Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 3

Protected for 2 weeks
The edit warring is getting rather silly, and only serving to inflame the situation. Please discuss changes on the talk page (as in, here). -- SB_Johnny | talk  13:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you thank you thank you. :-) Stan (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you have to be thankful for; the protection accomplishes the most extreme end, which I was trying to avoid: while protected, there is no reason even to treat this as a guideline: This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, maybe we could have gone for over 117 changes to a policy page in January. Yes, thank you Johnny.  --KP Botany (talk)
 * Heh, so you think there is going to be a torrent of page moves now or something? I think only an idiot would start renaming articles, given the near-certainty that they're just all going to be moved back. But go ahead if you like, at least you'll be working on the botanical articles rather than bugging other people about them. Stan (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you folks are frustrated, but the "neener-neener" thing isn't all that much more constructive than edit warring :-). This guideline has served umpteen-thousand articles for a couple years now, and I protected it because even if it's going to be changed, it should be changed by cool, well-thought-out discussion, not an edit war. While it's not quite as much of a problem as editwarring over italics in the taxobox, it's really much better to discuss, agree, and then make any changes deemed necessary. -- SB_Johnny | talk  20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

More fun things to consideration WEEDS win again
Besides the fact that finding the most common common name will be original research with plants since they're not standardized, what's going to be even more fun is WEEDS!!!!

Yup, because the most commonly used vernacular name in English for most weeds comes from the area where they are a problem. This means, hold onto your hats, MPF was one of the best plant editors around, we'd get to call the Cytisus scoparius article Scotch Broom! after the American name, rather than Broom.

So, we won't be using the native common name for plants that originate in small areas of English-speaking countries, then become horrid weeds elsewhere.

Weeds rule everything.

--KP Botany (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, there it is again, the gods of google declare Cytisus scoparius to be more common than Scotch Broom. This will be a fun policy, and easy to implement. No one will write articles. They'll simply discuss the names. Does anyone who doesn't know plants ever wonder why botanists and horticulturists don't standardize common names like birders do? Still, we get to list Scotch Broom first, then the silly ole name it's given in its native land falls way down the list....

PS Wikipedia ought to adopt a policy to prevent this, something about the big countries of English speakers don't get to trump the native speakers in smaller English-speaking countries everywhere.

(above unsigned comment by ...?)

Arguments about which name is the most common name occur in all areas of Wikipedia, not just concerning names of organisms. They mostly boil down to interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and they are truly tedious. I have been tracking some that come to Requested moves and involve disambiguation pages, here. --Una Smith (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They are tedious and unnecessary discussions. This isn't an encyclopedia for only well known organisms with common names.  It's an attempt at encyclopedia with all species, the well-known and poorly known.  Scientists adopted scientific names for precisely the reason we're fighting right here, right now: common names don't work when trying to organize and understand organisms and share knowledge about them.  People will fight this until they're blue, but it will never change.  Common names don't work, because they don't precisely define an organism.  And encylopedia articles about organisms are attempts to precisely describe them.  The demand that this be done as imprecisely as possible is pointless, because the people who have the knowledge to do it know what a monumental waste of time, what a complete exercise in futility it is.  Disrespect the expert knowledge all you want, but when it comes down to it, the people qualified to write the articles Wikipedia claims to want will have to use scientific names to do so.   Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time discussing reinventing the wheel instead of writing articles.  It's not going to happen.  --KP Botany (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree that vernacular names don't work for many plants. But for some they do; that's why they're common. Nobody has ever suggested that this is an encyclopedia for only well known organisms with common names; but it is (among many other things, most having no reference to plants at all) an encyclopeda for well known organisms with common names. Whether these are "rare" is a question of the measure applied: there may be more species in Laminaria than in Acer, but readers will consult us for maples far more often than the (as yet unwritten) stubs on individual species of kelp. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for weeds, it would be useful to have direct access to crabgrass under that name; but Digitaria will be fine if there is no predominant name. (I note, however, that Digitaria, after the title and first paragraph, calls its subjects crabgrasses.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Site-wide consensus versus consensus of flora editors
The problem here is that we seem to have a bunch of people who are specialists on one area who think somehow that their own field's standards for naming should overrule Wikipedia's standards for naming articles. That's not how things work here. We always pick the most common name, regardless of whether people think another name is somehow more accurate. Always. Consensus is the way we do things around here, but a local consensus on a subset of articles does not overrule a site-wide consensus. The idea that "Common names are to redirect to scientific names" with the example of "English sundew → Drosera anglica" is just completely at odds with how things are done here. And, frankly, it doesn't even pass the simple common sense rule. Sure, it'd be more accurate to list actors' names by their full legal names and redirect their stage names, but that's not done either, and for good reason. If you were taught to write things MLA style or AP style, or whatever, that's fine for you personally, but Wikipedia has its own style that might contradict the way you think things should be done. You adapt to how we do things, you don't ignore them. Unless you get the community site-wide consensus to change the naming policy you can't ignore it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That wasn't what WP:CONSENSUS said at the time WP:NC (flora) was created. That wording was added later in 2007. Regardless, ever since 22 Sep. 2006, WP:NC, which is indeed a policy page, has made an exception for this guideline, WP:NC (flora), specifically when it comes to the practice of using "the most common name," and this has been regarded as a practical, acceptable solution.
 * Despite the fact that the current efforts to undermine this situation have been overwhelmingly condemned, you and your wikilawyering friends persist, and for what? The good of Wikipedia? Your condescending attitude towards these "specialists" is pathetic. Instead of chasing them away, these "specialists" are exactly the kind of people who need to feel welcome here, or else Wikipedia will never live up Jimbo's ideal of one day containing "the sum of all human knowledge." --Jwinius (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you haven't read the guidelines and policies on naming conventions, if you say "we always pick the most common name," and you're not following this.
 * Plant editors don't pick scientific names over common names because the plant editors prefer the scientific names, we pick them because we work with plants and know the reality and futility of trying to work with common names. How is it that so many of the editors arguing for common names are so hostile to plant editors, don't write plant articles, and will never bother to listen to the plant editors, but are fine with pointint out tha plant editors are so bad for Wikipedia?  How is it that the plant community in the English speaking world has spent hundreds of years trying to figure out how to standardize common names for plants, has failed, and a bunch of editors on Wikipedia think they can solve the issue by making it an "us versus them" issue on Wikipedia, a bunch of editors not interested enough in plants to edit the articles, and who show very little knowledge in the area of plants, to the point of considering them just like animals?
 * We've already adapated to how Wikipedia does things. We've made naming guidelines and followed them.  That's that.  --KP Botany (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy, how do you think Wikipedia policy tells us to determine what is the most commonly used name? Here it is, from WP:NAME:

"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."
 * A search on Google Books gives 700 results for "Drosera anglica", most of them reliable sources. It gives only 134 results for "English sundew". So what are you talking about? The most common name for that plant is "Drosera anglica", according to the only metric Wikipedia recognizes, WP:Reliable Sources. It may be fine for you personally to use a name that you like, or that all your friends use. But Wikipedia relies on policy, and verifiable sources. That's what this discussion is about - it's not about 'experts are scum', or plant people are out of touch. It's about using verifiable sources. First Light (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So regular google hits won't work? "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources."  Well, that reduces it to gardening plants will get common names, except for those also used as genetic research organisms and other plants will get scientific names.
 * Actually the most reliable sources for plant names are in the botanical literature, because the common names, in English, other than in a few places are not codified. --KP Botany (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I just figured that the people who think that experts are scum, and stupid to boot, might think otherwise when they see that Google agrees with the experts, aka "Reliable Sources". First Light (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way to get consensus and find reliable sources for something that isn't standardize, and that would probably be what it came down to: ghits win. :)--KP Botany (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all surprising. Incidentally flora would be far from the only project that accepts reliable sources as authoritative over allegedly "common" understandings - I work in the Australian geography project and we periodically have similar issues, but the RSs always win. Orderinchaos 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From what has been said here can we agree to add to the start of the guideline a general section followed by a specific section that says something along the lines of:

--PBS (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Subtle, but it's not the naming policy, it's the naming conventions. One is prescriptive, the other indicative (and changes with the weather). Orderinchaos 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions is the name given to the naming policy. I used "policy" for clarity, but we can strike out the word policy and put in conventions if you think it more appropriate. --PBS (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing and a little ironic to find myself lumped in with the "experts". I originally did lots of fish and insect articles for WP (among other topics), only learned botany so I could more accurately identify the desert plants for which I was taking and uploading pictures. So when I say that plant naming works differently from animal naming, I am speaking as a non-expert who has nearly six years of experience with both the theory and practice of WP's naming conventions. Stan (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos do you have any objections to the modified wording? Has anyone else any objections to adding such a section? --PBS (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, can you list some verifiable reliable sources that list common names for plants, so we can get an idea of what this means in implementation about what "the most easily recognized name is?" --KP Botany (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure you are far more qualified than I to know if there exist any verifiable reliable sources that list commonly used name for plants as opposed to common names. Sometimes such surveys are carried out by a reliable source in which case deciding on the name of a Wikipedia article is a piece of cake. But usually the best way to see what impact a change in the wording of a guideline has is to see what the outcome would be on the name of some articles with a borderline name (some plant articles that have been through a recent requested move would probably be suitable candidates). A member of the project is much more likely to be able to select such examples than I am. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any surveys carried out by reliable sources that list most commonly used name. I've never come across one, so, you'll have to provide this.
 * However, what this guideline is asking for is "the most easily recognized name," and that, like the surveys by reliable sources of "commonly used plant names," is not something I know about. So you'll have to provide this, also.
 * --KP Botany (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You made an edit to Talk:Vegetable Lamb of Tartary at 10:06 on 1 January 2009 how did you determine that Vegetable Lamb of Tartary was the most common name? Perhaps if we were to run tests you used for you last move (09:30, 2 January 2009 moved Short-spiked bamboo to Brachystachyum densiflorum) on the last 50 moves you have made we can see if it would have made difference to the outcome of the move. --PBS (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't determine that Vegetable Lamb of Tartary is the most common name. So I can't say how I determined what I didn't.


 * Then what did you mean when you write: "Yes, I created dabs, but this appears to be the most common name,..."? --PBS (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do feel free to test and contest any, the last 50, or all of my moves. If you disagree with any, post a note on the article talk page, and a note on my talk page indicating you have done so, and a note on WP:Plants, and we will be glad to discuss the moves with you.
 * Now, back to my request, please name your sources that you expect us to use while we create Wikipedia articles in the manner you deem edit-warrior fight worthy.
 * Name the reliable verifiable sources you require us to use.   --KP Botany (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of books mention commonly-used names for plants, none that I know of have the temerity to claim that any one name is most commonly used. Why do you think people here throw up their hands in exasperation on this whole issue? We've read the books, we've looked at the authoritative websites, we've made good-faith attempts to figure out what the most-commonly-used name might be - and for plants it's simply a nice theoretical concept that cannot be determined in practice. Stan (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an historical note: there were endless discussions and edit wars for years about the "proper" common name for various plants. One example that comes to mind is how "Boxelder" was improper (since the tree "is neither a box nor an elder"), and so the article was for a time "defended" as "Manitoba maple". In this part of Pennsylvania, you can find regions within an hour's drive where Fraxinus pennsylvanica will be referred to using 3 different names. The thing is, none of the common names are any more "proper" than any other commons name (picking one and insisting on it is actually WP:OR, or perhaps against WP:NPOV), but the binomials themselves have no regional bias. There are a number of plants (like Lettuce and Pea) that do have more or less universal common (or "vernacular", our "country" names), but most don't (think of the trouble Barack Obama got into asking for "arugula" rather than "rocket"... which is actually a good example of how arguing over a common name can cause friction in the real world). -- SB_Johnny | talk
 * After reading more comments here, and re-reading some of the main policies of Wikipedia, it's clear that PBS's suggested change is an impossibility. To rephrase what people here have already said (mostly for my own sake):
 * There is no reliable source that states " 'such and such' is the most commonly used name in the english speaking world for Fraxinus pennsylvanica". Using Google searches to show what is most used—even Google Scholar, which is mostly reliable sources—is extreme Original Research. The scientific name is the only one that fulfills Wikipedia's core policies of Verifiability WP:V and No Original Research WP:NOR. First Light (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's so difficult about that? A search of Google Books shows 13,900 hits for Green Ash; 20,400 for Red Ash and 938 for Fraxinus pennsylvanica.  So we have the article at the title that hardly anyone is going to use! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect your "Red Ash" search is mostly turning up Alphitonia excelsa. "Green Ash" is indeed a popular common name for Fraxinus pennsylvanica, but it is also a common name of Eucalyptus subg. Monocalptus. e.g. And to quote Google Books results at us when you know very well that Google Web and Google Scholar results do not support your premise, is simply mischievous. Hesperian 23:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The naming of articles are not directly covered by the WP:NOR (as that is a content policy not a page naming policy). It is necessary to have a name for every article. It would have been possible to give every article a sequence number and then link as a redirect all possible names to that sequence number, but that is not the scheme that was decided upon for naming articles. So articles have names and it is agreed project wide that the name an article ought to be the commonly used name for the topic of the article. This is justified by the naming policy in the section "Use the most easily recognized name" "This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --PBS (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked, but couldn't find where it says that "The naming of articles are not directly covered by the WP:NOR". Since the only way to ascertain the most recognizable name is to research it, I doubt that there is a policy like that. What, are we supposed to use a Ouija board to find out, or ask our neighbor, or....? First Light (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See the NOR "No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." (my emphasis).--PBS (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking for where it says that "in articles" excludes the title of the article. Your emphasis is just that, yours alone, and not the actual policy. First Light (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NOR covers material published by Wikipedia. That would cover articles and article titles.  Like everything else, article titles need to be verifiable, using reliable sources.  If we are using "the most commonly used name", that has to be verifiable.  If we are using the scientific name, that must also be verifiable.  And these things need to be verified using reliable sources...it doesn't work if our source is "Uncle Fred", or "some guy on the internet".  Or, for that matter, Google.  (Google results aren't "reliable sources", after all.)  Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See the section "WP:NC" in WP:NC. there is no requirement to use scientific names there is a requirement to use "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." not that there is a verifiable reliable source that states what the common name is. -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - it must take a good microtome to split so fine a hair. More to the point though - how does that support your assertion that WP:NOR doesn't apply to article titles?  Oh wait, yes...Chewbacca defense.  Please focus - let's deal with your assertion that original research is allowed in article titles, before getting off into a delightful discourse on the difference between reliable sources and reliable sources.  Focus Philip, focus.  Please.  Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Off topic.) An ultramicrotome and a freshly sharpened diamond knife (and not a histology diamond knife, only a cytology one will do). --KP Botany (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, if it had to do with parrots, Uncle Fred might be your man, but surely not plants.... First Light (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To move or not to move that is the question
User:KP Botany here is a list of the last 24 article moves you have made with a quick and dirty Google search on scholar, books and web. I did this so that we would have some data on what would go where if the common name was to be used.

