and again with the same conclusion. There's no point in yet another discussion unless you have something new to put forward. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Been discussed ad nauseam on this page already with no consensus ever coming up for corn as the primary common name to go by. Those supporting the use of corn here typically make arguments using original research or cite personal preference. Sources listed on this talk page show maize as the least ambiguous term and the preferred universal common name for English-speaking scientific circles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is entirely the case. While maize is precise, users above make the point that it is not widely understood outside of scientific circles and the UK. On the other hand, they make the point that in other countries (US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand), corn is also precise, because it refers only to the crop, and nothing else, without modifiers (e.g. sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc.). In these countries, "corn", by itself, means only the crop/food. Shicoco (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maybe we should use Wikipedia guideline-making processes to propose a rule that no one can move this article to a different name besides the international, distinctive name for the grain until they have made several sourced substantive changes to the article text in the direction of improving the article to good article status. I am a citizen of the United States and a native speaker of General American English and have several relatives who grow the grain that is the topic of this article (as I have disclosed here before). I (and, more importantly, they, my farmer relatives) have no trouble with the title of the Wikipedia article using the most distinctive and specific term for the grain they grow. Everybody on the planet who actually knows something important about the grain knows that it is called "maize" in many places, and "corn" (an older English word that once had the same meaning as the current word "grain") in some other places. Big deal. Look up some useful sources for improving the article and leave off with this obsession. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite the fact that "corn" has an older, non-maize meaning, and that people refer to it as corn, many of the arguments made in support are superfluous: there's the "Google" argument, there's the geographic argument (it's mainly the United States and others that call it this) - except that it's not encyclopedic, there's the majority of people do it argument: I think the total numbers cited are 2:1 in favor of "corn", but so what? Most of all, there's no effort to build consensus; this is an extensive set of arguments that seem written to browbeat others into submission. Lastly, I'm finding this discussion to change the page title to be disruptive - even though consensus can change, I'm not seeing that and haven't seen it. It seems instead to be one person's mission to make this change, never mind that it's been 4 years and consensus isn't changing. If anything, this repeated argument is preventing time and energy that could be devoted to making the article better is spent doing this - preventing a perfectly good article name from being changed. Hires an editor (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES – Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLEVAR is clear on this matter. It says that "all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles". There is no justification for changing the English variety, and doing so would be contrary to Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLEVAR, and also at WP:TITLECHANGES. In addition, "corn" is ambiguous, and refers to all grains, such as barley, wheat, rye, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"American English spelling should not be respelled", but this is another case where an editor did just that (earliest form). Fait accompli, anyone? --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dense. What happened in the year 2001, when this encylopaedia was barely on its feet, and had no policy on the matter of English varieties, is irrelevant today. The present title has been stable for more than a decade. It has been upheld in numerous RMs. As WP:TITLEVAR says, we should not respell titles simply to change the variety, which is what you propose. There is no justification to change from the stable variety, and doing so would be directly contrary to the policy on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the change in question is too old to be considered is debatable, but it's irrelevant either way. WP:RETAIN documents our practice of retaining an English variety in the absence of a good reason not to. Far too often, that last part is misconstrued as "no matter what". We can and do switch between English varieties when it makes more sense to assign a particular one to an article's subject. This is such an instance, for the reasons discussed. I have no idea why some editors' preference for calling this grain "corn" (which, as an American, I do in my day-to-day life) is so strong as to render the use of "maize" offensive to their sensibilities. —David Levy 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the October 18, 2001 edit is not the earliest edit of this page - merely the earliest preserved edit. There were at least two older edits, probably more that the early software did not retain. Rmhermen (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Corn" is the term used by more people, used by more varieties of English, and used overwhelmingly in North American English - that being where corn is from. Sure, nowadays corn is an important worldwide crop, but the same people supporting "maize" here insist on "football" for the international flopping exhibition - it's a situational argument, not a genuinely felt one. I'm mindful of the WP:RETAIN argument, but this looks like one of those cases where move requests will recur until the article is in the right place, and the excellent principle behind retaining stable titles has to take a back seat to that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Because "this looks like one of those cases where move requests will recur until the article is in the right place" is not a valid reason to move the article, and the article can currently be considered to be in the "right place" until consensus is reached.65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit my comments, as you did here; that is disruptive. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are hardly one to talk, bringing up the game hen. Take your trolling elsewhere.65.209.62.115 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and since nothing seems to have changed in the past year and a half, I will copy my rationale from the previous discussion: "Corn" is a common name for maize but is an ambiguous term. "Maize" is both unambiguous (or nearly so) and is commonly used in many parts of the world. "Maize" is usually considered to be a more precise, dare I say encyclopedic, term for corn. Application of WP:COMMONNAME takes this into account. For example, Wikipedia uses "flatulence" instead of "farting" and "vomiting" instead of "throwing up" despite the common usage of the latter terms. To this I will add that User:RGloucester's arguments about WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES should also be kept in mind. —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article originally used American English. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be considering the usage of the term "corned" in discussing the predominant usage of "corn". Should we be considering the Cornish Game Hen? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference to Cornwall. Dobn't be dense, you look like a fool.65.209.62.115 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that "Cornish" is a verb? Because it's not corned, it's the verb "corn" from which corned is the past tense. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the primary topic of the word "corn" is wheat. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can expect to see "Corn" at RfD, then. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither RETAIN nor TIES are policy, neither apply to article titles, and even if they did, they would not apply in this case (the crop in question does not have "strong ties" to any nation, and "RETAIN" does not support "retaining" a variety that has not been present for more than a decade). The relevant policies are WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES, as mentioned above. TITLEVAR tells us not to change from one variety to the other, and TITLECHANGES tells us to consider title stability as the most important factor. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, WP:RETAIN applies to an article in its entirety (including the title); renaming is mentioned explicitly. This matters very little, of course, as the gist is the same.
Also, I don't know about "more than a decade", but the application of WP:RETAIN has led to reversions of moves that occurred several years earlier. (Off the top of my head, I recall an instance in which the duration exceeded seven years. Red Slash could tell you more about it, in fact.) But as noted above, this isn't that type of situation, as there were valid reasons for the switch from "corn" to "maize". The intent is to prevent moves based on personal preferences (which, interestingly, appears to describe the one requested currently). —David Levy 23:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. RETAIN is a mere prose guideline. TITLEVAR is an article titles policy, and clearly trumps RETAIN with regard to article titles. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting the idea that "RETAIN is a mere prose guideline". But again, it doesn't matter. All of the advice in question is based on the same principle (hence the policy's link to the guideline for further information), so there's no need to consider whether one "trumps" the other. —David Levy 00:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS is a guideline. None of it is policy. WP:AT is policy. WP:TITLEVAR trumps any MoS guidance for article titles. It is very simple. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to WP:RETAIN's scope, not to its standing in the event of a conflict between its advice and that of a policy (a discrepancy that shouldn't exist). —David Levy 02:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per RGloucester. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why was this ever moved in the first place, violating ENGVAR, TITLEVAR, etc? Of course it should be moved back to the first non-stub version! If not, can we just willy-nilly move articles to another form of english whenever we see fit, as was done in this case? It should be moved back, there are 320,000,000 people that call it corn, vs 60,000,000 in the UK that call it by this name, and furthermore, maize is also commonly known as corn in the uk, but corn is rarely if ever known as maize in the USA. ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maize&oldid=668541514"