Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (common names): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:10, 21 September 2009 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Other specific conventions: more q← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:28, 19 May 2022 edit undoJ947 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,080 edits Modifying redirect categories using Capricorn ♑ 
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{talkheader}}

{{archive box|
{{Redirect category shell|
*]
{{R from remote talk page}}
* ]
{{R with history}}
* ]
}} }}

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

== Footnote problem ==

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

:"In some scientific disciplines, however, a '']'' is any name that is not a '']''"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Ya gotta love that circular argument. Yes, botanists will readily concede that the most commonly used name for ''Aloe vera'' is "Aloe vera". But no, botanists still don't consider "Aloe vera" a common name for that species. Because to a botanists, a common name is a non-scientific name, and has nothing to do with frequency of usage. What you've done here, is start from the premise that any name commonly used in botany is what a botanist calls a ''common name'', and gone on to prove that any name commonly used in botany is what a botanist calls a ''common name''. This is kindergarten stuff, B2c.
::::A bunch of scientists have been telling you how scientists use the term ''common name'' for months now. Repeatedly. Get it into your head: when scientists use the term "common name", we mean any name for a taxon that is not a validly published scientific name. We scientists don't care that this doesn't gel with you. We scientists don't care that that usage conflicts with how Misplaced Pages uses the term. We scientists don't care that our definition doesn't help you peddle your point of view. We scientists determine how we scientists use the term, not you. Can you ''please'' stop trying to unilaterally redefine a well-defined term. '''It doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and it never will.''' ] 03:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::With all due respect, Hesperian, your personal opinion carries no weight here. I have reliable sources, including the NIH, that refer to '''Aloe vera''', clearly a scientific name, as a '''common name''' in the botanical sense. Therefore your assertion that "a common name is a non-scientific name, and has nothing to do with frequency of usage" is false for that reason alone. See also . If a name is not commonly used to refer to a plant, and has never been commonly used, then it won't be a '''common name'''. --] (]) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::WHY are we still going over the same ground we did over a month ago? Common name/vernacular name does not mean that it is used more often than the binomial name. Common name is meaningless lets drop it, anyone and their grandmother can give a plant a common name, its usage is dependent on how well it is propagated to others. ] (]) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

::::::With all due respect, Hesperian, your personal opinion, as a qualified and excellent plant editor, and a volunteer at Misplaced Pages who has donated a lot of time to creating excellent articles about a very unique flora, is highly valued.
::::::Born2cycle, scientific names are written in italics. --] (]) 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

*A '']'' is any name that is not a '']'' (alleged to be fact, but for which I've seen no reliable sources cited).
*''Aloe vera'' is a ] that is also a ] (, , , , )
And here's a very applicable quote from a 6th reliable source, "one of the few plants known all over the world by its true scientific name" ]. ''One of the few'' known by its scientific name, indeed. But '''I''''m the one not thinking? --] (]) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
*:Leaving aside one of these, which is a grossly unreliable source; and bearing in mind that most of the others are sources for herbal medicine, and therefore have no bearing on how biologists use the term ''common name''; there is still one solid counter-example there. I thank you for a useful contribution to this debate.
*:I maintain that biologists use the term ''common name'' much as I have reported; and that biologists ''never'' use it the way you want to define it; but I grant that I have not expressed this usage in such as way as to capture every nuance. After all, the biology community is made up of a great many people, and so it cannot be expected to be perfectly homogeneous all the time.
*:I don't yet have a clear response but I think when I do it may hinge on the fact that some people use the name "aloe vera" without actually knowing that ''Aloe vera'' is the plant's scientific name, and certainly without intending to refer to the plant by its scientific name. In such cases, one could argue that the name is not being used as a scientific name, regardless of the fact that it is one. In such circumstances, some biologists might consider "aloe vera" a common name; some might not; but the majority would not trouble to think about it. After all, they know what a ''common name'' is, even if they are unable to frame a definition that encompasses such pathological cases.
*:Now it's your turn. How do you propose to reconcile that definition that you claim biologists use, with my rodents example at ]. ] 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::If you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, please do. Engaging in discussion on talk pages is not a disruption of Misplaced Pages. Discouraging discussion might be. --] (]) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Orderinchaos for the useful contribution. We've just been advised on ] that the article on ''Amborella trichopoda'' might need to be deleted since it "is not well known enough to have a commonly used common name," and therefore, it's meeting "] criteria" is in question. I agree much more, Orderinchaos, with your assessment of the situation than I will ever agree that a plant should be deleted or its notability debated simply because it does not "have a commonly used common name." Go for it, Born2cyle, nominate ''Amborella'' for deletion based on it not having a "commonly used common name." --] (]) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::::You brought up Amborella, KP, not me. I just raised an issue; pointed out a question that needed to be answered. And you did. Don't blow it out of proportion. But there are more questions remaining. --] (]) 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, you brought it up. "I mean, if a plant is not well known enough to have a commonly used common name, does it meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria? It's a valid question that should at least be addressed." It's an extremely popular plant, even by "g-hits," you're preferred criteria. If you don't want the question addressed or answered, don't post it. --] (]) 09:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

