Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3

Names for ethnic communities living outside the boundaries of their own ethnic state
Currently there's a lot of conflict over this point (see, for example, Talk:Ethnic Mongolians in China, Talk:Chinese Indonesian, Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China, Talk:Chinese Malaysian). We have examples of all of the following patterns, and there's been objections to every single one. (Full disclosure: I'm not an unbiased informant here, I'm personally opposed to standardisation on the American-style model of "Ethnicity, then nationality" and have been going around arguing against it).:
 * Ethnicity, then nationality (like Chinese American):. Some people go around trying to standardise all other usages to match this one, even when these are minority usages (e.g. Chinese Malaysian) or not clearly established (Chinese Mongolian, Korean Chinese). There's also conflict over whether usages of this form should be hyphenated or not.
 * Nationality, then ethnicity (like British Chinese): Some people complain this is inaccurate and try to standardize as above. Others also complain that this form overemphasizes the foreignness of the ethnic group in question (the ethnicity as a noun, modified by the nationality).
 * Non-English names in the language of the ethnic group (like Koryo-saram): Some people complain this usage is not clear to English speakers. It also may lead to conflicts over transcription (e.g. the above spelling, based off of an old romanization, could be updated to use the Revised Romanization spelling "Goryeo-saram"). Also, how members of the ethnic group living outside their country of origin prefer to call themselves may be different from what their co-ethnics back in the mother country call them (in this case, "Goryeo-in").
 * Non-English names in the language of the country of residence (like Zainichi Korean): Same problem as above, plus the possible accusation of racism because you're using the "mainstream" name instead of the ethnic group's name in their own ethnic language (Jaeil). Especially when the mainstream name doesn't make any distinction between foreigners and citizens. (E.g. Hoa, which just means "Chinese").
 * Ethnic (Group name) in (Country name) (like Ethnic Koreans in China): some people complain that this is too unwieldy, and also it doesn't sufficiently distinguish between Chinese citizens of Korean descent, and Korean citizens living in China. Others assert (usually just based on their own opinion) that "Ethnic Abc" is clearly distinguished from plain old "Abc" (as in Ethnic German). Also this usage does start to look excessively long if you try to think about how to title a page describing the reverse migration of said ethnic group to their country of origin.

Any suggestions? Can other readers here help us to write clearer guidelines regarding this to avoid having to repeat the same debate on every single ethnicity page? cab 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to standardize. If the US says "Chinese-American" and the UK says "British Chinese", the articles should be at those locations. john k 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree strongly of course. I think the main problem comes when there is no usual term in English for referring to to the given population; then someone makes an arbitrary decision, usually by analogy either to Chinese American or to British Chinese (e.g. Israeli Chinese, Chinese Cayman Islander), and someone else disagrees with it ... my argument is that both of these violate No original research by introducing new terms/new definitions of existing terms, and that the page title should be something descriptive instead (e.g. "Chinese in the Cayman Islands"), but is that the proper interpretation? Usually the counter-argument is that a "reasonable person" would expect to find the page at the pre-existing location. cab 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you are right. And why would somebody expect Chinese Cayman Islander, anyway, if there's no reliable sources that use the term? john k 12:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but we actually need to come up with a standardized form because it will be so confusing to people when they see terms like Chinese-American and American-Chinese. Is 'American-Chinese' a Chinese of American heritage (which is very odd) or what is it? People must decide to conform to ONE method either the American way or the British way or whatever way. I don't see anything wrong of conforming to the US method of ethnicity as an adjective and then nationality second. In most cases, it makes the most sense! I don't see why many people have such a huge problem with that when, in the end, it's one of the most sensical systems when it comes to these ethno-national terms. I think it's just because a lot of people have this usual bias for the British method solely for the fact that people do not want to be conforming to American English methods (even if they do come up with practical and logical ways). People just refuse to budge purely because it is the 'American' way. Many people would prefer to follow the so-called 'correct' British system or as long as it is 'not American'. So therefore, people should just finally resolve this issue and settle on the US standard method. 'Ethnicity then your nationality'.. what is so impractical about that??? I mean come on. If you are an American of Chinese descent, then your nationality is American and as an adjective-marker, your heritage which makes you DIFFERENT from other Americans of different ancestries, which makes you distinct from English Americans or African Americans is 'Chinese'. I think people here get carried away with this because they are arguing from the point of view of personal feelings of what an ethnic or national group might see themselves as. We are not here to argue about that. We are here to come up with an objective (NOT subjective) method of naming ethnic groups outside their respective 'ethnic states' regardless of whether a Chinese-American feels that he is only Chinese or whether a German of Turkish descent feels he is as German as the majority ethnic Germans. There is a clear line between personal feelings of ethnicity and nationality (hence influencing some people's reasons here) AND coming up with a logical naming method.


 * I believe it would be best that all articles included within this talk be named the same way, an I belive that say Chinese British instead of British Chinese is the best name. National Statistics of the UK even uses this term, and official terms should be followed and not ignored or debated, follow the link to see the term Asian British used, instead of the Wikipedia created highly innacurate British Asian . Stevvvv4444 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito
An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome.  MBisanz  talk 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal nicknames
A discussion at Talk:World War I has raised an issue begging for a guideline: controversial nicknames. In the case at hand, a historically-used nickname of an individual (US General Jack Pershing) is now considered offensive by modern sensibilities and has been bowdlerized. Editor might use the historically accurate name, the widely accepted bowdlerized version, just the simplified name, or the legal name. Comments? LeadSongDog (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As per my comments at the World War I talk page, I don't believe this particular instance needs a MoS guideline. It's a specific instance where a nickname is totally unrelated to the article (i.e., Pershing wasn't given the nickname in question because of the war, etc.), therefore, it is totally irrelevant to the subject and shouldn't be included. It is, of course, directly relevant to John J. Pershing, and probably to 10th Cavalry Regiment (United States) (the unit Pershing commanded that was the cause for the nickname). If we were to have a guideline for nicknames, I think it should be "if it's relevant, include it, if not, can it". Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Does "common names" refer to "most common usage?"
In this discussion and elsewhere, an editor argues that it is valid to use "circumcision" as the title of an article which bars the discussion of the circumcision of females, because "circumcision" is the common name for the concept of the circumcision of males (the topic under discussion). I argue that this conflicts with this guideline (among others), because it creates an ambiguity, and incorrectly or at least non-neutrally implies that the circumcision of females does not fall under the general concept of circumcision. I am under the impression that the goal of this guideline was to avoid overly-scientific or technical names for concepts where simpler and more widely-known names exist. Am I wrong and does this guideline also mean that a common, expedient name for one specific concept overrides a rigourous definition of the general concept? Opinions and comments welcome, and thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

TV shows
If a TV show changed its name while still on the air, should we continue using the old title? If so, how long would it be before the new title would be considered more common? This is in regards to WWE Friday Night SmackDown! (though there are other shows I know that could be affected). The show has always had a "!" since it premiered in August 1999, but seems to have dropped it as of tonights episode. There is a current more request and I was wondering what applies here, I should also point out that the show was originally called "WWF SmackDown!" from August 1999-May 2002 (when the WWF was legally forced to stop using those initials, so they changed their name to WWE), then "WWE SmackDown!" from May 2002-September 2006, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" from Setpember 2006 until today.  TJ   Spyke   09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Currency name guidelines
Current guidelines at WP:WikiProject Numismatics that call for currency articles to be at their native rather than English names appear to be an attempt to supersede WP:UCN. Please discuss proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. —  AjaxSmack   23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict
I just now removed the phrase "that does not conflict with..." from the lead sentence and the nutshell. This guideline and the Naming conflict guideline should be complementary. Instead the "does not conflict with" statement is causing political warriors to deny that article names can ever conflict. Without the statement, this article points to the exceptions section, where I have written an extra statement pointing to the naming conflict guideline.

If this is too bold, please discuss. Drop a line on my talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I think the reason that "does not conflict" was on there was to avoid confusion. Consider Maryland Route 2 for example.  "Route 2" is the most common name for it, but we can't use that name, because it conflicts, so instead we use the most common name which doesn't conflict, "Maryland Route 2".  I think without making that clear on this page, people will think that that article should be located at Route 2 (Maryland).  That, of course, would be in violation of Disambiguation, which explicitly states that parentheses should be avoided.  I've seen people who misunderstood this naming convention use it as an argument to move articles to titles that used parentheses because the non-parenthesized portion in their suggested title was the "most common name".  If it's not clearly stated here that we should only use the most common name that doesn't conflict, the problem will only get worse.-Jeff (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the "does not conflict part" disagrees with WP:NCON, as that guideline says that when one name conflicts with the name of something else, to consult WP:DAB. WP:DAB says that if another name exists for the topic in question, that does not conflict with the name of something else, then that name should be used.  In other words, "use the most common name that does not conflict".  I think I gave this long enough and got no response, so I'll go ahead and add the "does not conflict" parts back in for now, unless someone has a strong argument for removing or rewording them.-Jeff (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jordan (model) -> Katie Price -> Kate André
Jordan (Katie Price) has been moved without any discussion to Katie André. Although there has been talk in unreliable sources of her now using her married name - Katie André - this has not been confirmed and she will still be know to most people as Jordan or Katie Price. Please can someone who knows what they are doing have a look and revert if necessary. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When the two names under consideration are not synonyms, but one reflects early (inaccurate) media reports
There was a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem bulldozer attack on this matter. Early media reports said the attack was with a bulldozer, but later it was revealed to have been a front-end loader, a different kind of machinery. This page was cited as showing that we should go with the commonly-reported name. I wrote:
 * I respectfully disagree. I believe what WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:NCON, etc. are talking about when they advocate using the "common" name over the "correct" name is, for example, using Marilyn Manson instead of Brian Warner, or Pluto instead of 134340 Pluto (the scientific name). In these cases, the two possible titles are synonyms for the same thing. As they say, "a rose by any other name is just as sweet." In this case, "loader" and "bulldozer" are not synonymous; a loader is what was used and a bulldozer is not, and therefore we should go with the former.
 * We can always redirect from what people may mistakenly use. What might be the best solution would be to come up with a name that avoids using either "bulldozer" or "loader," but still makes it clear which attack this is; I just haven't thought of one yet. Notice, however, that many of the media accounts do not mention the name of the machinery at all; or they call it "earthmover." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if anyone has any insight into this type of case. This particular one is not really all that important in the final analysis, but it's good to have clarification of the guideline in case something similar crops up in the future. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The incident is most widely referred to as "Jerusalem bulldozer attack". The comparably very minor point that it wasn't in fact a bulldozer is cleared up within the article. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions redirects
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions -- a proposal that WP:COMMON should redirect to Naming conventions --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese cash
An issue related to common name usage in titles is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of common names of currencies as currently recommended by the style guidelines as well as WP:UCN. If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. —  AjaxSmack   01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Battles of common names
When does a common expressions of the type "Battle of XYZ" or "Invasion of ABC" take precedence over actual operational names? These are invariably always more common because in some cases, particularly where Second World War is concerned, the official names did not become available to the public until decades after the fact so became "common" by default--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Use correct names
I do not find the policy rationale on common names reasonable: I believe we ought to use the most correct name for the article, the common names being redirects. Common names are often extremely misguided, unjust, POV, problematic, polemic, and often born out of ignorance and confusion by uneducated masses or willful manipulation by political interests. By using common names, we only perpetuate many injustices and stupidities that have found their way into the common language. We should not do that: we must always use the most correct name from a historical and scientific point of view. We are NOT a pop encyclopedia. We are here to educate the people, and part of the education is about using the most correct name for each encyclopedic article, whether it is about a person, a country, a people, a language, a geographical region, a biological species, a planet, an invention, a theory or idea, or anything else. NerdyNSK (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship
Whyever not? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not solely to reflect recent scholarship. We should not change name until the recent scholarship changes English usage; for one thing, there is always the chance that even more recent scholarship will change things again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Subpages
I think the section Subpages is not the appropriate for this guideline which should concentrate on the common names of articles. The section is covered in the Naming Conventions policy under WP:NC so I propose that we delete the Subpages section from this convention and move and merge the details up into the Naming Conventions. The current section "WP:NC" will become a subsection of a new section called Subpages and the subsection Naming conventions (common names) will join it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does common name policy still reflect consensus?
Frequently in discussions on article renames, a significant but vocal proportion of the voters oppose and effectively ignore the current common names policy, generally calling it "slang colloquialism", "not the precise and correct term", "[un]professional" or "misnomer" (see e.g. public house, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster, Origen, Two mountains, Can't Take My Eyes Off You).

This leads me to wonder, does this policy really reflect consensus? Has consensus moved? Part of the justification of the original policy was to get better coverage by search engines; frequently Wikipedia is the first, or one of the first three hits on Google, so is this of concern any longer? Would a change of policy – and the mass rename that would presumably ensue – change the position of Wikipedia on Google searches?

It seems to me that the opposition is strongest where the common term is somehow "incorrect" (and perhaps disliked by experts in the field) or is primarily or exclusively a colloquialism. Current policy does not appear to give any weight to these concerns.

Effectively this means that pages with a common name vs. "proper" name (whatever that actually means in any particular case) are frozen, as consensus cannot be reached for a new name, even if the current naming scheme is damaging.

Has this policy been discussed recently and the current consensus gauged? If not, is it time?

--Rogerb67 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Common names have been a policy/guidline factor in Wikipedia development since the Revision as of 01:15, 6 May 2002 as such it is a very old policy. We have modified this statement this year by adding a provision to the Naming Conventions policy in the section Use the most easily recognized name "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." which I think addresses your concerns. If you do not think that it does then, I suggest that we discuss in on the Naming Conventions talk page rather than this guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I'm not sure it does address all my concerns. Do you have any objection to moving or copying this section there in its entirety, including your response? (alternatively please go ahead and do it yourself.) --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * no objections. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree there is a problem with the policy. Essentially it chooses the names that the Great Unwashed would choose, rather than those chosen by people who know what they're talking about. It's a cultural problem across WP generally, that elevates opinion above expertise, evidence and reason. I've seen many comments on talk pages saying, "If most people think that Foo is called X, then Foo is called X." This is Argumentum ad populum.


 * Search is not the problem it was in 2002. Google tends to rank WP pages highly whether the search term is the article name or not.


