Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 2

Discussion opened at Village Pump
Given the disputed tag and that editors seem at loggerheads about the above section [below], I have opened a discussion of this issue at Village pump (policy). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved this section up out of the way of the main discussion --PBS (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of the Naming Conventions policy
The current wording of this GUIDELINE is in breach of the Naming Conventions POLICY specifically the first section Use the most easily recognized name.

It needs to be altered so that it complies with the policy. See for example Naming conventions (aircraft) or Naming conventions (astronomical objects)for two examples that comply with the naming conventions but also have specific guidance for their area. --PBS (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly think this conflict is more hypothetical than real. For the vast majority of plant species, the scientific name is the most easily recognized. For example, Hosta is rarely known as "lily plantain" or whatever that so-called common name is.  Likewise for, say, Cymbidium tracyanum (just to pick one example of a cultivated plant which is generally referred to by the scientific name by orchid growers, orchid enthusiasts, and scientists alike. In other cases, common names are indeed common but differ geographically or according to specialty, making it fairly impractical to name articles after them.  There does, however, remain an area of names like Oak where there is indeed a conflict between the different guidelines/policies. Kingdon (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The genesis of this convention was an attempt to determine what is the most easily recognized name. The regional differences are astounding. Unlike birds and other vertebrates, plant common names vary so much that in fact the scientific name is exactly the most easily recognized by the widest number of people. The exceptions we've noted, economically or culturally important species, speak to your objection. The vast majority of plant articles should be maintained at the scientific name. --Rkitko (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse current convention. Hesperian 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Naming Conventions requires a reasonable minimum of ambiguity which can only be achieved by using scientific names in many cases. Many common name titles end up being disambiguation pages because they apply to multiple species, for example Red Gum, Ironwood, Ice plant, Dusty Miller etc. Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything said so far by the respondents, and will add that choosing one common name from among several alternatives can be a subtle (or not-so-subtle) way to push POV, especially if the choice is of one regional variant over another.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From what has been said then no one will object to adding the sections "General guidelines (first paragraph)" and Naming conventions (astronomical objects)  from the guideline Naming conventions (astronomical objects) --PBS (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would object to that. Hesperian 13:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What specifically is it that you object to in those two sections. --PBS (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian Please explain this revert. What is with the changes that I made that were not correct. --PBS (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I see little point to it. First, there is a verified reliable English source for every scientific name, so that paragraph essentially gives no guidance to an editor if applied to plants. Second, the key issue with common names, and the one that caused the current consensus to be laboriously hammered out by many fractious editors, is that plants of widespread distribution often have multiple common names, all of which are widely regionally used, and all of which are unambiguous in their regions. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the problem you are trying to solve here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for the wording "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." is to cover your concerns about more than one local name. My concern is that there is a clear Wikipedia POLICY (not a guideline). See Naming conventions this current guideline can be read as contradicting the POLICY. If you do no see it that way then you will not object to the addition to this page of the two paragraphs I have listed above. --PBS (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone who supports maintaining the pre-"dispute" wording. PBS, your presonal objection is not worthy of a dispute tag being added to a policy page that was adopted by the community, and which clearly has strong support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a policy page it is a guideline. WP:NC is the naming convention policy page. --PBS (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is a policy page. It said so until editors today chose to change it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a tag does not make something policy. Only widespread consensus that it is a standard which all editors must follow can do that. Please supply a link to the discussion asserting such consensus; and remember WP:Consensus can change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You read that differently than I do. "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. ... Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." Policies rarely have exceptions, while guidelines are more likely to have exceptions.  The Flora naming conventions has been applied as policy for the last two years, so I do  not know where or when any consensus discussion occurred, but the initial discussion of the page is here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote the lead, which conveys the difference in essence between the two terms. This page has never been a policy; it is a guideline to the application of WP:NAME, and has never claimed to be otherwise. Whether it is a sound guideline is what we are now discussing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This would appear to be an unnecessary conflict. All of the reasons cited to not use an alleged "common name" are good ones; and they apply everywhere in Wikipedia: Where there is no overarching common name, or there are several common names in regional usage, then the "common name" section of WP:NAME does not apply, by its own terms. Is there any reason for avoiding a genuinely common,  non-regional, unambiguous common name (like Norway maple instead of Acer platanoides?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Each such name would require a lengthy discussion process to determine that it is, in fact, a "genuinely common,  non-regional, unambiguous common name".  We'd have to check for the common name in all the various published floras and guides in every country.  It may not be known by that name universally.  That is, it could conceivably have been imported to New Zealand where it acquired a new "common name".  Such oddities are more the norm than unambiguous common names.  There are also "common names" that, while appearing uniformly in guide books, are never used by anyone other than publishers of guide books.  The "common" names of most bryophytes fall into this category.  Even if we were to check all the field guides and floras, and find that they agree on the "common name", we would have no means of determining whether that name was used by anyone other than the publishers of those guides and floras.  Thus, we would have to rely on original research for a determination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consult WP:RM and its subpages before you continue with this line of nonsense; naming discusssions should take five or ten days. This argument from perfection is always present; if this were the case, the article is flawed now by omission. Until some Kiwi editor corrects us, we will be wrong; but that's the advantage of being a wiki: articles can be moved as we discover more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? You say that naming discussions "should take five to ten days", but I have seen plant article naming discussions (even under the current system) drag on for weeks or even months.  With a quarter of a million plant articles potentially affected, and with a very small number of experts who even have regular access to the relevant information and interest, it is not nonsense to worry about this.  Having to watch naming discussions regarding the move of a quarter of a millon articles is not an advantage.  Having a straightforward guideline that can be applied uniformly without resort to weeks of discussion is an advantage.  My limited editing time is better spent adding content than in endless name debates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not inconvenience our readers for our own convenience; and Petey exaggerates: naming discussions conducted by editors who can muster evidence and argument and closed by competent admins do take five to ten days, even over much more controversial things than most plants. The difficulty may be that "per WP:FLORA" is being used instead of argument - a losing tactic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not exaggerate. I have been following one plant article naming dispute since June of this year.  It was only resolved a few hours ago.  There are about a half dozen others I know of that have gone on nearly as long.  Speculate all you like about discussions you have not seen, but please don't post such empty speculation.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet the Iranians don't call their local population of the trees "Norway maples". :-) Many times the assumption of a single common name simply reflects our ignorance. Stan (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Iranians do use English common names, when speaking English. The Farsi name for Acer platanoides belongs to the Farsi Wikipedia; which this is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We are only interested in common English names, it is unlikely that Iranians would be using English when describing trees. All the objections raised so far don't seem to in breach of common names, but the wording of this guideline is the opposite of the Naming policy. It is up to the person proposing that the scientific name be used to show that the common name is not appropriate. It is not for the proposer of a common name to show that it is "sufficiently significant economically or culturally" --PBS (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that the two policies are at variance with each other as currently worded, but it does not follow that this one must change. It would be just as easy to insert a line into the general policy noting the exception made for naming plants.  The current flora naming policy is designed to avoid a quarter of a million potential article naming discussions to determine the "general" name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PBS and Septentrionalis that there is a problematic incongruity between the general naming convention policy and this specialized naming convention guideline. Specialized guidelines should complement, not contradict, the general policy. I appreciate that in some cases there are multiple common names for the same topic; in those cases I can see using the scientific name to resolve the issue. But when there is clearly a most common name, to go with the virtually unheard of scientific name is not the right way to go. Perhaps a good example of this Poison oak, which is currently a dab page which lists two slightly different varieties (western and atlantic), each having a common name redirect to the associated article which is at its obscure scientific name (Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens). If you look at the two very similar articles it should be obvious that the only reason the whole topic is not covered in one article (with title Poison oak) is to abide by this problematic guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except..." Yes, that guideline is in dispute, and unhelpful results such as illustrated by the Poison oak example is why. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are two separate species, whose taxonomic distinctiveness is at issue in some of the literature. To put both species on the same page obliterates the use of the Taxobox, conflates use of the two names, and therby would make the result unhelpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens can be mini articles with their own taxoboxes, both linking to the same article, Poison oak.  The one article would be much more helpful as it can explain what the two species have in common as well as how they differ.  Or, can we have two taxoboxes on the same page?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two taxoboxes on the same page is not a good idea, for a variety of reasons, including page layout. Some of the articles on books of the Bible are testament to that (pun intended).  Now, for a situation like "poison oak", it is potentially reasonable to have the Poison oak article in addition to the two species articles, provided that there is some strong relationship between the topics.  Offhand, I can't think of a specific case where I've seen this done, but I know I've seen it from time to time.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find it very wise to alter a system that works, because there are some minuscule number of exceptions that might cause problems. If we start doing it this new way of using common names, we are going to have a much larger problem and spend more time in cantankerous arguments over which common name to use, in a greater number of articles. Hardyplants (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This system does not work, or rather works only for the extreme minority who find plantanoides more English than Norway. That is precisely our complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a different majority/minority. And, no we don't find it "more English", we find it less ambiguous.  The standard policy  specifically advocates unambiguous names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Among other things, but Norway maple is unambiguous; that's one reason we should use it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is wrong with an article labeled Great Basin Bristlecone Pine? It is a well known common name.  How often is Pinus longaeva actually used in conversations? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think how often a term is "used in conversations" is an appropriate metric for an encyclopedia. The word common in "use the most common name" means often used or perhaps broadly used, but not vernacular. Therefore, if you want to determine the most common name, you need to count both informal conversational uses and formal uses such as textual mentions in scholarly journals. A googlefight restricted to English pages is reasonably informative here: "Pinus longaeva" triples "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine". I think it is pretty clear which is the more common. Hesperian 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The common names naming convention clearly states: "when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". Do you really think the average user of Wikipedia is more likely to search for "Pinus longaeva" than "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine"?  Taxon terminology is generally used only by scientists, not by the average user of Wikipedia, and so should not be used in the names of articles, when more commonly used names exist that refer to the topic of the article (yes, even if they are part of the vernacular).  This idea that vernacular terminology should be discounted is counter to the whole Wikipedia naming ethic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really think the average user of Wikipedia is more likely to search for "Pinus longaeva" than "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine"? Yes, absolutely. You appear to be suffering under the delusion that "average user" means "lowest common denominator". It is unnecessary and unbecoming to presume that the "average user" is a dumb-ass. We have an extremely broad readership, many of whom possess some modicum of intelligence and general knowledge. On top of that, the population of "users" of Pinus longaeva is not identical to the population of "users" of Wikipedia in general: there is a skew towards people who have an interest in plants, and specifically conifers; the fact that they have sought out such an article bears testimony to that. Bearing all this in mind, I can see no reason to presume that these google counts are grossly misrepresentative. Remember that the google counts are three to one in favour of P. longaeva; you're going to need to impute a pretty powerful effect to turn the tables on that. "The average user is a dumbass" would work, if it were true, but it ain't. Hesperian 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. As I've said elsewhere on this page, the greatest thing about the convention pre this discussion is we didn't have to keep having these pathetic arguments over which name is most common. I haven't had to deal with garbage like this for two years, and I miss the peace and quiet already. Hesperian 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Intermountain Bristlecone Pine instead, that's How I fist came across this species.Hardyplants (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so choose one and use a redirect. Either is better then Pinus longaeva which does not help at all as a common name.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
All this needs is a brief passage, summarizing what we agree on here, but not imposing Neo-Latin where it is not necessary; something like this:


 * When a species of plant has several common names, Wikipedia should use the Neo-Latin, scientific name for it; above all, we should not prefer one national name to others, but should be neutral.
 * When a common name applies to several unrelated species, as with Ironwood, the common name should be a disambiguation page among articles for each species; see WP:PRECISION
 * When, however, a species has a single common name in English, not used for other species, then the article should use the common name; see WP:COMMONNAME. There should be a redirect from the Neo-Latin name.
 * Whether a group of closely related species, which bear a common name otherwise unambiguous, should be merged is an editorial decision; if they are, there should be redirects or stubs for the individual species. One should remember that the decision whether two separate populations of plants are distinct species or varieties of a single species is often somewhat arbitrary.

This really does seem very heavy whether over so small and limited a change of guidance as the third and fourth paragraphs here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But WP:COMMONNAME advocates the most common name, not the "common name" (in the nomenclatural sense). Even if we change NC(flora), your wording above would violate that primary policy by advocating a less common name when the (botanical) common name is less common than the scientific name (as with algae and bryophytes, e.g.).  Out of the 100,000 species of diatom, how many are actually known by their common name?  What about the 12,000 species of moss?  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the species doesn't have a common name, or the Neo-Latin is most common, then we use it. If anything I have said above actually supports EP's figment, it ought to be rephrased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse the current convention as it was some time ago.
 * 1) This page doesn't contradict WP:NC. This page is linked directly from WP:NC and is therefore part of the conventions itself.
 * 2) Many (in fact, most) plants have either several established common names in different regions or none at all (except for ad hoc loan translations from Latin). Moreover, common names are notoriously ambiguous. What is short sedge? What is grey sedge? It depends on your village. There is no source where one can find whether a common name is unambiguous and widely used, therefore Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous doesn't make sense and goes against WP:V and WP:NOR, the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Furthermore, unlike common names, scientific names are standardized (w.r.t. capitalization, spelling variants and so on) and make linking much more easy.

""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." "
 * Colchicum This page is not policy it is a guideline only the page WP:NC is policy, all the other naming conventions are guidelines that clarify and supplement the policy page. As far as I am aware this is the only naming convention guideline that directly contradicts it. While this page contradicts the Naming Conventions policy page then its usefulness as a guideline is minimal. --PBS (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Species, genus, family and other taxa are scientific notions. The articles are about species, genera, families and so on. However, there is no scientific classification in the popular worldview. The common names refer to something unranked which is not necessarily monophyletic and doesn't necessarily correspond to any taxon. Wikipedia should rely on sources. Academic sources, the best kind of sources we can find (and actually the only kind of sources that refers to specific taxa rather than to some general idea of a plant), rarely use common plant names.

""Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." "
 * 4) The current formulation does allow common names on a case-by-case basis. If you like to rename Acer platanoides to Norway maple, which is not entirely unreasonable, you don't need to change this page. However, even Google Scholar yields 2,040 hits for "Norway maple" and 4,750 hits for "Acer platanoides" (though only a half of both are articles in biology). Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with an explicit and prominent statement to the effect that this page does allow common names. That would have resolved the poison oak question, and placed this page in compliance with WP:NC. The suggestion above limits the extent to which common names can be used, so we don't get into edit wars over whether the etymologically Japanese or etymologically Chinese one is more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the links to those Google Scholar results; I suspect that uses of Norway maple as a form of timber are largely omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, and, what is much more interesting, and . Note, however, that the article is not at all about the form of timber. Colchicum (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The wood is hard, yellowish-white to pale reddish, with the heartwood not distinct; it is used for furniture and turnery. This should probably be enlarged, as the principal economic use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Whether a group of closely related species, which bear a common name otherwise unambiguous, should be merged is an editorial decision" - in such cases I usually make a redirect-to-genus and discuss the issue there in the intro. E.g. in some cases, there is a distinct AmE and BrE common name. Redirecting to genus and discussing the issue in the intro will resolve such ambiguities with the least fuss. When such species form a clade, subgenus or otherwise, it may be well warranted to split them off to a separate article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about Anglo-American differences; this proposal would say they must be dab pages, although I would have no objection myself to combining two stubs into one long article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one priority here
We have, or should have, multiple priorities in choosing article titles; namely: (I'm sure there are others that I haven't thought of) The relative importance of these could be debated forever, but clearly none of them are unimportant. I think the problem here is caused by the fact that one of these priorities has been put on a policy pedestal, to the exclusion of the others. If we consider this debate in the context of all of these priorities, we end up with something like the following: Which brings me to consistency across articles. On the basis of all these priorities, WP:PLANTS has adjudged that the vast majority of plant articles obviously should be entitled with their scientific name, and that the remainder arguably should be; it has therefore adopted the convention of naming them all in this way, for the sake of consistency across articles. To do otherwise would be to sell off four of the above priorities to pay for one. It is not clear to me why this should be so objectionable. It comes down to individual weighting of the priorities, does it not? And who better to assign weights to the above priorities than the people who contribute in the field?
 * broad accessibility i.e. use the most common name;
 * minimum ambiguity;
 * neutrality;
 * an encyclopedic tone; and
 * consistency across articles.
 * broad accessibility: the scientific name would be the "most common name" in the vast majority of plant articles, but the tiny remainder, for which a common name is the "most common name", would include many of our most high-profile articles. There would of course be a class of articles in which the "most common name" is moot.
 * minimum ambiguity: common names are very often ambiguous, scientific names pretty much never. This is the whole point and great advantage of a formalised nomenclature: you get to cut away the nomenclatural difficulties.
 * neutrality: the choice of common name may reflect nationalistic or other bias (this is not a hypothetical argument); use of the scientific name may, very rarely, imply the taking of a position in a taxonomic dispute.
 * an encyclopedic tone: In most of the contexts in which a plant article may be read—botany, land management, forestry, agriculture, horticulture...—the use of scientific names is the more encyclopedic. In some, the use of a common name would be downright objectionable, whereas the use of the scientific name is almost never so.

Hesperian 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree. Consistency across articles is an unattainable, and probably undesirable, pipe-dream - we cannot hope to obtain it as long as anybody can edit; in the case we are considering (a species has a single common name in English, not used for other species) of Norway maple and the like, the English name is infinitely more accessible, equally ambiguous, equally neutral, and equally encyclopedic. Therefore we are throwing away a great good, which it is consensus desirable, for the sake of a consistency which will be invisible and useless to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency is indeed attainable, or indeed very nearly so, within the field of plant taxa, even though it be unattainable across the board. I cannot imagine why it would be undesirable is this context. "Infinitely more accessible" is, you will grant, hyperbole; in turn I will grant you that "Norway maple" is indeed somewhat more accessible. Yes, equally ambiguous. Yes, equally neutral, except for the eternal dispute over "Norway maple" versus "Norway Maple", which I don't really understand. I take issue with equally encyclopedic; I should say that the scientific name is a good deal more encyclopedic. On balance, I would consider the two titles about equally meritorious; personally I would lean towards the scientific name. My previous point stands: this comes down to the weighting of priorities. Essentially, your argument hinges on your opinion that accessibility is "a great good" whereas consistency is "probably undesirable". We plant article editors share an opinion that accessibility and consistency are both great goods, and both attainable. The adoption of a scientific name convention gives us consistency, neutrality, minimum ambiguity and an encyclopedic tone, arguably for the loss of some accessibility for some of a very small class of admittedly high profile articles. Hesperian 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my opinion. The beginning of WP:NAME, that we are edited for lay readers, not for specialists, (and so should be accessible to them) has stood there for a long time; whereas consistency has always been controversial even in those few cases (like WP:NCNT) where I support it and it has generally prevailed. And I remind you that the only proposal to change things has been where neutrality, ambiguity are ties (so is encyclopediacity, if the Britannica 's use of Norway maple (A. platanoides) bears on the matter). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: a Google search for "Norway maple" returns 125,000 hits, but a seach for "Acer platanoides" returns 432,000 hits . It appears that the scientific name is more common than the "common" name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Artless, Petey; the first search is effectively limited to English, the second isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made no claims. Frankly, it seems you are the one assuming bad faith here.  I presented a naked fact along with links to show exactly what I had done, yet in the edit summary to my reply you said "disingenuous".  If you feel the search was improper, then please post statistics that you believe are fair. I did not run a restricted search for English-only because Google does not mark the language of every page that is indexed.  With English-only "Acer platanoides" is 81,700  and "Norway maple" is 105,000  which has a much smaller margin of difference than a general search, and both numers are reduced.  The "Norway maple" search dropped by about 17% with an English-only restriction.   I assure you that if we make the change to wording that you propose, we will see this sort of argument over and over.  Addressing the issue of Google hits up front could save a lot of trouble.  I am well aware of the limitations of Google searches, as I have had to contend with that problem often.  Again, I made no claims.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:PLANTS project has enjoyed two years of not having to have these stupid Ghit-swinging arguments. Hesperian 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hesperian's statement above. I could see the benefits of pushing the importance of WP:COMMONNAME above all other considerations on the simple English Wikipedia, but not on en.Wikipedia. As an aside, perhaps we should find a better example than Norway maple for you to use. I would certainly support moving it to the common name under the currently worded convention as an exception (economically important, culturally important as an invasive species). --Rkitko (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll take Joshua tree, unless you're going to argue that the minimal tourism conveys economic importance. ;-> Note, however, that we don't use sugar maple either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the fundamental issue; I'm not pushing commonality above all other considerations; I'm pushing for it in those cases where it is the only issue of importance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a list of cases where it is the only issue of importance. Frankly, I can't think of any cases where that would be true.  There is a reason that sugar maple can't be used.  In the state where I first studied botany formally, a "sugar maple" is a species of Populus.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, but Populus spp. are poplars, not maples, so "sugar maple" is somewhat of a misnomer. In such cases, a disambiguation on top of the species page (Acer saccharum in that case) can help, and in the other page linking the "odd" name to what taxon it usually pertains to. I resolved the case of Philadelphus and "syringa" that way. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already listed two others: Norway maple and Joshua tree; yet more have occurred in the discussion of recent moves above.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "Joshua tree" is the name of a US national park, so right away it's not unambiguous. My copy of Mabberley's The Plant Book notes that the common name is also applied to "Yucca spp.", i.e. to multiple species in the genus Yucca, so the name is ambiguous even when applied just to plants.  Do you get the point now? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Petey; I understand you have the perfect system, and will believe anything that is necessary to defend it, even that Joshua tree needs disambiguation from Joshua Tree National Park, and misunderstand everything said to you, even not used for other species; the Park is not a species. Now let me turn to editors with something constructive to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary for your reply above, you noted "reply to bad faith". Could you please indicate which part of my reply above was bad faith?  Please keep in mind that my link to WP:IDHT followed only because you had explicitly mentioned it in your previous comment's edit summary, and so I assumed it was appropriate to address that concern of yours. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this the beginning of an apology? If it turns into one, I may consider answering the same question twice. If not, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alterations to the guideline
The debate in this section to date is largely one of interpretation and not substance. When the discussion has been on specifics, even though this guidline does not advocate it the discussion on whether a common name should be used or a Latin one, the discussion has revolved around whether there is a common name or not. No one as said that it does not matter that there is a common name, and that the name should be the Latin one because Naming conventions (flora) says it should.

Would anyone ever state who has contributed to this discussion ever wish to argue that we only use the common name for teak because it is an exception under bullet point 2 of the "Article title?

If I was a closing administrator on a WP:RM which involved a move where one person stated it should be under the name oak because the WP:COMMONNAME and someone else argued that even though they agreed oak was the common name it should be under Quercus because Naming conventions (flora) states that "Scientific names, not common names, are to be used as page titles in all cases" I would say see Policies and guidelines "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." Therefore go with the Naming Conventions policy and the common name.

The first section of the naming convention policy Naming Conventions is one of the oldest and most stable policies on Wikipedia it was formulated by user:mav on the 6 May 2002 and as such it predatest two of the three core content policies -- Verifiability ( 2 August 2003 ) No original research (21 December 2003 ) only Neutral point of view existed at the time.

Those of you who are arguing against changing this guideline to follow this basic Wikipedia policy need to reconsider your position. If you do not bring this guideline into line with the policy it will be of little use in determining the name of any flora article. However if the two paragraphs are introduced from "General guidelines (first paragraph)" and Naming conventions (astronomical objects) from the guideline Naming conventions (astronomical objects), and the rest of the article is reworded around that, then in practical terms you will loose little as in the vast majority of flora names, as with astronomical objects, there is no common name other than that used in science. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the two paragraphs I am suggestion including are too detailed then why not go with wording like the other in the tree of life project: The Naming conventions (fauna) "If there is a common name in English, use that (following Naming conventions (common names) and Naming conventions (use English))." and alter the rest to fit around that. --PBS (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian further up this page when I suggested incorporating these paragraph you said you would object. When I asked "What specifically is it that you object to in those two sections" you did not reply. Do you still have objections if so what are they? --PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Clark do you still see little point in this change, and do you object it it is made? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EncycloPetey do you still consider this to be a policy page and would you object to the incorporation of the two paragraphs? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants would you object to these paragraphs being incorporated into this guideline and the rest of the guideline reworked so that it is in harmony with the Naming Conventions policy? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like we need to change Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Use the most easily recognized name in regards to plant naming. Because if past history is any indication this will produce havack and ill will in more than a few articles. I left wikipedia shortly after coming here, and stayed away for year because of this issue, there was much turmoil over when pages should use British common names or American ones. Hardyplants (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of National names and spelling is usually resolved around last stable version and/or what did the original author use? Again that difference can also be addressed in this guideline along the lines of "If there is a conflict over a name due to different national names for the same thing, the consider using the scientific name". But if this guideline is not bought in line with the Naming Conventions policy there will be conflict over the names of articles because people will look for policies and guidelines that support their position. This will be a far more influential and useful guideline if it works within an not outside the requisites of the Naming Conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently by "there will be conflict over the names of articles", you mean "I will create conflict over the names of articles". For in all the time this convention has been in place, the only conflict has been this shitstorm created by Philip Baird Shearer. Hesperian 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you still have objections if so what are they? Yes I still have objections. The text that you propose to insert would materially alter our long-established and very widely supported convention. As plants editors we have the luxury of short-circuiting these pointless bullshit dick-swinging arguments over which orthographic variant of what common name gets the most google hits whilst avoiding any nationalistic bias et cetera ad infinitum. We can do so simply by adopting the standard nomenclature of our field. Your proposal sucks, but you won't be around to find out just how much; you would foist an unworkable, subjective policy on us, then walk away and leave us indefinitely mired in pointless semantic disputes. Screw that. You can put me down as welded to the current convention. Hesperian 11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing proposed in this discussion would allow or contenance Anglo-American disputes. I suggested, and would support, language which would make clear that if there are two common names for a species, including a British and an American one, we then must use the Latin name.

There is a simple solution to the semantic disputes, which would clarify those cases in which most of you agree that common names would need to be considered. I hope we can reach a compromise in that direction; if we do, I will still be around, and even join WP Plants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If people are still interested in discussion, do let me know; but the alternative to a discussion tag is the admission that this page does not represent the consensus of Wikipedia; this reversion is a misstatement of fact. There is a policy against ownership of pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that two people not involved in a project have decided to insert their fingers and make a mess does not indicate a lack of consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three, but who's counting? The real problem is that WP:COMMONNAME really is project-wide consensus, regularly tested. The claim that "absence of involvement" matters is common to all WP:OWN violations; all de facto committees are open to the judgment of the rest of Wikipedia - that's what being collaborative means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken (again). The term collaboration means "working together with others to achieve a common goal", not "committees are open to the judgment of the rest".  What is happening here is that you have stepped in to tell others how to play, while not deigning to actually play with them.  Collaboration requires that people be working together on something, which is what WP:PLANTS has been doing all along.  We have regular discussions of policies and practices among participants.  That is collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't have private playpens here - nor have I refused to play; I've offered to stick around. Clearly this project needs attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See below. It's more important to make a point than it is to work with productive editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

'Nother thing I noted
There are different spelling conventions in AmE and BrE, as regards hyphenization/capitalization. In birds, we have (outside Wikipedia) standardized common names for all species, and the BrE spelling was chosen; for plants there are no conventions as of yet and I don't think there are gonna be some anytime soon.

Too much capitalization might better be avoided; it makes the name odd-looking when one follows the "proper names get capitalized" rule. BrE hyphenates instead in any case. What AmE seems to do to get around the caps problem, as per Google, seems to be a change in orthography. For example, "Small-flowered Whatchamacallit-wort" in BrE = "Smallflower Whatchamacallitwort" in AmE to avoid "Small Flower(ed) Whatchamacallit Wort". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think this could even become official policy. Choice between BrE hyphenated and AmE contracted spelling to be left to any editor's discretion. European and U.S./North American endemic genera of course would best have the regional variant throughout. But in that way, misconceptions are avoided.
 * For example: "Small Flowered Whatchamacallit Wort" - does it mean a "whatchamacallit wort" that is small and has flowers, or one that has small flowers? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All ready been dealt with
We have this: === Use common names of persons and things ===

Convention: 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; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications Which takes you to this: ===Animals, plants, and other organisms=== See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life/Article titles'' See: Naming conventions (fauna)'' See: Naming conventions (flora)'' Which leads to this current page. Hardyplants


 * Also from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life/Article titles

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for article titles for plant names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 December 2008

And what does the very first section of the Naming Conventions, "Use the most easily recognized name" take us to? This is issue of a guideline's non compliance of with the core principle of the naming conventions policy has not been dealt with yet. --PBS (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why will you not see this??"Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication," Curtis has made a very reasonable request below. Your argument that this page is against policy does not hold up, so you need to find a better one.Hardyplants (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown
Weighing AGF (on both sides) against the evidence of the posts here, I'd have to say that the intent is a smackdown of the plant editors.

Had it been a genuine concern, it seems a different approach would have been more productive:


 * 1) Identify specific problems caused by the naming convention (so far we seem to have Norway maple and Joshua tree).
 * 2) Determine whether those problems are caused by the convention or are a result of ignoring it.
 * 3) *If the problems are the result of ignoring the convention, seek consensus among the plant editors to change the article names.
 * 4) *If the problems are caused by the convention, suggest specific changes to ameliorate the problems.

If any of the editors who have attacked the guidelines would like to pursue this methodology, I'd be happy to engage. Well, no, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be disgusted, either.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I grant that the conversation opened unfortunately; but I have identified specific problems, and proposed specific solutions; this text being the latest.


 * I note that this guideline could be read as discouraging English names for higher taxa as well, although this is not what Wikipedia does for Oak or Mock-orange. This is also undesirable; guidelines should express practice, not be a handful of editors' attempt to shape it; see WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Smack down? Please.  My only comment here so far gave a specific example too.  Poison oak, which is currently split into two articles because technically there are two species, neither of which is independently notable, and both of which are most commonly known as Poison Oak.  I still don't understand why one article can't cover both, or why each can't be named per their most common name and dabbed per WP:D, say Poison Oak (pacific) and Poison Oak (atlantic).  I understand the use of the scientific name for species for which there is no common name, but the use of obscure scientific names to name articles about commonly known plants seems to fly in the face of what Wikipedia naming is all about. That's the general issue that needs to be addressed here, not the myriad of specific examples to which it applies (of which Poison Oak is only one).  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * why one article can't cover both -- Because Toxicodendron diversilobum and T. pubescens excluding other species of Toxicodendron don't correspond to any taxon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary.
 * why each can't be named per their most common name and dabbed per WP:D -- Because [g]enerally, 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. Poison Oak (pacific) or Poison oak (pacific) or Poison Oak (Pacific) or Poison oak (Pacific) or Poison oak (West Coast) or Western poison oak or Poison-oak (Pacific) or what? Does it make linking easy? No, obviously. Even without the disambiguator we would have Poison oak, Poison Oak and Poison-oak.
 * An encyclopedia isn't a treatise on cladistics, either, although it should contain one. The Britannica has an article on Poison ivy, even though that is also two species of Toxicodendron. (Here, btw, the insistence on taxonomic classification has led us into error. We mislead the reader by not acknowledging that T. diversilobum is also called "poison ivy" where it grows; moving the article to T. radicans with a redirect would only make the situation worse.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt a discussion of Toxicodendron classification will enlighten this discussion much, but if I were going to write an article to combine two species, it wouldn't be  T. diversilobum and  T. pubescens, because the latter has more similarity with, and liklihood of confusion with, T. radicans than T. diversilobum. Perhaps all of the vine-like Toxicodendron (these three, probably T. orientale, perhaps others I'm forgetting about or don't know about) could plausibly be combined into an article, but I don't think I've seen non-wikipedia sources which do that. Kingdon (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have redirects from common names and bolded common names in the first line anyway, so I am afraid I don't understand your problem. There is no possibility that a reader won't find the artcle or won't understand what he is reading about because of the Latin title. However, common names would make linking much more difficult. Colchicum (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right; you don't understand the problem. If someone enters "poison oak", because he wants to know the meaning of that phrase and he doesn't, he should get to an article which explains that there are two species of that name, how they are related, how they differ, and that one of them is also called poison ivy, although it is not the more commonly known species of that name. We don't have an article which does that, and we should. That is what "writing for lay readers" is all about: specialists don't need us; they have other and better handbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an official Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A disambiguation page is enough here. Of course it can be expanded, but that has nothing to do with botany. Colchicum (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then poison oak has nothing to do with botany. Even Petey disagrees; as witness his suggestion, far above, of three articles: one for the common name, and one for each species; but this is a detail compared with the point of principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your ability to mis-interpret the words of others is astounding. I did not disagree with anything Colchicum just said.  I indicated that a separate poison oak article is possible given certain conditions which have not yet been demonstrated.  In the absence of meeting those conditions, then a disambiguation page is all that is required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How flexible EP's position is! Last time all he wanted was a strong relationship between the two; I should have thought that two plants of the same genus, with similar appearance and properties, and the same common name, met that test if anything did; now he has more conditions. What are they? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing written below it has caused me to re-evaluate my first sentence in this section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Present draft
I have attempted to state what most people here, on both sides, seem to agree on. I hope those, at least, who agree that the decision between Joshua tree and Yucca brevifolia should be a question of fact will read the present draft and improve it. (I reserve the right to tweak it myself.)
 * What draft? You're editing the article. We all know how to make subpages; AGF would be a lot easier if you had done that. If a project is not a private playpen, neither is an article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The chief tweak I would consider is acknowledging that what we have been discussing is chiefly about species. Common names for genera (Maple, rather than Acer, for example) are more widely used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I trust the draft makes clear, with most of the reasons stated above to prefer scientific to English names; more than that, I assert they are already included in the general naming conventions, and, when they apply, we should use scientific name.