==Examples==
There are two choices - one use contemporary leaders, meaning the page needs to be updated periodically, or use historically well known names. Bill Gates is a better example of using Bill than Clinton, as Clinton has not been president for eight years now. Any preference? ] (]) 06:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:Re. "There are two choices" - pardon? There are many choices more.
:I don't see the need to have a change to have either all contemporary or all historic names. The rule applies to both groups, so examples should be as broad as possible regarding the intended applicability. --] (]) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::There are thousands of choices. But Bill Clinton? Why Bill Clinton? Makes no sense whatsoever. And Tony Blair? What? He is no longer the PM. And George W? Please. Pick any president but him. He is the least popular of the 43 ever. It is too much of a coincidence that both the current PM of the UK and the current President of the US were chosen as examples, and too much to stomach for either of them to remain now that they have finally left office. So in other words, there is nothing wrong with picking useful examples, but those are not useful. ] (]) 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

== Help ''Equus'' common name dispute ==

]
Another common name vs scientific name dispute, this time involving two related pages. On ], a disambiguation page, one editor deletes entries that don't conform to her view of the correct use of the ] "tarpan". On ], the same editor argues that ] does not need to be a disambiguation page because only one use of "wild horse" is the correct use (and that use probably isn't the one you think of first). Others argue that ] must be the page name for an article about the species '']'', disregarding that to most people a wild horse is a ] or similar animal. --] (]) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:Where exactly on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement does someone who places a diagram of it to go along with their argument fit? Surely not at the pinnacle. But that's a side issue, I think. The main issue is that this dispute has to be seen in a larger context than just one or two horse related nomenclature questions. What context that is may well vary based on your views of various matters. ++]: ]/] 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

::I was thinking of adding the caption "don't get hot, stay at the top", en route to making some other comment, but I touched the enter key by chance and away it went, posted. Anyway, Lar, your edit summary is "pointy remarks?" but I don't get your point. --] (]) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Just an attempt at levity, because every pyramid has a point at the top, hence the pointy reference. Which place (the top) is where we all should strive to be in these sorts of discussions, no? But just as often whoever first exhorts the assumption of good faith is the one lacking in faith, I'm (in my remarks above) positing the introduction of this diagram is perhaps a sign that the introducer isn't at the apex after all. All a side issue though.
:::Again, I'll say that I think there's a bigger question here that needs sorting out... what IS the right choice in these common vs scientific name questions, and is there a general principle to be elided (perhaps with some well documented and consistently applied exceptions), or do we have to "fight the battle" every time? I'd rather see a general principle discovered, and then adhered to, instead of having to constantly argue these cases piecemeal (especially when it's AFTER a move instead of before). ++]: ]/] 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Consider also that in many cases one or the other name is ambiguous; are the disputes over disambiguation pages part of the same problem, or a separate problem, or not a problem at all but rather a partial solution? Often, but not always, the ambiguous name is the common name. From a related thread, here are some ambiguous scientific names: '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']''. All of them are dab pages (although a couple are marginal ones). --] (]) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::If you look at the dab page, User:Una Smith, you will see that '']'' is '''not an ambiguous scientific name'''. So, please don't call it that. I'll assume you're wrong on the other ones, also, that they're not ambiguous scientific names. They shouldn't be dabs. --] (]) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Okay, how's this? The scientific name ''Quercus'' is unambiguous within science (ignoring fine points of different authors' circumscriptions), but ] is ambiguous, hence a dab page. --] (]) 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The examples are ambiguous names, an ambiguous 'scientific name' would be one that, for example, refers to a plant and an animal genus. Some of these are noted at . <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Heck, not even within the articles listed on the dab is Quercus ambiguous. Two uses, very uncommon, without even articles, and the others are not ''Quercus'', but an organization ''named for the tree'', and two companies that have fuller names, not just Quercus. So, no, it's not ambiguous even as a common name. It's simply not ambiguous. And, yes cygnis insignis is correct about ambiguous scientific names. The Java Quercus is a bit of fun, though, considering the not so might oak roots. --] (]) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:The issues is more complex, starting with the unilateral undiscussed move of ] to ] by Una desptite bei ng asked by several editors not to do so (for example ). This was done to make space for a disambiguation page related to tarpan. When searching for example google, Tarpan is the clear ] for the horse subspecies, the rest are minor uses. So, I requested the page to be moved back to its original name. Yesterday evening, Una inserted, without references, the names of two other species as being named Tarpan. So, I reverted and asked for references at the talk page. later this night, she added a century old reference to ] for the use of tarpan for this species ({{cite journal|journal=The Geographical Journal|volume=32|year=1908|pages=405-412|title=Environment and race|author=William Ridgeway|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MqgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA407&dq=tarpan}}). Any search for current usage of Tarpan for the Przewalski's Horse is negative, and the insertion of this centurty old naming for a horse to validate the disambiguation page in tarpan seems to me more a ccase of ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::I added two entries to a dab page; dab pages do not get references. I added a ref for the use of "tarpan" as a common name to one of those pages. The fact that the use is historical, not current, seems irrelevant to me. Someone reading historical sources may want to look up "tarpan", and in those sources (very respectable ones too) "tarpan" is a synonym for "wild horse" in the sense of '']'' and sometimes also for each of the subspecies, only one of which is now called "tarpan". Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. --] (]) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Sure, and that can be without a problem dealt with at the ] page, as neither of those are competing primary use topics. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

=="for the topic"==
I have rephrased
Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
to
Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English '''for the topic''' call the subject.
(Emphasis here only)

That this accords with the consensus interpretation of that sentence is demonstrated by the discussion and poll at ], in which there was a strong consensus (unanimous minus one) for this interpretation.