As you will see in most cases the name you choose to move them too appears to be the most common name. But I have not looked carefully at the content returned, and the editors of the pages might consider some other sources not found by a Google search to be important to consider and to discount most/many/some of those returned by a Google search (It would take a much deeper look at at the sources than my cursory scan to make such a decision). For example I have not checked the other names in the articles to see if any of those are the most common name.

If this guideline did not exist and the general naming conventions were used, as you can see 17 out of 25 would probably move with 4 possible no moves and 3 difficult to determine with a simple Google search ((for example "Black Palm" seems to be the common name for more than one plant (and there is a lot of noise returned by Google) so it would almost certainly need to be under another name eg Normanbya normanbyi). It seems to me that if you were to accept the suggestion I made above about using the "General guidance" above and in the "Specific guidance" add in some other points about precision and the stuff on regional problems using the MOS section "Opportunities for commonality" in WP:ENGVAR as a template. Then the guideline would be compatible with the policy and in practice -- if the above table is an indicator most plant articles would be under their scientific names. --PBS (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Guggul is a plant secondary metabolite and has a long history in Indian medicine. I write articles about traditional healing herbs from Siberia, Central and South Asia, and this redirect was probably a prelude to writing an article about guggulipids research.

"Sleepy grass" is a common name for multiple grasses. This page would eventually be a redirect. When you checked, did do a google search for "sleepy grass" and "Achnatherum robustum"? Doing that I only come up with 522 articles on google. There's actually a Stipa with the common name "sleepy grass" that is more probably the "sleepy grass" coming up in your searches if you didn't limit them to potential references that identify this grass by its common and scientific names.

I think "water hickory" is a pretty solid common name for Carya aquatica. However, I've never researched this tree for its common name.

"Manila palm" would have to also be done in a search with its various scientific names to show that these are references to one specific plant, however, in spite of its rather generic sounding vernacular name, I think this is probably used for just that, one specific plant.

"Gao," like many common names in English is the name of a important city, an ancient city in Mali, from which Westerners may first encountered products made from the palm tree, meaning the name is already, more than likely, taken. No, readers will not be able to type in this common name, and head directly to the article on the plant. This is one fine plant, though, and certainly deserves a bigger article. Still, readers aren't typing in "Gao (palm)."

"Bottle palm" may be limited to one species.

"Black plam" probably refers to a couple of hundred species.

So, ultimately what you are saying is that you want a policy that is impossible for plant editors to implement, that will wind up with a confusing policy that nobody understands, and your support for it is a bunch of google searches? The goal is that policy here be the same as the policy elsewhere? No matter that plants and animals are not the same and the natural world has never bended to the demands of small classification schemes?

I guess that's why you want the plant sentence removed from the common names general policy so badly. Which, again, means the removal is not insubstantial, if that is your primary goal of the removal.

Please do provide the reliable verifiable references you know of for the world-wide accepted common names in English of plants, by the way.

By the way, the moves I do to scientific names are generally related to plans to work on an article. For example, right now, a genus I am researching, an important and major genus, Coreopsis is under the common name "Tickseed," which is actually a common name for a number of plants. My botanical reference on the plant, however, lists "tickweed" as the common name, not "tickseed."

--KP Botany (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember hearing of Beaucarnea recurvata called "bottle palm"--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Bottle palm is generic enough that I probably should have thought one more second about.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the fact that Google hits are not a reliable source for "usage in English", when you have a margin of 11,500 to 6,500 I really don't think anyone can reasonably conclude that this constitutes a "difference" is usage. No idea what the actual margin of error is on Google results, but I can't imagine that it's small enough to be reasonably confident that there's a difference.  Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An issue with google, though, is that it gets top heavy with names in modern advertising campaigns. I never used it even as a starting point for plant common names, because of this.  It could mean I was promoting some other garden's plant.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing about Google hits for common names - if you look through the actual hits, you will find things like the ingredient list for smoked salad dressing (liquid smoke (water, hickory smoke)), references to the wood (The family room has vaulted ceilings, white water hickory hardwood floors), which needs to be considered separately from mention of the species, and street names (314 water hickory way), which also don't refer to the species. In addition, of course, searching for "carya aquatica" might miss cases where more than one Carya species are mentioned and Carya aquatica isn't the first species mentioned.  Then you are likely to end up with mention of C. aquatica...something that would be missed by simply searching for "Cary aquatica".  Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that Google finds 520 unique instances of "water hickory" and 521 unique instances of "Carya aquatica".
 * "The common name would definitely need more research to determine what it is" provides no useful guidance and is the result more than 10% of the time in the table. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the fact is, these google searches weren't done to find the common name, they were just done to see if the common name exists on the web. They don't mean that even one of these sources is a reliable, verifiable reference for the common name.  Running the searches with both the common name and scientific name in quotes, then screening for the reliable might help there.  Still, PBS, we're waiting for what sources you consider reliable and verifiable references for the most common name in English.  You haven't provided even one.  And you're using google for some reason.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my previous posting to this page on  13:26, 2 January 2009. and this posting: 23:33, 4 January 2009 --PBS (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already told you that I know these source don't exist. You keep insisting that we use the non-existent sources in the guideline you advocate. If the reliable verifiable references for what you require don't exist,13:26, 2 January 2009 and you admit it, stop wasting everyone's time by trying to make a policy that you known and admit [13:26, 2 January 2009 is not implementable. --[[Special:Contributions/69.225.11.246|69.225.11.246]] (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if knowledgeable people tell you that the reliable sources don't exist, why are you not believing us? PBS, go to the library yourself and check it out, if you think we're blowing smoke. If you can find a good source that says "the most common name is X", for any plant species, I will summarily move the article myself. Stan (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have delayed answering here because there has been a parallel conversation going on at Naming conventions (common names) which covers the same ground. But now that is slowing down perhaps I can explain without starting an avalanche of comments.


 * The naming conventions policy and the Naming conventions (common names) say similar things "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." and "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?". If we are lucky we will find a reliable source that says "fu" is the commonly used name for topic "fu". But neither policy of general guideline says that one can only determine the common name if a reliable source tells us what it is. Instead we are told to look at multiple reliable sources to determine the name. So if there is not a reliable source to tell us what is the common name, we can estimate what other reliable sources used by doing a survey through search engines, looking at library catalogues etc. And as has been made clear in this thread, raw Google searches are often not enough on has to carefully analyse the pages returned to see if they are reliable and relevant.


 * Now some editors such as First Light have raised a concern that doing such survey would be a breach of the WP:NOR but NOR only applies to article content. See the second paragraph of the NOR "No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." (my emphasis). So although they have much in common the naming conventions is a semi-detached policy from the three polices that go to make up the content house. --PBS (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PS to PBS
Thanks for taking the time to put together this chart for discussion. I appreciate that you made the effort. --KP Botany (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I always find that practical examples helps to clarify abstract debates about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (if you are reading this pax User:Francis Schonken ;-) ) -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When the most common name is the wrong name
Oh, the most common name for the fern Cyathea leucofolis is the incorrect scientific name Alsophila leucolepis. This is also a problem with some of the Scrophs. One of those things that those unwanted experienced editors keep coming across while gathering experience in the field: reality.

So, one more thing there will be exceptions to, or "NO exceptions!" common name always? Will the policy require the most common name in some cases, in all cases, when there are no problems. This issue arises more often with plant names than with animals names (oh, the differences, they are not the sam at all), because of gardeners. There are billions of gardeners, but not such a large number in animal husbandary. So, in botany, you wind up with plants being called by no longer valid (ie, unofficial) scientific names in horticulture, while they have their official scientific names being used in the botanical literature.

So, there, we have it, we're now designing a policy whereby we will call articles by their wrong names.

Should we start moving plants that have more common invalid scientific names (that are used) as their common names to their invalid scientific names as article titles to comply with the "use the most common name in English" rulers?

This is one of the oh-so-many issues considered by botanists, naturalists, and gardeners. The folks with the knowledge to write about the organisms. --KP Botany (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, that's a good point. The Spring Mountains checklist I'm working through uses up-to-date names, and it's thrown me several times, when the obsolete name is far more common. For instance Senecio multilobatus gets 6,900 ghits vs Packera multilobata (970) or "lobeleaf groundsel" (1400), with other names, like "basin butterweed", getting fewer. All my print sources still say Senecio too. Anybody want to insist that WP use superseded scientific names? Stan (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Pilosella v. Hieracium, Aster v. Symphyotrichum, Argentina and Fragaria vs. Potentilla, Eupatorium vs. Eutrochium to name a few examples involving widespread plants. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, it's one of the things you come across all of the time when you actually work with plants. These names hang on for a long time with plants that are popular in the horticulture trade.  This made frustrating doing the names for horticulture signs when my training had all been in botany.  There is a lot here that isn't said about the difficulties of working with "common names" for plants over scientific names.  However, there has been no room in this conversation for raising these issues against an onslaught of advocates against scientific names who aren't now and never were listening to anyone with any level of expertise in the subject.  The real experts, of course, are the folks who write all the botany and horticulture texts who have explained for hundreds of years just why plant books use scientific names over common names.  No, it's not a sinister plot against the layman.  It's a matter of necessity because of the nature of plants, which are not just like animals.  --KP Botany (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring has been taking elsewhere
They're now working on the main naming policy page, trying to get the plants naming convention into that, but with the same methods, changing the policy page without discussion, using wrong information, and reverting each other. I figure they'll be there for a month and a hundred or so edits before moving on to animals or insects.

Anyway, writing plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (common names) is now protected as well. --Una Smith (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested substantive changes affecting plants being made by User:PBS at common names
User:Philip Baird Shearer has suggested, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) that editors accept what he calls the User:Hesperian version of the policy page over the version now protected. Philip Baird Shearer states that "there are no substantive changes to general guidance of the page up until the version by Hesperian," but neglects to point out that User:PBS edited this sentence out:

"Plants, following disputes over the proper "common" names to use, are now automatically placed at their botanic name: Verbascum thapsus (Not Great Mullein), Ailanthus altissima (not Tree-of-heaven). See Naming conventions (flora)"

Maybe this sentence shouldn't be in that guideline. Or maybe it should be.

But I do think that if this user is willing to edit war over it, that the removal of the sentence should be considered a substantive change that others may want to discuss fully first, before agreeing to.

So, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) --KP Botany (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Standardized common names
Numerous sources do try to prescribe a preferred ("standard") common name for plant species, but to my knowledge none of them are widely followed. Nonetheless, it might be useful to gather a list of such sources, especially if they are available online. Eg,


 * Kelsey and Dayton (1942) Standardized Plant Names Second Edition

--Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It bears repeating that one author's preferred common name is not necessarily a commonly used name for that species. --Una Smith (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of igniting debate again
I offer no new viewpoint, but I do note that the protection of the page expires soon. So on the eve of the expiration, is there any conclusion we can come to? Did it allow us to cool off, or did the debate just jump to new locations? In my humble opinion, the current status of the convention as disputed with the tag on the page is unacceptable. Good faith efforts to rewrite, revise, and explain have taken up most of our time above (and archived). There appears to be very little or no acceptable middle ground between the opinions. I may be biased, but the benefits of the current convention wording outweighs the assumed drawbacks, even though those drawbacks have yet to be illustrated and appear to be mostly strawman arguments. I also believe that the main naming convention policy allows for our convention to exist as is. Even so, I assume the moment someone decides to remove the disputed tag, it will be reverted and so begins another round of edits and broken-record discussion. So how do we move on? How do we get to a place where our convention can exist without that disputed tag? Are there options for larger discussion short of arbitration that would solve this; and would we necessarily want more voices added to the already length debate when we'll just end up repeating ourselves if they don't first read the megabytes worth of archived discussion? I'd like a resolution to this, but I doubt we'll all agree on what that resolution will look like. I offer this section as not a new beginning to the discussion that went dormant on this page several days ago, but as hopefully a place for editors to suggest alternatives to the merry-go-round above. Any ideas, gentlemen and ladies? --Rkitko (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion seems to be concentrated on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). --Una Smith (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks Una. I believe I did miss that link above somewhere. --Rkitko (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the current convention is fine too, but it needs a clearer (i.e. more defensive) rationale. A bunch of us need to get together and rewrite it. Hesperian 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. However at the moment I think it is more important to deal with the continued conflation of common name with commonly used name on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names).  --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've long thought a better rationale would help (exactly how this gets formatted in terms of being in the page, on a separate essay, etc, I'm not sure, but generally it helps to clearly lay out the reasons for something, and perhaps even cons as well as pros, in the most non-inflammatory way possible). As with Make technical articles accessible (to pick one I've been involved with for a while, and which perhaps even is a good example of how to write a controversial guideline/policy), that won't eliminate controversy, but it can make the discussion a bit better informed.  I guess the other thing which might help is to try to keep the talk page discussions on track and civil, although I make that suggestion with some trepedation, as both sides have ample reason to say "you started it" or even "it isn't THAT uncivil".  Still, I'll still make a pitch for WP:AGF (or, if you prefer, act as if good faith is present whether or not you think it is), Talk page guidelines, and WP:CIVIL. Kingdon (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Common name
There has been a lot of confusion over what is a common name. I propose that we footnote the first usage of common name to {In this guideline common name means "in general use; of frequent occurrence; usual, ordinary, prevalent, frequent." (Oxford English Dictionary, common:10a)}

If this is too short and not clear, then we could use similar wording as in NC (common names) --PBS (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is completely unhelpful. In a botanical context, a common name is any name for a plant that is not a scientific name formally published in accordance with the laws of the ICNB. In the context of this discussion, it is important to distinguish that meaning from the most commonly used name for a plant. Your proposal does not address that; not even obliquely. Hesperian 04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. It defines what common name means in the context of Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. That "common name" has a different definition in a botanical context is why we need to define what common name means in the context of this guideline.