If we can settle on something of this sort, I would remove the dispute tag; at which point, we can edit very much as we did before - merely some extreme claims avoided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "I reserve the right to tweak it myself". This is claiming ownership of the page.  That clearly is a violation of WP:OWN. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, Petey; disclaiming being entirely done with a passage does not deny the right of others to revise it. I'm done for now, unless this discussion brings up some other improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is something I could agree with: A common name can be used as the title of the article about a plant taxon iff:
 * (1) it strictly corresponds to the given taxon and is not ambigous or wider/narrower in sense, and
 * (2) across the English-sepaking world the taxon has no other prominent common names that are not merely orthographical variants, and
 * (3) the common name occurs alone without the scientific name in a considerable number of reliable secondary sources, referring to the taxon in question rather than to some goods made of the plants, such as timber, food, medicines etc.
 * But poison oak will certainly fail the test, because poison oak is not a taxon. Colchicum (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The present text, being, I hope, what we can agree on, says nothing about common names which cross taxa; add what you think consensus, and we'll see if Born2cycle can stand it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, boiled down to a single sentence. This is, I believe, the only possible change, as opposed to a clarification and rephrasing, of existing practice; the rest is intended to guard against dogmatism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is okay by me, generally. But I think there needs to be some clarity around preciseness of circumscription. "Grass" corresponds approximately with "Poaceae", but whereas "Poaceae" is precisely circumscribed, people may have different views about what is and what isn't a grass; they may argue, for example, that the bamboos are not grasses. For this reason, an article about the Poaceae really must be entitled Poaceae. Yet "grass" meets the first and third condition for being a common name title, and the reason why it fails to meet the second (is unambiguous as the name of a plant) may be too subtle for some to grasp without a little guidance. Also I would be inclined to recommend the use of common names for groups of plants that are no longer recognised as valid taxa; e.g. "Dicotyledon" not "Magnoliopsida". Hesperian 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think the last phrase: as meaning the entire taxon would cover cases like Poaceae, but please do clarify, if you see a way to do so. Note that again we do have an article Grass also, about the common meaning. I agree about non-taxa; how about common  names, where they exist, are recommended for groups which are not taxa? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a draft, which could use improvement. One reason for weaselwording is that there is a Magnoliopsida, and until there is consensus to merge, it;s not the best example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, bad example. There have been multiple circumscriptions of Magnoliopsida, not all of which correspond to the dicots. A merge would not be appropriate. Hesperian 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there is a difficult balancing act here. It was not my intention to advocate that Bombacaceae should be moved to Bombax family. Hesperian 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Then I really must go; do reword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following all the minutia involved in specific wordings, but at least in broad terms doesn't look so bad.  The biggest issue which I don't know how to handle in terms of drafting is the two differing meanings of "common name" - the botanist meaning and the wikipedia meaning. Kingdon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Kingdon's last point is an important one and points to a flaw in the logic of the guideline revision as it stands now - which is demonstated in the case of Aloe vera which is a scientific name and commonly used name while Medicinal Aloe is a "common name" (botanically speaking) that is not commonly used. Melburnian (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think WP:UCN would support Aloe vera here, independently of this page, but I'd have to look at sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of the recent edits have clarified the article, but I'm concerned that in my appreciation of the clarity, I've overlooked some principle that has been altered. Other plant editors, EncycloPetey and Hesperian especially, what am I missing?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is reasonable progress now being made to reach an understanding (as of this time stamp). As long as the policy reflects the reality of 99% percent of the work we have to do and is not based on the small minority of potential exceptions, I can live with it. Hardyplants (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it has changed all right. It is a subtle shifting of the burden of proof, which may well have a very big impact on us. Yesterday, if someone moved Banksia brownii to Feather-leaved Banksia, I would simply move it back "per our long-established plant article naming convention", safe in the knowledge that the scientific name was our fall-back position, from which we do not deviate unless a case is made for doing so, and no such case can be made for that taxon. If someone moves it today, it will stay there, because the new convention puts on me the burden of proof that the scientific name is "more easily recognised" than the common name, and I am unable to provide such a proof to someone who wishes to believe otherwise. For what data can I present that is not easily dismissed as irrelevant, inaccurate or biased? Google hits? Bah!
 * I wonder if this proposed change should be taken to a vote.
 * Hesperian 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the ultimate aim of this brouhaha is to allow the application of the revised convention to some specific case e.g. Joshua tree. If so, then this goal has been achieve
 * Not on my part. My beef is in general that we should use unique and unambiguous English names, when they are well-known, for the convenience of non-botanists; I'm not a botanist myself. I picked two examples that were unique and unambiguous, because I happened to think of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I'm a non-botanist who finds the use of scientific names much more convenient than common names. Melburnian (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a botanist either. Moreover, I am not a native speaker of English, and scientific names look much more recognizable to me. Are you sure that English speakers in what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize refer to native speakers? I am afraid that even native speakers from England or Australia will have hard time trying to recognize common (vernacular) names of many American plants, especially if they are less well-known worldwide than poison-oak, Douglas-fir, witchhazel or Joshua tree. And I will certainly fail to recognize what I need browsing through family categories. AFAIK, gardeners, amateur naturalists and the like also tend to use scientific names, precisely because they are more convenient. Colchicum (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "English speakers" refers to those whose English is better than any other language; readers whose Foolandish is better than their English have a Foolandish WP. That's why it exist. Making the English Wikipedia incomprehensible to English speakers (in this sense) leaves that substantial class with no Wikipedia at all.
 * When a plant bears different names in England and Australia, we use the scientific name.
 * The exception hammered out deals with cases where there is only one English name. When an Australian looks up Joshua tree, she will have met a reference to it in some book on California; she deserves to find the article, and to see that that is the English name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian you wrote in the edit history of the article "You still don't get the diff' between common ("vernacular") and common ("broadly used")." To whom does the "you" refer?

The Naming convention policy is quite clear "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." that is the phrase "Commonly used names for species" should mean. --PBS (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You. Your prior edit changed "common names" to "commonly used names", thereby completely changing the meaning of the sentence. Hesperian 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes because that edit was in response to an edit by user:Melburnian (Revision as of 04:32, 4 December 2008) which carried the comment "delinking as plant "common names" are not necessarily commonly used names" because user:Pmanderson who had initially written the sentence and made that link, and it is reasonable to assume that it was that Wikipedia usage of common name that he meant. So it was not I changing the meaning but the edit by user:Melburnian, I was restoring the original meaning. --PBS (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That way leads to chaos, show use a list or a source for an unambiguous universal 'common name' - If not, how do we define one without doing OR?. Hardyplants (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only "Commonly used names for species" that "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and that makes "linking to those articles easy" is the species binomials, plus the use of redirects and disambiguation pages for common names that run across more than one species. Hardyplants (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants you seem determined not to accept that this guideline is not a reflection of the general consensus on naming pages. The edit of mine that you have reverted, not one but twice, does reflect the general consensus on how pages are named. What is it about the Wikipedia policy that upsets you so? --PBS (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know what name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize? I think by far the greatest number won't recognize any of them. The rest is our speculations. The only reliable metrics I can think of is whether the vernacular name in question occurs alone without the binomial name in reliable published sources. Poison-oak:, Joshua tree: , Norway maple: . By the way, here is some interesting feedback concerning the use of vernacular names: User:Jwinius. Colchicum (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are other possible methods. The guideline on geographic names faces similar problems, and came up with several approaches which may be useful here: the usage of other encyclopedias and works of general reference may be most appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unique, unambiguous, and well known
I have added a topic sentence including the catch phrase unique, unambiguous, and well known, adapted from Tree of Life. No change of guidance is intended; such phrases often make application of a guideline simpler, if they are memorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And reinstated it, as apparent collateral damage of the late edit war. If anybody really does disagree with it, please discuss here - your reasons may convince me, once I know what they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bone of contention
The present bone of contention appears to be:
 * The naming policy states use the most easily recognized name. Where a commonly used English name and a scientific name are not the same, the commonly used English should be used for an article name in preference to the scientific name, providing the name is used widely and is unambiguous.

I would suggest adding a See also: for relevant guidelines, including COMMONNAME. The second sentence here is largely redundant with
 * However, the common name of a taxon should be used for the article title if it is the only prominent English common name for the taxon (spelling variations excepted); it is more common (i.e. more broadly used) than the scientific name; it is unambiguous as the name of the taxon; and it is widely attested in reliable secondary sources (without the scientific name) in reference to the entire taxon as commonly circumscribed.

If there is a difference in force, I don't see it, and would be glad to have it explained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have redirects and both names should always be present in the lead. Therefore the things may be very different from the point of view of an editor, but the only case when the issue really matters from the point of view of a reader is the case when the title is the only thing (s)he sees. That is, when (s)he browses Wikipedia by category. As put it: "Common names make category overviews rather useless. For instance, compare Category:Viperinae with Category:Sharks; there are subcategories for . With the latter, you can't see which species are related (belong to the same genus); you only know that they are all sharks." Colchicum (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of the species articles are in Category:Sharks; there are subcats for the orders and genera, which serve exactly the purpose Colchicum recommends (should we suggest such cats here?). But it's a balance of utilities; if I were looking through those cats, I should prefer to find Great white shark, which I recognize, than Carcharodon carcharias, which I don't. Wnen avoidable, a cat is more useful if the lay reader doesn't have to click on every member of the cat to find out what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is generally not allowed, but if necessary to keep category content organized in a useful way it is permissible to categorize redirects. For birds, it is especially helpful, as species articles are all common-name. Also, piping can be used of course. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid this is a common misconception about piping. would result in the article being listed under the first letter of the speciesname, but it would still be listed there with its title. I have recently fixed such confusing piping in quite a number of articles about Fir/Abies species. E.g. White Fir categorized as  would appear under A, but still as White Fir and not as Abies concolor. It doesn't make life easier. Categorization of redirects also doesn't make much sense because then the reader will only be able to get from the category to the aticle, but not from the article to the category. There is a simpler solution, albeit it is also not encouraged, namely overcategorization by genus. But who will do this anyway? Our taxonomic category tree is already a mess, but with scientific names it is at least usable, because one can figure out from the title whether the article is about a species or a genus or something else, and if it is about a species, what genus the species belongs to. Colchicum (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Make order and genus cats, whenever enough articles on the species are written that this is a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who will make this? What if there are not enough articles? Colchicum (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC
 * Like all guidelines, we have time; Wikipedia is a work in progress, and publication is a long way off.
 * The same top-down approach applies as with the Tree of Life as a whole; stop at the level of division where you have enough articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Test Case Geranium
Problem here is that most non-specialists use the term for Pelargonium, while the article is about Geranium. So most links to Geranium are really about geraniums, i.e. Pelargonium.

Since that pertains to the above discussion, it might be a good test case. It might in fact be the most serious case of a common- vs scientific-name confusion (I am not a botanist, but off the top of my head can't think of anything more messed up).

Discussion is at the article's Talk; I thought it might be good to mv it here but that would mess up things more. Instead, it's probably better to announce the problem, as I herewith do, and put the discussion for some days for you folks to think it over.

For, in a nutshell: if a policy cannot tackle how to deal with Geranium in the face of Geranium vs Pelargonium, it is probably not worthwhile to implement it ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nasturtium is another example. Hesperian 05:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cantharis, if we extend the discussion to include insects. Colchicum (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Geranium should be a disambiguation page, leading to Geranium (genus) and Pelargonium (or Geranium (common name) for the common name fans). In all of these cases, the word is demonstrably ambiguous, which is why we have dab pages.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea in general, but isn't Pelargonia a genus as well? Geranium (genus) doesn't make sense to me. Colchicum (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer Geranium (taxon)? I think Curtis' proposal is a good solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to open this can of worms, frankly. Colchicum (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Geranium should be about the most common meaning of the term, which is what is technically (not commonly) known as Pelargonium, which should redirect to Geranium. A hat note on that page should redirect to what is technically (not commonly) known as Geranium, but as Cranesbill, so that article should be there. In other words: What's the problem? What guideline or convention would be violated or contradicted by this? I see none. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * move Geranium → Cranesbill (currently Cranesbill is a redirect to Geranium)
 * move Pelargonium → Geranium (making Pelargonium a redirect to Geranium).
 * Add hat note to new Geranium with a link to Cranesbill.
 * Geranium is ambiguous (Geranium and Pelargonium), Cranesbill is also ambiguous (Geranium and Erodium), therefore if we change anything at all, they can only be disambiguation pages. Colchicum (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Pelargonium shouldn't be moved anywhere for sure. It is perfectly unambiguous. Colchicum (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) And in the absence of an unambiguous common name, Geranium (genus) should be under its scientific name, possibly with an attached disambiguator. Colchicum (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell you how tired I am of the incredibly weak argument that "X is ambiguous therefore X cannot be an article title except for a dab page", which is the entire basis of your argument here about "Geranium". It's an incredibly weak argument because it completely and totally ignores WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is all about the very common situation of an ambiguous name never-the-less being a title of an article about one particular meaning of that name.  Please try again.  Now, if you want to argue that the common meaning of geranium is not the primary topic, then please argue that.  And if you want to argue that Cranesbill has no primary topic and so should not redirect to the article that is currently at Geranium, please do.  The proper forum for that discussion is at Talk:Cranesbill.  But I plead with you that before you do any of that, please, please, please carefully read and think about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Thank you.  --21:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pelargonium is by no means more primary than Geranium. The primary topic could be Geranium in the sense of Species plantarum (1753), which included Pelargonium and Erodium. Colchicum (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are you saying that the pelargonium meaning of geranium is "by no means" more primary than whatever you mean by Geranium (the genus?) here? I'm also not sure what you mean by "more primary" here, since I see no evidence that you've even read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yet.  That guideline clearly defines primary as "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer" and a meaning of an ambiguous term that is "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings".  Even scientists who are not botanically inclined (most of them) are much more likely to use the vernacular rather than the scientific.  So it is only a small portion (botanists) of a small group (scientists) of the total population that even knows about, much less uses, the relatively obscure scientific meaning.  The rest of the world uses the vernacular meaning.  That's what makes it primary.  Your baseless assertions to the contrary do not an argument make.  ---Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On what grounds am I obliged to spend my time discussing things with you if you feel free to deduce what I have read and what I haven't? Bye. Colchicum (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deduced nothing. I've simply stated the fact that you have not written anything that indicates you have read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  That doesn't mean you haven't.  You might have read and not understood it, or disagreed with it and chose to ignore it, or who knows.  But your posts based on the premise that mere ambiguity means the name in question must be a title of a dab page indicates a lack of consideration for that guideline, which I merely point out is consistent with not having read it.  And you're not obliged to spend your time discussing anything with me.  Whether you're obliged to yourself to really think about what you're writing, and why, is up to you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline, not a rule. Furthermore, this guideline applies if and only if a primary topic in fact exists.  The general opinion here and on Talk:Geranium is that in this instance there is no primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to discuss whether there is a primary topic or not, but every assertion I've seen about there being no primary topic for Geranium is based on the incorrect premise that simply because there is ambiguity there is no primary topic. I mean, several people have stated essentially nothing more than "Geranium is ambiguous, so it must be a disambiguation page."  Is  it presumptious on my part to suspect that someone who makes a statement like that mistakenly believes that mere ambiguity means there is no primary topic, which would undermine the entire existence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?  In particular, I've seen no one argue that there is no primary topic based on the criteria provided in that guideline (just as you never provided an argument based on that criteria with regard to there being no Harrisburg primary topic).  Furthermore, that one paragraph in this guideline with all the assertions that I challenged below seems to have been written in an alternate WP universe in which there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not ok
Gentiana is for some reason at Gentian, which is terribly ambiguous (and, among other things, refers to Gentianella). Colchicum (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved. Colchicum (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I call horse-puckey on current wording
The current version states:


 * It is rare for the common (i.e. vernacular) name of a plant taxon to be unambiguous: many taxa bear several English common names, and many English common names are applied to multiple unrelated taxa. In the first case, no English name is likely to be common in the "broadly used" sense, although the scientific name may be. In the second case, the common name is ambiguous, so the use of scientific names is necessary in the interests of sufficient precision.

I object to several points:


 * It is rare for the common (i.e. vernacular) name of a plant taxon to be unambiguous. Whether a given name is "unambiguous" is irrelevant.  There are myriads of examples of WP articles whose titles are ambiguous and yet are about one of the meanings of the name in the title.   What matters is whether any one of the ambiguous meanings is the primary topic of the name in question.
 * many taxa bear several English common names. Again, irrelevant, unless none of those several names is [edit:] the primary topic clearly the most common name [ --Born2cycle (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ] .  For example, using the case study above, clearly geranium is the most common name used to refer to the plant most commonly referred to as geranium.
 * and many English common names are applied to multiple unrelated taxa. Again, irrelevant, unless none of those applications is primary.
 * no English name is likely to be common in the "broadly used" sense There may certainly be plenty of examples where that is the case, but that is all irrelevant to those cases in which clearly there is a common English name for the flora in question (like Geranium).
 * ... although the scientific name may be. The scientific name may be common in the "broadly used" sense?  Now, that is what is unlikely, and is certainly not the case with, for example, geranium.
 * ... the common name is ambiguous, so the use of scientific names is necessary in the interests of sufficient precision NO!!!.  The common name merely being ambiguous is far from sufficient to require more precision.  First, it has to be established that there is no primary topic, and even then, that doesn't justify the use of some obscure scientific name over still using the common name as the title, along with an appropriate disambiguator in parenthesis.

That is an impressive number of errors and misconceptions expressed in one short statement, I must say. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ...that doesn't justify the use of some obscure scientific name over still using the common name as the title.  Just so you're aware, there is no such thing as an obscure scientific name.  Every described organism has one scientific name (officially) ascribed to it, and just because the name isn't always well known doesn't make it obscure.  It is only in the vernacular, where there can be anywhere between 0 and many names for a single organism, where a name can become obscure.


 * I'm a little confused why people are so intent on trying to apply ambiguous and regional names to articles about plants already governed by a single globally recognized nomenclatural system. Keep in mind that the introduction says that this naming convention differs from those used in other parts of the wiki, and was arrived at at the general consensus of wikibotanists after much discussion.  We realize that we are naming plant articles differently than city articles, but that's because there isn't already a widely used global nomenclature for cities. --NoahElhardt (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, please, let's not play silly games of semantics. It should be clear that in the context of "some obscure scientific name over still using the common name as the title" the intended meaning of obscure is, generally, "not well known", and, more specifically, "significantly less well known than the common name to most readers of Wikipedia".  I mean, we're talking about the relative obscurity of, for example, Pelargonium, as compared to the widespread familiarity of geranium to refer to the same plants.  Or the relatively obscure Toxicodendron diversilobum as compared to Poison oak.  If you want to argue for the use of scientific names over the common names, your argument needs to maintain this should be despite their obscurity (obscurity in the sense of not well known outside of botany); trying to deny their obscurity by insisting on some specific meaning of "obscure" (like "not discovered by humanity" or "uncertain") is silly and a waste of time.  Yes, within the field of botany these scientific names are not obscure.  But the relevant context here is the experience of the the average Wikipedia user, not of botanists.


 * Second, the idea of using a "globally recognized nomenclatural system" is understandably enticing. But the objection to using the "globally recognized nomenclatural system" here on Wikipedia is because doing so in article topics where names likely to be better known to Wikipedia users are commonly used to refer to those article topics flies in the face of Wikipedia naming policy, conventions and guidelines. Does that make sense to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"That is an impressive number of errors and misconceptions expressed in one short statement, I must say." Actually, there is an impressive number of errors and misconception in your own post: Hesperian 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is rare for the common (i.e. vernacular) name of a plant taxon to be unambiguous. Whether a given name is "unambiguous" is irrelevant." Rubbish. If a common name is ambiguous, then there are multiple concepts of encyclopedic merit with a claim to the title, so the title needs to be a disambiguation page, and is unavailable to an article. An example: Swamp Banksia is the common name of Banksia littoralis in Western Australia; of Banksia paludosa in New South Wales; and of Banksia robur in Queensland. All three concepts have equal standing. It is Wikipedia-wide consensus that a disambiguation page is most appropriate here. If you think we should have a policy that mandates the "promotion" of one of these articles to the title Swamp Banksia, then you are totally out of touch with Wikipedia norms.
 * "many taxa bear several English common names. Again, irrelevant, unless none of those several names is the primary topic." Wrong again. In Australia, Echium plantagineum is known by two common names: "Paterson's Curse" in wetter areas where it is considered an uneradicable weed of pastures; and "Salvation Jane" in arid areas where its hardiness makes it a stock feed of last resort. Pick a common name, and you're picking a point of view. If you think we should have a policy that mandates POV titles, then you are totally out of touch with Wikipedia norms. (No, you don't get to dodge the issue by using "Purple Viper's Bugloss"—No-one's ever even heard of that name in Australia.
 * "... although the scientific name may be. The scientific name may be common in the "broadly used" sense?  Now, that is what is unlikely." I guarantee you that the scientific name is the most broadly used name for every single taxon linked from this page. Also for the vast majority of taxa linked from here. And those listed here. And even most of these. Your concept of plants is restricted to the charismatic, popular stuff—big trees and pretty flowers.


 * Hesperian,
 * Yes, the condition of a name being ambiguous is irrelevant to the issue of whether it could be a WP article title about one of its meanings, or whether it needs to be a disambiguation page and be unavailable as a title to one of those topics. Please read the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline which is exclusively about names which are ambiguous with respect to topics with encyclopedic merit, and when they can be used as non-dabbed article titles and when they must be used as dab pages (or redirects to dab pages). If you disagree on this point, take it up at the talk page for WP:D where you can lobby for the removal of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not here.
 * Here indeed I made an error. I meant to say common name, not primary topic.  When there are many names for the same topic, that is not an issue of primary topic.  I've fixed my original statement above accordingly.  If choosing any one of those names violates WP:NPOV, then indeed it might be appropriate to choose a neutral name, and the scientific one makes sense.  But, this only applies in those cases where none of the common names is clearly most common, and the selection of one means picking a point of view.  But such cases are already covered in the general guidelines (thus we have fixed-wing aircraft rather than either of the more common airplane or aeroplane), and there is no reason to restate it in this flora specific guideline where restating it can only serve to imply that use of the scientific name is justified even in those cases where there is no POV naming conflict of this type.  Finally, picking a name in accordance with one POV is not necessarily prohibited.  After all, we have Yoghurt (not Yogurt).
 * Well, in those cases where there is no applicable name other than the scientific name, then of course we must go with the scientific name. That should go without saying.  The context of my comments is in objection to the use of scientific names instead of more common names - this necessarily only applies in those cases where there are common non-scientific names that are used to refer to the topics in question.
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Errors and misconceptions are indeed key issues here. You state on the Geranium talk page, "For example, I'm a software engineer, so I generally avoid discussions about naming in that area since I would clearly have a specialized bias there, and would have a difficult time objectively representing what is commonly known and perceived with respect to the related terms and most common meanings." Now, I'm not a software engineer (although I manage software engineers), but I know enough about software engineering to understand that it is a more complex subject than can be fully learned from the New York Times, or Slashdot, or even the online programming forum of your choice. I recently spent some time looking at Identity management, because a colleague suggested using parts of it for a document we were preparing. I saw that the article had some weaknesses and inconsistencies, but I knew that I didn't have enough expertise to fix it; I know enough about identity management to know that it is a complex subject.


 * How could my level of knowledge (which is much greater than that of the average Wikipedia editor, but far short of someone who has spent a career in training and job experience as a computer scientist) give me any useful perspective on choosing the names for computer science or software engineering articles? I know that it is a prevalent meme in Wikipedia to enshrine ignorance, but I don't think that is what any of us is about. But that's the way you come across. I could make a case that Computer programming and Software engineering are equivalent terms, and that the articles should be combined under Computer programming, because that's what the average Joe calls it, but that would be an ignorant argument. Please give us better than that if you are going to make points about plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't see the difference myself as there are REAL PROGRAMMERS and quiche eaters --PBS (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said, Curtis. But you mostly addressed a statement I made elsewhere.  I'd really rather not go into that here in this section, and instead focus on the problematic statement I quoted above.  I stand by my objections as stated here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The mammal article is a pebble in my shoe that illustrates this point, note the first line. This is what we get when people edit outside of their knowledge base.  The sad thing about it, is how long this has been allowed to remain.  Mammal has not replaced the name Mammalia.  My impression about those that "need" to change things around here, is that they do not understand the problems they would cause, and even worse they do not care - as long as their bureaucratic overlording brings about absolute conformity, they do not care if it does more harm than good. Hardyplants (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will take several of Born2cycle's points on myself. As for the rest of Hesperian's reply; that was exactly the problem with the old wording; no convention which does not allow charismatic pretty stuff to be treated like other well-known subjects is acceptable on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether a given name is ambiguous is irrelevant. That is not WP:UCN, which expressly mentions exceptions for disambiguation. If a name is far the most common, is primary usage, then isolated uses of other names are indeed irrelevant; but we can deal with that if it becomes a problem.
 * "and many English common names are applied to multiple unrelated taxa". Again, irrelevant, unless none of those applications is primary. But in Ironwood, for example, none of those plants can be the primary meaning of the word.
 * [When a taxon bears several English names], none of them is likely to be common in the "broadly-used" sense. I would have said this was obvious. If one of them is, that's a different matter; but we can, again, work on that exception if it becomes a problem.
 * The scientific name may be common in the "broadly used" sense? [disbelief]. The example of aloe vera shows the possibility, in addition to the innumerable obscure species for which the scientific name is the only name in use (and therefore as close to "broadly used" as we can get).

Proposed rewrite
How about something like this: ""The vast majority of plants are ugly little things of interest only to boffins. Unfortunately, these boffins refer to them by nasty, intimidating, elitist "scientific names". Since these elitist names are the only names available for these plants, Wikipedia has no choice but to use them. Luckily for us (and you), no-one ever reads those articles anyway. The interesting plants, the ones that grow really big or have pretty flowers—the ones that normal people have actually heard of—do have common names. Sadly, sometimes different people will use the same common name for different plants, or different common names for the same plant. This is of course all part of the egalitarian charm of common names, but it does make it a bit tough for us to match common name titles up to plant articles in such as a way as to avoid confusing people or showing favourism to one group of speakers over another. In some such cases, the only possible solution is to adopt, with the most bitter regret, the elitist names. The good news is that there are a goodly number of plants for which there is a suitable common name available, and in those cases we take much pleasure in adopting the common name in preference to the elitist name. You will find many examples in our articles on plants that are actually good for something, such as coffee.""

Hesperian 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it can be put more succinctly: Use the most easily recognized name and where that name is not clear consult the guidelines "common names" "precision" and "naming conflict". Also [put in here specific guidance for this guideline] ... --PBS (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The wit of the first inspires me to describe the second as a unusable, tendentious and immodest proposal. cygnis insignis 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would in fact endorse Hesperian's modest proposal; it would at least get the point across, and serve as a rational guideline - shorn of the attitude, that is indeed what we mean. One test of a competent specialist, to paraphrase Richard Feynmann, is the ability to explain his material to non-specialists in such a way that they will understand it; if read seriously, this proposed text would also therefore serve as a useful warning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
This discussion has gone on plenty long enough, and gotten us nowhere. An attempt was made to hammer out a compromise, and instead of leaving everyone satisfied, it left both sides unhappy. Clearly the two points of view cannot be reconciled; a choice has to be made.

Notwithstanding some claims made on this page, the naming conventions policy does not decide this for us. Anyone who goes to the trouble of thoroughly reading Naming conventions will find that it scrupulously avoids making the kind of restrictive rules that some people are trying to impose on us. The first paragraph is devoted to telling us that the policy should not be used in isolation, and that it is "supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy". The oft-quoted "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognise" starts with the decidedly wishy-washy "Generally, article naming should prefer", and finishes with two clauses that further erode any suggestion of absoluteness. The sentence most obviously applicable to this case starts with "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication,...", effectively giving us a free hand to do what we think best.

Given that policy does not decide this for us, and an attempt at compromise has failed miserably, I think it is high time this went to a vote.

I will set out a position statement and a proposed convention below. I suggest that proponents of other conventions do the same. Endorse the proposal you think most appropriate. Hesperian 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Use scientific names, with exceptions
The use of scientific names offers powerful advantages: For these reasons, the use of scientific names should be our standard position, with a small set of exceptions to cover exceptional situations, such as when an article covers both a plant taxon and a plant product (e.g. potato).
 * Scientific names are nearly always the most easily recognised name: The majority of plants don't even have a common name. A great many more have a mish-mash of common names that vary from place to place and even within a place, with no particular common name emerging as having widespread acceptance. Scientific names, on the other hand, are universally accepted. They are recognised in every country, in every culture, even beyond the English speaking world. The notion that scientific names are technical jargon only used by specialists is false. Every reliable source uses them; they have no choice, because it is the standard nomenclature. WP:NC clearly states that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." By this metric, the scientific name would be the most recognisable name in 99% of cases.
 * The consistent adoption of scientific names lets us bypass pointless long-winded arguments over which name is "most easily recognised":A convention that says "Use the most easily recognized name" will require us to prove, over and over again, on a case by case basis, the trivially obvious fact that all reliable sources use the scientific name. A convention that says "Use the scientific name" will achieve the same outcome without the interminable time-wasting debates.
 * Scientific names are completely unambiguous: The raison d'etre of scientific names is the elimination of ambiguity. And it works. On the other hand, common names are usually ambiguous, because the same name has been used for multiple plants, and/or a single plant has many common names, and/or the scope of the common name varies from person to person (e.g. whether or not a person's notion of "grass" includes bamboo). WP:NC tells us to aim for "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"; the use of scientific names enables this.
 * Scientific names are unbiased: Common names may contain explicit bias (e.g. Salvation Jane versus Paterson's Curse), and/or the choice of a common name may betray or suggest a regional bias, and/or the choice of a particular orthography may betray or suggest a language bias. These problems simply don't exist for scientific names.
 * The consistent adoption of scientific names proffers concrete pragmatic benefits: The adoption of scientific names means that a genus and all its species will be grouped together in family-or-higher rank categories. This is immensely valuable to category organisation.

In short, we should revert our convention to the version of 1 December 2008. The essence of this proposal is that our convention should consist of
 * 1) Endorsement of the principle of using "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject";
 * 2) An explicit presumption that "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" will almost always be the scientific name;
 * 3) An articulation of those classes of articles for which we will readily concede that our presumption does not hold;
 * 4) A willingness to make further exceptions on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that the onus is on the person who wishes to use a common name, to demonstrate that the common name is "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject".


 * Endorsed by
 * 1) Hesperian 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Very strongly oppose. Calling this "with exceptions", as Hesperian originally did, is misrepresentation; it conflates two distinct proposals. The text of December 1, and Hesperian's arguments, make no allowance for exceptions; the present text makes two explicit and relatively narrow exceptions (one of them Hesperian's idea, but I support it). If the text of December 1 had made exceptions, and was not being read as always use scientific names, I would have endorsed it to begin with, and pointed out those exceptions to those who originally opposed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **It isn't the exceptions I object to. I am happy with the exceptions as they currently stand, and would be happy to seem them further refined. The issue for me is the presence of an explicit presumption that "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" will almost always be the scientific name, so that we don't have to prove this for every article we write. I shall refactor above, and expand on this below. Hesperian 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Added text to address this. I do not see a presumption for most plants as a problem; has someone been demanding English names for all fungi articles? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Curtis Clark (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC). The previous guideline had worked, day in and day out, for quite a while, and, afaict, would have continued to work except for Joshua tree. All of this argument is over a very small percentage of the plant articles.
 * 6) Hardyplants (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Without a clear guideline like this, we will have these arguments numerous times a year over specific articles, its too taxing and damaging to the project.
 * 7) Stan (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) I'd also like to avoid revisiting the endless arguments of yore. The week of argument on this page is just a forestate of what it could be like, multiplied across what is now thousands of pages. That said, when I look at the old rules, I don't see where they allow an exception for Joshua tree, since the plant doesn't have a commercial product associated with it, and originally I thought we were going to allow exceptions if project members were agreed.
 * 8) I found the previous guideline provided clear direction, and clearly noted the exceptions, without letting the exceptions become the "tail that wagged the dog". I think the one thing what was missing, and is much needed in light of these lengthy debates, is a detailed rationale for the guideline. Melburnian (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) NoahElhardt (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC) As per Melburnian
 * Oppose it is against Wikipedia Naming Conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Another small proposal
''The adoption of scientific names means that a genus and all its species will be grouped together in family-or-higher rank categories. This is immensely valuable to category organisation.'' Therefore common names should not be allowed as article titles unless the articles are placed in genus-or-lower rank categories. Colchicum (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only the vaguest idea of what this proposal means, so I am reluctant to support it. Colchicum may want to discuss this at WT:Category anyway, since this seems to make assumptions which are simply not the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Use scientific names, with explicit exceptions
This is, again, the position of the present text; although many other texts would be possible. The present text allows two exceptions: When neither of these applies, we use the scientific name; it has been widely argued, and I fully agree, that such cases are very frequent, and the present text says so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When an article is about a group which is not a taxon, we use the common name; frequently, but not always, an English name. We cannot use the scientific name for a group which is no longer, or never was, a taxon.
 * When a taxon has a unique, unambiguous, and well known English name, we use it; that is, when no other plant taxon bears it, it covers the whole taxon, and the English name is more familiar than the scientific name.

