Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)

Jazz example in lede

Could we find a more appropriate example for the "simplest name" concept, than Jazz? There also exists Jazz music and Jazz (disambiguation). A better example would be a page name that has no corresponding disambiguation page. Also, this example is irrelevant to the concept of this page, which is the most commonly used name. Perhaps "jazz music" is more commonly used than "jazz" (when used in the sense of the music genre)! --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote problem

This sentence in the new footnote is flat-out false:

"In some scientific disciplines, however, a common name is any name that is not a scientific name"

The "common name" of a plant, for example, is a name that is commonly used, or has been commonly used, for the plant, somewhere. And a common name could very well be a scientific name, such as Aloe vera.

Furthermore, the distinction between the botanical "common name" and the Wikipedia "common name" is not nearly as significant as this footnote implies. A botanical "common name" cannot be a "common name" unless it is, or was, commonly used to refer to the plant in question, somewhere at some time. There is a reason that, for example, unapbs is not listed by anyone for being a common name for anything: because that term, which I just made up, has never been commonly used by anyone to refer to anything. What distinguishes a common name from any other name (whether made up or Latin) is common use. Only when the scientific name is also a "common name" (as in Aloe vera), or when there are no known "common names", should it even be considered as a candidate for most commonly used name for the topic in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the above, I'm inclined to remove that misleading footnote entirely, but will wait to hear from others first. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using a specific use of common as we use it in Wikipedia, but it is quite possible for a scientist to attach the label "common name" to something meaning a name used by those outside the scientific community (the patricians and the plebs). If one thinks that there is a difference between the "common name" and the "scientific name" then one would object to this guideline because it would seem to rule out the use of the scientific name. This footnote stops that misunderstanding, because it was never the intention to convey a meaning that excluded scientific names in this guideline.

Incidentally it is also an advantage to make it clear that we mean ("in general use; of frequent occurrence; usual, ordinary, prevalent, frequent.") because the OED lists just under 20 other meanings for the adjective common and it should stop other potential misunderstandings. --PBS (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not using the specific use of common as we use it in Wikipedia. I'm saying that the use within the scientific community is not really all that different. The statement I quoted above is false, because Aloe vera is a scientific name and a common name within botany [1]. The statement that in some scientific disciplines "any name that is not a scientific name" is simply not true.

Yes, because some botanical names once were in common usage (but are no longer in common usage), or are in common usage only in some locales, there is a slight difference in meaning, but it's not nearly as significant as this footnote implies (heck, states explicitly). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya gotta love that circular argument. Yes, botanists will readily concede that the most commonly used name for Aloe vera is "Aloe vera". But no, botanists still don't consider "Aloe vera" a common name for that species. Because to a botanists, a common name is a non-scientific name, and has nothing to do with frequency of usage. What you've done here, is start from the premise that any name commonly used in botany is what a botanist calls a common name, and gone on to prove that any name commonly used in botany is what a botanist calls a common name. This is kindergarten stuff, B2c.

A bunch of scientists have been telling you how scientists use the term common name for months now. Repeatedly. Get it into your head: when scientists use the term "common name", we mean any name for a taxon that is not a validly published scientific name. We scientists don't care that this doesn't gel with you. We scientists don't care that that usage conflicts with how Wikipedia uses the term. We scientists don't care that our definition doesn't help you peddle your point of view. We scientists determine how we scientists use the term, not you. Can you please stop trying to unilaterally redefine a well-defined term. It doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and it never will. Hesperian 03:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Hesperian, your personal opinion carries no weight here. I have reliable sources, including the NIH, that refer to Aloe vera, clearly a scientific name, as a common name in the botanical sense. Therefore your assertion that "a common name is a non-scientific name, and has nothing to do with frequency of usage" is false for that reason alone. See also American Herbal Products Association's Botanical Safety Handbook. If a name is not commonly used to refer to a plant, and has never been commonly used, then it won't be a common name. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WHY are we still going over the same ground we did over a month ago? Common name/vernacular name does not mean that it is used more often than the binomial name. Common name is meaningless lets drop it, anyone and their grandmother can give a plant a common name, its usage is dependent on how well it is propagated to others. Hardyplants (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Hesperian, your personal opinion, as a qualified and excellent plant editor, and a volunteer at Wikipedia who has donated a lot of time to creating excellent articles about a very unique flora, is highly valued.

Born2cycle, scientific names are written in italics. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

B2c, you're not thinking. The footnote you've singled out is a statement of fact: nothing more, nothing less. Hesperian is simply telling you the way it is -- not his personal opinion. --Jwinius (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not thinking? Well, I cannot rule out the possibility that I'm missing something. But, if I am, then you or someone should be able to explain how to reconcile the following two statements.