 * But I am not hung up on this point. If you prefer we can add words to the top of the guideline that because some botanists are confused by the Wikipedian usage of common name in this guideline we will use the term "commonly used name" to clearly indicate the difference between the usual naming conventions use of "common name" and the botanical use of "common name". --PBS (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of emphasis
There has been a long standing dispute over the names of the articles Ireland and the Republic of Ireland On the 4 January there was an Arbcom final decision on this issue. One particular section is pertinent to the dispute on this page about the importance of the first paragraph of the naming conventions -- see the Arbcom's endorsement of naming conventions policy which the Arbcom passed unanimously.

The implication of this is that this guideline must comply with that policy statement. In the Draft the introduction starts off OK but the "Convention" section is in breach of the naming conventions policy as is the current "Article title" section in the guideline. The are in breach of policy because both sections explicitly state that common names are not to be used by default:
 * Draft:"For articles on plant taxa, use the botanical name as the title unless:"
 * Guideline:"scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following."

This needs to be turned around so that it reads "common names should be used in titles unless [insert here the reasons not to use common names]". As we have seen above in many cases this will not make a difference to the name of an article, it will in some marginal cases, but it will bring this guideline into line with the naming conventions policy. --PBS (talk)


 * "Naming conventions

4) Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:


 * Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
 * Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.


 * Sure, Philip Baird Shearer, change it as soon as the first paragraph, beginning with "generally" (emphasis added) is deleted, and immediately you provide the "verifiable reliable sources in English" that determine the recognizability of the name. And, since you admitted they don't exist, that ends that. --KP Botany (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have three comments to make in response to PBS:
 * I am struggling to find a good faith explanation for your insistence on conflating the common name of a plant with the most commonly used name of a plant, even after all these months of discussion. Perhaps you would be so kind as to furnish me with such an explanation, because at the moment I simply cannot see any possible reason other than that you are trolling us. Hesperian 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section, I have given a definition for my usage of common name, which has the same meaning as that used throughout the naming conventions. If it confuses you then substitute in "commonly used name".--PBS (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the difference, but plenty of people don't; Born2cycle still doesn't get it after having had it explained to him fifty-odd times. And even to people who do understand the difference, your proposal seems calculated to cause misunderstandings: the botanical meaning of "common name" is the most easily imputed in the context of the wording of your proposal. Why do you persist in proposing text that is demonstrably confusing? Hesperian 13:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You grossly misrepresent that case. That case is concerned not with a straightforward violation of that policy, but with a dispute over how that policy should be applied: that is, how to decide what is the most common name; how to balance this imperative with the imperative of managing ambiguity; and the meta- problem of how to assess consensus on the answers to these questions. In fact the ArbCom has made no ruling on these matters, except to lay out a process for final resolution of the matter. Hesperian 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is about a straightforward violation of policy by a guideline. The Irish article problem, is about the application of that policy.--PBS (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Straightforward in your mind, and in no-one else's. Hesperian 13:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you have any new arguments to offer us... or do you intend to indefinitely repeating as fact the same tired old mantra that we are in violation of WP:NC, whilst ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary with which you have been presented over the last few tiresome months? Hesperian 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that the wording of this guideline is not in violation of the WP:NC policy when it says "scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following." --PBS (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the except the following clause pretty much covers it. If you want any more than that, I can only respond that it is impossible to prove a negative, and the onue is on you to prove that it is in violation. You guys have had months to do so, and you have failed dismally. Born2cycle kept throwing up concrete examples of "blatant" violations, and we kept swatting them down with hard evidence to the contrary. Born2cycle kept throwing up arguments that hinged on his unique interpretation of policy, and they got swatted down too. In the end, Born2cycle was reduced to proposing a ridiculous change to the policy, which was utterly rejected—even you disagreed with him. But I have to give him credit: at least he adjusted his arguments in response to counter-arguments and counter-evidence. You, on the other hand, haven't budged an inch. You plucked your favourite sentences out of the policy, ignored the ones that don't support your position, and on that slim basis asserted that our convention violates policy. We dealt with that argument megabytes ago, but you ignored us. And since then your contribution to this debate has been to repeat the same assertion over and over and over again. Never a new argument. Never a scrap of evidence. Just the same tired assertion. I can see no reason to engage with you on this any further, as I cannot think of anything to say that you haven't already ignored at least twice. Hesperian 13:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM decision on Ireland hasnt in any way altered policy, the section that PBS links to is a finding in principal it is not a change in the Naming Convention policy(point of fact is that ARBCOM cant change policy) its just a statement on the relevant policies of which there are a number. The actual ARMCOM decision has given the parties a 14 day window to agree on the format during which time articles arent to be renamed/moved. If at the end of the 14 days there isnt a solution then arbcom will get three admins to make a format and adjust all article to that. Ther is nothing in that decision that alters this discussion, matter of fact if applied to this discussion then the format of "scientific names" would prevail because by far those participating support the use of scientific names. Gnangarra 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian: "I think the except the following clause pretty much covers it." I presume this is a reference to the phrase that is in the current flora guideline is that correct? --PBS (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A biased primer
If you have come here in response to this page's listing at Centralised discussion, here is a primer for you, to save you reading the megabytes of discussion. If you really want to wade through it all yourself, the most relevant pages are /Archive 2, this page, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). The discussion started on 1 December 2008.

This is a summary of the position of the editors who contribute the bulk of Wikipedia's plant articles: Hesperian 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [Revised. Hesperian 00:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * 1) When WP:NC tells us to use the most common name, it means the name in most common use. In botany, a "common name" is a non-scientific name for a plant. A "common name" is not necessarily the most commonly used name for a plant. For example, the scientific name Aloe vera is much more commonly used than the common name Medicinal Aloe. It is critical to  this discussion that you understand this distinction.
 * 2) The vast majority of plants do not have a common name; for example, of the thousands of species of moss that have been recognised, only a handful have been given a common name.
 * 3) Of those plants that do have a common name, most have more than one. The preferred common name for a plant often varies from place to place, so that choosing any particular common name to be the article title would suggest a regional or linguistic bias.
 * 4) Often the same common name will be applied to different plants from place to place, making the common name ambiguous. In cases where a common name is used for different species in different places, the selection of a particular use to be the primary topic of the name would suggest a regional or linguistic bias.
 * 5) The tiny remainder—the tiny number of plants that have a reasonably unique and unambiguous common name—are the only plants to which "use the most common name" becomes applicable. The question, then, is whether the common name is more commonly used than the scientific name. The naming conventions policy tells us how to go about assessing this: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." When one examines the reliable sources that are, or would be, cited by a good solid article on a plant taxon, it is consistently the case that these sources prefer the scientific name.
 * 6) For these reasons, it is the unanimous (as far as I can tell) view of the Wikipedians who actually write plant articles, that the scientific name for a plant is nearly always the correct title, as determined by the naming convention policy.
 * 7) There are exceptions. The main exception is plants that are closely associated with plant products. The plant editors have long held that plant product and plant taxon are distinct topics that merit distinct articles; for example the plant species Cocos nucifera merits an article distinct from the coconut that it produces. In practice, however, these topic pairs are often treated together, in a single article, and this naming convention supports retaining such articles at the product name.
 * 8) Based on this rationale, the plant article editors long ago adopted the convention of using the scientific name for all articles, with certain explicit classes of exception, and the ability to make case-by-case exceptions. This, we believe, is in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the main naming convention policy, which has long supported the use of specific conventions that "systematise titles of articles grouped by topic" (such as ship names) or simply consider themselves exceptions to the rule (e.g. nobility).
 * 9) This decision was taken in order to minimise the potential for article naming disputes. Essentially this convention takes us straight to the right title, instead of via extensive research and pointless arguments.
 * 10) The Wikipedians that edit plant article have shown themselves to be open to discussion on the nature of the exceptions, and the general framing of the convention. This could have been congenial.
 * 11) Unfortunately, what happened here was an attack by a small group of editors who, despite having no grasp of the issues, arrogantly declared our convention to be blatantly in violation of policy; insisted that it had to be rewritten immediately in accordance with their anti-intellectual ideals; and, failing that, stirred up months of drama, with no end in sight.

Rejoinders and discussion

 * For a few relevant examples: Acer negundo, Cytisus scoparius and Verbascum thapsus all had disputes, sometimes edit wars centering around the naming of the article, and in the latter case, about the name to use in the article after the policy was put in place. Meanwhile, Saffron is an example of a case where plant and products are treated together. Circeus (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the cent navbox, but where is this issue listed? --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get it. The discussion is supposed to be centralized right here.  So I'll make a section for it...  --Una Smith (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [The following comments were posted interpersed within my post in that above section. I have moved them down here because interspersing them defeated the point of my post, which was to provide a brief and coherent summary to new participants. Hesperian 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)]


 * Threading on points is much clearer for a new reader than placing one block under another, (with large blocks it is difficult to keep both viewpoints in focus and it makes it very difficult for other editors to join in the conversation and make a specific point on a thread). It is not worth re-interlacing the text if it causes you distress, but so that I can link my replies to your bullet points above, please number you points (using a hash instead of a star) then I can say in reply to point (1) point (2) etc, because since you have made the alteration my replies are an incoherent mess. --PBS (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Hesperian's points


 * (1) When WP:NC tells us to use ... For clarity in this conversation let us use the term "commonly used name" to mean the name frequently rather than common name as used in other guidelines and not use the term common name as it causes confusion for some who read this page. -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Naming conventions policy is clear see WP:NC, and this usually means Use the most common name. This guideline is in direct violation of this policy when it states "scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following." and then this guidelines gives exceptions to this rule. Instead it should follow the naming conventions policy and give advice on what to do if the general guidance is not sufficient to give clear guidance on the name an article should have. -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (2)The vast majority of plants ... All plants have a commonly used name, which may be the scientific name or some other name. If the commonly used name is the scientific name are the same, then the policy and general guidelines are sufficient to cover the naming of those plants. --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (3) Of those plants that ... This is something that is handled by the general guideline by WP:PRECISION, this guideline should give advice when any of the above happen but it should start from the assumption that there is a commonly used name and then give advice on what to do if the name varies from place to place etc, but there is no reason for this guideline to start with general rule "scientific names are to be used..." rather than making that the exception if the commonly used name is not clear. --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (4) Often the same common name... As before this is something this guideline can give guidance on but there is no reason for this guideline to start with general rule "scientific names are to be used..." rather than making that the exception if the commonly used name is not clear. --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (5) The tiny remainder... Reliable sources may or may not agree that the commonly used name is the scientific name, but whether it is or is not there is no reason to depart from the general policy by defaulting to the scientific name even if there is some other name which is more commonly used, which is what the statement in this guideline mandates: "scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following." --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (6) For these reasons... See WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." and "WP:Policies and guidelines "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (8) Based on this rationale... Neither WP:NC (ships) and NC_(names_and_titles) start from the premise that the default should be some other name instead they start from the premise that if the specific problems that they highlight do not cover the problem then the name should be the common name. No one who has commented on this talk page or the archives have suggested that there should be no specific guidance on plant names, just that there should not be a blanket rule that says use the scientific name. --PBS (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian did a wonderful job at writing this primer. On the other hand, PBS' dogged determination reminds me more of the The Terminator... or should I say a troll? --Jwinius (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Another "target"
I don't know why the plant pages are getting so much attention; if these project guidelines are a problem, then the one presenting the biggest problem would have to be WikiProject Birds:  it states that by default a "formal common name", meaning a vernacular name on some list, should be used. --Una Smith (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and they don't even make exceptions. Further confirmation that this has never really been about enforcing the "use the most commonly used name" clause.This is and has always been an anti-scientific crusade.
 * Perhaps we should point out that the most commonly used name in reliable sources for the Magpie-lark / Mudlark / Peewee / Pee-wit / Murray Magpie / Jillinberri / ... is Grallina cyanoleuca. Can we count on their support, do you think? (P.S. Let me make it clear that I am not seriously proposing we disrupt the fine work of our friends in the ornothological department just to make a point.)
 * Hesperian 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "This is and has always been an anti-scientific crusade." Why choose the word crusade? Who apart from you has claimed that this dispute is an is an "anti-scientific crusade." Why don't you assume like I do that all the people involved in this dispute are acting in good faith and have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind? BTW your statement seems to imply that guideline NC flora covers a scientific subject while the guideline NC forna does not. --PBS (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anti-scientific? I've used the term at least once to describe your attack, as have others. Crusade? Perhaps that's because of your excessive fervor and unreasonable attitude. 1+1=2. Your arguments have all been shot down more than once now, but you keep resurrecting them. At this point (almost seven weeks into your campaign), your strategy has more to do with attrition than anything else.
 * It's hard to continue to assume good faith when faced with such a stubborn opponent. For sure, you're an idealist, just like Wikipedia's founders. They wanted to create a system through which "the sum of all human knowledge" would become freely available to all. A wiki system, with lots of redirects and disambiguation pages, would make that easier than ever before. I think that by itself, WP:NC, or at least the part of it that you find so important, is also idealistic. But, it's important to realize that this idealistic naming policy has definite practical limits.
 * Looking back, WP:NC is a relatively old policy page. Version one dates back to 24 November 2001. Much of it looks like a discussion, but some parts are revealing. Apparently, precise and unambiguous titles were very important to the original authors, but they also wanted to "maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines..." I think that last part is much less important today than it was back then. Today, if you Google for any subject on which Wikipedia has an article, it will almost always appear at, or very near, the top of your search results. In fact, Wikipedia has become so dominant (and Google so different?) that article titles are not so important anymore. For example, if you now search for joshua tree, Yucca brevifolia is second only to "Joshua Tree National Park (U.S. National Park Service)." In other words, Wikipedia has reached the point where it can afford to be even more precise with its article titles than originally envisioned. So, why all the fuss? Especially when, in the case of plants, there are so many other reasons to maintain more precise article titles as well. --Jwinius (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Target was attacked (Wikipedia_talk:BIRD) and deflected (hopefully) with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY... Shyamal (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More targets:
 * Contrary to PBS's claim above, Naming conventions (names and titles) explicitly advocates violating "use the most common name". Their most general rule is
 * "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."
 * which is logically equvalent to
 * "don't use the most common name unless the rules below fail you".
 * There are plenty more examples on that page where "use the most common name" is explicitly violated. For example, "although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England"