 * So what do we do about this? Many decades ago, the BBC's Pronunciation Unit faced a similar problem in standardising the pronunciation across the Corporation's output of (for example) local place names. They settled on adopting the pronunciation that 'educated local' people would use. Maybe our policy should encapsulate an 'educated local' kind of approach. It would adopt neither the choice of the Great Unwashed nor that of the the narrowly-focussed ivory-tower boffin, but rather that of a well-educated, well-informed and intellectually-rigorous non-specialist.--Harumphy (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section in the NC policy "Use the most easily recognized name" covers this with "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the elitism expressed in some of the posts in this section is disappointing. The argument expressed is NOT, "If most people think that Foo is called X, then Foo is called X."   The argument IS a tautology: "If most people refer to Foo as X, then most people refer to Foo as X, and so the name of the article should be X".  For example, the term used by medical experts for median neuropathy at the wrist is median neuropathy at the wrist, but most people use the term carpal tunnel syndrome and, so, that's the name of the Wikipedia article.  You're right, the common name convention elevates opinion above expertise, but that's the point of using the name that most people will recognize.  Yes, it chooses the names that the Great Unwashed would use.  So what?  Is there really a problem that the article is at carpal tunnel syndrome and not at median neuropathy at the wrist?  What do we do about this?  Why do anything about this?  I don't see what the problem is.  And while there are a few exceptions here or there with people insisting on using the "correct" terminology instead of the terminology most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in question, I think it's safe to say that the common name policy still reflects consensus.  Thankfully.   --Serge (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with (e.g.) carpal tunnel syndrome, because it is (a) neither ambiguous nor inaccurate and (b) what a well-educated non-specialist would call it. A problem is occurring because there have been several recent examples of proposed moves to names that are ambiguous and/or inaccurate, despite the policy. So your example is a straw man argument. --Harumphy (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "despite the policy."? Which part of the policy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming_conventions_(precision). --Harumphy (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am not sure what you're talking about. Can you give some examples of proposed moves to names that you feel are ambiguous and/or inaccurate, per Naming_conventions_(precision) or any other policy?  For example, there is nothing ambiguous or inaccurate about the well-known name Pub, yet that article is at the relatively obscure Public house.  --Serge (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Talk:Public house "Pub"/"Public house" is not as clear cut as you imply. There are other names such as "Lech Wałęsa" and Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster which are better examples. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In view of User:Philip Baird Shearer's utterly disgraceful action in moving Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster, despite there being even less of a consensus for the move than the last time it was discussed, it seems there is little point in taking part in these discussions because a self-perpetuating cabal of unaccountable admins will do whatever the fuck they please and sod the rest of us. This comment is my final contribtuion to WP. Thank you and goodnight. --Harumphy (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Common name convention being ignored
In case anyone cares, the common name convention is being openly ignored at Talk:Public_house, where it looks like the proposed move of the practically unheard of Public House to the ubiquitous Pub (in order to conform to WP:UCN) is likely to fail. --Serge (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What if it does conflict?
The current wording:
 * "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

does not reflect actual practice; if it did, almost no article title would use a parenthetic disambiguator, since in the real world almost nothing is referred to in such a manner. I think what it means is:
 * "Use the most common name of a person or thing provided that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

which of course says nothing about what to do when that is not the case. I don't think it is expected that you will draw up a list of names, ordered by commonness, and work down the list till you get to an unambiguous one; I think below some minimum level of commonness, you're expected to bail out and use the common name plus a parenthetic disambiguation. jnestorius(talk) 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, though (unfortunately in my view) some articles are disambiguated by using a name that is less common (like royalty), and some classes of articles are disambiguated by something other than parenthetic disambiguation (notably cities using the so-called comma convention). In still other articles the most common name cannot be decided, and a compromise is used that is clearly not the most common name (e.g., fixed-wing aircraft).  I think there would be a lot fewer issues associated with naming if first priority was always given to the most common name of each article subject, and then disambiguating it with parenthesis the content of which depends on what the conflicting topics are.  For example, if one topic is the only automobile among all uses of that name, then (automobile) is probably the most appropriate disambiguator.  That, in a nutshell, is probably all we need for naming conventions, instead of the plethora of independent and contradictory conventions for most every conceivable class of names. --Serge (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Domestic dog
There is a proposal at Talk:Dog to move that article to Domestic dog (and at Talk:Cat to move it todomestic cat), by a user who seems to be under the impression that WP:NC (precision) is the whole of our naming convention; comments are welcome.

If these suggestions draw wide support, we may need to consider what the balance between the guidelines should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change nutshell wording
The current nutshell wording of this convention is:
 * Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

I think the first clause, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication", is at the root of most naming conflicts. For a category of names in which "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" is generally difficult if not impossible to determine (names of royalty is a good example), other conventions are useful in providing naming guidance. But those cases are not exceptions to this convention, since "the most common name of a person or thing" is not determined and so cannot be used. Those are cases where this guideline is insufficient, and more guidance is required. But in those cases where the most common name is blatantly obvious, it should be used as the title of the article, period. As such, I propose changing the current nutshell wording to the following:


 * Whenever the most common name of a person or thing is known, and it does not conflict with the names of other notable people or things, use it as the name of the article. When the most common name cannot be determined, or it conflicts with other notable uses of that name, other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions should provide appropriate guidance.

Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a convention but a guideline to a convention. The conventions are in the Naming Conventions policy page.


 * Whenever the most common name of a person or thing is known, and it does not conflict with the names of other notable people or things, use it as the name of the article would mean that the article William I of England would be move to William the Conqueror. It would negate many other conventions and guidelines to the conventions. If that is to be contemplated it should be done on the policy page and very widely advertised. --PBS (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this page is a convention page, but not a policy page like WP:NC. But I'll take the proposal up there.  And yes, I do think it's a mistake to have William the Conqueror at William I of England, though the problem of defaulting to something other than the most common name is not as evident in some classes of names (like names of royalty) as it is in others, but it does establish precedent that often leads to conflict.   Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions --PBS (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cases in which there is no common name
Hi. There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about what to do with episode articles for pilot episodes which don't have an individual title. These episodes are usually just called "the pilot episode", and our articles on them have traditionally been at Pilot (Lost), Pilot (Smallville), Pilot (The X-Files), and so on. Since these pilots are sometimes referred to by the name of the series, there was a proposal to change this naming pattern to Lost (pilot) or Lost (pilot episode), Smallville (pilot) or Smallville (pilot episode), and so forth. The resulting discussion has been mostly going in circles, and WP:UCN has been referenced several times. I'm of the opinion that these pilot episodes are unnamed, and therefore we can use an arbitrary naming convention; other editors feel that the convention Pilot (series name) implies that the episode is in fact named "Pilot".

In the interest of clearing up that discussion, I've got a few questions for UCN experts:


 * 1) What criteria can be used to indicate that something does not have a common name? Is it sufficient to note that different reliable sources use different titles, on an apparently ad hoc basis, or do you need an actual source saying "this is unnamed"?
 * 2) If something is in fact untitled, but there is a common usage for what it's called, is it appropriate to treat that common usage as if it were the title?
 * 3) When a category of untitled items exist, is it OK for us to apply an arbitrary naming standard?

I don't want to spread the discussion about TV pilots here, so any further discussion here should be kept general. However, anyone who's interested is welcome to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), especially if you think you can break the current deadlock. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of verifiable reliable sources statement
I've noticed that there are many different interpretation of this relatively new statement in the guideline, and it's causing problems:
 * Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Some people seem to think that this means only academic sources should be consulted when determining the most common name that refers to a given topic. It has even been argued that because of this statement, the google test cannot be used, because the google results are not limited to "verifiable reliable sources". At the talk page of WP:NC (flora) it is being argued that the name of Joshua Tree National Park cannot be used as evidence that Joshua tree is commonly used to refer to the namesake plant because the park name is not a "verifiable reliable source". Is that what is intended here? That interpretation, which I can understand when that sentence is taken out of context, flies in the face of the very next sentence which states: "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"

Anyone else agree this should be fixed/clarified? Any suggestions on how? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of that example is as follows. The plant species Yucca brevifolia has several common (vernacular) names, including "Joshua tree".  The name of the national park is evidence that "Joshua tree" is a common name for this species, but that point is not in dispute.  The point in dispute is the most common name of this species.  The name of the national park is not evidence that "Joshua tree" is the most common name.  I am persuaded that the most common name of this species is its scientific name, Yucca brevifolia.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to take that sentence out of context to believe that the name of a park is not a reliable source for the most common name of a plant; all you have to do is go read Reliable sources. By the same token, you don't have to take that sentence out of context to believe that the Google test is not a reliable source for anything at all; all you have to do is go read Reliable sources. Seriously, if this issue boils down to what is a reliable source and what isn't, then you should be over at Reliable sources, not here.

As I've said elsewhere, "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" is unknowable and unmeasurable. The best we can hope for is a good approximation metric. There are many possible metrics—the Google test is one of them—and we could argue until the cows come home over what metric is most appropriate. It is appropriate that this policy give guidance on which metric we should use; hence "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

Hesperian 10:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is especially true when the search term is an ambiguous term.  That is a common problem with common names;  see for example the majority of pages in Category:Plant common names.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Commonly used names
From the history of the article:
 * diff 11:34, 1 January 2009 Hesperian (Talk | contribs | block) (9,837 bytes) (there is no "some other name"—it's a dichotomy.)

It is not a dichotomy. (to keep it simple) Let us suppose that the scientific literature describes an entity which has one scientific name and one common name. But in the set of all reliable sources (which is greater than the set of scientific literature) a third name proves to be the most commonly used name, then the third name should be used.

The whole point of the paragraph is to distinguish between common name (as used in scientific literature) and commonly used name as used in the Wikipedia naming conventions, so that there is no confusion in peoples minds over the difference between common name as used in the scientific literature and common name as used in the Wikipedia naming conventions.

Your change implies that they are one and the same thing --which they may often be -- but it may not be universally true in the set of all possible named entities. --PBS (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The third name is either a scientific name or a common name. It's a dichotomy. Hesperian 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that a name is not a common name unless a scientist declares it so. This is not the case. A common name, as this term is applied to plants and animals, is simply any name for a plant or animal that is not a scientific name i.e. a name validly published under the nomenclatural laws governing the taxon. Hesperian 12:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now that this same misapprehension eunderlies your insistence on including "in the scientific literature". Your understanding of what a common name is is fundamentally flawed. Hesperian 12:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, but we may be talking at cross purposes. Scientific may attach the label "common name" to something meaning a name used by those outside the scientific community (the patricians and the plebs). But that is a different meaning from the use of common in the Wikipedia naming conventions which is using the term to mean frequent used.


 * If you do not think that there is a difference between "common name" as used in scientific literature and "common name" as used in this guideline, then you should be pressing for the deletion of the paragraph as it cannot be providing any additional information. --PBS (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Grrr. I almost feel you are wilfully misunderstanding me now. Try this: "When dealing with plants and animals, any name that is not a scientific name is called a common name. It is important not to conflate this usage of the term common name with the most commonly used name in English, as used in reliable sources; this guideless deals with the latter. The most commonly used name may be the scientific name or a common name." Hesperian 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've altered the wording slightly. If you can live with it please say so, and we can then move on. --PBS (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hesperian: by "common name", PBS is conflating commonly used name and vernacular name.  I rewrote the paragraph, making it much shorter.  There is no such thing as a scientific "common name";  see common name.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I expect PBS's reference to scientific "common name" is a reference to Naming conventions (fauna), which says to use a certain authority's checklist of "approved" common names for articles about birds. That is an exception to general practice in taxonomy and furthermore it is a prescriptive convention, rather than a descriptive one, which has a number of ramifications.  Most notable is the number of exceptions to the rule to use the checklist.  See the last few sections on the talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a dichotomy
It's not a dichotomy. To use an example from fauna, consider whale. Whale is commonly used to refer to certain types of marine mammals, but it's not a scientific "common name" for any taxa. Whale is not a scientific "common name" for the order Cetacea because dolphins and porpoises are also members of Cetacea, but in the common usage of the term "whale", dolphins and porpoises are not included.

The example of whale illustrates a broader issue that affects the naming of plants and animals. The key factor to consider when naming any article in Wikipedia is of course the topic of that article. In the case of whale, that topic is "marine mammals that are not dolphins or porpoises". There is no scientific term (neo-Latin or "common name") that is used to refer to that topic, because that topic does not correspond to any taxa. Yet it is a valid and notable animal topic. If we change the article to be about the entire order (in which case the article name would be Cetacea), we are changing the topic of the article.

In plants a similar situation occurs with Monterey cypress. Although the name most commonly used to refer to the native tree is Monterey cypress, that species is also cultivated and not so commonly referred to as Monterey cypress in that form. So here again, the well-known native tree is a notable topic in and of itself, and if we make the topic of the article about the species rather than just the native tree, we are changing the topic.

So it's not simply about choosing names, it's about choosing topics, and the issue of whether animal and plant article topics must correspond to scientific taxa. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a dichotomy, and "scientific common name" is a neologism. Whale is the common name for a group of animals that has no scientific name, because it is not a taxon. Cetacea is the scientific name for a different group of animals, for which Whale is not a common name (but Cetacean arguably is). Hesperian 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a dichotomy, but I think this is what PBS & Co. are aiming for:
 * Scientific names: weird names that only make sense to specialist scientists
 * Common names: vernacular names made up by scientists; often not common at all
 * Commonly used names: the result of a googletest and the preferred name for a Wikipedia article title
 * Outside Wikipedia, the third form is equal to the second form, but it looks to me like PBS and his friends are now busy editing pages like this one, often unilaterally and under the false pretense of clarification, to popularize it within this community and give it more weight than the second form. I suspect that, to further their anti-science agenda, they are attempting to subtly reformulate certain guidelines so that it will become easier to beat us over the head with them at some later point. If you consider what they wanted to achieve at WP:NC (flora), this looks like a definite conflict of interest within Wikipedia. --Jwinius (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the last version by First Light. This is because if you read the wording carefully User:Born2cycle the way that common name is defined will not necessarily mean the common name of a taxa. I would prefer more explicit language (of the type you put in) but, the wording as of the edit by First Light will do if it means we have a consensus. user: Una Smith the addition of "one of several corresponding vernacular names." is not acceptable because as Born2cycle there is not always a one to one mapping.


