Talk:Common name

Untitled
General note: Whether the common name of a species of organism is capitalized on Wikipedia is something that is currently decided by each individual WikiProject, based on what the authorities in that subject do or don't do. Please try to adhere to the conventions of the relevant project. Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A comment
Every few months over the last 2 years I have come to look at this article and its talk page, and I see the same pattern here each time. I understand that one editor feels that he/she is truly an expert on this topic, but I feel I must point out that it is not reasonable, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to attempt to "defend" the article against all comers. Several of the people who have commented here over the last two years are working scientists who are very familiar with both scientific names and common names. These people probably have some helpful ideas to contribute, and need to be "allowed" to do what they can to improve the article. The editor who is most active here appears to approach the subject of common names from a philosophical (possibly structuralist?) point of view. I have been reluctant to even raise the issue of "ownership" here on the talk page, but I feel I have to, mainly because this quote from the WP ownership page seems apposite, as I have seen variations on this welcome applied to several different editors over the last two years:

"Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"

I would request that anyone who has too much emotionally invested in this article being one way or another might want to consider backing off, taking a break and moving on to editing other articles or creating new ones.

I do not wish to get into a long and convoluted discussion, so this is all I am going to say.

Happy New Year, and thanks everyone, best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Today I made an attempt to take out of the article everything that was flavored with Point of View, and to remove anything that made the article look like a personal essay. Everyone who contributes to this article from now on, please try to remember that Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia, nothing more. A Wikipedia article is emphatically not a soapbox. It is also not a platform for launching your own thoughts about a subject, however sure you are that you are correct in your views. This should be a straightforward encyclopedia article about what a common name is. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi IZ, I see that in your pruning you removed the bit about mosquitoes. That one really is important and factual. I have mutilated it somewhat as follows. Please let me know if it now is more nearly acceptable:
 * Many people argue that fine distinctions in nomenclature are of no practical significance, that for example, a mosquito is a mosquito. Such misconceptions often are dangerous. For example, mosquitoes such as Toxorhynchites not only do not suck blood at all, but are valuable predators of some very troublesome species of bloodsucking mosquitoes. Conversely, two species of mosquitoes that are practically indistinguishable to the layman might suck blood equally voraciously, but one might rarely attack humans and never carry human disease, whereas the other might carry diseases both deadly and agonising (such as yellow fever, dengue, and various kinds of malaria). Again, two similar-looking mosquitoes of equal medical importance might differ crucially in the measures necessary for their control . Such distinctions are vital for millions of people.
 * Cheers,JonRichfield (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jon. Sorry but we can't include "Many people argue that fine distinctions in nomenclature are of no practical significance" unless you can source that. And the whole section is basically written as an argument in favor of precise common names, which is too much POV (an individual point of view). If you can find experts who agree with your stance, then you can quote them. Otherwise you can't put your own arguments (however logical) into an encyclopedia article. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive
The talk page was getting slow to load, so I created an archive page (see archive box at top of page) and archived the messages from 2005 through 2010. Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-biological common names
Wbm1058 inserted an edit, remarking that "...certainly the term must have other meanings outside of biology". I admit that I had overlooked that entirely. I went to Ngrams and found several types of usages of the term. I would support a section dealing with the subject, and if no one else is panting to get at it, I might produce something myself sometime, possibly soon, though not very. I should be surprised if it comprised more than a shortish paragraph, but it seems meaningful enough not to ignore. JonRichfield (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A few paragraphs that I removed
Today I removed several paragraphs as I think this discussion does not really belong in this article. One could argue that it might be more suited to the article about folk taxonomy, although frankly I think as it currently stands it reads far too much like an essay, and is riddled with POV.

I agree with the user who wrote the invisible comment that said: "Unless the following remainder of the section up to and encluding the Moby Dick quote is expanded upon again and the problems with the explanation noted, perhaps the article is better off without it entirely. The whole subject seems better suited to a more general article about biological taxonomy, anyway."