Hesperian 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to PBS's clain above, Naming conventions (ships) explicitly violates the "use the most common name" clause. Note the difference between civilian ships and military ships: "Civilian ships should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions" but for military ships "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article"; even if the ship is most commonly known sans prefix, apparently.


 * Both of the above were constructed before the addition to the naming conventions of "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." in June 2008. Since that addition has been in place a lot of the advice on both pages is redundant. For example a Google search of Scholar returns "about 220 for "Richard the Lionheart" Saladin" and about "about 884 for "Richard I" Saladin" (Saladin is needed else Richard I returns lots of false positives like "Richard I. Fisher" and "Richard I. Sherwood") Google Books returns  626 on "Richard the Lionheart" Saladin". "1,017 on "Richard I" Saladin." It is only Google web that returns more for Lionheart 31,200 20,900, and was the primary reason why so many hours were spent thrashing out a guideline to try to find a formula that used the same names are reliable sources tend to use. Hence the wording in WP:NC (names and titles) "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Notice the statement does not link to WP:SOURCES, because at time the policy did have specific advise to consider the content policies, and also because at the time that wording was discussed no-one thought to link it to reliable sources! --PBS (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is obfuscation not refutation. Your google tests don't change what is written at WP:NC (names and titles). Hesperian 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS - In response to your challenge to Hesperian above, I've also called your crusade anti-scientific, in so many words: "Let's not dumb down Wikipedia". After seven weeks, and over .5Mb(!!!) of nonsense (combining this current page and the archived arguments), your efforts to gut the flora naming conventions to meet your whim are no closer than they were .5Mb ago. Yet you continue to waste the time of many bright, good faith, civil editors who actually contribute significantly to Wikipedia articles. Do you really think you will change everyone's opinion? Or is this really a war of attrition as Jwinius suggests? Assuming good faith, and interested in your answer, First Light (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is another way in which it is anti-scientific: It presumes that editors with specific training in a science are less fit to convey that science to a general audience than editors who lack that training.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not only an "anti-scientific crusade," it is, indeed, also an anti-scientist crusade. It's obtrusive, single-minded beyond belief, and the crusader is not listening to others, and clearly never intended to, nor intends to.  No consensus will ever be reached, because the only consensus PBS will allow is absolute, 100% adherence to his view of things, which includes using verifiable reliable sources that he admits don't exist.  At this point it's also anti-Wikipedia.


 * It's beyond silly and time-wasting: one editor who isn't creating the articles, attempting to force on others who were creating the articles before he stopped them, a plan the lone editor admits can't be implemented, ...


 * ... and, at this point it is obvious, the whole crusade is being done solely for the self-aggrandizement of its lone crusader. All of PBS's actions show this: endless repetition of points long since lost and refuted, endless refusal to acknowledge the points lost or refuted, endless demands for implementation of a plan that the crusader admits is not implementable, endless attempts to run around consensus, endless inaccurate posts about the monologue.  PBS's voice has long become the voice of the adults in a Charlie Brown television special.  It's way past time for PBS to stop disrupting Wikipedia with his non-implementable anti-scientist crusade.  --KP Botany (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relatively few people have commented in this debate and I am by no means the only one who has suggested that this naming conventions guideline should follow the spirit of the naming conventions policy. User:KP Botany please assume good faith. I am not on a non-implementable anti-scientist crusade and I wonder why you think that such a comment would help build a better encyclopaedia. --PBS (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, if you have a specific proposal to put here for consensus, I think it would help further this process—although it's pretty clear there is no consensus to gut the flora naming conventions. I don't think anyone here thinks another .5Mb of discussion will bear any more fruit than the first .5Mb. That's probably why—along with your refusal to truly respond to people's questions—your good faith is being questioned . I'm assuming your good faith, though I do question your understanding of when consensus is strongly against you, and the grace to accept it. First Light (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge I do try to reply to peoples questions. Which one in particular do you think I have not tried to answer?


 * No I don't accept that the consensus is strongly against me. The number of people that have joined in this conversation is as yet unfortunately small and it is not clear that there is a consensus. The point of discussions on the talk page is to try to reach a consensus. I don't think for example that this section is very pertinent to addressing the issue that this guideline is at odds with the naming conventions policy. It seems strange to me that although we have agreement on the difference between the usage in Wikipedia of the phrase "common name" and the way that botanists use the phrase, that we can not make progress to putting in a working definition to define the two terms on the guideline page as I am attempting to do in section above called Common name, but for which there has been little response to date. The second specific proposal is in the section Reversal of emphasis which suggests that the wording at the start of the guideline should be changed from the guideline "scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following." so that it reads "common names should be used in titles unless [insert here the reasons not to use common names]". --PBS (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unindent - I cannot see any good reason to change this guideline. Unlike birds or mammals there are no other universally agreed names for plants other than the scientific binomals. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I mostly lurk in the background as I honestly don't have the time to read everything AND contribute, especially when most of the obvious points have already been made, count me among those who stand in consensus supporting the current policy. --NoahElhardt (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, I stand by what I said. Your proposals have not received anything close to consensus, and quite the opposite. Of the two you mention, one did not draw much comment, since it didn't change the policy ("Common Name"), the other drew unanimous disagreement from the three editors who had the time to waste respond (Reversal of emphasis). The fact that so few people are responding to your one-sided discussions is because high-minded editors are no longer interested in engaging in your endless discussion. First Light (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most WP editors find this kind of discussion screamingly dull, so it's never going to involve more than a small percentage of the few editors who work on plant articles at all. Canvassing and spreading the discussion to multiple places over multiple months hasn't broadened the response much, so this is pretty much the jury that has to be persuaded. For my part, PBS has yet to produce even a single counterexample to my claim that reliable sources for "most commonly used name" simply do not exist - so any guideline requiring such is inherently un-implementable. Stan (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shebs, the same argument -- that reliable sources for "most commonly used name" simply do not exist -- can be made for just about any topic in Wikipedia. It's one of the reasons I think it was a huge mistake to add that statement into the guideline.  It ignores the way practically every single article in Wikipedia has been named to date.  I don't understand why PBS does not see this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sabine, while there may be more universally agreed names for birds and mammals than for plants, that just means plants are more like all the other topics in Wikpedia for which there are no universally agreed names that are also most commonly used. That's the good reason to change this guideline - to make plant naming be in accordance with the same guidelines by which all other Wikipedia articles are named.  In fact, plant names have an advantage over most others topics (not including birds and mammals) with respect to identifying the most commonly used names because the common names (which are commonly used, each in at least some location) are relatively well sourced and are the de facto candidates for being the most commonly used name.  Only in those cases where there are no common names for the given topic, or the Latin name is considered a common name (e.g., Aloe vera), should the Latin name even be considered as a candidate for the article name, if consistency with traditional Wikipedia article naming is a goal at all.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That last sentence paraphrases as "don't use the scientific name if a vernacular name is available." If such a position is not in violation of "use the most common name" then our present convention certainly is not either. Even PBS will agree with me there. But of course you'll counter that the common name is the most commonly used name, based on your unique interpretation of policy that has been roundly rejected by everyone else, and your imputation of a brand spanking new meaning to the term common name. Hesperian 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another target: drug proprietary brand names vs generic or International Nonproprietary Names. --Una Smith (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aspirin, not acetylsalicylic acid. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good find Una. So B2C you are telling me you would prefer in the case of a genus where (say) 1 species had a common name, that that one was at that and the rest were at their scientific names? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, assuming the rest of the species in the genus had no common names. That's how it would have to be for Wikipedia to accurately reflect in the title of each respective article the most commonly used name for each species in that genus.  Doing anything else would wrongly imply what the most commonly used name is in at least one case.   Your example is hypothetical, but the reason something like that might actually happen is because that one species is the only one in that genus to be commonly known, and the article naming should reflect that fact.  I understand and appreciate the consistency and predictability of the scientific POV with respect to plant naming, but I also understand and appreciate the purpose of Wikipedia naming guidelines, and, in particular, the common name guideline.  And since this is Wikipedia and not a flora... when in Rome... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And another target: Naming conventions (aircraft) qualifies "the most common name" by starting with "For article titles, use the most common unambiguous name." Since the scientific name is the only unambiguous name for 99.9999% of plants, this is essentially what is already happening here. First Light (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most aircraft names are not nearly as well-known as are the plant names ultimately in question here. Also, what the "most common unambiguous name" means is adding precision to the most commonly used name when it by itself is ambiguous, not using something different altogether (which is what using the Latin name is doing).  Note that well known aircraft, such as Boeing 747, are at their most commonly used names.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but evidence that naming conventions compromise or qualify common names is abundant, and reason alone to keep the flora naming convention as is. There is no perfect answer to 'common name', which is why there are so many compromises and qualifications. Editors have provided extremely abundant evidence to support the current flora naming convention. First Light (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're admitting the current flora guideline compromises the common names guideline, that's progress over the position held by others here. I'll grant that there are compromises in other areas, and some are justified and others are not. The focus here should be on whether compromise in this case (flora) is justified, while it has mostly been about whether it compromises or not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not, I'm saying that it qualifies it, which the other WikiProjects do. And re: the 'compromise' that the other projects use, I'm using the term in the sense of "something intermediate between different things" rather than "To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something". Ah, the joys and subtleties of the English language..... :-) First Light (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever one wants to call it, the current convention came out of much agonizing over all these questions years ago. In fact, I was more in favor of identifying and using vernacular names than other participants. But as people have argued through various examples, it's convinced me strongly that while theoretically there may be a vernacular name that is both unambiguous and most commonly used, we have no actual way of reliably determining when that is the case. So when we're done arguing Platonic ideals, we're right back where we started. Stan (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Yes, Stan, it is true that for a given plant "we have no actual way of reliably determining when [there may be a vernacular name that is both unambiguous and most commonly used]". But with all due respect, so what??? It is also true that for any title of just about any topic in Wikipedia we have no actual way of reliably determining whether the title is "both unambiguous and most commonly used". That fact does not stop us from never-the-less doing our best to name every other article in Wikipedia in accordance with these guidelines, and I don't see why plants should "get a pass" from following this admittedly sometimes difficult and even painful process simply because there is an entirely separate taxonomy of unique and unambiguous names already worked out.

