Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

My objection to this guideline in a nutshell

To save wading through all of the above, I think I can apply all that I've learned here to state my objection relatively succinctly, which I will now attempt to do.

All Wikipedia articles are either named according to the "use the most common name convention" (the most commonly used name), or they fall under an exception guideline, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which typically specifies some kind of rule or formula with which names can be generated deterministically and verifiably. But, so far as I can tell, all of these names, whether they are determined by the relatively subjective "use the most common name" method, or by a more specific "exception" deterministic guideline, still adhere to the use the most easily recognized name policy, at least in spirit and without blatantly violating it. For example, whether Portland, Oregon or Portland is "more easily recognized" as the name of that city is a moot point; either is arguably close enough.

But this flora guideline, at least as currently written ("Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except...") unlike any other guideline in WP so far as I know, hardly even attempts to adhere to the use the most easily recognized name policy.

First, this guideline is an exception to the common name guideline in the spirit of royalty, ships, U.S. cities, etc., except that those exceptions are explained and justified. But my main objection is that this guideline is a blatant violation to naming policy in a manner with which there is no precedent, so far as I know. This policy leads to names like Yucca brevifolia instead of Joshua tree, even though even most internal Wiki links to Yucca brevifolia are piped to appear in the relevant context as Joshua tree, because, of course, Joshua tree is the much more easily recognized name.

Now, I'm open to the possibility that this guideline being completely at odds with use the most easily recognized name is justified none-the-less, but that justification has not been presented on this page, much less on the guideline itself. In fact, that this guideline blatantly violates policy has not even been admitted, much less justified. That, in a nutshell, is my objection. And I believe this is a close approximation of PBS' objection as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you have an entirely philosophical opposition to the convention, while our reasons to support it are profoundly practical and rooted in weeks of hair-pulling and stressing conflicts. Not to mention that the convention has worked seamlessly for well over two years. Two people are simply not enough to reverse such a consensus. Furthermore it is patent that any reversal to the old ways will not only mean reversing months of work done to switch articles but also cause a significant number of them to rapidly degenerates into stupid edit wars. Amongst these is at least one featured article. Circeus (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Circeus, no, my philosophical argument is practical (impractical philosophical arguments are not worth my time to defend). Practically speaking, the difference really matters mostly only with relatively well known plants, many of which are still at their most common names. Joshua tree and Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, for example, were both moved in accordance with this "years old" guideline only in the last few weeks. There are others that have not yet been moved, but I hesitate to mention any of them because that would probably make them targets for moves while this guideline is in dispute. Anyway, I would be surprised if following naming policy resulted in more than a few dozen corrective moves. I mean, for many species and genuses the scientific Latin name is the most commonly used and the most easily recognized (by the few specialists that would recognize the plant by any name), if not the only name ever used to refer to them.
Yes, disputes are inevitable, but they occur regardless (see Talk:Yucca_brevifolia and Talk:Pinus longaeva for recent examples). Also, most articles in WP are subject to having their titles determined on a case-by-case basis, often through what you call "stupid edit wars". I appreciate the attraction of finding a way to avoid stupid edit wars having to go through the effort of building consensus, but that's putting the interest of editors above that of readers, at least with respect to using article names that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, a very practical, not philosophical, goal. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes your argument philosophical is that you really don't care what we name articles, just as long as we admit that we're wrong and you are right. You say you'd be happy with the current naming practices if we only identified them as an exception (Whether or not they are, you just care that we change wording, not that we change what we are doing). In other words, you've just wasted 700 kb worth of potential new articles trying to get us to agree with you philosophically, whether or not it actually changed how Wikipedia is run. Unless you are working to have us change our methods (remember, guidelines are merely descriptive) in a way that betters Wikipedia AND is practical (ie won't result in edit warring), you are being counterproductive and wasting everyone's time. We've proven that using vernacular names is not only almost always against general NC policy, but that it is highly impractical and worse for Wikipedia, hence our specific guideline. There are precious few plant editors on Wikipedia, and we have better things to do than try to defend a system that is running smoothly. If you find a naming system that better fits your idea of policy and works better than what we are now using, present it. Otherwise, please stop trying to fix something that isn't broken just because your interpretation of policy doesn't mesh with it. --NoahElhardt (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I never responded to this one. It is simply not true that I "really don't care what we name articles, just as long as we admit that we're wrong and you are right". But thanks for sharing your opinion.
I also never said I'd "be happy with the current naming practices if we only identified them as an exception". But identifying this guideline as an exception is an important step towards justifying it as an exception. If the guideline was justified as an exception then I would be happy. But don't miss the most important point: the lack of justification indicates there probably is no justification.
Whether anyone has even come close to "proven that using vernacular names is not only almost always against general NC policy, but that it is highly impractical and worse for Wikipedia" is a matter of opinion, and I disagree. How is any policy violated when the vernacular name of Joshua tree is used instead of Yucca brevifolia? That argument fails out of the gate.
Thank you for at least admitting by implication that none of you have defended the current guideline by providing the excuse that "we have better things to do than try to defend a system that is running smoothly." It should be noted that many of you have plenty of time to complain about me asking you to defend it.
I don't know if it's a better naming system (it probably isn't), but the one you're supposed to use in this encyclopedia is comprised of the general policies and guidelines: WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D, WP:PRECISION, etc. Though they often help, especially in terms of specifying how to consistently disambiguate names with conflicts in particular areas, there really is no need for the more specific guidelines, like flora, especially for more specific guidelines that blatantly violate the general ones.
What's broken isn't the current flora naming guideline per se, but how the resulting names conflict with how all other articles in WP are named. So yeah, if you put on blinders and look at only the plant articles, nothing appears to be broken. But when you at WP as a whole, flora articles form a ghetto of Latin names in a country of easily recognized English names. That's what's broken. The big picture. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
To begin with, the NC says "unless another rule exists, use the most common name". Your presentation of the idea is fundamentally flawed. Your assertion that this guideline blatantly violates policy is simply false. It's a falsehood that you have chosen to repeat over and over, despite the fact that you have been made aware of the fact that it is a falsehood on many occasions.
Secondly, in the vast majority of cases, NC(flora) does have us use the most commonly used name. In a small number of cases, it's ambiguous. In an even smaller number of cases, we use something other than the most common name. For consistency.
Thirdly, as Circeus points out, you have philosophical objections to a guideline that was established to deal with practical problems. Wikipedia has a philosophical position that anyone can edit. Wikipedia has a practical reality that people get blocked, and that articles get protected and semi-protected. If I said that blocking and page (semi-)protection violates the philosophy of Wikipedia and that is must be changed, and if I went on and on about it like you have been here, I'd probably get blocked for disruption. And I'd damn well deserve it. As, I believe, do you. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Guettarda, you wrote: "To begin with, the NC says 'unless another rule exists, use the most common name'. Your presentation of the idea is fundamentally flawed. Your assertion that this guideline blatantly violates policy is simply false."
No, my assertion isn't false. Please reread what I wrote, and this, and WP:NC, very slowly. I believe you are conflating common name (which has an exception clause) with generally use the most easily recognized name (which has no exception clause). The exception phrase stated in the use the most common name paragraph (which, to be precise, doesn't say, "unless another rule exists, use the most common name", but does say "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name...") I explicitly acknowledge with wording virtually identical in meaning to that inferred by your rewording in what I wrote above, and gave several examples of other guidelines that are such exceptions (royalty, ships, etc.). How is that a flawed presentation? I also wrote about the Use the most easily recognized name paragraph, which I suspect you've not reviewed in a while. It states:
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.
There is nothing there that means "unless another rule exists, generally prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". The rule to generally prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize applies without exception. This is policy and the current flora guideline blatantly violates it when it openly mandates scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except ... without regard to what "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". This is very different from every other guideline that I know that is an exception to the common name rule (like royalty, ships, U.S. city names, etc.), because while they don't necessarily try to determine the most common name, the names that result from those guidelines never-the-less comply with generally use the most easily recognized name. But I already explained all this above, I thought quite clearly. Apparently not. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you did not, because of what Circeus states above that you can continue to not listen to until the end of the world: you clearly have an entirely philosophically based opposition to the current naming convention used for plants, both you and PBS. Neither of you listen to anything said by anyone else. You acknowledge only your own realities about naming articles. Neither of you have any references to support your arguments, any references to use for the new policy. Your policy, B2c, is clearly about using something even less than g-hits to name article titles and engage all of plants editing in edit wars about article title names until the end of time comes so you can stop arguing, having won.
It won't happen.
Stop. --KP Botany (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop what? Stop insisting that policy not be ignored? No, you stop. Stop with the complete and utter nonsense. My policy??? What the heck is that? You are supporting Circeus's argument about my objection to this guideline being "purely philosophical" and "not practical"? So, defending WP policy is now derided as "purely philosophical"? For crying out loud, at least Hesperian is not afraid to show that he comprehends my objection, and addresses it (below). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's go with this premise for a moment. Okay, "use the most easily recognised name" is an inviolable law the like of which we've never seen on Wikipedia. Okay, the #Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name section is really the only section on that page that matters. Well, shit, how are we going to figure out what is the most easily recognised name? I can think of a few ways to go about it. The Google test, for example. Or perhaps a survey of album covers. If "the most easily recognised name" is so crucial, what a shame that the #Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name section doesn't tell us how to determine what it is. Oh. It does. It says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Exit Born2cycle, in denial, insisting that that part of the policy isn't part of the policy, insisting that the policy page is really only six words long. Hesperian 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. "Verifiable reliable sources" for determining the most easily recognized names are not limited (if they include them at all) to sources that document names used by specialists. Besides, just because such a sources lists the botanical Latin name does not mean that that is a use, especially if they go on in the text to refer to the topic in question with a common name (as they often do). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaand we're back to Born2cycle propounding his unique view that blogs are more reliable sources than articles in academic journals. Hesperian 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Guess again. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And please stop misrepresenting my position. The way you describe my view it makes it look like I believe blogs are more reliable sources than articles in academic journals in general. That's simply not the case. I recognize that blogs are particularly relatively unreliable for establishing the veracity of most facts required for article content. What I do believe is that blogs are more reliable sources than articles in academic journals for the specific purpose of determining most easily recognized names by non-specialists. Your disagreement with me on this point (if you actually disagree with my true point) would be more believable if you didn't use a straw man every time you talk about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a quick example. May Theilgaard Watts was a scientist/botanist/writer who wrote several books, including Reading the Landscape of America. Now, in that book she references Yucca brevifolia, but the name she actually uses to refer to it is Joshua tree (see p. 306, for example). 1. Now, one example doesn't prove a point, but it serves to illustrate that even botanists writing about plants that have scientific names often use the common name to refer to the plant, and only mention the scientific name in passing. The notion that scientific Latin names are more commonly used, or might be more easily recognized by English readers, than the common English name (for those plants that have one) is preposterous. This guideline dictates a naming of articles that simply does not belong in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed in full at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:KP Botany in reply to your comment above "User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing." My reasons for suggesting changes to this guideline is because I think that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are better if they are in harmony. If they are internally consistent, then it helps new editors understand them and in the long term it reduces conflict. I am working towards a better encyclopaedia and in this discourse I have assumed that all of the other participants are joining the discussion with the same motive. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same curtsey.

