Talk:Trivial name

is a table needed
it may not be clear to the reader which part is the common name and which the chemical name, because of the coloring of the links. probably better in a table??

& do peptides have the suffix "amide"?

&, and a bigger question, is whether we need to say something specific about "drug name"DGG 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Difference between pages
On the Acetic Acid page it says:

The trivial name acetic acid is the most commonly used and officially preferred name by the IUPAC.

Here it suggests:

That is, the name is not recognised according to the rules of any formal (e.g. IUPAC) system of nomenclature

These two statements seem to conflict. --86.164.126.9 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Similar wording on the Ozone page. I see this point was raised in 2008 and has not been addressed. The conflict remains with the ozone and acetic acid pages, and very possibly a range of other pages dealing with trivial names. I suspect the wording on the present page is defective. IUPAC provides systematic names but does not necessarily deprecate others (compare the Wiktionary entry). Gregory Cherlin (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge
Not quite a formal proposal, but shouldn't we deal with common name and trivial name on the same page? Earthlyreason (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There does not appear to be any significant difference between "trivial name" and "common name" and so it is proposed that this article be merged into the more widely used "common name". This will involve a "redirect" and possibly a disambiguation entry for "trivial". There is also some material and examples that could be taken from this article and merged with that of "common name". If there is no objection to this merge then I will proceed with it in one month on c. 1 Feb 2009. Granitethighs (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually trivial names are the common names for, generally, chemical substances. You call the common name for a chemical its trivial name, but not its common name, while you don't call the common name for a plant a trivial name.  They're not the same things.  Our articles on neither are very good but conflating the two terms by joining them in the same article won't help.  Common names can be official, but trivial names, by definition, never are sanctioned.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * KP - I wonder if what you say might have something to do with where you come from. In Australia it is very unusual but occasionally common names are referred to as trivial epithets. Admittedly I am not a chemist but I am a trained scientist and am not familiar with the convention of calling a common name like "vinegar" or "epsom salts" a trivial name. I dont know whether I would call them "common" names either but I certainly wouldn't call them "trivial names". What I am saying is that IMO the distinction you see as clear cut (they're not the same things) is not as clear-cut as you imply. Perhaps if, in the merger, it is mentioned that in some places there is a convention that common names of chemicals are referred to as "trivial names" - how would that be? I am not sure that the point that common names "can" be official has any great bearing on the merger - could you expand? Incidentally, you say about the articles "neither is very good" - could you also expand on that please, especially in relation to the article on "common names"? Granitethighs (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might have everything to do with where I come from. Common names can indeed be official, that's what birders do, they have an organization that sanctions the common names of birds, various organizations, I suppose in various places.  Also New Zealand sanctions plant names with an English and a Maori one, and Germany, I believe sanctions their plant names.  This also may be an older usage, but I stand by it, it's what chemists call common names for chemicals and compounds.  I worked with a group of chemists one summer on a data base.  In epithet is not quite the same thing as a trivial name, though.  We refer to the names the US government makes up out of the scientific names as "trivial epithets," not as common names, in particular to distinguish that they have no common usage. --KP Botany (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually trivial names are the common names for, generally, chemical substances. You call the common name for a chemical its trivial name, but not its common name, while you don't call the common name for a plant a trivial name.  They're not the same things.  Our articles on neither are very good but conflating the two terms by joining them in the same article won't help.  Common names can be official, but trivial names, by definition, never are sanctioned.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're supposed to replace the comment with a link to which page you're discussing it on. Please do so, then copy and paste all arguments to that page, and also add merger to Common Name page.  They're not the same thing, though.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * KP - I'm newish to Wikipedia procedures etc. However I think it should now be clear what is being proposed and where the discussion is (could you help here if you disagree). Now, let me restate the proposal in different words. This article on "trivial names" at present refers to chemical and zoological names. Common names in botany are also sometimes referred to as "trivial names" so they could be added to the article as well (chemical, zoological, botanical (at least)). However, you point out that chemicals are a special case of "trivial name". This leaves us with at least two or three options: 1) Merge article "trivial name" with article "common name" and state in the merged article that chemicals are a special case. 2)Have the "trivial names" article to include only chemical names with a statement of why botanical and zoological names have been omitted 3)Make a very clear comment in the "trivial name" article stating why and under what situations common names and trivial names are not the same thing. In other words, a clear reason for not merging the two articles. Which of these do you propose - or would you suggest another option? Also you mentioned that "neither of the articles is very good". Could you please elaborate on this statement so that improvements can be made? Thanks KP. Granitethighs (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we pause, and look up references on these phrases, before proposing anything? The articles are disordered, unclear, and difficult to read. One good one would be great, but two good ones, if proper, would be fine also. --KP Botany (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Your procedures are fine. You're discussing the issue with other editors concerned about the articles.  Stick with that and you'll go far.  --KP Botany (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivial name in biology
