Jump to content

Talk:Aristotelia serrata

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

Scientific name vs common name

[edit]

(discussion meved from User talk:Bogdangiusca)

Why did you move the Wineberry (New Zealand) article to Aristotelia serrata? Is it not more appropriate that the article is listed under its most common name? Alan Liefting 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For less known species, instead of disambiguation, it's recommended to use the scientific name. bogdan 08:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is well known in New Zealand under that name. There is no official policy on plant names so I feel that the move was not justified. Alan Liefting 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick in support for using the sci name here - I know what Aristotelia is as a genus, but to me, 'wineberry' means a species of Rubus. Even in New Zealand, the common naming appears split according to the article, with the Maori name in use as well. More good case for the sci name. - MPF 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many common names for plants that bear no relation to the scientific name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says the wineberry should be used. Makomako is rarely used so wineberry is a clear choice for the article name. It is time that a plant name guideline in produced. In the interim I am putting categories in the redirect pages for the common names. This makes the categories are readable for the non-specialist. Alan Liefting 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, why "Aristotelia serrata (New Zealand)"? Isn't the scientific name unique??? --Russ Blau (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to Wineberry (New Zealand): it's an English, unambiguous, commonly used name, so there's no reason for it to be here instead. —Nightstallion (?) 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aristotelia serrata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]