More than two people have suggested that this policy is not in harmony with the naming conventions policy (something that has been pointed out several times). As to your other points these have been repeatedly addressed would you like me to reiterate them for you? --PBS (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you are working from a faulty assumption, and perhaps it is time for you to reevaluate that assumption. You have pushed for a uniform system, not a consistent system (which we already have). Uniformity is not the same as internal consistency. A consistent system may be flexible and can still vary to accomodate specific needs; a uniform system is inflexible and ignores the natural variation that may be required for a consistent system to function well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
How is it consistent to have a guideline which ignores the policy and advocates "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except" when the policy says that page titles should be based on he most commonly used names unless ... . It seems to me better to alter this guideline to use the most commonly used names unless ... . I do not expect that the details after the "unless" will be any more uniform in this guideline than they are in any of the other NC guideline. --PBS (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you keep omitting the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong there is really no point in discussing the issue. All details that support your arguments exist, all details that don't support your arguments are ignored. No one can discuss the issue with you under those circumstances, because you are not discussing the issue, you are presenting your side of an argument and selectively posting anything that supports you and ignoring anything that doesn't support you and ignoring all comments that show that your position is not supported. This is a monologue. Now going on a three month long monologue. --KP Botany (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Which part of the guideline am I omitting that shows I am wrong. --PBS (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If someone makes the claim that someone else presenting an argument is ignoring details that do not support the presented argument, those details need to be identified.
And if someone mentions the "Except when..." opening phrase of WP:COMMONNAME again... please. PBS is not even talking about WP:COMMONNAME (with respect to why this guideline ignores policy), and, anyway, that phrase does not undermine his argument at all. Yes, there can be exceptions to using the most common name, but they are exceptions (which no one here seems willing to even admit), but those names are still subject to the first clause of WP:NC: being easily recognized by English readers. Just because exceptions to the common name clause of the naming policy are allowed does not mean you can just ignore the entire policy! So, what are the alleged ignored details? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A way to fix the problem so there can be no debate over whether my interpretation of "except" in common name section of the naming conventions policy is correct or incorrect is to rephrase the start of this guideline so that it reflects the same wording (in which case the debate becomes redundant):

"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, so use the common used name as used in verifiable reliable sources except: [bullet pointed list of exceptions]

Also as B2C asks what are the details that you think I am ignoring? -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Still holding my breath on this one... Come on KP, let me breathe! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been posted so many times, and it's being answered every day. I consider both of your continued ignorance of other people's comments and badgering of me to continue repeating what you continue ignore to be uncivil to the highest degree. Consider this a civility warning to both of you for continuing to play this game and disrupt Wikipedia by badgering editors to prevent them from writing articles. --KP Botany (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not know what you mean by "the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong" in your comment to PBS above. I don't even know what guideline you are referring to by "the guideline". In the comment to which you are replying, PBS refers to this flora guideline as "the guideline", so a reasonable assumption is that you are referring to this flora guideline too. But I have no idea what parts in this flora guideline you think show that PBS is wrong when he says this guideline ignores policy, and I see no discussion about this on this page. Perhaps someone else knows, but you made that assertion several days ago, both PBS and I have asked repeatedly what you meant by it, and no one has answered these good faith inquiries. But apparently you'd rather badger us with allegations of playing games and badgering others instead of providing basis for an allegation you're making about someone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You continue to fail to engage in dialogue with the community with the intention of reaching a community consensus. You have posted dozens and dozens of pointless, repetitious and difficult to understand posts in this manner. Until you are actually having a discussion your posts will not be read or met with discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If with "you" are in part referring to me, KP Botany, I consider all my postings to this page to be an attempt to "engage in dialogue with the community". Recently to try to advance the conversation towards a consensus, I have been actively involved in implementing the the footnote in WP:NC (common names), that cleared up the misunderstanding between the use of common name and commonly used name and more recently I have attempted to implement Stan's suggestion, both of which I believe an outside observer would consider to be engaging in dialogue with the community and trying to reach an understanding which all parties to the dispute could live with.
KP Botany, higher up this section you wrote "Since you keep omitting the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong" and like B2C said I honestly do not know what you mean by "the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong", so please explain it to me. This is not a breach of civility because I am not "playing dumb", as I don't know which parts you are referring to. --PBS (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ignored while policy is quoted in part and legitimate questions are ignored as other users are not welcome in the monologue. --KP Botany (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep it short and not quote policy. KP Botany, higher up this section you wrote "Since you keep omitting the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong" please clarify as don't know what you mean --PBS (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edit by Jwinius and reinstated the disputed template because there is still no consensus, and I am still waiting for KP Botany to answer my last question in this section and my last question in the next section. --PBS (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted back because according to Template:Disputedtag: "It is not intended for flagging a project page or section as vaguely controversial, nor for indicating a personal dislike of the document. There is no such thing as an indefinitely disputed policy or guideline." KP Botany owes you no response, based on the history of your disruption here. First Light (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with First Light. It's always possible for someone to start a new thread of discussion on the talk page, but the one clear outcome of two months of discussion is re-affirmation of the old consensus. Stan (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this debate is about as over and done with as it will ever be, but what about the one that inspired the title of this section? Or, was that really only meant as a diversion? I hope not, because I think we were doing pretty well and we know that others were following it with interest. If we continue on with this proposal, I doubt that the ensuing debate would last another two months; probably more like a week or two at most (by that time I think we'd know).
More importantly, we would all have nothing to lose with it and everything to gain -- especially since the consensus that supports WP:NC (flora) is now stronger than ever. I can imagine that many here are not looking forward to another intense round of debate, but if we're ever going to do this, it would be better to do it now while the arguments are all still fresh in our minds than at some indefinite point in the future. I also find it encouraging that there was a lot less resistance to KP's proposal at WP:NC than I expected. What else would be necessary to get it accepted? --Jwinius (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's only a matter of time — an encyclopedia that will eventually have articles for most species will end up using scientific names for article titles, and redirects for the vernacular/'common'/provincial names. Your essay at User:Jwinius#Scientific names vs. Common names makes a convincing argument for this, along with the discussion here. I just wonder whether the anti-science crowd, and those who like seeing their favorite plant/animal/fish name at the top of the page, are ready for this yet. One way to test it would be with plants, much like the proposed experiment with flagged revisions would test it only with BLPs at first. First Light (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Tarring everyone with one brush much? Wanting common names does not equal anti-science. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, since I didn't mean everyone. And then, I keep forgetting about the bird kingdom, which has its own widely accepted and scientific naming protocols that don't use binomial names—and that seem to make sense and actually work. I'll revert back to my previous opinion that it should be on a case-by-case basis, and that for plants it makes sense. (and I'll stuff a sock in my mouth for a bit, since I didn't think much before I hit 'save'.) First Light (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you are suggesting that "[A]rticles [on organisms should be] titled with the scientific name [of the organism], according to the rules of scientific nomenclature. ... Create redirects from the common names to the scientific name", or words to that effect, be added to WP:NC.
WP:TOL (referenced by WP:NC) says, "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." That wording has been stable according to the edit history. Adding that wording into WP:NC would be helpful and would garner wide support. However, I'm dubious about the more sweeping guidance that I quote above.
  1. Articles with common name titles that have been stable and not disputed should not be moved with no compelling reason to do so, in my opinion. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names says, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Elk and moose are examples. They have been disputed, but not strongly, are familiar to most readers, and "Cervus canadensis" and "Alces alces" are arguable less so. In the absence of a resumption of the argument, I don't see a compelling reason to move those articles to their scientific names. I think many would object to moving bird articles to their scientific names, although for some, e.g., Hen Harrier, a good argument could be made.
  2. We have identified instances where articles with titles from common (vernacular) names or folk taxonomy are or may be appropriate, e.g., wild horse, poison ivy, tumbleweed, rose, apple, etc. These are covered under items 1 and 2 of WP:NC(flora) and WP:Naming_conventions_(fauna). Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do I sign?

I've just come in response to the RFC but find the above discussion(s) incomprehensible in that they do not make it clear what wording is at issue and where we register our views. My general view is that, since this is the English language wikipedia, we should be using the English language name for topics rather than Latin though there should, of course, be redirects and inclusion of all alternate names. A relevant example that I have worked on briefly is the article Ginger which seems to combine both the spice and the ginger plant Zingiber officinale. The split between that article and the article on the genus Zingiber was confusing. I thought about breaking out the plant into a separate article but have not got around to it.