• A common name is any name that is not a scientific name (alleged to be fact, but for which I've seen no reliable sources cited).
• Aloe vera is a common name that is also a scientific name (reliable source 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

And here's a very applicable quote from a 6th reliable source, "one of the few plants known all over the world by its true scientific name" [6]. One of the few known by its scientific name, indeed. But I'm the one not thinking? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Leaving aside one of these, which is a grossly unreliable source; and bearing in mind that most of the others are sources for herbal medicine, and therefore have no bearing on how biologists use the term common name; there is still one solid counter-example there. I thank you for a useful contribution to this debate.

  I maintain that biologists use the term common name much as I have reported; and that biologists never use it the way you want to define it; but I grant that I have not expressed this usage in such as way as to capture every nuance. After all, the biology community is made up of a great many people, and so it cannot be expected to be perfectly homogeneous all the time.

  I don't yet have a clear response but I think when I do it may hinge on the fact that some people use the name "aloe vera" without actually knowing that Aloe vera is the plant's scientific name, and certainly without intending to refer to the plant by its scientific name. In such cases, one could argue that the name is not being used as a scientific name, regardless of the fact that it is one. In such circumstances, some biologists might consider "aloe vera" a common name; some might not; but the majority would not trouble to think about it. After all, they know what a common name is, even if they are unable to frame a definition that encompasses such pathological cases.

  Now it's your turn. How do you propose to reconcile that definition that you claim biologists use, with my rodents example at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3#Hesperian paragraph. Hesperian 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, your rodents example is about an isolated concerted effort to influence what the common names should be in one particular case. When I was young, the terms Negro and Oriental were commonly used. Concerted efforts were made since then to change those names to African American and Asian, respectively. In those cases, the common names did not change until the new names were commonly used (in those cases the concerted efforts were successful). In this case your reference is talking about proposed common names. They are proposed. They are not actual common names unless they actually become commonly used. What ultimately determines whether a given name is a common name to refer to something in particular is whether that name is (or was at some time) commonly used to refer to that something. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A legitimate interpretation of that example, I suppose, but still, I contend, wrong. Your last sentence is merely a repetition of your position on the disputed point. Hesperian 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that last sentence. I guess I feel compelled to repeat it as long as it is challenged without basis. And by "without basis" I mean no citations/references that contradict it. Even if your rodent example managed to do that (which I dispute), it would at best be a single isolated usage where "common name" is used to refer to a name of a plant that is not the scientific Latin name, but also is not, and has never been, commonly used in any context. If my assertion -- what ultimately determines whether a given name is a common name to refer to something in particular is whether that name is commonly used to refer to that something (oops, I did it again) -- were not true, then I would think a whole boatload of botanists would be plummeting me with counter-examples. But you're not, and that's very revealing in and of itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I show you a common name that isn't commonly used, you'll just reply that it isn't a common name because it isn't commonly used. I'm not interested in going around that merry-go-round again. So tell me, what would constitute a counter-example? Hesperian 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun, the name actually used, often, on lists of ingredients for cosmetics, ointments, and bathing liquids, that contain the sap from Aloe vera, is not Aloe vera, but Aloe barbadensis. Now, you do get 10 million g-hits, the favorite reference of those spouting for reliable and verifiable, while only 700,000 or so for Aloe barbadensis, but I think the most common listing as an ingredient on cosmetics and ointments might be for Aloe barbadensis. I'm highly allergic to the stuff, and it's in almost everything, so I consider myself a reliable source on its labeling, and this might be just as fun as everything else wasting our time: original research into the most common ingredient common name for A. vera. And, if it leads to be A. barbadensis in English, the article can be split to A. vera for its scientific name and non-cosmetic uses, and A. barbadensis for its cosmetic uses. There are too many ways "most commonly used name" can be fun. --KP Botany (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument is not unique to plants. To the extent that it's valid at all, it argues against trying to determine and use the "most commonly used name" for the title of any article in Wikipedia. If you want to take that on, good luck. By I see nothing in your argument, except the examples you happened to pick, that applies specifically to plants. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, Born2cycle, you claimed the "reliable sources" you provided list "Aloe vera" as the common name. But they don't. They list "aloe vera," so, not only is it not italicized, but rules of botanical nomenclature require the genus name to be capitalized. So, I think that this example should be dropped, until you come up with sources showing the common name is "Aloe vera." Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Anyway, in case you're serious, see my reference #3 above. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am serious. Please AGF here. And your reference #3 above isn't the only reference, what is that, the one where it used the capital letter? Frankly, as we're going for most commonly used, it appears that aloe vera is more common than Aloe vera on google, and Aloe vera isn't italicized. And, I assure you in 100% seriousness, and please ask any taxonomist, aloe vera is NOT a scientific name. If we've run around this merry-go-round to the point where we're redefining botanical nomenclature for the other side, we've gotten less than nowhere. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me this insane "debate" is still rumbling on a month later, with the same people still not getting the point. Seriously I think there will come a time when we need to deal with people who are disrupting the encyclopaedia to make a point by the usual means. Orderinchaos 10:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, please do. Engaging in discussion on talk pages is not a disruption of Wikipedia. Discouraging discussion might be. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Orderinchaos for the useful contribution. We've just been advised on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) that the article on Amborella trichopoda might need to be deleted since it "is not well known enough to have a commonly used common name," and therefore, it's meeting "WP:NOTABILITY criteria" is in question. I agree much more, Orderinchaos, with your assessment of the situation than I will ever agree that a plant should be deleted or its notability debated simply because it does not "have a commonly used common name." Go for it, Born2cyle, nominate Amborella for deletion based on it not having a "commonly used common name." --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You brought up Amborella, KP, not me. I just raised an issue; pointed out a question that needed to be answered. And you did. Don't blow it out of proportion. But there are more questions remaining. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you brought it up. "I mean, if a plant is not well known enough to have a commonly used common name, does it meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria? It's a valid question that should at least be addressed." It's an extremely popular plant, even by "g-hits," you're preferred criteria. If you don't want the question addressed or answered, don't post it. --KP Botany (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