 * user: Una Smith I suggest that we keep the changes to a minimum and only address the current paragraph. Before we start changing the meaning of "common name" throughout in this guideline there should be far more participation as it affects all areas of Wikipedia and many editors have used the expression for years and are comfortable with the expression. If you really want to start changing parts of this guideline that have been stable for a long time, then please advertise it at village pump and on the wikipedia talk:naming conventions --PBS (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very clear from the discussion here and elsewhere that there is a fundamental confusion over what Wikipedia usages of "common name" refer to: "commonly used name" and "vernacular name". That needs to be fixed.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When you made the reversal of my last revert, you did no address the my concern over "one of several corresponding vernacular names." --PBS (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No it is not very clear that other than in a small area of the wikipedia there is any confusion. The paragraph that has recently been added and we have been discussing is to clarify that area where there is some confusion. As I said if you want to make substantive changes to this guideline then first advertise your intention at Village pump (policy) and on the wikipedia talk:naming conventions so that we can build a wide participation in building consensus for the changes. It would also be a good idea to post an WP:RFC (RFCpolicy to increase participation. --PBS (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, you edited the page without first seeking consensus, then you reverted my edit for doing likewise. That's hypocrisy.  You say you have a "concern".  What exactly is your concern?  --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and Monterey Cypress
This is the most straightforward case of WP:IDHT that I've come across in my four years here. Born2cycle, give us evidence or desist making this baseless assertion. Hesperian 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19:15, 27 December 2008: Born2cycle claims that Monterey Cypress is obviously the most common name for the species, without proferring any evidence.
 * 03:58, 28 December 2008: Hesperian refutes claim, provides evidence against, invites Born2cycle to provide evidence in support of claim.
 * Born2cycle does not bother to respond.
 * 06:38, 28 December 2008: Born2cycle again claims that Monterey Cypress is obviously the most common name for the species, without proferring any evidence.
 * 10:25, 28 December 2008: Hesperian again demands evidence.
 * Again, Born2cycle again does not bother to respond.
 * 00:09, 30 December 2008: Born2cycle claims that Monterey Cypress is the most common name for specimens in their natural habitat, without proferring any evidence.
 * 16:43, 1 January 2009: Born2cycle claims that Monterey Cypress is the most common name for specimens in their natural habitat, without proferring any evidence.


 * It's hard to believe you might be serious, but I will assume good faith.
 * Here is a list of reliable sources from a variety of areas.


 * http://www.nearctica.com/trees/conifer/cupress/Cmacro.htm (botanically oriented website)
 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/390749/Monterey-cypress (encylopedia)
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Monterey+cypress (dictionary)
 * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/08/31/TRAVEL1105.dtl&type=printable (newspaper)
 * http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/cupmac/all.html (U.S. government)


 * This is just smattering of what is available out there. I acknowledge that there are many references to the scientific name as shown by a simple google test, but if you examine the results very closely at all you will find no evidence of the native trees being so referenced, and plenty of evidence (like above) that Monterey cypress is most commonly used to refer to them.  Again, this seems so blatantly obvious to me I can't believe you're serious about challenging me on this point, much less accusing me of violating WP:IDHT.  You might take a look in a mirror.


 * Note this quote in the last reference: "The currently accepted scientific name of Monterey cypress is Cupressus macrocarpa". The "currently accepted" language implies this is not necessarily a firm thing, but there is no question about "Monterey cypress" being the name.  In other words, it doesn't say "The current most common name of Cupressus macrocarpa is Monterey Cypress".  Implying that there might be some other common name for it other than Monterey Cypress, or it might change, would be ludicrous. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is beginning to sound like an "evolution/anti-evolution" battle with the wikilawyering about the proof that Montery Cypress is its common name being offered up in WP:OR like that statement.


 * nearctica.com doesn't say anywhere where it gets its common names or how it vets them. Dr. Poole is an entomologist, by the way, and insects do have vetted common names and an organization that goes along with that, unlike plants.
 * Encyclopedias and dictionaries are not reliable sources for common names of plants, they don't indicate that it is the most common name or the only common name.
 * The name used the most in the SFGate article is "cypress," not Monterey Cypress.
 * The US government makes up common names when there aren't any. See their EIS's for example.
 * Again, and again, where is something, a reliable verifiable reference on common names of plants in English that discusses and gives the world-wide accept most commonly accepted common name? User:PBS is saying there are sources, so maybe he'll provide them.
 * They also don't agree with each other, besides SFGate using cypress more than Monterey Cypress, as some of your sources use Monterey Cypress with a capital "c" and others use Monterey cypress with a lower case "c." Capitalization of common names is another argument we've had about plant names, so which of your sources is it, the ones with capital or lower case?  Monterey cypress or just cypress more common?  When I lived in Monterey we just called them cypresses.
 * Assuming good faith would have required you to leave out this statement, "It's hard to believe you might be serious, but I will assume good faith." Pointing out that you doubt someone's good faith is not assuming good faith.  Treating their post as a post to be answered directly is good faith.  --KP Botany (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for making the effort.

If I understand your position correctly, you are asserting that these five websites are examples of reliable sources where the term "Monterey cypress" refers not to the species Cupressus macrocarpa, but rather to the set of all specimens of Cupressus macrocarpa growing in their natural habitat. Yet three of these five pages explicitly identify "Monterey cypress" with Cupressus macrocarpa, and it is certainly not problematic reading the other two as if "Monterey cypress" refers to the species. So where is the evidence that "Monterey cypress" means what you say it means in these contexts? I find it hard enough accepting that these pages constitute evidence for your thesis; that it should be obviously so simply beggars belief.

Another issue, which is probably more important, is where this little piece of navel gazing takes us, and whether it is at all relevant to this page. You seems to have moved away from discussing the most common name for a topic that merits inclusion; instead you are trying to find a notable topic for a name you like.

I hasten to add that it is possible for a set of trees to have distinct notability from the species of which it is comprised. If a native stand is protected under heritage legislation, and people have written about its heritage importance and the means of preserving it, then the stand itself is notable. If a native stand forms a unique ecosystem or vegetation complex, and people have written about the structure and significance of that complex, then that complex itself is notable; e.g. we have both Eucalyptus diversicolor and Karri forest. But "Monterey cypress" would not be an appropriate title in such cases; I cannot imagine how you might scope an article so that it would merit the title Monterey cypress yet not be a POV fork of Cupressus macrocarpa.

Hesperian 11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article? The two native groves are protected.  Monterey cypress is the most appropriate title for an article about the trees in that grove because it is the most common term used to refer to them. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, I think you didn't read to the end of Hesperian's post. An article about that grove of trees would surely be appropriate, "But "Monterey cypress" would not be an appropriate title in such cases". The title of such an article would be the name of the stand of trees. And I hope someone does write such an article about the Point Lobos cypress grove, since it's notable and spectacularly beautiful, in my originally researched opinion. First Light (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or an article about both groves called Monterey cypress groves, maybe. Yes, the groves are spectacularly well known internationally.  Titling the article "Monterey cypress" when it's about the groves would be inappropriate.  Both groves are in preserves, but the preserve articles don't seem to say much about the cypresses.  Actually the Cupressus macrocarpa article is rather short of information on the groves.  This is what this battle has been about, an article about the groves?  If the article is about the groves, just as if an article is about a forest, it is titled by what it is about.  Wow, the article on this tree needs improved.  What a waste of time, a battle about a misunderstanding, being insulted left and right for knowing anything about plants, and an article could have been improved during all this time.  Now for the big battle, "Monterey Cypress" or "Monterey cypress."  Born2cycle, go ahead and start the article on the groves, that's a great idea for a Wikipedia article, and I'll help with it.  I'll also see if I can get some good pictures from above.  --KP Botany (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree there should be an article about the native trees in the groves titled Monterey cypress. BTW, this is not what the whole debate was about, just an example.   Do you also agree that such an article would fall under WP:NC (flora)?  If so, do you think the current version covers how to name such an article?  The answer to that question is closer to what this debate is all about, at least for me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So we all agree that a community of plants may have notability distinct from the species that comprises it, and thus merit a distinct article. I think we all agree that an article on a community of plants should use the most common name for that community. I think we all agree that the most common name for such a community may use a vernacular name rather than a scientific name. e.g. Eucalyptus diversicolor but Karri forest. (by the way, it was me who entitled the latter article)

The one remaining point of disagreement is hiding in Born2cycle's rather subtle last sentence "Monterey cypress is the most appropriate title for an article about the trees in that grove because it is the most common term used to refer to them."—note that the topic has changed from "that grove" to "the trees in that grove". If this means what I think it means, then this is where we come to a parting of the ways: Ultimately, what I won't accept is a muddle-headed conflating of distinct topics, leading to the misguided argument that "the grove is notable; people use the common name to name the grove; therefore the common name is used for the plants comprising the grove; therefore the comon name is used to refer to the species; therefore the common name should be the title of the species article". This is the Joshua Tree National Park fallacy all over again. Hesperian 04:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We all agree that the species is notable, and we all agree that the title of an article on the species should be a name used to refer to the species.
 * 2) We all agree that the grove is notable, and I must insist that the title of an article on the grove should be a name used to refer to the grove. Note: to "the grove" not to "the trees in that grove".
 * 3) I assert that "the trees in that grove", as a topic distinct from both the species and the grove, is a non-notable topic about which nobody has written and nor should we, so there is no point discussing a suitable title for that topic.
 * The grove would not be notable if not for the distinctive trees that comprise it. It's definitely about the trees, man.  I see what you're saying, and I do believe that there are certain groves that are notable in and of themselves.  The Mariposa Grove in Yosemite comes to mind.  But with respect to the Monterey cypress, it's all about the individual trees, not the groves.  It's no mistake that the most famous are known individually - the Lone cypress, the ghost tree and the witch tree (some of these may have perished) --Born2cycle (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the two groves in question are so not notable that, so far as I know, they're not even named. To believe that the article should be about the groves, or each grove, is to not understand the topic (which is the trees most commonly referred to as Monterey cypress).  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. You go ahead and write an article about the trees, as distinct from the species, and entitle is monterey cypress. I'll nominate it for deletion as a POV fork of the species article. I guarantee you it will be deleted. Hesperian 02:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article
I am thinking the article title needs to be changed, to Naming conventions (commonly used name). --Una Smith (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (most commonly used names) ? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (most commonly used name)? --Una Smith (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The name should not be changed without a lot of participation and a WP:RM. --PBS (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's start a survey. --Una Smith (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we change the title of this article? To what?

 * Yes, to Naming conventions (most commonly used name). --Una Smith (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You should not start a debate with a survey see Polling is not a substitute for discussion. First you need to advertise this suggested change at Village pump (policy) and at wikipedia talk:naming conventions. If no clear consensus emerges then put in a WP:RM. It would also be a good idea to post an WP:RFC (RFCpolicy to increase participation. --PBS (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

PBS is correct here, changing the name of policy pages requires much larger participation than a survey on the policy talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So? This is a good place to start.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protection -- reach consensus, don't edit war
I asked for this page to be protected so that it would stop being changed/reverted/changed/reverted/reverted/changed. If you're new to Wikipedia and page protection, it's not that big of a deal. As a group, come up with changes, then request the protecting admin or another uninvolved administrator to implement the changes or allow the changes for you. It was protected at a version created by one of the edit warriors, but this is not to advocate that particular version. I requested that it be reverted to when the edit warring on this page appeared to have started. Older changes by some participants in this particular battle appear to have been more stable than this latest round. Which simply means they were not immediately reverted.

It's likely throughout Wikipedia that substantive changes to policy and guideline pages will be reverted if they are not discussed on the talk page first. That's really straight-forward. Policy and guidelines pages are used daily by editors to learn what the community consensus is. And that is not usually something that changes 3-4 times a day. This is why most of these changes have been reverted.

If you don't like Wikipedia naming policies, attempt, politely, to gain consensus for change. When you have reached this consensus, the policies and guideline pages can be edited to reflect this consensus.

I request you not carry this edit war to additional policy and guideline pages.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The page, which is now protected currently stands as it did at 03:23, 19 December 2008. --PBS (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46
I think that the new paragraph on plants and animal is useful and informative. As there are no substantive changes to general guidance of the page up until the version by Hesperian --Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46 (diffs), as a new base, I propose that we move forward from the currently protected version to Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46. If that is acceptable to everyone, then we can discuss changes to that wording before implementing any further changes. Does anyone object to moving to Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46? --PBS (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the primary edit between the two concerning plant articles being one you made that essentially is what you've been hammering and battering at the guidelines and editors over at plants to get passed, namely deletion of this:
 * "Plants, following disputes over the proper "common" names to use, are now automatically placed at their botanic name: Verbascum thapsus (Not Great Mullein), Ailanthus altissima (not Tree-of-heaven). See Naming conventions (flora)"
 * I'll assume your statement above that there are "no substantive changes" was simple a careless reading on your part, or maybe you got the wrong diffs. Please feel free to retract or correct as necessary.
 * --KP Botany (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see that deletion as a substantive change to this guideline. It is something that should be in the specific guideline and has no place in this general guideline on common names. The sentence "See the guidelines naming conventions (fauna) and naming conventions (flora) for further clarification." in the new paragraph covers this issue. --PBS (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, any change you agree with is insubstantive? :)  Actually, where ever it should be, it is substantive, because it plays a large part in an edit war you've been engaged in for over the past month.
 * And that is the definition of substantive in this issue: if you, User:Philip Baird Shearer, are willing to edit war over it, it's substantive. --KP Botany (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think that paragraph should be in this guideline? If so why? --PBS (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we've gone the discussion route already and you opted to edit war and wikilawyer instead. I pass.  --KP Botany (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me what you are passing on. Are you passing on discussing the issue and would object to implementing Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46 (in which case it makes it very difficult to include your opinions in building a consensus), or if you are disinterested in whether Hesperian-2009-Jan-01-12:46 is implemented. --PBS (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) for interested editors there. --KP Botany (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, of course that's a substantive change, and one that should be discussed and consensus reached, before asking an admin to edit the page. Hesperian also needs to have time to respond. I.E., patience.... First Light (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless someone is willing to posit that "this guideline is more important than that guideline", I'm willing to stipulate for my part that the paragraph need not remain. I've already learned how little some editors think is necessary for a guideline to have "failed for lack of consensus", and we can all play that game with any guideline. Or not.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, this seems to be the case, that the real advocacy is for not following the guidelines, since those advocating for changing the guideline are ignoring the part that says plants have a different guideline. That's something worth thinking about.  I'll consider it in depth after I review the sources User:PBS demands we use to find the most commonly used name for article titles.  --KP Botany (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)a

Following extensive discussions about whether the use of vernacular names for plants are sufficiently unique to identify a species of plant the consensus is that articles about plants be placed at their botanical name as in this example Verbascum thapsus rather than the vernacular Great Mullein... Gnangarra 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Plants, following disputes over the proper "common" names to use, are now automatically placed at their botanic name... this is a very poor choice of words(spelling errors aside) for any guideline/policy/convention wording should be always be presented in a Neutral tone, I suggest it says;
 * For those who are unaware, the "disputes over the proper common names to use" bit refers not to the current dispute but to a previous dispute, a few years ago. Hesperian 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, your edit summary says "don't need more here. this is a detail should be in the relevant guideline, not this general one particullarly is it is disputed." I think that wording adopted herein represents a broader consensus of the Wikipedia community and that may be helpful, "particullarly is it is disputed". I thought one of the principles of WP:DR was to seek involvement of the broader community. What am I missing? Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you have written, but perhaps you have not read Naming conventions (flora) and the discussion on the guideline's talk page. --PBS (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A different principle
Part 1: Use the English language when it is unambiguous.

Part 2: Use the term non-specialists use when it is unambiguous

Reason: We are a general, not a scientific, encyclopedia.