The article treats "trivial name" as a synonym for "common name" in biology. However this is very misleading. Nomen triviale or "trivial name" is the term Linnaeus used for his binomial names (more precisely perhaps the second part), i.e. scientific rather than common names. See, e.g., Biological_classification. It's not as commonly used in this sense today as it seems to have been, but it's still a major meaning, quite uncovered in the article. A Google search for "trivial name" shows two uses: firstly, the one in the article – but in many cases it appears that the source was originally the article itself; secondly, as here, a Linnaean sense, such as "another term for specific epithet". It concerns me that the article is spreading an error. As I cannot find a reliable source to support the idea that "trivial name" is regularly used in biology with the meaning "common name", and as there is a clearly supported use which is precisely the opposite, I have removed the reference to biology from the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Proposal: Merge List of chemical compounds with unusual names into Trivial name. This has a number of advantages: RockMagnetist (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial name, though rated high importance in WikiProject Chemistry, is little more than a short list. Merging List ... would make it a far more substantial article.
 * List ... has much better sources than Trivial name, but possibly the best (Nickon and Silversmith) discusses chemical names in general, not just "unusual" ones. These sources would a great help in building Trivial name.
 * List ... is frequently challenged, largely because "unusual" is an ill-defined, open-ended concept. Trivial name is well-defined.
 * It will be very difficult to choose a name and selection criteria for List ... that would make it less susceptible to challenges.
 * It would be far more efficient and useful to use prose to discuss groups of names by some feature of the name, such as its origin, than to have a line for each name with a lot of irrelevant information appended. For example, a few sentences could say all that is worth saying about the potty humor names like BARF and catP. A good model for how to do this well is Bill Bryson's book, The Mother Tongue.
 * Support, this looks doable. -84user (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's an AfD in progress, and the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep, not merge, the article in question. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have chosen to propose this merge separately because I thought of it rather late in the day, so it was too late for it to be considered seriously as part of an AfD. And the outcome of the AfD is more likely to be no consensus than keep. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's much more likely to be "keep". In the unlikely event that it is "no consensus", that would be a better time to propose a merge, although I still don't think you'll get a consensus for it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are two at best overlapping sets. Some of the "unusual" names are fully systematic or formal, not trivial. Note that "trivial name" has a technical meaning that is not related to the lay-language meaning of the word "trivia" (that latter may well be what the List of... article is in some ways). DMacks (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did wonder how many might be systematic. However, as far as I can tell the only one that is purely systematic is Methionylthreonylthreonylglutaminylarginyl...isoleucine. Some of the others might be retained names, which seem to be considered a subset of trivial names (but I'm not a chemist). Can you point out some of the names that you don't think should be in Trivial name? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Several are acronyms (DAMN, DEAD) or are based on the chemical-symbol/formula (FOOF), and at least one actually is the standard name (uranate). DMacks (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that FOOF is not a systematic name: it is based on the atoms in the chemical formula, not the name Dioxygen difluoride; in the article it is called a nickname. As for the others, if there are enough of them, I could another target to the merge proposal (e.g., Chemical nomenclature, which doesn't yet discuss acronyms). Or the exceptions could just be dealt with on a case by case basis. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FOOF is the condensed formula. The chemical is not just a collection of two oxygen cations and two fluorine anions, but actually the connectivity F–O–O–F. Pretty common for covalent compounds to be identified by connectivity not simple atom-counts. DMacks (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That didn't really answer my question about it being systematic. However, I did manage to find out that it is the SMILES name for this chemical, and therefore systematic. That leaves my other question - would a merge be acceptable if there were also a destination for the systematic names? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per DMacks. The solution is to neatly section the List of chemical compounds with unusual names by the characteristic that has caused the name to be identified in reliable sources as "unusual" (or "weird" or "funny"). bd2412  T 14:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been doing that, and I could use some help. The reason for many of them being on the list is not obvious to me. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This merge was also suggested in the recently-closed AfD discussion, but consensus in the discussion was for the article to be retained, rather than merged. This article is functioning just fine as a stand-alone at this time. It seems premature to merge right after an AfD result to retain the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Although I proposed this merge, I can now see that a merge would not be a good thing for Trivial name. Some of the names from List ... enhance this article, but merging all of them would create a mess. This proposal looks unlikely to pass, but I'll keep it going for a week. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

classical elements
Nine elements were known by the Middle Ages – gold, silver, tin, mercury, copper, lead, iron, sulfur, and carbon. Mercury was named after the planet, but its symbol was derived from the Latin hydrargyrum, which itself comes from the greek υδράργυρος, meaning liquid silver; mercury is also known as quicksilver in English. The symbols for the other eight are also derived from descriptions of their properties in Latin. (emphasis added)

No, as far as I know, the symbols for the other eight are derived from their trivial names in Latin: aurum = gold, argentum = silver, stannum = tin, cuprum = copper, plumbum = lead, ferrum = iron, carbo = charcoal. —Tamfang (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Chemical elements' names
This page's summary ends with the undocumented assertion, "All elements that have been isolated have trivial names." Is this true? - - even, say, of element 85, astatine, a highly radioactive decay product with a half-life little longer than a third of an Earth day?

That assertion would be true if the elements' formal names were all officially considered trivial, since none of them by itself describes the structure of any compound, but apparently those on the periodic table are in fact systematic. See, e.g., https://www.webelements.com/nexus/systematic-element-names/. Mucketymuck (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)