There are two choices - one use contemporary leaders, meaning the page needs to be updated periodically, or use historically well known names. Bill Gates is a better example of using Bill than Clinton, as Clinton has not been president for eight years now. Any preference? 199.125.109.119 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. "There are two choices" - pardon? There are many choices more.

I don't see the need to have a change to have either all contemporary or all historic names. The rule applies to both groups, so examples should be as broad as possible regarding the intended applicability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of choices. But Bill Clinton? Why Bill Clinton? Makes no sense whatsoever. And Tony Blair? What? He is no longer the PM. And George W? Please. Pick any president but him. He is the least popular of the 43 ever. It is too much of a coincidence that both the current PM of the UK and the current President of the US were chosen as examples, and too much to stomach for either of them to remain now that they have finally left office. So in other words, there is nothing wrong with picking useful examples, but those are not useful. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Help Equus common name dispute

Graham's Hierarchy of Disageement

Another common name vs scientific name dispute, this time involving two related pages. On Tarpan, a disambiguation page, one editor deletes entries that don't conform to her view of the correct use of the common name "tarpan". On Talk:Wild horse#Requested move, the same editor argues that Wild horse does not need to be a disambiguation page because only one use of "wild horse" is the correct use (and that use probably isn't the one you think of first). Others argue that Wild horse must be the page name for an article about the species Equus ferus, disregarding that to most people a wild horse is a mustang or similar animal. --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement does someone who places a diagram of it to go along with their argument fit? Surely not at the pinnacle. But that's a side issue, I think. The main issue is that this dispute has to be seen in a larger context than just one or two horse related nomenclature questions. What context that is may well vary based on your views of various matters. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding the caption "don't get hot, stay at the top", en route to making some other comment, but I touched the enter key by chance and away it went, posted. Anyway, Lar, your edit summary is "pointy remarks?" but I don't get your point. --Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an attempt at levity, because every pyramid has a point at the top, hence the pointy reference. Which place (the top) is where we all should strive to be in these sorts of discussions, no? But just as often whoever first exhorts the assumption of good faith is the one lacking in faith, I'm (in my remarks above) positing the introduction of this diagram is perhaps a sign that the introducer isn't at the apex after all. All a side issue though.

Again, I'll say that I think there's a bigger question here that needs sorting out... what IS the right choice in these common vs scientific name questions, and is there a general principle to be elided (perhaps with some well documented and consistently applied exceptions), or do we have to "fight the battle" every time? I'd rather see a general principle discovered, and then adhered to, instead of having to constantly argue these cases piecemeal (especially when it's AFTER a move instead of before). ++Lar: t/c 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider also that in many cases one or the other name is ambiguous; are the disputes over disambiguation pages part of the same problem, or a separate problem, or not a problem at all but rather a partial solution? Often, but not always, the ambiguous name is the common name. From a related thread,[1] here are some ambiguous scientific names: Carya, Heracleum, Panax, Quercus, Rosa, Zea, Zizania. All of them are dab pages (although a couple are marginal ones). --Una Smith (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the dab page, User:Una Smith, you will see that Quercus is not an ambiguous scientific name. So, please don't call it that. I'll assume you're wrong on the other ones, also, that they're not ambiguous scientific names. They shouldn't be dabs. --KP Botany (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how's this? The scientific name Quercus is unambiguous within science (ignoring fine points of different authors' circumscriptions), but Quercus is ambiguous, hence a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The examples are ambiguous names, an ambiguous 'scientific name' would be one that, for example, refers to a plant and an animal genus. Some of these are noted at Curiosities of Biological Nomenclature. cygnis insignis 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, not even within the articles listed on the dab is Quercus ambiguous. Two uses, very uncommon, without even articles, and the others are not Quercus, but an organization named for the tree, and two companies that have fuller names, not just Quercus. So, no, it's not ambiguous even as a common name. It's simply not ambiguous. And, yes cygnis insignis is correct about ambiguous scientific names. The Java Quercus is a bit of fun, though, considering the not so might oak roots. --KP Botany (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues is more complex, starting with the unilateral undiscussed move of Tarpan to Equus ferus ferus by Una[2] desptite bei ng asked by several editors not to do so (for example [3]). This was done to make space for a disambiguation page related to tarpan. When searching for example google, Tarpan is the clear primary use for the horse subspecies, the rest are minor uses. So, I requested the page to be moved back to its original name. Yesterday evening, Una inserted, without references, the names of two other species as being named Tarpan. [4] So, I reverted and asked for references at the talk page.[5] later this night, she added a century old reference to Przewalski's Horse for the use of tarpan for this species (William Ridgeway (1908). "Environment and race". The Geographical Journal. 32: 405–412.). Any search for current usage of Tarpan for the Przewalski's Horse is negative, and the insertion of this centurty old naming for a horse to validate the disambiguation page in tarpan seems to me more a ccase of making a point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I added two entries to a dab page; dab pages do not get references. I added a ref for the use of "tarpan" as a common name to one of those pages. The fact that the use is historical, not current, seems irrelevant to me. Someone reading historical sources may want to look up "tarpan", and in those sources (very respectable ones too) "tarpan" is a synonym for "wild horse" in the sense of Equus ferus and sometimes also for each of the subspecies, only one of which is now called "tarpan". Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. --Una Smith (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and that can be without a problem dealt with at the Tarpan (disambiguation) page, as neither of those are competing primary use topics. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"for the topic"