(it goes without saying we would always add the accepting scientific name in parentheses) if not used as the main element. DGG (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in the arena of plant common names this is seriously difficult. Plants common names are awash with ambituity, and people working in plants, horticulturists and botanist have found, by playing this same battle out over the last few hundred years, that common names as a means of referring to plants even in non-specialized sources are difficult.  This is what this battle keeps being about over and over again.  The plant editors know this because they work with plants.  I am, in fact, trained in researching plant common names in English, in a few Asian languages, and in South American Indian languages.  The non-specialists often use the same term the specialists use, but when they don't, they're no means of finding which term is used by them, because it is almost always ambiguous.
 * We're not trying to be scientific per se. We're trying to include as many plant species as possible and to focus on putting information in those articles.  I could spend days researching a common name (as I have done), without any resolution as to the one to be used for the article title.  Wikipedia plant editors do this all the time and have had fruitless battles about the results.  We can either write articles about plants or research the common names and not write any articles about plants.
 * And our plant articles are often rather good and useful sources of information.
 * So, please, don't ask Wikipedia plant editors to do what far more experienced editors working in plants have failed to do for hundreds of years.
 * This is wasting so much energy.
 * --KP Botany (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One can place an article under almost any name one wishes and providing it meet the general naming conventions, it is unlikely that it will be subject to a AFD over the name. If you know about the naming conventions then good faith would encourage you to follow the naming conventions and place it under the common name, but if you put a plant article under the scientific name I do not think anyone would consider that to be unreasonable. If someone else wishes to move the article so that the name complies with the naming policy all well and good (anyone who is interested can join in a debate over the name and reach a consensus on whether the article should be moved or not). For example you could write dozens of news articles and place them under their scientific names. Someone else can at a later date check if those are the common names, you do not have to do that part if you do not want to. --PBS (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The scientific name does comply with the naming policy. --KP Botany (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if it is the most recognisable name (see the sections in WP:NC called "Use the most easily recognized name" and General conventions. --PBS (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're incorrect. I just read what you linked me to, and this is what it says about plants:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NC#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms


 * "Animals, plants, and other organisms
 * See: Naming conventions (flora)"
 * So, yes, User:PBS, the scientific name does comply with the naming policy you just quoted me. Can you child the ferocious wikilawyering?  --KP Botany (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on plants and animals does not mention using only scientific names it mainly addresses the issue of capitalisation "Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalization of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalization. In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case — for example, "oak" or "lion". ..." --PBS (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to changing the underlying principle of this page. The principle should remain "Use the name most commonly used by reliable sources."—with reference to other principles such as neutrality, precision and ambiguity, of course. Hesperian 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Use the name most commonly used by reliable sources" is not the underlying principle of this page. The clause "used by reliable sources" was relatively recently added, less than a year ago, and Wikipedia article names were successfully named for years without it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't think names need to be reliable? I'm not being facetious; that's the only way I know how to read it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Ahh, but "use reliable sources" is an underlying principle of Wikipedia. You know, that whole "project to built an encyclopaedia" thing... Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, I read your objection as "it is not the underlying principle of this page because it has only been the underlying principle of this page for nearly a year".
 * Golly, articles were successfully named for years under the old convention? What a great convention that must have been, huh? I know another convention like that.
 * Hesperian 11:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You misread. I'm saying that whatever underlying principle or principle this page has, it was not just recently added.  That clause was just recently added.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When it comes to flora DGG the common name is often the scientific name, the dispute is when it is not. Some think that the article should always be named using the scientific name even if it is demonstrably not the most common name. Born2cycle if ever you had closed a WP:RM and had to follow the muppets down the rabbit hole of foreign blogs naming a football player to prove that the spelling of the name they preferred was the most common, you would understand why the use verifiable reliable sources was added to the section "Use the most easily recognized name". The original section was added back in 2002, that was before WP:V existed, and given that policies should be interpreted using other policies and not in isolation, it made sense to tie in WP:V, so that the content and the page name are compatible because the methodology to obtain them is similar. --PBS (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't been listening, PBS. What most of us are fighting for here is not "using the scientific name even if it is demonstrably not the most common name" but rather "using the scientific name until somebody demonstrates that it is not the most common name"—the point being that since the scientific name is the most common name 99% of the time, the onus should be on those who would make an exception, to prove their point, rather than the other way around. Hesperian 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:PBS, would you provide us with what are the verifiable, reliable sources for demonstrating what is, in English, the most commonly used name for a plant? --KP Botany (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're supposed to identify the most commonly used name for each article topic, and usage in reliable sources is how we're supposed to do that. We're not supposed to determine what the most commonly used name is according to reliable sources, which is how you seem to be interpreting it.  So, usage in books, magazines newspapers and even notable blogs all counts, arguably even Myspace entries (since they are verifiable).  But what it does not mean is that you're supposed to go to some authoritative reference for the topic in question in order to find a declaration for what the most commonly used name is.  At least that's how I understood it and have seen it applied for every topic, except for plants.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, interpretation is not needed, it explicitly says how to determine the "recognizability of a name." --KP Botany (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please clarify this point for me? Is it your view that a Myspace entry could constitute a reliable source for the vernacular name of a plant?
 * I'm asking because, if that is your view, then it is so outrageously at odds with Wikipedia norms, that it might just be sufficient to sustain a topic ban.
 * Hesperian 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is my view that a Myspace entry could constitute a reliable source for the vernacular name of any topic, including a plant - as reliable as any other. If a Myspace entry refers to some plant as zifflepop, then that is a reliable and verifiable source for how that plant is called in the vernacular.  Of course, to determine the most commonly used name for a given topic, we have to consider many such reliable sources, not just one particular one.  If, for example, the only reliable source that refers to some plant as zifflepop is a single Myspace entry, or a single flora volume, then there is no basis to claim that zifflepop is the most commonly used name for that topic.  So, yes, for determining commonly used names in the vernacular (for any topic, including plants), myspace entries are reliable sources. In fact, what people are writing in Myspace entries is probably a more reliable source for determining what someone is likely to type into a search box than is an academic text, which is what we're supposed to be considering when naming Wikipedia articles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then tell me, born2cycle, what an un"reliable source for the vernacular name of any topic" might look like.
 * I hereby assert that one of the vernacular names of the White-eared Honeyeater is Duran Duran. Is this talk page then a reliable source for that assertion? If not, then what is the difference between this page and a Myspace page such that only the latter is a reliable source? Hesperian 11:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are defined in WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." So I would suggest that Myspace et all are not reliable sources. But there is no requirement for the sources used to be the most reliable sources therefore sources such as mainstream newspapers (quality topical magazine both on TV and in the press (eg Gardeners World, National Geographic) and TV documentaries) are important for determining names because they the source with which most non specialists will know of a subject. --PBS (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Philip, that's the problem with referencing WP:SOURCES in the guideline for determining the most commonly used name - common usage of a name in Myspace entries should count just as much as usage of that name in newspapers, magazines and books -- and should probably count more than usage in obscure academic texts -- with respect to determining what is the most commonly used name for a given topic . --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, frankly, I don't know what an unreliable source for a vernacular name would look like, which is why I think that relatively recently added clause should be removed from this guideline. To compare the kind of WP:SOURCES that are and should be required for establishing the veracity of content in an article to the type of sources required for establishing vernacular usage really makes no sense.  But, I would say that an academic text is a less reliable source for vernacular usage than is say, a Myspace entry.


 * Let me ask you this. If you want to meet up with some of your friends for a few pints, at what type of establishment would you meet?  Possibly a bar or a pub?  Now, if the conversation wanders to the topic of drinking establishments themselves, and someone pulls out an iPhone to look up this topic on Wikipedia, what term do you think they would be most likely to type in?  Perhaps pub?  Seriously.  Why do I ask?  Because that reliable sources clause is why the article on that topic is not at pub, but at the obscure name, public house.  The comments on the talk page of that article is itself a reliable source showing that the most common name used to refer to that topic is pub and not public house, yet there it is at the latter.   Applying WP:SOURCES to determining vernacular usage is absurd.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with you that if there is no such thing as an unreliable source for a name, then "see what reliable sources say" is devoid of meaning, and should be removed.
 * "Interpret that line as though there are no unreliable sources" = "Interpret that line as though it is completely vacous" = "Interpret that line as though it were not there" = "Ignore that line".
 * Your interpretation of this policy is clearly not what emerges from a straightforward reading of it, and I think it is clear that it is not the consensus view. Yet you've repeatedly claimed that our reading of the policy is misconstrued, and that yours is correct.
 * I think it's time for you to put up or shut up. Stop advocating a liberal interpretation of that line when what you actually desire is its removal altogether. Formally propose its removal. Accept the outcome.
 * Hesperian 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use the most easily recognized name
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.

This is justified by the following principle:
 * The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?

--KP Botany (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. So, by seeing what all kinds of newspapers, magazines, books, websites, blogs, etc. call the subject, not just by seeing what the "common name" is according to some authoritative source for the given topic. Right? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. (no sarcasm, I'm agreeing) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs and websites are not reliable sources. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That means print publishing, and it means authors who are authorities on the subject: plants. It doesn't mean "all kinds" of sources. It means "reliable sources". Newspapers and magazines arguably are not reliable sources for plants either, unless they are "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Gardening magazines might qualify. Peer-reviewed journals would especially qualify: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science."First Light (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But, blogs, and websites are specifically excluded from reliable sources. Go read the policy yourself and see. If you're saying I should research what others are using, that's original research. No, I have to find out what someone else says is the most common name. --KP Botany (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see above I agree with KP Botany. I've been wanting to say that for days! --PBS (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But only the first sentence. The second sentence and third sentence are I think a misunderstanding of the NC policy. If (s)he wishes to let some other editor decide what the most common source is then they are free to do so, but the sentence in WP:NC "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." does not mean determined by survey sources on sources the common name of sources (as few such sources exist, but when they do they carry a lot of weight). It means the most recognisable name as agreed by Wikiedia editors working in good faith, using reliable sources to determine what the name should be. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KP, can you please sign the opening post of this section? Since you removed the separating line that I created, it looks like I posted it.  I'm putting the line back in, at least for now (feel free to remove it after you sign your post).