Endorsed by:
 * 1) For another sample of the limited range of this exception, consider Norway maple, which is unique to Acer plantanoides, unambiguous, and more well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Curtis Clark (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC). This is truly not all that different from the previous guideline, affecting only a small number of articles. I support it with two modifications: (1) If a common name is used for a product rather than a species, it should never be used as an article title for the species. As a non-controversial example, "coffee" almost exclusively refers to the beverage; one would say "coffee tree" or "coffee bush" in reference to an individual plant, and Coffea in reference to the genus. (2) A single reference from a reliable source is sufficient to show that a common name is ambiguous.
 * 3) *I agree that this is a small difference; I am puzzled at the apocalyptic rhetoric here.
 * 4) *Mr. Clark's second reservation should depend on the reference. (It is implied by the text as it stands, but that would make it subject to common sense.) As he states it, an English name suggested once in 1840 and abandoned would make names ambiguous. Surely this goes too far? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) **Okay, let's discuss this, since it seems to be the crux of the matter. I think we agree that a name in use is the only sort that should be in contention, so then our focus needs to be on what we mean by "use". Hesperian has pointed out some good examples from Australia, and there was also contention at Cytisus scoparius and Verbascum thapsus. Here are some examples of levels of "use":
 * 6) **# Used globally by all English-speakers.
 * 7) **# Used in a large region (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom, United States)
 * 8) **# Used in a smaller region (e.g., NSW, Scotland, SW United States)
 * 9) **# Used very locally.
 * 10) **# Not in current use, but widely used in historical references or historical fiction (keeping in mind that a person unfamiliar with the plant itself may know it by an old name from books).
 * 11) **# Not in current use, and only attested from historical literature.
 * 12) ** I hope we would all agree that every name in that list is worthy of inclusion in an article, in the context of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. I think many of us agree that most if not all of those names should be redirects to the article at its chosen name, barring disambiguation issues. What I'm asking here is:
 * 13) **# In which of these categories should an unambiguous name trump a scientific name?
 * 14) **# In which of these categories should an additional name be accepted as ambiguity, forcing the use of the scientific name?
 * 15) **--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) ***Hesperian's exception about non-taxa seems to be non-controversial. That leaves us with the exception which those English names which are used globally by a preponderance of English speakers (all speakers makes us vulnerable to lone cranks), and more frequently than the Latin name (a small class, but articles which will be often seen). That would satisfy me; we can consider whether a broader exception is useful when and if such issues arise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is against the Naming Conventions policy --PBS (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please specify how this contravenes WP:NAME and propose a wording which would not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal:

 * Endorsed by

Discussion
In general, Wikipedia prefers a proposal which leaves both sides moderately unhappy to that which leaaves one side content and the other extremely unhappy. For more, see WP:Consensus and WP:Voting is evil. A proposal jammed through by majority vote does not have consensus and is not binding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite this odd message, no-one is proposing the overthrow of the Linnaean system; some of us would, however, find it more helpful, where synonyms exist, to discuss it in English. As a primary guide to what is English, we would follow the usage of reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the two proposals made so far are in violent agreement. Both endorse the general principle that we should use "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"; both presume that this will usually be scientific name; both accept that there will be exceptions; and although we don't all perfectly agree on the nature of those exceptions, the development and refinement of them has so far been quite collegial. As far as I'm concerned, these two proposals could safely be rolled together. I'm still waiting for a proposal to come from those who would dispute the validity of the presumption that "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" will usually be the scientific name. This is, I believe, the main issue here. Hesperian 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For species, I would think that there is little reason to use anything other than the scientific name. I have never seen any reason to do otherwise; in fact I find having common names as articles for species titles mildly annoying. All or almost all the IUCN Red List plant content parsed by Polbot uses sciennames for example, and that is A LOT of stubs we got there. It is also common practice with the Animals project, except for birds and, to some extent, mammals - and in these cases there are good grounds to use common names, as they are standardized for birds and being standardized for mammals.
 * For genera, the matter is a bit different. We are living in a time of splitting and lumping the likes of which the scientific community has probably not seen since the ternary system took hold about 100 years ago. For genera, if used with caution, common names seem reasonable.
 * For higher taxa, again, scientific names are to be used "without" exception (there might be exceptions, but I cannot think of any right off the top of my head).
 * Exceptions for genera might be:
 * globally far better known under an unambiguous common name than under the scientific name: e.g. Tulip, Rose, Maple, Pine
 * to avoid ambiguity (I still cannot think of any case that is worse than that wretched "geranium/Geranium" thing).
 * This would yield a SOP that is stringent for the overwhelming part, and where it is not, the exceptions are governed by just 2 rules. Thus, arguments will be kept to a minimum, while leaving open an "emergency exit" precisely where it might be needed. It would also keep down the amount of housekeeping necessary to implement this policy fully.
 * This is not a proposal, but if you like to make it one, go right ahead. I must warn you that I have not though about falsification, which I have found to work as well as a "gold standard" in testing policies as in does in the sciences. I.e., I have not thought long and hard about cases which cannot be easily accomodated with such a policy. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hesperian when (s)he wrote above "Both endorse the general principle that we should use "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"; both presume that this will usually be scientific name;" if this is true then there is no problem. The guideline can start with an the acknowledgement of the general principle of the naming conventions and then go on to give guidance on what to do when the the most easily recognised name is the scientific name and also when it is not -- Much as is one in the sister guideline Naming conventions (fauna). --PBS (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These proposals are in violent agreement. Perhaps, but then what was Hesperian arguing about yesterday? If so, then they should reach the same results: how does the old text support such names as Norway maple or Joshua tree?


 * I will accept any text which does reach that result, and cannot be misconstrued as always use Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions says to use "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". Do you agree that it says that? Do you endorse that convention? Yes? So what do reliable sources use: Yucca brevifolia or Joshua tree?
 * The ideal source from which to obtain a physical description of Y. brevifolia is a monograph on the genus or family. Surprisingly there seems to be nothing of significance published since the brief and very general treatment of Verhoek (1998) "Agavaceae" in Kubitzki, K. (ed.), The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants III. This uses scientific names throughout. If you wanted to get into morphological variability, you might dig up Valentovich and Sandquist (2007) Morphological variation of Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae) among seven population in the Mojave Desert, which also refers to this plant by its scientific name.
 * The ideal source(s) for the species' systematics?: Presumably Pellmyr et al. (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas, which uses scientific names throughout. Possibly also Clary & Simpson (1994) Taxonomy of the genus Yucca: taxonomy and molecular biology and Clary & Simpson (1995) Systematics and character evolution of the genus Yucca L. (Agavaceae): evidence from morphology and molecular analyses. I haven't seen these last two papers but I bet you London to a brick that they use scientific names throughout.
 * For distribution and habitat? Biogeography is an understudied and underpublished area. For most taxa there is no atlas available but in this case there is a three-volume set by Hochstätter (2002) entitled Yucca, Yucca II and Yucca III. Y. brevifolia would be in Yucca II. I haven't seen these books, but they give me the impression of a self-published work that may not be completely reliable. It might be necessary to go to local floras, like CalFlora, in which the relevant page is entitled "Yucca brevifolia". This information might be supplemented by papers on historical and future distribution such as Dole et al. (2002) The relative importance of climate change and the physiological effects of CO2 on freezing tolerance for the future distribution of Yucca brevifolia.
 * For horticulture? I recommend Irish (2000) Agaves, Yuccas, and Related Plants: A Gardener's Guide. Our species is treated on page 239 under the title Yucca brevifolia.
 * There are of course some articles that use the common name. There seems to be a cluster of them focussing on mutualism between Yucca and the Yucca moth. But in general, the preponderance of reliable sources that I would anticipate citing in a high quality article on Y. brevifolia uses the scientific name, not the common name.
 * So what do you propose? Shall we follow Naming conventions and apply "the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"; or shall we use your preferred option? These would appear to be mutually exclusive.
 * Hesperian 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion yes we should use the name used in reliable English sources. As to what are reliable English sources see WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS --PBS (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're endorsing Yucca brevifolia here, right? Hesperian 11:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but neither am I endorsing any of the alternatives. I leave that to the people who contribute to its talk page to decide using Wikipedia policies and hopefully non contradictory advice from this guideline. --PBS (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. This is a question of fact: which do reliable secondary sources principally use? This guideline should not pre-empt that decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to focus
In hopes of focusing us on the substantive issues, I'll offer the following observations, propose some stipulations, and propose a way forward.


 * Motivations of those who support the previous guideline (please edit as necessary)
 * All the editors want to avoid the situation of endless argument over article titles, and see the use of scientific names as a clear way to do this.
 * Some of the editors believe that scientific names are superior to common names. Among these editors are those who are adamant about this stance, and others who don't care, provided that the first point is addressed (I include myself in this latter).
 * Some of the editors are pissed that a bunch of outsiders are trying to disrupt a stable guideline that itself arose as a consensus after many kb of argument.


 * Motivations of those who support changing the guideline
 * Some of the editors believe that scientific classification, including scientific names, stands in the way of the purposes of Wikipedia [I figure if this is wrong, someone will change it].
 * I see no evidence of this whatever. Please supply diffs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the editors believe that the use of scientific names for plants that have broadly understood common names is detrimental.
 * Nor this one other than if the use of a name breaches Wikipedia Naming Conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the editors are pissed that a small group of plant editors think they can call "consensus" on their own POV.
 * I see no evidence of anyone being drunk. As to "a small group" please see WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." --PBS (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping we can all stipulate:
 * 1) Numerically, most plant species either lack a common name or have no common name in general use, and articles for such species should be at the scientific name.
 * 2) Scientific names are by their nature intentionally designed to be unique and unambiguous.
 * 3) *Agree as phrased. There are notorious cases, however, of conflicting systems, where the design fails for a considerable period; some are still live. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) **But the key point is that it is a failure, wrt the design of the system.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) There exist plant species that are so widely known by a single common name that the only reason to have the article at the scientific name is to maintain overall consistency (this does not stipulate whether or not overall consistency is desirable).
 * 6) Economically important plant products are notable enough for their own articles, independent of the species that produces them, provided there is sufficient information for two articles. The name of the separate species article should follow the naming guidelines independent of the widespread name of the product (this is somewhat convoluted, but Coffee is the example).
 * 7) Groups of plants that are not taxa should not have archaic or deprecated taxon names
 * 8) All other things being equal, a unique and unambiguous article name should always be preferred.
 * 9) *Emphasis added; the condition is rarely true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we all agree that some plant articles could reasonably be at their common names, and most of us agree that some plant articles should be at their common names. We all seem to agree that article names should be unique and unambiguous. The contention seems to be over the criteria that determine when to use a common name, specifically,
 * Where do we go from here?
 * 1) How does an editor demonstrate whether or not a common name is unique?
 * 2) How does an editor demonstrate whether or not a common name is unambiguous?
 * 3) How does an editor demonstrate whether or not a common name is in widespread use?

Notice that I am couching this in process-oriented terms. Theoretical guidelines don't stop edit wars nearly as well as clear-cut criteria.

Theoretical guidelines are also less useful than concrete examples, both in the eventual guideline and in our discussion. If we understand why we agree or disagree on a specific example, we'll better understand how to move forward.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All three of these issues are common, in some sense, to all naming discussions. How do we demonstrate that a name is unique and unambiguous? By asserting it is, and offering a prima facie case. (To demand more is to demand proof of silence, an impossible hurdle.)


 * It is comparatively simple to prove that a name is ambiguous or non-unique; all that needs be provided is a credible reference to a different species under that name, or the same species under another name. If such a reference is provided during the move discussion, the move will fail; if it is provided later, the page can be moved back without loss. If none can be provided, that is fairly sound evidence that the name is indeed unique and unambiguous.
 * Nota bene: Will most wikipedians oppose a move to an ambiguous, or non-unique, English name? I'm willing to assume so, for the sake of this discussion; but Vegaswikian, far above, might disagree. That assumption may be wrong; but if so, that makes the case for the old wording weaker, not stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To show the name is well-known can actually be done directly; if the name is frequent, more familiar to the English-speakers discussing the case, routinely found without the scientific name, it is well known. This is the sort of thing that can be left up to the judgment of admins closing move requests, and they do fairly well. If one of these sources is sufficiently overwhelming, it might well do by itself; if all three are clearly present, the chance of error is very small.


 * (In all of these, of course, common sense is requisite. One reference from 1857 does not make a name substantively ambiguous or non-unique; nor does a single random reference to the English name without the scientific one make it well-known. So much should be obvious.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One might argue based on previous disputes that common sense is often either not apparent or interpreted differently by the disputants. And between your uncontested examples in the previous paragraph and the confidence you express at "If none can be provided, that is fairly sound evidence that the name is indeed unique and unambiguous," there is a lot of room for disagreement. Was the choice at Cytisus scoparius correct? Verbascum thapsus? What about Maize; should it be at Zea mays? How will this work in practice, after you have moved on to other pursuits and left the plant editors to deal with the consequences?--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Maize" is uniquely Zea mays ssp. mays. Zea mays has no common name I am aware of; it is maize + teosintes (and the latter are almost certainly paraphyletic for that matter). Also, Z. mays ssp. mays is known as "corn" (itself an ambiguous term) to a significant proportion of the English-speaking world.Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We might approach this piecemeal.


 * Would it be possible to agree that all scientific taxa above genus get scientific-name article titles exclusively? (I emphasize "scientific taxa" because "tree" is a folk "taxon", and hence automatically exempt)
 * Bamboo? Orchid? Palm? Conifer? Moss? Hesperian 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maple? {--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Maple, though, is probably Acer + (maybe) dabpage/hatnote dab. "Moss" borders on folk taxon (Bryophyte rather than Bryophyta). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, how about species? It is more tricky here, but can we all live with a "scientific names only" policy for species and below, or is there some fundamental and very severe reason not to go with it? I.e., how many species are there where it cannot be fixed with a redirect-from-common-name and where the "scientific-only" approach is gravely falsified?
 * I, too, wonder what's so wrong with Joshua tree redirecting to Yucca brevifolia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This always comes up when some group of editors wish to have some less well-known name for ideological reasons. Using the English name instead of making it a redirect has several advantages: it makes linking easy and second nature; it provides cheap information to users of other Wikipedias (here, that English-speakers are more likely to understand Joshua tree, and a prudent writer will use it); it means that the reader who has searched for Joshua tree (as is more likely to happen) will not worry she's gotten the wrong page. This applies in general; our policy on the matter could be changed, but there is a widespread feeling not to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the only rank where problems seem to be really widespread and significant is genus. True, there is Potato, but such cases are probably few and far between and can be solved with redirects; even tomato is arguably a section of Solanum and not a single species. And Apple technically should be Malus and not M. domesticus. But a redirect-to-scientific-name with dab hatnote can fix that, too.
 * Apple and Potato are arguably the names of plant products, which should arguably have their own articles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Altogether, in such debates (particularly when they are about scientific issues) I find it to be most useful to apply good ole falsificationism and not ask "what would work", but rather "what would not work". Do not argue for but argue against, and take the approach that, in practice, yields the least amount of strongly controversial cases. Indeed, the notion of WP:CONS - that a strong "minority report"[*] may break a majority vote - is, at its core, Popperian.
 * ([*] Apologies to P.K. Dick; most readers are probably more familiar with the movie) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I keep bringing up "let's discuss examples", but no one seems to want to go there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone holding an extreme view (apparently); I believe that any page that has a taxbox should have "scientific" title. If the article does not conform to a taxbox category (Trees) - give it a vernacular name by all means. Hardyplants (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording of the first section of the Wikipedia Naming Conventions policy page, is in my opinion clear. If there is a commonly used name -- it does not have to be a unique name just commonly used (as Septentrionalis says common sense needs to be exercised when deciding if one name is more popular than others so that it can be considered to be unambiguous and if common sense is not exercised by the participants to a WP:RM is usually is by the admin who closes the debate) -- then the article should be at that name. It is not acceptable to simply put in a redirect to the scientific name from the most popular name as found in reliable sources, instead the scientific name should redirect the to the commonly used name. AFAICT there are also some are suggesting content forking which with the exception of summary style articles is frowned upon. --PBS (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Coffee and Coffea are the same thing? That's totally forked. I hope you're not claiming that a taxobox is POV-pushing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Curtis requested an example, Anderson demanded diffs. Shamefaced, I bring you these. Common sense and close. Laugh? I nearly did! cygnis insignis 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's without shape, it's hard to discern whether it's swinging.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of these express opposition to scientific classification; they express a preference for discussing it in English. This discussion would be more productive if participants could tell the difference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)



The nickname "corpse flower" comes, obviously, from the flower's smell. Biology professor Cindy Johnson-Groh says the flower actually has several names.

"Titan arum, banga banga, what's the others? Then there is a bunga bangkai. Those are Thai, I think," Johnson-Groh recalls.

I have some not-so-great pictures of one well past its prime; it might have been nearly done blooming when I saw it, but it still smelled like a rotten sirloan steak that had been left in a warm box for a month or more. Hardyplants (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Smells like a dead horse to me. cygnis insignis 14:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dormitive virtue
Moliere shows the doctors of his day preferring to say "Opium has a dormitive virtue", rather than "Opium puts people to sleep". This deliberate obfuscation concealed a mystery: that they did not know anything about their subject.

It seems strange to see the same claims in biology in the twenty-first century, now that biology has been a mature science for over a hundred years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Has it ever occurred to you to wonder how biology became a mature science? How many different kinds of quarks and leptons are there? What are their common names? How many species of organisms are there? What are their common names? (This is aimed at your PBSesque comment above, not at your genuine attempts to reach consensus.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The common names of the quarks are "top quark", "bottom quark","strange quark", "charmed quark", "up quark" and "down quark". There are another six (or twelve if one counts antiparticles separately) types of lepton (and lepton is indeed the common name for lepta).


 * For most species, the scientific name is indeed the most frequent name(indeed, for most, it is the only name); WP:UCN and even WP:Use English support the use of the scientific name as an article title in such cases. But using Neo-Latin where vernacular names exist, are synonymous, and are more common is exactly equivalent to the Bourgeois gentilhomme. Septentrionalis PMAnderson


 * Since we're wandering into the ozone, I recently finished Anna Pavord's history of botanical nomenclature, and one of its themes is about how the convergence on Latin names was part of a multigenerational effort to not kill patients because the different vernaculars mixed up toxic and non-toxic plants. I was going to say I was glad we no longer live in those times, but given how people seem to be flocking to WP herbal articles, perhaps it's still a valid concern... :-) Stan (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside perspective on naming
I've been following this discussion and some of the discussion appears very circular. A couple of things that caught my was one what does a U2 album(Joshua Tree) have to do with plants, learnt something there. The other is scientific naming makes sense to eliminate ambiguity, with redirects at the common name, WP:REDIRECT even has a template for this Template:R from scientific name to categorise these pages. Where the plant species is the product like Saffron as suggested in the discussion leave it up to the editors of the article to apply common sense or WP:IAR, but theres no need to rewrite policies for every unique situation because then all that we achieve is creating bureaucracy rather than an encyclopaedia. Gnangarra 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideal title
The article currently states:
 * The ideal title for an article is a unique, unambiguous, and well-known name for its subject.

The ideal title for any article in Wikpedia has no need to be unique or unambiguous. Even Paris is not unique or unambiguous. I don't see why flora is treated differently in this respect. The ideal title is a well-known name the primary use of which is to refer to the topic of the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But Paris is overwhelmingly the most common name for the city, and the city is primary usage for the word (probably; Paris (mythology) is not uncommon). These are good things; and they are approximately uniqueness and non-ambiguity. This is an ideal; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is good enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Paris not unique? Is there another name with the same referent? Hesperian 05:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lutetia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And many of these. In the context where this ideal is stated the implication is that flora is somehow different from other topics in its inability to achieve this ideal.  That implication is false, and to that I object.  The reality is that almost no topics have names that meet the standards of the stated ideal, but that doesn't mean they are named by something other than their most common name.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the most common name for Bombay or Rangoon? I know that exonyms are a separate issue, but I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that choosing "the most common name" is somehow easy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Often it is easy to choose "the most common name". At other times it's challenging, and sometimes even impossible (see Fixed-wing aircraft).  In those cases where it is not possible to reasonably choose a most common name, other considerations must be made.  Of course.  But the objection here all along has been to using the scientific name even when the most common name is clear.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the objection from the other side has been having to waste time making a case for the scientific name when the most common name is not clear. Hesperian 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that if one only knows only one vernacular name for a plant, one tends to think that it must be the most common name. (If it wasn't common, how is it that I know it and no other name?). But the reality is that a vernacular name that is both unique and precisely identifies a species is extremely rare. If I had to guess, I would say there are less than a hundred for the kingdom as a whole. Stan (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the edit wars over common names in the past. And the editors often have references to back them up, those being the references that they know. Proponents of scientific names are often at a loss without extensive research, since many of us don't pay much attention to common names of uncommon plants.


 * I might give it "less than a thousand" rather than "less than a hundred", but at any rate, IMO those are the only names in contention here, and that's what we should be discussing, not philosophical points about which we will never all agree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its these philosophical points that need to be resolved because that is the whole purpose of having a convention. When editors cant/wont agree we need a policy/convention to clarify the situation, otherwise we end up at AN/I, or ARBCOM with a naming convention base on who gets there first. The other part of this is that as a photographer, I want to ensure that my images have names that are relevant and can be easily located on commons, scientific names cross language barriers that common names dont. Gnangarra
 * I agree about Commons; I always give scientific names to my Commons images. I disagree about philosophy: convention is about consensus, not philosophy; convention is what we agree on, and it doesn't look like all the contributors to this page will ever agree on philosophy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A strange side-effect of the present text
There is a strange side-effect of:
 * The vernacular name of a taxon should be used for the article title when
 * 1. it is the only prominent English common name for the taxon (spelling variations excepted);
 * 2. when it is more common (i.e. more broadly used) than the scientific name.

Check it out: An increase in use of the scientific name has caused us to abandon it in favour of a common name! WTF?
 * In the situation where name usages are {CommonNameA: 50%, CommonNameB: 40%, ScientificName 10%}, the uniqueness condition fails and we use the scientific name.
 * In the situation where name usages are {CommonNameA: 50%, CommonNameB: 10%, ScientificName 40%}, both conditions pass and we use the common name.

I think this happens because a prominent common name is empowered to knock off another common name merely by being also-prominent, whereas the scientific name must be more-prominent.

What would happen if we combined these two conditions into ? Hesperian 04:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is the only prominent name for the taxon (spelling variations excepted);
 * I'm not sure: Is this a bug or a feature? The second case is likely to be something like Name A is British (for a European plant), Name B American; there was some sentiment for avoiding common names in such situations. Let's think, and inspiration may come. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * looks like we are going to ask contributers to do a lot of original research. Hardyplants (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a word of it; Hardyplants seems to misunderstand what WP:OR is. A certain tree is called Norway maple and Acer platanoides; both those are verifiable facts. Editorial judgment decides how to deploy those facts for clearness and utility to the reader; this page advises that judgment. Another piece of judgment omits the verifiable fact that spisslønn is the Norwegian name for the same tree; the reader has little use for it, and can find it, if he needs to, in the interwiki links.


 * It is a similar act of judgment not to use Lutetia for the article on Paris. Lutetia can, and does, mean modern Paris; but it's a battered piece of classicizing pretentiousness, unknown to many literate English speakers. We may not assert that in article space; but it would be folly to ignore it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the right name for the article on Scotch Pine? and what is your justification for that name? The Paris thingy below I find just silly, if you build some city or building on top of another city or building, that does not make it the same city or building. Hardyplants (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather to my surprise, it would appear to be Scots pine, which is much more common in the modern literature than Scotch pine, although the OED uses the latter. It appears to be more common than the scientific name, and is frequently used without it.
 * So what source or reference makes the claim that "Scots pine" is used more often than "Scotch pine" or Pinus sylvestris? Hardyplants (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat: sources are needed for statements within articles (when challenged or likely to be challenged); that's WP:V. The observation which is more common need not appear in the article, and is my judgment based on Google Scholar; do you dispute that judgment, and on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * so Goggle is now the paradigm of reality? "Scotch Pine" I find to be an interesting case, because that was the main name for this species, until some thought "Scotch" was a derogatory term and parts of the US government shunning it: since they make up a good number of the works used by those that are  on the Internet - this name has become more prominent.  Wikipedia usage is the same, "Scotch" was scrubbed from the article.  I can source all and many more facts about this species using "Scotch Pine", since all the data accumulated about this species was done under that name.  I our page on wikipedia to be a POV piece. I have 8 major gardening books published in last 10 years, each covers over 1,500 species and cultivars and the use "Scots" and "Scotch"  between them is split about 60-40 in favor of "Scotch". I receive a lot of catalogs each year, unforcunetly only a handful cover trees, but the ones I do get, all use "Scotch Pine", except for one that lists 19 different cultivars of pinus syvestris with out any common name at all. I find Google gives a very distorted picture of the use of this name.  It might be that in a number of years "Scots Pine" will become the dominate name when the web takes over for books and other printed matter.  The use of a common name is a POV choice very often, favoring one name over another.  At least when we use  the scientific names, every one is treated equally and wikipedia does not become the arbitrator of what is correct. Hardyplants (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lutetia is principally used for the ancient city; but it is used (as in this novel, about Philip Egalité) about Paris of all centuries. It is a good example of the sort of name we should not use, but it exists. ("Built on top" is a misunderstanding of the archaeology; there has been a city on the Île de la Cité continuously since Caesar's time.) But City of Light will serve as an equivalent instance; Paris is called that, but we should not use it as the article name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets l=consider what happens by following this with Eucalyptus, by my own experience this family is also known as Gum tree.


 * Gum tree 19 million Ghits
 * Eucalyptus -- 7 million
 * Eucalyptus tree - 245,000
 * Eucalypt -- 411,000

From these figures I'll edit war till the cows come home that the article Eucalyptus should be at Gum tree and this naming convention would be the policy that I would slap people in the face with. What happens where its used in other articles Eucalyptus Oil would now be made from Gum trees oh great I can edit war there as well. Then theres Didgeridoo, and hundreds of other articles ooh the fun thats going to be had.

Its not just the implication on the naming of the plant article, its an across the board decision that will affect many different articles. Then once this is done I can go to other Naming conventions and propose the same argument based on this, Bombay and Calcutta look like fun. Gnangarra 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but as I've said above quite a few times, WP:NC clearly states "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." so a great deal of the discussion about what is more commonly used by the man-in-the-street or the page-in-the-web is largely irrelevant. Hesperian 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the sources for our article on Scotch pine predominantly use Scots pine. Indeed, the only one which I can see use Scotch warns against it. Four, including Pravdin's book, have Scots pine in the title without Pinus sylvestris. (It's possible in any given case that the sources misrepresent the literature; but the burden is on that side of the argument.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Digger Pine and niggerhead cactus are perhaps similar, the latter being more widely recognized as a pejorative than "Scotch". My impression of the literature on both of these is that a "snapshot" taken in the 18 years following 1990 would give a different answer than the 18 years preceding.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

common name
This is similar to the problem of using "sources" instead of "references" for section headings if an article is about cooking. We should make it clear which "common name" is being used where in this guideline. Adding a sentence along the lines of
 * To avoid misunderstanding, in the rest of this guideline, "commonly used name" means "frequent" or "broadly used" (as described in WP:COMMONNAME), and "vernacular name" is used to mean "'common name" as used by botanists.

and adjusting the text would make this difference clear.-- PBS (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Among botanists, "common name" can also mean an English-language name intended to replace a scientific name, as contrasted with a vernacular name, which is used by ordinary people to refer to plants. Santa Susana Tarplant is an example of the former (sadly, it lacks an article at either this or its scientific name); it is a protected species in California, and all such are assigned "common" names, whether they had them before or not.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My fun example of that is Ionactis caelestis, an inconspicuous plant living only on rarely-visited mountaintops in southern Nevada, and only first described in the mid-1990s. But lo! It has magically acquired not one but *two* common names - "Red Rock Canyon aster" and "Spring Mountain aster", both of which nearly have as many Google hits as the scientific name! Stan (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ozone
I have been thinking deeply about this over the last 18 hours, and if Stan will indulge me for "wandering [further] into the ozone", I'll make a few philosophical comments.

I think that "unique" and "well known" are surrogates for what we are really trying to achieve, which is inclusiveness: we are trying to avoid applying any name that a reader could reject as excluding their cultural or linguistic perspective.

Sometimes, our surrogates fail. The most well known name may be offensive to some while a lesser known name is acceptable to everyone; Gnangarra's Bombay/Mumbai example will serve. Or, a non-unique name may nonetheless be inclusive of everyone. Consider, for example, the Australian Ringneck. In Western Australia, we call it a Twenty-eight. But even as we are asserting our linguistic identity by preferring our provincial name for the bird, we still accept Australian Ringneck as a legitimate name. Though not unique, Australian Ringneck remains inclusive. These are examples of where our present convention would fail to deliver what we all agree are the best titles, because we are relying on flawed surrogates as criteria.

It is tempting for me to continue here by declaring that scientific names are inclusive of all cultural and linguistic perspectives, and therefore offensive to no-one. But that would not be quite right; it is true that they are inclusive of all nationalities and languages, but they remain exclusive of those who resent them as elitist impositions. Nonetheless scientific names offer us a high benchmark of inclusiveness, which usually cannot be improved upon. And that is the essence of our present convention. We could rephrase our convention as "We want to use a name that includes all our readers. The scientific name is a bloody good start, and we'll use it unless you can top it with a more inclusive name." Everything else—all that stuff about "prominent", "well known", "unique", "frequent", "broadly used"—is just shadow-boxing.

Hesperian 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not mere shadow-boxing. Inclusivity is one claim to acceptance, but not the only one; the question is what the community of English speakers actually accepts. In the case of Mumbai, the question has now been resolved, it seems; in all the coverage of Mumbai in the last two weeks, how often was Bombay mentioned? (Excluding, of course, that handful of institutions in the city that still bear the old name.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see "inclusive of a group" and "acceptable to a group" as synonymous. Hesperian 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't, but rather than wander off into the counter-examples - most of them unpleasant - would you indicate where you principally mean each? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:LAME --PBS (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I see them as synonymous, I can only response that I principally mean both throughout. It's two sides of the same coin, isn't it? If I say the article should be at Bombay and my friend Mr. Subramanian will not countenance such a title, have I failed to propose a title that includes his cultural perspective, or has he failed to accept my title because of his cultural perspective? Or both? Hesperian 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But there are other reasons to fail to accept a name. If I decided to imitate Humpty-Dumpty and call the city Cidade do Rushdie, neither of you would accept that, because neither of you would understand me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So we come down to the operational test. How do you show a name is inclusive? Cidade do Rushdie might be inclusive; it honors one of Mumbai's most famous sons, and its multicultural tradition. But acceptance is shown by understanding and by use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair enough. If you proposed a name change, various Mumbaians would declare "What is this crap? I've lived in Mumbai all my life and I've never heard it called that." Which would surely indicate non-acceptance, but not necessarily exclusiveness. I need to think about how to retrofit this refinement. Hesperian 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The basic premise "we are trying to avoid applying any name that a reader could reject as excluding their cultural or linguistic perspective" survives your counter-example quite well.... Hesperian 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That negative criterion, however, would leave many articles nameless: Burma and Myanmar both fail, for different cultural and linguistic perspectives; so do Kiev and Kyiv - and there are worse examples still: the unspeakable Gd*nz*g, and much of WP:LAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course; which brings us back to the context in which we are having this discussion, and the fact that we can always use the scientific name, which pretty much always passes the criterion with flying colours. And the only way to top that is for a common name to pass that criterion with flyinger colours. Hesperian 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, wait, I'm confusing myself. We've just agreed that an inoffensive name that no-one uses doesn't pass that criterion, so there's no prima facie case for claiming that the scientific name does. My brain hurts; I must withdraw. Hesperian 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The titan arum in the room, so to speak :-), is that plants are not that familiar to the average person any more - just last week I asked about crabapples in the grocery store, and only a couple of the people there even knew what they were! I gave a talk on local plants at the mountaineering club last year, and for many people it was the first time they had names for the vegetation they stepping on every weekend. :-) Many plant names *were* common a century ago, when herbal remedies were still a part of everyday life, but most of those names will get you a blank look today. The old names can skew our "most common" search results though, because many old books are now PD, online, and getting Google hits, plus the names are regurgitated in modern botanical writeups, irrespective of whether one person in a hundred would recognize any of them. In many cases we are debating whether one name is recognized by .05% more of the population than another name. Stan (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And cases where that 0.05% difference means that one name is recognized by twice as many people as the other. {--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets look at this with another example maybe this will be more indicative of what we are trying to find. Recently the genus Dryandra was change to be included within the genus Banksia, almost every work out there that is likely to be used as a source will refer to Dyrandra as a genus, every person will call the plants Dyrandra xxxx and even some of the common names are still using Dryandra ie Golden Dryandra. None of these invalidate the work of Mast and Theile in establishing that dryandra's are part of Banksia genus rather than a separate one, as a matter of course its going to require at least a generation of works before we have anecdotal evidence that Dryandra nivea is actually more commonly know as Banksia nivea. We are an encyclopaedia our work should be upto date, how do we decide what is the most appropriate name in this circumstance, do we consider waiting a generation for a name to become established as the most common and recognisable an acceptable action? Gnangarra 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have clear evidence that Banksia nobilis is generally now accepted as the scientific name? If we do, that rules Dryandra sp. out of consideration immediately. Whether "golden dryandra" is more well known than any scientific name is a question of fact and judgment; the sources for the article suggest not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats an interesting question there isnt dispute on the work of Mast and Theile but there is significant resistance to this renaming that one couldnt definately say "its generally accepted" thought its happened and most significant database on Dryandra has been altered to Banksia ser. Dyrnadra. The levels of resistance/opposition means that it will take at least a generation before one could say its generally accepted and document a majority of use as per what is being propose here. Gnangarra 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, though, isn't it, that a literal reading of WP:NC would result in us applying an obsolete scientific name. Seems like the "Scotch/Scots" example all over again, only I expect Hardyplants would argue for the opposite outcome this time: i.e. the more modern name trumps the most commonly used name. Hesperian 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Man, was I barking up the wrong Maple!
In an edit summary, Born2cycle wrote '"the taxon" is the problem - there is no consensus that the topic of a flora article is necessarily a "taxon".' Wow, this changes everything. We need Naming conventions (plant taxa) for all articles that contain a taxobox—scientific names all around, and if someone wants an article about zucchini or kingwood, or pando or coastal sage scrub or hemp or anything else that's a plant product, or an individual plant, or something else that's not a plant taxon, they can call it whatever they please.

Problem solved?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Perhaps I should have been following this debate more closely than I have. I may not be a botanical editor, but as one who works on zoological articles I must say that I've been jealous of the current naming convention for plants ever since it was introduced. If only we had what you have! Therefore, it's very important to me that the current flora naming convention remains intact, or is even improved in favor of scientific names. It gives me hope. For the articles that I work on, I've even developed a way to highlight any common names for readers unfamiliar with the scientific name in the title. I wanted something that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible, so I came up with this:
 * No common names: Brachyophidium, Bothriopsis peruviana
 * One common name: Bitis parviocula, Gongylophis colubrinus
 * Few common names: Python reticulatus, Typhlops monensis
 * Many common names: Agkistrodon piscivorus, Vipera berus
 * Actually, I like the concept more than the format, but what I'm really trying to say here is that common names are important and that they should be easy to spot by the readers, but that the scientific name should always have the most prominent association with the article (i.e. be the title) because that's the only way we're ever going to be successful at organizing untold thousands of articles. As soon as we understand that, then we can move on to agreeing which taxonomies to follow for larger groups of articles so that naming discussions can be kept to a minimum. In my opinion, this is the ultimate neutral point of view. The sooner we can all put an end to this foolish business of determining for our readers which common name is more popular than the next, the better it will be for everyone. --Jwinius (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell it, brother! Hesperian 12:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the view that not the most common name, but "the scientific name should always have the most prominent association with the article (i.e. be the title)" is that, in those cases where there is an article about a flora topic which clearly has a name more commonly used than the scientific name, it blatantly contradicts WP:NC which states, "use the most common name of a person or thing" and WP:COMMONNAME which clarifies this as, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles." You are arguing that flora (and fauna) should be an exception like royalty and people with titles because you seem to believe it is the only way to successfully "organize" the articles.  It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to "organize" any articles.  It is our job to name each article, independently, as best as we can, per the general policies, guidelines and conventions that apply.  When those general rules fall short, then more specific guidelines, like WP:NC (flora), that should complement (not contradict) the general rules, can provide guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And naval ship articles have prefixes and hull numbers even if the name alone is unambiguous, because way back when, we thought about it and decided consistency across multiple articles was more useful to readers than our inevitably idiosyncratic idea of what names were "common". There's a little more to designing good naming conventions than what a noob can think of after spending two minutes on the site. Stan (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a poor comparison because very few if any topics within the category of naval ships are well known by the public at large, but myriads of topics within the category of flora are very well known by common (not taxon) names. The whole idea of "designing a good naming convention" is contrary to Wikipedia, by the way.  Wikipedia conventions are supposed to evolve organically, one article at a time, and guidelines are simply documented conventions that have been naturally adopted over time, and are particularly useful when there is no clear most common name for the topic in question.  The biggest naming conflicts seem to occur when a handful or so of editors buck the tide by agreeing on some "well-designed convention" for a particular category of topics, especially when their design contradicts rather than complements the general conventions.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were only that simple, Curtis. The problem with this "solution" is that it mandates two articles for the same topic when a taxon and a more common name refer to the same flora topic.  This whole debate is about what to do in those cases, and I really don't think having two separate articles for the same topic is a reasonable solution.