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

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

] 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for zeroing in on this. Good call. Even though I think the language of non-specialists is just as reliable a source, if not better, than that of "reliable sources for the topic" (i.e., "specialists") for determining what most people are likely to recognize, I will not revert, but did clarify one point by making one amendment:
::Determine the most common name by seeing what ] in English for the topic call the subject ''when addressing non-specialists in the given field''.
:(Emphasis here only)
:This makes it consistent with ]. For example, when a patient goes to the doctor, the doctor typically uses different jargon than when communicating with his colleagues. It is the former jargon that we try to capture in WP, not the latter. Terminology used by experts in a given field is often not recognizable to most English speakers, and is therefore generally not the domain of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Help! - strawpoll===
'''Please read the previous section entitled "for the topic".'''

First, it should be remembered that the changes being discussed only apply when the terminology used by specialists with each other differs from
:a) the terminology used by non-specialists for referring to the same topics, '''and'''
:b) the terminology used by specialists when communicating with non-specialists about these topics.
Therefore, for all cases where both specialists and non-specialists use the same terminology, this entire discussion is moot.

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

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

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

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


====Survey====
# '''Boycott time-wasting polls created solely to prevent the enactment of clear consensus.''' ] 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per Hesp. ] (]) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per Guet. --] (]) 06:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per KPB. --] (]) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per Jaap. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per Cyg. --] (]) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
# Per common sense. --] | <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

====Discussion====

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

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

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

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

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

1. How are we to determine who is being addressed by a reliable source?
:It depends on the source. For example, if it's "Popular Science", then we know it's non-specialists. If it's a scientific journal, then we know the audience is specialists. --] (]) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Is there any difference between "sources that address non-specialists" and "non-specialist sources"?
:Yes. Sources that "address non-specialists" may or may not be written by specialists. "Non-specialist sources" I would assume are written by non-specialists. --] (]) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Under your proposal, would a university textbook (i.e. a source written by a specialist but addressed at students of the field) qualify as a source that addresses non-specialists?
:Good question. There is definitely a gray area there, but a graduate level book would definitely be for specialists, while a first year text book probably not. Anything in between probably should be ignored. --] (]) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Scientists often write review papers: papers that present no new results, but summarise a field for the convenience of those who have a need to orient themselves in it. Suppose a computer scientist with expertise in computational geometry publishes a review paper on plane sweep algorithms. On the one hand, it is written by a computer scientist and addressedat other computer scientists? On the other hand, it is written by a specialist in computation geometry but addressed at non-specialists in computational geometry. Does this source "address non-specialists in the field"
] 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

::Hi Shrumster! Some guys at the fr-wiki have already done something a lot like that. In April of last year, ] brought these to my attention: (rabbit) and '''' (European rabbit). The nearest thing I've created to that are ] pages like ] and ]. Cheers, --] (]) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::We do that with plants for major ethnobotanical plants. In spite of the lame ongoing accusations and harassment of plant editors, we're not ogres. Although the one plant editor who liked common names as article names has now changed her mind about that. --] (]) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

::Born2cycle is on record supporting common name and scientific name articles, e.g., "Poison Oak", '']'' and '']''.

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

:::I don't think what you're saying is the same as what Shrumster is saying. Shrumster's examples are clearly POV forks, and therefore unambiguously against the rules here on en. Your proposal, on the other hand, hinges on the fact that an article on "poison-ivy" would ''not'' be a POV fork, because the group of plants that takes that name does not correspond to a taxon that we already have an article about.
:::So long as there exists published general information on "poison-ivy", then there is nothing controversial about having an article on it. We already do this kind of thing; e.g. ], '']'' and '']''.
:::] 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