I have rephrased

Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

to

Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject.

(Emphasis here only)

That this accords with the consensus interpretation of that sentence is demonstrated by the discussion and poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3#Use the most easily recognized name, in which there was a strong consensus (unanimous minus one) for this interpretation.

That there is a need for the meaning of this sentence to be clarified is demonstrated by Born2cycle's continuing insistence on interpreting it in the manner rejected by that poll.

Born2cycle: before you revert, do bear in mind that the fact that you personally disagree with this interpretation is no justification for edit warring against a clear consensus.

Hesperian 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for zeroing in on this. Good call. Even though I think the language of non-specialists is just as reliable a source, if not better, than that of "reliable sources for the topic" (i.e., "specialists") for determining what most people are likely to recognize, I will not revert, but did clarify one point by making one amendment:

Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject when addressing non-specialists in the given field.

(Emphasis here only)

This makes it consistent with Use the most easily recognized name. For example, when a patient goes to the doctor, the doctor typically uses different jargon than when communicating with his colleagues. It is the former jargon that we try to capture in WP, not the latter. Terminology used by experts in a given field is often not recognizable to most English speakers, and is therefore generally not the domain of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus for that. Not even the slightest hint of consensus for that in three months of discussion. I think you're trying to slip your preferred interpretation in by stealth. Discuss it here first please. Hesperian 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "about the topic" or "which address the subject", rather than "for the topic"? Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"About the topic" sounds better. First Light (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am against this change. See my comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions#for the topic. If this is going to be changed on the policy page then it should be discussed on the policy page. --PBS (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian added "for the topic" to the Naming conventions Policy page. If a change is to be made to the policy page then it should be discussed on the talk page of the naming conventions policy page. If the change is made there, then we can propagate the change through the guidelines because guidelines should reflect policy. Discussions to change a policy page should take place on the other policy's talk page. (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) --PBS (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, does this mean we can ask you to not edit policy pages any more without first gaining consensus for the edit? Thanks, I appreciate that. --KP Botany (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I expect nothing more than I would do myself. See WP:BOLD, there is no harm in altering the wording of a guideline or policy, but if it is reverted a consensus should be reached on the talk page before reinserting the change. Hesperian did nothing wrong when he added for the topic to WP:NC, and I have nothing against his behaviour, but now that it has been reverted it should be discussed on the appropriate talk page (the talk page of the policy). --PBS (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help! - strawpoll

Please read the previous section entitled "for the topic".

First, it should be remembered that the changes being discussed only apply when the terminology used by specialists with each other differs from

a) the terminology used by non-specialists for referring to the same topics, and

b) the terminology used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists about these topics.

Therefore, for all cases where both specialists and non-specialists use the same terminology, this entire discussion is moot.

We are discussing only those cases where specialists use a different terminology when communicating with each other about certain topics than are used by non-specialists when communicating about those same topics.