I've seen a fair amount of naming issues elsewhere:

Where there is a clear name in common English then this always seems preferable and I still find it hard to believe the Queen Victoria example - the current name is ludicrous. The special factor in the case of botany is the use of Latin. This was sensible when Latin was the lingua franca of scholarship. This is no longer the case and so Latin names are effectively foreign/jargon as the component words will not be readily understood. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will not be welcomed by the regulars here (I'm just visiting), Colonel. Your words make too much sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion, CW! If you want a little backstory to why many of us are pushing for continuing the now 2-yr old tradition of using of botanical nomenclature to name flora articles, be sure to read over Archive 2 as well as the discussion above.
Your ginger example is an interesting one. You say that having an article that combines information about a plant taxon and an economic product is confusing. I agree! This article, and your discomfort with it, underlines the reason so many of us are in favor of using binomial names for articles about organisms. Under the current flora naming guidelines, the Ginger article should be split into an article about the taxon (Zingiber officinale) and an article about the spice (ginger, or ginger_(spice)). All of your favorite plant products (coffee, etc) would still have their own common-name articles, while articles strictly about the taxa involved would be titled with the widely-recognized latin names which they were assigned when they were described. Make sense?
Briefly, the problem with using "clear common names" for plant taxa is that it is extremely rare for a plant species to have a single, clear, unambiguous, widely recognized, NPOV common name. However, EVERY described organism has one latin name that is recognized worldwide, is unambiguous, reflects the taxonomy, and educates the reader. We still include redirect from common names, so there is no loss of function for the reader, either. --NoahElhardt (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(editconflict)Welcome Colonel Warden! You might want to take the time to go over both the current talk page here, Archive 2 (linked above), and related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). It's alot to cover, but it will give you an idea of the ground that's been covered, and what's really going on. There are quite a number of talked-out, now occasional visitors like myself who are also watching and waiting for any real proposals. So far, there is nothing close to consensus to change the current stable flora naming conventions, because they have worked so well for two years. In my short time editing plant articles, I've seen that the plant editors are a practical bunch (just look at the wealth of good articles they've written!) - so there is good reason for sticking with what works. First Light (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful comments. The general issue seems clear enough - what is still unclear is the process for resolving this sorry business. I have seen other interminable discussions of this sort elsewhere (WP:FICT) and they seem a great waste of everyone's time. I recently suggested to a newly appointed Arbcom member, (User:Casliber) that they should appoint a committee to regulate our policies and guidelines so that they are stable and not subject to a free-for-all. Since even our fundamental editing policy is under assault now (by PBS too, as it happens), the need for such a body seems pressing. But, if we are left to our our devices, my general position is that our guidelines should be descriptive not prescriptive and so document what happens on the ground, across thousands of articles. I just conducted a spot check to see what we have for Bamboo. I find that the article is called, Bamboo rather than Bambuseae and this seems good. A full taxonomy is provided for those that want it and all seems well there. Why is this not a good model for other common plants? In my garden I have ivy, roses, daisies, hydrangeas, camellias, privet, oak, etc. I would expect to find a general article for each of these and then perhaps more detailed articles for the members of these tribes or families. Another example is rhubarb. I commend this to you since it also means a hubbub... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the problems with naming is that in my garden, I have a type of ivy that is very different from your "ivy". The local vernacular name is Kenilworth ivy. Most people here call it by it's genus name, Cymbalaria, or the full scientific name Cymbalaria muralis. But if your garden is in the U.K., you would call it Ivy-leaved toadflax. A google search actually brings up the scientific name more than the U.S. or U.K. name, so the most 'common' name is the scientific. "Daisy" is even worse. There are probably hundreds of genus that have a plant with a 'daisy' in them. The scientific name is usually the only way to be entirely unambiguous about what you're talking about.
There is a gardening book that's widely used in the western U.S. by everyone from raw beginners to veteran gardeners called the Sunset Western Garden Book.[1] It's been published for fifty years, and is sold to the new homeowner walking into the nursery to buy his first shrub, because it has a section on digging a hole and planting (among other basics). It's surely the most popular gardening book for the western U.S. masses, probably ever. It includes an encyclopedic description of thousands of plants, much like wikipedia. It's also written, like wikipedia, for the widest audience. Every entry is under it's scientific name. When there is a popular vernacular name, it simply says something like "Joshua Tree see Yucca brevifolia", which is the print version of the redirect. Redirects are even easier on wikipedia, which makes it very easy and very clear for people. Scientific names are widely used and accepted now, and with the redirect, those who don't know them become educated, which fulfills the main purpose of an encyclopedia. The current naming policy makes an extraordinary amount of sense, all things considered. First Light (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The book of this sort that I have handy is the Reader's Digest Encyclopaedia of Garden Plants and Flowers. It uses the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants so that you have a mix of article titles, for example Rosa and Galanthus for flowers but Cabbage, Apple and Mint for food plants. It is not clear why they did it this way but there we are. Looking online at the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it seems that they use English names for the article titles, where they exist. For example, they have "Snowdrop - any of the white-flowered Eurasian plants comprising the genus Galanthus of the family Amaryllidaceae. There are about 12 species and many variations of the spring-blooming, bulbous herbs...". So that's two major encyclopaedias aimed at the general public. One uses a mix and the other prefers English. Do we have any other good precedents? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The Sunset book is comprehensive, and I think that has something to do with their long-standing decision to go with scientific names. I think if Britannica were as comprehensive an encyclopedia as Wikipedia, they would have to move more in the direction of scientific names. Note that here we also have many common name titles: Rose, Apple, Cabbage, etc. That's why several people have been saying that the naming convention is and should be descriptive (describing what is working) rather than proscriptive. And that what we are currently doing is working. First Light (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't actually know what Britannica's naming rules are; for instance, if they are aiming at USian readers, then most likely they'll use US names - for instance, we see they use the scientific name "Eucalyptus" instead of "gum tree". Most likely they just use whatever the contributors individually decide on, whether or not it's the most common name or a regional oddity. Stan (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Colonel, we'd have article names under cabbage, apple, and mint also under our current naming guidelines. Apple, because it would include all of the cultivars sold as apples and the human history of these, ditto the economic and ethnobotany of cabbage and mint, while still maintaining articles under scientific names, I hope. --KP Botany (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This is interesting: The Sunset Western Garden Book is the #14 bestseller of all "Gardening & Horticulture" books at Amazon.[2] That ranking is not limited to just the western U.S. That means it is one extremely widely read mass-appeal gardening book. Definitely not for 'specialists'. And they definitely use scientific names for all plant article titles. The Reader's Digest book doesn't seem to be available at Amazon. First Light (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I did not know it was that popular, but seems it must be used outside of the western US to achieve that rank. I live in the west so I swear by it as a first reference, although relying upon my California natives and Mediterranean gardens books after that. I also didn't remember they use scientific names for plant article titles. --KP Botany (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the second time I've followed the link here from {{Cent}}, but the first I couldn't figure out how to join the conversation. My understanding is that the convention is to use the scientific (Latin) name unless an English name of the unusually clear ans spcific reference is available. In my opinion, this is clearly correct. Even more than in zoology, common plant names refer to wide arrays of related, or just similar looking, species and are used in different ways in different regions (cf. hemlock). Though initially forboding, the decision to organize plant articles by scientifically decribed species is inevitable if we are to make effective use of sources and the only way to give a species article a usable name is to use the scientific one. Attempting to label species in English would lead to massive amounts of disambiguation overhead for relatively little gain since almost all source use or at least reference the scientific name. Although this may seem to contravene the policy to "use English", it actually does not. Even in vernacular sources the most common name for the specific, defined species is the scientific one, English terms being too general and variable in their reference. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are too many reasons yet unmentioned not to delve into using vernacular names for plant article titles. Sadly, only people with very little knowledge of plants and their evolutionary relationships can see, and then we wind up being battered by people we can't communicate with. I like plant common names. I'm a linguist. I study them and research them, yet here I am thinking it would be easier just to ban them.
    • Organizing plant articles under common names would be impossible. --KP Botany (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Eluchil404, thanks for your feedback—you have it right. First Light (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany when you write common name do you mean commonly used name which may or may not include the scientific name? --PBS (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption of Wikipedia plants for over two months

I ask the cabal of flora editors (as User:Born2cycle has seen fit to call us), and other interested users, to make comments, specifically diffs, about how long the users User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle have been disrupting Wikipedia. User:PBS willfully ignores all policies that don't support what he wants and User:B2c is simply carrying on a one-sided conversation.

It's time they started listening, or left. I ask that members of the community disengage from them, request that their edits of policy pages be blocked, and contribute to an RfC to get over with their tenditious and pointed editing editing of Wikipedia.

A community consensus requires dialogue within the community. Neither of these editors is dialoguing, and no more amount of time listening to their tenditious, repetitious, uncivil, and pointed monologues will create a consensus.

I am posting this on WP:Plants (the home of the cabal, as Born2cycle calls us), and on this particular policy page, but not on the naming conventions policy page. I will let users know that this is my intention as they continue to comment on other policy pages about this issue without engaging in dialogue with the community.