 * Use of the term "taxon" implies use of the scientific name. That is, by saying this naming convention applies to naming flora taxon, because the term taxon means both the group and the scientific name applied to the group [ m-w.com ], that wording is begging the question with respect to what this whole debate is about.  But at least we seem to be coming to terms with respect to what the underlying problem is.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote "when a taxon and a more common name refer to the same flora topic" and I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. What is a "flora topic"? How many taxa of plants (and I'm using that term in the precise sense, not, as you do, as a synonym for "scientific name") are known by common names (as contrasted to plant products, cultivated varieties, or general groupings)? You seem to be mixing apples and Citrus sinensis here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A "flora topic" is any topic covered by a WP article that qualifies as "flora". I don't know how many taxa of plants are known by common names, but I know that, for example, Yucca brevifolia is a flora topic and a taxa and is most commonly referred to by the common name Joshua tree. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should edit Flora to make that clear. You might want to hit up taxa while you're at it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is, it's easy to argue with such conviction when you're totally unhindered by any knowledge of the subject. Here, take a look at this:
 * , valid scientific names -- 124 pages
 * -- 319 pages
 * -- 608 pages

This is an example of a rather thoroughly organized set of articles, in this case covering a complete subfamily of viperid snakes. Only the first and smallest category contains the articles, while the second and third categories contain only redirects and disambiguation pages that point to the articles. Organizing articles this way is efficient because it allows us to avoid duplication. For example, if we were instead to allow these articles to "evolve organically", we could theoretically end up with over 1,000 articles, most of which would probably be crap. In the case of Vipera berus, the good article might be hidden under any one of as many as 70 or more possible common names and taxonomic synonyms (old, invalid scientific names) and an attempt to find it would be like playing a shell game. Surely, this is a situation that we should all be keen to avoid. Therefore, the proper organization of our articles on plants and animals is crucial. It may be that the current naming convention for plants is somewhat at odds with WP:NC and WP:COMMONNAME; I don't think so, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. In that case, I would say that those policies are being used as very blunt instruments to oppose the only viable solution available to us for organizing our articles on plants and animals: Linnaean taxonomy. So, just as in the case of naming royalty and people with titles, the current exception for the naming convention for plants is totally reasonable once you have adequate knowledge of the subject. --Jwinius (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have "subjects" comprised of multiple topics; Wikipedia has articles about single topics, therefore "adequate knowledge of the subject" is irrelevant here.  Sorry.
 * Where did this come from? Perhaps adequate knowledge of the actual distribution of Wikipedia articles is also irrelevant.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For any specific flora topic for which there is no clear most common name, the name per the Linnaean taxonomy is indeed probably most appropriate. This entire debate is only about those cases where there is a clear most common name... that most common name should be the title (dabbed per WP:D and WP:P as appropriate).
 * As long as the taxon redirects to the article at the common name, there is no more risk of duplicates than if the article was at the taxon.
 * Your continued misuse of "taxon" starts to seem like willful obfuscation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Taxon has two meanings. One is a taxonomic group.  The other is the name of such a group.  Using the latter is not a misuse.  You seem sufficiently intelligent to discern from context which meaning is intended by the writer.  But I will assume good faith that you don't, and spell it out for you.  When I write "the taxon redirects to the article at the common name", I am referring to a situation in which the name of a taxonomic group is a redirect to an article sitting at a common name. For example, if the proposed move at Talk:Yucca brevifolia succeeds, then the taxon Yucca brevifolia will redirect to the article at the common name Joshua tree.  Now do you understand? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of no one trained in plant taxonomy (or animal or bacterial taxonomy, for that matter) who uses "taxon" to mean "scientific name", and in fact that usage introduces ambiguity, whereas calling a scientific name a "scientific name" does not. Perhaps "scientific name" is the common name for scientific name. I know people who call the World Wide Web the "internet", and it wouldn't surprise me if that, too, weren't in a dictionary somewhere.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the taxon for such a topic to show up in some category, then add the cat template to the redirect page at the taxon rather than to the article at the common name. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That in itself is a certain recipe for the duplication of information over many articles. I've seen it before and what you get are lots of long and boring articles that share many of the same tired phrases and are often inconsistent to boot. You can avoid this by using the taxonomic hierarchy, but that requires organization.
 * Clear most common names? That's like saying you support the death penalty, but only wish to see the worst criminals executed. You're bound to make lots of mistakes because rules like that are fuzzy and arbitrary.
 * Not true. We can only predict where the articles are when we stick to a single taxonomy and place the articles at the taxa. If some articles are at the common names, there is no method with which we can predict reliably where they are. Thus duplication is bound to occur. It might work if you set things up in an organized fashion (although it would be much harder to maintain), but certainly not if you allow the articles to "evolve organically."
 * Right, but then your articles will be spread over multiple categories, which would make things harder to maintain. (Oh, wait: maintenance isn't necessary in a system that evolves organically!)
 * Give it up, Born2cycle; this is obviously not your area of expertise. --Jwinius (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that his point is that expertise is unnecessary. I'm still not clear on whether he regards it to be undesirable.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument that articles about flora topics are somehow significantly different or special from all other topics within Wikipedia such that some kind of special convention is required to "organize" them simply has not been made. All of the alleged problems of naming these articles, such as the supposed difficulty in determining the most common name, applies to most any topic in Wikipedia, not just those in this particular niche.  I've seen it time and time again, where the editors obsessed with some category of articles believe that their little patch of WP is special and different and requires some contrived naming convention.  At least in those cases where the area involves relatively obscure topics (like names of Navy ships) there is some argument to be made, but not where the common names are, well, commonly known, as they are for all of the plants that this debate is about.  I saw a very similar debate about a year ago at WP:NC-TV about whether names of TV episodes should be predisambiguated in the name of consistency and predictability.  That one went to arbitration and who-knows-what, but eventually reason (a.k.a., disambiguate-from-the-most-common-name- only -when-necessary) prevailed, and that guideline now clearly states, "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name".  There, the debate was about whether the series name should be provided in parentheses whether it's necessary for disambigation or not.  Here, it's about whether the taxon name should be used whether it's needed (because the common name is not clear or is ambiguous and not primary) or not.  Fundamentally, it's the same issue, except here we have the ivory tower "you need to be a specialist" factor mixed in too.  Ridiculous.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "At least in those cases where the area involves relatively obscure topics (like names of Navy ships) there is some argument to be made, but not where the common names are, well, commonly known," Its dishearting, that after all this time, those that are promoting this change still do not understand the issues involved. Hardyplants (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, look: with ships there are obvious similarities, so as soon you get enough of them you're clearly going to need a special naming system to keep track of them. The natural world; now that's a lot less complicated. For God's sake, man: the differences between grass and trees, or cows and sheep are obvious. You don't even need an education to see that -- we all understand those things instinctively! So, stop being so difficult and get with the program. We've got a great thing going here and and all you guys want to do is ruin it! --Jwinius (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm opposed to naming an article about a ship according to a predetermined format if that ship has a clear common name [Edit: see Talk:Bounty (ship) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]. I just think that far fewer navy ships have commonly known names than do plants.  I mean, the average person can probably name dozens of plants off the top of his head, and maybe one or two Navy ships, if any.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this, the claim that two different species articles should be merged because they have the same common name. It's difficult to take Born2cycle seriously when he doesn't seem to understand that taxa are units of nature (it's the equivalent of suggesting that we merge argon and xenon because they are both colorless nonreactive gases).

I have to say that, yes, I am an editor obsessed—obsessed by the idea that knowledge is gained, not inherent; that there are people who know more about certain topics than I do and others that know less about other topics; and that an encyclopedia should reflect knowledge (however imperfectly) rather than constrain it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I don't understand that taxa are units of nature? I do understand that.  I just don't believe that every unit of nature necessarily warrants having its own article in Wikipedia.  Do you?  If so, it would be difficult to take you seriously.  I agree with you completely with regard to the second paragraph.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I already didn't take you seriously (having not found any reason to do so, in contrast to Septentrionalis, who at least seems to have a grasp of the basic issues), so we might as well be even.


 * I've rethought the idea of every species being notable, in light of a discussion of whether every place is notable that is going on, iirc, at Village Pump. I do believe that every species is intrinsically notable. At the same time, it is clear that most species don't have enough information easily available in reliable sources to support a Wikipedia article. This might well be used as an argument for deleting a stub, especially if it had remained stubbish for some amount of time. It is, on the other hand, not an argument for combining species into a single article just because they have the same common name (which makes about as much sense as having a single article on George Bush), and it is emphatically not an argument for combining an article about a species with an article about its primary product, especially when both "topics" have enough material for an article, and different readers will be interested in each.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that one of the goals of wikipedia was to have "every species having its own article in Wikipedia, I must have misread something somewhere. Hardyplants (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no goals; it is inanimate. You may have read that someone or some group has the goal of creating individual WP articles for every known species, but it would be impossible for every species to have its own article, for the vast majority of species are unknown.   But I suppose reasonable people can disagree on whether every known species is sufficiently notable to have its own article.  My own opinion is that the vast majority of species are not sufficiently well known, but, that's my opinion of Lost episodes too, and yet they each have their own article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has degenerated into dickish behavior, its time to put this nonsense to rest. Its clear that some people do not care about the flora project its self and are willing to make a mess but will have no hand in cleaning up the problems caused by their actions. Hardyplants (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It started out with dickish behavior. From time to time people have started to look for common ground, but that never seems to last.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dickish behavior? Nonsense?  I, for one, don't care about the flora project any more than I do about any other particular group of articles in WP.  But I do care about whether all articles, including those that fall within the realm of the flora project, are named in accordance with the general WP naming policies and guidelines.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is that this particular brand of myopia is not simply limited to people who lack a decent education or have a low IQ. Back in 2006, I was so fed up with how things were going around here that I defected to Citizendium for a while -- Larry Sanger's academic, peer-reviewed version of Wikipedia. The first question I asked, just as they were trying to get off the ground, was whether or not they were planning to use scientific names for the titles of their articles on biological organisms. Larry himself replied that he would leave that up to the biology department once enough people had joined. However, months later after that day had arrived and we all declared that we wanted to use scientific names, Larry barged in and put a stop to it. No amount of argument made any difference. I had to conclude that, despite his impressive intellect, Larry is just as ignorant as our cycling friend when it comes to this issue. Plus he's arrogant. How do you convince people like that? I think possibly accountants, librarians and lexicographers would sooner understand. --Jwinius (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of Born2cycle too; a review of history shows that this is far from his first foray into harassment of projects for not conforming to his idea of how things should be named. I'm half inclined to summarily revert this page and let things escalate - it's generally considered poor form for non-participants in an active project to come in and try to impose uninformed changes on the actual participants, and we're really being very nice in even responding to the complaints in the first place. Stan (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In reference to "non-participants in an active projects", perhaps you need to review WP:OWN, particularly the example comments section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In reference to disrupting the work of a group of collaborating contributors who routinely arrive at consensus even though they don't always agree, perhaps you need to review WP:POINT.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More than 20% of Born2cycle's edits are to Naming Convention pages and their discussion pages. Less than 30% are to articles. I'd give his/her comments more consideration if s/he was making more effort to add content to articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A major area of interest of mine is overall consistency in WP article naming, and my edit history naturally reflects that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, I would hope you would give consideration to the merits of any argument the same, regardless of who makes it. I'm not asking you or anyone else to take my word for anything.  Even an Einstein gets it wrong once in while, and a Forest Gump can get it right.  So who presents the argument should not matter; what matters is the merit of what is being argued. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A look at the the naming convention talk page show that Born2cycle and I by no means agree on everything. But as far as I can remember we have not been discourteous to each other. I am sorry to see such uncivil behaviour here as it makes it more difficult to build a consensus. I am broadly in agreement with Born2cyle on this issue, and Walter if you would like to run that test over my account, perhaps you would be willing to take my views into consideration. --PBS (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another idea
I note that allows exceptions to the city,state convention for US cities - but limits them to the couple dozen enumerated by the AP stylebook. For plants I could see developing a list of the authoritative floras for different areas, and if the flora agree on a single common name (for endemics it will be just the one flora), then that would be a justifiable exception. For instance, the main floras of California, Arizona, and Utah (none such for Nevada, sigh), all agree on "Joshua tree" as the common name of Yucca brevifolia. No Google-hit-counting, no OR, and best of all, no room for interminable argument. No authoritative flora for the range of a taxon, or multiple floras are inconsistent on common name, then sci name it must be. Stan (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the first useful suggestion I've seen in a while. Stan Shebs suggested that there might be fewer than 100 such (I suggested fewer than 1000), and it would avoid Gdanzig-style edit warring. I think it's important to specify that "the range of a taxon" includes areas where it is introduced, as well as areas where it is native, to deal with issues that Hesperian and I have brought up (and that have occasioned edit warring in the past).--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That wording was a failure for those who supported it as a compromise and an opening to simply force a change later and lead to additional issues. When that wording was adopted it was understood that things would basically remain as they were.  That lasted until about a month ago when most of those were changed, including at least one which was clearly ambiguous but was changed since the focus was on a city and not on how the name was used. Rather then a list, some kind of criteria that allows exceptions and if there is no reasonable one, the scientific name gets used.  I know this is an over simplification, but maybe something like if an English name that only describes this species is available, then that name should be used.  If multiples, then the most common of these should be used.  In all other cases the scientific name is used.  Consideration should be given so that similar names are used for related species (Bristlecone pine}.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why only authoritative flora should be considered as reliable sources for determining whether a given topic has a most common name or not. In the case of Joshua Tree, for example, think the national park that bears its name should at least count if not suffice.  The lack of a more definitive basis may be frustrating, but that is the case for naming any article in WP, and I see no reason why articles about plants should be any different.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:RS. A national park by itself is most certainly not a source at all. Colchicum (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are reliable sources that refer to the park as Joshua Tree national park, and that serves as evidence that the plant that is the namesake of the park is commonly referred to as Joshua tree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, now you should read WP:NOR. Colchicum (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that in order to claim a particular name is the most common name for a given topic, that one must have a reliable source that says that explicitly? That would be a novel argument, but it also would probably make illegitimate almost all of the titles in Wikipedia.  Start clicking on random articles and see for how many you can find reliable sources that explicitly state the topic of that article is most commonly referred to by the name that is the title of that article.  Let me know how it goes.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there is such a source then of course it carries a lot of weight in considering the name of an article. But unfortunately this happens only rarely. --PBS (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Parks and other government establishments get their names for political or bureaucratic reasons as much as anything else. There are 2,000+ plant species in the Mojave Desert, and only one of them has had a name used for a national park; not exactly an approach that scales well. But since you don't even understand the significance of published floras in all this, your credibility is flatlined at zero, and I'm not going to bother to debate with you further. Stan (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Credibility? In Wikipedia?  We don't know each other from any person in the world.  Why would you care about the credibility of anyone in Wikipedia?  Either what they say makes sense and has merit, or it doesn't.  What relevance is one's estimate of another's credibility here?  The only reason to bring up credibility is to insult, which is what people typically do when their position does not stand up to rational scrutiny.


 * Of course using national park names is a method that doesn't scale well. So what?  Does a method have to scale well to be legitimate to use in the few cases where it does apply?  You are making up rules as you go along.  Many if not most articles are named in Wikipedia by using references that probably don't apply to most other articles.  Again, so what?


 * Speaking of insult, you say I don't "even understand the significance of published floras in all this". What?  Why do you say that?  Because I also see the significance of a national park being named after a plant to the issue of whether that name is commonly used to refer to that plant?  That means I don't "even understand the significance of published floras in all this"?  That, sir, is quite a leap.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are three questions, to test your commitment to your thesis that the names of things named after things should count when measuring the commonality of a name:
 * A googol is 10100. The company name Google is a misspelling of it. Google is far better known than googol, so by your logic Google is the most common name for 10100. Would you advocate moving article googol to Google (number)?
 * Caimaninae is a subfamily of alligators. They are commonly known as caimans; note that it is spelled caimans not caymans. Nonetheless it is the source of the name of the Cayman Islands. Since the country is far better known than the alligator subfamily, by your logic cayman is the most common name for this animal. Would you advocate moving the animal article to cayman?
 * Occam's razor is named after William of Ockham, the last word of which is a reference to Ockham, Surrey. Since Occam's razor is better known that Ockham, Surrey, would you advocate moving the latter to Occam, Surrey?
 * Hesperian 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue was covered with the Black Hole of Calcutta when Calcutta was moved to Kolkata and was also indirectly covered by the Gdańsk/Danzig compromise (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote). Pages are named by what reliable sources call the event or person, and just because a city changes name, unless the reliable sources to the the other event change their names to reflect the change to the city, the name remains at that of the reliable sources about the content of that article. Hence the Fall of Saigon not the "Fall of Ho Chi Minh City" but Ho Chi Minh City not Saigon --PBS (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why my personal consistency on this position might matter to you or anyone else, but I'll play. Also, "should count" (which is all I claim) is a far cry from "is definitive, regardless of any other evidence", which seems to be your strawman interpretation of my thesis.
 * No. Trademarks typically misspell their namesakes, and Google is no exception.  That doesn't change the most common name used to refer to the actual namesake.
 * No. "Caiman alligator" gets about 5 times as many google hits as does "Cayman alligator".
 * No. Here it's more like 100:1.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 62 for "Occam, Surrey"
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 6,100 for "Ockham, Surrey"
 * In each of these cases, the spelling of the names of things for which the given topic examples are namesakes counts, but other evidence indicates that the correct spelling in each case is the more common way the topic in question is referenced. Also, these are all examples of misspellings of names, which is not the case with Joshua tree, so I don't see how these examples are even analogous.  In the case of the national park being named after the plant, contrary to your examples, I know of no evidence that indicates that the most common name used to refer to the namesake is different in any way from the name used in the thing named after it.  But if there was such evidence, it would count.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't know why my personal consistency on this position might matter to you or anyone else." If you don't want your position to be probed for errors and inconsistencies, then you have no business participating in this or any other discussion.
 * I understand the position being checked for logical consistency, and I welcome that. What I don't understand is why you would want to test my personal commitment to it or anything else (your words: "to test your commitment to your thesis..."). But this is probably just a semantic mixup and what you really meant is what I welcome.  Good.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "should count" (which is all I claim)... I note that above you have written "should at least count if not suffice."
 * Well, yeah. A legitimate namesake reference might be sufficient for claiming the most common name in a situation where there is little or no significant evidence that any other name is more common.  There isn't significant evidence about any other name in the case of JTNP being named after JT (so it arguably suffices); there is significant evidence about other spellings being more common for the namesake in question in each of your three examples for the namesake reference to not be sufficient. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "is a far cry from 'is definitive, regardless of any other evidence'", which seems to be your strawman interpretation of my thesis." That seems to be your strawman interpretation. I merely asked you some questions.
 * But your questions seem to be based on the assumption that my thesis is that a namesake reference counts as much regardless of other evidence. That seems to be the underlying assumption since you compare a situation in which there is virtually no significant evidence about any other more common names for the namesake in question with three examples in which there is overwhelming evidence about the existence of more common names for the namesakes in each.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "That doesn't change the most common name used to refer to the actual namesake." Yes, I agree. But it is you who has argued that it does. You have stated that the large number of uses of "Joshua Tree National Park" should count when considering whether "Joshua Tree" is the most common name for the plant. Now you argue that the large number of uses of "Google" shouldn't count when considering whether "Google" is the most common name for the number. I'm interested in how you reconcile those two statements.
 * I have never stated that the large number of uses of "Joshua Tree National Park" should count when considering whether "Joshua Tree" is the most common name for the plant., but if that's what you thought I meant, your examples make more sense. The uses of JTNP only prove the legitimacy of that name for the park.  It is the naming of the park in and of itself (not the number of uses of that name) that is evidence of Joshua Tree being the most common way to refer to the plant (just as the name of Google is evidence that that is a common name for its namesake the large number).  What makes the JTNP evidence particularly compelling is the lack of evidence that some other name is even more common; in your examples there is compelling evidence in each case (like a dictionary lookup of google and googol) that some other spelling of the name is the more common reference to the actual namesake.  That's the difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Caiman alligator" gets about 5 times as many google hits as does "Cayman alligator" Well of course it does! Because you've willfully excluded references to the Cayman Islands! That makes good sense to me: when deciding on the name of an alligator, ignore references to the island chain. But why then do you argue for including references to the national park when deciding on the most common name of the plant?
 * It wasn't that I was trying to exclude references to the islands - I was trying to include only references to the animal (not that I used the same method with each candidate name). Similarly, if there was another competing name for Joshua tree, I would try to devise a search that would count only references to the plant with each name (or at least err equally with each name). Wouldn't you?  That's how google tests are supposed to be constructed in these situations, and why sometimes they are very difficult to do.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Also, these are all examples of misspellings of names" What has the fact that these are misspellings got to do with anything? Surely you aren't now advocating that we should take into account the nature of the etymology of a term in deciding whether "use the most common name" is applicable? No? It is applicable regardless? Good, we agree.
 * Okay. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the case of the national park being named after the plant, contrary to your examples, I know of no evidence that indicates that the most common name used to refer to the namesake is different in any way from the name used in the thing named after it." Well that's a circular argument if ever I've heard one. What you've said here boils down to "Joshua Tree is the most common name for the plant because uses of Joshua Tree National Park should count because Joshua Tree is the most common name for the plant."
 * Hesperian 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. See, here again you seem to be assuming the strawman interpretation of my thesis: that a namesake reference counts as much regardless of other evidence.   Objectively, yes, the naming (not uses of) "Joshua Tree National Park" counts as much in the name determination of the plant as does the naming of the search engine in the name determination of the large number.  Say we quantify this stuff and they each get 100 points.  The difference is that in the former situation there is no other significant evidence that indicates there is some other more common name, so, relatively, the naming of the park counts a lot (say 100 to 0, or something near 0), while in the latter situation because of the overwhelming evidence about "googol" (say 900 points worth, or something worth at least several times 100) being the more common name for the large number, the 100 points from the namesake naming is relatively worth much less (100 to 900).   The relative worth of the namesake naming is similarly relatively worthless in your other two examples.  It's all about weighing all of the evidence, and not just looking at the namesake naming in isolation.  It's like comparing a murder case in which two men break into a known-to-be-empty store in the middle of the night and one ends up dead from a stabbing vs. a case where they walk into the same store but when it's open and crowded with thousands of people.  In the first case the case against the man who is still alive is much stronger, even if all the other evidence is comparable (no witnesses, only blood is on the victim, knife without prints is from the kitchen department, security camera video shows both going in and suspect leaving alone, etc.).  I don't mean to be condescending with this example, but you really seem to be missing the significance of the lack of evidence for alternatives.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Allow me to step in here from lurking on the page for a while. It's VERY simple, the answer to Now you argue that the large number of uses of "Google" shouldn't count when considering whether "Google" is the most common name for the number. -- one is right, one is wrong. People may misuse Google more than they use the correct name, but that doesn't make it the right name no matter what the case. Tons of people call spiders bugs too. On the other hand, calling the plant a Joshua Tree is 100% correct, as that's what they ARE. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of people call spiders bugs.  And that in and of itself is significant.  But there is also lots of compelling evidence that spiders are not bugs, and that has to be weighed too.  With respect to the question of whether the plant is most often called Joshua Tree, there is plenty of evidence that it is, and practically none that it is not.  So when you weigh all the evidence, one side of the evidence scale slams down while the other side goes flying.  That's the difference.  That's why in both cases usage (whether it's google hits or namesake usage) counts, but in one case it suffices and in the other it does not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're living up to your username; for the gazillionth time, Naming conventions and Naming conventions (common names) state
 * "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."
 * Yet you continue to throw up irrelevances like google hits and namesake usage. So far, I am the only person to have attempted to ascertain what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject, and I have clearly demonstrated that your assertion "with respect to the question of whether the plant is most often called Joshua Tree, there is plenty of evidence that it is, and practically none that it is not" is false. Would it be fair at this point to say that you are knowingly uttering falsehoods? Hesperian 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only person to check such sources? Did you read what Scott wrote at the top of this section?  "The main floras of California, Arizona, and Utah (none such for Nevada, sigh), all agree on "Joshua tree" as the common name of Yucca brevifolia." What does that mean to you?
 * You're being disingenuous. Everyone agrees that Joshua tree is the common (i.e. vernacular) name for the plant. What is under dispute is whether it is the most commonly used name. Hesperian 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that your misinterpretation of that relatively new wording in the guideline is done in good faith. But you should know that the google test, though not without its flaws (to be sure!), has a long history of being used for determining and comparing proposed name popularity. Also, nps.gov is clearly a verifiable reliable source for establishing that Joshua Tree is a name commonly used to refer to the plant that is the park's namesake (again, the relative weight of this evidence is particularly significant given the lack of evidence to the contrary).  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one is claiming that the name Joshua tree is not used for the plant. The issue is whether or not it is the most commonly used name for the plant, as determined by what verifiable reliable sources use. The fact that you can throw up a page about a national park, which no decent article on that plant would cite, hardly puts a dent in the evidence I have produced above. Here is an bald assertion for you:
 * The sources that one would anticipate citing in a high quality article on Yucca brevifolia/Joshua tree refer to the plant primarily and predominantly by the name Yucca brevifolia.
 * Do you dispute it? If so, on what grounds? I have presented supporting evidence; where is yours?
 * Hesperian 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute your assertion. I just don't understand its relevance when the question we're trying to answer is not "What word would the average writer of a high quality article on Yucca brevifolia/Joshua tree use to refer to this topic"?  The question we should be trying to answer is,  "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?". --Born2cycle (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the question is totally irrelevant, because both names are there and visible to search engines. It doesn't matter which one is in the title. Anyway, if the question were legitimate (in my opinion, mindreading is not, and there is no such thing as the average user), the average user of Wikipedia would still put sex, porn and the like into the search engine rather than any of those. Colchicum (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. That's disingenuous on several levels.  The question is taken from WP:COMMONNAME, and you're taking it out of context.  Also, "the  average reader" is clearly not meant to be taken literally, as you have. It's obviously talking about most users looking for the article in question.  In other words, are most WP users looking for that article going to type in "joshua tree" or "yucca brevifolia"?  Do you seriously believe you have to be a mind reader to answer that question?  You guys are too much.  I'm done.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [outdent] Shit, we were finally getting somewhere. I think the point hiding behind Colchicum's porn comment was that we should be asking what name the average user of this particular article would use, rather than what name the average user of Wikipedia in general would use. After all, the demographic of people who would go looking for information on this plant is not the same as the broader demographic of Wikipedia users. I see you agree.
 * Grant for a moment that this is the question we should be asking. How should we find the answer? WP:NC says to examine verifiable reliable sources, but you think this doesn't give an accurate answer, and in biased towards writers rather than readers. You prefer the Google test. Yes, the Google test can be useful, so long as it is used responsibly. Plug in "joshua tree" (in quotes), and you'll get a shitload of hits, but look at the first 100 results: most pages are about the park, or the album, or the movie, or the city, or various businesses that operate out of the city. One can hardly claim these pages as supporting evidence for the premise that someone looking for information on the plant would type in "joshua tree". In fact, I count only 5 pages in the first 100 that are about the plant. We have to ignore our own article (else we would be arguing that Wikipedia should use the scientific name because Wikipedia uses the scientific name), which leaves 4/99, one of which is predominantly titled with the scientific name. With such an extreme level of ambiguity, we can't just compare hit counts. Here's an idea: do a search for ["joshua tree" OR "yucca brevifolia"] and manually sift through the first 100 results, counting which is the preferred title for articles about the plant. Again, we should to ignore the Wikipedia and Commons pages, which are under the scientific name. I count 5 pages that are predominantly titled as "joshua tree", 6 pages that are predominantly titled "Yucca brevifolia", with the remainder as false hits. My assessment of this result is that even when we play by your rules, your premise still doesn't hold water. Hesperian 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * JTNP has hundreds of thousands of visitors per year, each of which is a potential seeker of information about the plant. Not to mention every kid who has ever asked,


 * "Dad, what the hell is that?"
 * "It's a Joshua tree, dear".
 * "Huh. Let me look it up on my iPhone - can't believe 3G works out here".


 * I don't have a problem with using verifiable reliable sources - I just disagree that precludes referring to nps.gov and using the google test.
 * Because Joshua tree has other uses, the percentage of the google hits that refer to the tree are not going to be as high as they are for "yucca brevifolia", a term which has no other uses. But check this out.


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,980,000 for "joshua tree" 
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 26,100 for "yucca brevifolia".


 * Joshua tree has over 100 times as many hits as does "yucca brevifolia", so only one out of every 100 "joshua tree" hits has to be about the plant in order for "joshua tree" to have more hits about the plant than does "yucca brevifolia", even if we assume every single "yucca brevifolia" hit is about the plant.


 * In the end, the current last comment in the survey, from  AjaxSmack  , gets to the bottom line: "This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a work of taxonomy."  That's something you plant guys don't seem to get.  Wikipedia is not a flora.  Wikipedia is not a work of taxonomy.  It's a layman's encyclopedia that defers to the most common name used to refer to a topic when titling articles, even when it comes to plants.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Wikipedia is a work of taxonomy, because a taxonomy is simply a method of organising things. Furthermore our plant articles follow a modern botanical taxonomy, since it is appropriate that we organise our plant articles as botanists would organise them (i.e. we don't get to fabricate a genus just because we like the idea of lumping certain species together). This is true regardless of what names we adopt. Nomenclature and taxonomy are independent concepts. That's a pretty piss-poor bottom line you've got there. Hesperian 11:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And in fact an organization of taxa (the entities, not their names) in a manner other than that accepted by biologists constitutes original research (for example, placing two Toxicodendron species in the same article because they both have the common name "poison oak").--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true if you assume that what Wikipedia is doing is organizing taxa. I see no more reason for Wikipedia to organize taxa than it has to organize movies, TV shows, books or cars.  Wikipedia has articles about some topics that happen to be taxa, and maybe some topics that happen to comprise several taxa.  See below for more on this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Our articles on taxa are being organized, and for good reason. Call it added value. Ever since Carl Linnae published Systema naturae in 1735, the classification of animals and plants has been one of our most important tools for understanding the natural world. We were in trouble before Linnae came along, because previously we thought of organisms only by their common names and people did not consider that they might all somehow be related. He showed that they were all part of a hierarchy, exposing their relationships, which was later explained by Darwin's theory of evolution. If we decide here that scientific names should not always have the most prominent association with articles dedicated to taxa, then this will not only make it more difficult for our specialist editors to do their work properly, but it will favor familiarity -- which is cheap, since it can just as easily be achieved otherwise -- over insight and understanding, while leaving the door open to endless pointless future debates. We owe it to our readership to do the opposite, as they are capable of both understanding more than you think, as well as appreciating a well-written and properly structured series of articles. If there is still anything to say for common names as article titles, then I think the Simple English Wikipedia is a better place for them. How about maintaining a simple "Joshua tree" article over there and a more detailed "Yucca brevifolia" article over here? --Jwinius (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with your general points, I think we should leave Simple English Wikipedia out of this. It's not for "simple people", it's for people who read only a simple version of English, many of whom speak a different birth language. One could argue that the use of scientific names is even more important there, because readers might more readily recognize the scientific name than an English common name.
 * Certainly, redirecting from common names supplies all the tools any reader of this Wikipedia needs to find the articles they are looking for.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course, regarding the Simple English Wikipedia, so on this I stand corrected. --Jwinius (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to play semantics, be clear about what you mean. Wikipedia might be considered a taxonomy if you include Categories, but even then it's a very loose use of the term because the categorization/classification is so ill-defined and informal, it can hardly be called a scheme or organization (which a taxonomy is).  But if we ignore Cats, and look only at articles and how they are named, there is clearly no classification, no taxonomy.  When the title of one article is named, generally how other articles are named might only sometimes be considered in order to identify and maintain some semblance of consistency in naming, and to deal with conflicts, not to classify or organize.  Often, the only consideration is the already existing most common name (outside of WP) of the topic itself, and nothing else.  At any rate, as compared to the taxonomy of organisms in science, Wikipedia is clearly not that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Filtering on key words can help:
 * Google web: about 16,000 English pages for "joshua tree" roots leaves -wikipedia
 * Google web: about 1,940 English pages for "yucca brevifolia" roots leaves -wikipedia
 * Google scholar: about 756 for "joshua tree" roots leaves
 * Google scholar: about 293 for "yucca brevifolia" roots leaves
 * Google books: 613 on "joshua tree" roots leaves
 * Google books: 253 on "yucca brevifolia" roots leaves.
 * Also note that Books may need filtering by decade. Recently there was a debate on whether Romani or Romany should be used and it turns out that the usage is changing (as seen by a new entry in the OED as opposed to those entries from the 1989 second edition), this is reflected in a search of Google books over time (all, after 1980, after 1990, and after 2000 with Romani gaining in popularity).