::::Hesperian you wrote: "So long as there exists published general information on "poison-ivy", then there is nothing controversial about having an article on it." But would it not breach the current wording in the ] guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following..."? AFAICT it the only clause that might cover it in exceptions is "significant economically or culturally" and if it is covered by culturally then what differentiates "poison-ivy" from "]"? And how does one decide what is "significant economically or culturally"? By what yardstick does one measure significant? When can one say "I have measured the cultural significances of a plant and found it wanting so it should have a scientific name" or "This plant is culturally significant so it should have an article"? --] (]) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::This has already been answered, but just to make it crystal clear, "poison-ivy" is not a taxon, and therefore it does not have a valid scientific name. The phrase "Scientific names are to be used as page titles...." applies only to taxa; if this is unclear, then I guess it needs to be clarified. Such a clarification is already present in the ], but since you guys are stonewalling any and all changes to our articulation of our convention, the draft remains just that. ] 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::"Poison ivy" is not a ] that corresponds to a ]; it is a ]. I think it is inappropriate to use a scientific name as the page name or title of an article about a folk taxon. The scientific name refers to a taxon that is conceptually related to but not synonymous with the folk taxon. --] (]) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::B-I-N-G-O. I'll skip PBS's disruption, as he probably did not include any of the facts that contradict his assertion, as is his habit with policy pages: misquote, demand responses, ignore the responses. Poison Ivy, on the other hand, deserves an article, not a dab. --] (]) 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I think the page {{noredirect|Foxglove}} would be better as a dab page or a set index article (akin to a dab page), rather than what it is now: a redirect to ]. The new designation of some former foxgloves as ]s is rather prescriptive and AFAIK not widely used. Also, to me, it adds as much new confusion as it clears up. I think it is less confusing to explain that foxgloves, formerly 3 genera in Scrophulariaceae, have been distributed to Plantaginaceae and Orobanchaceae. What makes one genus a "true" foxglove and the other two "false"? The answer is largely a matter of POV: to a European, '']'' is the familiar foxglove and the other two genera are something apart. --] (]) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::::So Hesperian are you are saying is that if a plant name does not have a one to one mapping to a scientific name, then it is not covered by the flora guideline? But if there is a commonly used name other than the scientific name that corresponds exactly to the scientific name then the scientific name should be used even if the most commonly used name is overwhelmingly more commonly used in reliable sources than the scientific name? --] (]) 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::For your first question, yes, that's what I'm saying. These cases are covered more explicitly in the draft, when it says "The use of a botanical name suggests that the taxon is accepted, so obsolete taxa should not be entitled with a botanical name if a suitable vernacular name exists." What that says is that we should favour common names for groups like "grass" or "moss", because these are no longer held to be scientifically sound groups, are the use of a scientific name might imply that they are.
:::::::::For your second question, no, that is not what I'm saying. What I have been arguing all along—what nearly all of us have been saying—is that plants for which "the most commonly used name is overwhelmingly more commonly used in reliable sources", other than the exceptions we're already making for articles that cover both plant and plant products, are so exceedingly rare, that it is acceptable to treat them as special cases on a case-by-case basis. In a nutshell, the rationale is: ''99.9% of plant taxa are best given the scientific name as their title; so let's make the scientific name our convention, and make explicit exceptions for the 0.1% of cases where our convention sucks. That way, everyone knows exactly where they stand, and we only have to go through a discussion process for 0.1% of our articles.''
:::::::::] 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

== Verifiable reliable still unidentified ==

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

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

== Protected, again ==

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

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

*] not ]
*] not ]
] (]) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

== ok lets say ==

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

==Misconceptions==
One issue that came up over a discussion on whether to move "SS St. Louis" to "]" is that this guideline should not be used as a justification for repeating popular misconceptions. Where do we draw the line? ] (]) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Another example is where a name is often misspelled - the article should use the correct spelling, even if the misspelled version is more common. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not wackypedia. Anyone know any good examples that could be included? ] (]) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

::::No, that has not been agreed at all. In practice, the Wikipedians who are actually out there writing articles take into account numerous priorities when choosing the best title: commonness is one; correctness is another; there are more. Unfortunately, there are a few people who like to sit in the WP:NC ivory tower, styling themselves guardians of the one true naming convention, handing down their opinion that commonness is the ''only'' priority as though their opinion were binding law. It isn't. The "policy" as currently worded is worthless because it reflects not popular opinion but rather the opinions of a few people who would rather argue over the rules than write articles, and are willing to revert and quibble ''ad infinitum''. This "policy" actually gets challenged fairly regularly, but invariably those who actually contribute to the encyclopedia are worn down by the intransigence of those who do not, and so this policy goes nowhere. ] 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::] --] (]) 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that e.g. national varieties of English, and correct spelling of Anglicized names, are a minefield. However in some cases it ''is'' possible to establish that a given version of a name is clearly incorrect, see e.g. ] (not Marie Celeste) and ] (not SS St. Louis). There is more here than counting up which term is used more often. Another problematic example is ], often known as Kitty O'Shea, but this name was given to her by her enemies because "kitty" was slang for a prostitute. Although we also have articles on ], ] and ], even though these were nicknames which the person involved disliked, but maybe people are less concerned about offending their sensibilities. ] (not Boadicea) is another example, there could be some grey areas. ] (]) 11:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yes. Another advocate for this policy recognising multiple priorities. Commonness. Accuracy. Neutrality. Consistency. ] 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