--KP Botany (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I must protest. B2c never called us a cabal of flora editors. He called us a cabal of pansy lovers. Hesperian 04:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
ROTFLOL! KP, you make unsubstantiated allegations and then ignore repeated requests for you to explain yourself, and then have the gall to accuse me of engaging in monologues? You're the one ignoring what we say, not the other way around!
You pansy lovers are whining about two months of "disruption"? A cabal of Bible thumping geniuses has been creating havoc for two years by rationalizing absurd arguments to remove a few images from the CreationismIntelligent design article, and they're actually editing the article over there. Check it out at Talk:Intelligent design (which remains an amazingly good article). Now, there's some nonsense that needs to be shut down. I hope we can all agree on that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we are lucky that botany is usually an uncontroversial area, where an editor can get on with writing articles in peace and quiet. Pretty much every article we write implicitly affirms the science and tools of phylogenetics; either the ID crowd are too thick to comprehend that, or they have bigger fish to fry. Hesperian 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I caught enough of that, "you pansy lovers," to know it is just one more disruptive post not meant to be read, not meant for a discussion, not meant for gathering community consensus, simply meant to keep plants' editors away from creating, editing, and maintaining flora articles on Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Very clever

First, demand that discussion cease *, then claim the dispute is over (by removing the dispute tag 1, 2, 3, 4). Very clever, but the way disputes are resolved in WP is through discussion. If you refuse to discuss, you can't declare the dispute to be resolved.

Whenever a taxa has an English common name that is more easily recognized by a greater number of English speakers than would recognize any other name, including its Latin name, then, per WP naming policy, that common name should be the name of the article. The flora guideline as currently written blatantly contradicts this by favoring the scientific Latin name even when an English common name for the topic in question is more easily recognized by a greater number of English speakers. Discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Go away, Born2cycle. You've had three months of our time. That's at least two and a half months more than you deserved. You can't force us to "discuss" for all eternity just because you enjoy repeating the same shit ad infinitum. Hesperian 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion not aimed at achieving consensus, but merely forcing a point of view in violation of what appears to be a broad consensus, is actually disruptive rather than productive. I think at some point one has to draw a line under the thing and say "this cannot go on indefinitely". Orderinchaos 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please recognize that further discussion at this time is unlikely to be fruitful. However, turnover is fairly high and new people have different ideas and perspectives. With the passage of time, your view of this matter may change, your audience may evolve, or a new approach may occur to you. But endless repetitions of the same argument is not helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Endless repetitions of the same argument would indeed not be fruitful, but that's not what is happening here. My current argument stands, unrefuted and barely even addressed, but clarified in terms of the few substantive points made, here. Almost all of the rest is whining and hand wringing, like the comments in this section, which serve no purpose except to avoid the fruitful discussion we could be having instead. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion statistics

The following 28 editors have affirmed the current convention:

Ben MacDui, Casliber, Circeus, Colchicum, Curtis Clark, Cygnis insignis, Dalton Holland Baptista, dave souza, Eluchil404, EncycloPetey, First Light, Gnangarra, Guettarda, Hardyplants, Hesperian, Jwinius, KillerChihuahua, Kingdon, KPBotany, Melburnian, Noah Elhardt, Orderinchaos, Rkitko, Sabine's Sunbird, Shyamal, Stan, Una Smith, Walter Siegmund.

This list contains 18 editors who contribute heavily to plant articles.


The following 9 editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the current convention:

AjaxSmack, Born2cycle, Colonel Warden, DreamGuy, Melodia Chaconne, PBS, Septentrionalis, Sonjaaa, Vegaswikian.

This list contain zero editors who contribute heavily to plant articles. I have included Septentrionalis here, even though one of the last things he said here was that the draft rewrite of the current convention would be acceptable to him if the tone was fixed.

Statistics:

  • Days of discussion: 75
  • Proportion of discussion participants supporting present convention: >75%.
  • Proportion of discussion participants who contribute to plant articles that support the present convention: 100%
  • Probability of achieving unanimity any time this century: 0%

This is as good as it is going to get. If the discussion cannot be closed now, it can never be closed.

  • Number of people who want this discussion to continue for all eternity: 2.

Hesperian 11:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing the above summary as accurate
Endorsing the above summary as slightly inaccurate
  • Stan (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) : Born2cycle only wants the discussion to continue until everybody else agrees with him. Of course, since even PBS doesn't agree with him, the net effect is that the discussion will continue for all eternity or he gets a clue and goes away, whichever comes first. :-)
  • I don't want anyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't want this discussion to continue for all of eternity! I want this guideline to agree with WP general naming policy, guidelines and conventions. User:Aervanath should also be on the list of those who are concerned with how the flora guideline is currently worded [3]. WP is not a democracy, but more than enough people (10, more than a quarter of those who have weighed in) have expressed enough concern with the current guideline to warrant working towards a consensus rewording of it, and continuing to reflect that the current guideline remains in dispute. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isnt a state of unanimity, its where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion and make suggestions working in good faith discuss the issues and come to a conclusion that can be accepted. At some point in time it can become necessary and appropriate for the group to ignore or discount the opinions of individuals to move forward to a conclusion. Its clear that after 3 months of discussion it hasnt achieved the outcome you want, Therefore in the interest of writing an encyclopaedia its time to move the discussion forward and take action that gives a resolution based on what the majority of those that have already expressed an opinion can agree on, that includes removing the disputed tag. What I suggest is that instead of continuing on the current course take time to consider what wording you want with clear definitions and provide a means for it to be tested. After editors have had some time to put some perspective on this discussion then open with a fresh start, the only outcomes achievable from continued discussion at the moment are sanctions and that isnt a productive way to write an encyclopaedia is it? Gnangarra 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Talking about whether or not we should be talking about it is not talking about it, and yet that's what most of the alleged "discussion" has been about. For example, I'm still waiting for a substantive response to this, and that was almost 3 weeks ago. No, that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me. That means they have to read what I wrote, and point out which part they disagree with. That's how we work towards consensus, not ignoring the substance of what is being said and just complaining about the fact that it is being said. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
B2c, get a clue. To address your earlier point that you refer to, WP:NC (flora) does not violate WP:NC. In case you've already forgotten, when PBS launched his attack on WP:NC (flora) based on WP:NC's main guideline, he was conveniently leaving out one crucial aspect of it. I'll highlight it for you:

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.

It's what's called an escape clause and obviously it was added to prevent us from trying to hammer round pegs into square holes. In mid-2006, our botanists made use of it when they argued successfully that the level of ambiguity involved in the application of common-name titles to our thousands of plant articles went beyond that reasonable minimum. As a result, WP:NC (flora) was created.
Since the 2nd of December last year, you and PBS have acted like a broken record: employing weak arguments in favor of common names that were easily countered, but then always restarting the argument based on the false premise that WP:NC (flora) was in breach of policy.
What's ironic about your efforts is that, since you've gone on for so long, you've not only managed to raise awareness of and strengthen the existing consensus in favor of WP:NC (flora), but also to convince a few more people that a default binomial naming standard for all of our natural history articles is the ultimate solution (something the Spanish and Italian wikis have already implemented). --Jwinius (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally, some substance (the first of your three paragraphs - the latter two I'll ignore). The "escape clause defense" sounds good in theory, but in practice it means Yucca brevifolia instead of Joshua tree. "Joshua tree" is hardly ambiguous at all, much less does it exceed some "reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Yet the current guideline results in that article being at a name that very few English speakers would recognize. And so it goes. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've said too much already. It seems you've learned nothing, because this aspect of the issue has already been examined many times before: just search for brevifolia on this page and in the previous archive and you'll get no less than 54 matches excluding these last two. You obviously enjoy flogging dead horses, but I'm going to stop right here. --Jwinius (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In other words, punt again. Whatever pedantic rationalizations have been conjured above, the unaddressed fact remains that "Joshua tree" is a good enough name to refer to the topic of that article in practically every link to it, not to mention most references within the article itself, and yet you essentially contend that it's too ambiguous to use as the article title. That's simply absurd. No wonder you seek to avoid defending it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"Whatever pedantic rationalisation have been conjured above", the fact remains that "Yucca brevifolia" is a good enough name to refer to the topic of the article. And more commonly used. Unless we use a measure that Born2cycle cycle alone advocates. Give it up. Hesperian 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That title is "good enough" by what standard? By scientific taxonomy? Of course. But it's not "good enough" by the standard of WP:NC. It's not even English, much less recognizable by most English speakers, or commonly used, even among those who are familiar with the particular topic of that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What the hell, I'll say it again for the bazillionth time: we're supposed to determined the most commonly used name because seeing what reliable sources in English call the plant. As you know. The most commonly used name according to what reliable sources in English call the plant, is "Yucca brevifolia". As you know.
Oh shit. We're going to start talking about blogs, album covers and drycleaners now, aren't we?
Hesperian 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and it is English. It is as much English as déjà vu, kangaroo, and kindergarten. Hesperian 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is as much English as those other terms are, to a plant specialist, but not to the general audience for whom Wikipedia naming is supposed to be optimized over specialists (see below). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulation; you just arbitrarily redefined the word English. Why do I bother? Hesperian 01:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


older ≠ wiser does not think that this blanket exclusion clause is reasonable. (see Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions/Archive 11#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)[4].

Jwinius As you point out "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." If you agree with this wording then why not include it and the rest of the section from which it comes as a general principal at the start of this guideline? There is a very big difference from excepting some pages from the most commonly used name because of other general principals in the policy such as: "Be precise when necessary", "Use English words", use "National varieties of English", "Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise", how to deal with "Controversial names", and in a specific guideline which totally reverses the onus from "use the most commonly used name unless xyz" to "use a scientific name unless xyz". --PBS (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Principle

(copied from WT:NC by request) --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your problem, Born2cycle, is that you have a personal conviction that we should be following a certain PRINCIPLE in naming articles. Our naming convention POLICY kinda-sorta endorses that principle, in a wishy-wishy kind of way, and as a result you've run off with the idea that the PRINCIPLE is the spirit of the POLICY, and any discrepancy between the two is due to the letter of the POLICY not being up to snuff. That is incorrect. It is high time you accepted that (a) there is no consensus for your PRINCPLE other than as one of many conflicting priorities; (b) our naming conventions POLICY is carefully worded to reflect the absence of a consensus for your principle other than as one of many conflicting priorities; and (c) it follows that what you have been doing these last three months is trying to bring the flora naming convention in line with your personal PRINCIPLE, not Wikipedia naming conventions POLICY.