 * The interpretation of the reliable sources clause to means that we are supposed determine the most commonly used name by seeing what reliable sources say the most common name is, rather than by seeing how reliable sources refer to the topic in question, is unique, and runs counter to how almost every article in Wikipedia has been named. Maybe we need to clarify in WP:NOR that it applies to article content, not article naming.  Philip, I hope you're beginning to see how much trouble that clause is causing here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The NOR already says that it applies to article content. See the second paragraph of the NOR "No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." (my emphasis) --PBS (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. NOR applies to article content, not to article naming.  The issue of "most commonly used name" for any given topic is not something for which there are definitive sources for most any topic, yet Wikipedia editors are never-the-less obliged to determine the "most commonly used name" for every topic covered here.  One might argue that NC requires Wikipedia editors to do original research in the specific area of determining the most commonly used name for each topic, and that's not a NOR violation since NOR applies only to article content.  In fact, I believe that one of the de facto services Wikipedia now provides is as the source for specifying the most commonly used name for each topic, which is why articles like Public house (not at Pub) and Yucca brevifolia (not at Joshua tree) irk me so.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not just a 'clause', and it's not just an 'interpretation'. It's one of the core policies of Wikipedia. It's the only way to determine article content, including titles: Reliable Sources. Otherwise it's guesswork, Original Research, and Unreliable Sources. There is no ambiguity there. First Light (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. The NOR policy does not trump the NC policy. NC relies on the content policies but they must be read as a whole. Your interpretaion would create a situation where for many areas of Wikipeia we could not determine the common name of an article, in which case the whole of the NC policy would become meaningless. That is not reading the policies as a whole --PBS (talk)
 * When there is controversy over a name, the only way to verify the correct name is with Reliable Sources, and without Original Research. The policy applies to the entire article, not just parts of it. It even applies to Categories, for example, where evidence from Reliable Sources are needed to prove controversial Category additions to an article. There are no exclusions written into WP:VERIFY. First Light (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually user:First Light WP:V like the NOR only covers content see WP:V "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." (My emphasis) WP:NC chooses to include WP:SOURCES because it makes sense for the name of the article and the contents to use the same sources.--PBS (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's only your interpretation. Mine is that "content" includes "title". First Light (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are practically no sources that even address the issue of what is the most commonly used name for any given topic, so the claim that referring to such sources is the only way to "verify" the "correct" name is absurd. The perhaps unfortunate reality is that determining the most commonly used name is not a cut and dry process.  It is messy.  There are bound to be disagreements and debates.  That's the process.  There is no place to look up the answer.  On this particular issue, Wikipedia is the answer, and it's our job to determine the best answer in each case.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Using Wikipedia policies—Reliable Sources, No Original Research—and not made up ones, or the vague 'whatever people like'. First Light (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to naming articles according to the most commonly used name, restricting editors to do that while only referring to "reliable sources" as defined in WP:RS and following WP:NOR is effectively like handcuffing and blindfolding a surgeon just before handing her a scalpel: it makes the job impossible. You can get away with it, to some extent, in a category like plants because determining the most common name with such restrictions becomes practically impossible, and so all one can do is go with the scientific name, but such an "out" is not available for most other topics in covered in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For plant articles, adhering to Wikipedia's core policies and the current naming conventions has worked fine. It actually keeps unlicensed and shoddy 'surgeons' from maiming the patient. I still see no consensus here for changing it. First Light (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if it has "worked fine" (in your opinion) for plant articles, that's because there is a separate (scientific) nomenclature which can be used for plants if there is any question about what is the "most commonly used name" for a given plant topic (at least as long as the topic corresponds to a flora taxa). If this guideline was only supposed to apply to flora, that would be fine.  But this guideline is general and applies to all articles in Wikipedia - therefore it needs to be interpreted in the general sense that most articles require, not in the very restrictive sense that happens to work for plant topics because of the pre-defined nomenclature that is available to them.  And the same words in a general guideline should not be interpreted one way for one category of topics, and another way for every other category of topics.  They should be interpreted consistently, and there is no way to use the restrictive interpretation that you want to apply to plant articles to all articles in Wikipedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it has to be a general guideline, then it has to be reliable sources and no original research. That's Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, we've been over this already. With respect to determining the most commonly used name, using only reliable sources (as defined in WP:SOURCES) and doing no original research makes the task practically impossible for most articles.  In fact, that fact is exactly why the proponents of using scientific names for plants argue the scientific names should be used - because it's practically impossible to determine the "most commonly used name" using only WP:SOURCES and without violating WP:NOR, so the name from the pre-defined nomenclature (scientific Latin names) has to be used.  But with that interpretation of this general guideline, how are we supposed to come up with the names for every article in Wikipedia that is not about flora taxa?  The only reasonable answer I can see is that we cannot restrict ourselves to WP:SOURCES and following WP:NOR when naming Wikipedia articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to start an article, and you aren't sure what to title it, you look to see what reliable sources call the topic. Say you had a topic that was covered in three authoritative textbooks, 8 newspaper articles, and 25 blogs.  Three textbooks and 7 newspapers and 5 blogs called it X, one newspaper and 20 blogs call it Y.  Do you really just count sources?  Or maybe you have two names - one is used by the NY Times and the WSJ, while the other is used by WorldNet, the National Enquirer, Page 6 of the NY Post, and a letter to the editor in the LA Times.  We don't count sources, we look at the reliability of sources.
 * But with that interpretation of this general guideline, how are we supposed to come up with the names for every article in Wikipedia that is not about flora taxa? In the event that we can't find reliable sources, or reliable sources differ, editors make a judgement call, or come to a compromise decision...as happens over and over for things like military operations.  But even there, reliable sources are given priority.  Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to seeing what names are used in blogs and newspapers to reference a given topic, yes, I would probably give them equal weight when trying to determine which is the most commonly used name in the vernacular. I would tend to give text books less weight.  After all, what we're supposed to be trying to do is identify the name most likely to be entered into a search box by the "average" Wikipedia user, and blogs are probably usually a more reliable predictor of what that would be than are text books.  I agree reliable sources should be given priority, I just think that with respect to determining usage in the vernacular, blogs and even Myspace entries are more reliable than are text books.  I mean, that's arguably true by definition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * what we're supposed to be trying to do is identify the name most likely to be entered into a search box by the "average" Wikipedia user. No, we aren't.  That's a rule of thumb, something to bear in mind.  It isn't something we're supposed to be trying to determine.  In fact, trying to determine that would clearly violate our core policies, including the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  If the "average" person misspells a word, we aren't supposed to title the article with the spelling error.  That's kinda why there's a difference between policy and guideline.  You can't elevate a "rule of thumb" to the status of Revealed Wisdom.  It's a useful rule of thumb if you treat it as a rule of thumb.  But you can't take it literally, especially not when it clashes so badly with our core mission...  Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine that you will ever find consensus for blogs, myspace pages, and personal websites to be accepted by the Wikipedia community as verifiable sources for anything. First Light (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you User:First Light. Does that mean that you accept that there are reliable sources other than scientific papers (such as mainstream newspapers) that can be used to help determine the common names for plants? --PBS (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There surely needs to be consensus on what is a reliable source for naming plant articles. First Light (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For anything? Really?  I suspect you're underestimating the abilities of your own imagination.  Are you not able to imagine others agreeing that blogs, myspace pages and personal websites are reliable sources for establishing what is published on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites? Are you unable to imagine others agreeing that blogs, myspace pages and personal websites are reliable sources for establishing how vernacular is used on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites?  When attempting to determine what name is most commonly used to refer to some topic in the vernacular, why would you or anyone else choose to ignore vernacular usage on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's accepted as Wikipedia policy, I would surely be surprised, and would pay proper obeisance to you. First Light (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When attempting to determine what name is most commonly used to refer to some topic in the vernacular, why would you choose to ignore vernacular usage on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean apart from the fact that it constitutes original research? Well, aside from the fact that it violates our core principles, there's the simple fact that online usage is a highly non-random sample of use in English.  Frequency of use online cannot be taken as representative of "use in English".  Guettarda (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree WP:NOR is core policy in Wikipedia, with respect to article content. What is "just a clause" is the reference to reliable sources in this policy.  I don't think WP:NOR applies to determining titles.  For example, there are many titles in Wikipedia which most certainly are original, simply because of the way they are disambiguated.  For examples, what citations in reliable sources can you find for the titles Cork (city) or Cork (material)?  The idea that Wikipedia article titles are subject to WP:NOR is news to me and probably just about to anyone who has created unique Wikipedia article titles that conform to the naming guidelines.  By the way, WP:NOR is not a naming guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'clause' you mention is the one clear statement in the naming convention about how to determine the name. It conforms to the rest of Wikipedia policy: Reliable Sources. As far as NOR, I'll repeat what I said to PBS just above: if a title is controversial, then the application of all relevant Wikipedia policies to verify what is correct hold true. Reliable Sources and No Original Research are central to that. First Light (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I've show than the naming conventions are semi-detached policy from the three polices that go to make up the content house. Do you still hold the same position? --PBS (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't proved that, and yes. First Light (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have I not put in bold the statement in both the NOR and WP:V that they cover content and not article names? (NOR "acceptable in articles" and WP:V "in Wikipedia articles.") --PBS (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that KP Botany conveniently left out the sentence that clarifies the one he put in bold above. It says: " As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" (I just added it).  Now, why would the average user of Wikipedia be more influenced by a reference on flora than by a newspaper, magazine or even a travel blog when putting the name of a plant he or she is interested in into the search engine?  I dare say the average user of Wikipedia is probably much more familiar with, and influenced by, usage in books, magazines, newspapers and even blogs than by usage in relatively obscure flora references collecting dust on their yellowing pages in libraries.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but who is to say? It is only your opinion and that of like-minded individuals. I would add that you may not persuade those who disagree with you by disparaging scholarly sources. We rely on those sources to write good articles and without them we would not have the content that we are quibbling about naming. My reading of WP:AGF is that the word "conveniently" is not helpful above; you may wish to strike it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KP Botany left that bit out because it does not merit discussion: it is the bit we all agree on, notwithstanding efforts by some to erect it as a straw man. Where we disagree is in deciding how we should assess the answer to that question. Our position can be summarised as "The naming convention policy tells us to see what reliable sources use, so do that". Your position can be summarised as "Yeah, well, that bit of the policy is new, and I don't like it." Hesperian 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2c, the idea that article titles are not subject to being verified by reliable sources, when there is disagreement, is being .... creative, to be generous. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, depends on verifiability.  If there was a real disagreement about Cork (material) vs. Crok (material), reliable sources would determine the outcome. Not blogs, not websites, not what you and your friends use alot, but Reliable Sources. First Light (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)




 * I never said that articles titles are not subject to being verified by reliable sources. The issue is about what constitutes a reliable source in the context of determining most commonly used names. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is patently false, Born2cycle. You have stated that there is no such thing as an unreliable source in this context. Thus you rob the term "reliable sources" of any meaning. Hesperian 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is unambiguous and clear about what qualifies as a Reliable Source. Blogs, myspace, neighbors, etc. are not. First Light (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My issue is whether the "reliable sources" identified in WP:RS makes sense as "reliable sources" for determining the most commonly used name in the vernacular.  I don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever for that purpose - to the contrary, in fact.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for leaving that bit out. I didn't consider that it was part of this particular debate, as in there was no disagreement in that area--maybe I was wrong.  But I had copied and pasted it here.  Maybe I deleted it while bolding, and trying to put in my signature.  Which I used to do a lot more often on Wikipedia.  So, let's not debate this issue about my intentions for leaving it out.  It was accidental.  I did only intend to bold the one part, but include both, because it's in a paragraph in the guidelines.
 * So, if you want to assume bad faith about my failing to bold the whole section, go forth and assume the position of bad faith! Oops, I did it again.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Born2cycle considers that reliable sources are more than just those mentioned in WP:SOURCES. B2C's arguments are not foolish, but they also open the door to some problems such as foreign blogs (or even reliable foreign sources) to justify naming articles with names that are not usually used in English, and B2C seems to be alone in proposing "myspace entries are reliable sources". Further, and correct me if I am wrong, Born2cycle is not suggesting that we change the words in the paragraph that starts "Determine the common ...".

Is there anyone who has contributed to this thread that now would insist that reliable sources means less than those mentioned in WP:SOURCES eg only papers published in scientific journals and university published books?

Is there anyone who has taken part in this thread who still considers that an article can only be created if a reliable source states what the most common name is for the subject of an article? Or are the usual methods used to ascertain the name of an article by Wikipedia editors who create an article (have a butchers at the sources and name after that used in the sources) those described in the naming conventions policy? and the paragraph in this guideline "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" --PBS (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So if no-one wants to change the paragraph that starts "Determine the common name..." can we move on to the two paragraphs that there is dispute over changing? --PBS (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Point of clarification. I do not consider that reliable sources are more than those mentioned in WP:SOURCES with respect to what WP:SOURCES addresses: article content. I do consider that reliable sources are more than those mentioned in WP:SOURCES with respect to determining the most common name used to refer to a given topic in English vernacular.  To be clear, any example of English vernacular is a reliable source of English vernacular, by definition.  As such, English myspace entries are examples of English vernacular, and, so, must be reliable sources for name usage within English vernacular.  That just seems like plain fact to me.  How could anyone disagree?  What am I missing?


 * You are mostly correct that I'm not suggesting we change the words in the paragraph that starts, "Determine the common name...". However, I do urge the removal of the very confusing link to WP:SOURCES in that first sentence.  In this context of determining usage in the vernacular, what constitutes "reliable sources" is very different from what is intended at WP:SOURCES: reliable sources for establishing the veracity of information cited in the content of an article.  With the removal of that link, it may well be that further clarification is required as to what "reliable sources" means in that context.  I suggest that the term "sources" itself is misleading as it implies that restrictive meaning that is appropriate for establishing content veracity, but not for establishing usage in the vernacular.  I also think the word "most" should be restored since that is what we're supposed to be determining.  So how about this?


 * Determine the most common name by seeing what actual verifiable and reliable examples of English vernacular use to refer to the topic. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?


 * --Born2cycle (talk)

POLL
Proposed by Born2cycle: Born2cycle
 * Determine the most common name by seeing what actual verifiable and reliable examples of English vernacular use to refer to the topic. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?