The net result of the addition of the for the topic words (coupled with the revert of the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment) means that examples from specialists, including jargon used among specialists with each other, should be given preference over the language used by non-specialists, and that used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists, when determining the names for articles. This flies in the face of what any reasonable interpretation of Use the most easily recognized name can possibly mean. I can't believe that there can be real consensus for such a self-contradictory policy among any significant number of editors who genuinely try to understand the true implications here. As such, I'm going to ask for a strawpoll. Please indicate:

1. I support the addition of the for the topic wording, but not the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment (see above).
2. I support the addition of the for the topic wording, but only in conjuction with the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment (see above).
3. I support the revert of both of the changes above, and the addition of clarification that the language used by non-specialists, and language used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists, should be given precedence over language used by specialists with each other, when determining names for articles.
4. I do not support any of these changes - neither should be in there.
5. Other (please explain).

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

1. Boycott time-wasting polls created solely to prevent the enactment of clear consensus. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Hesp. Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Guet. --KP Botany (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Per KPB. --Jwinius (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Jaap. --cygnis insignis 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Cyg. --First Light (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Per common sense. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It's a bit bloody premature calling a strawpoll five minutes after you've proposed something new, isn't it? What happened to discussion? What happened to "voting is evil"? Here I am trying to frame some questions around your proposal, and you've gone and guillotined debate already! Hesperian 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary purpose of this strawpoll is to see if there really is consensus for the specific change that is already in effect. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a clever little piece of bastardry, isn't it? You don't want to accept consensus, but you can't edit war against it, so instead you pull the old "I'll let you enact consensus if you let me enact my personal opinion" trick, and when that doesn't work, you roll the whole thing up into yet another poll. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't want to accept consensus, I would revert your edit, Hesperian. I don't see any discussion, much less clear consensus established for the specific change you made, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt (and because I support bold editing in general) at least until this strawpoll indicates the actual situation with respect to consensus on this point with a bit more clarity. Would you prefer I had reverted your change and then started discussion about it, per WP:BRD? We could do that too, if you'd like. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my first cluster of questions, somewhat rushed to avoid being completely pre-empted by your poll:

1. How are we to determine who is being addressed by a reliable source?

It depends on the source. For example, if it's "Popular Science", then we know it's non-specialists. If it's a scientific journal, then we know the audience is specialists. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Is there any difference between "sources that address non-specialists" and "non-specialist sources"?

Yes. Sources that "address non-specialists" may or may not be written by specialists. "Non-specialist sources" I would assume are written by non-specialists. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Under your proposal, would a university textbook (i.e. a source written by a specialist but addressed at students of the field) qualify as a source that addresses non-specialists?

Good question. There is definitely a gray area there, but a graduate level book would definitely be for specialists, while a first year text book probably not. Anything in between probably should be ignored. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Scientists often write review papers: papers that present no new results, but summarise a field for the convenience of those who have a need to orient themselves in it. Suppose a computer scientist with expertise in computational geometry publishes a review paper on plane sweep algorithms. On the one hand, it is written by a computer scientist and addressedat other computer scientists? On the other hand, it is written by a specialist in computation geometry but addressed at non-specialists in computational geometry. Does this source "address non-specialists in the field" Hesperian 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that would depend on the field of the topic in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, this is a pointless discussion. B2c and PBS are basically a pair of naming zealots, incapable of recognizing merit in any arguments other than their own. They are as convinced as ever of their own points of view and will never listen to reason.
As far as B2c and his unwavering anti-science attitude is concerned, it's okay if we source all of our article content from scientific publications, but we should always avoid using them to determine the titles of the articles if we can help it. No, article naming is primarily the domain of "normal" people; the non-specialists to whom Wikipedia's editors must always remember to cater to first. Without those "most commonly used common name" titles, readers would always be forced to find their information via a series of ugly redirects and frustrating disambiguation pages, invariably arriving at articles with condescendingly precise titles. They would be more likely to find exactly the right articles containing only the information they're looking for, but they'd be left feeling dissatisfied anyway because of the way they'd arrive there and the titles they'd find. This would be an unnecessary embarrassment to Wikipedia that can be avoided so long as we all vow to always seek the "most commonly used common name" titles first, thereby allowing our readers to instead enjoy a warm and fuzzy experience as often as possible. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Besides, determining these titles should only take about a month or two of mind-numbing blather spirited debate per article! ... ugh. --Jwinius (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a non-serious idea. Why don't we maintain two articles for each "common" taxon? One, the "common name" article for example entitled "Lion", would make use of non-scientific sources (and thus naming). "The Lion is a kind of mammal that eats other animals." While the Panthera leo article would go "Panthera leo is a species of large, carnivorous mammal that belongs to the family Felidae." Something like that. The Lion article would contain trivial, non-scientific stuff like the "In Popular Culture" stuff, uh...that's about it. The P. leo article would have all the scientific sources and thus details such as anatomy, physiology, systematics, distribution, etc. Now we have two articles: one "popular" one for the "lay" people who don't care about the organism and one scientific one for people actually seeking to learn about the organism itself. Yey. Win-win. :P Shrumster (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shrumster! Some guys at the fr-wiki have already done something a lot like that. In April of last year, User:Hexasoft brought these to my attention: Lapin (rabbit) and Oryctolagus cuniculus (European rabbit). The nearest thing I've created to that are SIA pages like Anaconda and Cobra. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do that with plants for major ethnobotanical plants. In spite of the lame ongoing accusations and harassment of plant editors, we're not ogres. Although the one plant editor who liked common names as article names has now changed her mind about that. --KP Botany (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A Born2cycle example from December 2, 2008, was Poison Oak, a proposed article that would lump together the two North American plant species and their effects (Breach_of_the_Naming_Conventions_policy). Recently, I looked at how Encyclopedia Britannica treats this topic. EB's content is very limited compared to Wikipedia, so its approach may not be useful here. Its treatment of Toxicodendron is mostly contained in the "poison-ivy" and "sumac" articles, with brief mentions in the family and order articles, as well as, "weeds". Only three species are discussed by EB, as compared with seven in Wikipedia. The EB "poison-ivy" article has two sentences describing the common features of Toxicodendron pubescens and Toxicodendron radicans. Wikipedia has two or three paragraph descriptions for T. pubescens and T. radicans and a number of photographs.

