Jump to content

Talk:Ocellate soapfish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Grammistops)

Requested move 27 August 2020

[edit]

Grammistops → Ocellate soapfish Use the common name as per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCFAUNA and WP:WikiProject Fishes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 August 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammistops → Ocellate soapfish – The common name is used by Fishbase, IUCN, Fishes of Australia and use of the common name follows Wikipedia:Article titles, it is clearer to the general reader, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) does not support the change and neither does Wikipedia:Article titles. At least the common name tells you that the article is about a species of soapfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetzal1964 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The genus Grammistops contains a single species, Grammistops ocellatus. WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA notes "In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus". Yes, one of the examples is both the genus and species redirecting to a vernacular name, but in this case the scientific name is the most common name (see below), whereas numbat the obvious most common name for Myrmecobius fasciatus.
Across the tree of life, most organisms are more commonly known by their scientific or Latin name rather than any particular vernacular name. Some attempts are made by publishers to solidify vernacular names of obscure species in field guides, and the new names get propagated across various databases, but never achieve a level of recognizability among the public so as to be more prevalent in use than the scientific name. Per WP:COMMONNAME (not to be confused with "vernacular name"): Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above [recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency, see below]".
WP:NCFAUNA says "The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:Article titles § Common names [i.e. WP:COMMONNAME]. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name". So as not to get tripped up by the phrase "in English", consider scientific names to be loan words (see Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles), as English speakers use scientific names freely and naturally that way in writing and speech (even non-professionals). If there were a single reliable source that coined a vernacular name for a species otherwise only known by its scientific name in thousands of other sources, we would not jump to move it to the new vernacular name because it is "in English". As well, Grammistops ocellatus is not a well known animal like giraffe, koala, or sheep:
  • Recognizability: Among English speakers, the scientific name is by far the more commonly used name to refer to this species than any of the vernacular names. For Grammistops ocellatus vs. ocellate soapfish: Google Books: 80 hits for scientific name, 20 hits for vernacular (4x more). Google (-wiki): 1540 hits for scientific name & 457 for vernacular (3.4x more). Bing (-wiki): 1140 hits for scientific name & 58 for vernacular (19.7x more), Google Scholar: 40 hits for scientific name & 2 for vernacular (20x more).
  • Naturalness: Since it's very common for fish of different species to have the same vernacular name or no vernacular name at all, people searching for articles about specific fish species already know to use scientific names in their searches.
  • Precision: As seen in this case, there are many vernacular names that have been used to refer to this organism, whereas the organism is only known by a single scientific name.
  • Conciseness - "Ocellate soapfish" is almost never used on its own to initially indicate which organism is being discussed; it is, for precision, qualified/specified by the scientific name. The scientific name is the shortest way to relay which species is being discussed.
  • Consistency - Scientific names are codified: an intentionally consistent system to help avoid confusion. Vernacular names are inconsistent, and by definition are allowed to be inconsistent - they are whatever the crowd (or book publisher) has decided them to be. Grammistops ocellatus may be: ocellate soapfish, ocellated soapfish, ocellated soap fish, ocellate soap fish, ocellate podge, ocellated podge, etc.
—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA "and the article (if there is no common name)", in this case there is a common name. Wikipedia:Article titles states "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." The name ocellate soapfish is that used by the relevant authorities, i.e. Fishbase, the IUCN and Fishes of Australia. It is the accepted common name so there is no need to use a binomial or, even worse, the genus name only. I would also disagree that scientific names are always loanwords. They are in some cases where there is no alternative, like octopus, Yes this species is not well known and many of the returns on a search on it should be science centred but there is an accepted common name. However, Google gives Ocellate soapfish gets 38,500 hits and Grammistops gets 6,530 so I don't see that as a valid argument for using Grammistops. I have read scientific papers which refer to the Common blackbird as Turdus merula. By this argument the articles on species such as the Common Loon should be entitled using their binomial because as there are two or more recognised common names but that is not the case. Anyone who argues that a scientific name is more recognisable than an English name is barking up the wrong tree, Grammistops tells an English reader nothing, ocellate soapfish tells you the article is about a species of soapfish. Naturalenss is also moot, it has an accepted common name. Precision, there is an alternative scientific name Tulelepis canis, I missed this when creating the article. Conciseness see above on the accepted common name, as this species is not well known and is not commercially important most of the sources will use both the accepted common name and the vernacular name.Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Google gives Ocellate soapfish gets 38,500 hits and Grammistops gets 6,530" Are you making sure to use quotes and remove Wikipedia results in your search terms? This search for "ocellate soapfish" -wiki shows less than 500 for me (as mentioned above). If you google just ocellate soapfish without quotes, you'll being including any pages that mention soapfish and ocellate or ocellated, which has a bunch of pages about ocellated frogfish and ocellated snake eel. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Wikipedia and Project naming conventions support use of the common name where it is unambiguous. In this case the article is about the species so should use the widely used common name of the species (e.g. following IUCN, Fishbase). The arguments about using the genus over the binomial name for monotypic genera would only apply if the was no clearly favoured common name. I am sympathetic to the logic of placing species articles at the scientific name and then letting redirects cover the variety of alternative vernacular names without picking favourites, but this is clearly not established policy. Perhaps someone should make the proposal and see what support it gets. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Project naming conventions" - Policies posted to a WikiProject should probably be discussed by the broader community when they run counter to the established site-wide naming conventions. What's the point of WP:NCFAUNA, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:TITLE if I can create WikiProject Grammistops and post whichever article title rules I want there? The scientific name is unambiguously more commonly used for this taxon (stats above); using a vernacular name seems overly prescriptive. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The common name appears to be widely used. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the more recognizable common name. --Investigatory (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocellate_soapfish&oldid=1206973400"