 * above copied here w header added by Una Smith


 * At last a concrete proposal!—Something we can all pile on to, to let you know that your bizarre interpretation of this policy is contrary to consensus!
 * Strong oppose. We should adjudge the most common name by seeing name is most commonly used by reliable sources for the topic of the article. Hesperian 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reliable Sources (as defined at WP:RS) is the only way to verify (as defined at WP:VERIFY) the most commonly used name for article titles. First Light (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note First Light that it is not WP:RS which is used but WP:SOURCES. Please read the paragraph that starts "For a guideline discussing...".--PBS (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. First Light (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have no idea what the average wikipedian searches for or how they do it, I do have an idea what the average person that looks for information on plants does. If we go with "common names" for species pages we are going to confuse a lot of people and make them work harder to find what they are looking for (large groups of plants might be different - sun flowers, daisyies, trees, orchids, mints). There is a reason that we use reliable sources- because people find them reliable. Hardyplants (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we are to determine the most common name for use as an article title, then it makes sense to me that we should at least try to restrict ourselves to using reliable sources. --Jwinius (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose When a common name is ambiguous, in most cases of vernacular use the intended meaning is unknown (and often simply in error).  For centuries botanists have collected vernacular names along with specimens;  this is the highest quality information possible to obtain because the botanist holds a specimen of the plant in one hand and with the other hand writes the informant's name for the plant.  Back home in the herbarium, the botanist affixes both specimen and vernacular name to the same sheet of paper. --Una Smith (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a general guideline not one for plants! --PBS (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose In the absence of specific "actual verifiable and reliable" sources. Again, it seems that those proposing we use such sources can't find a single one for English. To say pick a name by asking yourself what the average user would use is simply a command for original research and seriously biased regionalism. --KP Botany (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a general guideline not one for plants! All articles must have a name or are you suggesting that we do not have articles on any subject were there is not a source to tell us what the most common name is? If so you have seriously misread the naming conventions policy. For example how would you decide on what to call Battle of Waterloo if there is no source to say that that is the common name for the battle in English, or do you propose that we do no have an article on that battle if no source confirms that that is the common name? --PBS (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip, if you have reliable sources for a topic, they are going to call the topic by some name. So you have reliable sources for that name.  Most reliable sources in English will call it the Battle of Waterloo.  It's only if reliable sources differed on what to call it that you'd have a problem.  And if reliable sources differed on what to call it and none of them discussed it...well, then we'd have a problem.  And the best way to address that wouldn't be to abandon reliable sources and resort, instead try to find out what people were typing into search engines, because then you'd probably end up with "battle fo waterloo".  Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words you do a survey of the reliable sources to see what the common name is in reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so now you have "reliable sources" for common names for plants, but you haven't given one yet.... --KP Botany (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pointless. PBS is with us on this point. Although he has thus far abstained from this poll, he has made it clear elsewhere that he agrees with retaining the "see what reliable sources say" clause. Better for you guys to argue about stuff you actually disagree about. :-) Hesperian 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose (might as well pile on): Has the potential to circumvent two pillars of Wikipedia, no original research and verifiability. Redirects and disambiguation pages handle what any user of Wikipedia puts into a search engine.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you have misread the current guideline which say "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Most OR restrictions do not apply to naming pages, it only applies to the content of the article. Even that is not strictly true because WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE often involve some OR to prove that undue weight is being given to a minority view or that a point of view is a fringe one. --PBS (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, UNDUE and FRINGE do not require OR - they do not require that we come to novel, unsourced conclusions. The idea that "Wikipedia is not the place for publishing novel thought" applies just as strongly to article titles as it does to article contents.  Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the point. How does one tell that something is a fringe view? If one is lucky one can find several reliable source that says so. But often the way it is done is because there are no references to the fringe view and it is agreed on that criteria on the talk page that it is a fringe view. That is exactly the mirror image of using Google surveys and library catalogues etc to find the common name. -- PBS (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed a different point. If one finds no references to a view, that's a notability issue, not a fringe issue. To call something "fringe" without sources is OR (and POV); how could it be otherwise?--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a prohibition from placing text in the article stating that something is a fringe view unless there is a reliable source to back it up. NOR is a content policy not a methodology. There is no prohibition to using research by wikipedia editors (in the form of a check to see how often a paper has been cited, or if it was published in a reliable source -- For example do you know without checking which national news papers in Bangladesh are reliable sources?) and presenting such evidence on the talk page. Or proving that a view is not a fringe view by showing through a Google search that many reliable sources hold the same POV and presenting that on the talk page of an article. If it were not for such diligence by editors discussion such problems on talk pages many articles would be full of views given undue weight as the less support they are the less chance there is that a other reliable sources have commented on them, an so there is little direct evidence in other reliable sources on whether a paper is generally accepted as mainstream or not. --PBS (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" It is obvious from this discussion that this is a matter of opinion and provides no useful guidance. The phrase, "seeing what actual verifiable and reliable examples of English vernacular use", gives WP:UNDUE weight to that particular usage, contrary to policy. In case of conflict, Naming_conventions gives preference to existing names. This provision was invoked recently in a proposal to rename Elk and the proposal failed. Consequently, I suspect that little renaming of existing articles will occur no matter the outcome here. Consequently, it is hard for me to understand how further discussion of this matter can be helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That way of doing things was superseded by the adoption of WP:V and WP:NOR as core policies.  Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Use the most common name" R.I.P 2008.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And, how do you find the most common name? --KP Botany (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By following the guideline and it's not always easy; there are no cut and dried rules. People tend to prefer some kind of clean "formula" to avoid the messiness often required to determine the most common name, but resorting to anything more rigid inevitably results in titles that do not reflect the most common.  But that's the way things seem to be going, hence, "Use the most common name" R.I.P 2008. I'm not the first to point this out; see this post above. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I ask you for a clean formula? I asked you to tell me how to find the most common name.  You and PBS keep claiming it's possible, but neither one of you has offered, one single source for reliable, verifiable, most commonly used name in English for plant names.  And neither one of you ever will, because you don't write plant articles, and don't intend to, and don't know enough about plants to know that there don't exist such sources in English, but, for some reason, you both think you can and should command editors to do a task your way.  A task you not only can't do, but don't appear, by all of your many posts, to know the first thing about how to do.  And you don't appear willing to learn the first thing about how to do it.  --KP Botany (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Plant names??? This is a general guideline and is supposed to apply to all articles in Wikipedia, not just plants.  If you want to think and talk about plants, please take those questions and discussions to the flora guideline.
 * Oh, my bad, it doesn't apply to plants at all. I missed that part. --KP Botany (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't ask for a "clean formula", but you didn't ask (me) for any "sources" either, yet now you're chastising me for not providing any. Why?  The only thing in this guideline that even mentions consulting a source is the one statement that was recently added that I believe causes much more trouble than it solves.  With some exceptions, in general, the google test is probably the best and most used method for determining the most common name for any given topic in Wikipedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, that fact that the google test is original research, is not verifiable, is not reliable, and doesn't test anything but the frequency of a common name in google results, not even what plant it is attached to, won't stop you from using it for all the plant articles you write.... That you don't care if you use reliable, verifiable references is just one more way you make work for other editors.
 * Cough up a reliable source or this is precisely what I said: an attempt by editors who are not creating plant articles to force editors who are volunteers to do something a way that those doing the demanding can't even figure out how to work. You and PBS can interfere with the work of other editors all you want.  What neither of you can do is figure out how to make the policy you are trying to force on people work.
 * You couldn't rewrite plant policy over in plants, so you, like PBS, are trying to rewrite it over here. But what neither of you is trying to write is a usable policy for plant article names, and what neither of you is providing is plant articles showing how to use your policy with verifiable, reliable references.  But you sure are consuming the time of writers who write plant articles trying to force those editors to do something they've told you repeatedly cannot reasonably, reliably, with verifiable sources be done in English.  You can't force volunteers to do anything, and by trying you're just grossly disrespectful of the input of plant editors--but that you established early on by calling me a member of a cabal and by saying I write shit because I don't write like you dictate.  (In other words, by not using "google" as my primary reference, all plnat articles on Wikipedia are crap.)  This is incorrect.  Google is a search engine--it's not a reliable, verifiable reference. It doesn't matter how impossible it is for you to understand the difference between a reliable reference on plant common names in English and your beloved google test: because nothing will make your desire to elevate google to something it isn't work.
 * At this point, you're not here to write an encyclopedia. Because if you were you could have simply created examples, provided references, shown how it could and should be done.  But neither of you are doing that, because you simply cannot do it.  You're simply interfering with the work of other editors by trying to force them to write articles your way, by using google as a primary reference.  It's not working in plants, so here you are here trying to dictate policy to plants editors on another board, but telling them to shut up and go away.  No.
 * Glad to finally sort out (see B2c, above) that this policy does not apply to plant names. Let's go ahead and put that on the main project page.  --KP Botany (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're still talking specifically about plants on a general guideline page I will not respond, other than to say comments here should talk about the guideline and it's application to all topics (including plants) in general, though of course specific examples are appropriate to use for illustrative purposes. See if you can rewrite your first paragraph above (for example) in a way that does not refer to plants, and we might have something to talk about here on this page.  If you could keep the snarky comments to yourself, that would be helpful as well.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which snarky comments, my continuing to refer to myself as part of the plant cabal that you labeled plant editors to make it clear how you feel about plant naming? Don't call people names, then tell them not be snarky.  My interest here is plant article naming, and, as long as that is part of the general policy, I will discuss it here.  As long as you included plants in this naming guideline I will continue to respond about plants.  And, when you call people names, snarky is not quite the word to call them when they use your words back at you.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough, this is no longer constructive
I think it's pretty clear at this point that there are 2 people causing a lot of frustration for a whole bunch of other people. Rather than endlessly debating this, I think an RFC is probably in order here. The conversations above aren't in any way constructive. -- SB_Johnny | talk  01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, SB__Johnny is a self-described "organic horticulturist" and continues to "study plants" [1] and probably thinks this is mostly about plant article naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's about plant naming among other things. The issue here is that you got into an edit war on the flora conventions page, and then when that page was protected you started doing the same to the general naming conventions page, presumably to circumvent the consensus on the flora convention. This is a user-conduct issue, not a "plants" issue. Personally I think the article name issue is mostly just a tempest in a teapot (it really doesn't matter as long as the redirects function properly and people discuss article names rather than edit war over them), your behavior is the problem. -- SB_Johnny | talk  15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, Born2cycle's attempt to change the naming policy at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) ended unhappily for him, with the parting comment "I'm going to refrain from posting here any more". The very next day he showed up here with the same arguments, trying to change the flora policy as it was being applied here. So SB_Johnny would be right. First Light (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been complaining about this guideline being ignored [1], and favoring change to the wording here [2] long before the fiasco at flora was brought to my attention. And I've been pushing adherence for adherence to the common name policy (and opposing unnecessary ambiguation) for years, particularly in the areas of U.S. city naming and some with respect to TV episode naming.  Flora is a manifestation of the problem I care about, not the problem I care about.  Your view of my perspective is understandably biased because you were introduced to it in the context of plants. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2c, those exceptions are not a bad thing. Unfortunately, so many of the articles we have are on subjects for which it will always be difficult to determine the most common name. The examples of TV episodes, football players and city names come to mind. We know that there are many such cases about which Wikipedians have argued, are now arguing, and will continue to argue about in the future. That's a great pity, because it represents an enormous amount of wasted effort that could otherwise have been (or be) spent producing actual content. Unfortunately, there is usually not much that we can do about this. The problem is that in such disputes there are usually no lists of official and unique names to turn to, so many of us will be forever doomed to squabble about it (and not always produce the best answer). Call it the "Wikipedia way," it may seem pathetic, but what choice do we have?
 * Actually, there is at least one case in which there are millions of official and unique names that we can use to resolve these kinds of mind-numbing and demotivating disputes. However, what really is pathetic is that, amazingly, many of us would choose not to use them, preferring instead to force others to do it all the "Wikipedia way" for the misguided, stubborn and staggeringly simplistic reason that appearance is always more important than anything else. --Jwinius (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Open question that gets to the heart of the issue
I've asked this of First Light, but it has not been answered and may have been lost in the noise. So I open this question to anyone and all, for it ultimately gets to the heart of the issue with respect to the linking of "reliable sources" in this naming guideline to WP:SOURCES, which is addressing the issue of article content. Here it is:

When attempting to determine what name is most commonly used to refer to some topic in the English vernacular, why would you choose to ignore English vernacular usage on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because perhaps foolishly the average editor of Wikipedia assumes that the average user of Wikipedia thinks that this is an online encyclopaedia and as such it is not unreasonable to assume that readers will probably look for a name similar to those used in the (other) reliable sources with which they are familiar, and not the name they would expect hear on the street (or in an internet chat room). Hence heroin instead of skag. Now if one makes that assumption, rather than guessing what is used in other reliable sources, if we are lucky we will find a reliable source that says "fu" is the commonly used name for topic "fu". But if not we can estimate what other reliable sources used by doing a survey through search engines, looking at library catalogues etc. --PBS (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are unfairly conflating "vernacular usage on blogs, myspace pages and personal websites" with "the name they would expect hear on the street" and clarifying what you mean by the latter with your heroin/skag example. Distinctive name usage in slang (like "skag") is typically not the most common name used for a given topic (though it may eventually evolve to be - much of common usage today probably evolved from what was considered slang in the past).  This is the encyclopedia with articles titled Jimmy Carter, Cher and Madonna (entertainer), rather than James Earl Carter, Cherilyn Sarkisian and Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie'.  The whole idea of Wikipedia and common name is particular is that people are most likely type in a search box that which they are most likely to read, hear, write and say themselves.  This is why I'm still perplexed by your favoring Public house over pub.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What PBS said. You're begging the question, Born2cycle. We aren't trying to "determine what name is most commonly used to refer to some topic in the English vernacular"—that is your interpretation of what we are trying to do, and it is essentially what is under dispute here. What we are trying to determine is what name the average user of Wikipedia would plug into the search box. The only time the omission of blogs etc would make a difference is when blogs etc use a different name to reliable sources, as in PBS's heroid/skag example. In such cases, "the average user of Wikipedia", knowing that we are a serious encyclopedia not some loser's personal blog, will expect us to be using the name preferred by reliable sources. Hesperian 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If "use the most common name of a person or thing" and the "word the average user of Wikipedia would put into the search engine" does not mean we should be trying to "determine what name is most commonly used to refer to each topic in the English vernacular", what does it mean? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to conceive that someone would type in something other than the term that they use in the vernacular? Would Jenna Bush type in "George W. Bush" or "Dad"? Would the average foul-mouthed factory worker type in "vagina" or "cunt"? People adjust their terminology according to their audience and expectations. That is not my opinion; it is a fact of linguistics. Hesperian 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think you could make your point without resorting to such ridiculous hyperbole in your examples? I doubt it, which is my point.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. The answer to your question is, they mean "use the most common name of a person or thing" and "word the average user of Wikipedia would put into the search engine", respectively. The onus is on you to establish that these are equivalent to "determine what name is most commonly used to refer to each topic in the English vernacular". Hesperian 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I incorrectly assumed we had consensus about them being the same in meaning.  My bad.  At least that was clarified.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If "use the most common name of a person or thing" and the "word the average user of Wikipedia would put into the search engine" does not mean we should be trying to "determine what name is most commonly used to refer to each topic in the English vernacular", what does it mean? It's a helpful hint, not law.  It says "ask yourself", it doesn't say "go forth and research".
 * Have a look at the entire guideline. For one, there's the statement: in cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative.  In other words - use common sense and remember that we're an encyclopaedia.  Another thing - this page is basically a fossil, a relic from an earlier age when Wikipedia was a totally different being.  Look at the rationale: We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines.  Not such a big deal any more.  The text is almost unchanged from what Mave wrote in 2002.  This page isn't supposed to tell us what to do, it's supposed to give some hints on how to do it.  Look at how that sentence got into here: 05:58, 6 February 2003 Mav (Talk | contribs | block) (Adding great comment by user:Two16).  Seriously, you're giving too much weight to a sentence that really shouldn't have survived the rise of WP:V... Guettarda (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it suits Google to put Wikipedia at the top of the list today does not mean that this will be true tomorrow. --PBS (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Focus Philip, focus. PLEASE stop throwing irrelevant tangents into the conversation all the time.  Even if Google started skewing their search results (in 2007?!) Wikipedia won't fade into 2002-like obscurity.  You're well aware that we don't need to use SEO techniques in our article naming in order to get noticed.  And if we find ourselves fading into obscurity in the near future, it won't be because no one has heard of Wikipedia.  The internet has changed since 2002.  But seriously Philip: FOCUS.  Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am focused. The reasons are just as valid as they ever were, and as this is a guideline it should follow the naming conventions policy that says "use the most easily recognized name". All things being equal the most recognised name will be the common name, and if that is done then the Wikipedia will remain close to the top of the list in search engines. --PBS (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the world's species are not known in the English language literature, outside of scholarly works (which predominantly use scientific names), I cannot accept the claim that "All things being equal the most recognised name will be the common name". --Una Smith (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not because in those cases the common name is the scientific name? Your confusion is the reason I suggested moving to which includes the paragraph "When dealing with plants and animals, any name that is not a scientific name is called a common name. It is important not to conflate this usage of the term common name with the most commonly used name in English, as used in reliable sources; this guideline deals with the latter. The most commonly used name may be the scientific name or a common name. See the guidelines naming conventions (fauna) and naming conventions (flora) for further clarification".--PBS (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
For those loosely following this great debate, a concrete proposal has been put forward for discussion two sections up. Hesperian 03:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is here. --Una Smith (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the naming is for
After reading through some of the prolonged arguments over flora names above, it seems there is some lack of macro-level discussion that relates the topic with the purpose of Wikipedia. Although those who are interested in plants from a biological or taxonomic perspective might assume that those seeking information on Wikipedia might share their view, such is not necessarily the case. One might look up "bracken" for those reasons but then one might be simply trying to find out about it as an ingredient of bibimbap.

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for a general reader. It is not a work of biology or botany and is not meant to be a pure taxonomy. Yet there seems to be an underlying assumption by many that non-biology-based approaches to plants or their derivatives are somehow inferior or at least of lesser concern. This can be seen not only in titles but in the structure of articles and the arrangement of infoboxes. (A chef would likely have little use for Wikipedia's pitiful content on button mushrooms and Portobello mushrooms conflated as they are into Agaricus bisporus) Such structures can even serve to discourage contributors who seek to add non-biology-related info.

I understand that this tendency is natural in a formal written work and in many cases is desired (I sponsored an effort to use the scientific name of prunus mume myself). However, editors should step back and ponder whether it serves a general audience well to foist a formal system of purely taxonomic titles on an audience of chefs, gardeners, furnituremakers, and publicans as well as biologists. Wikipedia should not be hijacked to create a taxonomy because, in the long term, it will make for an encyclopedia less accessible to a general audience. —  AjaxSmack   04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we all pretty much agree with all that, AjaxSmack. But all the eloquence in the world can't make inherently complex situations simpler than they are. Hesperian 04:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The existing plant naming convention explicitly calls for articles on plant products that are titled with the vernacular name of the product, so "chefs, gardeners, furnituremakers, and publicans" should all be happy with that. They might even be surprised and pleased to find that seemingly-random variation in a product is due to the use of several different species, each of which has its own separate article detailing the differences. Stan (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stan, beg to differ. The naming convention says to use the "most common name" which some people interpret as "most commonly used common name" and others interpret as "most commonly used name".  --Una Smith (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AjaxSmack, Since you mention gardeners, I'll respond as a gardener of the most common type—not a professional gardener, no formal training, a full time career that has nothing to do with gardening, just someone who enjoys gardening (and wildflowers). Gardeners are much more inclined to use the scientific name than you think. We are certainly not specialists or experts, just the main 'consumer' of the subject (plants) of these articles. Because of the regional variations in ('common') naming, we have learned to depend on, and become knowledgeable of, the scientific names. One example: I was aware of the discussion about the recent move of Tickseed to Coreopsis. I've grown this plant for thirty years. It's always been 'coreopsis', whether talking to a nursery clerk, or a local gardener, or a gardener from another region. About 1-5% of the time, I've heard it called 'tickseed'. But when I see 'tickseed' mentioned somewhere, I first make sure that it's not referring to some other provincially named 'tickseed', since even common gardeners know that "common" plant names are too common—they are used for many different species. I think that gardeners, and wikipedia users in general, are not as dumb as they are sometimes given credit to be. Let's not dumb down Wikipedia just so certain users don't have to think too hard, while making it much harder for the average gardener, and average person. First Light (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * who is the name for, when I started with WP it was because I wanted information on a plant I had photgraphed(Kangaroo Paw), as it turned out I knew more about the plant than was here at the time, I even uploaded a photograph of it Image:Kangaroo Paw.JPG. Since then I've expanded my knowledge and have purchased a number of books to assist in identifying the plants I photograph. Every book has the scientific name and every one uses exactly the same name so there is never any doubt of what each is referring to. I dont have any training or education in plants I just like taking photos of pretty flowers. There is a standard convention for the naming on plants its been inplace for something like 300 years its unabmigious, a rose by any name is still a rose unless of course your actually interested in roses then there are 100-150 species and countless varieties of hybribs bred across the world all of which are still roses. There is some merit in the naming convention that is unambigious for every single known plant, what I dont understand is cause such termoil when WP:IAR and common sense can(and does) address the small number of occassions like the rose.... Gnangarra 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that many amateur gardeners prefer using scientific names but I still think it can go too far. Remember, "as a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?"