Born2cycle is on record supporting common name and scientific name articles, e.g., "Poison Oak", Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens.[6]

I'm mindful of the pitfalls discussed by Kingdon, Colchicum, EncycloPetey, and others, but I think that Shrumster's proposal, in some instances, e.g., Poison Oak, may be appropriate and useful in that it may provide some general information as well as a guide to the more technical and comprehensive treatments of the species articles.Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Archive_2#Smackdown Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what you're saying is the same as what Shrumster is saying. Shrumster's examples are clearly POV forks, and therefore unambiguously against the rules here on en. Your proposal, on the other hand, hinges on the fact that an article on "poison-ivy" would not be a POV fork, because the group of plants that takes that name does not correspond to a taxon that we already have an article about.

So long as there exists published general information on "poison-ivy", then there is nothing controversial about having an article on it. We already do this kind of thing; e.g. Irukandji Jellyfish, Carukia barnesi and Malo kingi.

Hesperian 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And it should be an article rather than a redirect. I've been planning to write it for years, even have excellent toxicology resources on the topic, but simply don't have the time. --KP Botany (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian you wrote: "So long as there exists published general information on "poison-ivy", then there is nothing controversial about having an article on it." But would it not breach the current wording in the WP:NC (flora) guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following..."? AFAICT it the only clause that might cover it in exceptions is "significant economically or culturally" and if it is covered by culturally then what differentiates "poison-ivy" from "Foxglove"? And how does one decide what is "significant economically or culturally"? By what yardstick does one measure significant? When can one say "I have measured the cultural significances of a plant and found it wanting so it should have a scientific name" or "This plant is culturally significant so it should have an article"? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This has already been answered, but just to make it crystal clear, "poison-ivy" is not a taxon, and therefore it does not have a valid scientific name. The phrase "Scientific names are to be used as page titles...." applies only to taxa; if this is unclear, then I guess it needs to be clarified. Such a clarification is already present in the draft, but since you guys are stonewalling any and all changes to our articulation of our convention, the draft remains just that. Hesperian 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Poison ivy" is not a common name that corresponds to a scientific name; it is a folk taxon. I think it is inappropriate to use a scientific name as the page name or title of an article about a folk taxon. The scientific name refers to a taxon that is conceptually related to but not synonymous with the folk taxon. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

B-I-N-G-O. I'll skip PBS's disruption, as he probably did not include any of the facts that contradict his assertion, as is his habit with policy pages: misquote, demand responses, ignore the responses. Poison Ivy, on the other hand, deserves an article, not a dab. --KP Botany (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the page Foxglove would be better as a dab page or a set index article (akin to a dab page), rather than what it is now: a redirect to Digitalis. The new designation of some former foxgloves as false foxgloves is rather prescriptive and AFAIK not widely used. Also, to me, it adds as much new confusion as it clears up. I think it is less confusing to explain that foxgloves, formerly 3 genera in Scrophulariaceae, have been distributed to Plantaginaceae and Orobanchaceae. What makes one genus a "true" foxglove and the other two "false"? The answer is largely a matter of POV: to a European, Digitalis is the familiar foxglove and the other two genera are something apart. --Una Smith (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So Hesperian are you are saying is that if a plant name does not have a one to one mapping to a scientific name, then it is not covered by the flora guideline? But if there is a commonly used name other than the scientific name that corresponds exactly to the scientific name then the scientific name should be used even if the most commonly used name is overwhelmingly more commonly used in reliable sources than the scientific name? --PBS (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For your first question, yes, that's what I'm saying. These cases are covered more explicitly in the draft, when it says "The use of a botanical name suggests that the taxon is accepted, so obsolete taxa should not be entitled with a botanical name if a suitable vernacular name exists." What that says is that we should favour common names for groups like "grass" or "moss", because these are no longer held to be scientifically sound groups, are the use of a scientific name might imply that they are.