We keep telling you that our convention is in line with POLICY, but you can't see it, because you're no longer capable of reading the policy page as anything but an imperfect articulation of your PRINCIPLE. Your line of reasoning seems to be something like this:

  1. Premise: my PRINCIPLE is the spirit of the POLICY;
  2. Premise: the flora naming convention violates my PRINCIPLE;
  3. Therefore: the flora naming convention violates the spirit of the POLICY;
  4. Therefore: all evidence that the flora naming convention is in line with the letter of the POLICY is due to mis-interpretation and/or wikilawyering.

Where you're going wrong is in Premise #1.

Hesperian 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, H, and assume you might be onto something here, because I know I do think in terms of principles, but I need you be a little bit more specific. Please spell out what you think that principle is that you're referring to when you write "a certain PRINCIPLE", "endorses that principle", "the PRINCIPLE is the spirit of the POLICY", etc. Only then will I be able to say whether I have a conviction that we should be following that certain principle, as you claim that I do. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"Use the most easily recognised name" Hesperian 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not my principle, but, yes, I think all WP editors should be following that rule (for lack of a better term) as much as possible when naming any article in WP, and that certainly we should not be ignoring that rule without clear justification supported by consensus. Speaking of principles, WP:NC says that that rule is justified by this actual principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
I don't see how (for example) Yucca brevifolia is optimized for readers over editors, or for a general audience over specialists (in this case, plant editors), as compared to Joshua tree. I do see how Joshua tree is optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists, as compared to Yucca brevifolia. In fact, I'd say that much of this comes down optimizing the names of plant articles for the plant article specialists here over a general audience, in direct conflict with this principle. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I also do believe that rule, "Use the most easily recognised name", does reflect the spirit of the policy. I mean, those exact words comprise the name of first guideline stated in the policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll let Aervanath respond:[5] Hesperian 23:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath is talking about WP:COMMONNAME, which has the exception. No one disputes that. But we're talking about "use the most easily recognized name", to which no such exception applies. The point is WP article titles should use the most commonly used name, except when guidelines dictate otherwise, but even then, the name should be easily recognized by the general audience with priority given to them over specialists. The current flora guideline dictates otherwise, in direct conflict with naming policy. I explained all this in detail here: It's not about common name, it's about "easily recognized". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My reading of this is that Aervanath is affirming the right of specific naming conventions to adopt the nomenclature of their field. Do you believe that when Aervanath wrote that, he was holding in his mind the distinction between "most common" and "most easily recognised", and carefully choosing his words so as not to refer specifically to the former? On what evidence?
Personally, I suspect that the distinction between "most common" and "most easily recognised" has appeared by serendipity in the wording and re-wording of that policy; that you are the only person who sees the distinction as important; and that you are seeking to apply the distinction in interpreting both the policy and the comments of others, without stopping to think whether other people held that distinction when they choose their words.
Hesperian 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is that "Use the most easily recognized name" is the first of the five main headings in the policy, and "Use common names..." is the first subsection of the third main heading. It's 1. vs. 3.1. I can't speak for what others see, but I certainly see the distinction. Don't you? However, I should admit that I really did not fully appreciate the distinction until PBS brought it to my attention in this ongoing discussion a few weeks ago.
As far as Aervanath's comment to which you linked above, it seems pobvious that he's talking exclusively about 3.1 Use common names of persons and things and the convention page to which it links, and not at all about anything else in WP:NC, including not about 1. Use the most easily recognized name. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not said a distinction cannot be made between "most common name" and "most easily recognised name" (and no, that distinction does not boil down to subsection positioning). What I have said is that the possibility of making that distinction appeared in the text by accident; that the distinction that can be made in the text does not reflect a distinction that was being made in the mind of the authors of that text; that you (and perhaps PBS) have discovered that distinction in the text much as people discover secret codes in the Bible; that you (and perhaps PBS) are the only people here who hold that distinction; and that you are now seeking to interpret both the policy page and the comments of other people through the lens of that distinction. Again I ask, where is your evidence that Aervanath was aware of the distinction that you wish to make, and intended his comment to be interpreted with recourse to it? I am still of the opinion that Aervanath made no such distinction when he wrote that comment, and intended his comment to be an affirmation of the right of specific naming conventions to adopt the nomenclature of their field, within reason. Hesperian 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That may well have been what he was thinking at the time, but, if so, it's likely because he may have not been aware of, or not thinking about the ramifications of, "Use the most easily recognized name", nor the fact that that section has no such exception. I think in light of that, the intent of the 3.1 exception is much more clear, and not nearly as extreme as many would like to interpret it. I certainly don't see how it can be interpreted as that exception applying to any section in WP:NC other than 3.1. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"it follows that what you have been doing these last three months is trying to bring the flora naming convention in line with your personal PRINCIPLE, not Wikipedia naming conventions POLICY." I can not speak for B2C but I want the guideline bought into line with the policy. At the moment this guideline is not in in line with the policy or the general naming general guidelines. It has been stated that the current wording is in place because it makes it easier for flora editors as they spend less time discussing names. As a justification for the current wording of the flora guideline that justification is a breach of the policy "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --PBS (talk)

I have reverted your last edit of this naming conventions page and placed a level 2 warning on your user page. Do not continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. --KP Botany (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:KP Botany] you also placed in the history of the article "Wikipedia is not a debate forum, been three months already of discussion and if anything you have hardened the lines against your position.)" I assumed that like me you considered points of view on the merits of the arguments not factors such as the length of the discussion do you know anyone who does differently? Replacing a warning that has been there while this debate has been ongoing is not disruptive editing. Why have you deleted it? Do you think that the debate is over? --PBS (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You are not debating, and your revision was against consensus that there remains an on-going debate. Please read the link that I posted on your talk page, and particularly consider these points:
  • You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts.”
  • You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
  • Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.
  • You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
Unless and until you are able and willing to discuss the issue without these problems bolded above you are not debating anything, you are disrupting Wikipedia. This is my last comment. --KP Botany (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
So are you now willing to answer the questions I have repeatedly put to you?[6] "... . KP Botany, higher up this section you wrote "Since you keep omitting the parts of the guideline that show you are wrong" please clarify as don't know what you mean --PBS (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)". --PBS (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a third warning to PBS's talk page for continuing to edit this naming convention against the consensus of the community. One editor's lone point of view is not a policy debate. If it were there would be no Wikipedia in the face of disruptive editors with singular viewpoints.

I have also posted a 3RR warning on PBS's talk page to prepare to ask for his editing of this guideline to be blocked. --KP Botany (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you deleted my reply to your talk page.[7]
  • If my last edit to the guideline was edit warring what do you consider your last edit to the guideline to be when you refuse to discuss the content of the page on the talk page?
  • Do you not consider the contents of this guideline to be the subject of a debate?--PBS (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The debate is over, you lost, you're now into trolling and disruption territory. Stan (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The debate is over either when a consensus has been reached over the content of the guideline, or when it is agreed that a consensus can not be reached. If a consensus can not be reached then the wording or the guideline should reflect that the current guideline does not have a consensus. --PBS (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not unanimity. You keep asking us to go in the same circles so that one of us will indulge your need for what you determine to be conformity to your opinion of policy (more like what you wish policy would be, which has been shown to not actually equal policy). We're reasonably confident there is consensus for the existing flora naming convention and we've explained why over the past three months. Please give it up; your efforts here are now only harming any future attempt to engage in productive discussion. --Rkitko (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
To PBS: Could you state where that policy is from? Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Evaluating the consensus states "Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong, but unanimity is not required." The supermajority that continues to endorse a two-year old stable guideline certainly qualifies as "reasonably strong" if anything does. I agree with KP Botany, Stan Shebs, Hesperian, and others that your continued edit-warring has crossed into disruption. First Light (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines sates "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." WP:Consensus states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." and the first section in the consensus policy states: "The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." and further down the page "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Now I am sure that you can go through and cherry pick other sentences to support you point of view. But I think if you read consensus as a whole, then it is clear at the moment there is no consensus for this guideline -- as over the last couple of months far more than a couple of editors have objected to the wording. The question still applies if there is a dispute between the policy and this guideline over a page name, then which should a closing administrator follow the advise in the policy or the advise in the guideline? --PBS (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute between the policy and the guideline - only in your extreme minority interpretation of it. Thus "Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong, but unanimity is not required" applies here. The tag will will stay off the page. First Light (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If there is no disparity between Policy and Guideline you will not mind if I re-instate the edit I made on 4 December 2008 as all it did was add a general guidance section based on the naming conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
PBS, there is consensus on this discussion, on that edit, and on the tag staying off. First Light (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just stating that there is a consensus does not make it so. If there is no disparity between policy and guideline, then why should you object to words that paraphrase the policy appearing in this guideline? --PBS (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Same answer: "there is consensus on this discussion, on that edit, and on the tag staying off". First Light (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus for retaining the current convention has been reached. Melburnian (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Upon what do you base that assertion? --PBS (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Click the blue link. Melburnian (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The blue link does not prove that there is a consensus here. All it proves is that there is one group that holds one view and another that holds a different view. No one who thinks this guideline does not contradict the policy, has been willing to debate the point in detail and consensus is built around interpreting policy and guidelines not a vote in favour of one point of view. --PBS (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the point was debated in detail but you didn't bother to read anyone else's comments. Hesperian 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only did not read anyone else's comments, but did not bother to carry on a debate or answer anyone's questions put to him as if it were a debate. Hence, it wasn't a debate for PBS, it was a monologue, and it continues to be a monologue, so there is no point in debating someone who isn't debating you. --KP Botany (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
From the fact, confirmed times and times again across wikipedia, that because one person disagrees is not sufficient to reverse consensus. Circeus (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Circeus do you have more than one account? User:Circeus what makes you think only one person considers that this guideline is in breach of policy? --PBS (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
<shakes head/>I can confirm that Melburnian and Circeus are different people. Circeus was simply interjecting. Hesperian 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I have to come clean—you've discovered the secret. We're all sockpuppets (although none of us can remember which one of us we are socks of). We're really quite adept; you'd think that Jwinius and Cygnis insignis disputing on Commons, or Una Smith and KP Botany disputing here, were different people, but it's all me (or is it Hesperian?). Bwah-hah-hah-hah!--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, okay, sorry, I shouldn't have asked if Circeus and Melburnian are the same person. Hesperian 00:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<--"Actually the point was debated in detail but you didn't bother to read anyone else's comments." From my replies which comment do you think I did not read? --PBS (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Not only did not read anyone else's comments, but did not bother to carry on a debate or answer anyone's questions put to him as if it were a debate." Which question have I not answered? User:KP Botany I have been asking you questions which you do not answer. I would appreciate it if you would answer them. If you are not sure what they are I can ask them again. --PBS (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC disputed