::::] or ], the biographic article must have a name how does an editor decide which is the "correct" spelling (apart from referring to reliable sources)? Care to decide which is the "correct" name for ]? Listing things like "Neutrality" for anything other than descriptive article titles opens up a minefield as many common names are anything but neutral. For example "]" both name and dab extension can be justified under common name, but under correctness or neutrality it is pushing the envelope for the dab extension let alone the name itself. How long would the name of that article be if it were under a neutral descriptive name? If you spend any time involved in contentious areas of Misplaced Pages (for example those areas with an armbcom ruling), then it quickly becomes clear that things like correct or neutrality will rarely be agreed upon, but it is usually possible to agree on common English usage so that the article is accessible to English language readers -- the name ] is one where this has been impossible to do through the usual channels. The only case were that I know of were a name for an article (not a descriptive name) was chosen for its neutrality is ] (that is not to say it was not an option as a common name but that probably lay with one of the other two options few were really interested in finding out), but then choosing that article name caused national newspapers to ask their readers to take part in ], and it is the only survey over a name that I know of where there were around 70 void opinions in a requested move process. --] (]) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::What about (to pick a plant example at random) ] vs. (common) hawthorn? Clearly the common name hasn't been picked here.--] (]) 13:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Are you suggesting that the move "03:42, 4 December 2008 Rkitko (moved Common Hawthorn to Crataegus monogyna over redirect: per ])" should not have been made because it was made under the auspices of a guideline that is contrary to policy? How do you know that Common Hawthorn is the common name for this plant in reliable sources? -- ] (]) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Google has "Crataegus monogyna" beating "Common Hawthorn" by a factor of ten. Reliable sources for the subject are likely to favour the scientific name far more strongly.
:::::::Examples of articles that don't use the most common name included ] (a.k.a. ''The Black Album''), ] and ]. There are thousands of examples, and there would be thousands more if so many WikiProjects had not yielded to the bullying of the "thou shalt use the most common name" crowd, and altered perfectly workable naming conventions. On that note, I see that the astronomy naming convention still explicitly advocates "Comet Halley", despite the fact a name change was long-since forced through on that article, based on google hits; see ]. ] 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I am not sure where your example of astronomy naming convention comes from. The ] has a section called "Common names" which has said "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." since the day it was created (14 September 2006) and on the same day shortly after that entry ] was added to the new Comet section. So the guideline was ambiguous on the ordering of the words, but not of the use of a common name in preference to an "official designation". The debate on moving "Comet Hally" to "Hally's Comet" took pace from 5-12 November 2006, which was shortly after the guideline was written, so it would probably be a good idea to update the guideline for the sentence that starts "For extremely famous comets ...". Like many guidelines, astronomical objects was written before the policy was altered in 2008 to include the concept that "Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." so some of the wording of the guideline was written to a work around for people using unreliable sources for the name of astronomical objects and the guideline could probably be simplified now that that change in the policy is firmly established. From what you say above about "Crataegus monogyna" it seems that "Crataegus monogyna" is the common name for that plant so I don't see that it is a problem. "RMS Titanic" seems to be one of the most common name, possibly the most common name for that ship -- If it had been named SS Titanic I would not have supported a change of name to RMS Titanic but neither would I support moving it from RMS Titanic to SS Titanic. And yes over all of Wikpedia there will be lots of pages that are not at names where reliable sources suggest a common name, for example ], but "generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". --] (]) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Is there a rule (policy or guideline)... ==

...that says which rule has precedence: a rule of orthography or a rule of ]? In other words, if all historians, as well as common people, use a name which is not approved by the rules of orthography, would it be okay to use that name as the title of a Wiki article? For example, all historians use A and A is the most common name, while the rules of orthography say that A is incorrect and that B is incorrect, do we have to use B even if it is awkward and unknown to historians and readers? ] (]) 15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:Well, yes, I would have thought that this page (and the main ]) would imply that you use A in this situation, if the facts really are as you describe.--] (]) 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
::Which "rule of orthography" are we talking about? This sounds like one of the vast majority of rules which have exceptions. ] <small>]</small> 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not a rule of English orthography. Basically, the rule says that names of monarchs should always be "translated". Of course, there are cases when historians and readers simply don't translate the name and the person is universally known by his/her original name. I want to underline a Wiki policy or guideline which says that common name-rule has precedence over orthography rule. I could also use a rule which says that every rule should have reasonable exceptions. (], perhaps?) ] (]) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm confused. Is it a rule of orthography you're talking about, or not? Perhaps you could just direct us to the relevant discussion so we can see for ourselves what the problem is.--] (]) 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::It ''is'' a rule of orthography (I don't understand it either, but it can be found in an orthography book). The discussion is not led on this Misplaced Pages, but I thought that the best answer can be given by users who know Misplaced Pages's core policies and guidelines - administrators of Misplaced Pages in English. ] (]) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::The policies and guidelines we have here don't really apply outside English Misplaced Pages. You can quote them as examples of how things are done, but you can't necessarily expect people in other Wikipedias to follow them.--] (]) 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Surtsicna wants some part of ]. Anglicization of kings' names was conventional in eighteenth-century English, and is still very common - but not invariable. French, as far as I can tell, is much more firm about this. ] <small>]</small> 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

== Roger Taylor update needed ==

"For example: ] and ] while ] could indicate either of these two Roger Taylors."

Roger Andrew Taylor can now be found at ]. I think a better example may be in order. I suggest ] and ], as those pages still use middle initials (although ] redirects to the former). <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 | ] | ]'''</font> 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== verifiable reliable sources → verifiable reliable third-party sources ==

The second paragraph currently states:

{{quotation|Determine the most common name by seeing what ] in English call the subject.}}

But if follow that link it says: "Articles should be based upon reliable, '''third-party''' published sources..." (my emphasis).

I've recently come to realize the importance of going with third-party rather than primary sources in Misplaced Pages, and I think that is especially important when determining the most commonly used name for a given topic. In other words, when the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, Newsweek, etc. refer to the topic (third-party sources), what name do they use?

I propose adding third-party to that sentence, to have:

{{quotation|Determine the most common name by seeing what ] in English call the subject.}}

Any objections?