By the logic used to defend the use of Latin names for plants here, we should use, for example, President Carter's social security number for the title of the article about him instead of arguing whether the most commonly used and unambiguous name is Jimmy Carter, James Earl Carter or President Carter. Hang on, I'm only half-joking. After all, social security numbers are guaranteed to be unique and unambiguous for U.S. citizens just as Latin names are for plants. And if someone decided to use his social security number as his name, and so his SSN became the name by which he was most commonly referred, that would be the title of the article about him. Similarly, if the Latin name is the most commonly used common name, as in Aloe vera, that should be the article title. But to use Latin scientific names for plant articles simply because the most commonly used unambiguous common name cannot be reliably determined is like using SSNs for people simply because the most commonly used unambiguous name cannot be reliably determined. It's absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even your straw men are shithouse, B2c. The comparison might be valid if every scholar of Carter in the world preferred to refer to him by his social security number. Hesperian 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A straw man implies I'm refuting an argument that no one is making. I didn't do that.  Context, Hesperian, context.  The SSN/Latin name analogy I drew was in addressing Stan's comments and argument for not using the vernacular name simply because "we have no actual way of reliably determining when [there may be a vernacular name that is both unambiguous and most commonly used]".  Whether the alternative taxonomy is preferred by experts in the field in question was not relevant to what he said, so my not reflecting that characteristic in my analogy was not setting up a straw man.  But if you need that addressed too, consider the analogy of using stock ticker symbols for the titles of corporations since stock symbols are guaranteed to be unique and unambiguous and for many corporations we have no actual way of reliably determining (especially by referencing reliable sources) the name that is "both unambiguous and most commonly used".  Just as absurd.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For famous people there are dozens of sources that include explicit discussion about the most common names by which they are known; I did lots of bios ages ago, and as the person got more obscure, the more likely that one just used whatever was in the bio that was used as a source. It's unusual to have multiple valid names for an obscure person, the most common situation is minor nobility, and whadda ya know, there is a specific naming convention that regularly produces counterintuitive article titles. And why shouldn't plants "get a pass", anyway? My purpose here is to document facts, not engage in interminable hair-splitting over whether 201 Google hits for an obsolete name should outweigh 198 hits for a rural-Connecticut-only name. It's like you're trying to force other people into doing this pointless exercise 400,000 times to satisfy your sense of rightness; but the bottom line is that I'm not going to do it, and the others here aren't going to do it. So just give it up already, go find somebody else to hassle please. Stan (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."(WP:NC) If you consider implementing Wikipdia policy a wast of time, when you create a new article you can always name it by the scientific name and let others who are interested worry and discuss if it is the most appropriate name and move it to another name if they think it appropriate. --PBS (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS can please explain, what is general audience and what is specialist audience? how to identify the general audience over a specialist audience? how do we identify that the general audience is greater in number than this specialist? how can we tell what name they are looking for anyway? Gnangarra 13:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Like obscenity, sometimes specialists are hard to define, but you know it when you see it. As an example, anyone that thinks Yucca brevifolia is more commonly used than Joshua tree to refer to the plant that is the namesake of Joshua Tree, California, Joshua Tree National Park and The Joshua Tree is a specialist for whom Wikipedia articles should not be named.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B2c, it appears you live close to or in the limited area where Yucca brevifolia is called Joshua tree. In most of its range this species is not called Joshua tree.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please. The Joshua Tree was produced by a band from Ireland, for crying out loud.  If that doesn't convince you how commonly and universally that name is used to refer to that plant, nothing will penetrate, I'm afraid.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, Una, according to the article itself, the range is: "Southwestern United States with populations in western Arizona, southeastern California, southern Nevada, and southwestern Utah. This range mostly coincides with the geographical reach of the Mojave Desert." While I don't live in the Mojave Desert, I'm within a few hundred miles, and have been all over this range all of my life.  The only name  used to refer to this plant in this range, except perhaps by specialists, is Joshua Tree.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm mystified by Una's comment too. Stan (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mystified indeed. Sometimes Una does act and explain herself quite rationally.  But at other times she does or says something like this that makes no sense whatsoever, and, when you call her on it, she normally never replies, much less admits an error. At least that's my impression.  We'll see how it works out in this case (and in the discussion I'm having with her about the fallacy she alleges I have in my argument below).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, repeatedly bleating about "Wikipedia policy" is just wasting everybody's time. You're talking to admins and experienced editors here, some of whom were helping develop WP policy since before you joined, and they know all about the policies and guidelines. Some of us have spent years thinking about how best to make botanical content fit into WP as a whole, and agonizing over difficult areas, such as naming conventions. So not only is it extremely rude to talk to us as if we were noobs who didn't know anything, it's also eliminating any possibility that you'll be taken seriously. So cut it out. Stan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This post is like a lawyer protesting that he doesn't need to be told what the law is, in order to try to deflect from the fact that he is in violation. Can you please address PBS' explanation about how this guideline violates policy, which to be thorough quotes that policy that he alleges is being violated, instead of whining about already knowing that policy? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy - WP:IAR. You guys need to go reread the essays linked from that page; I just did, and they say it all much better than I could. Stan (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as I essentially wrote to First Light above in response to a similar statement, if you're admitting the current flora guideline ignores the rules (but you believe justifiably so per WP:IAR), that's progress over the position held by others here. The focus should be on whether ignoring the rules in this case (flora) is justified, instead of about whether the rules are even being ignored. But no one, so far, is even willing to go down that path (I wonder why?).  Even First Light backed off and wouldn't admit that the flora guideline even compromises the rules (he said they "qualify" them), much less ignores them. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2C, obviously the shades of meaning of the word "compromise" are lost on you, even after I pointed it out for you. Just for the record, like many others here, I support the current flora naming convention. First Light (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First Light, did I write something that made you think that I did not understand the shades of meaning of the word "compromise", or that you supported the current flora naming convention? If I did, I would like to know what that is, because I obviously wrote something that you misunderstood.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was using "compromise" in the sense of "something intermediate between different things" " You only seem to be aware of it in the sense of "To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something". If I'm wrong, I stand corrrected. Regarding my support of the current naming convention, that was for the sake of others here who seem to think that there is consensus to gut the flora naming conventions. I see no such consensus, which is why this discussion isn't going anywhere. First Light (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of the other meaning of compromise, and you explained quite clearly that that is what you meant earlier. For the record, I too see no consensus among the participants here either, but if lack of consensus was an explanation for why "discussion isn't going anywhere", then there would be no point in ever having discussion.   Of course, the point of the discussion is to build and change consensus, and that is what I, for one, am trying to do (obviously without much success so far, but I'm pretty tenacious and have logic and reason and the guidelines on my side, so it's only a matter of time...).  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on one thing, it is "a matter of time", though in a different sense than what you mean. As far as logic and reason and the guidelines being on your side, whew. When there are specific proposals here, I'll find the time again. First Light (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew is right, but fair enough. If I come up with a specific proposal that I think might be supported by consensus here, I'll let you know, if that's okay with you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So what?
Since reliable sources aren't important, B2c, please tell me whether Eschscholzia caespitosa should be at "Frying pans" or "San Benito poppy"? Use whatever measure you want. When you're done, I'll accept your methodology for this case, because I think I can make my subsequent case regardless.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that reliable sources aren't important. I said that they are virtually unavailable for the purpose of determining the most commonly used name for just about any topic in Wikipedia.  If you're not convinced, click on WP:RANDOM a few times and see how many articles you can find for which the name in the title is supported by reliable sources to be the most commonly used name for that article's topic.


 * With respect to Eschscholzia caespitosa, I cannot tell you off hand what is the most commonly used name (by non-specialists) for that plant. But I can tell you it's not Eschscholzia caespitosa because that is not even a common name for that plant.  Just because we can't determine from reliable sources whether yogurt or yoghurt is the most commonly used name for that topic, doesn't mean we put the article at Dairy product made from bacterially fermented milk.  In both cases, as for all Wikipedia articles, we should do our best to determine which commonly used name is the most common, not go with some name that is clearly not commonly used by non-specialists to refer to that topic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most likely non-specialists will think it's a California poppy, because only specialists are likely to notice the differences from E. californica. You wanna make California poppy a disambig page linking to several species? We've been over all this a dozen times with you, and it's just not sinking in; the process you're advocating *will* fail, and the result will be a tangled disaster. Repeatedly trotting out non-botanical examples is pointless; I've personally chosen literally thousands of article titles in WP, and from my experience I tell you that plant article naming is a problem not solved by bringing up yogurt, or frying pans, or whether the moon is made of cheese. Stan (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, I'm definitely a non-specialist when it comes to plants, but I would never mistake the flowers depicted in the photo at Eschscholzia caespitosa to be the plant that I know as a California poppy (or Golden poppy). The California poppy flower has a more distinctive "taller" cup shape than what is shown in every photo of Eschscholzia caespitosa I can find (including here), and I've never seen a yellow (only orange) California poppy.  In any case, even if it were true that Eschscholzia caespitosa was commonly mistakenly identified as California poppy, that would be no more reason to claim a conflict for that name than having the existence of a Tom Hanks look-a-like who is commonly mistaken for the actor to mean the actor could not be at Tom Hanks.  Yes, the absurdity of the arguments rationalizing the current flora guideline is easily revealed simply by trying to apply them to any non-botanical case.  The case that plants are a special exception has not been made (though it has been asserted over and over, without basis).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting B2c, "I cannot tell you off hand what is the most commonly used name [...] for that plant. But I can tell you it's not [...] because that is not even a common name for that plant." (diff).  There you have it:  B2c's argument is based on the fallacy that only a common name can be a most commonly used name.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a fallacy. If a Latin name is commonly used (by non-specialists), then it is a common name.  Like Aloe vera [1].  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, if a name is commonly used by non-specialists to refer to a given plant, be it English or Latin, then it is a common name of that plant, by definition. However, in the case of obscure species that are virtually unknown by anyone except specialists, then of course the most commonly used name is the name used by specialists, but, in general (I'm sure there are some exceptions), that should be true only for plants that have no recognized English "common names".  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that we should use an English common name, if it exists, even if it is demonstrably not the most commonly used name. And since we don't need sources, we can make it up.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying. If it's demonstrably not the most commonly used name because some other name is more commonly used, then the more commonly used name should be used, of course.  If it's demonstrably not the most commonly used name because of some other reason, then whether it should be used would depend on what the other reason is.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2c, do you not have much interaction with people in daily life or something? I go on trips with the local mountaineering club for instance, and even though those folks get out in nature a *lot*, they barely recognize plant taxa beyond "cactus" or "yucca". When I point out other types, it's as likely that it's the first time they've heard either Sphaeralcea or "globemallow" - in practice I find that the sole remaining advantage of vernaculars is that they are easier to pronounce. :-) It's simply no longer the case that regular folks have a store of plant knowledge indexed by vernacular names. A handful of garden plants, a handful of trees, that's about it. Most of the "common names" you can find online are copied from herbals a century old or more, and are no longer known to living persons, they are simply being propagated verbatim. Stan (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stan, yes, absolutely, common names that are not commonly used should not be used as article titles. I'm only talking about common names that are actually commonly used, like Joshua Tree.  It seems to me that plants whose common names are as commonly known as are the few that I, this particular non-specialist, know must number considerably more than a handful.  Yes, each non-specialist might only know a handful him or herself (if that's what you mean), but for all topics in Wikipedia, the name that is "commonly used" must be considered within the scope of those (non-specialists) who know and refer to the topic in question by name.  All we can do is ignore those who are unfamiliar with the topic in question and don't refer to it by any name.  So, for determining the article title about any given plant, the question that should be asked is, Among the non-specialists familiar with this plant, what do they call it?  In many cases that may very well be the Latin name (e.g., Aloe vera).  But in cases like Monterey Cypress, Joshua Tree, California poppy or Torrey pine, no way are the most commonly used names by non-specialists Cupressus macrocarpa, Yucca brevifolia, Eschscholzia californica and Pinus torreyana respectively.  Yet for some reason (the current flora guideline, apparently) two of those four are at their Latin names never-the-less.   That's the problem I'm addressing. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Joshua tree" unambiguously refers to Yucca brevifolia ssp/var brevifolia, which doesn't have an article, but it doesn't unambiguously refer to the whole species, which does. It is my impression that the only specimens of Yucca brevifolia in the National Park are of ssp brevifolia. Basically, what you are advocating is equivalent to titling an article about all residents of southern California, Angelinos, or all residents of Great Britain, English people.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And now for the answer (since B2c didn't want to do the research): Neither one. "Frying pans" is a common name for Eschscholzia lobbii (it's the only member of the genus besides the California poppy that has a common name actually used by common people, although whether it is most commonly used is left as an exercise for the reader), and "San Benito poppy" is a made-up "common" name for Eschscholzia hypecoides, as a result of it being on some rare plant list or another (CNPS 4, iirc). Where does this information come from? Reliable sources. How would you react to an edit war between editors who wanted to call the article "San Benito poppy" and those that wanted to call it Eschscholzia caespitosa? Plant names are not like London, where the applicability of a name is well-established. No one would move George W. Bush to Poppy or Chester A. Arthur to The Great Emancipator, but mistakes as egregious can be made by favoring a "common" name for a plant taxon over a correct name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The tenor of some of B2c's comment leads me to think that he would actually like to see edit wars "vigorous discussion" on such articles, the theory being that this is how one arrives at the ideal title. He would not be the only one who thinks that way, and certainly there are areas in WP where it is worthwhile to have that kind of debate - I would probably put US presidents in that category for instance, because of the intense interest and vast readership. But Eschscholzia species? No, there's just no value in it. Stan (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good, Stan, but not quite. It's not that I would like to see such "vigorous discussions", it's that I don't like to see productive discussions about which common name is most commonly used suppressed by calls for using the Latin name instead.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point you've had a bit of personal experience with debate over Pinus longaeva and Yucca brevifolia. How did those go? Were those discussions productive? Personally I thought they were a waste of time; if you think they were worthwhile, and nobody else here does, then we should simply agree to disagree and move on. Stan (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They were about as productive - or about as much of a waste of time - as any particular RM discussion I've been involved with, give or take. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A refocus on this guideline
The discussions about other guidelines are in my opinion a side issue to this discussion. Just because other guidelines may or may not breach policy is no licence or justification for this guideline to breach policy.

I am not sure why anyone wishes to claim that I am on an "anti-scientific crusade" I am not, nor am I doing this for self-aggrandizement. My reasons for suggesting these changes to this guideline is because I think that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are better if they are in harmony. If they are internally consistent, then it helps new editors understand them and in the long term it reduces conflict. I am working towards a better encyclopaedia and I in this discourse I have never assumed that all of the other participants are joining the discussion with the same motive. I would appreciate it if people would stay focused on the issues and stop accusing others of acting in bad faith as it does not help us to work towards a consensus.