Here are the paragraphs in case someone wants to work up some of the material to go somewhere else:

"There is a correspondence between many common names and systematic taxonomic names. Studies that compared the names applied to various plants by traditional Oriental herbalists with the classification of the same plants by modern botanists, also showed surprisingly close correspondence. ANOTHER INVISIBLE COMMENT SAID HERE: The former, much more detailed version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=431885348 made the vital point that the counterexamples are even more numerous and arguably even more relevant. It's even quite possible that this explanation has it exactly backwards: At least at the lower (genus, sometimes even species) level systematic classification is itself frequently, generally or even principally arbitrary and based on lay classification, as pointed out by George Lakoff in "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things". This subjectivity is the reason why cladistics eschews ranks completely.

"Many laymen who have the experience and interest to name the creatures that they deal with, also have the powers of observation that equip them to recognise relevant differences and group organisms accordingly. The way in which they do this is generally to create a term for a familiar and inclusive set of entities perceived to have shared characteristics. Such a term is likely not to be a binomial at first. Consider the Afrikaans term "bok" which in this context may be taken to mean "antelope". (It has other meanings that are not relevant in context.) When the waterbuck became known, it was recognised as distinct from other known antelope and it was distinguished by qualification, in effect creating a subset of antelope called "waterbok", a perfectly valid application of intuitive set theory. Subsequently the settlers discovered the lechwe and correctly noted its resemblance to the related waterbuck, but at that point the defensibility of the system showed signs of strain; the new animal was called "basterwaterbok", meaning literally "hybrid waterbuck". The set-theoretical principle remained largely defensible and was recognisably analogous to formal taxonomic principles, but the systematic biological knowledge necessary for functional interpretation was lacking.

"Commonly problems would arise even sooner; the Afrikaans name for Cannabis is "dagga"; the indigenous plant Leonotis leonurus is effectively unrelated, but, because of a fancied resemblance of the leaves, is called "wildedagga", meaning "wild dagga".

"A possibly more typical example illustrating how common names reflect what might be called folk taxonomy, and for lack of technical insight (though not necessarily of good sense) often undermine the merits of biologically systematic nomenclature can be found in the book Moby-Dick or, The Whale, by Herman Melville. In Chapter 32, "Cetology", concerning the question of whether the whale is a fish or mammal, Melville wrote in about 1851:

""The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish... The grounds upon which Linnaeus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: "On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their movable eyelids, their hollow ears..." I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug... Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me." "

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

POV: "hazards of facile coinage of terminology?" Was this whole article written in 1868??
"[H]azards of facile coinage of terminology"?? Someone translated gracilis as graceful once, and therefore common names are "confusingly inaccurate"? English common names shouldn't be coined if an older Zulu name exists for some of the animals in a genus? What?? And there's a lengthy paragraph quoted verbatim from 1868 to make the point? A quote which seems to presume all languages use the same names for all of geography? Really??? The whole section on "Coining common names" seems to assume the reader will be bored by the long-winded explanations and accept anything that is written in a long enough sentence. It does a horrible job of presenting a single side of an argument. —Pengo 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Pengo please don't let your own POV tinge your no-doubt inadvertent tone. Note that the text you protested against was itself specifically in protest against POV practices. As for "Someone translated gracilis as graceful once", permit me to spare your blushes by assuring you that gracilis, in my experience at least, is about as widely translated as graceful, either explicitly or implicitly, rather than as gracile (do a bit of surfing if you don't believe me) but even if that were otherwise, it would not affect the fact that where such mistranslations occur (no one said anything about common names in general in this connection! Wake up!) they are indeed "confusingly inaccurate" (feel free to correct me if you think that you can justify any view according to which they instead could be justified as constructively or helpfully denotational).