 * However I am disinterested in this particular page name the above was just to show the principle of how filters can help. What is more important is the concept reflected in WP:NC. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. I was one of several Wikipedia editors who took part in the debate earlier this year that reached a consensus to add "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." This was because some people were using raw Google searches to override what reliable sources said. Others were placing names like Lech Wałęsa at Lech Wałęsa "because it is correct" without considering what reliable English language sources use. Reliable sources are defined at WP:SOURCES and also at WP:PSTS. Reliable sources include a range of sources that include major newspapers. Depending on the types of information, in most cases government websites sites are considered reliable sources, as are the sites sponsored by the United Nations and its affiliates. --PBS (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pressing Hesperian's point yet again, are refereed journals not reliable sources? I read WP:SOURCES to say just the opposite.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not the only reliable sources; and we should not be writing journal articles. They already exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem we shouldn't be reading them, either. It's hard not to take all this as an anti-scientific-name rant rather than a reasoned attempt to address the naming convention.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this latest request to move Pinus longaeva to Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, despite abundant and overwhelming evidence that the scientific name is more commonly used than this vernacular name, no matter how you measure it, is proof that this is no longer about using the most common name; it is about pushing a misguided anti-elitist agenda—misguided because the scientific name is not at all elitist, and in this case is far more popular than the populist alternative. Hesperian 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Since you brought it up here... in that case the most common name is not Great Basin Bristlecone Pine nor Pinus longaeva, it is Bristlecone pine, which cannot be used as a WP title because a) it's ambiguous AND b) there is apparently no primary topic for that term, except, perhaps, as the title of an article that covers all three species.


 * Although merely adding words for precision to the most common name is an acceptable form of disambiguation in Wikipedia, without distinguishing those words from the most common name in the title by putting them in parentheses, I dislike that practice for precisely the reason this example illustrates: it wrongly implies that the entire title reflects the most common name used to refer to the topic of the article. It's the same reason I dislike the comma convention for disambiguating city names, but I digress.  In this case I would have preferred Bristlecone pine (Great Basin) or even Bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) but those suggestions got no traction.  At least Great Basin Bristlecone Pine retains the most common name in the title, unlike Pinus longaeva which entirely ignores the WP mandate to reflect the most common name of an article's subject in the title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To PMAnderson: Perhaps, but they are the most reliable sources and are therefore given more weight in any argument. Besides, where else would you expect us look for the most reliable information, or for examples when faced with difficult problems: newspapers and magazines? And whatever gave you the idea that we were attempting to write journal articles here? I suspect you were merely alluding to our preference for the use of scientific names and wanted to sound dramatic. Pah! You and your friends seem to have this idée fixe that these names are used mainly in advanced research publications and that we only use them because we want to sound intelligent or something. That's simply not true! Linnaean taxonomy is a very basic tool that biologists have used for over 250 years to organize the natural world into a hierarchy, leading to both order and insight. If we give WP:NC preference here, it will ignore 250 years of scientific wisdom and experience: you may gain what you think is better presentation, but it also gets you endless bickering about common names, while you lose organization, consistency and insight. Ergo, it's not worth it. So, just as in the case of naming royalty and people with titles, here WP:NC should take a back seat to Linnaean taxonomy. --Jwinius (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientific journals are reliable sources and they are probably the most reliable sources for determining scientific information. Determining which name is the most common name is hardly a scientific endeavor, and for that scientific journals are not even a source, much less a reliable one.  The best scientific journals can do in the process of determining the most common name is provide reliable information about name usage within the scientific community, and in that respect they are relevant, reliable and useful sources.  But, as PMAnderson notes, they are not the only source, and I see no reason for them to be given more weight than other reliable source.  In fact, I would say that usage in ordinary newspapers and non-scientific journals and magazines should be given more weight than usage in scientific journals, as those sources are more likely to be reliable in terms of reflecting the usage of most WP readers.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Joshua tree
Notice of requested move: Joshua tree (disambiguation) → Joshua tree —(Discuss)— move over redirect here, to put disambiguation page where it belongs: at ambiguous page name. --Una Smith (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Result: no move.  New requested move:  Joshua tree (disambiguation) → Joshua Tree —(Discuss)— also a move over redirect;  note capitalized Tree. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A distinction of no significance
The guideline currently states this:


 * One problem in this discussion is that common name has two meanings in this context:


 * the name which is "frequent" or "broadly used", which general Wikipedia practice supports; and
 * The "vernacular" name, which Wikipedia does not support unless it is also common in the other sense.


 * The word common should therefore be used with care when addressing such issues; in this guideline, "commonly used name" means "frequent" or "broadly used" (as described in WP:COMMON), and "vernacular name" is used to mean the English "common name" as used by botanists.

I don't understand the point of making this distinction. The reason botanists use the term "common" to refer to what they call the common name is because that name is commonly used to refer to the plant in question. That means its use is "frequent" and "broadly used". In other words, what makes a name common in the second sense is being common in the first sense.

Of course, there might be some exceptions in which this distinction might seem applicable, but I'm skeptical. Take Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, for example. In that case the botanical common name, Great Basin Bristlecone Pine is arguably not frequently or broadly used, but this is really a special case in which the true common name, Bristlecone Pine, is not used as the botanical common name because it is ambiguous. So the botanists have contrived a common name to disambiguate it from the other uses. Whether that means the title of the WP article should be Bristlecone Pine (Great Basin) or Great Basin Bristlecone Pine is certainly within the scope of specifying here in this guideline, but to abandon the common name entirely in favor of the scientific name is contradicting this guideline's own guidance, stated in the first line, to use the most common name used in English. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You are being wilfully ignorant now; wallowing in your own refusal to listen to anyone. You know that the word common has multiple meanings. You know that the common name is not necessarily more frequently used than the scientific name. You have been given a plethora of examples of that. Not just Pinus longaeva but indisputable examples like Aloe vera/Medicinal Aloe. This has been discussed to death, and if you still think it is worth trotting out then your brain must have been disengaged all week. Hesperian 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Hesperian, but I was not engaged in any discussions about Aloe in particular. I also never understood, until last night when I read and reread the beginning of the guideline, what distinction was being drawn with respect to the two meanings of common.  I believe I now understand the distinction, and it seems to me that the distinction has no significance.  With respect to Aloe Vera, that name is part of the vernacular, and if "Medicinal Aloe" is the "common  name" that botanists use for this plant, so what?  The key factor that matters is the most common name, and in that case it is Aloe vera (and so that article is properly titled).  My sense is that the common name used by botanists usually, but not always, coincides with the most common name used in the vernacular to refer to the flora topic.  The point is, whatever is the most common name used in the vernacular to refer to the topic in question, whether that's the scientific name, what scientists say is the "common name" for that topic, or something else, is what should be the title of an article in Wikipedia.  If that name, whatever it is, has conflicts, then there are guidelines for how to work those out.  That's what the guidelines say, in a nutshell, and I still see no reason why flora needs to be an exception to this, or why the insignificant (to this process) distinction between most common name and the common name used by botanists needs to be so explained in this guideline, especially so prominently. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of us with training and experience (as contrasted to those who swoop in with one-size-fits-all solutions), the situation is more complex than simplistic:
 * Even within the broad brush of the plant sciences, there are multiple user groups with different viewpoints, and that claim different needs. These groups include horticulturists, foresters, ecologists (especially vertebrate ecologists, who are used to standardized common names for vertebrates and expect the same from bird perches and ungulate fodder), ethnobotanists, plant taxonomists, and plant molecular biologists. For valid and in many cases well-documented historical reasons, a plant (and the species it represents) may have different names used commonly among these groups.
 * Publishers, and to a lesser extent authors, of popular floras, are often of the belief that readers are resistant to Latin names, taking as their example extant rather than extinct dinosaurs, the latter having well-know Latin names. The direct result of this has been to create, often from whole cloth, "common names" for every species in a region. Oftentimes these are scientific names translated directly into English (even when, in some cases, there are vernacular names in widespread, but not widely documented, use).
 * At least in the United States, lawmakers have preferred to deal with plants by English names. In some cases this has left, for example, State flowers or trees underspecified. In the case of endangered and threatened species, such ambiguity is harmful, so that "common names" have been constructed for many species so rare that most people have never encountered them, much less wondered what to call them.
 * None of this is to say that there aren't plant species with commonly used English names. But the distinction of the two meanings of "common" is clear to anyone familiar with the subject, and it would be not only anti-elitist, but intentionally ignorant, to suppress this distinction in Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Curtis, I have no dispute with anything you say here, but my point stands. The scientific "common names" and "Latin names" are as relevant to the flora article naming as ISBNs are to book article naming.  I suppose it couldn't hurt to explain why they are irrelevant to article naming, but this point is hardly important enough to put as the first thing in this guideline explanation.  If the scientific "common name" or "Latin name" happens to also be the most common name per WP criteria, then that should be the title.  But that would be not because of that name being the scientific "common name" or Latin name, it would be because that name is the most common name.   None of this explains why the Latin name should ever be used when the most common name exists and has been identified, unless of course they are one and the same (e.g., Aloe vera).


 * Again, I have no objection to this specific guideline explaining what to do in cases where the most common name cannot be identified - that is within the scope of specific naming guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You state, above, "The reason botanists use the term "common" to refer to what they call the common name is because that name is commonly used to refer to the plant in question." I provide what I assume is a clear explanation of why your statement is not true. You respond with "I have no dispute with anything you say here, but my point stands." Which is it, no dispute or point stands? You can't have it both ways.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An end to this nonsense
During the past three weeks I don't see that Born2cycle, Pmanderson and Philip Baird Shearer (PBS) have managed to convince anyone of anything. I suggest that the disputed guideline be reverted back to the way it was before 2 December 2008. --Jwinius (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did propose one change, to allow an unambiguous common name if it is agreed upon by all relevant published floras, but since only Curtis seems to have liked that idea, I'd be content with reversion. If anybody wants to keep fighting, they can escalate it to the AC. Stan (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By unambiguous common name I assume you mean the common name as specified in the flora (which does not necessarily mean that is the name most commonly used to refer to the subject matter in question in the vernacular). Why would that name even be a candidate for an article title, unless it also happened to be the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in the vernacular?  That's what I don't get.  Why does the botanical name - whether it's the "latin" name or the "common name" - even matter in the process of determining the title of a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia naming policy, guidelines and conventions? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right: common names can be very confusing, can't they? That's exactly why the solution proposed by Carl Linnae way back in 1735 has been so amazingly successful: it allows everyone to know that they are discussing the same subject and puts an end to all these inane debates of which your efforts here have been such an excellent example. --Jwinius (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most floras do report common vernacular names, anywhere from one to dozens. But once again, the basic problem - and this has been a problem for botany since the Middle Ages, it's not just a WP thing - is that very very few plant species have a vernacular name that is both unambiguous and clearly the one in most common use. I think the situation is unique to plants; the number of known species is large, and they are often difficult to distinguish, while nearly all the plants that the average person encounters are cultivars and hybrids, often of unclear or unknown parentage. Add to that the politics of conservation for rare species, and advertising by commercial growers, and you get a situation where WP's usual methods simply break down. If you want to convince me, don't cherry pick five easy taxa and declare that your decision process will scale; do a thousand, and satisfy me on every one of them. (A lot of work? Sure, but you're talking to someone who has personally photographed and uploaded pictures of over 1,300 taxa to date.) Stan (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Convince me that the number matters and then maybe I'll have a reason to provide so many examples. Whether the number is one, ten, 100, 1,000, 10,000 or more, the point is each article needs to be considered individually.  That's why I don't understand why the number matters.   If WP's usual methods "break down" for some article, then the specialized guidelines kick in.  But for any article for which the usual guidelines indicate a clear most common name, which is either unambiguous or primary usage for that topic, then it's the title.  If it is ambiguous and not primary usage, then it must be disambiguated, and here the specialized guideline kicks in too. But since each article must be considered individually, it scales, by definition.  That's true for all of Wikipedia, and, again, I don't see why flora articles are an exception to this. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say you're a software engineer? If a single iteration (e.g., Yucca brevifolia and Pinus longaeva currently, and Cytisus scoparius and Verbascum thlaspi in the past) takes an unacceptable amount of time, the number does indeed matter. One important point of the original guideline was to create something that scaled acceptably.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A naming convention/policy is about scale, what ever method is used it needs to be consistent across the majority of incidences, WP:IAR exists for the minority exceptions. The proposal has been tested, questioned by a few examples and each have found the change lacking and open to dispute, I support retaining the pre December version and agree with Stan that further discussion needs to demonstrated that the change is applicable to majority of articles. Gnangarra 06:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Support revert to pre-Dec. version. I think there is no consensus for the new version vs. the stable version. First Light (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing that Born2Cycle still finds issue with changes made by Septentrionalis, I support reversion; the only consensus seems to be among those that either actively support or are not opposed to the pre-December version.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The page was reverted to a stable version on the second of December.

Wikipedia is not a democracy
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is supposed to be achieved through discussion of the issues, not by voting. I, for one, am not going to continue this discussion forever. However, currently, the discussion is ongoing, and I just spent considerable time addressing fundamental points made by Hesperian, Jwinius and Curtis in the sections previous to this one, and clarifying something PMAnderson wrote (as I understand it). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No consensuses have been reached for these changes- when there is consensus for a change reached here, then add those changes. The policy page needs to be reverted back. Hardyplants (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus we already have evidence from individual article discussion that random people are seeing the draft page and assuming it's the agreed-upon rule. If it had been in a drafty state for a few days or a week, no problem, but this has been going for too long - any further new drafting work now needs to go to a subpage. Stan (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stan and Hardyplants. We should revert to the pre-December version with a disputed tag (hopefully it won't hang there forever) and move the current draft to a subpage to be worked on. That will at least relieve some of the immediacy and tensions that are felt between those discussing the convention. --Rkitko (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agree—to a relative newcomer (myself), the current version is extremely confusing, and reads more like a discussion ("One problem in this discussion is...."), which it is. The previous version has broad consensus. The discussion should be moved to a subpage, where there should be consensus reached before changing a long-standing Wikipedia guideline. First Light (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I already stated my belief that it was inappropriate to edit the article during a dispute rather than a draft. I should have followed WP:BRD and reverted it then. Better late than never.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (flora)/Draft--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the dispute tag is displayed on the main page, that makes sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Working towards consensus
Taking all I understand and have learned from the above discussions into account, and the fact that there are obviously a lot of smart people involved here, it seems to me we should be able to come up with something that meets the special requirements of naming articles about flora, and still remains consistent with general Wikipedia naming policy, guidelines and conventions. I would like to see how much we can agree on. For example, I think we can all agree on at least the first two of the following points. Can we works towards consensus on the others, or at least understand what the objections are?


 * 1) For topics for which the only name is the scientific Latin name, the scientific Latin name should be the title of the article about each such topic.
 * 2) For topics for which there are common names (including when botanists have contrived a "common name"), but for which the scientific Latin name is the most common name used to refer to each such topic, the scientific Latin name should be the title of the article about that topic. Example: Aloe vera.
 * 3) For topics for which there are multiple common names, but for which, after reasonable efforts have been made, consensus cannot be reach on which if any is most commonly used to refer to the topic in the vernacular, the scientific Latin name is suggested as the compromise title of the article about such a topic.  This should only be used when the scientific Latin name is one of the names considered to be the most common, or when the Latin name is not one of those, but reasonable and compelling arguments are made about more than one English common name being the most common.
 * 4) For topics for which there is a common English name that is used exclusively (not used to refer to any other topic for which there is an article in Wikipedia) to refer to that topic, or is the primary usage of that name, and is more commonly used to refer to the topic than any other name, that common English name should be the title of the article.
 * 5) For topics for which there is a common English name that is used to refer to that topic, and is more commonly used to refer to the topic than any other name, but it also used to refer to other topics for which articles exist in Wikipedia (is ambiguous and not primary) that common English name should be the title of the article, disambiguated per WP:DISAMBIGUATION by specifying the scientific Latin name in parentheses in the title after the most common name.

I don't expect everyone to immediately accept and incorporate these particular guidelines as is into a new revision of this naming convention, but I offer them as a starting point from which hopefully clear and specific guidelines can evolve through productive discussions for which there is consensus.

The idea is for us to be able to say, "the article's title should be X per guideline N", or "the article's title should be Y (Z) per guidelines N and M."

So, what do you think of these guidelines, and what if anything would have to be added, removed or changed for you to accept them? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed.
 * Agreed.
 * It's easy to say "reasonable efforts", but past history shows that editors are not always reasonable. A guideline has to work in reality, regardless of how logical it is in theory. I would agree with this if the guideline stated that the scientific name should be the article name until the dispute is resolved. In many cases the disputants will come to see the scientific name as a non-controversial alternative, and agree to accept it.
 * We seem to disagree about how this plays in practice; Hesperian's analyses are evidently unacceptable to you as evidence.
 * Cumbersome, ugly, and unnecessary, since there are already (or should be) redirects. I can't ever imagine supporting something like Geranium (Pelargonium) or Bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva)--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll think about (3).  Has Hesperian analyzed situations that you believe would qualify under (4)?   Like what?  As to (5), disambiguating ambiguous names with specific distinguishing information (or an alternate name) is standard Wikipedia practice.  If you think that should be rejected for being "cumbersome and ugly", perhaps you should take it up at the talk page for WP:D, and the talk pages of the myriads of articles so named.  As to being unnecessary, often it is the only way (i.e. necessary) to retain the most common name in the title of an article.  If that reason does not qualify as necessary, I don't know what does (in the context of naming WP articles in compliance with policy, guidelines and conventions).


 * I've updated the Draft version with my original suggestions. Hopefully this can evolve there, along with discussion about those changes on the talk page of the Draft, rather than here.  As a reminder, last I checked you had not yet responded to my latest  posts above.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, instead of cumbersome and ugly, how about "Titles should make linking to the article simple"? How would Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) be advantageous over Pinus longaeva? You seem to think that each provision of the general naming convention policy must be met; often that's impossible. In this case, we'd have to ask ourselves which of the provisions is worth bending a bit? Not including a "common" name that is disputably not common, made up, and refers to something else (a larger taxonomic group), or making it much, much easier to link to? I, like Curtis, couldn't ever support your fifth suggestion. --Rkitko (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that titles should make make linking to the article simple, when possible, but that guideline is to discourage unnecessary precision. But when the most common name is ambiguous (and not primary), it is necessary to disambiguate, and using parentheses to specify appropriating disambiguating information is the standard Wikipedia way to do that.  In fact, Wikipedia specifically makes articles so named simple to link to by supporting references like Bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) (note the single pipe symbol at the end) which are automatically expanded to Bristlecone pine and rendered as Bristlecone pine.


 * Are you serious about Bristlecone Pine being not common and made up?


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 159,000 for "bristlecone pine"


 * For the web, 159k google hits is not very many, but to put things in perspective, compare that to:


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 29,100 for "Pinus longaeva"


 * Or are you pointing out that the entire disambiguated title, Bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) is not common and made up? Well, yes, but if that's your point, it's moot, since there is no requirement or desire whatsoever for an entire disambiguated title to be commonly used or not contrived.  Only the part without the disambiguation information in parenthesis is supposed to reflect the most common name used to refer to the topic of the article in question.  I'm not making this stuff up.  This is standard Wikipedia practice for which there are countless examples.  But in such a situation to go instead with an entirely different name (much less with one that is not even English, but Latin), that does not reflect the most common name at all, is a blatant contradiction of Wikipedia general naming policy, guidelines and conventions.


 * I mean you're not supposed to order all the names used to refer to a given topic in order of how commonly they are used, and go down the list until you find one that is not used by any other article. Only the most common matters, and you're supposed to use it, disambiguating it as necessary.


 * As to it also referring to a larger taxonomic group, yes, it has other uses. That's the point of why it needs to be disambiguated.  What would you prefer?  Perhaps Bristlecone pine (Great Basin)?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I spoke wrote too quickly. I meant the full title Greater.... was made up. I think it's obvious what I prefer: Pinus longaeva. This is the only stable name for this organism not confounded by regional or "what's most commons" vernacular name debates that almost always end in no consensus. It is the only solution worth considering, except in the case where we want to divide botanical information into one article and usage/products into another under the "common name". Rkitko (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize too. I've clarified/expanded my original post, including guessing what you meant and responding accordingly.  Please reread if you haven't already (I promise I won't update it any more!).  I agree the entire Great Basin Bristlecone Pine title is made up and not common, but, as I pointed out above, as long as you recognize the "Great Basin" part to be the necessary additional precision that it is, that's irrelevant.  The difficulty in recognizing that is why I prefer putting disambiguation information in parentheses, clearly distinguishing it from the most common name part of the title.  But most people seem to prefer adding precision without parentheses when possible, even it the result is an uncommon and contrived name.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me try to explain my feeling about this another way. Take Stylidium perpusillum for example. I sincerely doubt many people know it by the name "tiny triggerplant" and if they did, they would recognize it with different orthography or capitalization. A suggestion to move the article to tiny triggerplant would be to me like saying we should move it to Stylidium perminutum, a synonym. Both are equivalent (S. perpusillum = S. perminutum = tiny triggerplant), but why call it by any other name than what is accepted? Why muck around with guessing what the most common vernacular name is? When I open an encyclopedic work, I don't expect it to guess what I would call the plant - that's what an index is for (that's what our redirects are for); I expect it to tell me what the species is. Although I make no claims on knowing, I hope that's true for most of our readers. As far as I see it, there are many, many reasons why the convention should prefer scientific names over vernacular names and only one reason (and not a very good one in my opinion) to change it. I'm not sure I've helped this discussion at all, so I'll take a step back now and see what others have to say. I generally agree with Curtis's statement above. I can agree with you on points 1 and 2, I have the same concern as Curtis on 3, I'm skeptical about 4, and I disagree with 5. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rkitko, per your example, by guideline #2 above that article would be at Stylidium perpusillum and not Tiny triggerplant:


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 227 for "Stylidium perpusillum"
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 128 for "tiny triggerplant"


 * Your personal preferences are in line with what my suggested guidelines would dictate with respect to this example. Perhaps you have another one that would illustrate the difference you think would be there? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree
 * Agree
 * Generally agree with the idea, but it needs to be stated much more clearly and simply, and not be so equivocal about consensus, 'reasonable efforts', 'reasonable and compelling arguments', etc.
 * Disagree. I would go much further and state something much more simple and clear, like: "When a common name is used for more than one species, the latin name should be the article name".
 * No - you never sees plants labelled that way in reliable sources, which will make it very confusing. We would essentially be making up a new version of taxonomy.
 * I would add another statement: Any species should have its own article if it meets the main guideline of Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."First Light (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your objection to (5) -- using Vernacular name (Latin name) when the vernacular name is most common but ambiguous and not primary -- is, "you never sees plants labelled that way in reliable sources". True enough, but, again, that's the standard way to disambiguate Wikipedia article titles when the most common name is ambiguous and not primary.  Your objection applies to any title using this type of disambiguation.  I only had to click WP:RANDOM a few times to find an example.  The Railway Children (band).  Do you think there are reliable sources for that title, including the disambiguatory information (in this case, "band", to disambiguate from the book with that name and other uses) in parenthesis?  Of course not.  The fact that adding disambiguatory information in parenthesis to disambiguate the most common name creates a title that is not citable in reliable sources is not a valid objection to using it for any other Wikipedia article, so why would should it be a valid objection to naming articles like that that happen to be flora, much less one that justifies going with another name that is not only less commonly used (remember, in the context of (5) the vernacular name is the most common), but not even English? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "(band)" is a less precise term than "The Railway Children"; only the combination unambiguously (we hope) designates the subject. "(Pinus longaeva)" unambiguously designates the subject; "Bristlecone pine" isn't needed. One could make a point for Bristlecone pine (Great Basin) if in fact all the bristlecone pines in the Great Basin, and none outside, were of this species, but anyone with a knowledge of the flora of the western US would look at the title and assume that everything else in Wikipedia was equally bizarre.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but unambiguously designating the subject is not the only purpose of an article title in Wikipedia - it is also supposed to designate the most common name used to refer to the topic. When the most common name is an English vernacular term, but ambiguous, using just the Latin name instead does make it unambiguous, but wrongly indicates or at least suggests that the Latin name is the most common name for that topic.  Titling with the vernacular most common name, and dabbing with the Latin name, accomplishes both.  Two birds, one stone.  It's all good.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Point (5) is just wasteful and confusing, this is why we have redirects for common names. Why make it so difficult? Hardyplants (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Following standard Wikipedia disambiguation practices does not make anything wasteful, confusing or difficult. Doing something radically different from them is what is wasteful, confusing and difficult.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you do not have any reason why you want to make it difficult!!! - except "thats the way its done some were else".  But that is not the best way to do it under these circumstances and that is why Wikipedia has guidelines.  Hardyplants (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Hardyplants, it's not because that's the way it's done somewhere else. It's because that's the way it's done everywhere else (in Wikipedia).  That's the point of having general policy, guidelines and conventions.  To have consistency in naming throughout the encyclopedia, rather than disparate islands of self-consistency.   Sure, there are exceptions, at the individual article level.  But what you are arguing for is a wholesale exception for every flora article for which there is a common English name that is used to refer to that topic but is ambiguous and not primary (actually I think what you're arguing for is even beyond the scope of (5) and even includes topic names which are unambiguous or primary). You seem to want to create an island of self-consistency (use Latin names for all flora articles) that is consistent with usage in scientific journals, but is inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia in which these articles exist.  How is this the "best way" to do it in Wikipedia?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Its the best way because it is unambiguous and the least contentious and the clearest and most straightforward way to do it, and for those that want to find a specific plant species topic it works without causing major disruption for those that work on such articles. I have nothing against common vernacular names (as long as you use the ones I have been taught- then its easy) but you have come in and have attempted to make changes that will result in a mess that is counterproductive to the goals of wikipedia. Vernacular names are not applied and developed the same way to plants and most other objects, most plants that have common names have many that are utilized by different groups of people and very often inconsistently in there scope. For some, a sunflower is a large group of plants with "sunflower"-like flowers, while others use it for one species, nether is right or wrong, its just the scope of categorization. Common names very often do not fit the categorization that scientific species use, and when we try to mix the two we have unnecessary conflict and ambiguity. Hardyplants (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, First Light, your suggestion for (4) - to use the Latin name simply because the vernacular name that is most often used to refer to the plant is ambiguous - flies in the face of standard Wikipedia naming practice. Just because the most common name for a given topic is used to refer to more than one topic is no reason to use something entirely different for the title of the article in question.  If we can't agree that this specific convention needs to abide by general Wikipedia naming policy, guidelines and conventions, I don't see how we could ever achieve consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we can't "achieve consensus", does that mean you shove your version down our throats?--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You supposed scientists sure seem to easily get defensive, subjective, emotional and personally nasty when your arguments fail you. Let's stick to the substance, shall we?  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the one who came here, told us how wrong we are, misconstrue our arguments, discount our experience, object even to the suggestions of others who initially seemed to hold your views, and now you castigate me for being defensive? Just exactly what do you expect to happen if we don't ever agree with all your points?--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding instances where more than one plant has the same common name: the taxonomic system was created and developed precisely for this reason, among others. Other subjects - people, bands, etc. - do not have a system designed for them. Whatever Wikipedia policy might be, common sense and hundreds of years of practice show that using the binomial name is the answer. And by that, I mean using just the binomial name, not some confusing new hybrid Wiki-trinomial-disambiguation scheme. The other advantage of this approach is that it is widely used, and avoids provincialism in naming. If it turns out that policy and common sense are at odds, follow common sense, in my opinion. (Since this is a long-term discussion, and other editors haven't seen it yet, I'll let it ripen a bit before I give too many more opinions). First Light (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, now we're getting somewhere. Essentially you're at least admitting that since a nomenclature system already exists for flora which involves using Latin names whether or not there are more widely used names in the vernacular, which resolves the various ambiguous naming issues, Wikipedia should just adopt that naming system for applicable articles, wholesale, instead of using its own naming system, including ignoring the general naming policy, guidelines and conventions.  That's very different from the argument others have put forward here, perhaps most notably Hesperian, who insists that the convention to use the Latin name is consistent with general WP rules.  Food for thought, finally.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm not 'admitting' anything, just sharing the opinion of an interested observer who is ignorant about taxonomy and the science side of this (except to see the excellent plant articles by all of these 'supposed scientists'). B2c, as an aside, for someone who seems so into the rules and policies, you certainly violated WP:NPA above: "You supposed scientists sure seem to easily get defensive, subjective, emotional and personally nasty when your arguments fail you." You seem to be taking this discussion intensely personally. First Light (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when someone says I'm shoving things down other people's throats, yeah, I take it personally, since it's obviously meant personally. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lest anyone misconstrue, it was meant personally—not as an attack, but as an observation of the way your actions appear to me. Born2cycle, I get the idea that you don't have a lot of experience trying to achieve consensus among people with fundamentally different viewpoints. If I'm wrong, please go back and review your experience, because, to quote lolcats, "yr doin it rong".--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're half right, Curtis. I have plenty of experience trying to achieve consensus among people with fundamentally different viewpoints, but, for reasons that seem to be obvious to everyone but me, I have not succeeded very often, especially when the people involved are not a bunch of engineers.  Facts, logic and reason just are not nearly as persuasive with humans in general as I, for one, would hope.  For example, Hesperian's refusal to recognize that he is promoting ignoring WP:COMMONNAME  is totally exasperating.  I have no idea how to address this other than to keep pointing out how he is doing that.  I mean First Light, Jwininus, Noah, you (Curtis) and others have indicated recognition that WP:COMMONNAME is not being followed whenever the scientific Latin name is chosen instead of the lay English vernacular name that is more commonly used to refer to the plant in question.  Such obstinacy makes progress towards consensus practically impossible.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see your problem. You seem to think that insulting people will make them more tractable. I guess engineers are different; I've found that insulting even programmers is counterproductive to gaining their cooperation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging the question, as usual. I will gladly agree that "WP:COMMONNAME is not being followed whenever the scientific Latin name is chosen instead of the lay English vernacular name that is more commonly used to refer to the plant in question." The issue at hand, which you constantly beg, is whether the lay English vernacular name really is more commonly used. To date, your arguments addressing that issue can be summarised as "It is, because it obviously is, because it just is; and if I ignore the stipulation that it be assessed by seeing what reliable sources say, and instead blatantly manipulate the Google test by counting dry cleaners, then i can prove it." Hesperian 11:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, I've always water-washed them in warm water with a gentle detergent, and air-dried! That might explain why mine keep getting smaller.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another draft
I have enjoyed a nice break from this interminable discussion, and note that my absence has not prevented this page from growing by 26kB in the last 24 hours. I, like most of you, was happy with the pre-discussion convention. But I don't believe we can simply revert to it. Those who disagree with it hold strong opinions and it is clear that they are not just going to shrug their shoulders, concede consensus and walk away. What we need is an articulation of the pre-discussion convention, but with a clear rationale that addresses the concerns raised. To that end, I have overwritten the draft page with a new proposed draft. The version I posted, before it was reverted, as it will indubitably be, is. It is my intention and understanding that this is simply a rewrite of the pre-discussion convention:— i.e. the convention stays the same, but our articulation of it is clearer (and perhaps more defensive ;-) ) Hesperian 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You clarify an important point: that, for an article about a species, it is necessary to establish from reliable sources that a common name is used to refer to the species. Without that documentation, naming a species article with a common name is original research.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick read of this new version shows hope for resolving this with clarity, common sense, and policy. I want to just point out that Naming conventions (fauna) shows that there is a surprising amount of leeway given to WikiProjects to formulate policy on their subject:
 * "If the article is about an animal belonging to a group where Wikipedia editors have agreed on a standard for choosing a common name, follow that standard:
 * Editors involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds have agreed to use the official recommendations of ornithological societies, for example Peregrine Falcon (not duck hawk, Falco peregrinus, etc.)"
 * Note that WikiProject Birds is not using the most commonly used name, but the name most commonly recommended by ornithological societies. All relevant plant societies commonly use the binomial names for plants. First Light (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, not using the most commonly used name (when it is known and available) is blatantly in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. If that is what they want to do here, then they should say it, and explain why, instead of claiming that they're not doing it, and then doing it anyway, which is what the Draft currently does.   I've made some specific comments about the intro of the Draft on the talk page of the Draft.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Blatantly". Really persuasive.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, why do you refuse to see that applying WP:COMMONNAME to all subprojects is like trying to force everybody in the world to fit the same tires on all vehicles, or to use the same screws for all construction projects? It doesn't work! It might work if our scope had been much more limited -- like in all other encyclopedias -- but not here at Wikipedia where our goal is to include "the sum of all human knowledge". To achieve that lofty goal, I think you will agree that a balance must be struck between general policy and the needs of every subproject. However, you must also recognize that this balance cannot always be fixed: the bigger the subproject, the more weight should be given to the needs of that subproject. For example, if the inherent risk of failure for a particular subproject is already stratospheric, then their own methods must always be given priority over Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines. Surely, WP:Plants qualifies as one of the biggest subprojects. They are attempting to include articles for all known species, which is a ridiculously ambitions project and one that has never before been attempted. Therefore, we must allow them to decide for themselves what methods are best for their own project, especially when it comes to their preferred naming standard.
 * To be clear, the only changes to this naming policy that I would support are additional clarifications (to the pre-December version). --Jwinius (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, B2c would be ok with our current policy (+ some clarifications) if we simply admitted/stated that it was a deviation from normal WP policy.   If, indeed, we are breaking WP:COMMONNAME or some other policy, then it is clearly because we as a subproject have consciously, and with consensus, decided to systematically ignore the rules in order to uphold a myriad of other WP policies that could not be executed as well under the generic naming convention.  I don't see how doing so would be detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia.  The vast majority of the arguments above support doing so, with the only argument against doing so being based primarily on "following the rules."  We're allowed to ignore the rules in this case, seeing as it brings about a better Wikipedia. Right? --NoahElhardt (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Noah. Thank you for reading and understanding the relevant guidelines as well as my posts. That's essential for achieving consensus. I hope others will follow your lead.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, let's try not to fall for Born2cycle's straw man argument. The fact is, we are not advocating not using the most commonly used name. The only person who advocates not using the most commonly used name is Born2cycle. Born2cycle wishes to abandon "use the most common name", instead substituting for it "use the most lay name". We all saw that very clearly at Talk:Pinus longaeva, where Born2cycle supported a lay vernacular name despite that fact that the scientific name absolutely smashed it by any measure of "most commonly used". In pushing this crusade for using the most lay name, Born2cycle ignores the WP:COMMON rule that we should "see what reliable sources call the subject". S/he instead ties his/her colours to the mast of the Google test, which aggregates a large collection of pitifully unreliable sources, and apparently thus magically reveals the most lay name. Hesperian 04:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, Hesperian, yes, you are advocating not using the most commonly used name. You seem to be the only one who can't comprehend this.  With respect to WP:COMMONNAME, "the most common name" refers to the name most commonly used to refer to a given topic, keeping in mind the "average Wikipedia reader".  While the guideline says to use "reliable sources in English", that does not only mean scientific sources.  In fact, it also says in the very next sentence that you should ask yourself, "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?"  That means the lay vernacular term, not the scientific "common name" specified in floras, and in most cases not the Latin name.  So if scientific sources are to be given any different weight from other reliable sources (like newspapers, books, etc.), it should be less weight, since presumably, the average Wikipedia reader is more likely to encounter a newspaper on his or her breakfast table than a volume of flora on his or her desk.  This is not ignoring "see what reliable sources call the subject", and I'm really sick of your claims that it is.  The only strawman arguments being put forward here are yours, Hesperian.  Enough.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You got absolutely smashed by the raw data over at Talk:Pinus longaeva, on any measure, including your beloved Google test. But instead of accepting what is obviously the most common name, you're now spruiking a hideous disambiguation scheme on a lay name. So kindly stop pretending you favour using the most commonly used name. You're not fooling anyone. Hesperian 11:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The difficulty with the question "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" is that it is desperately hard to answer. You like to make it out as easily answered, but then again you advocate counting references to dry cleaners when assessing the popularity of a plant name. The fact is, there is no way to get an exact answer, but there are plenty of ways to obtain suggestive data; and then that data has to be interpreted, and there are plenty of ways to do that too. We could argue forever over which sources are respectable; when a Google test is appropriate; the respective merits of Google web versus Google scholar versus Google books; how exactly a Google test should be framed; how scientific sources should be weighted relative to lay sources; how newer sources should be weighted relative to older sources; etcetera. We could get mired from months on a single page, just trying to decide what datum best indicates the answer to this crucial question. But guess what? We don't have to. WP:NC clearly states what datum we should be using. The only problem we have is that you don't want to use it. Hesperian 11:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "'the most common name' refers to the name most commonly used to refer to a given topic, keeping in mind the 'average Wikipedia reader'"