 * I was thinking of cases like geranium. If you apply the principle of least astonishment, a general audience reader would expect the article to be the pelargonium article, not Wikipedia's scientifically correct geranium article.  Geranium should at least be a disambiguation page.  As noted previously above, the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.  Geranium fails that.  —   AjaxSmack   18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia, of all things, shouldn't speak to the lowest common denominator. It's purpose is not to avoid surprising people, but, god forbid, educating them. The Geranium article handles it perfectly, with a disambiguation at the top for those who are shocked (and educated) when they find out that enlightened people (and probably most people nowadays) call their plant a pelargonium. Wikipedia succeeds in educating people about plants because the articles are written by people who know about plants. First Light (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, interesting, as I pointed out before, sometimes the most commonly used name is the wrong name. So, once we label the Pelargonium article "Geranium" to appease those shouting for the most commonly used name, then we have to have a redirect on the top of the Geranium article to the article on Geraniums, because also, the most commonly used name for the plants in the genus Geranium might be Geranium.  This will not be a single case for plant articles, that the most commonly used name is the wrong name.  That's why we use the scientific names and include the common names and hopefully useful discussions of the common names.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the mushroom issue, I can't imagine a single plant editor that would oppose separate food-oriented articles about Portobello mushrooms (disambiguated or not from crimini mushrooms) or button mushrooms (both the white and brown forms), all of which would have links to Agaricus bisporus. Certainly there is already an article for broccoli. The problem is that no one has yet written those articles. Agaricus bisporus has an article because someone cared enough to write it. There are a lot of editors of plant articles, and many of them are quite prolific. The editors of food articles seem to concentrate more on cuisines than on ingredients. That's unfortunate, perhaps, but it's not fair to chastise the plant editors for writing articles about plants rather than articles about foodstuffs.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't chastising anyone but I think that article titles like tea or rice encourage far more food-related edits than redirects to Agaricus bisporus. I'm opposed the the widely implied assumption that article titling and organisation based on scientific names is the default correct method and that food-based (or other naming practices) are barely tolerated exceptions. —   AjaxSmack   18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, I keep seeing plant editors encouraging the writing of food-based articles, rather than seeing them as "barely tolerated exceptions". It's the anti-plant cabal (I use the term affectionately) who condemns and barely tolerates, for example, an article about the main rice species, Oryza sativa, and its properties as a plant. The plant editors should be receiving praise, rather than condemnation.  Instead, the solution is to get on the stick and start writing those articles about plants and fungi as cuisine. First Light (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AjaxSmack declares my creation of Oryza sativa "a content fork, maybe just to make a point". Hesperian 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree completely about tea and rice; I think they are exemplary for how to handle foodstuffs and the plants they come from (and beef for animals). Do you think the mushroom articles would be better as redlinks (I'm not being facetious; they could be speedied)? If I have time later, I'll turn them into stubs.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, plant article conventions already deal with this issue by writing articles about the food stuffs and separate articles abut the plant from a botanical perspective. The plant editors almost all edit food articles, in addition.  I also edit world chef articles from work, where I have access to a data base on chefs, because, like most plant enthusiasts, I like to eat my specimens, when not researching secondary alkaloids.  Another way plants and animals differ: for the former, the more you know the more likely you are to eat more of your specimens, for the latter, the more you know the less likely you are to eat your specimens and more likely you are to turn to eating our specimens.
 * We also write articles about foodstuffs, research the foods, and read intensely about food stuffs. The genetic work being done in plants by botanists is often financed by agriculture.  I research extensively in origins of agricultural plants--potatoes, maize, coffee, apples, oranges, bananas, tomatoes, and rice.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KP writes, "... separate articles abut the plant from a botanical perspective". Why is there "a botanical perspective"?  How is that not a violation of WP:NPOV?  I think that having articles that exclusively represent the "botanical perspective" is the root issue here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, many people reading Rice may not be the least interested in the genomes of Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima, but others will want to know all about that and nevermind how rice is cooked. Compare also Ovis and Domestic sheep. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * History of the United States is an article about the United States from a historical perspective. Would you call that POV?
 * Yeah, I know what's coming next: your insistence that these are completely different. They are completely different in your mind because you choose to interpret KPBotany's statement so that they are. Try interpreting KPBotany's statementin such a way that these aren't different, and let's move on from this silly tangent. Hesperian 03:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian paragraph

 * see above 

Does anyone object to reinserting this paragraph:

by user:Hesperian into this guideline? --PBS (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In principle the paragraph is okay, but it needs to be made more precise. Eg, "plants and animals" is too limited a scope;  it excludes other organisms.  Also, "any name" is too broad, because Wikipedia has many articles about individual named animals (eg, notable race horses).  Also, I would invert the structure of the paragraph:  start from the familiar concept and lead into the related concept.  Shall I try rewriting the paragraph?  --Una Smith (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But given the conversation in the previous sections would you object to its insertion, as a base upon which to build? I don't agree with your point about too limited, it is there to clear up a specific confusion which people working in other areas of Wikipedia have not highlighted as a concern. I agree with your point about race horses. In an earlier iteration I suggested When dealing with plants and animals, "scientific literature makes a distinction between the scientific name and a common name" but Hesperian edited it out, and to get a working definition back into the guideline I can live without that addition can you? --PBS (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I object. It ignores the (what I used to think was obvious) point that the reason common names are called common names is because they tend to be used much more commonly in English than are the Latin names.  Besides, for the rare cases where the Latin name is commonly used, then the Latin name is a common name.  For example, consider this page about Aloe vera at nih.gov which clearly states:
 * Common Names — aloe vera, aloe, burn plant, lily of the desert, elephant's gall
 * The proposed paragraph presents a false dichotomy between Latin and common names, and obscures the distinction between scientific Latin and common names in terms of the latter tending to be used much more commonly than the former. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B2c, I think you are working from a false etymology. It is my understanding a common name is a name used by "common" people:  peasants, laborers, farmers, etc., rather than taxonomists.  The "aloe vera" above is a common name because it is used by people who have no knowledge of taxonomy, no knowledge that Aloe vera is a scientific name. --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be correct, Una. Thanks.  Never-the-less, the "common" people outnumber the scientists by several orders of magnitude, and thus their usage is also most common.  In many cases, there may be very few references to the given topic by the "common" people, and so the scientific usage is more common.  But even then, the issue is about which name is used most commonly, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  My objection stands, primarily on the false dichotomy point.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We could eliminate the apparent false dichotomy by moving Common name to Vernacular name and going around editing all the links to that page. Nah, just kidding.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha. In any case, it's misleading and arguably represents the "botanical POV" (KP Botany's term) and thus violates NPOV.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Above, I said I would like to revise the paragraph. Here is the revision. --Una Smith (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is its tone -- the assumption is that everyone already knows what the "real and correct" meaning of common name is and that Wikipedia is wrong for its usage. The point of the section is to clear up the misunderstanding of the term common name for those editors who's training and interests makes them assume that common name means a name used outside the scientific community (patricians and the plebs) and not the usage as used by the plebs. In my opinion using "vernacular" does not help bring clarity to the paragraph because it just adds another level of ambiguity. --PBS (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The (fauna &) flora description is not suitable for the lead: too much detail. In fact it is not suitable to incorporate that type of guidance in this guideline: this detail should be in the (fauna &) flora guideline(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Francis I suggest that you read the flora talk page there is a real problem with the term "common name" for some botanists. It seems reasonable to me to include a paragraph that clears up that misunderstanding in this guideline as it effects any area of wikipedia where the experts in those fields use the term "common name" to mean something other than those in this guideline. As it has been causing confusion, I see no harm and some benefit in adding a paragraph to this article. --PBS (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is a botanists' problem, to be solved on the botanists' NC page. Don't export this problem to the lead section of the general "common names" guideline, where that particular problem, with limited scope (botanist's idiom) has no dealing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to fix the tone. --Una Smith (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This wording has the problems you pointed out above with race horses, only larger as most subjects do not have a scientific name. perhaps we can fix it with an introductory sentence. --PBS (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Another go.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please get this out of the lead section, it has no dealing there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Una Smith (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * tx, as a consequence I withdrew my request for page protection. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff of the withdrawn request. --Una Smith (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put the paragraph back whether the precise wording is at I have put back or that as suggested by Una Smith above, it is clear that the phrase common name needs to be clarified as not all editors agree on what is meant. I do not see what you objection to this is Francis. Please explain why a misunderstanding over meaning is not relevant to the lead in this guideline. --PBS (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see Francis's point, and I have reduced the paragraph to a one liner similar to what distinguish does. --Una Smith (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not work because this guideline uses common name not most commonly used name. Try this: "The common name in this guideline should not be confused with the common name as it is used in some scientific literature." --PBS (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. In the context of this guideline "common name" is synonymous with "commonly used".  You know, even in the scientific name "common name" many not mean "necessarily commonly used", but it does imply "likely to be commonly used, especially as compared to the Latin name".  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * cough! what rot B2C "necessarily commonly used", but it does imply "likely to be commonly used, especially as compared to the Latin name".  it doesnt imply anything of the sort, common name doesnt imply that its used more than the scientific name, its an archaric term for the names used by "common people" of the 16,17,18 century has nothing whats so ever to with how many people use the name. Gnangarra 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is STILL going on!? I see that some still do not understand the issues and confuse common names with what is the typical name used for a plant (and often animal) species. Hardyplants (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it's still going on because people are still trying to get this clarified. I didn't say common name implies it's used more than the Latin name.  I said it implies it is likely to be used more commonly than the Latin name.  Of course there are exceptions, even many exceptions, but since Latin names are relatively rarely used (except by the tiny portion of the population comprised of scientists and botanists) by most people,  the common name, especially the most commonly used common name of a given plant, is likely to be much more commonly used than the scientific name.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2C as J.B.S. Haldane said the Creator has "an inordinate fondness for beetles." As there are over 350,000 known species of beetles, it is likely that majority of them are only known by their Neo Latin names. This is likely to be just as true in some other scientific areas. But that is OK as we are only interested in using another name than the scientific name if it is more commonly used than the scientific name and in the case of beetles that is probably a very small percentage of all known types of beetles. --PBS (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You and PBS failed to get what you wanted over at WP:NC (flora), so you came here to try to redefine the meaning of "common name" at Wikipedia. That way, at some point you'll be able to go back to WP:NC (flora) and force them to admit that it's easy to determine the common name for any species thanks to Google. Your dogged insistence right through the holidays that a logical, precise and orderly solution to a large and complex problem should be replaced with a completely arbitrary system for the sake of mere presentation is despicable and disgusting.
 * IMO, one of the most admirable qualities of true scientists is that, when faced with evidence to the contrary, they are able to admit they they are wrong, despite the many years of hard work they may have invested. They do this willingly, because without this mindset they know that real progress is not possible. Clearly, you and PBS are nothing like that, as you are both unwilling or unable to step back and reconsider your POV in light of the mountain of evidence that has been presented to you. Instead, you have this idee fixe about what Wikipedia should be, and that it should not be allowed to evolve beyond that at any cost. What worthless BS! What a waste of time! Since after all this time both the arguments and the consensus are still not in your favor, I think your continued efforts in this direction look more like disruption than anything else. --Jwinius (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have recently been adding information from the 1995 Australian government publication Australian names for Australian rodents. The premise of that work is that descriptive English common names for rodents should be replaced by common names of indigenous Australian origin. Their method is to survey the available literature for indigenous Australian names of rodent taxa, and then to select a name to be recommended as the common name for each species. For example, two indigenous Australian names were recorded for Melomys cervinipes:Corrill and Cunduoo; the first of these was chosen to be the recommended common name, with the orthography Korril.
 * It is not at all clear to what extent these recommended names have been, or will be, taken up. What is clear is that this is a publication that deals with common names. "Common names" is the first two words of the introduction, and the first of five uses on Page 1. The third part of the book is entitled "A set of recommended common names for Australian rodents". That the names dealt with in this book are common names is beyond dispute. The fact that these names are not yet commonly used (in fact, at the time of publication they were pretty much not used at all) is irrelevant. The question of how likely they are to be commonly used in future is irrelevant. The fact that these names are likely to be taken up initially by professionals in biological and linguistic fields, and only much later by "commoners", is irrelevant. These names are common names solely by virtue of the broadly accepted meaning of the term common name.
 * Born2cycle pretends to be trying to tease out the precise meaning of the phrase, but what he is really trying tp do is supplant the broadly accepted meaning with a novel meaning that suits his purpose. Born2cycle, it is time you got the point. Common name does not mean what you want it to mean. It does not imply what you want it to imply. It simply means a non-scientific name for a taxon; to be precise, a name that is not governed by the nomenclatural laws accepted by the relevant scientific community (e.g. ICBN, ICZN).
 * Hesperian 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that beyond the "tiny portion of the population comprised of scientists and botanists" botanical Latin names are also used by:
 * Gardeners
 * Book publishers
 * Plant nurseries
 * Landscape architects
 * Plant image banks
 * Heritage organisations
 * Bonsai growers
 * Native plant societies
 * Local government authorities
 * ebay sellers etc Melburnian (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, is it time to move this page to Naming conventions (commonly used names)? --Una Smith (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No because the meaning of common name is clear, to the vast majority of people, who read this page and is one of the standard Oxford English Dictionary meanings. I've been looking through the OED and it would seem that the best fit out of the 22 entries under common is:
 * II. Of ordinary occurrence and quality; hence mean, cheap.
 * 10. a. In general use; of frequent occurrence; usual, ordinary, prevalent, frequent.
 * There are two possible poor fits for the other meaning of common name as we have been discussion on this page, the online edition suggests:
 * III. Technical uses:
 * 17. Gram. and Logic. a. common noun, substantive, name, term: a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus.
 * the other possibility is back in the section II
 * 13. Used to indicate the most familiar or most frequently occurring kind or species of any thing, which requires no specific name; esp. of plants and animals, in which the epithet tends to become part of the specific name, as in common nightshade, common snake, etc. ...
 * But as you can see neither of them is that close. I also looked for "scientific name" there is no entry in the OED but "scientific" 4.b probably covers it "Devised on scientific principles. Also, more loosely: systematic, methodical." rather than "5 Of, pertaining to, or inspired by Christian Science. U.S." ;-)
 * -PBS (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz example in lede
Could we find a more appropriate example for the "simplest name" concept, than Jazz? There also exists Jazz music and Jazz (disambiguation). 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)! --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * "In some scientific disciplines, however, a common name is any name that is not a scientific name"

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 Aloe vera.

