Talk:Silene chalcedonica

Dec. 2021
Also known as scarlet lychnis Sdh (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Sdh
 * Done (with different citations). Darorcilmir (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

April 2006
Also known as nonesuch nonesuch info --Kylet 11:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lychnis chalcedonica → Silene chalcedonica – Lychnis is a synonym of Silene. e.g. see POWO. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Lorstaking 15:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)1
 * Can you expand a bit more as to how that relates to this article about a plant? Any plant commonly cultivated will be commonly listed under old synonyms, but it serves the reader to use modern taxonomy accepted in reliable secondary sources like Kew's Plants of the World Online database. The article will still be easily findable under its synonym redirect page, and the synonym will continue to be placed prominently in the lead, along its numerous vernacular names. Or is your proposition to move the article to a vernacular name title instead? (For that, see Naming conventions (flora) for some considerations.) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, the currently accepted scientific name name always takes precedence over a synonym. User:Lorstaking's objection would only make sense if it was proposed to move the article off a common name such as Barley to Hordeum vulgare. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Although Naming conventions (flora) doesn't seem to address the topic of the current scientific name versus older scientific names in any depth, going with Plants of the World Online seems like a good plan. If the name Lychnis chalcedonica is widely used (and for most garden plants it likely will be for some decades to come, although I'm not familiar with this one in particular), we should make a redirect and probably mention the synonym in the article. Kingdon (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Commercial businesses marketing this product would obviously prefer that taxonomists piss off, and shall use the old name for branding recognition purposes for decades to come. That doesn't mean a reference encyclopaedia should perpetuate incorrect names. Similar to Eskimo/Inuit... sort of. A redirect as suggested above by Kingdon will work in the case of people looking up the old name, and a few sentences about taxonomy can explain the name change for those who care. Leo Breman (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not just a name, but a taxonomic statement. William Avery (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All the other species (e.g. coronaria, flos-cuculi, flos-jovis) seem have been moved. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)