For your second question, no, that is not what I'm saying. What I have been arguing all along—what nearly all of us have been saying—is that plants for which "the most commonly used name is overwhelmingly more commonly used in reliable sources", other than the exceptions we're already making for articles that cover both plant and plant products, are so exceedingly rare, that it is acceptable to treat them as special cases on a case-by-case basis. In a nutshell, the rationale is: 99.9% of plant taxa are best given the scientific name as their title; so let's make the scientific name our convention, and make explicit exceptions for the 0.1% of cases where our convention sucks. That way, everyone knows exactly where they stand, and we only have to go through a discussion process for 0.1% of our articles.

Hesperian 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable reliable still unidentified

.... yet, somehow, they're also going to meet this, "In such disciplines, the most commonly used name may be the scientific name or one of many common names.</ref> by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject when addressing non-specialists in the given field."

Ridiculous. Although it's nice to have repeated confirmation that the hounders are not listening, never intended to, and won't be bothering to any time soon. Verifiable, reliable still doesn't equal google search. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected, again

Edit warring on a wide-scope guideline is not productive. This page, as well as the flora convention page, have been argued over for months between a group of plant article editors and a group of "consistency-minded" editors. There's no harm done by debating endlessly on the talk pages, but edit waring on the actual naming convention page can be disruptive. If you can't come to a consensus about this, please either open an RFC, or a thread on AN/I, or both. All of the parties involved here are experienced enough to know better. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Replace Tony Blair and George W. Bush with the two current leaders:

• Barack Obama not Barack Hussein Obama II
• Gordon Brown not James Gordon Brown

199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ok lets say

this should have a bit more secure way of doing things. like lets say there is a person with an alias and real name. and in one book, or tv show, the alias is always theree. but midway the name is revealed. yet only the alias is mentioned in all forums or discussions websites. or how about taking a surname as an alias? do we use the surname just because other websites tell us thats her name even though the whole entire series shows that her name is something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconceptions

One issue that came up over a discussion on whether to move "SS St. Louis" to "MS St. Louis" is that this guideline should not be used as a justification for repeating popular misconceptions. Where do we draw the line? PatGallacher (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another example is where a name is often misspelled - the article should use the correct spelling, even if the misspelled version is more common. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not wackypedia. Anyone know any good examples that could be included? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a guideline, it must comply with WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name. There have been many debates about this issue, and it has been agreed that the correct name is the common name. We rely on reliable sources, and if the majority of those misspell a word in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, then who are we to say that the sources are wrong and we are right? Apart from anything else, this has the potential to infringe on WP:NC#National varieties of English and issues over the correct spelling of anglicized names. --PBS (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that has not been agreed at all. In practice, the Wikipedians who are actually out there writing articles take into account numerous priorities when choosing the best title: commonness is one; correctness is another; there are more. Unfortunately, there are a few people who like to sit in the WP:NC ivory tower, styling themselves guardians of the one true naming convention, handing down their opinion that commonness is the only priority as though their opinion were binding law. It isn't. The "policy" as currently worded is worthless because it reflects not popular opinion but rather the opinions of a few people who would rather argue over the rules than write articles, and are willing to revert and quibble ad infinitum. This "policy" actually gets challenged fairly regularly, but invariably those who actually contribute to the encyclopedia are worn down by the intransigence of those who do not, and so this policy goes nowhere. Hesperian 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters --PBS (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that e.g. national varieties of English, and correct spelling of Anglicized names, are a minefield. However in some cases it is possible to establish that a given version of a name is clearly incorrect, see e.g. Mary Celeste (not Marie Celeste) and MS St. Louis (not SS St. Louis). There is more here than counting up which term is used more often. Another problematic example is Katharine O'Shea, often known as Kitty O'Shea, but this name was given to her by her enemies because "kitty" was slang for a prostitute. Although we also have articles on Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd and Caligula, even though these were nicknames which the person involved disliked, but maybe people are less concerned about offending their sensibilities. Boudica (not Boadicea) is another example, there could be some grey areas. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Another advocate for this policy recognising multiple priorities. Commonness. Accuracy. Neutrality. Consistency. Hesperian 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to be part of the personalized criticism expressed above - I don't doubt that everyone is expressing their views in good faith here - but I (again) support the multiple priorities approach. And again propose (as I did once before) merging all these separate pages devoted to individual priorities into the main WP:NC page, and then reduce the length of that page by merging out all the information about specific topic areas (ships, royalty and so on). Reasoning: the different priorities need to be taken into account together, so any separate page dealing with only one of them is likely to be misleading on its own; but different conventions applicable to different subject areas are unlikely to clash, so they can happily stand alone where people interested in them (probably only a relatively small minority of editors in each case) can find them.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The examples I was looking for are more on the lines of Mary Celeste than Baby Face Nelson, examples where a name has been historically misspelled by many people, even by most people, where you have to look to some obscure scholar to find out the correct spelling even. In such cases, I would strongly advocate using the correct spelling for the article name, and a redirect from the incorrect spelling. Another example of a misconception is centrifugal force instead of the correct term, centripetal force, but don't even think of including that as an example, one because no one can agree on that at the talk page, even though it is blatantly obvious, and two because no one understands physics. Plus you can add, and only 1% of the population has even studied physics. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Axtell or Daniel Axtel, the biographic article must have a name how does an editor decide which is the "correct" spelling (apart from referring to reliable sources)? Care to decide which is the "correct" name for Friedrich Martens? Listing things like "Neutrality" for anything other than descriptive article titles opens up a minefield as many common names are anything but neutral. For example "Patriot (American Revolution)" both name and dab extension can be justified under common name, but under correctness or neutrality it is pushing the envelope for the dab extension let alone the name itself. How long would the name of that article be if it were under a neutral descriptive name? If you spend any time involved in contentious areas of Wikipedia (for example those areas with an armbcom ruling), then it quickly becomes clear that things like correct or neutrality will rarely be agreed upon, but it is usually possible to agree on common English usage so that the article is accessible to English language readers -- the name Ireland is one where this has been impossible to do through the usual channels. The only case were that I know of were a name for an article (not a descriptive name) was chosen for its neutrality is Liancourt Rocks (that is not to say it was not an option as a common name but that probably lay with one of the other two options few were really interested in finding out), but then choosing that article name caused national newspapers to ask their readers to take part in the survey, and it is the only survey over a name that I know of where there were around 70 void opinions in a requested move process. --PBS (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What about (to pick a plant example at random) Crataegus monogyna vs. (common) hawthorn? Clearly the common name hasn't been picked here.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the move "03:42, 4 December 2008 Rkitko (moved Common Hawthorn to Crataegus monogyna over redirect: per WP:NC (flora))" should not have been made because it was made under the auspices of a guideline that is contrary to policy? How do you know that Common Hawthorn is the common name for this plant in reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Google has "Crataegus monogyna" beating "Common Hawthorn" by a factor of ten. Reliable sources for the subject are likely to favour the scientific name far more strongly.