So how did you determine that the average reader uses a specific common name and not the scientific name to find a plant article? For a plant product I am sure that people use the common name for the object - "apple", "pine cone" etc; but for specific plants, since there are many common names but generally only one commonly used scientific name, most people gardeners and biologists and those interested in ecology and the natural world or what have you (who reads plant articles anyway?) I would guess try to find the right binomial name. Hardyplants (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just go with what NoahElhardt last said? As a clarification it sounds informative and if Born2cycle says that he would be satisfied with it, what are we waiting for? --Jwinius (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading the draft proposal thoroughly, I don't see it going against the naming policy. It only clarifies and interprets it according to the unique needs of plant names. If the naming policy were unequivocal and straightforward, there would never be an argument on Wikipedia about how to apply it—and there would never be the need for different WikiProjects to apply it more specifically to their area. As it is, there is certainly some ambiguity and room for clarifying the naming policy for specific subjects, and Hesperian has done a very good job of doing that. He is not suggesting always using the scientific name (see his discussion on Apple), he's only clarifying when to use it, and when not to use it. Speaking as a layman, I find it to be surprisingly well and clearly written. Regarding the "most commonly used name", the discussion at Talk:Pinus longaeva‎ was a good test case, since it came to the correct conclusion for the article's name, and it conformed to this draft policy (even though it wasn't written yet). First Light (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Pinus longaeva was not a good test case because everyone (including the move proposer) seemed to think that the English "most common name" being proposed was the full "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine" name, when, in fact, the most common name used to refer to those trees is simply "Bristlecone Pine", but that had to be dabbed, and dabbing it by prepending "Great Basin" to it was confusing but in in accordance with WP:PRECISION. It has been argued that "Bristlecone Pine" is a reference to the genus, but that assumes that most people are not only cognizant of the distinction when referring to those trees, but intentionally making the distinction.  What I'm saying is that when the average Wikipedia reader goes for a walk in the woods and is asked about a tree, the question is much more likely to be what kind of tree is that, rather than what species of tree is that, or what genus does that tree belong to?  I mean, most people (and thus the average Wikipedia reader), even well educated people, generally just don't talk (much less think) like that, unless they have a peculiar interest in botany.  To the rest of us, the issue  in concept and terminology is much less precise, and general and ambiguous names like "Bristlecone pine" are the norm when thinking and referring to plant types.  And those are the names we are much, much more likely to type in when looking up plants.  I mean, to type in the Latin name you would have to not only already know what it is, but have a clue as to how to spell it.  It's ludicrous to think that in most cases (including Pinus longaeva) the average Wikipedia reader would do that.  I mean, yeah, Aloe vera is part of the vernacular, but Pinus longaeva most certainly is not.  Bristlecone pine of course is.  Again, if you want to argue these common names that are part of the vernacular should not be used precisely because of whatever, fine, do that, but please don't kid yourself about Pinus longaeva being in common used at all, much less being the most common name used to refer to those trees.  Hesperian brought this article, which he wrote, to my attention.  I suppose that's his idea of an article that would be useful to the average Wikipedia reader, and that's the problem.  I mean, if there are no common English words for all those Latin terms, so it is, but if there are, and they are more commonly used to refer to the respective references, they should be used instead, per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * "Hesperian brought this article, which he wrote, to my attention." I did no such thing. It was cygnis insignis who wrote that article, and cygnis insignis who brought it to your attention. Hesperian 04:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "To the rest of us, the issue in concept and terminology is much less precise, and general and ambiguous names like 'Bristlecone pine' are the norm when thinking and referring to plant types" This is why your naming plan does not work, the reality of the biological world and human understanding of it does not blend smoothly with "the norm... (in) referring to plant types." If we had an article for only the most "commonly" known plants- then maybe yes, your scheme works, but there are many 10,000's of plants - that diversely different people have interests in.  Ever wonder why, any large book or work on plants tends to drop the vernacular names and use scientific groupings to organize their information? Hardyplants (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not my naming plan. It's the naming rules of Wikipedia.  If you want to argue that they are too problematic for flora and so you are ignoring them, then do that.  But please don't claim that using the Latin name for the title of the article about the Monterey cypress is following the rules, including WP:COMMONNAME.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is your naming plan... because there was already one in place that was in agreement with the general guidelines - which allows variation in different parts of wikipedia as needed and agreed upon by specialty projects - thus the flora guideline. This was pointed out a long time ago, so you know this already.  I am convinced that the argument that we have to follow the rules is mitigated by provisions within the rules already. Hardyplants (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read my objections to the Draft wording on the talk page of the Draft? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One could equally argue that "Pine" is most "commonly" used for Pinus longaeva. I'm sure many "average" Wikipedians see that tree and tell junior 'that's a pine'. But for that specific species, reliable sources most often use "Pinus longaeva". The "average Wikipedian" is not a reliable source. The local provincial vernacular most likely uses Bristlecone Pine, but as I said in that discussion, Wikipedia is not an oral tradition, it depends on reliable sources according to WP:RS. That refers to reliable written sources. Because of redirects, wikipedia readers who type in any of the vernacular provincial oral variations on Bristlecone Pine and other species will end up in the right article - they don't need to know the scientific name, or the regional vernacular that other people use. And that answers your main objection on the talk page of the draft, and here, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That reliable sources reference at WP:COMMONNAME, with respect to choosing the most common name, is less than a year old, and has lead to all kinds of misinterpretation. To understand that context, you need to read the next sentence about what the average reader is likely to type.  What influences the average reader about what he or she will type is not just the most restrictive interpretation of "reliable sources", and it does include the oral tradition.  That aside, yeah, "pine" might be the term most often used, and adding Bristlecone to the front of it is a reasonable way to disambiguate it.  I suppose the argument could be made that Pine (Great Basin Bristlecone) is the most appropriate title per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:D.  In any case, going with the Latin name is ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, at the least, and arguably WP:D too. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:D is a term based on the :D emoticon. Use a pipe and it leaves "a grin without a cat" ... D – cygnis insignis 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, I still disagree with the direction you're trying to take the plant naming policy. Your examples only confirm my view that it will not be accepted. First Light (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a mental exercise for you. Suppose that I gather together 100 people from Ontario and ask them where they are from, and 70 of then answer "Canada". On those grounds, I claim that "Canada" is a common name for Ontario, indeed the most common name. I then advocate that Ontario be moved to Canada, in accordance with WP:COMMON. It is then pointed out to me that Canada refers to a much broader concept—all people from Ontario are from Canada, but not all people from Canada are from Ontario. In response to this objection, instead of simply acknowledging that "Canada" is not actually a name for Ontario at all, I continue to claim that "Canada" is the most common name for Ontario, but I acknowledge that it is ambiguous with respect to the country Canada, to which the name "Canada" also applies; therefore I propose that Ontario be moved to its most common name, with disambiguation: Canada (Ontario). And also I hint that since the two concepts share a most common name, maybe Ontario ought to be merged into Canada.
 * Absurd? You betcha. Since I obviously have to spell these things out for you in excruciating detail, this absurd situation is precisely your position on Pinus longaeva. "Bristlecone pine" is the common name of a broader concept—all specimens of Pinus longaeva are bristlecone pines, but not all bristlecone pines are Pinus longaeva. "bristlecone pine" is no more a name for Pinus longaeva than "Canada" is a name for Ontario.
 * I look forward to your hair-splitting point-missing ignorant insistence that these two scenarios are not analogous.
 * Hesperian 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Two options
It seems to me that we have two options laid before us, both of which could lead to consensus:


 * 1) Work with Hesperian's draft proposal more or less as it now stands, and use scientific names in 99.9% of cases, but apply the vernacular in those cases where the most common, unambiguous, precise, and unbiased name applied to the taxon is vernacular.  Although this point has been argued above, I think the draft as it now stands arguably falls within current WP policy. Joshua tree, Venus flytrap
 * 2) Decide that since binomial names are such a good idea, and since we're applying them in 99.9% of cases already anyway, we may as well just apply them across the board for the sake of uniformity within the subproject. This would constitute ignoring the rules, for which I (and, implicitly, many of you) made a case above. Yucca brevifolia, Dionaea muscipula.

What do you all think? --NoahElhardt (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support option 2. For the sake of continuity within the subproject and to avoid endless debates regarding exactly which articles should be allowed to fall outside that 99.9% --Jwinius (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If those are the only two options (and I don't agree that they are - the third option is following the rules), I support 2. By the way, the idea that we're not ignoring the rules in (1) is ridiculous.  Or does anyone think Hesperian would agree that per (1) Cupressus macrocarpa should be moved to Monterey Cypress?  I mean, I don't think there is a better example of a plant with a common, unambiguous, precise and unbiased name than Monterey Cypress, and yet there the article sits at Cupressus macrocarpa.  If that's not a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, there is no such thing.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is such a strong example, so strong that you "don't think there is a better example", so strong indeed that you think it grounds for scoffing, then you should have no problem providing conclusive, or at least compelling, evidence for your claim. I look forward to seeing it.
 * But since you are unaccustomed to supporting your opinions with evidence, I'll get you started. The Google test, which I do not accept as particularly indicative of the most common name, but you apparently do, scores 45000 to 43000 in favour of the vernacular name, or 51%. On the Google scholar test, the botanical name smashes the vernacular nearly two to one. I daresay a proper review of the relevant literature would reveal an even stronger preference for the botanical name... but of course you prefer to aggregate unreliable sources rather than examine reliable ones.
 * So come on; where's your evidence in support of your claim? Are you going to rest on your 51%, or will you shock me by producing some more cogent data? If 51% is the best you can do, using a measure of your own choosing, and this is your very best example, isn't this a case of your fastest horse beating my slowest horse by a nose? And on a track of your choosing, and with my horse carrying the greater weight. Who, then, has the stronger stable?
 * Hesperian 03:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realise that the section of the naming convention that you linked say begins with the words "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..."? So we aren't ignoring the rules, we are operating within "the rules".  Guettarda (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of that clause; it creates far more problems than it solves. Anyway, that clause was put in to legitimize the ignoring of the common name rule for royalty, ship names and U.S. city names (in which almost all cities are disambiguated with ", state" even when disambiguation is not required).  I agree that if you define the common name rule as requiring use of the most common name unless a more specific guideline says otherwise, then the flora convention is technically within that rule.  But if you define the common name rule as "use the most common name", then it's not.  Again, that's why I'm seeking clarification - if you are trying to use the most common name, then do that.  If you're not, then say that.  Either way, be clear.  Hesperian's Draft attempts to come across as if it is consistent with using the name most commonly used, but it really doesn't do that.  I just want it to be honest.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having worked through as much of this page as I could stomach, I am in favour of option 2.

A couple years ago, when we made the decision to standardise plant names, the naming convention allowed WikiProjects to this. We have deviated from the "common name" rule since at least 2004 with place names. Prior to that, the argument that scientific names were most suitable for plants was made on a case by case basis, over and over. We chose to make use of the option offered by the naming convention. That decision was consistent with policy as it stood at the time, and as it stands now.

Over the last two years this decision has served it well. It has made editing plant articles far less painful. It avoids the nonsense of arguing over ghits, and the flood of original research that trying to come up with the "most common" name entails. Through the magic of redirects, there's no difference for users of Wikipedia - no loss in their ability to find articles. For editors, it has been an enormous benefit. Reverting to the old system provides absolutely no benefit to users, provides an invitation to edit war, and makes editing plant articles far more unpleasant. Just look at the discussion here - the "best" examples to use vernacular names are full of holes.

Finally, policies and guidelines exist because they make things run more smoothly. "Use common names" is policy because it makes things run more smoothly. The fifty-some exceptions that exist to that rule are also policy. Because they make things run more smoothly. We have a good system here which has minimised conflict considerably over the past two years. We have a system which is in keeping with the policy on naming...in fact, it's part of the policy on naming. Why do we want to throw that away? Why do we want to invite conflict? Why would we want to return to the bad old days? Why do we want to drag all the politicking and infighting that plagues the broader project into our little corner of it? Why break the system just because you are unhappy with a handful of names?

And a cautionary tale. Remember the fight that let to MPF quitting. It was a fight over how to apply common names. We lost a great contributor because his opinion of what a "proper" common name was did not agree with the opinions of several other contributors. Whether you agreed with him or not, I'm sure everyone will agree that the project is poorer for having lost him. And even those of us who didn't get involved would be much happier to not have seen that conflict play out. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another point that's often overlooked: It's also intuitive. New, anonymous, and established editors all seem to invariably create their new flora articles at the botanical name: User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult. I've been watching that page for as long as it has existed; I doubt many of the editors making new plant article contributions even know about this convention. --Rkitko (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if anything we do to this guideline would have changed the MPF outcome; at least when I saw those battles going on, they were about the content of articles, not about page names. However, the argument about picking a policy which will reduce disputes is a strong one, even if to my ears it would be a slightly perverse result to have, say, Quercus (or Quercus (plant genus) or whatever) rather than Oak. Kingdon (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WARNING: Disregarding the well established convention of using the most common name, especially for well-known topics with obvious most common names (like putting Monterey Cypress at Cupressus macrocarpa, will create at least occasional if not frequent attempts to change the name. Many U.S. city editors believed that all that was needed to put a cease to the debates about U.S. city names was to adopt a simple convention - always disambiguate with ", Statename" - but what happened instead was that people would, sooner or later, wonder to themselves and eventually on talk pages and at WP:RM about why certain cities were disambiguated for no apparent reason.  Eventually concessions were made and now the guideline explicitly allows for those on the "AP list" to not have to be disambiguated.  But attempts to rename cities with clearly unique names continues.  Anyway, I see no reason why flora should be any different, and you can expect people to wonder and eventually make move requests for articles at the Latin name that have clear unique English common names.  Each will lead to a discussion, and some to fierce debates.  If you think that will not happen, you will be disappointed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disregarding the well established convention of using the most common name... will create at least occasional if not frequent attempts to change the name...Each will lead to a discussion, and some to fierce debates. If you think that will not happen, you will be disappointed.

Born2cycle, is that a threat to be disruptive, because it certainly reads like one? Worse yet, it's a selective misinterpretation of that "well established convention", inasmuch as the well established convention is also to allow for WikiProjects to modify the naming convention.

The reality is that the creation of this policy brought stability and reduced the number of debates. Guettarda (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, dispute or sharp object
This discussion appears to be gearing up for a Wikilawyer love in, before looking for venues I recommend that people reacquaint themselves with WP:POINT and in particular POINT along with Disruptive editing. Either move forward or move back but the current situation that was created needs to be resolved that can only happen if people are willing to consider whether they are helping the situation or hurting it. Gnangarra 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The version of this guideline as it was in November 2008 unacceptable because it is contrary to Wikipedia policy as laid out in Naming Conventions. If consensus on the wording of this page can not be agreed then this page should be marked as Rejected (see Policies and guidelines). --PBS (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Contrary to Wikipedia policy as laid out in Naming Conventions"? Really?  Can you explain that assertion please?  Guettarda (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have laid out the reason above starting with the section . But I will restate them if the way I have laid them out is not clear to you. Would you like me to do so? -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, Philip - this policy has been accepted and has been stable for over two years. The simple fact that a handful of editors who didn't care enough to be bothered by this in two years suddenly launches an attack on a stable policy page over the holidays isn't grounds for threats like this.  Please lay off the hyperbole.  It isn't helpful.  Guettarda (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a policy it is a guideline. Was it widely advertised on such places as Village Pump and the naming conventions talk page before it was adopted (see Policies and guidelines)? Further consensus can change. At the moment it is clear that there is no consensus over this guideline. As can be seen by the edit history of this page there has been no "[sudden] an attack on a stable policy page over the holidays" --PBS (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's included in Naming conventions, which is policy. So yes, using scientific names for plants is policy.  There is consensus - it has been stable for two years.  Now you are attempting to change the consensus, which is perfectly acceptable.  But you can't deny that there's a consensus when this has been in place for over two years without any complaints raised.  And, umm...yeah, I looked at the page history.  After more than 26 months of being uncontroversial, this campaign starts suddenly this month.  December = finals week + the holidays.  Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. There is a policy page and guidelines (such as this) which expand on the policy page (See the very first two sentences of WP:NC). The naming conventions are supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy". This page is not policy it is a guideline. --PBS (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on Philip, there's no need to be a condescending jerk. Obviously I'm aware of the difference.  This page isn't a policy page.  Obviously.  I didn't say that it was.  But the convention of using scientific names for plants is.  Which is what I said.  You know, up there. Above your comment.  It says "So yes, using scientific names for plants is policy".  Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A consensus among a small group is not a Wikipeia consensus if it in clear violation of policy and the naming conventions policy is clear that the default is to use the common name not the exception. It can not be on this page because this page is a guideline and not a policy page, so where else is it stated that it is Wikipedia policy is to use scientific names instead of common names? --PBS (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "[I]f it in clear violation of policy"...umm...don't you think this page is long enough without wander off into irrelevant hypotheticals? Guettarda (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear see the section in the naming policy "Use the most easily recognized name". Where is it stated that it is Wikipedia policy is to use scientific names instead of common names? -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who is unhappy with the status quo and unhappy with the project's lack of interest in changing it is free to try to escalate it to the AC. I think project members have made a good-faith effort to respond to the concerns that have been raised, but in the end, if we're not convinced that changes are necessary, we don't actually have to do anything. Stan (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is consensus?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Species and names
I'd like to return to a point that may offer a way out of this. Most of the examples we are discussing are arguably articles about species. This is in part demonstrated by their having taxoboxes. I don't think anyone would disagree that at least some Wikipedia readers come here for information about species.

A purpose of scientific names is to unambiguously name species, and I don't think anyone would disagree that a scientific name is an appropriate name for an article about a species, despite our disagreeing on whether it is the best, or most policy-adherent, name. In the case of birds, ornithological societies have established one-to-one correspondences between English names and scientific names for most of the birds of the world, and ornithological Wikipedia editors have decided that these English equivalents should be used to name articles about species of birds.

Although some countries appear to have well-accepted correspondences between English name and scientific name for some plants, this is not widespread, and as pointed out, other English-speaking countries often have different names for the same plants. So, in general, it can be said that there is no useful set of English names that specifically pertain to plant species.

Any other use of an English name to pertain to a plant species, absent careful documentation that the species is meant, and not some other entity or grouping, is original research. A mention of a common name in an article about a species could be more precisely cast as "Plants of Yucca brevifolia, especially the single-trunked specimens from the southern part of the range, are often called Joshua trees," or "Along with plants of the related Pinus aristata, P. longaeva plants are often called bristlecone pines," making it clear that the common name does not demonstrably apply to the species.

Because of the burden of proof that an English name applies to a species of plant, I suggest that all articles about plant species default to the scientific name, and that any article about a species that is currently at an English name be moved to the scientific name until the research is done and presented in the article. Another way of saying this is that the scientific name is the only name of a plant species, until it can be established that another name also refers explicitly to the species, and then it still remains to show that the other name is in more common use.

Not all articles about plants are about species. It is my suggestion (independent of the naming issue) that taxoboxes only be used in articles about species (or of course higher taxa). Bristlecone pine and Rice, for example, should not have taxoboxes, and the latter in fact doesn't. (In the case of the former, I believe it is inaccurate to apply the common name to section or subsection Balfourianae, since one of its members, P. balfouriana, has not been called "bristlecone pine".) If an account of its species is a part of an article about an agricultural crop, perhaps the section on the species should have the taxobox, and the scientific name should redirect to that section.

This would seem to solve the problem, correspond with the naming policy, and avoid original research.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems rather sensible. It's also the way I read the existing naming convention.
 * If you have a list of plant species that's based on common names, it can be very difficult to unambiguously convert it into scientific names. People who try to work with "common" names usually end up inventing quite a few of their own because even in a local area people tend to lump some species under a single common name, while distinguishing among others that are part of the same species.  Most of the time, people just don't pay enough attention to plants.  Even where you have well known common names like "Joshua tree" or "bristlecone pine", people use the name for more than one species.
 * Under the best of conditions, the naming convention is an invitation to original research. When it comes to plants, it's almost intractable.  Is anyone willing to explain how we would go about selecting the "most commonly used name"?  Sans OR.  Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In many (most?) cases elsewhere in WP, the most commonly-used name is in the class of info bits that are so obvious that one doesn't need to cite a source. Debates about most-common names generally tend to arise over minor variations (middle name or not? require apostrophe?). Perhaps the most comparable perennial debate is over foreign place names (Turin or Torino?), and people do argue over whether some anglicized name is more common in English usage than the native name. It's not really helpful to say that one choice is based on OR and another is not - it's just as much OR to say that any given name is *not* the common name, as to say that it *is*. Anyway, that's why I proposed basing a decision on the concurrence of authoritative floras; it requires multiple authors to have listed a vernacular name at all, to agree on what it is, and to (tacitly) agree that there are no other names in common use. It's a pretty high bar, plus verifiable by anyone, and using only reliable sources. Stan (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as most people don't have a clear concept of plant species, I don't see how it's original research to assume that a common name isn't in one-to-one correspondence to a species (it's the same sort of issue as "on average, every atom in the cosmos is hydrogen, and the rest are helium). But, as I said before, I think the flora idea has merit, especially since a flora will use the name in a 1:1 correspondence with a species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with you. Floras aren't necessarily good sources for common names.  When it comes down to it, the people who write floras (generally) don't care much about vernacular names and don't apply scholarly standards to the list of common names they include.  I'm sure that there are some floras that aren't like this, but the only people who tend to care about vernacular names are ethnobotanists.  Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If what actually happens is that if a flora author just writes down the first common name that comes to mind, then if there several flora authors, and they all have only the one identical name come first to mind, then it seems pretty likely that the name will indeed be universally agreed as the one common name of the species. What I had in mind is that the bar is really quite high - the floras all have to list exactly one common name for the taxon, and they all have to list the same name. If just one flora mentions a second common name, then no go. The weak spot is with narrow endemics that appear in only one flora - then we may get misled by a single author's whim. Stan (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That makes more sense.  Of course it's still something of a "house rule".  Guettarda (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought of some examples from other naming guidelines that I thought were similar, but I found that the rules have changed:
 * 1) The commonest name for the university where I work is Cal Poly; it is so common that it took a major campaign to get the employees to call it Cal Poly Pomona. But "Cal Poly" is either not the name of a university (just as "bristlecone pine" is not the name of a species), or else it is the name of a different university (surprisingly, the edit wars are milder than they were on Cytisus scoparius and Verbascum thlaspi). The naming guideline now says to use the most common name even if it is not official, but a while back it said to use the official name, which is why the article at that time was moved to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I think using the commonest name for a university is fraught with the same problems we face here, and I wonder if it would also be acceptable to use the commonest name for a chemical element, if it differed from the one that the chemists use.
 * 2) Some years ago, I moved Alta Loma, California to Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, California because it is an unincorporated community that is part of an incorporated city. At the time there was a guideline that said to do that, but either it changed or I'm not finding it. TriBeCa and Brooklyn are so famous that they need neither a city nor a state, but Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, not so much. Perhaps "incorporated city" is not as clear a distinction as "university" or "species".

So it seems we're not the only ones dealing with these issues. Since a small number of editors seem to be enough to undo a consensus, I wonder whether we shouldn't re-address this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you'd know Frank Ewers then? Guettarda (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Frank Ewers of Pinus longaeva fame? Yes; he became Dept. Chair right after I left Bio Sci to move into administration.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to the original premise of this section, I think this proposal differs from mine in emphasis rather than substance. It seems to be emphasising the fact that vernacular names are rarely ever sufficiently precise (as titles for plant taxon articles), because they rarely have a clear one-to-one correspondence with the subject. A more-or-less random example: most species of Exocarpos occurs in Australia, an English-speaking country; but there are some species that occur in some non-English-speaking countries of southeast Asia. In Australia (and therefore, in English) these plants are vernacularly known as ballarts. Thus "ballart" is the only English vernacular name for the genus... or is it? Does "ballart" refer to Exocarpos, or to the Australian species of Exocarpos??? Without a certain answer to this question, the vernacular name arguably should be rejected as too imprecise to be the article title. I don't know if this question can be answered, but I do know that it is impossible to even frame such a question against the botanical name.

As for
 * "Plants of Yucca brevifolia, especially the single-trunked specimens from the southern part of the range, are often called Joshua trees"

I agree with the general sentiment here, but I think you will find it is very hard to find a citation for that sentence, and very easy to find a citation for the balder (and less accurate)
 * "Yucca brevifolia is commonly known as Joshua tree."

Possibly these two positions could be reconciled by
 * "The accepted vernacular name for Yucca brevifolia is Joshua tree, a name that is most commonly used for single-trunked specimens from the southern part of the range."

This is probably the most accurate way to put it but, again, the second clause would be exceedingly difficult to find a citation for.

Hesperian 10:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know if Curtis fabricated the "single-trunked specimens from the southern part of the range" bit in order to make a point. :-) I've never heard of any such distinction myself, and the local scientists habitually say "Joshua tree", despite Vegas being in the northern part of the species' range. Stan (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The "southern" part was a misstatement; the "single-trunked" was not—the spreading form of the northwest Mojave Desert looks enough unlike the single-trunk form that I have know people familiar with the single-trunked form to not recognize the clumped form as the same species. In response to Hesperian (and a further response to Stan), I wonder if we don't read too much into the use of common names by assuming they refer to species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's probably been the unconscious, unrecognised assumption that has underlain much of the arguments in favour of using scientific names...that by and large, vernacular names only coincide with species in a very approximate fashion. Most people don't pay that sort of attention to plants.  It isn't unheard of to need both fruit and flowers to make a certain ID on a species.  On the other hand, how many times have you had someone express disbelief when told that two leaves are coming from the same plant (since they don't resemble each other at all)?  Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know what you're talking about now, like around Tehachapi Pass - got some photos of those in 2007, to be uploaded soon I hope. :-) Certainly with cacti there are taxa with widely-known common names that have been reduced to varieties (as with the ongoing saga of Echinocereus triglochidiatus), and so one can get the comical situation where a species picks up additional common names from former species. Stan (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Define "common"
I think the real problem is in WP:COMMONNAME, which does not disambiguate "common" from "vernacular". That is where the guidelines need changing, because there the intended sense of "common" clearly is "usual", not "vernacular". The intended sense needs to be made explicit. WikiProject Medicine has similar issues, eg with the vernacular "flu" (see Flu (disambiguation)). Also, let's not forget WP:PRECISION. --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "most common" means just that - most commonly used, not "vernacular name". Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To me too, but evidently not to everyone. That's part of the argument over  vs Yucca brevifolia.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most people agree on what "common" means; the problem is with "common name", a phrase that is used in many cases for extremely uncommon English names made up for uncommon species of plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the guideline is quite clear what it means when it states, "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) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite stupid, since redirects can and do handle that. More and more I'm thinking that we should take this to WP:NC and settle it there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Stupid or not, that's an accurate reflection in the guideline of what the convention is. The problem is that you can't dictate what a convention is at a guideline talk page.  The convention is what is and has been done, for better or for worse.  All you can do there is debate about what the convention is.  Guidelines are supposed to reflect what the conventions are, not dictate what they should be.  And the way Wikipedia names have been traditionally named, by convention, whether we like it or not, is to to try to use the most common name used in the vernacular ("by the average Wikipedia reader").  With a few notable exceptions like royalty names, that is, and has been, the convention.  And before you bring up the "reliable sources" reference in the guideline, remember that that is relatively new and does not reflect the traditional convention, and arguably does not reflect actual convention, which has always been much more dependent on simple google test results.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a deep breath, read what you wrote, and perhaps modify it. You have just stated that one part of WP:NC can be ignored, because it is "relatively new and does not reflect the traditional convention". Did you really mean to say that you can pick and choose which parts of a policy to enforce?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are supposed to reflect what the conventions are, not dictate what they should be. Hence this guideline. Two years ago we created it to reflect what the convention for naming plants actually was.  It has been stable for two years.  It is in keeping with the main policy page.
 * And the way Wikipedia names have been traditionally named, by convention, whether we like it or not, is to to try to use the most common name used in the vernacular ("by the average Wikipedia reader"). Really? Did you read Curtis Clark's comment about Cal Poly Pomona?  This being an encyclopaedia and all, correctness has always trumped popularity. In addition, do you have any evidence that "common names" are more likely to be used "by the average Wikipedia reader"?  Have you ever heard someone use "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine" in conversation or in colloquial writing?  For the most part, "common names" that are precise enough to use as article titles are used by far fewer people than are scientific names.  Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of examples of plant articles named by common name, and many that were changed in the last two years to reflect this guideline, as opposed to have this guideline reflect that convention. Do I really need to dig those up?


 * While there are examples of where the most common name convention is not followed (my personal favorite is Fixed-wing aircraft), usually there is a good reason to not follow it on a per article basis.


 * The proposed title, "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine" reflects the most common name, "Bristlecone Pine" disambiguated per WP:D and WP:PRECISION by prepending "Great Basin" to it, because that reflects the "common name" contrived by botanists precisely to deal with this particular ambiguous situation. Unless you're unaware of that, it is disingenuous to claim that that full title is an example of a most common name.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fuck it is frustrating trying to deal with someone who loves to talk, but never bothers to listen. Go read my Ontario example above, and refrain from repeating this garbage about "bristlecone pine" being a common name of Pinus longaeva until you understand it, and have a coherent response. Hesperian 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Born2cycle makes my point for me, by inserting the claim de novo that the existing guidelines refer to common vernacular names. That simply is not true. --Una Smith (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course "use the most common name" refers to common usage in the vernacular (as determined by reliable sources). What else could it be referring to? A literary, cultured or foreign dialect or language?  Those are not common in English usage by definition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think about the only group of living things that common names have been regulated and capitalised etc. are for birds. There are no rules or guidelines for plant common names, and they so often change from country to country. Hybrid names are not common names as such as they are quoted terms appended to generic scientific names. The 'pedia is growing and needs conformity to look professional, and making odd exceptions for the odd species of plant here and there is not compatible with this. Huge numbers of plant taxa lack any common names whatsoever. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That may well all be true. It probably is.  I'm not challenging any of that.  My only argument is that if a given plant has a name that is more commonly used in the English vernacular to refer to it than is the scientific/Latin/taxonomic name, then the less commonly used name should not be the title of that article.  By putting the taxonomic name in the title we are implying that that is the most common way to refer to that plant in English, and we should not imply that except when it is true.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The title does not necessarily imply anything other than the subject of the article. You're suggesting here that most of our visitors are so gullible that they will believe that the titles we use are usually "the most common way to refer to that [subject] in English." Excluding scientific names that are commonly used in English, such as Geranium, do you really think that's true even when a number of common names are highlighted in the article? I don't even think you believe that, so you're just being argumentative. --Jwinius (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm very serious. I've been pointing this out for years, not about flora, but other articles.  In the debates about U.S. city names, I argued that, for example, San Francisco at San Francisco, California wrongly implies that there is some other use of the name San Francisco, and it's important enough to make the city not be the primary use.  Same with TV episode articles.  An article at Name (TV Series) implies that there is some other use of Name, and so it should not be disambiguated unless indeed there is an ambiguity issue.  It's almost the same issue here.  An article at Saxifraga oppositifolia wrongly implies that is the most common name used in English to refer to that plant, just as Aloe vera correctly implies it.  Again, I believe that Wikipedia can be a very useful reference for establishing the most common name (in English) for a given topic, assuming editors consistently make the effort to determine what that is in each case, and using it in the title (disambiguated only when necessary).  Since that's mostly already done for the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia, I firmly believe every effort should be made to do it with all the rest, including those about flora.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me know the results
I worked writing about plants for gardens. Finding common names was a nightmare. It consumed more time than any other aspect of writing up blurbs about plants. It took more time to figure out the common name than it took running through the various databases for the correct scientific name and synonyms, reading garden books and interviewing horticulturists for the growing information about the plant, and searching the literature for the physical description of the plant and the latest and most interesting scientific research.

I have actual training in finding common names for plants, and I find the task onerous. I had direct access to databases, journals, a room full of hundreds of books on the topic, and experts in botany, agriculture, native plants, and horticulture. You're going to require that editors do all of this, without the resources I had, before they can create articles on plants? (And google is a wash, as you'll soon find out, as common names on google are dominated by advertising trends.)