PBS, there isn't much point trying to force us to bring our convention in line with a policy that is itself disputed. When I've finished with WP:NC, hopefully it will be an accurate reflection of what Wikipedians really do when choosing a name, which is to take into account encyclopedic values like accuracy, precision, neutrality, consistency and accessibility, and, if there is a conflict, choose a name that best balances these values. In that case, this convention will be a rather nice fit. You'll be happy with that, because you "want the guideline bought into line with the policy". Hesperian 01:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a convention it is a guideline to the naming conventions. Does that mean you agree that this guideline is not currently reflect the Naming conventions policy?
Ha ha; last time you asked me that question I replied "You're asking me again? This has got to be a fucking joke." The time before that, I pointed out that I had already answered it, and observed that you seem not to bother yourself with reading anyone's replies to you. Hesperian 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Hesperian, be more accurate please. PBS not only doesn't read replies to him, he doesn't take questions, either. --KP Botany (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Apart from neutrality, which is covered in WP:NPOV all those things are already in the naming conventions policy, but that will not change the fact that this guideline explicitly ignores that balance when it states that scientific names should be the default. --PBS (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I am no longer interested in refuting for the gazillionth time the assertion that this convention ignores the balance prescribed by the main naming convention. I have now proposed that the naming convention cease prescribing such a balance. It suffices for the naming convention to articulate the values that inform article naming. Individual editors and communities of editors can be trusted to find the right balance in a given context. Hesperian 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
the course of this discussion most decidedly does not give me the impression that the individual editors can do this consistently without an agreed guideline. DGG (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for monospecific genera

Under the section "Article title" for monospecific genera, the conventions say this: "Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect." This convention has come under scrutiny in a current FAC about the fungal genus Polyozellus. Most of the article discusses the species rather than the genus, because the sources mostly talk about the species as well. Of course, for a monospecific genus, describing the species is essentially equivalent to describing the genus. So why is the convention to have the article named as the genus with a redirect for the species name? Sasata (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If the genus is monospecific, then the species name and the genus name are two names for the same thing.
I think the rationale for our present convention is that the genus name is always simpler and more concise, since it is embedded within the species name by definition. The counter-argument—that in some cases reliable sources prefer to use the species name—is pretty strong; a while back Cygnis insignis convinced me of its merits with respect to Cephalotus/Cephalotus follicularis. Hesperian 07:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would a fungal genus be bound by WP:FLORA anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Strangly, the scientific names of fungi are published under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature... but of course that is irrelevant to how we scope our conventions. Hesperian 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That is odd. Anyway, I should clarify the way we do things at WP:BIRD - when the article is about a species that is also a genus/family/order we use that species common name, but when a genus is also a family (like Diving-petrel or Sheathbill, we tend to go upwards to family. Most families that are also orders we use the common name anyway for the family (Trogon, Tropicbird)- so not much use for Flora I guess. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. This wouldn't even be an issue if articles about plants were named consistently with most other articles in Wikipedia - by the ENGLISH name most commonly used to refer to the topic, and only considering a name for disambiguation purposes when the most commonly used ENGLISH name has ambiguity issues and the topic is not primary for that name.
In the above case it seems to me that Blue chanterelle is the most appropriate name for the Wikipedia article, to which both the LATIN Polyozellus and Polyozellus multiplex names should redirect. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm in the minority. I'll go away now. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you come here just to moan, or do you have anything constructive to add about which taxanomic level to sit an article when scientific names are used? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the topic of the article? The genus or the species? Assuming the species, which name is used most often to refer that species? The species name or the monospecific genus name? There should be no "one-size-fits-all" rule about this. These questions should be asked on a case-by-case basis, and the decision about the name used for the title be used accordingly.
Wishful thinking that hopes for plug-in objective one-size-fits-all rules to thoughtlessly determine unique article names does not produce the meaningful names that are consistent with general naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and is an anathema on Wikipedia.
The article in question should be at Blue chanterelle, which I see was just created as a redirect to this article, which implies the primary use of that name is the topic of that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect implies nothing. I created it because it's useful, along with the other redirect I created and the disambiguation page at black chanterelle. Let's not start this again, please. Regarding monospecific genera, if there are no published extinct or fossil taxa (e.g. Metasequoia and Metasequoia glyptostroboides or Aldrovanda and Aldrovanda vesiculosa), I think the genus is the appropriate location, though I have been swayed, on occasion, in favor of the species name. --Rkitko (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, what is your opinion of this specific instance? In general I also think the genus name is more appropriate, or at least I did until recently :) This discussion is very useful for me, as I've made probably close to 2000 taxa articles for fungi, several hundred of which are monotypic genera. It's not until the article gets developed to GA or FA level that a deficiency in the naming convention is readily apparent. Have look at Caloscypha and Rhodotus, both currently at GA level, as examples of articles I may try to push to FAC. In both of those, the emphasis is also on the species rather than the genus, a reflection of the way the sources discuss the topics. As a comparison, also check Chorioactis geaster, which according to the convention is incorrectly named for the species and not the genus; in this case the article was the result of an expansion of an existing article, and I never got around to changing the article name. Sasata (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In this instance, I think the genus name is fine. Yes, the article discusses the species, but the species is the genus when it's monospecific. If you want to be picky, you could say the species was described first and therefore is set apart a little from the genus, but both are now set apart from other taxa for exactly the same reason as the characteristics of the species = the characteristics of the genus. A Venn diagram of those topics, genus and species, would overlap perfectly. In other words, you wouldn't be able to split apart the genus and species articles. Likewise, all of the sources that discuss the species are in essence also discussing the genus, unless, of course, there are extinct or fossil taxa also held within the genus. I'm actually not that attached to this particular convention, as long as it's consistent. By the way, keep up the good work. There's a lot of work to do on fungi and you're doing an excellent job! :-) Rkitko (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Rkitko, point of clarification. All redirects, without exception, should redirect only to the primary topic for that name, or, to the appropriate dab page if there is no primary topic. If the topic of the article to which a redirect points is not the primary topic of the name of that redirect, then the redirect should be deleted. Therefore, the mere existence of a redirect to an article implies the topic of that article is the primary topic for the name of that redirect. That's why it's "helpful". If that article is not the primary topic of the name of the redirect that points to it, then that redirect is anything but helpful. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
...Except in cases where the species is more commonly known by its scientific name. Or by multiple vernacular names. Or where that specific vernacular name is used for multiple species, some of which may not yet exist as articles and therefore the redirect is more appropriate until a dab page is created. Simply creating a redirect says nothing, absolutely nothing about the article's primary topic. And that'll be the last gibberish of yours I'll respond to. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "the article's primary topic" is nonsensical. I've explained this on your talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And what I assume Rkitko is arguing is that just because subject a is the primary usage of a name that it doesn't follow automatically that the name is the only or primary name used (obviously). So the fact that Blue chanterelle is a redirect says nothing more than the name is only used by that species. That is what I took him to mean. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. Rkitko (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course being a primary topic for a name does not mean that that name should necessarily be the title of the article for that topic, for many a topic has multiple names and is primary usage for each. However, for a name to be considered a candidate for an article title, the topic of that article needs to be the primary topic for that name.
What I said before is that Rkitko's redirect establishes that the primary use of Blue chanterelle is the topic of the article currently at Polyozellus, and yet he replied it "implies nothing", which means he either disagrees with, or misunderstands, what I said. Assuming the latter is probably true, I explained what I meant. Anyone going around creating redirects should be clear on what the implications are, and are not. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This confusion was caused by Rkitko assuming that Born2cycle was giving a rationale for her position that "The article in question should be at Blue chanterelle"—an entirely reasonable assumption, giving the construction of the sentence, but nonetheless wrong. Born2cycle is unable to give a rationale for her assertion, because the name "Polyozellus" is more than ten times more commonly used than the name "Blue Chanterelle": further evidence, as if it were needed, that Born2cycle's interminable trolling of this page is about soapboxing a personal anti-scientific ideal, not enforcing WP:COMMONNAME, with which "Polyozellus" clearly conforms. Hesperian 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up so concisely. I'll now refrain from feeding the troll. It was a mistake to even begin to respond. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Her position???
Whatever Rkitko was confused about, there is nothing reasonable in concluding that "the redirect implies nothing".
WP:UCN, to which WP:COMMONNAME refers, says to use the "most common English language name". Yes, yes, we can disagree about whether Latin scientific names are English, and I'm sure many here would argue that they are since there are reliable English sources that use them, but last I checked if you wanted to learn to be good at understanding these words you had to learn Latin, not English. It just seems to me that when there is a name comprised of words found in an ordinary English dictionary (like "blue chanterelle"), and one that is comprised of Latin words not found in that dictionary, preference should be given to the former. I mean "Polyozellus"? Really? WTF is that? Use English!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So we're wikilawyering a different guideline now, are we? How refreshing! What I especially like is the way the dictionary definition you're pointing me to refers to a completely unrelated fungus—different species, different genus, different family, different order! Wow, calling this plant a chanterelle is really gonna help! A name must be much better if you can find it in a dictionary and end up completely and utterly misled! Hesperian 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would you expect the dictionary definition for "chanterelle" to be the meaning of Blue chanterelle? Would you expect the definition of "flame" to be the meaning of Blue flame? The definition of "bayou" to be the meaning of Blue bayou? The definition of whale to be the meaning of Blue whale? I'm perplexed by the persistent inclination to apply naming standards to plant articles that do not apply to any other article names in Wikipedia.
My point stands: "blue chanterelle" is a name comprised of English words found in an ordinary English dictionary; "Polyozellus" is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it now your position that WP:USEENGLISH trumps WP:UCN?
And is it now your position that "English" is defined not by what English people speak and write, but by etymological and dictionary membership criteria? That would be a profoundly elitist backflip given the extremist egalitarian position you've been taking up until now.
Betraying your roots much? Hesperian 02:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
An illustration of why this line of reasoning is so stupid that even Born2cycle doesn't actually endorse it other than when he is trolling us:
Example One
  • Premise: "Blue Chanterelle" and "Polyozellus" are both precise and unambiguous names for the same species of fungus.
  • Premise: "Polyozellus" is much more commonly used than "Blue Chanterelle".
  • Premise: "Blue Chanterelle" is composed of words in an English dictionary; Polyozellus" is not.
  • Assertion: "Blue Chanterelle" should be the title because it is composed of words in an English dictionary, whereas the more commonly used "Polyozellus" is not.
Example Two
  • Premise: "Federico Bahamontes" and "The Eagle of Toledo" are both precise and unambiguous names for the same professional road racing cyclist.
  • Premise: "Federico Bahamontes" is much more commonly used than "The Eagle of Toledo".
  • Premise: "The Eagle of Toledo" is composed of words in an English dictionary; Federico Bahamontes" is not.
  • Assertion: "The Eagle of Toledo" should be the title because it is composed of words in an English dictionary, whereas the more commonly used "Federico Bahamontes" is not.
Hesperian 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, here's a good one: Zane Gray, born "Pearl Gray". My dictionary has entries for "pearl" and "gray", but nothing for "zane". Time to move the article to the much less commonly used Pearl Gray? Hesperian 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Again, Rkitko in this particular instance was saying that your non sequitur that "we should use the English name" because "there is a redirect thus making that subject the primary use of that name" was wrong. If the redirect implied that the name was the primary name was the common name then it would have made more sense. Your convoluted logic or tortured wording (I can't decide which) in that instance is what is being dismissed. The fact that there is a redirect does not mean we have to call it that redirect, and thus "implies nothing" about what we should call the article. Clear? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Straw man. I never said we should use "Blue chanterelle" because "there is a redirect...", and I've already explained that. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You said The article in question should be at Blue chanterelle, which I see was just created as a redirect to this article, which implies the primary use of that name is the topic of that article. All in the same sentence, with links, which suggests that the concepts are linked. You apparently didn't mean that - but that was not how Rkitko or I read it. That is what Rkitko thought you meant when he replied. So hey, we have misunderstanding after misunderstanding. So let's just drop it okay? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The concepts are linked, but the links are not causal, and nothing in my sentence construction implied cause. I still don't see how you and Rkitko parsed my sentence to get the meaning you got, without inserting your own words like "because", but I'm happy to drop it now that the misunderstanding has been straightened out. However, it would be even better to get confirmation from Rkitko that he/she gets it too, not to mention the primary topic confusion, and how the confusion caused him/her to mistake me for a troll. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"I still don't see how you and Rkitko parsed my sentence to get the meaning you got." I think they just momentarily forgot that your modus operandi is to propound The Truth, rather than put forward a cogent argument. They were expecting an argument, and got confused when The Truth was followed by an unrelated comment. Hesperian 02:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As the FAC reviewer who started this, perhaps I can expand my views. Although I like the Polyozellus article, I am having difficulties in reconciling the fact that the article title is that of a genus, but the article text (and taxobox) are written as if the subject is a species. This is inconsistent, and can be remedied in two ways:

  • rewrite the text and taxobox so that they refer throughout to a genus, not a species
  • Move the article to the species name (I personally don't care whether it's Blue Chanterelle or the binomial)

The first of these is, I think, difficult to do in anything approaching a convincing way, given the nature of the sources and the fact that at FAC it will be crawled over for inevitable inconsistencies, so the simplest solution would be to move the page to either the English or scientific species name. If another species, extant or extinct, is discovered, then you can write a distinct genus article. I think it leads to unhelpful bickering to get too dogmatic about conventions. To my simple non-fungal mind, there is an obvious problem and a simple solution. IAR and move the page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation. But as I said above, taxonomically and semantically in this case, species = genus. I see nothing wrong with the way the article and taxobox are presented. It is thus not inconsistent to write an article speaking about a monospecific genus as if you're talking about only one species because that's exactly the case. We can take your sentence above and modify it to say, "I am having difficulties in reconciling the fact that the article title is that of a genus, but the article text (and taxobox) are written as if the subject is a genus." It is clear in the lead and taxobox, both terms being bold, that this article is about a genus that contains only one species. So the problem is that the language throughout the article refers just to the species? I fail to see a problem with that. --Rkitko (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To Jim: Do you have a problem that the article George H. W. Bush refers to the man as "Bush" (his surname) most of the time? Do you think that the article should use "George H. W. Bush" throughout for consistency? In much the same way, the name of a monotypic genus is semantically synonymous with its only included species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Genus Ambiguity

I wanted to create a page for Genus Aphotistus for the Family Marasmiaceae but realized it is ambiguous with the Family Elateridae how does one resolve these ambiguities for MoS naming conventions so I can create my page? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I normally append (fungus) after the genus name when creating the article when there's already a genus with the name. Then a dab page is probably required. Be careful when creating fungal genus articles, I usually check both Index Fungorum and MycoBank to see if they both agree that the name is current/valid; in this case Fungorum says that Rhizomorpha is the preferred synonym for Aphotistus, while MycoBank seems to say its legitimate. The only way to know for sure in these cases is to check the literature. Sasata (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally, unless one name is MUCH more better known/larger than the other, both should have a disambiguation mark. There's nothing inherently wrong with putting an undisambiguated article first: disambiguation can always be done later. Circeus (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Styling of common names

I attempted an edit to this page, reflecting the now-widespread practice that common names for plants should be styled in lowercase, except where they include a proper noun (basically the name of a person or place, although even that is often ignored, as in the instance of brussels sprout, quoted here). I feel that the common names given for Hesperoyucca whipplei should be styled as follows: Our Lord's candle, Spanish bayonet, Quixote yucca, common yucca; syn. Yucca whipplei).

In fact I would also argue that the very widely-used synonym, still current in certain highly-respected scientific circles (such as at RBG Kew, and the RHS, whose search engines recognise Yucca but not Hesperoyucca), should come immediately after the Latin name, to make the entry read thus:

  • Hesperoyucca whipplei (syn. Yucca whipplei ), commonly known as Our Lord's candle, Spanish bayonet, Quixote yucca or common yucca, is a species of flowering plant...

In support I would cite the British RHS (which uses lowercase for common names in all its publications) and other respected botanical information sources such as efFloras: Flora of North America, Calflora (ooh, they call it "chaparral yucca", where's that on this example of a list of "all known current English common names"?), University of Texas (hey, "Foothill yucca", there goes another one…), Encyclopedia of Life, USDA, UBC Botanical Garden, this new book (published by University of California Press) etc.…

If this suggestion is felt to be too radical for Wikipedia, I would respectfully point out that, for the sake of consistency, all the other common names mentioned here (and everywhere else on Wikipedia) should follow suit, i.e. English Sundew, Coffee, Cabbage, Broccoli, Brussels Sprout etc. Sorry to upset the consensus, but consistency is all I ask (to quote Tom Stoppard)! SiGarb | (Talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the time to add a very explicit note that there is no definite consensus regarding capitalization. Executive summary: it's a can of worn we're not willing to tackle at this time. Circéus (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In publishing there seems to be a general move toward reducing the use of unnecessary capitalisation (even where it could lead to ambiguity as to whether part of the name is actually part of the name, or simply an extra adjective), even if that means that a writer has to be extra careful in their phrasing in order to avoid such ambiguity arising. I agree it's a huge can of worms, but so is the admirable push to use botanical names for the titles of articles: why not attempt to address both issues at the same time? SiGarb | (Talk) 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You have never dabbled much in naming/style conventions before have you? Well, if you want to ignite the flash fire, feel free, but this particular page is not the place to do so. What you wants is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) (MOS:CAPS). Circéus (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I do note now that both WP:NC#Article title format and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms seem to indicate consensus for lowercase common names (except for birds). Unless, of course, these changes were without consensus. --Rkitko (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Rkitko, yes, that was my reading of the situation, but it evidently still needs to be discussed. And why is "this particular page not the place to do so", please, Circéus? Another bewildered editor, Art LaPella, has tried to discuss it at MOS:CAPS and had no response whatsoever. At least this seems to have got a discussion started. So, I repeat, to be consistent, either the page should style English Sundew, Coffee, Cabbage, Broccoli and Brussels Sprout with capitals (which is obviously ridiculous) or the Hesperoyucca common names should be altered as I suggested. Yes? And maybe the birders (and entomologists, who also seem to be wedded to their Initial Caps) will follow suit in time (some hope!). SiGarb | (Talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a false dichotomy. There is a third option, which is not to impose on Wikipedia more consistency than exists in the real world. Hesperian 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd add that I gave some thought to this issue several times during creation of articles on fungal species, and decided to default to lowercase (except for nouns of course), as I too had noticed a similar general trend in publishing (and on Wikipedia too, despite those crazy birders). Sasata (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