--] (]) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:May I ask if this proposal is intended to reopen the debate on the use of binomial names for biota, please? If so, I would encourage you to wait a few more months. With the arrival and departure of editors, it may be fruitful to revisit that discussion. Apart from that, I don't like this suggestion because it is duplicative. Duplicated guidance invites inconsistency since it may change one place and not the other. It is better to reference the other material; the current wording is adequate for this purpose. Also, I'm troubled that I can not find a definition for "third-party source". It may be a Misplaced Pages ] and may not be defined here either. Since it may be ill-defined, it seems unwise to use it in on this page where its context is not provided. ] ] 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Wsiegmund, you may be conflating the concepts of ''first-party and third-party sources'' with the concepts of ''primary, secondary and tertiary sources''.<p>I cannot see how this rewording could possibly have any impact on biota. After all, no plant ever wrote about itself, so in general there is no such thing as a first-party source about a plant. At present, the only taxa known to have written about itself is the '']'' lineage; and Born2cycle certainly won't be using the proposed change as authorization to demand non-human sources for those articles. ] 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::I do not intend to reopen the biota naming debate, not any time soon anyway. You raise a good concern about "third-party source" - but I still think the concept should be conveyed here. The underlying idea is to use names that non-specialists are most likely to recognize... like when scanning categories. Usage in secondary (and tertiary, etc.) sources is probably best for determining what that is. --] (]) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::See my comment to Wsiegmund above. You are conflating the concepts of ''first-party and third-party sources'' with ''primary, secondary and tertiary sources''. Your proposed change will not achieve your intent. ] 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::You're right, Hesperian. I amend my suggestion to say:

{{quotation|Determine the most common name by seeing what ] in English call the subject.}}

::::A secondary source is what I meant. That is, in order to use terminology most likely to be recognized by, and familiar to, readers, we should use the terminology used in secondary sources, not primary sources (like references). --] (]) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think all references are primary sources, then you are completely clueless about this topic, and should go away and educate yourself before proposing anything in this area. You might start with ] which specifically states that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable secondary sources".<p>But I can see where you're going with this. Since scientific papers are generally not accepted for publication unless they advance the field by offering a novel insight, you'll argue that all scientific papers are primary sources. On those grounds you'll seek to have them excluded from consideration when determining the most common name. Why? Because scientific papers use names that you don't like, and by excluding them you ensure that the most common name ends up being what you want it to be. Thus you achieve by sleight of hand what you couldn't achieve by bullying or voting last time: the emasculation of the "reliable sources" rider to WP:COMMONNAMES.<p>I remember the last time you tried this. You argued that there is no such thing as an ''un''reliable source for a name. The white pages entry for Joshua Tree Drycleaners is a reliable source for the most common name of ''Yucca brevifolia'', you said. We all laughed. And this new attempt at blatant systemic votestacking is no less hilarious. If you can't include the drycleaners, maybe you can exclude the experts, huh? You'll get there one way or another....<p>] 05:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah, the existence of a consumer business (Joshua Tree Drycleaners) named after a town (Joshua Tree) named after a plant (Joshua Tree) can be a useful source for establishing that that name (Joshua Tree) for that plant is likely to be familiar as the name of that plant to readers. I would even say that ''for that purpose'' it's a better source than an obsure botanical guide read only by experts.<p>Anyway, let me ask you this. Do you think that the requirements for the sources used in determining the veracity of article material should be any different from the requirements for sources to be consulted in order to determine which name for a given topic is most likely to be familiar to readers? (and please never mind about whether we should even be doing the latter, that's a separate though of course related question). Why or why not? Your answer to this would be helpful to me in understanding where our differences are. Thanks. --] (]) 07:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I do.
::Here's a mental exercise: Choose an arbitrary source. Imagine that the source contained the explicit assertion "''Joshua tree'' is the most commonly used name for ''Yucca brevifolia''". Ask yourself whether the imagined source may be legitimately used by Misplaced Pages as a reference for that assertion. If the answer to that question is yes, then we may take into account ''usage'' in the source (i.e. the ''actual'' source, which lacks such an explicit statement) when determining the most common name. If the answer is no, then this source's ''usage'' of terminology is irrelevant.
::Example 1: White Pages contains an advertisement for Joshua Tree Drycleaners. Imagine that advertisement contained the explicit assertion "''Joshua tree'' is the most commonly used name for ''Yucca brevifolia''". May I use that advertisement as a source for the claim? No, a drycleaning advertisement is not a reliable source for that claim. Therefore, the ''usage'' of the term "Joshua Tree" in this advertisement is irrelevant.
::Example 2: The latest entry on Billy's Blog is a feature on Nevadan flora, which refers to ''Y.&nbsp;brevifolia'' as "Joshua tree" throughout. Imagine that blog contained the explicit assertion "''Joshua tree'' is the most commonly used name for ''Yucca brevifolia''". May I use that blog as a source for the claim in a Misplaced Pages article? No, this is a non-peer-reviewed first-party publication; Billy's opinion is nothing more than Billy's opinion. Since Billy's Blog would not be a reliable source for an explicit statement about usage, its ''actual usage'' is irrelevant to determining the most common name.
::Example 3: The Oxford English dictionary contains an entry that identifies ''Joshua tree'' as a vernacular name for ''Yucca brevifolia''. Imagine that the OED entry contained the explicit statement "''Joshua tree'' is the most commonly used name for ''Yucca brevifolia''". May I use the Oxford English Dictionary as a source for that claim? Yes, the OED is a reliable source for word usage, and well-entitled to make such an claim, and be taken seriously. Therefore the OED's ''usage'', even in the absence of an explicit claim, should be taken into account.
::Example 4: An article in ''Nature'' about phylogenetic relationships within ''Yucca'' contains numerous mentions of ''Yucca brevifolia''. The first mention is given as "''Yucca brevifolia'' (Joshua Tree)", and all mentions thereafter are given as ''Y. brevifolia''. Imagine that the first mention was instead "''Yucca brevifolia'' (better known as Joshua Tree)". Is this an acceptable source for the claim that "''Joshua tree'' is the most commonly used name for ''Yucca brevifolia''"? That's a tough one. As an extremely widely respected peer-reviewed journal, it certainly passes muster as an acceptable reliable source; but the fact remains that the claim is being made by a botanist, who is not necessarily qualified to make such an assertion, and presumably lacks the ability to provide a rigorous proof of it. This kind of critical examination of sources is a good thing, and there ought to be a lot more of it on Misplaced Pages. But ultimately, we cannot deny that the claim has passed through a rigorous peer-review process and been accepted for publication in an outstanding source; therefore, I believe that Misplaced Pages would accept this article as a reliable source for the claim that we are discussing here, expecially if no other source is known to have made a contrary claim. Therefore the ''usage'' of the ''actual'' article should be taken into account.
::] 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