If I have to post plant articles under common names, I simply won't. And this is an area in which I have experience: plant common names.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Who's going to bet on Umbellularia californica's common name?
 * Good catch! and an excellent example.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that many of you might be unaware that the two commonest names are Oregon myrtle and California bay; each is horrendously POV to occupants of the other state.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason to not abandon following the common name convention in a specific guideline is that it causes editors to believe they don't need to do the "arduous tasks" involved with dealing with common names. The result is common names are not well covered for the topics of such categories: redirects are missing, editors of articles about other uses of those common names wrongly claim, and get, primary usage, links are missing from dab pages, etc.  Not using the most common name for the title of an article should not alleviate the editor from doing any of these tasks involving the most common name, but it usually does, and Wikipedia is not better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not true, B2c; you are again being willfully obtuse. I've already shown you examples above from the snake articles that I work on of how I've gone out of my way to create categorized redirects for common names and taxonomic synonyms that outnumber the articles many times over. I find this a completely logical approach, because it not only prevents duplication, but ensures that as many people as possible will be able to find what they are looking for. --Jwinius (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good for you. You are an example of an exceptional editor, Jwinius, not a typical one.  All I'm saying is that with articles where the most common name is used as the title, the arduous tasks of identifying the most common name, dealing with other uses, determining the primary use (if any), adding links on dab pages, etc., etc., are all handled because they must be.  On articles within categories where the most common name is not used as the title these arduous tasks are often not done.   I have a plant example below (just to illustrate), and outside of plants I like to use the example of Plymouth.  Because U.S. cities are automatically dabbed by state, uses of the most common name (just the city name) are often not checked, and when editors of another use claim it as primary, they often end up getting it, based on the argument that no other article is at that name.  Well, yeah, but that's because the other article, Plymouth, Massachusetts, or some plant name at its Latin name, is not at its most common name but is automatically dabbed by default.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is not inevitable that editors who use scientific names for article titles always ignore making redirects for vernacular names (and taxonomic synonyms). You have my example, so now you can help out. On the other hand, it is grotesque to suggest that adopting a policy that favors vernacular names is a better solution because you think the inevitable ensuing arguments will more likely lead to the creation of the appropriate redirects. That isn't true either. I managed to find as many vernacular names for various snake species through research -- not through bickering. --Jwinius (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. You don't want me to write plant articles, I'll be glad to go so you can have common names for plants.  Please do tell what you'd use for Umbellularia californica, though, and, also, the article needs work.  Why don't you do that, finish the article, while you find the best common names and the rest of us lazy incompetent editors disappear for your benefit?  --KP Botany (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, if you can't argue arguments that support your point without insulting people, maybe you don't have any arguments that support your position. --KP Botany (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're insulted by the objective words (not specific to you or anyone else in particular) of a complete stranger who knows nothing about you, that's your problem, frankly (NOTE: unless you're denying that you're looking forward to not having to deal with common names, which is what your words implied and all I said about you specifically... that's insulting???). To answer your question, I would use the google test. If the results do not indicate a "most common name", and a "coin toss choice" is not supported by consensus (or if the sci/Latin name proves to be most common) then I'd go with the scientific Latin name as a compromise.  But my point is that none of that alleviates the editor from the "onerous task" of needing to make sure each of the common names either redirects to the article (if it is the only use of that name in Wikipedia, or the primary use), or is included on the dab page for that common name if some other use is primary, or there is no primary use.
 * It should be noted that while Pepperwood and Headache Tree are both listed in the article as common names of Oregon myrtle, there is no link to that article at the Pepperwood dab page, nor a redirect to it from Headache Tree. This is typical of editors who do not appreciate and respect Wikipedia's common name convention, but load up the text with a myriad of obscure common names to make it appear that the selecting the most common name is hopeless.  I have no idea whether that applies to you, but if you're insulted by it I guess that answers that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I predicted that neither Born2cycle, PBS, nor Septentrionalis would ever lift a finger to actually contribute content to any plant article, and it seems that Born2cycle is more interested in proving a point than building an encyclopedia. I regard the statement that "headache tree" was added "to make it appear that the selecting the most common name is hopeless" as a personal attack on First Light, evidently based on these edits, but the addition of that common name was made by MPF here. MPF left Wikipedia in large part because of disputes over which common name was correct for a number of species.


 * Oh, and Born2cycle always insults people. It's his way of achieving consensus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A personal attack? All I pointed out was that Headache Tree was not a redirect to the article.  How is that a personal attack on anyone, much less on anyone in particular?  That's a bizarre accusation, Curtis.  For the record, I did not review the history of the article.  I just looked up each of the common names listed in the article, and noted the neglected ones (which my hypothesis correctly predicted would exist).  Why anyone would b e insulated by plain facts is really odd.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take you at face value, and assume that you believe "load up the text with a myriad of obscure common names to make it appear that the selecting the most common name is hopeless" is merely a statement of "fact" (in quotes, since you didn't really look at the article history) and not a value judgment.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * KP said "I've done the work, it's very difficult". Your reply is to belittle the task, and say "use Google".  Personal attack or not, it's terribly rude and reads like a personal attack.  If you didn't mean it to be a personal attack, in the spirit of good-faith attempts at civil communication, it would be very nice if you could strike that comment and replace it with something a little more civil.  Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to belittle the task of dealing with common names! To the contrary, I recognize that it is difficult and arduous.  All I'm saying is that it must be done whether the most common name is used as the title or not, and that it is significantly more likely to be done if the convention to use the most common name as the title is followed as much as is reasonably possible.  I'm still bewildered by the interpretation of this point as being insulting or belittling.  He asked what I would use, and I answer how I would do it.  Perhaps  my answer conveyed a simplicity that I did not intend; I assumed it was obvious that these determinations are often difficult. But that's true for articles throughout Wikipedia, not just those in flora, and I don't see why flora should get a "free pass" to avoid that work, especially when that common name work still needs to be done even when the most common name is not used as the actual title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of "Not using the most common name for the title of an article should not alleviate the editor from doing any of these tasks involving the most common name, but it usually does, and Wikipedia is not better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it," (emphasis added) is not a personal attack?--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettable; as regrettable as the WP:IDHT which has resulted from it. Neither, however, makes this position consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * KP Botany is clearly looking forward to "Not using the most common name for the title of an article". Does anyone dispute this?  Is it a personal attack to point this out?  Is it a personal attack to point out an unintended consequence (editors not managing common name issues as well) of doing that?  Is it a personal attack to state my opinion that that unintended consequence is not good for Wikipedia?  I don't get it.  Maybe there is some other way to interpret my words that I'm just not seeing, and if that interpretation is a personal attack, I hereby apologize for it and I do regret that.  But in no way did I intend to personally attack anyone.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has ever proposed mandating vernacular names everywhere; but there is no consensus against using them in the case (relatively rare in number of species, but quite common in overall English discourse) where a unique, unambiguous, commonly used English name exists. I would go much further than no consensus against; but that is sufficient to make this no guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No consensus? This guideline has stood for 26 months without anyone voicing a concern about it, and was the way we did things even before.  There was solid consensus.  The assertion that three editors saying "I don't like it" means no consensus exists is ridiculous.  If you want to get consensus to change the guideline, get consensus to change it.  You can't simply claim a guideline doesn't exist by fiat.  We don't work that way in Wikipedia.  Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because nobody outside its handful of owners noticed this piece of eccentricity until recently. On the contrary, the burden of proof rests on those who claim consensus to demonstrate its existence. The recent test at Talk:Yucca brevifolia shows that cosnsensus on the claims of this page failed at the first test; it got less than 50% approval (7-4 against by my count), and nobody ourside the clique who originated it agreed with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The more I read here, and the more aggravation and insults I receive over disambiguation pages such as, the more I am in favor of a guideline or even a policy to prefer taxonomic names. --Una Smith (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the guideline explicitly stated that it was ignoring the Wikipedia convention to use the most common name for the title in favor of titling articles per the nomenclature of the scientific taxonomic system, instead of pretending like it was complying with it, and included instructions explaining the importance of managing common names of the plants (with respect to redirects, determining primary usage, links on dab pages and hat notes as appropriate, etc.), I would favor that over the current wording (or the Draft wording). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, the Wikipedia convention says that you should use the most common name except where specified otherwise by a WikiProject. So how can you be ignoring the naming convention?  Not to mention that, by and large, we are using the most common name that we can accurately, precisely and unambiguously apply to the taxon... Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the terms convention and guideline are often conflated, but there are two distinct concepts here. Using the most common name is the convention; the general guideline is to follow the convention except when more specific guidelines dictate otherwise.  But when more specific guidelines dictate otherwise, they are dictating to not follow the convention (but that is following the guideline).  I just want this guideline to state that.


 * If the as long as we can "accurately, precisely and unambiguously apply" the common name standard that is used here was used in all of Wikipedia, then very few articles would be named by their common name. Even well-known names like Paris, Apple, Cork and Rope could not be the titles of their articles.  I don't see why flora should be an exception.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A policy page is a policy page. It needs to be understood and interpreted as a whole.  You can't take one piece out of context and use it to shoot down other pieces.  That's wikilawyering, and that's not acceptable.  Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the policy needs to be understood and interpreted as a whole. I agree you can't take one piece out of context and use it to shoot down other pieces.  I agree that's wikilawyering, and that's not acceptable.  If you think that's what I'm doing, I'm not being very clear.  Which piece do you think I'm taking out of context, and which piece or pieces do you think I'm shooting down with that piece?  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that one part of a sentence in the NC should be taken as policy, but that the beginning of the same sentence should be discounted as a mere guideline: Using the most common name is the convention; the general guideline is to follow the convention except when more specific guidelines dictate otherwise. Take the entire NC as policy, don't try to argue that one half of a sentence overrides others.  Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I'm arguing that one half of the sentence overrides the other? I am distinguishing them in terms of convention and guideline, but that's for clarity, not to imply that one overrides the other.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent, in reply to B2C)
 * I assumed it was obvious that these determinations are often difficult. But that's true for articles throughout Wikipedia, not just those in flora, and I don't see why flora should get a "free pass" to avoid that work, especially when that common name work still needs to be done even when the most common name is not used as the actual title No, it isn't true for most articles in Wikipedia. The vast majority of articles in Wikipedia have a terribly obvious title.  The point is that given that (a) for the vast majority of plant species, the scientific name is the most commonly used name in English, (b) where they exist, most vernacular names map poorly onto scientific names for plants, (c) where they exist, vernacular names tend to be used for different species in different areas, (d) where they exist, there generally isn't a reliable source that would allow us to determine which of the vernacular names is "most commonly used", and (e) the fact that, where they exist, "formal" vernacular names are very, very rarely used, the most practical tool for naming plant species is the use scientific names.  The naming convention explicitly allows for things like this.  There is no "free pass".  All we have here is an attempt to apply the rules fairly, in keeping with policy, in a manner that promotes stability in plant articles, and which has promoted stability in plant articles for more than two years.  Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was true "for most articles in Wikipedia". I said it was true for articles throughout Wikipedia, and the WP:RM history is evidence of that


 * Compelling arguments can and have been made for not following the common name convention (by which I mean the simple practice of using the most common name for the title, not the explicit words of the guideline that reflects that practice, and allows for exceptions) for all kinds of articles within Wikipedia, some successfully and others not. In the area of U.S. city names, a compromise was reached to allow cities on the "AP list" to use the general most common name convention, while all others must follow the specific/specialized city, state convention.  With respect to TV episode names, the decision was made to follow most common name, and only disambiguate (with the TV series name in parentheses), only when the episode name conflicts with other uses.  What's going on here is a debate about whether flora should be yet another exception to  following the convention to use the most common name for article titles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, so you are proposing that the odd plant article now and then have an article at common name...and the rest not? I am trying to follow what it is you want. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I support the notion that all articles in Wikipedia, with individual specific exceptions at the article (not group or category) level (for various reasons not the least of which is that Wikipedia is a resource not only for article content, but as a specification about what is the most common name used to refer to each topic), follow the use the most common name convention, and I see no reason why this should not apply to flora articles. For articles which have no name in the vernacular, or no name commonly used in the vernacular, then the scientific/Latin/taxonomic name should be the title.  But for articles about topics that have a single name most commonly used in all English vernaculars, that name should be used.  Also, if there are multiple vernacular names, the most commonly used one of them should be used as the article title (disambiguated as necessary), unless the taxonomic name happens to be the most commonly used (e.g., Aloe vera), or consensus simply cannot be reached on which is the most common.  Frankly, I have no idea how that would affect the distribution of flora articles between English and Latin names, and whether that would mean only the "odd plant article now and then" would have its article at the the common name, or whether it would be more often than that, but I don't think that the frequency matters.  What matters is that the most commonly used name to refer to each topic in Wikipedia is as accurately reflected in the title of each article as is reasonably possible, and that means using the common English name when it is the most commonly used term.  After all, it may well be true that the flora category is dominated by relatively obscure (in terms of how often they are likely to be looked up and read) plants that don't have names in the vernacular.  It's the well-known ones that are most likely to be researched and visited, and those are the very ones most likely to have well-known names in the vernacular commonly used to refer to them.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the notion that all articles in Wikipedia, with individual specific exceptions at the article ... follow the use the most common name convention OK, but that has nothing to do with this page. If you want to change the naming convention, you need to do that at WP:NC.  This isn't the place to discuss your desire to change core policy and eliminate 50+ guidelines.
 * For articles which have no name in the vernacular, or no name commonly used in the vernacular, then the scientific/Latin/taxonomic name should be the title. But for articles about topics that have a single name most commonly used in all English vernaculars, that name should be used.  Also, if there are multiple vernacular names, the most commonly used one of them should be used as the article title (disambiguated as necessary), unless the taxonomic name happens to be the most commonly used (e.g., Aloe vera), or consensus simply cannot be reached on which is the most common. Err...that's how we ended up with this guideline in the first place because the vast majority of plants fall into the latter category.  So why not standardise it for the handful of exceptions?
 * Frankly, I have no idea how that would affect the distribution of flora articles between English and Latin names, and whether that would mean only the "odd plant article now and then" would have its article at the the common name, or whether it would be more often than that, but I don't think that the frequency matters.[Emphasis added] Don't you think it's imperative that you figure that out before you raise a ruckus here? Do you have such little respect for your fellow editors time that you couldn't even be bothered to get a sense of the most basic idea of what you're asking?  *Sigh*  Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't think the frequency matters. This is partly true because with respect to article naming, not all articles are weighted equally.  In particular, the ones that are most frequently viewed and referenced are most important, and those are the ones most likely to have common names in the vernacular. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this about plants, or plant species?
Maybe this is about much more than just article naming.

As has been noted by several people, one of the problems here is that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between plant species as identified by the scientific community and, well, plant topics (for lack of a better term) as known by the public at large. Of course there is plenty of overlap, but there is a lot of muddling, to be sure. For example, most people who know about Monterey Cypress trees probably think of them as the trees that are known to be native to two groves on the Monterey Peninsula in central California. But it turns out this species is cultivated worldwide as a small bushlike ornamental plant. Now, genetically, they may all be the same species, but the native tree itself is widely known as Monterey Cypress, while the bushlike plant is often referred to only by the taxonomic name, Cupressus macrocarpa. Even though they are genetically the same species, does it really makes sense to have only one article? Shouldn't there be one article about the native tree most commmonly referred to as Monterey cypress (I mean, isn't that a topic separate from the cultivated plant?), and another article about the cultivated plant most commonly referred to as Cupressus macrocarpa?

On the other hand, do we really need to have separate articles for every species of Bristlecone Pine? Can't the slight differences be covered in one article, that focuses on what they have in common? Are Wikipedia users served well by having separate articles on every single species? I'm all for trying to cover every species, I just am questioning the idea of whether Wikipedia is best served by a one-to-one relationship between articles and species, or whether a less academic and more pragmatic relationship would serve its goals better.

I think that's one of the objections I've felt about the taxonomic names that I have been unable to articulate - that their usage implies a simplistic one article per species relationship that I'm not sure serves Wikipedia users as well as other more nuanced approaches might. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, that's like saying we should lump Terbium and Ytterbium into a single article, because most people don't know the difference anyway. After all, they're rare earths.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking about a lumping approach that has been pretty roundly rejected by all ToL participants. While it's plausible for genera with just a couple species, and you'll often see starter articles describing several species with a sentence or two for each, it doesn't work for the taxa with 150 or 1,500 species - and there are a bunch of those in the plant world. And what criteria would one apply? If there are three featured-article-class writeups on three related species, will we have to insist that nobody split them into three articles, because the only way to distinguish the three articles is with Latin names? It seems a little backwards to twist and contort all the content so as to conform to one person's idea of a good naming convention. Stan (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not saying that all species of one genus be lumped into a single article. I just think part of properly and effectively covering these topics should include deciding how best to cover them with respect to article organization.  If a genus has only a few species with unremarkable distinctions, or distinctions that could easily be covered within a small part of an article the bulk of which is devoted to what all the species in the genus have in common, why have separate articles for each species?  And the Monterey Cypress example is not about lumping at all, but the opposite, really.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why have separate articles for anything? Why allow stubs? These are broader questions than the narrow ones addressed in this discussion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And you know, it's not like the people who've spent many years and added many thousands of words to ToL articles haven't thought about all this already. We're not a bunch of idiots who have been drooling on ourselves while waiting for your gems of insight. If you had bothered to read the 24 pages of archive, starting with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive1 from 2002, you would see that the actual participants have been working on these issues all along. Certainly hundreds of editors are not going to change what they do based on a non-participant's comment in a naming conventions discussion! Stan (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple answer to B2C: read the discussion. We've already answered that question.  Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what Born2cycle is saying is a group of plants that all share a common evolutionary ancestor; and is thus recognised by botanists as significant; defined; given a name; and extensively studied;— is non-notable and undeserting of an article. But a group of plants that a bunch of average Joes refer to by the same name, is notable and does merit an article. It's just more of the same off-topic anti-science populist extremism. Hesperian 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Again, I agree each species should be covered (as a goal anyway), as should their genetic relationship.  I just don't see why there should necessarily by a 1:1 relationship between species and Wikpedia articles.  This has not been addressed, much less answered.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Latin is preferred to English?
When a typical English-speaking person wants to read an article about, for example, purple saxifrage in an English-language encyclopedia, they will look up purple saxifrage and not think of Saxifraga oppositifolia. Why not put plant names under the most common English name, if there is one we can agree on? That makes a lot more sense to me. Our writing style should be clear and accessible to English speakers, no?

Only if there is a lot of debate about which common English name to use, or if the English common name is highly ambiguous (and used for many different species, depending on the region), then maybe the scientific binomial nomenclature can come in handy.

Why not use plain English instead of scientific jargon as the main article name? The binomial name is useful too, and it features prominently at the top of every article. No need to have it be the main article name, though.--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to go over the same ground?! When are "you people" going to learn?! Using Born2cycle's beloved Google test: "Saxifraga oppositifolia" gets 21000 hits; "purple mountain saxifrage" gets 2800; "purple saxifrage" gets 8000. Once again, the botanical name absolutely smashes the vernacular name, even using the Born2cycle's chosen metric. The botanical name is the most common name. Suck it up. Hesperian 04:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict.
 * It is more often called purple mountain saxifrage instead of the name you used. Read the above discusions for an answer to your question. Hardyplants (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if that's true, why is it not at Purple mountain saxifrage rather than at Saxifraga oppositifolia? I've read all of the discussions, and I don't see answers to Sonjaaa's questions.  There's very little if any discussion at all about the plain advantage of using English names instead of Latin. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha. Note that Purple mountain saxifrage is red, making my point above again about how specific naming conventions like this, that don't follow the convention to use the English most common name, tend to create the false impression that editors don't need to deal with common names, and results in various problems, including missing redirects like this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean the link and not the flower, which I assume is purple (or actually more of a lavender to my eye). Be bold! Fix it! You seem to believe that fixing these things is grunt work that only botanists are suited to, but that non-botanists can tell us how to name our articles. And you wonder why we don't engage with you on a logical basis, rather than assume you are insulting us.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My main interest at Wikipedia is article naming, and, in particular, consistency with the general naming conventions. The fact that these problems can be easily fixed individually once identified does not address the issue that there are myriads of them associated with every category of articles that does not follow the most English common name convention.  It's not my main argument for following the convention, but it's an important one.  So I mostly go from one naming conflict to another more focused on teaching others to fish (appreciating the benefits of following the general conventions) than on giving them fish (fixing the inevitable errors that result from not following the general conventions).  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha, the noob actually thinks that *he's* teaching *me*... Stan (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Teaching ≠ repeating your interpretation ad nauseum of WP:COMMONNAME when logical and well-reasoned arguments have been presented to the contrary. --Rkitko (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Plants can have dozens of common names; nearly all familiar types of plants have more than one name. Are you going to favor the most common name in the US, at the expense of the common British, or Irish, or Australian names? Or the other way around? So far WP has recorded only a handful of the common names I can find just by pulling a random plant book off my shelf and letting it fall open to a random page. The common name problem is so bad that many printed gardener's references organize by Latin names these days, especially if they want to sell internationally. Stan (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and an elevator is called a 'lift' in British English, your point? You people continue to miss the main point of the argument against you -- the name is supposed to be at what, from the whole of people who speak in English, is most likely to look up at article at. Even if something may have another name by a smaller portion of those, that doesn't mean that neither should be used; it's only when there's an equally valid chance that two or more names are likely that a compromise has to be made -- it's not 'any' time there's more than one. That's what WP:COMMONNAME is all about and what Born2Cycle and others have been trying to say. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "You people." Started off on the right foot, now, didn't you. "Some of my best friends are botanists."--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The "use the most common English name" approach seems common sense on most Wikipedia articles. If somebody has Norway Maples in their back yard or neighbourhood, they will call them that. Only a specialist would actually call it Acer platanoides in an English conversation or document.

If my neighbourhood is infested with Rock Pigeons, then I'll look for an article called Rock Pigeon in an English-language encyclopedia or dictionary, and not Columba livia. As you can see from this example, the species is also called Rock Dove and Blue Rock Dove, but Wikipedians were able to reach a consensus and use the most common name Rock Pigeon for the article name.

When there is a serious conflict or disagreement about which common English name is the most common, then of course, I see the value of using the scientifically neutral Latin nomenclature that only a botanist would actually use in conversation.

The reason I am making this plea for common-sense English naming conventions on an English encyclopedia is because I kept being cited this page after somebody undid my renaming of articles with obscure titles like Rubus spectabilis to plain English like salmonberry.

Are there not one or several naming authorities who choose common English names for various plants? We could either simply go with the common English name that is most common among the authorities (if they differ in opinion), or use the one broadest in scope, or use the one that has the most influence over the geographical areas where the particular plant dominates, among other options.

The fauna people seem to use something more logical. Maybe we can adapt their model or merge with them to make the species naming conventions uniform.--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And around we go again: "Norway maple": 108000 google hits; "Acer platanoides": 186,000 google hits. Once again, the scientific name wins the Google test. And might I remind you that Google test is heavily biased towards vernacular names compared to what WP:NC tells us to do, which is to see what reliable sources call the subject. Hesperian 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's comparing apples to oranges. There are certainly many mentions of the Latin name on web pages from all languages used on the Internet. We'd have to compare numbers used in English-language web pages only for the title of this English-language encyclopaedia. Similarly, I would expect the title of the article in a German encyclopaedia to be the common German name... and it is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitz-Ahorn --Sonjaaa (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Germany standardizes and has official common names. Few English-speaking countries do.  New Zealand does.  They ahve standardized English and Maori names for many plants.  Of course, in English, the most common name for many of the plants is the Maori name, just as in California the most commonly used name for some plants while speaking English is often the Spanish common name, while there also exists and English common name.  In this case, would we then use the second most common name because it is derived more recently from English, even if the English-speaking world of concern where that plant is, speaks English but uses more commonly the non-English name?  We could have a list of rules thousands of pages long to deal with plant common names in English to reflect the reality of the situation and never write another plant article.  Then Born2Cycle wins because his/her concern is naming articles, not writing them.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Modern English continues to adopt foreign words, especially from Latin and Greek.
 * English is used extensively as a second language [ibid]
 * The language is cosmopolitan, dynamic, and flexible (variety of German), the reason why it can and does embrace the verified names of taxa. The Latin and Greek of botanical nomenclature is stable and universal, in English and other languages, and is translatable, but it no less 'english' than any part of the 400 KB on this page. The familiar version of english, the (less) common name, either obscures the verified name, makes a specious translation of it, or circumvents it with a subjective, confusing, patented, useless, or bigoted description. Hope this helps to answer the query of this section's header. cygnis insignis 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here in southern California in the U. S. and A., we call 'em "pigeons". Nobody but an ornithologist would know WTF you were talking about if you said "Rock Pigeon". We also say "dove", even though there are two common species (not counting the pigeons). Why is it okay for the bird people to call their article Rock Pigeon if Rubus spectabilis is somehow bad?
 * I know these birds as pigeons, never as doves; in Manhattan pigeons are often referred to as "flying rats". --Una Smith (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard bronzewings called 'rock pigeon', but that is obviously the specious name of Petrophassa. cygnis insignis 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Birds are perhaps the only group of organisms that have a naming authority associated with them. Plants have no such authority; most plants have several vernacular names that vary across geographic areas. Some names can be quite local in their usage. Most people just know all conifers as "pines", even if they're not in the genus Pinus. Should we respond to that concern as well and rename every Pinus species article Pine (disambiguation title)? There are more reasons above that I'd rather not repeat. The draft created by Hesperian explains it thoroughly. Rkitko (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will add that there have been more than one authority on this - the often opposing forces being field guides for transnational birders versus national bird research bodies; and folk names versus names that reflect evolutionary affinity. Bird naming is not without its share of bad blood ! And you may like to check out Petrophassa. Shyamal (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of Antbird. What a headache that article's systematics section was to write, given the shifting meaning of "antbird" in the history of ornithology.  When I first worked on the article, the meaning of "antbird" shifted in the article.  Gaak.  Vernacular names may seem like a tidy, easy solution, but that tidiness is an illusion.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sonjaaa asks Are there not one or several naming authorities who choose common English names for various plants? Answer:  there are not.  Vernacular names are just that, vernacular.  They are made up by anyone and everyone, often by people who do not consult reliable sources.  Authorities do not "choose" them.  Some authorities do supply common names known to them, but that is all.  Many vernacular names are based on local POV;  ie, "red such and such", because locally the plant may have red flowers and local residents are unaware that the plant usually has yellow flowers.  Many rare plants have no vernacular name, at least not in English (should we then choose a vernacular name in some other language?  or the taxonomic name?), and many common plants have many vernacular names.  Trying to make a case for which one of them is the "most common" vernacular name is a stupendous waste of time.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Salmon berry has been a redirect to the species for over two years with out any issues raised about it. There are two different spellings for this common name. This is one good reason why using the scientific name works and then we use redirects for the vernacular names, users then can find what they are looking for.   If you asked me about salmon berry, I would not have a clue what you were talking about, but I do know what Rubus; so looking at a list of species names I would at least understand what I am looking for or at when the scientific name is used. Hardyplants (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

@Melodia Chaconne the name is supposed to be at what, from the whole of people who speak in English, is most likely to look up at article at
 * For the vast majority of plant species, that would be the scientific name. In addition, as has been mentioned higher up the page, even when there's a well-known common name, it frequently fails to map precisely onto one species.  To make matters worse, for many species there are several common names, many of which also apply to several species.  Sure, there have been attempts to come up with standard common names, but these are usually used less frequently than the scientific names.

@Melodia Chaconne it's only when there's an equally valid chance that two or more names are likely that a compromise has to be made -- it's not 'any' time there's more than one
 * Which means most of the time, when it comes to plant species. Just about the only people who collect data on usage of common names of plants are ethnobotanists (and precious few of them) - and they generally aren't interested in plant names in developed countries.  So overwhelmingly we have several names, few sources to attempt to determine usage, and serious questions about how well any of these names can be mapped directly to plant species...except for the scientific names.  Sure, there are probably going to be exceptions, but they are the exception.  Having this naming convention is preferable to having to argue, on a case by case basis, for using scientific names because, quite simply, there really are few better alternatives.  Since the vast majority of plant species are going to be at scientific names, it makes sense from the standpoint of uniformity and professionalism that we go with scientific names in that handful of plants where, presumably, one common name is clearly the most commonly used, and it's obvious that that name applies uniquely to that species.  Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sonjaaa said: "The fauna people seem to use something more logical. Excuse me, but I'm a fauna person and I believe that to "use the most common English name" causes the same problems for articles on zoological subjects. Just as with plants, many species of animals are associated with multiple, or even whole rafts of common names and selecting one over the other(s) never really proves anything. Yet how many hundreds of years of arguing have we managed to spend collectively on this kind of pointless endeavor? It's a pity, because it not only represents a loss of time that our editors could have spent writing more and better articles, but it's a depressing experience for many of our valuable specialist contributors, some of whom have actually left as a result. Remember that this is not just about the tiny number of plants and animals that you and I are aware of. Jimbo means for Wikipedia to ultimately reflect the sum of all human knowledge, so that means we have to describe all of them: literally hundreds of thousands. To do that successfully requires a very specialized approach: we have to name and organize all those hundreds of thousands of of articles in such a way that we can always know exactly which one is being referred to and where it fits in the tree of life. In short, this task requires that we use a heavy-duty naming convention that scales really well. Actually, this is a very old problem, the solution for which has been around since 1735 when Carl Linnaeus published Systema naturae. Ever since then the classification of animals and plants using Latin (scientific) names has been one of our most important tools for making sense of the natural world. So, if Jimbo wants thousands of biologists from around the world to come to Wikipedia to collaborate and describe the natural world for us as it has never been described before, do you think they are going to reinvent the wheel? I wouldn't hold my breath. But, we needn't worry: the redirects and dab pages for the common (vernacular) names will take us to the correct articles. Finally, look at it this way: like parents raising their children, Wikipedians in general should indeed be concerned that we all at least try to follow general policy and guidelines. However, they should also realize that a balance must be struck between this and the different needs of every individual Wikiproject. The last thing we want is for them to fail. So, if some projects need to be cut more slack than others, we should be prepared to give it to them even if their reasons are not immediately apparent to us. We need to learn to trust each other in this. Assume good faith, remember? --Jwinius (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

@Sonjaaa

If somebody has Norway Maples in their back yard or neighbourhood, they will call them that
 * Actually, no. Most people will call it a "tree".  Some smaller subset will call it "maple" or "maple tree".  And even smaller subset will call it "Norway Maple".  Most common usage "that tree in my backyard".  Google gives 83,700 results for "Acer platanoides" in English (and another2,510 results for [acer platanoides -"acer platanoides"], which is almost certain to references to Acer platanoides), 68,300 for "Norway maple" without Acer platanoides and 43,900 results for Acer platanoides without "Norway maple".  Taking into account that Google is a very blunt intrument, it's safe to conclude that, based on a Google test, there's no significant difference in usage.  The second issue would be to distinguish between references to the plant and references to the timber, since the should be considered separately from the plant.

If my neighbourhood is infested with Rock Pigeons, then I'll look for an article called Rock Pigeon in an English-language encyclopedia or dictionary, and not Columba livia.
 * Most people would look for "pigeon". "Rock pigeon" is an artificial construction made up as an "official common name".

As you can see from this example, the species is also called Rock Dove and Blue Rock Dove, but Wikipedians were able to reach a consensus and use the most common name Rock Pigeon for the article name.
 * No, they applied a naming convention which, like ours, deviates from the main naming convention. Bird people most definitely do not use "the most common name in English".  They're just fortunate enough to have "official" common names, so their selections look OK to "purists".

When there is a serious conflict or disagreement about which common English name is the most common, then of course, I see the value of using the scientifically neutral Latin nomenclature that only a botanist would actually use in conversation.
 * For one, calling them "Latin" names is misleading. They aren't Latin.  But more to the point, most plant species lack common names.  Where common names exist, in most cases there's no good tool to distinguish which name is the most commonly used.  For the vast majority of plant articles, "use the most common name in English" is unworkable.  So we refined it to make it workable.  If you have a workable alternative, I'd be happy to hear one.

Are there not one or several naming authorities who choose common English names for various plants?
 * No. Think about it - there are over a quarter million named species of flowering plants, 20,000 ferns, 12,000 mosses, 6-8,000 liverworts, about 700 conifers, and God knows haw many algae.  Compare that with 5,400 mammals, 10,000 species of birds and a little over 8,000 reptiles.  Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're Neo-Latin, and in recent years Neo-Latin has measurably diverged from classical orthography. That being granted, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't even Neo-Latin. You can name a plant anything you want so long as it conforms with certain rules of construction, which derive from Latin grammar; for example the rule that the gender of a specific epithet must match the gender of the genus name.
 * There is an agnostid trilobite whose scientific name is Han solo—do you call that Neo-Latin? And back in the early 1900s a dude named Kirkaldy named a series of Hemiptera genera Polychisme, Peggichisme, Marichisme, Dolichisme, etc; i.e. "Polly kiss me", "Peggy kiss me", "Mary kiss me", "Dolly kiss me".... Is that Neo-Latin? In 1956 Eames and Wilkes named a clam Abra cadabra—is that Neo-Latin? How about the tortrid moth Eubetia bigaulae, pronounced "You betcha by golly". Or the plant genus Hebejeebie. Neo-Latin? The bracinids Heerz lukenatcha and Heerz tooya—Neo-Latin?
 * But it isn't just puns that defy your Neo-Latin thesis: the subject of my most recent featured article, Banksia telmatiaea, has a specific epithet that makes use of the Greek stem τελματ-, which means "the mud of a pond". Neo-Latin? Hesperian 03:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I must concede your point with respect to the water beetle Ytu brutus. Hesperian 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly OT but I just checked the situation on Encyclopaedia of Life and it seems like they have solved this non-problem with numerically identified pages http://www.eol.org/taxa/17000072 for parking the entities. Shyamal (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the current wiki environment, that would mean a taxonomic serial number would be the title of the article and therefore most prominently displayed, so I doubt that will meet with much approval. In theory the DISPLAYTITLE magic word can be used to give such articles any title desired, but I've been told that doing so is believed to be too confusing. Therefore, in practice its functionality is limited to only changing the case of a tile, such as with iPod. Well, I see that lowercase is now being used for that article, but the last time I checked that was all we were allowed to do with DISPLAYTITLE.
 * As for whether this idea would really help our botanists (or for that matter our zoologists) ultimately keep track of hundreds of thousands of articles, I'm not so sure. But, then why do the EoL people, and for that matter other taxonomic databased like ITIS, use serial numbers instead of scientific names? I don't know, but I'm going to ask a friend who does. --Jwinius (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One reason, I presume, is that some scientific names are in dispute, often as a result of a priority dispute or a reclassification which has not yet been universally accepted. We've had an example in this discussion where the scientific name is unsettled, and the vernacular name is decided and unambiguous. But let us see what your friend says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We could see if the species has a common English name used in standard authoritative dictionaries like the Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Collins, etc. For example, my Canadian Oxford has entries for "lowbush cranberry" and "lowbush blueberry", because these are English terms for specific species. But I wouldn't find the Latin name in that reference. --Sonjaaa (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are specific? In practice, a general dictionary is not a reliable source for plant names, vernacular or scientific.  In fact, "lowbush cranberry" is not specific.  Lowbush cranberry redirects to Vaccinium vitis-idaea (lingonberry), but the name also can refer to an especially low growing Cranberry.  I have a plant nursery catalog that offers lowbush cranberry and I am puzzling over whether it is a cranberry or a lingonberry.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what part of the world your in, but around here, its Viburnum edule Hardyplants (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, the first four Google searches for "Viburnum edule" give the 'common' name variously as Squashberry (from USDA Plants); squashberry, mooseberry, lowbush cranberry, pimbina (Northern Ontario Plant Database); Highbush cranberry (Central Washington Native Plants); Mooseberry (Plants for a Future). And people ask "why not use plain English"? First Light (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made Lowbush cranberry a disambiguation page. Many other vernacular names need similar treatment. --Una Smith (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Born2Cycle's personal attacks
Apparently this editor does not consider saying that I make Wikipedia worse by editing without naming articles by their common names a personal attack.