Can we please hit the misunderstanding of the use of common name on the head? This has now been clarified with a footnote to the common names guideline. In this discussion I will use the phrase "commonly used name" when describing the usage of "common name" in the naming conventions, so that those who are more familiar with the term "common name" as used in botany are not confused. I would appreciate it if others would also make that distinction. I would also like to agree a form of wording to add to this convention so that the misunderstanding is defined away in the guideline, see the section above where the conversation seems to have stalled.


 * "All of PBS's actions show this: endless repetition of points long since lost and refuted, endless refusal to acknowledge the points lost or refuted, endless demands for implementation of a plan that the crusader admits is not implementable, endless attempts to run around consensus, endless inaccurate posts about the monologue." (KP Botany)

Which of my points had been refuted? Where have I "admitted" that the "reversal of emphasis" and definition of common name is not "implementable"? I am not "running around consensus" if consensus is as it is described in the Wikipedia consensus policy. --PBS (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for KP Botany, but for my part I've pointed out multiple times that there are no reliable sources for "most-commonly-used name", and that the number of usages of any particular name is so small as to be statistically useless, and that it's not unusual for the largest number of Google hits to be obviously incorrect, such as a misidentification or an obsolete scientific name. Do you agree or disagree with these specific points? Stan (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stan, only I think it needs to be said that the fact that there are no, or very few, reliable sources for determining the most commonly used name applies to almost all topics covered by Wikipedia, not just botanical ones. That statement renders the common name guideline useless,  which is why I think that relatively new clause needs to removed from there.  It is ridiculous to apply the reliable sources requirement that is intended for providing sound basis for any content added to articles, to the process of determining the most commonly used name for articles.  Determining the most commonly used name for a topic is something that is basically not done outside of Wikipedia, and is practically unique to Wikipedia.  It's unclear whether other encyclopedias even do it.  And when you add in considerations required by other naming guidelines, like WP:D and WP:PRECISION, you have a process which is absolutely unique to Wikipedia, for which there can be no sources, reliable or not, to reference.  Well, there are always sources to be consulted with respect to how a given topic is referenced by name, but there are no sources to consult that directly answer the question we need to ask when naming any article in Wikipedia.  I am confident that sooner or later PBS will see this too, and will come to realize that clause needs to be backed out.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You proposed that clause be "backed out" at WP:COMMONNAME; PBS abstained, and your proposal was still summarily rejected. If you won't admit defeat, at least stop peddling a rejected interpretation here. Hesperian 03:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is not needed B2C is a name based on unreliable sources. Apart from yourself I don't think there is anyone who supports that position. Stan I have already answered the charge "the are no reliable sources for "most-commonly-used name"" see my reply on 8 Jan "I have delayed answering here". Your other points are valid and I would argue they are ones that could go into this guideline once the emphasis has been turned around to use common names. It is for concerns like that that we have topic based guidelines to refine the general naming policy not to contradict it. --PBS (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At one point I facetiously suggested that the guidelines could read "if you think you have found a most-commonly-used name that is not the scientific name, you're mistaken". It seems like a cruel joke to tell people that they are welcome to try to come up with a different result, while all the time knowing that they will fail, because invariably the sources are not reliable, the number of usages is too few, the usages are obsolete, the usages are flat-out wrong, or the name is ambiguous. Why not be honest and say "we have studied the naming issue extensively, and in order to avoid 400,000 separate arguments, all of which will come out the same way, we're going to use current scientific names". Stan (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ;-) Hesperian 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to settle a straw man that has been blown horribly out of proportion. There is a big difference between
 * 1. Use the name most commonly used by reliable sources

and
 * 2. Use the name that reliable sources say is most common

The naming convention says the former. As far as I can tell, PBS supports the former. I'm not aware of anyone arguing the latter, so refutations of it are a waste of time and energy. Hesperian 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought this up. I understand that PBS intends the former, but doesn't Stan, to use a recent example, imply an interpretation equivalent to the latter when he writes, "there are no reliable sources for 'most-commonly-used name'"?  No reliable sources that show how names are used?  For no (as in none) to apply, I think he has to mean "no reliable sources say what is most common".  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the point that Stan has been making these last few days is subtler than a mere refutation of this straw man argument. Hesperian 06:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I mean (1), which means if Stan is correct when he says "if you think you have found a most-commonly-used name that is not the scientific name, you're mistaken", scientific name will always be used. However with a "reversal of emphasis" in this guideline, if there are one or two plants where it is clear the scientific name is not the commonly used name, then instead of defaulting to the scientific name the plant will be under some other name. This would make the guideline conform with the policy, strengthen its credibility, and in the long term reduce conflict over the naming of plants. --PBS (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I get this right your saying that we use the scientific names except for one or two cases where there is a compelling reason to use something else aka, rice, safron. This was the convention that was in place before this discussion started. Gnangarra 09:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, PBS is only happy with the scientific name so long as the scientific name is the most common ly used name. He is saying that we have the cart before the horse: rather than mandating the scientific name, we should mandate the most common ly used name, and let the scientific name flow naturally from that. Hence his request that the emphasis be reversed. Currently it is:
 * "The scientific name is nearly always the most common ly used name so use it unless you're prepared to make a case for some other name"
 * PBS sees that as a violation of "use the most common ly used name" and wants us to change it to
 * "Use the most common ly used name. Most of the time this will be the scientific name."
 * I dispute the premise that we're in violation, but my issue with the proposed rephrasing is that it would open a can of worms with respect to article naming conflicts. PBS's claim that this rephrase would reduce conflict is simply risable: it runs completely counter to the experience of those of us who have edited under both regimes.
 * Hesperian 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is not I who is saying that in most cases the scientific name is the most commonly used name, it is people like Stan who have been stating that. I have taken his word for it (and assumed that the sample from KP Botany's moves was a random sample that did not contradict the statement). As I said before, I see no problem once the reversal has taken place that the commonly used name should not be qualified with problems such as what to do if old reliable sources use a different name from post 2000 reliable sources, etc.


 * The reason it would reduce conflict is because at the moment anyone who disputes a scientific name of a plant will bring common usage to the debate. Anyone who wants to use the scientific name will cite this guideline. If this results in a WP:RM the closing administrator should look at policy and guideline (purpose of consensus), in which case the policy should take precedence (policy and guidelines). It would be better if policy and flora guideline were not contradictory but harmonious. If they were harmonious then in most cases the position of those who want to use scientific names will have their hand strengthened not weakened. --PBS (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How can the changes cause harmony, policies should be formulated to adress the majority of articles, for the rest we have discussions processes like WP:RM, WP:RFC. Gnangarra 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the distinction between 1. and 2., don't know that I've been specifically arguing for either. In the case of 1., the candidate reliable sources are basically going to be floras, natural histories, field guides, and gardening manuals. All of these inevitably mention sci name in addition to any vernacular names - so sci name will always win the "most uses" contest. In the case of 2., I would give great weight to even a single reliable source that makes the claim that a particular name is the one most commonly used. I don't recall ever seeing such a claim, but I haven't read every botanical book either. :-) Philosophically I don't have any objection to using vernacular names here and there, but in the course of this discussion we've tested various bars, higher and lower, and my suspicion is that if there is a consensus bar, it's going to be so high that no vernacular ever makes it over. I don't like the "cruel joke" phrasing in the guideline, but it would have the advantage of being following the letter of overall policy, while yielding the same end result. I worry about the interminable naming arguments, but maybe we can run a test for awhile, and if more than, say, 100 articles in a month have disputes that go into multiple rounds or polls or whatever, then we say that the cruel joke phrasing is not working. Stan (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stan, you write, "In the case of 1., the candidate reliable sources are basically going to be floras, natural histories, field guides, and gardening manuals." That would be true if we were supposed to be looking only at usage among specialists in a given field when determining the most commonly used name.  But we're not.  To the contrary, we're supposed to be looking at usage among non-specialists.  You also wrote, "In the case of 2., I would give ..."  Why are you even considering case 2?  The fact that you are even doing that shows that what Hesperian above claims to be a straw man -- "I'm not aware of anyone arguing the latter, so refutations of it are a waste of time and energy." -- is not in fact a straw man.  But you are not alone.  KP Botany certainly has made his share of comments, including on my talk page, indicating he too has been interpreting the guideline per version #2.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Field guides and gardening books sold at mall bookstores are hardly works aimed at specialists! I have no idea what other sources you imagine exist - my computer science books mention red-black trees with no scientific name :-), and my sailing ship books mention oak sometimes, quickly following up with uncertainty as to which species of oaks were used for long-vanished vessels. I mention case 2 because despite the likelihood that it is hypothetical, it's a case where a "use sci names always" guideline would be in direct opposition to a reliable source, and so it's a sort of litmus test as to whether one favors sci names as a matter of principle or of pragmatism. Stan (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They might not be aimed at specialists, but they reflect the usage of the specialists that write those books. For non-specialist usage you have to look at names used by non-specialists, like namers of national parks, towns and music albums named after plants, for example, but also regular newspaper articles, articles in magazines like Newsweek (not a gardening magazine), plant references in books that are not botanical etc.  In other words, we should look at almost any usage except the list of items you mention.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This bizarre interpretation of policy was summarily rejected at WP:COMMONNAMES, so please stop peddling it here. Hesperian 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is aiming at the same audience these books are aimed at. The fact that they are also written by Reliable Sources only confirms that Stan is right on track. The name of a music album is not a reliable source for a plant name. Regional newspapers could be used as a reliable Wikipedia source to confirm that a vernacular name is used in that region, nothing more. Gardening guides are written by reliable sources, for the widest mainstream audience (much like Wikipedia being written using reliable sources, for the widest audience). Gardening guides predominantly lead with scientific names. First Light (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of a music album that is named after a plant is a reliable source example of how that plant is commonly named. The scientific name specified for a plant in a field guide book is not an example of common usage at all (to the contrary), much less a reliable source for that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This bizarre interpretation of policy was summarily rejected at WP:COMMONNAMES, so please stop peddling it here. Hesperian 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of a music album is not a reliable source for plant naming according to any Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources. A widely used gardening guide written by Reliable Sources in that field most certainly is a reliable source for plant names. First Light (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And there's the problem with referencing reliable sources in the naming guideline (which is a relatively new reference). Yes, a music album is not a reliable source for scientific content in an article, but is a reliable source for, well, the name of that album, for example, and the names of the songs on that album.  It is also a reliable source as an example of common English language usage, including commonly used names for things, like plants.




 * I agree that a widely used gardening guide is a reliable source for plant names, however it is not necessarily a reliable source for what names are actually commonly used, which is what matters when naming Wikipedia articles. For that purpose a popular album (especially one much more popular than any field guide) is a much more reliable source.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This bizarre interpretation of policy was summarily rejected at WP:COMMONNAMES, so please stop peddling it here. Hesperian 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that *is* freaky. Album names are typically decided in booze- and weed-fueled discussions in between attempts to lay down a track 1/2 :-), not really reflective of anything except random neuron firings in drug-addled musician brains. Stan (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Stan, you're wrong. With weed, it's more a reflection not of random neuron firings itself, but the decrease in number of random neuron firings.  I'll be glad to include a picture of a neuron as a reliable, verifiable source for this one.  --KP Botany (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How album names (and song names for that matter) are decided is not relevant here. The point is that the reason they have meaning is because they are based on English usage that is commonly used, that's why they are relevant and reliable sources with respect to providing examples of actual common language usage.  When someone names an album, especially a popular album, after a plant, that is a very reliable source establishing basis for the position that that name is commonly used to refer to that plant.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to go into what are or are not reliable sources, because the link in the naming conventions is there to offload that into the WP:SOURCES part of the Wikipedia policy verifiability. Some of the language in that section is specific to content, the general meaning is not hard to comprehend as it applies to the naming of articles such as: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." (my emphasis).