*I object to changing it to "verifiable reliable third-party sources" that is a detail in reliable sources that may or may not change in the future, but the general concept of the use of verifiable reliable sources will not. The whole point of the link was to off load the specific details of what is a verifiable reliable source to the verifiability policy, and not to get bogged down in details in the Naming conventions policy over what "verifiable reliable sources" are (so that goes for other wording as well such such as "verifiable secondary sources". Also we certainly do not want to go changing the wording in a guideline such as this, which could lead to conflict between this guideline and the NC policy page. -- ] (]) 11:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Same question I asked Hesperian, just to be clear... Do you think that the requirements for the sources used in determining the veracity of article material should be any different from the requirements for sources to be consulted in order to determine which name for a given topic is most likely to be familiar to readers? --] (]) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The two are closely related. (] is a term I have used in the past). --] (]) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Heads up re common name dabs and SIAs ==

Over on ] there is a discussion about whether common name dabs/SIAs are valid on Misplaced Pages or should be deleted. --] (]) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

== Heads up re beaver common name dispute ==
The dispute over the page name of the article about North American beavers is alive again. See ]. --] (]) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:* <tongue in cheek>I'm at a loss as to what to suggest there's no "american beaver drycleaners" nor are there any "canadian beaver drycleaners" maybe there's.....</tongue in cheek> clear ] but which way maybe it should be at the scientific name. ]] 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:**Maybe not, but there's this.... ] 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:***I don't know what they do in Oz or even in Canada, but here in the States, they are generally water-washed.--] (]) 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

==Use common names rationale petition==
I it possible to request a petition against the "Use common names" rationale; I found it perticularly annoying, both in technological topics (eg the term automobile to describe a personal ground vehicle, ...) and names of species (use of Common english names for the article rather than their true Latin name)
Anyone agreeing ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We are not here to reform the English language. ''Martial art'' could (and in a Utopian language, might) include tactics; but it doesn't - the ''OED'' has no citations for that sense at all. The development of a special sense for that phrase is an example of ], a useful process, which we are not empowered to stop.

:Correspondingly, we are presently agreed on ''use English'' in principle, not always in application; it has a page of its own, and is enshrined in policy at ]. Most of us are interested in communicating with anglophone readers, in "a language understanded of the people", as Archbishop Cranmer put it. It is always ''possible'' to reconsider such decisions; but I don't see any sentiment for it - and will argue against it myself, as destructive to the encyclopedia. The place to do so would be ]. 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

::You state that a petition against 'Use common names' would be destructive for the encyclopedia. Aldough I unsderstand your view, I wish to clarify my intention, which perhaps could change your view. Aldough I would propoese to alter the names of some articles, I would still maintain the old terms as a alternative name "Eg begiining the article with "a (article name) or (alternative name) is a ... " etc. If someone types in the old name, he would simple be redirected to the new article name. As such, you still maintain the old name, but encourage the use of a different (more logical one); in this approach, nothing (eg terms) are actually lost. I do feel that Misplaced Pages should do this as Misplaced Pages is designed to educate and transfer knowledge; not reproduce popular/socially accepted misconceptions. Note also that were this is appropriate (most cases), the common name will be used; only in special cases, a more logical name is to be used. As such, it is more of a petition to augment the rationale rather than replace it alltogether. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Redirects ==

Is there a reason ] (with one N) redirects here, but ] to ]? Same thing with ] and ] (both redirect here). It's pretty confusing, even though both pages talk about the same thing. I'd suggest redirecting all four to the policy page. This page will still have redirects, like ] and ]. What do you think? ] (]) 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:Makes sense. --] (]) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::All redirected to ] now. ] (]) 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
==Offensive names==
:''Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (]). When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work. A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such.''

This may be useful in settling a dispute elsewhere; but it was originally written in 2003, and has been little discussed since then. Is it still consensus?

In particular, is this a corollary of using the language of reliable sources (as we now provide)? If reliable sources call a name offensive, it is unlikely to be their normal usage.

I am not suggesting changing guidance; but should we point out the underlying rationale? ] <small>]</small> 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Please quit the sophistry. Common names can be offensive, even if reliable sources use such names. "Reliable" and "offensive" are two unrelated concepts. --] (]) 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::Please assume good faith. I have two purposes; one is to see whether a paragraph which has sat largely undiscussed for six years is still consensus. It certainly seems to have support; that's what I wanted to know.