We follow usage in reliable sources. If reliable sources all used lower case for common names, then so would we. But they don't. For reasons beyond my ken or interest, common names of plants are always capitalised here in Australia. Consider Banksia victoriae. The Australian Plant Common Name Database calls it "Woolly Orange Banksia". Flora of Australia Online calls it "Woolly Orange Banksia". FloraBase calls it "Woolly Orange Banksia". The Australian Plant Name Index calls it "Woolly Orange Banksia". All of Alex George's publications call it it "Woolly Orange Banksia". The Banksia Atlas calls it "Woolly Orange Banksia". If you do a Google search for the term, the first page of results is exclusively "Woolly Orange Banksia". It is not acceptable to invent an arbitrary rule that prevents me from following my sources. Hesperian 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but it seems to me that some standardisation is necessary on such matters. Would you be happy for an English Wikipedia editor based in France to use the outdated convention, still apparently current there but seldom used elsewhere (so far as I can tell) that Latin specific names commemorating a person should be capitalised (Hydrangea Sargentiana and Hydrangea Seemannii are a couple of examples that I recently encountered), which is what they might well find in their local chosen work of reference? If we follow your third option, cited above, then surely we revert to using common names for some article titles but not others: that would reflect the inconsistency of the real world nicely, wouldn't it? SiGarb | (Talk) 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That is precisely what we do. In cases where reliable source predominantly use the common name, so do we. Hesperian 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(PS If it's OK for you to use caps for all those common names because they are Australian and that's what Australians do, why isn't it OK for me to follow the American sources I've quoted and decapitalise the Hesperoyucca common names?) SiGarb | (Talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if you decapitalise the Hesperoyucca common names. But you've presented this entire discussion as though that is all you did and all you want. This is not the case. You have also added the contentious rule "Lowercase should be used for common names, except where they include proper nouns."[8][9] You are going a lot further than merely asserting your right to use lower case; you are trying to push your preferences onto everyone else. That is what I object to. Hesperian 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Decapitalization (and other fixes) done on that article. I generally agree with Hesperian. I wish it were simple and consistent, but it isn't.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I hate the decapitalization craze, but I seem to be a minority in liking caps though, so I do not make much of an issue of it. To me it looks messy to have some names in caps and others in lower case. Hardyplants (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Messy, and inconsistent. Actually, Hesperian, you misinterpret my motives. I agree with you: I think caps make a lot of sense. They help to disambiguate colour descriptives and other adjectives used in the names of plants and animals. But we seem to be in a minority in the brave new world of publishing, which thinks they look untidy (along with those messy little commas, and apostrophes, and those semicolons nobody knows what to do with…). The English-speaking publishing world (in the Northern Hemisphere, at least) is moving inexorably away from their use in common names, and a rearguard action by Wikipedia is unlikely to slow that down. Of course, any publisher or organisation can decide to set its own "house style" regarding capital letters or indeed any other aspect of its output – all article titles and subheads to be in small caps throughout, for example – I'd just like Wikipedia to be consistent (especially in articles that purport to be setting out that style). SiGarb | (Talk) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I never said that caps make a lot of sense. Personally, I wish the real world used sentence case for common names. I also wish the real world used sentence case for book titles. But it doesn't, in either case.

Following usage in reliable sources is not fighting a "rear-guard action". Perhaps the sources we are following are fighting a rearguard action–perhaps Australian botany is doing so, for example—but I'm not going to take your word for that; and even if it is true it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We reflect how the real world is, not how we'd like it to be, not how we reckon it might be a few years from now. Hesperian 12:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, in Wikipedia we always look to reliable sources for guidance, and in the case of Australian flora capitalised common names are the norm. Melburnian (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Whereabouts on the scale of reliable sources would you put the Australian Department of Environment and Conservation? Their publications seem to use lowercase… "dark-bract banksia", "matchstick banksia", Stirling Range banksia"… SiGarb | (Talk) 12:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That's the state department in Western Australia, rather than a federal department. The authority on Western Australian flora within that department is the Western Australian Herbarium who run FloraBase, so in terms of flora information from that department I usually defer to FloraBase. Melburnian (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, the convention (at least as regards common names) should read, "There is no convention, do whatever you like as long as some published source, somewhere, can be shown to have done it before." And the "contentious rule "Lowercase should be used for common names, except where they include proper nouns."[10][11]" that I added, innocently (I was unaware at the time of the months of intense and sometimes vituperative discussions you guys and others had been having, and wasn't being deliberately provocative), was based on what I read in the Manual of Style. The very fact that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style suggests that it might be trying to impose some degree of order over natural chaos. Silly me. SiGarb | (Talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your summary is a mischievous misreading of this discussion. No-one has said that. No-one has said anything like it. If the preponderence of sources use capitals, use capitals. If the preponderence of sources use lower case, use lower case. If there is no preponderence either way, do what you like. Hesperian 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am guilty of oversimplification for the sake of emphasis. But this approach leaves open the problem that many editors will not consult half a dozen or more sources. If the first two or three books (or other sources) they look at happen to style common names for a species without caps, then that's what they'll do, but they may have missed a load of others (the preponderance, perhaps) that use caps. The next editor may consult some of the others, and be minded to change it all. So who's right? They both are, but what a waste of time! That's why so many publications and organisations decide to impose a "house style", to avoid one contributor styling things in one way, the next in another, ad infinitum… and surely there's an excellent case to be argued that Wikipedia is just such a publication, and that a cacophony of styles just adds to confusion and sparks off pointless edit wars, and that it would be better to work towards a generally agreed consensus on such matters. To agree to disagree is ultimately unhelpful: it results in a mess.

Personally I have worked for a number of different publications, all with different house styles, all equally valid in their own sphere, but their subeditors dedicate their working lives to trying to keep every article/chapter/feature within each publication consistent, and like every other contributor I have had to adhere to the idiosyncracies of their style guide. What is the point of having a Manual of Style otherwise? (And, by the way, all of my usual written sources, and the preponderance of online ones, do not recognise the existence of Hesperoyucca, I had to search quite hard to find the few that do.) SiGarb | (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If people don't do their research properly, capitalisation of common names is the least of our problems. Hesperian 00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I think we're thinking about this too much. Capitalization is a stylistic issue, one each publication sets for itself. It appears that most Australian publications choose capitalized common names, but that has no bearing on how we choose to do it; you're citing the common name information, not how it's stylized in your references. I'm sorry, but looking to your references for guidance on a stylistic issue seems silly (unless it's proper hyphenation, etc. that you're looking for), especially since our own wider guidelines seems to indicate a move to use lowercase common names. When I reference FloraBase for the common names of Australian Utricularia and Drosera species, I'm only referencing the mixture of letters that make up its common name, not the capitalization, font type, size, or weight that reference gave. If they used SMALL CAPS, should we follow suit? There are other principles at work here, too, like consistency within a genus or family that crosses the border of countries that capitalize versus those that don't. I, of course, favor following the major style manuals out there that suggest using lowercase common names. Seems simple enough to me. The "look to your references" seems to invite more inconsistency and edit warring/disagreements than is necessary for such a minor issue when a style guideline adopted by many publications could easily take care of this. Rkitko (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rkitko! Some common sense at last! You have summed up exactly what I've been trying to convey. I don't really mind how we style anything (well, of course I do have preferences, I'm only human, but I realise that Wikipedia pages can look very different in different browsers, or when using "skins" other than the MonoBook default). What I'm arguing for is a Wikipedia house style guide that encourages consistency across all similar entries. SiGarb | (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree that capitalization of common names is an issue of style rather than content, and as such need not be reflective of wider convention in the same way that article naming does. We could choose to be reflective or prescriptive; its up to us as a community. I do feel that we should be consistent though, if we can. I know changing habits, as some editors would be forced to do, is an uncomfortable process, but it would lead to a cleaner, more consistent Wikipedia without sacrificing any real accuracy. Personally I don't think this issue is critical enough to warrant sacrificing content generation time to argue about, but if it really is a style issue, perhaps we don't have to; I'm happy to defer to the MOS. --NoahElhardt (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to another voice of reason – I knew they'd be out there somewhere! The problem with deferring to the MOS is that it seems to say different things on different pages, and at the moment this is simply leaving it open to the individual editor to decide. As noted above, I tried adding the line "Lowercase should be used for common names, except where they include proper nouns." based on my reading of Manual of Style: Animals, plants, and other organisms (I hadn't spotted MOS:CAPS at that time) but was shot down in flames. Incidentally, the MOS:CAPS section has been tagged since July this year as needing to be "harmonized" with the earlier-mentioned page. I agree: harmony would be nice. SiGarb | (Talk) 11:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
My main contribution to Wikipedia is proofreading the Main Page, one of the few pages that is proofread closely enough for this issue to matter. Such arguments occasionally turn up at WP:ERRORS.It's quite possible that this issue is more trouble than it's worth. But I'm not convinced that the best way out is to order people to capitalize in a specific way on one Manual of Style page, and then announce that it doesn't matter on another Manual of Style page. Not only does that cause biology arguments, it makes people less likely to let the Manual of Style resolve other, non-biological silly arguments. If it doesn't matter, then can we flip a coin? Heads, we follow the rule, and express it consistently; tails, we Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and legitimize any capitalization – or better, remove the rule altogether. Art LaPella (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Archive_4&oldid=1078775987"