A few more points might be helpful in reducing blood pressures all round:
 * English common names shouldn't be coined if an older Zulu name exists for some of the animals in a genus? What?? It might have been helpful to read the passage in question before fulminating about it. Try it now. The point is not in favour of Zulu specifically (wipe out Nyala while you are at it; call it the helical-horned bushbeast like they do in Oz if you don't like Zulu) but that where older names already exist, if Newspeak zealots insist on coining arbitrary new names, then to try to impose such neologisms arbitrarily as standards, when their only merit is that some coiner somewhere thinks his nice new name is better, is counter-constructive as well as arrogant, no matter how engagingly they insist. Currently there seems to be a plague of such amateur philologists writing popular guides and red tape reams of renaming. To argue OTOH that the new name is very, very old and that it therefore deserves respect and universal adoption must inarguably be reasonable, but only if it is founded in fact. In the genus Burhinus, as carefully explained in the text, "thicknee" is not very old and not (hitherto) in wide usage even in Anglophone populations, let alone elsewhere. I mentioned Zulu as an illustrative example, but there are other examples in many other languages, including various Germanic and Romance languages, not to mention the longer-established "stone curlew" in English. Do a bit of looking up; other people were not too proud to do so! So what is the special merit of the English coinage of "thicknee", given that it is inaccurate as well? More to the point, it is but one example among many. I trust you do not propose that the article be expanded to accommodate hundreds of similar or analogous examples to justify one view or another?
 * Note that 1868 was as good a year as most. It was the year in which they discovered Cro-Magnon remains, and a leap year to boot, so that the reason for your apparent indignation is obscure. What makes facts and texts worthy of respect is not their recency of publishing, but their accuracy and relevance. Please explain the accuracy and relevance of your objection to the quote in question. It is precisely accurate, precisely to the point, and in its date it demonstrates the long-established relevance of the concern. In particular please point out on which date article 68 was repealed or replaced or otherwise voided, or in which way you see it as inaccurate, misleading or otherwise discredited. Just how you read it to imply that it seems to presume all languages use the same names for all of geography is totally obscure. It does not seem to suggest anything of the type, either implicitly or explicitly. Feel welcome to explain which parts you interpret in such terms, and how you would prefer to word the points it made.
 * Apart from addition and deletion in general, there are two major types of editing that crop up commonly in WP: improvement of material and improvement of style and clarity. Improvement of material in terms of fact and implication needs careful justification in terms of accuracy and relevance. Improvement of style such as as. Writing. Short. Sentences. Does. Not. All that takes is improvement of style for the pleasure and profit of the readers of the text. Neither requires shrill invective such as ...seems to assume the reader will be bored by the long-winded explanations and accept anything that is written in a long enough sentence.... If you dislike the English, don't complain, fix it (not within quotes of course, unless you can find a better quote). For fixing the substance OTOH you need to produce more defensible substance, and in the event that you do, I'd be the first to applaud; so far however, please pardon my lack of enthusiasm.
 * I am sorry that you didn't like the horrible job, but glad that you thought it produced at least one side of the argument, whichever that was. Do you have another side that you think would improve the balance? I am all for balance and would be happy to support anything of the type, but do try to avoid the Wikiwarrior image; you might find it fun to shout, but it is no substitute for substance. All the best! JonRichfield (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of intent to remove POV flag
I see no objection to the response to the NPOV challenge some 6 months ago. I had actually forgotten about it, and apologise to all parties. Unless someone brings some constructive discussion to the party in the next few weeks (or months -- years or however long I take to remember), I shall remove it. JonRichfield (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. William Avery (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Common name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923043721/http://www.seafood.net.au/fishnames/standard.php to http://www.seafood.net.au/fishnames/standard.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003051617/http://www.names-of-flowers.net/flowers-names.html to http://www.names-of-flowers.net/flowers-names.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715075943/http://plantae2.librecanal.com/ to http://plantae2.librecanal.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Add topic
Why are common name are not universal? 103.51.137.42 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just how language works. The object we call a "pen" in English is not a "pen" in Spanish or Irish, either - this isn't unique to animals or other living things, it's just a language thing. Edenaviv5 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * People and organizations do try to standardize names in various languages. There is a heading in the article on “Official lists” that discusses some of these. WiLaFa (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are different ways for common names to originate, but the thing they almost always have in common is that they originate within a single language, culture, or geographic area. Accordingly, they are essentially never universal. They can be more stable than scientific names, in some cases, or they can apply to so many different things that they become essentially worthless - perhaps the best worst example is the common name "rockfish". Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)