As we are not going to define reliable source here, can we please put aside for now what is or is not a reliable source, and concentrate on Stan's sensible suggestion that "maybe we can run a test for awhile, and if more than, say, 100 articles in a month have disputes that go into multiple rounds or polls ..." but I would suggest WP:RM is the place to test them if there is a dispute over the name. To do this test though we ought to rewrite the Draft so that (1)It uses a "reversal of emphasis" (2) it defines commonly used names, (3) it includes the points raised that need to be addressed in this specific guideline (eg names derived from out of date publications). This can then be used as the flora guideline for trial period. --PBS (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Philip, you don't get off that easy. Yes, the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, but even that sentence is understated for our purposes here.  That entire page was obviously written with only article content in mind, and to stretch it to apply to the process of determining the name most commonly used, and most likely to be recognized, by users of Wikipedia stretches it to the point of rendering it practically useless.  When it comes to seeing how language is actually used, practically any  use of that language is appropriate, by definition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * B2C whatever you thoughts on reliable sources, it is not pertinent to this talk page as this guideline can not change policy. The place to address this issue on Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions, so can we pleased stay focused on development of this page and discuss how we can best implement Stan's suggestion on a test run? --PBS (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the interpretation of "reliable" in terms of the reliable sources required to establish basis for usage of plant names is no different than the interpretation required to establish veracity of fact as used in article content, then discussion about that is very pertinent to this page. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is no more relevant to this guideline than any other because it is a naming convention policy issue. --PBS (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of how a general guideline applies to a specific guideline is an issue that is a relevant topic for the talk page of the specific guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of reliable sources is a naming conventions policy issue not a naming conventions guideline issue. --PBS (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of how a particular part of a general policy, including "determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject", applies to a specific naming guideline is appropriate discussion material for the talk page of that specific naming guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not pertinent anywhere, because it is solely your bizarre interpretation, which was summarily rejected at the policy page, making it irrelevant here. You lost, B2c; quit it. Hesperian 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS we have for 2 years been running with the scientific name convention in that time how many of the 30,000 articles have had naming disputes? how many of these remain unresolved? Changing the convention with the intention of running a test to deliberately see if 100's of articles end up with disputes is in violation of WP:POINT, disrupting Wikipedia to prove such a point can result in people being blocked. Gnangarra 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the one who suggested experimenting actually. The claim was that changing the guideline would not result in disruption - so if things get overheated, we can simply shut down the test early with a "we told you so". I don't know how often people make experimental guideline changes, it may be impractical in any case. Stan (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, As I have pointed out before, the current situation is unstable because there is conflict between policy and the guideline as it is currently worded. I assume that people involved in the debates will expressed opinions based on good faith and in build a consensus based on the policies and guidelines and not on their own preferences (see purpose of consensus) --PBS (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading this whole discussion during the last two hours and you guys cannot imagine how happy I am that Portuguese speakers (for I edit on pt-wiki) have never had the bad habit of translating scientific names to Portuguese making up, out of the blue, popular names that no one knows or uses. Any person who has the minimum amout of knowledge of plants can easyly see that using popular names of plants on a encyclopedia is a totally unpracticable thing. Furthermore what sort of organization is that with a mixed rule that switches from popular names to scientific names all the time? A minimum amout of organizion is needed to classify the whole thing. If I bought a book like this with some plants classified each way I'd rather throw it to on fire than opening it again. Knowing what is the most used common name is is a good joke, are you intending to run a pole every article to learn how people in Australia, Canada, Guiana and South Africa call each plant? Now, what about the English speakers that would like to research on en-wiki, every one in the whole world knows the scientific names of plants for that's why they do exist. To make easy for someone who lives in Tokio find aach one of the 400 thousand plants anywhere in the world. I wonder what are some wikipedians intending trying to change something that the man took all the existence to figure out and develop up till 1763, back to the stone ages. Common mames change all the time, from neighborhood to neighborhood. Guys, write articles about the 2.000 species of Bulbophyllum then send them the articles so they will come up with the most right common names to baptize them all, or better, let just have 1990 Bulbophyllum perfectly organized and categorized under their right names and the other 10 that have erratic popular name, lost somewhere in the middle of the rest. That's beautiful. Good luck guys. BTW, I wish to cheer up and congratulate the wonderful rules for plants names someone put together here (main article, not this disruption page). It is just what it should be: bananas to see statistics of production and to eat, and Musa to learn about the plant info. Just perfect. I could have not done better. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "If I bought a book like this with some plants classified each way I'd rather throw it to on fire than opening it again. " Now that is a compelling point. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What I suggest the way to move forward with Stan's suggestion is to modify the Naming conventions (flora)/Draft to recommend the use of the most commonly used name with further specific guidance for flora (for example what to do if the most common name appears to be an old scientific name), and when we have a working draft, that we put in a redirect from this guideline to the draft. At the end of the agreed trial period we can discuss the outcome and then make a decision on whether we promote the draft or go back to the current guideline. --PBS (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this. Those of us who would be affected by this experiment already know from long experience what the outcome would be. Some of the rest of you have proven yourself unwilling or unable to listen to listen to reason or hard evidence. I'm not interested in overturning a policy in order to implement an experiment that will prove nothing and satisfy no-one. And I'm certainly not interested in pursuing a policy of appeasing those who won't leave us in peace, in the forlorn hope that this "experiment" would succeed when nothing else has. Hesperian 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. When Stan first mentioned that, I thought he was kidding or not being entirely serious. PBS has latched on to the idea, which Stan admits above would probably end in a "told you so" moment. So why even go through with it? Listen to the people who know these articles, who write these articles, and organize and manage these articles. Regardless of our outside expertise, aren't our collective years of experience with plant articles enough to convince PBS and B2c that this is a bad idea? --Rkitko (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hesperian you wrote "I'm not interested in overturning a policy in order to implement an experiment" I too am not interested in overturning a policy, I am interested in getting a naming conventions guideline in line with the naming conventions policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs)
 * Meh. s/policy/convention/g. Hesperian 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Those of us who would be affected by this experiment already know from long experience what the outcome would be."(Hesperian) What would the outcome be? --PBS (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Philip, I am not directly interested in this discussion for I do not ordinarily write in en-wiki, so I guess I would be neutral to your decision here, but let me tell you that I have been working with plants for about 30 years, the last ten of which also writing in several magazines about plants in Brazil, and I know, from my experience that common names, are not used anywhere when writing about plants, other than in recipes, nutrition and statistic charts of production related to useful plants. We do not use these names when writing about landscaping, techniques of reproduction, morphology, evolution ar anything remotely related to science, we do not learn them at college and, at last, no one uses them but people who know nothing about plants. And why is that? It is because they are vague, and generally give no clue at all on what we are talking about, because in most of the cases they point to two to thousands of plants at once, having now way of separating them in a proper scietific way, or knowing of which one in the middle of these thousands is the particular plant we are takng about, they do not have a correct spelling reference, which varies from place to place. What in the world is a green-winged orchid? it may be maybe any of the one thousand orchid species that have a green wing, but which one, and what wing, is it a reference to the leave, to some apendix at the collum. WHAT? this name is absurd. Somebody just invented it at some point. It has no echoes in science. Now how do you expect knowledgeable people have to make a research to figure out what is people calling a plant that has a well established name in science and the only one that is generally world-wide accepted to name an article? To the light of science each plant can have just one accepted name. And even with this basic rule is not easy to follow because disputes happen all the time. Now what if my neighbor calls a different name a plant? so who is going to decide what is the most accepted? Why is his better than mine and vice-versa? I have about 300 books and encyclopedias about plants that are sold in ordinary bookstores, just 2 use comon names. One was printed in 1924 and is called Dictionary of Useful Plants it is a disambiguation book. Every common name is used to designate about five different species many not even remotely related, but in most of the cases is just sends you to a different common name (for they always have at least three or four other well used common names that vary from place to place and vary in spelling too) and, yes, sometimes scientific names are common names too, but then with completely odd spellings that no one has a clue fo figure out. A book like this is regarded as a curiosity. This book I am citing is a collection of 6 very think books, occupying almost 2 feet in the shelves, but no one here ever looks at them unless someone mentions a common name of a plant that no one knows. So we go there and do not find this name (because the author had no way of knowing all the common names), science does not accept them and no one ever publishes anything using them. The other one book I have here that uses common names is also an old and odd book, very poor quality of information, writen by a guy who is 90 years old, very stuborn, of course because he used common names he always got conflicting information as they designate different things most of the time. I suppose an encyclopedia which is aimed to teach people should choose always the most proper name to designate everything and all other less proper names should be redirects. In this case no doubt stands. If someone is looking for Banana, this person is not interested in learning anything about the plant but how it is used, etc. If they look for botanical info here, in the Banana article, there will be the link to the proper name article with all botanical info. Fortunately most of plants do not even have a common name. No good botanicist that I know of would ever use inexact common names to their publications. At last, there is not only one reliable reference to right or proper common names to be used for plants. All dictionaries of common names are regared as oddities and wierd funny things by knowledgeable people. We don't even know why books like theese are published (and who read them) as most of the time all info they include is incomplete or wrong. No good comprehensive book about any family of plants has ever been writen using common names, they don't even quote them to do not enforce something that we know does not work at all. It is impossible. When common names show in these books they just are at an appendix at the end sending the readers to what the author guessed these names might mean. I hope this outsider view help somehow. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fortunately most of plants do not even have a common name." I think you are confusing commonly used name with common name we are not talking about using a name designated as a common name by "dictionaries of common names", but the commonly used name, which may or may not be the scientific name. Please see the Wikipedia naming conventions policy section use the most easily recognized name for an explanation of the policy. --PBS (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Dalton is pointing out that even if the most commonly used name is a common name, it would be unusual and nonsensical for an encyclopedia to use it to name articles. --NoahElhardt (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it would be "unusual and nonsensical for an encyclopedia" like Britannica to use a common name when it is the most commonly used name to name articles? That's a ridiculous assertion on its face.  Can anyone cite any general (not botanical) encyclopedia that uses scientific Latin names to name articles when the topic has a common name that is commonly used to refer to it?  Why should Wikipedia be different from all other encyclopedias in this respect? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly because all general encyclopedias don't attempt to cover as many species as we already have covered or will cover (none even come close) and don't have the same organizational challenges that we do? Or maybe because the general encyclopedias only cover the somehow important plants. When you restrict the scope, it's easier to use vernacular names, especially when you also have a regional POV. --Rkitko (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another good point. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this a confirmation of your point (per your comment in the edit summary)? Because of these difficulties and because of the other policies that would require reliable sources to tell us which vernacular name is most commonly used, we would rather default to the more reliable, unambiguous, referenced scientific names. I still think this whole disagreement is moot since redirects, ideally, take care of any "common name" concerns. How do we reliably know that Sarracenia rubra is more commonly called the sweet pitcher plant? Most people that live around or near its range probably refer to it as just "pitcher plant" or some other common carnivorous plant name like "fly-catch", etc. Should we move it to Pitcher plant (sweet)? Absolutely not. Your arguments make little sense and you've convinced no one in the two months of debate. Time to give it up. --Rkitko (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the "confirms my point" comment in my edit summary did not go with this "Another good point" comment, it went with the second comment in that edit.


 * As to the rest of your commentary, the difficulties you speak of are shared with naming all Wikipedia articles, and are not at all unique to plants. The only difference is that plants happen to have this entirely separate taxonomy available to be used instead of following the same policy, guidelines and conventions that all other Wikipedia articles follow. The fact that both approaches will lead to using the same name in some cases is beside the point. The issue is whether to treat plants differently, by using this plant-specific taxonomy instead of standard WP naming rules, or not.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, apologies, then. Wasn't sure which point you were referring to. Thanks for clearing that up. I believe the whole disagreement is about interpretation of the policy. Your view is sensu stricto whereas I believe and many others feel that the policy grants us some latitude in this matter. Well, so as to not to make this any longer, put me down in the column for "thinks policy and guideline are in general agreement but even if they weren't thinks it's a valid exception." --Rkitko (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Rkitko, I disagree that the disagreement is about interpretation of policy. Regardless of what the details in the general policy say, using some other separate taxonomy to name articles in any particular area is simply not following that policy. I mean, I don't see how anyone possibly could interpret WP:COMMONNAME to mean, "when a well-known separate taxonomy exists that covers the topic of the article in question, use the name dictated by that taxonomy". It says nothing of the sort, doesn't imply, doesn't even give a hint about it. That's not a matter of interpretation, that's making stuff up out of whole cloth.

Now, the argument that this guideline -- to follow a separate taxonomy when naming articles about plants -- is a "valid exception" is something else altogether, but there has been very little attention given to this, and certainly that is not what the guideline itself claims. It's curious to me that most of the proponents of this guideline seem reluctant to admit that what they support conflicts with policy, no matter how good the argument may be to do exactly that because naming plants is a valid exception. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple obfuscation. It's not about a separate taxonomy. This is what the plants are called in reliable sources! Are articles on royalty held to the same standard? Are they commonly referred to with their full title? On your point about the "valid exception" perhaps people are reluctant to say so because they fear entrapment. Mostly, though, I think they agree that the policy gives enough latitude for this naming convention to exist as is. --Rkitko (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By bringing up royalty you're making my point. Naming of royalty is explicitly noted to be an exception in the policy!  The common names guideline state: "The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. " (my emphasis) [1]


 * Pointing out that reliable sources use the separate taxonomy is not relevant here. That's not even in dispute.  The issue is about whether any and all such names from the particular taxonomy are the most commonly used names for their respective topics.  Many of these reliable sources note what the scientific name is, but then go on and use a common name (arguably the most commonly used common name, which is often, perhaps usually, also the most commonly used name) in the rest of the article or whatever the source happens to be.


 * Fear of entrapment? I sure hope not.  That would be pathetic.  The policy gives no latitude to use a separate taxonomy instead of determining the most commonly used name as is done for every other article in WP, except as an exception.  So we're right back where we started.  Whether they realize it or not, whether they're willing to admit or not, and regardless of what latitude they "feel" the policy gives, what proponents of this guideline are supporting is an exception to the use the most common name policy.  An exception like names of royalty.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion and interpretation as my point above stands. I see phrases like "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..." and terms like generally..., do you not? You still never did answer my question about Sarracenia rubra. I don't want googlehits, either. Assume, for a second, that the plant isn't widely known under the scientific name. You have a choice of the translated "red pitcher plant" or "sweet pitcher plant". How do you know which the plant is called more frequently? Probably with the most frequency, it's just called "pitcher plant" or some other similar name. Maybe just "plant that eats bugs" or "green thing that grows in bogs". It would be an exercise in insanity and inanity to try to enforce a reversal of emphasis.


 * I'm curious. The kilobytes have begun to blur together after so long. I'm not sure I've understood your position correctly. Hypothetically, if someone were to begin lobbying for an exception, what would your response be? I've been unable to deduce whether you would or PBS would support that exception. Many of the arguments already made by others would support such a noted exception (vernacular names not unambiguous, not always unique, not frequently used). Your answer might surprise me. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered your question in general above. The decision about whether to use "red pitcher plant" or "sweet pitcher plant" would not be mine.  If there was a vote off-hand I don't know how I would vote.  My point is that such a situation would be no different from the countless decisions that are made about naming in WP for all articles.  Fundamentally, this is no different from, taking an example off the top of my head, deciding whether the article for a TV pilot should be Pilot (Series name) or Series name (pilot).  The only difference is that in the case of the plant name conflict, you can use the Latin scientific name instead of trying to figure out which name is most commonly used in reliable sources.