Examples of articles that don't use the most common name included Metallica (album) (a.k.a. The Black Album), RMS Titanic and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. There are thousands of examples, and there would be thousands more if so many WikiProjects had not yielded to the bullying of the "thou shalt use the most common name" crowd, and altered perfectly workable naming conventions. On that note, I see that the astronomy naming convention still explicitly advocates "Comet Halley", despite the fact a name change was long-since forced through on that article, based on google hits; see Talk:Halley's Comet/Halley's Comet archive. Hesperian 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where your example of astronomy naming convention comes from. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) has a section called "Common names" which has said "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." since the day it was created (14 September 2006) and on the same day shortly after that entry Comet Halley was added to the new Comet section.[7] So the guideline was ambiguous on the ordering of the words, but not of the use of a common name in preference to an "official designation". The debate on moving "Comet Hally" to "Hally's Comet" took pace from 5-12 November 2006, which was shortly after the guideline was written, so it would probably be a good idea to update the guideline for the sentence that starts "For extremely famous comets ...". Like many guidelines, astronomical objects was written before the policy was altered in 2008 to include the concept that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." so some of the wording of the guideline was written to a work around for people using unreliable sources for the name of astronomical objects and the guideline could probably be simplified now that that change in the policy is firmly established. From what you say above about "Crataegus monogyna" it seems that "Crataegus monogyna" is the common name for that plant so I don't see that it is a problem. "RMS Titanic" seems to be one of the most common name, possibly the most common name for that ship -- If it had been named SS Titanic I would not have supported a change of name to RMS Titanic but neither would I support moving it from RMS Titanic to SS Titanic. And yes over all of Wikpedia there will be lots of pages that are not at names where reliable sources suggest a common name, for example Lech Wałęsa, but "generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". --PBS (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I do actually know a bit about physics. The issue of centrifugal force versus centripetal force is more complex than different terms for the same object or concept, which is what we are dealing with here. PatGallacher (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Another example could be Thomas Becket, not Thomas à Becket. Although I seem to remember reading somewhere that contemporary sources usually call him Archbishop Thomas or Thomas of London, and glancing over this article it is possible that his surname, when it did appear in contermporary records, would have been spelt Beket. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Surly it does not matter what contemporary records called him, what should concern us but what current reliable sources call him. AFAICT it is debatable, the ODNB calls him Thomas Becket the Wikipedia article says the Oxford Dictionary of English calls him St. Thomas à Becket. I do not know if anyone has looked into it in detail a quick glance at the talk page does not so an obvious dispute over the current article name. A more controversial one is Thomas More just he is the best know person by that name! There was a long debate over the name of the article about the Roman Catholic Church or is it the Catholic Church? --PBS (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)