I write and research good and useful articles, and since I am the single strongest advocate for including all common names in Wikipedia articles among the plant editors....

and since he/she does not consider me a worthwhile editor (a clear and total piece of shit personal attack that should not have been allowed), it seems that he/she does not consider common names worthwhile, making this whole mess of a discussion a simple waste of time.

It's time to quit this discussion with this editor. Personal attacks are damaging to Wikipedia. He/she's confused enough to both want common names as titles and to insult editors who advocate for the use of common names. Further discussion will, as someone else pointed above, get us nowhere.

Done.

--KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." 1


 * You made the issue what you made it. You accused me of being detrimental to the encyclopedia because I choose not to spend hours searching for the "correct" common name when there is no such thing in English.  Your personal attack is my justification for accusing you of a personal attack.  What's yours for personally attacking me, then accusing me of personally attacking you when I point it out.


 * "Not using the most common name for the title of an article should not alleviate the editor from doing any of these tasks involving the most common name, but it usually does, and Wikipedia is not better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it."


 * You state clearly that Wikipedia is not the better for my editing. Now, prove, with all the appropriate diffs necessary, that my editing style of creating plant articles harms Wikipedia or apologize without additional insults and personal attacks.  The place for your proof is called WP:RfC.  Build your case that Wikipedia is not the better for my editing style, providing all  the necessary differences, then post it at RfC and allow other editors to comment.  Then you can get me banned, as you seem to be acting in a way that says this is necessary.  Your opinions about me are not part of writing this encyclopedia.  Get it?  --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I most certainly did not state, clearly or otherwise, that Wikipedia is not the better for your editing. You're going to have dig up my exact words and explain exactly how you're getting these meanings that I know for certain I did not intend to convey with them.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." 2


 * Are you now saying I'm "foolish or boorish?"  Again, post an RfC with diffs, since you apparently know enough about me to establish this one more personal attack..  There is a place for your accusations.  Your opinions about me are no part of writing an encyclopedia.  Get it?  --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm just quoting what the WP:ATTACK says. I most certainly did not even mean to imply that you were being foolish or boorish.  My point (I thought it was obvious - wrong again) was even if you felt I was foolish or boorish, it was not appropriate to attack me.  And, yeah, I see this entire section as an attack on me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."


 * So, exactly what about my editing style is a comment on the article? Again, get your diffs up, show that I'm bad for Wikipedia as you accuse me of, and post at RfC.


 * What you wrote about me here in this section is insulting and disparaging. Per WP:ATTACK, that is a personal attack.  I realize that you believe I attacked you first (I still don't understand how, but I've apologized for coming across that way).  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, and once again, if anything I wrote was insulting or disparaging to you or anyone else, I apologize. No insult was intended.  I've explained what I meant with my words, but also acknowledged there may have been some other way to interpret that that I don't see that is insulting.  The only thing I said about you was that you looked forward to being able to use taxonomic names as titles of articles.  I also said that I believe there is an unintended consequence of doing that that is not beneficial to Wikipedia.  How you get insulted by any of this, I honestly don't know, but if you really did, I'm sorry.  I don't know what else you want from me, or why this is so important to you to bring up again later down on the page after it was thoroughly addressed where it happened, or so I thought.  By the way, you misspelled my handle. Should I take that as a personal attack? I suppose some people might.  My skin is a little thicker than that.   --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Misspellings in English are rather common. Did I misspell your handle in an insulting way?  Then by all means, accuse me of personally attacking you.
 * Now, get down to proving, with diffs, that I am harming Wikipedia, since you want my harming Wikipedia to be the topic of conversation, and since it is more important to you than supporting your points about common names.


 * Your choice. You chose.  Now get over to RfC or apologize properly by striking out your comment.  You've made it abundantly clear you are not sorry for the personal attack, and by using this opportunity to apply more personal attacks you've shown where your interests are, and clearly they are not in common names for articles.


 * Again, more personal attacks in an attempt to justify personal attacks. It's not about common names, it's about misengaging editorial resources to wheel spinning. As proof, I offer this assortment of continued personal attacks.


 * Take it back or take it to RfC where it belongs. --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Take WHAT back??? What are the exact words you think constituted a personal attack on you and that you want me to strike?


 * These are your words: "If I have to post plant articles under common names, I simply won't." [1]


 * I wrote: "Editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it", with "it" referring to an earlier clause: "Not using the most common name for the title of an article". [2].


 * So, essentially all I said was, "Editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to not using the most common name for the title of an article".


 * Is that not saying the same thing as what you said? Did I miss something?  If so, please explain what I missed and how these are not saying essentially the same thing.  If not, please explain how repeating what you said is insulting to you.


 * Now, to be fair my full sentence was, "Not using the most common name for the title of an article should not alleviate the editor from doing any of these tasks involving the most common name, but it usually does, and Wikipedia is not better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it." Here I was also referring to what I see as an unintended consequence of "not using the most common name for the title of an article", which is: "alleviate the editor from doing ... tasks involving the most common name".  I will be happy to apologize and strike these statements if you can explain to me how they are insulting to you.  Or if you're talking about something else, then please let me know what it is.  Thanks.  And thanks for fixing the spelling of my handle; I appreciate that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you want me to explain to you how saying that "Wikipedia is not the better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it" is an insult to me? It's an insult, because you fully intended to insult me by saying it.  I'm not a complete idiot.  I'm not totally stupid, neither is anyone else here.  You fully intended what is clearly an insult and personal attack of me to be exactly what it is: a personal attack.  You want to now accuse me of personally attacking you for noticing and commenting that your purely intended personal attack came across exactly as you intended it to, as a personal attack?  Then take ALL accusations against me to RfC or strike them out.  That's it.  It's simple.  You're discussing me and my motivations, tying them into the quality of Wikipedia.  I'm not a Wikipedia article.  Get it?  Your derision of me does not belong here.
 * So, you can keep going on, using my posts to issue more and more personal attacks. But I'm not going to back down from calling your personal attack exactly what you intended it to be.  How insulting on top of the personal attack.  --KP Botany (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to all this "attack" stuff on your talk page, here. It does not belong on this talk page, and I should not have engaged here in the first place.  --Born2cycle (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Or should I just sign myself "proud member of the floral cabal"? Cabal's a nice word isn't it.  Accusing me of being a member of a cabal, let's see what other Wikipedia editors think of using that word to describe people:  Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence; a cabal is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish. Because of this negative connotation, few organizations use the term to refer to themselves or their internal subdivisions.  --insert scarey or creepy music here--  KP Botany (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, is it just me, or is referring to another editor as an "evangelist" not complementary, shall we say? See below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just you. I regard myself as an evangelist in other venues, for valid, accessible XHTML+CSS. Sometimes I can even be annoying. You seem to be an evangelist, and I will leave it to others to say whether you can sometimes be annoying.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The evil floral cabal continues to be attacked
However, Born2cycle has apparently, by posting his personal attacks to my talk page, agreed to keep personally attacking me elsewhere, but only leave the so far issued personal attacks here. That's probably for the best.

Meanwhile, all you cabalist, keep colluding in shadowy corners against, well, again what. What are the floral cabal insiduously influencing, anyway, Born2cycle? Oh, wait, we can't say or we'll have to stick each other with thorns. All who know what a thorn is start sticking. Anyone who thinks that cacti have thorns sit down. Or did I say that backwards? --KP Botany (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying yet again for a way forward (and hoping this isn't just another arbitrary section break)
Short of either going to ArbCom or raising a ruckus to change WP:NC (and with evangelists such as Born2cycle, I imagine there are plenty of other editors who would like to re-address some basic issues), I see three ways forward:


 * 1) Abandon "Naming conventions (flora)" and create "Naming conventions (plant species)", with a statement along the lines of "like chemical elements, plant species (in contrast to plants in other contexts) have official names, and the readers of Wikipedia are best served by use of these official names, which avoid ambiguity, regional POV, etc., etc." This is the solution that I favor, and if there was some consensus support from my colleagues who actually author articles, I'd be glad to spare Hesperian the heavy lifting and write the draft.
 * 2) Stick with "Naming conventions (flora)" and do one of the following:
 * 3) *State that it is an exception. Born2cycle has stated that he sees this as a reasonable approach; cynically, I believe that he wants us to do this so that the smackdown can be bigger, but I'm still so naïve as to hope I'm wrong.
 * 4) *Articulate a set of steps necessary to establish that a specific common name is indeed the most common name in English for that plant species. This could be the (IMO brain-dead) "Google test" as long as we made it clear that the contending phrase must be in quotes, that they must be equally disambiguated from non-plant topics (try a search on "California bay"), and that, should a later Google test give different results, the article name could be changed without contest. We could also specify reliable sources (despite that they are evidently not as important in Wikipedia as I had been led to believe), or even regional floras (as Stan suggested). But it would need to be operational, to avoid conflicts, or at least keep them focused.

Whither, folks? (I initially typoed "wither". Freudian slip?)--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't see why we should abandon the current naming convention. Saying that this is an exception is redundant - all of these specific naming conventions exist as exceptions. The phrasing at WP:NC begins with the word Except. We have a system that has worked in a non-controversial manner for two years. There are people who have taken issue with this guideline, which is well within their rights. We all know that simply using "common names" is unworkable. Reliable sources don't exist to establish "most commonly used name", given the imprecision with which people name plants. Sources don't exist on usage, for the most part. The onus is on the people who want change to come up with a workable alternative. Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If Option 1 is regarded as the best possible clarification of the current naming standard for plants, then this has my support. Anything else is a step in the wrong direction. --Jwinius (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what Option 1 actually achieves. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)It makes clear that we are talking about species, not "plants". An analogy is "chemical elements" vs "solids, liquids, and gasses". Since a lot of anti-scientific-name folks don't know anything about plants (understandable), and don't want to learn anything about plants (bizarre), perhaps making it clear that we are referring to species will either (1) make them understand (not likely), (2) make them uncomfortable enough with something they can't even pretend to understand that they'll back off (probably not likely), or get them to attack the idea of "species", whereupon we accuse them of being creationists and point out that their concerns are WP:UNDUE. &lt;sigh/&gt;--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to change anything. Critics have delivered their best shot and have failed to come up with a workable alternative. They are always free to go to the AC, but my bet would be that the AC doesn't take the case, and the complainers risk getting swatted for generating more heat than light over the issue. Stan (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea for me to keep my paws off any draft we might take forward.

Regarding option 1, do you really mean "(plant species)", or rather "(plant taxa)". Regarding option 2, I also suspect a bait-and-switch; is there not some way to word it so as to say "we think this conforms with WP:NC; to the extent that we are wrong, we are declaring an explicit exception"? Regarding option 3, has it come to this?—must we violate WP:NC in order to convince people we are following it? WP:NC clearly stipulates that we should see what reliable sources call the subject. A convention that advocates the use of the Google test would not conform. I for one will not be dictated to by Google; if "use the most common name" is irreconcilable with "use the botanical name", then it is also irreconcilable with "use whatever wins the Google test".

Hesperian 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet you've shown that the Google test more often supports the scientific name.


 * I meant "plant species", because of oaks and maples, but I could as easily mean "plant taxa", since common names are misapplied at all levels.


 * The problem with "we think this conforms with WP:NC" is that we illogical botanists persist in taking it at face value, whereas it seems clear that some phrases are more equal than others.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, support option 1 then -can see the point about species, when we may want to talk about a group of plants such as roses (which are hybrids etc.) or somesuch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may humbly submit option 4: we have a sensible convention and a cogent rationale for it, which includes an explicit explanation of why we believe our convention is in accordance with WP:NC policy; and also, we have the numbers to win the day. Let us like-minded people go away to a user subspace somewhere, work together in peace and harmony creating the perfect articulation of our convention. Then let us then come back here, unveil our convention, guillotine debate, call a vote, and vote it in. Our opponents will shriek that voting is evil, and that there is no consensus for the outcome; but after all these kilobytes of discussion, no-one can say that we haven't made a good faith effort to accommodate different points of view; and certainly no-one can claim that any opposing point of view gets us any closer to consensus than our convention does. After weeks and weeks of circular discussion leading nowhere, surely it is obvious that there can be no better outcome than a convention that has the support of the main editors of plant articles, and is arguably in line with broader naming conventions. Hesperian 11:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)\
 * Some have made a good faith attempt (Hesperian among them), some haven't. I regret to see that Hesperian still disagrees with WP:Voting is evil, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. A rationale would be very useful, and should be included in the present text in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, voting is evil, all right; but not as evil as interminable squabbling leading nowhere. As I said elsewhere, no consensus is going to emerge from this shitstorm.
 * The beginning of a rationale is at /Draft. I would be interested in your opinion of it.
 * Hesperian 03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As often, we are heading more or less the same place. I could agree with almost all the substance if the tone were changed; but I will get back to this in the New Year. (Btw: the link goes to the talk page of the draft; you may want to tweak it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two solutions to an insoluble lack of consensus; express both points of view; or silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Do you approve of current flora guideline?
The current flora guideline claims consensus approval. Is that accurate? Let's find out...

For the record, do you approve of the current guideline?

Please vote with Approve or Disapprove.


 * Disapprove. Current flora guideline encourages use of non-English (Latin) names over common English names, except in very limited (too limited) cases.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * B2C, probably over 80% of all plant taxa lack common names, and many of the rest have more than one? Would you have an assortment of articles at either (and help nut out arguments over which common name to use, as quite often happens in bird species articles?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment I thought this wikiproject under ToL was among the few that took a sensible path on this. Being interested in plants only marginally (and without real botanical qualification), within a rather limited geography and only some access to outdated floras, I find it quite complicated enough even with Latin names due to variations in circumscriptions. I cannot understand how much precision in circumscription an English name can have. (My favourite botanical mess is in the cluster linked to Ocimum sanctum or is it Ocimum tenuiflorum) Shyamal (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove. We should use vernacular names when they are unique, unambiguous, and most frequently used. Shyama1 is another instance of a reply, as most, which points out (correctly) that for most species of plant this condition is not true; on the other hand, the plants for which it is true are those most commonly discussed in English, and those ones readers are most likely to look up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to clarify my example, the point I was trying to make was that one cannot contribute to a collaborative encyclopaedia when one cannot understand what the other editor is writing about or referring to. The example I quoted is one which I suspect is largely composed of content that could refer to more than one species. Shyamal (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or you could find out by checking the talk page history. If you did so, you'd find that the talk page had no edits at all between September 2007 and September 2008, and you can see the consensus developing in late 2006 and most of 2007. A lot of the editors are the same, because they are the editors who (1) work on plant articles, and (2) cared enough to hammer out a consensus.

The facts are there. It was a consensus then. (Arguably, it's still a consensus.) It's easy to disparage good contributing editors as being a cabal, or ignorant, or in some other way unfit, but it's not clear how this improves the encyclopedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You quote WP:CONSENSUS but does it not say in the first paragraph "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." How was there a consensus in 2007 base AFAICT this guideline was not widely advertised, for example was there a mention of it on the main NC talk page or at Village Pump? How can there be a consensus now for a guideline that is contrary to the main principle of the NC policy of using the most easily recognized name. --PBS (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence does not imply consent. The fact that the convention was accepted and applied with very little controversy for over two years (and for some time before that, since the convention only formalised what we were already doing) demonstrates acceptance by the community, or at least that portion of the community that cared.  At present there are 10 plant FAs, all of which (AFAIK) passed a thorough review and was accepted as a FA under the scientific name.  In at least one case, before this convention had been written down.  This naming convention has broad acceptance.  Yes, the three of you have a right to voice your opinion, and a right to have it considered by your fellow editors.  But we've been through this.  Over, and over, and over again.  Stop claiming that this somehow violates the main naming policy.  It doesn't.  Stop pretending that three (maybe four?) objections to a broadly accepted convention somehow constitutes a lack of consensus.
 * If you have some proposals for how we can modify this policy in such a way that it continues to serve the needs of the editors who contribute to plant articles and makes you happy, go for it. I would love to discuss ways of moving forward.  But please stop arguing these tired points.  They've been discussed, they've been discredited.  Move on.
 * But please bear in mind that Wikipedia is primarily a project to write an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in internet democracy. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Do you approve of this discussion?
Born2cylce claims to now have enough knowledge of plants to judge that past community consensus. I don't think he/she is listening to the current. Diffs. --KP Botany (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, do you approve of this discussion?

Please vote with Approve or Disapprove.


 * Disapprove. There are lots of sidetracks, more and more with each comment, but I can't quite figure out what Born2cycle's arguments are, except something along the lines of plants should be treated just like animals.  ICBN and those zoo folk should get a handle on that first.  Oh, and we should do away with species because they might not be relevant.  --KP Botany (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment while there is no harm in taking a straw poll, althought they tend to be divisive (see Polling is not a substitute for discussion), why did you, User:KP Botany, start it with what is little more than a personal attack on one of the contributors to the debate. Why did you not start it with a more neutral comment such as "I do not think that this debate over changing the guideline is a constructive use of editors' time ... For the record..." --PBS (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I will not speak for Born2cycle but my position is that this is a guideline on how to name flora, it should not contradict Wikipedia naming policy, because pages have to have names and the name should follow agreed Wikipeda policy otherwise there is a conflict between polices and guidelines, experience has shown that when there is contradictory advice between policies, or policies and guidelines, or between guidelines, lot of time is taken up with debates about what is best for Wikipedia (this debate is an example of this). If a page name comes to WP:RM should the closing admin put more weight on the naming policy or a guideline that contradicts policy? --PBS (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove. Strongly. He should have called himself "Born2recycle," because that's what he keeps doing with the questions and arguments that he submits here. His friends are the same. As a result, this has become less about debate and more about force of will. Because this behavior in no way encourages the efforts of valuable specialist contributors, it has become a good example of what is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. --Jwinius (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove. It seems certain people with an agenda have hijacked this and other related talk pages and turned them into a podium to air views in explicit defiance of any reason, logic, common sense or past or present consensus. As a person firmly outside the project (mainly because biology was really never my calling), I think that we are lucky with flora to have one precise, definable entity which is unambiguously what we refer to - that being the Latin species name. If the consensus of the scientific community resolves to change it or move it, then we have the new name as the article and the old name as the redirect. In other areas in which I work, naming is always an issue as there is actually controversy, but there shouldn't be here. Redirects are cheap and can be used to point any common names to the correct one, as the chemistry guys have done with, e.g. baking soda or bicarbonate of soda --> sodium bicarbonate and ferrous oxide --> iron(II) oxide. Orderinchaos 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's interesting about baking soda. Clearly we need to hurry up and agree to change all the plant conventions, so that the lawyers can get on over to chemistry and straighten those people out. Stan (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Iron(II) oxide? Good lord, who ever calls it that, except those chemistry weirdos? Next thing you know, they'll be changing rust to iron(III) oxide!--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Approve I always approve of discussion, especially when (as here) there is a real disagreement; discussion combined with attempts at compromise is how WP is supposed to work. Those who disapprove are free to spend time in any fashion they find more productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove. This has gone way past the point of being useful. There was some value in reviewing why we made the decisions we did years ago, but now I fear that people of good conscience will be tempted to give in to the loud and obnoxious, in the hope that they'll go away. The "discussion" that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on is a favorite tactic. I wouldn't call it a fundamental flaw of WP, but there is a contingent who care more about rules lawyering than about the content, and content creators should not let themselves be railroaded into appeasement. Stan (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. The discussion has long devolved into basically attrition argumentations, with little to no internal consistency in argumentation against the convention to the point it has become reminding of Civil POV pushing. Circeus (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What "discussion"?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. Further arguments by someone who is not well informed on the taxonomy of flora are unhelpful and have become tendentious and disruptive. I deplore the personal attacks that s/he has made above and wish to assure the victims of my sympathy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. Because of the ongoing personal attacks by Born2cycle—and his complete unwillingness to listen to, and address, other editor's points—this 'discussion' has gone nowhere but bad. It's obvious that there is no consensus to change the current version of the flora naming convention to his approved version. First Light (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disapprove of a tendentious attempt to overturn an excellent naming convention. For the record, scientific names are usually used by landscape architects, and even mere architects, as the best way to get the desired plant. For that same reason, they're also in common use by gardeners and plant nurseries. Ideally all common names not included in the specific exemptions in the convention should work as redirect to the approprite species name. Work on adding redirects would be a lot more useful than this long discussion. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I have no problem with a discussion of how we might improve or refine this naming convention, this discussion isn't going anywhere. Yes, a few editors have communicated their unhappiness with the naming convention.  But the naming convention exists to deal with some real issues that exist around naming articles about plant species.  If anyone who is unhappy with the current naming convention wants to discuss how might modify it in a way that makes them happy, while still addressing the needs of the editors who actually are involved in writing these articles, I would approve of that discussion.  But of this current discussion, which appears to be unable to yield anything useful, I disapprove.  Guettarda (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I get it.  Obviously my contributions here are accomplishing little if anything more than annoying others, and that's certainly not my intent, so I'm going to refrain from posting here any more, at least for a while. If anyone wants to know my views in general about naming conventions to understand why I feel so strongly about this particular aspect of it, I suggest reading this which has nothing in particular to do with flora; I wrote it about a month before the issues here were brought to my attention.  It might explain some things about me and my views to some of you, or not.  FWIW.  ---Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, you still don't get it. In the talk page section you cite, you complain about Harris being made a disambiguation page.  Harris, an ambiguous page title, accumulates links intended for articles other than the one that until recently was occupying the page title.  Your position seems to boil down nothing more to this:  every ambiguous page title should be occupied by one of the N possible topics that could occupy the ambiguous page title;  it should never be occupied by a disambiguation page.  That position leads to nothing but endless tedious arguments over which article is the primary topic and furthermore interferes significantly with one intended (and very useful) function of disambiguation pages, namely the disambiguation of incoming links.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, the discussion of that move is at Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, that was an interesting read. I find that I disagree with you almost completely, and I am surprised to find both PBS and Septentrionalis saying things I agree with. Although I see the philosophical point of making things easier for readers than for editors, redirects are cheap, and they remove most of the inconvenience for readers, but, more important, readers are not a limiting factor for Wikipedia. Editors are. If an editor's work can be made easier at only a small, often only hypothetical, cost to readers, I see that as a good thing, both as an editor and as a reader of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - coming in late I am not sure I am in a position to "approve" or otherwise a long discussion, but I certainly support the continuing use of the existing naming convention. If only there was a similar consistency for fauna naming, which is a "zoo" at present. Ben   Mac  Dui  09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing the project page
Can people STOP editing the project page without discussion? Not all taxonomists and botanists are watching every newly created plant article. If a user does not know which scientific name to use, they post on the WP:Plant page so that all editors monitoring that page can assist by looking the names up in Taxon, in data-bases, and in authorative texts. Can and administrator just lock that page from editing without consensus or something? --KP Botany (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why notification can no he placed on the project page but naming of a page should be discussed on the talk page of the article. As for protecting this guideline, please see The Wrong Version -PBS (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't quote lame Wikipedia essays, please. The point is, the policy is being changed over and over again by those who disagree with it.  And this is being done without any consensus on the changes.  What's the problem with just discussing it first?  Why is everyone so hostile to the botany editors?  Do you know how hard it is to write these articles to begin with?  ANd all I get for is told I'm stupid and lazy?  --KP Botany (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

117 changes since December 1. It's time to stop changing the policy when there is clearly, as shown by the number of changes alone, no consensus for change. And changing just seems to be an excuse to insult hard-working editors. --KP Botany (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that anyone was hostile to botany editors. I thought this was a debate about the wording of this guideline and an attempt to reach a consensus so all stake holders can live with the wording even if it does not say exactly what any one editor would wish.

I asked you on your talk page "Which part makes no sense" in response to a message you posted on my talk page. you replied in part with
 * Let's see, here is what the policy says:
 * "Article naming for flora articles differs from the standard Tree of Life policy in the following ways: "
 * And here's your change:
 * "The naming of flora articles has special difficulties, but is in general compatible with naming policy and the standard Tree of Life project."
 * And it seems that you were one of the ones saying the problem with the policy is it doesn't agree with policy.(I could be wrong, there are SO MANY WORDS that who could find any specific ones.)

My (PBS's) position is that this GUIDELINE has for many months contradicted the Wikipedia naming POLICY. I wish to alter this guideline so that it is singing from the same hymn sheet as as the naming conventions policy. This is something that other specialist naming conventions such as Naming conventions (astronomical objects) is able to do where like flora the vast majority of entities have no other common name but their scientific designation. --PBS (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that the sentence you are criticizing, is unreasonable, I personally would prefer to remove mention from the tree of life project, but I put it in to try to cover the concerns of other editors. --PBS (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your position is heavily disputed. To make an edit that you anticipate will be reverted is edit warring. That is true no matter how self-righteous you are about it. Hesperian 12:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not anticipate that my edits would be reverted without an explanation as to why they are being reverted. For example this revert by user:Jwinius states in the edit "Reverted to last version by KP Botany. These changes were not discussed." but Jwinius has not commented in this section on what was wrong with the edits and, as I have pointed out in this section I have discussed these changes to the sections and the change to the talk page which have not been discussed before are discussed here. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your changes served only to highlight your own position that this naming convention contradicts WP:NC. Seeing as you have not managed to bring about a consensus that agrees with you, what makes you think people were suddenly going to be happy to let you make those changes? --Jwinius (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is it that you User:Hesperian object to about making this guideline comply with Wikipeida policy? I have asked you this question before (see above "... What is with the changes that I made that were not correct ... 15:06, 2 December 2008 ") and you declined to answer. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The convention complies with policy and always has. I could go into detail, but I wouldn't have to if you actually participated in the debate, rather than periodically popping in to revert to your preferred version, as though the reams of discussion here are beneath one such as you who is always right. Hesperian 13:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PBS may be a system administrator. I think his problem is that he insists on looking at WP:NC as being a parent policy and WP:NC (flora) as one of its child policies. Therefore, in his mind WP:NC (flora) must first inherit the policies of its parent. The child can then add policies of its own, but it can never ignore, subtract, or override the policies of the parent, or else it will conflict. If this is the case, then perhaps some extra language should be added to to WP:NC to clarify that this is not always the case and that exceptions can and have been made. --Jwinius (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NC is a policy this is a guideline. Naming convention guidelines can and do complement it and supplement the naming convention policy, but they can not contradict it. This issue was settled a couple of years ago over the WP:ATT debate. One of the results of that upheaval (which in the end included hundreds of editors expressing an opinion) was that a specific sentence was added to WP:V to make it clear that WP:SOURCES (part of policy) has president over WP:RS a guideline. "... Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. ..." --PBS (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, then fire all the plant editors, tell them they're worthless and making Wikipedia useless. Which is really what these naming discussions are amounting to: people who don't write plant articles want to get rid of the editors who do by treating the editors writing the articles and doing the work in the most hostile and rudest manner possible.  I've worked with plant for a couple of years now.  I'm trained in searching for common names for plants.  The value of my input to the editors who want to change this policy?  I was told my contributions damage Wikipedia.  This is just beginning to seem like the usual Wikipedia anti-expert hostility.  --KP Botany (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * KP Botany misunderstands my reasons, at least; I want to be able to find the quite good article on Norway maples, and assist others to do so. That's the whole point of naming conventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, if that's all that matters, that issue has been resolved years ago: it's called a redirect. You can FIND the article by typing in the common name.  That's in fact, one of the things I do on Wikipedia and have done for years.  I also research common names for Asian and South American plants and make redirects to the articles under their scientific names.  It's nice to have resolved one issue, that was a non-issue! --23:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean on en:Wikipedia? He's an admin, but not a sysop.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, in general. I used to work with Novell's NDS, a directory service that also works with inheritance. It occurred to me that he might be thinking the same way. --Jwinius (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, gotcha. I work with Unix ACLs, which are inherited, but there is always the option to be less restrictive for a child object, assuming the account has privs to control.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Hesperian, I infer from your comments that you think the edits I make are not made to try to find a wording with which all the stake holders can agree, please assume good faith, and that I have not been active on this talk page. Since the start of December I have made 50 edits this talk page. Do you think that implying that I have not been actively contributing to this talk page is helping me and you reach a consensus over the contents of this guideline? If not why make such a comment? --PBS (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Hesperian on the 8 December you wrote "So what do you [(Septentrionalis)] propose? Shall we follow Naming conventions and apply 'the most easily recognised name [according to] what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject'; or shall we use your preferred option? These would appear to be mutually exclusive." Has you opinion changed since you wrote that? If not what is it that you object to over the changes I made? --PBS (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My (PBS's) position is that this GUIDELINE has for many months contradicted the Wikipedia naming POLICY

But it doesn't. And say that it does until you're blue in the face doesn't make it so. Please, please stop. This nonsense is excruciating. We've been through this before. Remember? Your insistence that creationism deserves equal time with science does not make it so. Your insistence that this guideline contradicts a policy that starts with the word except, that starts by acknowledging exceptions like this one, does not make it so. As I said above, if you can come up with a solution that makes you happy, while still meeting the needs of those of us who are trying to contribute content in this area, please do so. But please stop going around in circles here. Stop trying to define the problem and try working on a solution. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Guettarda Where have I ever said "that creationism deserves equal time with science does not make it so."? If this issue was ever to come up I would direct those involve in such a conversation towards WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Why do you make such an false accusation?--PBS (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PBS: I agree, along with Hesperian, Guettarda, and KP Botany (from this thread) - and many others who have spoken elsewhere on this page. There was a stable naming convention for two years. An edit war began, which you are continuing against consensus and without merit. If a long-stable convention is going to be changed, you need to seek consensus to change it first. That didn't happen. First Light (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a naming convention it is a guideline. Before the guidline template was placed at the top of the page was it advertised at village pump and on the talk page of WP:NC? If not where was it advertised? --PBS (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Guettarda your hanging onto the word except in a subsection of the "General conventions" section which links to a section in the naming conventions called "Other specific conventions" in that section there is no mention that "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases [of flora] except the following" (If it had then this contradiction would have been picked up much sooner that it was). Besides your interpretation of the phrase "Except where other accepted", raises two issues. The first is that you have not shown any evidence that even if it means this guideline (which I dispute) that this guideline is "accepted". As a guideline that contradicts the first section of a policy it is very unlikely to be gain a consensus (not a local consensus but a general Wikipeda consensus as reflected by policy). Secondly you can not take one line from a policy and argue that it supports a position that the policy in general does not support (see Wikilawyering). In the case of the naming conventions the current wording that exists in the section "Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name" has been at the centre of the naming conventions since 2002 and it states clearly that commonly used names are to be preferred over specialist ones. --PBS (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a plants editor and I accept the current naming policy. Fine, here, I accept it. The rest of the plants editors are using it. They accept it. So, go ahead, and find editors who don't work on plants who are willing to bully the plant editors into the slave labor of forced article creation their/your way. When you find this group of editors, let us know. --KP Botany (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC) PS I apologize to the cabal for speaking collectively.


 * PBS: "Naming conventions" also states that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Verifiable reliable sources means "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Not vernacular names, not regional names, not Google hit names, not names that all my friends use. The scientific names are now widely used, including by nurseries and gardeners (who are not specialists by any stretch of the word). This is supported by reliable sources, and is being applied regularly according to policy. See the discussion at Talk:Rock's Peony for an example. First Light (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting anything different. As to what are reliable sources see WP:SOURCES. All I am pressing for is that this guideline is compatible with the naming conventions policy. The policy is not unreasonable (and should not be read that way) and will often support the scientific name, just as it supports the widely used names in other academic disciplines. But in those cases where the commonly used name is not the scientific name the commonly used name should be used. --PBS (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I could go for that, as long as it continues on to say "... and if you think there is another name that is more widely used than the scientific name, you're wrong. If the taxon is rare or little-known, then it has no commonly used name other than the scientific one; if it is common and/or widespread, then it has many local names, none of which is more commonly used than the scientific name." There, problem solved. Stan (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply to PBS) Often, when a commonly used name is a vernacular name, it is also an ambiguous name. What then?  The ambiguity makes it difficult to even determine what is the most commonly used vernacular name.  An example is the lowbush cranberry mentioned above.  Unless the scientific name or a good photo is included, it isn't at all clear what is being named.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Una, good point. I offer an example to illustrate. Just today I ran across an article (Cachanilla) that is titled at the plant's vernacular name, which also happens to be the common name of the people of the region that used the plant. For the life of me, I can't figure out what species this means, so I can't put a taxobox on the page or categorize it correctly. --Rkitko (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Una Smith], the issues you raise are all things that can be covered by this guideline once the principle that the common name should be used if there is a common name. "... and if you think there is another name that is more widely used than the scientific name, you're wrong." Widely and commonly are not the same thing, it it were then association football would be under the name football (see [[football (word)). If as you contend there will be no case where a common name other than Neo-Latin names exist then all the articles will be under those names. If however some other common name is better for some articles, then that should be the name used and it should not be dependent on ticking one or more of the exception boxes that currently exist on this page.--PBS (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, what do you mean by "the common name"? Do you mean the name most commonly used in reliable sources?  Or do you mean something else?  Do you mean the most commonly used vernacular name?  --Una Smith (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) above. I usually mean commonly used name. If it is not clear by the context then ask me.--PBS (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Botanical Latin is not Neo-Latin. The former is a language pseudo-created for botanical nomenclature, the latter is a dynamic language. Neo-Latin, like all languages, evolved with time. Botanical Latin didn't, although the rules of nomenclature for plant taxonomy were eventually codified and change. --KP Botany (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm personally quite happy with the present position (latin names, with redirects from common names) - it is completely unambiguous, which, noting we're an encyclopaedia and not a social experiment, should be the key criterion in finding a schema which works in all cases. The same has been done for other scientific areas where common usage is non-systematic (or multi-systematic) and inconsistent. More importantly it has the consensus of the editors who edit in the area. And as Hesperian has repeatedly pointed out, WP:RS and WP:V (V being a cornerstone policy which, unlike NC, is not a constant source of contention and ego-warring) tell us to go with the consensus of reliable sources - you can't get much more reliable than the scientific literature which universally uses the scientific, i.e. Latin, names. Orderinchaos 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)