::The other is ask whether it can now be rephrased without changing guidance. The paragraph above, with which I agree, defines offensive names as ones that reliable sources verifiably call offensive. If a reliable source uses an offensive name, is it reliable? Should we rely on a book on Judaism which ''uses'' (as opposed to mentioning that others use) "kikes"? ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

:Please quit the sophistry. Assuming that I intended something regarding good or bad faith solely by the use of the correct characterisation of what was going on (sophistry) is another example of sophistry. And again, I have no judgement to offer on whether such sophistry was committed in good or bad faith.

:Whether a word is offensive is highly subjective, i.e., depends on the reader. It is completely unrelated to the reliability of the source.

:I've never heard the word "kikes" and I suppose it is some sort of slang. When a source not only ''explains'' slang verbiage, but uses it as if it were a habitual terminology, then that says probably something about the reliability of the source. That is unrelated to whether or not that slang word is experienced offensive by some. The slang word may be experienced offensive to some, or it may not be experienced offensive by anyone, in either case the "less reliable" effect would only be due to an inappropriate use of slang, independent of offence potential.

:Please, as far as guidelines and the like go try to establish consensus BEFORE change as much as possible, I don't think the method you're proposing above is al that productive. --] (]) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::''Sophistry'' is gratuitously offensive; it is a charge that one does not ''mean'' the argument one uses. If Francis did not mean that, a retraction would be welcome.
:::"offensive" - depends of the eye of the reader. Remark that I commented on the contribution, not the contributor. --] (]) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::My eye is poked. You had no evidence of sophistry - which, in fact, I'm not using. ] <small>]</small> 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::You had no evidence of anything you contend, a.k.a. this discussion is going nowhere. --] (]) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::''Kike'' is a fairly offensive term; comparable to the expressions used of African-Americans in the less civilized Southern States; somewhat worse than ''wog'' in Britain - in any case, much beyond slang.
:::"beyond slang" - lol; well, but nonetheless ''slang'' isn't it??? --] (]) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::But the questions are, then:
::::#Should we rely on (to make something up) ''The Ways of Wogdom'' as a source on Egyptian culture (as opposed to being a source on British prejudice)?
::::#We are already guided to use the term for Egyptian most commonly found in reliable sources. Is this likely to be ''wog''?
::::#If these are answered No, isn't avoidance of offensive names related to the use of reliable sources?
::::#If so, doesn't that make the argument for avoiding such names even stronger than it was in 2003?
::::#Shouldn't we have as strong an argument as is valid?
::::And if offense is in the eye of the beholder, we will need one; or some patriotic Foolander will write the worst epithet for Barlanders he can think of into text, and claim its offense is all in our eyes. ] <small>]</small> 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
These are not the questions. Who says they are? --] (]) 20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

==Other specific conventions==
:Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, ''except where other specific conventions provide otherwise''. Some important exceptions are described at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles); others are discussed under "Exceptions" below.
This wording is disputed as out-of-date, and vague. It puts the interpretation of this page in the hands of other guidelines, and unfortunately, enthusiastic supporters of a POV are perfectly capable of making an obscure naming convention on Fooland say '''''Never''' use common names for Fooland; use the names approved by the Foolandic government''/''the Fooland Army of Liberation''; which defeats the purpose of having this guideline.

Most of our guidelines give good reasons, which I support, for diverging from common names; the wording here should not defer to bad reasons. ] <small>]</small> 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

::I think your interpretation of the situation flippant, to put it it mildly. "This wording is disputed as out-of-date, and vague." no it isn't, you stepped in an edit-war before even asking, ignoring the most basic "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

::I'm open to any reasonable contribution to a debate, thus far I saw none. Let the discussion begin! --] (]) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I see no trace of an edit war; if someone else has advocated such a thing, where?

:::If Francis contends that other edit guidelines should be able to ban common names for any reason they please, or even none but ], then this is indeed not consensus; I would be surprised to find that he does. If not, then we are discussing wording, not content; I intend no substantive change to guidance. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Pardon? I don't even know what premises you started from jumping to conclusions as you do. Please keep to rational discussion, please. And about the topic at hand. When a discussion shifts to easily to the ''meta'' aspects there's probably not much to discuss on the content side is there? --] (]) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::''Please keep to rational discussion, please. And about the topic at hand. When a discussion shifts to easily to the ''meta'' aspects there's probably not much to discuss on the content side is there?''

::::::Take your own advice. Your fourth word was "sophistry", which bends both of these.] <small>]</small> 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But the mutton here is:
#Are there (conceivably) bad reasons for not using common names?
#Is it possible for other guidelines to advise against using common names for bad reasons?
#If so, what should editors do?
I hold that the answers to these are
#Yes,
#Yes,
#In such a case, the editors should use common names.
Now the text above, in such a case, prescribes that editors should follow the other guidelines and their bad reasons. I am prepared to accept any text which does not give that advice. ] <small>]</small> 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:28, 19 May 2022

Redirect to:

This talk page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
  • With history: This is a redirect from a page containing substantive page history. This page is kept as a redirect to preserve its former content and attributions. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated), nor delete this page.
    • This template should not be used for redirects having some edit history but no meaningful content in their previous versions, nor for redirects created as a result of a page merge (use {{R from merge}} instead), nor for redirects from a title that forms a historic part of Misplaced Pages (use {{R with old history}} instead).
When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (common names): Difference between revisions Add topic