Furthermore, the distinction between the botanical "common name" and the Wikipedia "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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are using a specific use of common as we use it in Wikipedia, 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. --PBS (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not using the specific use of common as we use it in Wikipedia. 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 [1].  The statement that in some scientific disciplines "any name that is not a scientific name" 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). --Born2cycle (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Hesperian 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 American Herbal Products Association's Botanical Safety Handbook.   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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Hardyplants (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. --KP Botany (talk) 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. --Jwinius (talk) 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.

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" [6]. One of the few known by its scientific name, indeed. But I'm the one not thinking? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A common name is any name that is not a scientific name (alleged to be fact, but for which I've seen no reliable sources cited).
 * Aloe vera is a common name that is also a scientific name (reliable source 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
 * 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 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3. Hesperian 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) commonly used to refer to that something. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Hesperian 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 commonly 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.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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? Hesperian 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 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 Wikipedia.  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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. --KP Botany (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Anyway, in case you're serious, see my reference #3 above.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 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 disrupting the encyclopaedia to make a point by the usual means. Orderinchaos 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 Wikipedia.  Discouraging discussion might be.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Orderinchaos for the useful contribution. We've just been advised on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) 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 "WP:NOTABILITY 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."  --KP Botany (talk) 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.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 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? 199.125.109.119 (talk) 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 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 Tarpan, a disambiguation page, one editor deletes entries that don't conform to her view of the correct use of the common name "tarpan". On Talk:Wild horse, the same editor argues that Wild horse 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 Wild horse must be the page name for an article about the species Equus ferus, disregarding that to most people a wild horse is a mustang or similar animal. --Una Smith (talk) 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. ++Lar: t/c 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.  --Una Smith (talk) 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). ++Lar: t/c 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:  Carya, Heracleum, Panax, Quercus, Rosa, Zea, Zizania.  All of them are dab pages (although a couple are marginal ones).  --Una Smith (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the dab page, User:Una Smith, you will see that Quercus 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 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 Quercus is ambiguous, hence a dab page.  --Una Smith (talk) 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 Curiosities of Biological Nomenclature. cygnis insignis 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issues is more complex, starting with the unilateral undiscussed move of Tarpan to Equus ferus ferus 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 primary use 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 Przewalski's Horse for the use of tarpan for this species . 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 making a point. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 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 Equus ferus and sometimes also for each of the subspecies, only one of which is now called "tarpan".  Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, and that can be without a problem dealt with at the Tarpan (disambiguation) page, as neither of those are competing primary use topics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 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 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3, 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.

Hesperian 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 verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject when addressing non-specialists in the given field.
 * (Emphasis here only)
 * This makes it consistent with Use the most easily recognized name. 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 Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Hesperian 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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


 * "About the topic" sounds better. First Light (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Hesperian added "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 Policies and guidelines) --PBS (talk) 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I expect nothing more than I would do myself. See WP:BOLD, 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 WP:NC, 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). --PBS (talk) 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 Use the most easily recognized name 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:


 * 1) I support the addition of the for the topic wording, but not the when addressing non-specialists in the given field amendment (see above).
 * 2) 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).
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) I do not support any of these changes - neither should be in there.
 * 5) Other (please explain).

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * 1) Boycott time-wasting polls created solely to prevent the enactment of clear consensus. Hesperian 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Hesp.  Guettarda (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Guet.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per KPB.  --Jwinius (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Jaap. -- cygnis insignis 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Cyg. --First Light (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Per common sense. -- SB_Johnny  | talk  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! Hesperian 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Hesperian 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 bold 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 WP:BRD?  We could do that too, if you'd like.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 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" Hesperian 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer to that would depend on the field of the topic in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is all about. Besides, determining these titles should only take about a month or two of mind-numbing blather spirited debate per article! ... ugh. --Jwinius (talk) 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 Shrumster (talk) 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, User:Hexasoft brought these to my attention: Lapin (rabbit) and Oryctolagus cuniculus (European rabbit). The nearest thing I've created to that are SIA pages like Anaconda and Cobra. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A Born2cycle example from December 2, 2008, was Poison Oak, a proposed article that would lump together the two North American plant species and their effects (Breach_of_the_Naming_Conventions_policy). Recently, I looked at how Encyclopedia Britannica treats this topic. EB's content is very limited compared to Wikipedia, so its approach may not be useful here. Its treatment of Toxicodendron 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 Wikipedia. The EB "poison-ivy" article has two sentences describing the common features of Toxicodendron pubescens and Toxicodendron radicans. Wikipedia 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", Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens.


 * 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.Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Archive_2 Walter Siegmund (talk) 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. Irukandji Jellyfish, Carukia barnesi and Malo kingi.
 * Hesperian 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 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 WP:NC (flora) 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 "Foxglove"? 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"? --PBS (talk) 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 draft, but since you guys are stonewalling any and all changes to our articulation of our convention, the draft remains just that. Hesperian 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Poison ivy" is not a common name that corresponds to a scientific name; it is a folk taxon.  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. --Una Smith (talk) 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.  --KP Botany (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the page 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 Digitalis.  The new designation of some former foxgloves as false foxgloves 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, Digitalis is the familiar foxglove and the other two genera are something apart. --Una Smith (talk) 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? --PBS (talk) 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.
 * Hesperian 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 common names. by seeing what verifiable reliable sources 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. --KP Botany (talk) 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 RFC, or a thread on AN/I, or both. All of the parties involved here are experienced enough to know better. -- SB_Johnny | talk  20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

editprotected Replace Tony Blair and George W. Bush with the two current leaders:

199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama not Barack Hussein Obama II
 * Gordon Brown not James Gordon Brown

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconceptions
One issue that came up over a discussion on whether to move "SS St. Louis" to "MS St. Louis" is that this guideline should not be used as a justification for repeating popular misconceptions. Where do we draw the line? PatGallacher (talk) 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? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a guideline, it must comply with WP:NC. 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 Wikipedia 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 WP:NC and issues over the correct spelling of anglicized names. --PBS (talk) 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. Hesperian 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject edit counters --PBS (talk) 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. Mary Celeste (not Marie Celeste) and MS St. Louis (not SS St. Louis). There is more here than counting up which term is used more often. Another problematic example is Katharine O'Shea, 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 Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd and Caligula, even though these were nicknames which the person involved disliked, but maybe people are less concerned about offending their sensibilities. Boudica (not Boadicea) is another example, there could be some grey areas. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Another advocate for this policy recognising multiple priorities. Commonness. Accuracy. Neutrality. Consistency. Hesperian 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 WP:NC 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.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The examples I was looking for are more on the lines of Mary Celeste than Baby Face Nelson, 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 centrifugal force instead of the correct term, centripetal force, 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. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Daniel Axtell or Daniel Axtel, 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 Friedrich Martens? 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 "Patriot (American Revolution)" 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 Wikipedia (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 Ireland 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 Liancourt Rocks (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 the survey, 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. --PBS (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about (to pick a plant example at random) Crataegus monogyna vs. (common) hawthorn? Clearly the common name hasn't been picked here.--Kotniski (talk) 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 WP:NC (flora))" 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? -- PBS (talk) 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 Metallica (album) (a.k.a. The Black Album), RMS Titanic and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. 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 Talk:Halley's Comet/Halley's Comet archive. Hesperian 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where your example of astronomy naming convention comes from. The Naming conventions (astronomical objects) 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 Comet Halley 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 "Wikipedia 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 Lech Wałęsa, 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". --PBS (talk) 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. PatGallacher (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Another example could be Thomas Becket, 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. PatGallacher (talk) 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 ODNB calls him Thomas Becket the Wikipedia 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 Thomas More 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 Roman Catholic Church or is it the Catholic Church? --PBS (talk) 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 Most common name? 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? Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I would have thought that this page (and the main WP:NCNaming Convention) would imply that you use A in this situation, if the facts really are as you describe.--Kotniski (talk) 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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. (Ignore all rules, perhaps?) Surtsicna (talk) 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.--Kotniski (talk) 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 Wikipedia, but I thought that the best answer can be given by users who know Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines - administrators of Wikipedia in English. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The policies and guidelines we have here don't really apply outside English Wikipedia. You can quote them as examples of how things are done, but you can't necessarily expect people in other Wikipedias to follow them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Surtsicna wants some part of WP:NCNT. 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Taylor update needed
"For example: Roger Andrew Taylor and Roger Meddows-Taylor while Roger Taylor (drummer) could indicate either of these two Roger Taylors."

Roger Andrew Taylor can now be found at Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer). I think a better example may be in order. I suggest Adrian L. Peterson and Adrian N. Peterson, as those pages still use middle initials (although Adrian Peterson redirects to the former). RJaguar3 | u  |  t  06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

verifiable reliable sources → verifiable reliable third-party sources
The second paragraph currently states:

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 Wikipedia, 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:

Any objections?

--Born2cycle (talk) 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 Wikipedia neologism 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. Walter Siegmund (talk) 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. 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 Homo sapiens lineage; and Born2cycle certainly won't be using the proposed change as authorization to demand non-human sources for those articles. Hesperian 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.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Hesperian 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * 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).  --Born2cycle (talk) 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 Reliable sources which specifically states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources". 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. I remember the last time you tried this. You argued that there is no such thing as an unreliable 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.... Hesperian 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. 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.  --Born2cycle (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * Hesperian 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. -- PBS (talk) 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? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The two are closely related. (semi-detached is a term I have used in the past). --PBS (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up re common name dabs and SIAs
Over on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation there is a discussion about whether common name dabs/SIAs are valid on Wikipedia or should be deleted. --Una Smith (talk) 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 Talk:American Beaver. --Una Smith (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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..... clear WP:BIAS but which way maybe it should be at the scientific name. Gnangarra 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but there's this.... Hesperian 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.--Curtis Clark (talk) 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 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.216.134 (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 Differentiation (linguistics), 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 WP:NC. 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 WT:UE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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 Wikipedia should do this as Wikipedia 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.183.13 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
Is there a reason WP:COMMONAME (with one N) redirects here, but WP:COMMONNAME to Naming conventions? Same thing with WP:COMMONAMES and WP:COMMONNAMES (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 WP:UCN and WP:NC(CN). What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All redirected to Naming conventions now. Jafeluv (talk) 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 (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). 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? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My eye is poked. You had no evidence of sophistry - which, in fact, I'm not using. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You had no evidence of anything you contend, a.k.a. this discussion is going nowhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether this discussion goes anywhere depends on you; you are the one declining to discuss.


 * The only assertion of fact I see in my posts (other than statements about this page itself) is the nature of kike. The OED defines it as "A vulgarly offensive name for a Jew." Is that evidence? But it was merely an example of why the use of certain language can cast doubt on a source's reliability; the same argument will work for any vulgarly offensive language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 22 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??? --Francis Schonken (talk) 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.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

These are not the questions. Who says they are? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do. Do you have answers for them? Do you have other questions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not near to relevant questions. Says I. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider a guideline which says, use the self-identifying name of an entity always. This is not an invention, I am sorry to say; and discussion has made pellucid that the intent of the guideline is to use the "self-identifying name" - as defined by the user - whether it is common usage or not, whether it is self-serving or not, whether it is used by neutral parties or not. If you approve this, then indeed we disagree; if not, find any language you like that disapproves it and I will accept it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the current discussion. Please quit wasting our times. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 22 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 Wikipedia: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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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! --Francis Schonken (talk) 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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? --Francis Schonken (talk) 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.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and another argumentative edit lacking basic rationality... please quit taking other people's time with such nonsense... --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hate to think this was "basic rationality" = agreeing with Francis Schoken; but it does seem to be. Pity; Francis used to be a quite useful editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA. This discussion seems to have ended without attracting a single outside contribution on content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sophistry
But the mutton here is: I hold that the answers to these are 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there (conceivably) bad reasons for not using common names?
 * 2) Is it possible for other guidelines to have bad reasons to advise against using common names?
 * 3) If so, what should editors do?
 * Yes,
 * Yes,
 * 1) In such a case, the editors should use common names.
 * I hold these are largely irrelevant questions, and hence sophistry. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a dispute, or just a revert button?
Francis's third revert in two hours took back the statement that this guideline should be treated with common sense and has the occasional exception. Does he really disagree with guideline, which this quotes?

I admit that I used the older, more vivid, and longer version, as more suitable for text. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to abide by WP:BRD; but this requires actual discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How to move a discussion forward

 * When there is a textual point at issue, respond to a new text with a novel text of one's own; it doubles the chance that one side will (perhaps inadvertently) hit on a text satisfactory to both.
 * When asked a question, answer it. Even a reason why the question is badly posed is information; actual answers help to make a position clear.
 * Don't assume disagreement. In this case, I believe (as best I can tell, in the absence of substantive discussion) that Francis and myself want the same substantive results; I believe there is a loophole in how this page expresses them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PMA, you removed "except where other specific conventions provide otherwise" (or parts of that phrase) several times now, either plainly removing, either rephrasing. Whether you removed it just under or just trespassing 3RR I didn't count, that's why I put a 3RR notice on your talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the intent useful and consensus; the phrasing is most unsafe. I will therefore accept any wording which retains the intent and changes the phrasing; I've tried three. Try some yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons you give for a rewording are imho profoundly unsound (...lacking at best), so no I don't think a rewording is necessary, so, no I won't try one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge
It is proposed to merge this page (and a number of others) with WP:Naming conventions. Please discuss at WT:Naming conventions. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the proposed merged text is now in place at WP:Naming conventions. Do people feel the content of this page is now sufficiently well covered there that we can replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section of that policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in the absence of objections, I'm taking this page to be redundant and redirecting the title to the policy section.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)