 * The fact that the policy clearly allows for exceptions does not make the exceptions not be exceptions. Even royalty names are exceptions.


 * I would be much more open to an argument contending that plant names should be an exception to the common name rule than I am to the argument that the current guideline is not an exception to the policy. I suspect that there could be a very compelling argument there, built on at least the following points:
 * A commonly used taxonomy is luckily available for plants.
 * Unlike other general encyclopedias which only document well-known plants with well-known common names, Wikipedia is trying to document all (or mostly all) plants, well-known or not. This of course brings into question WP:NOTABILITY, but that should be dealt with too. I mean, if a plant is not well known enough to have a commonly used common name, does it meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria?  It's a valid question that should at least be addressed.
 * Time to delete the Amborella trichopoda article. --KP Botany (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so just because a plant does not have a common name does not mean it's not notable. But, just because it's a plant does not mean it is notable.  The question of whether all plants should be document in WP stands, and also the question of what percentage of notable plants do not have common names. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In order for a plant to have a scientific name, a botanist must have published a thorough description of the plant's morphology and systematics in a reputable academic journal. Therefore, by definition, every published plant has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"; and yes, I have checked against the definitions given in Notability. It is crystal clear that, according to policy, every plant taxon is notable. Furthermore, amongst editors that are not completely lacking in the most basic comprehension of this field, there is widespread consensus that every taxon is notable. Surely policy plus widespread consensus equals you can drop this ludicrous new argument now. Hesperian 11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having some names with English common name titles and others with Latin scientific titles results in an unprofessional looking hodgepodge.
 * I can't say right now whether I would support such an argument; it would depend on how compelling it ultimately was, particularly on the notability point. But I sure would like to see someone provide a defense for the current guideline that has some basis.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Philip, I perfectly understand the concept of common mame as being the most used name (what, regarding plantas names, mostly is a subjective guess of the editor's background). Now, the first sentence of use the most easily recognized name states "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." so we do already have a problem with the "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" part of this sentence. So let's check it out against Verifiability of sources. The first item is about Reliable sources. What do we read there? This:


 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."


 * "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."'


 * All peer-reviewed journals and university publications always go with scientific names. So do good reliable magazines. Is there any doubt about this? For me it is pretty much clear that plants should always be treated by scientific names. At least that is what I can understand from the prefered reliable sources wikipedia recomends. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well, here we have a person with 30 years of plant experience who confirms my point about the lack of distinction between the Wikipedia "common name" (commonly used) and the scientific usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well well well, here we have a person with 30 years of plant experience who states that the common name will rarely if ever be the most commonly used name; yet B2c somehow manages to read into it the exact opposite of what he actually said. Hesperian 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:V (to which WP:SOURCES links is primarily a content policy, the Naming conventions piggy back on it (see my comments above about semi-detached), so although we use the same sources to see what something should be called, the weighting that types of reliable sources should be given differs. What is the best type of sources for content is not necessarily the best for choosing a name. However if what you say is true about what is in reliable sources (and I have no reason to doubt you), then you should have no problem with using the most commonly used name as it will usually be the scientific name -- Mainstream publications includes publications such as The Sunday Times and other encyclopaedias etc, so in some cases the commonly used names and scientific names may not always be the same. --PBS (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

section break
Encyclopaedia as sources -- WP:RS says Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.... since we have secondary sources then they take precidence over tertiary sources for reliability. WP:NPOV say ''Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.'' if a plant has more than one common name or the name applies to more than one species then the highest degree of neutrality is the scientific//latin name. Since all of that isnt what you want to hear the next step is to look at Naming_conflict which suggests a number of tests google, international organisations, Scientific nomenclature, are the ones which apply to resolving this issue. The google test has already discussed and the examples were unclear with the results, International organisations appropriate to flora use scientific names to index and most also include the vanacular/common names in the work. Finally scientific nomenclature is what it says, where does all this lead us to? The result of the great circle is that following the policies from one to the next including the pillar policies we have what we started with use scientific names for plants with exceptions. Gnangarra 12:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please not that there is a difference from the three content polices and the naming conventions policy. See my comment above "about the naming conventions being semi-detached" from the three content policies. Instead of trawling through the content policies (which apply to the content of a page not the name of the page) please read the naming conventions policy. If it is your opinion that a correct interpretation of the naming conventions policy always returns the scientific name, then it follows that you will not mind deleting this guideline as all the exceptions are irrelevant as they are a breach of that policy. If on the other hand you think that the current exceptions are needed, then you recognise that the scientific name is not always appropriate, in which case it follows this guideline is in breach of the naming conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV WP:NPOV is one of the five Pillars, it applies to all facits of Wikipedia, the exceptions that are in place are undisputed neutral titles. Gnangarra 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:NPOV? It starts with the statement "Main policy page Naming conventions". IE NPOV defers to NC over naming issues. Most of the text is concerned with descriptive names (and as that carries POV issues it is best dealt with in the NPOV policy, but on articles where there is a name derived from sources, it says "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." As you know is what the naming conventions policy says in the first section of the policy (WP:NC). Neither says "use the name that experts in a field consider to be the correct name". --PBS (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup I read it, now please do me the courtesy of re-reading my original comment and you'll see that I put the whole thing in context by stating that if a species has more than one common name or the name applies to more than one species then the highest degree of nuetrality is the scientific//latin name. That means that we then have the situation that in normal article writting the article name with the highest frequency is going to be the scientific name hence the policy should be written to reflect what is the normal result in the easiest way for all to understand while still recognising that exceptions can/will/do occur because no matter how perfect the policy/guideline/convention nothing is that accurate, thats why WP:IAR exists. As for the deleting the other pages I'm more than happy to do that but from my reading of WP:CSD the reason for deletion from this discussion doesnt come under any of the criteria listed as such it will need to a WP:MFD to occur, your welcome to start the process and I'll happily comment citing this discussion. Gnangarra 12:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and WP:NPOV says Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. it doesnt defer to anything WP:NC, NC is derivative of NPOV... Gnangarra 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my reading of NPOV, the two do not contradict each other. --PBS (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no clear statement in the content policies that article titles are excluded from those policies. Article titles are an important part of the content of the page - much more so than categories, for example, which are required to have reliable sources in the article to justify a particular category for a living person, for example. As Gnangarra says, we are back where we started, having made yet another great circle. First Light (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great Wiki-lawyering up there. No Philip, you can't take the word "in articles" to mean "not in article titles".  For one, taking a single line out of context like that is abusive wikilawyering.  But even if one were to indulge your nonsense, the article title appears in the article.  So it's still subject to article content policies, even if by some stretch of imagination you could pretend that page names are not in the article space.
 * As for "please read the naming convention policy", you mean the naming convention policy which begins with the word except? The naming convention policy page says "we can differ".  We differ.  Your claims that this somehow is at odds with the naming convention are false.  It has been pointed out to you that your claims are false.  Yet you persist in making them.  This is disruption.  Please desist.  Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No I mean the naming conventions policy which starts with the words "Naming conventions are Wikipedia's policy on how to name pages." and then has a first section that has the title "Use the most easily recognized name". BTW the except is to other parts of the naming conventions policy not the guidelines which "supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy". Do you think the current wording of this guideline supplements and explains the policy or contradicts it? --PBS (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look Philip, as I explained to you before, as I explained to you several times before, the relevant section says Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication... That is what the policy says.  This is one of those exceptions.  How, how is it possible for this guideline to possibly contradict that statement?  It's logically impossible.  And you are aware of that.  It has been explained to you already.  Your habit of asking the same questions, over and over, despite the fact that those questions have been shown to be irrelevant is clearly tendentious.  This sort of behaviour of yours is unacceptable.  Please stop.  Guettarda (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, by your interpretation no guideline could be "at odds" with the policy since the policy begins with the word except.  Clearly that is a pointless interpretation of "at odds", as well as an interpretation of the policy that renders it useless.  That your argument ultimately rests on a premise that renders policy to be pointless and useless speaks volumes about who is doing the wiki-lawyering in this discussion.


 * The only reasonable and useful interpretation of "at odds" (in this context) and the policy itself in general is one that recognizes, for example, the guideline for names of royalty to be an exception to the policy (as the common name guideline explicitly states it is). That is, just because the policy explicitly allows for guidelines that are exceptions doesn't mean the guidelines that are exceptions are not exceptions.  Only if "being at odds with policy" is interpreted to mean "being an exception to the policy" can it be useful.


 * So where that leaves us with the question of whether making the guideline for flora an exception (that is "at odds" with the policy, like the guidelines for names of royalty, names of ships, etc.) is justified or not, and that is what this discussion should be about. It should not be about a denial of this current guideline being at odds with policy that is based on playing semantics such that the interpretation renders the applicable policy to be pointless and useless. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do realize that arguing semantic minutiae isn't getting you anywhere, right? My main reaction is to imagine your interminable contentiousness multiplied 30,000 times over. Stan (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, by your interpretation no guideline could be "at odds" with the policy since the policy begins with the word except.
 * Yes,. That's the way the policy is structured.  Local consensus can differ from the broad policy.  That's the way the naming convention works.
 * Clearly that is a pointless interpretation of "at odds", as well as an interpretation of the policy that renders it useless.
 * Clearly? I see.  Actually no, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 * That your argument ultimately rests on a premise that renders policy to be pointless and useless speaks volumes about who is doing the wiki-lawyering in this discussion
 * B2c, I get the impression that you don't understand either what constitutes policy in Wikipedia, how policy works, how policy is formulated, and that you don't understand what wikilawyering is.
 * The only reasonable and useful interpretation of "at odds" (in this context) and the policy itself in general is one that recognizes, for example, the guideline for names of royalty to be an exception to the policy (as the common name guideline explicitly states it is). That is, just because the policy explicitly allows for guidelines that are exceptions doesn't mean the guidelines that are exceptions are not exceptions.  Only if "being at odds with policy" is interpreted to mean "being an exception to the policy" can it be useful.
 * Seriously, I think we speak the same language, but I'm not confident that I can make sense of what you just said there. I'm going to take a shot at it, but it would be helpful if you made an effort to express yourself more clearly.
 * To begin with, you should read Policy. To quote from that page:
 * Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules
 * Policy and guidelines document the way we do things around here. Policy does not "allow exceptions" - rather, the naming convention documents the fact that there things are done differently in certain areas of the project.  All of our rules reflect they way we do things.  Policy and guidelines exist to document the way we do things.  They are not legal documents that are subject to interpretation.  When you talk about one part being "at odds" with another, you are treating the rules as if they are legal documents - in other words, you are wikilawyering.
 * Our policies and guidelines describe the way we do things. They may seem illogical in your eye, but that's the way we do things.  And we write policies and guidelines to document our weird little customs.  We're always open to new ideas - if you can convince us that one way of doing things is better than another, maybe you'll convince us to do things differently.  And when that happens, we can change the documents to show our new weird way of doing things.  But the best way to convince us is to show us that your way is better.  On the other hand, when you come here and you rail against the way we do things, and you try to force us to conform to your interpretation of the rules, you can only achieve one of two things.  Either you will be ignored, or you will drive people away.  Right now, you and Philip seem bent on turning this fun area of Wikipedia into a soulless, joyless world that conforms to your vision of how things should be.  But rules are descriptive, not proscriptive.  Sucking the fun out of people's experience here isn't the way to bring the editors who actually write the plant articles to your way of thinking.  Repeating the same crap over and over isn't a way of convincing people either.
 * I have never worked in sales. I don't know much about sales.  But as I understand it, the first step in trying to sell people on your "system" is to show that it actually works, that it actually makes their lives better.  If it's an improvement, people will probably adopt it, and over time consensus will change.  But so far, despite repeated requests, neither you nor Philip have produced your "system".  Neither of you have shown how if would work in real-world situations, neither of you have shown how it will improve our lives, or make editing more fun.  That's the starting point for this discussion.  Try it.  Write a series of articles about a medium-sized genus.  Show us how your system is an improvement over the way we do things now.  Pick your genus, show us results.  Then we can talk.  Guettarda (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bravo, Gettarda. A warm round of applause! Please, the ones who don't understand read it twice. I make your words mine. Bis! Seriously, do these guys think any one used to write Botany articles will ever be convinced to go back to pre-Linnaeus times? the only ones that will conform to these common names are the ones who know nothing and write very poor beguiners articles. wow. it seems these are the welcome ones, I can clearly see. Is there anything more exasperating than someone who doesn't have any idea of the problematic involved with common names driving you out of your work while brandishing a bunch of rules that will never work on your face? Do they have anything constructive to add to the discussion?? so far I haven't seen anything, only endless disruption. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent, User:Guettarda I think you may be confused by the name naming conventions, perhaps if it was name use the name naming policy, it would be clearer. There is a policy page and associated guidelines. The exception is to other parts of the policy not guidelines. If we take Verifiability as an example, there was a similar problem between the verifiability policy and the Reliable sources, so after several disputes where policy and the guideline were not in harmony, text was added to WP:SOURCES (a link to a section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability) to clarify "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and [ WP:RS ], this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly."

User:Guettarda at the start of this section you gave a detailed argument for using the scientific name and conclude "The result of the great circle is that following the policies from one to the next including the pillar policies we have what we started with use scientific names for plants with exceptions." However you failed to follow up on my musings. "If it is your opinion that a correct interpretation of the naming conventions policy always returns the scientific name, then it follows that you will not mind deleting this guideline as all the exceptions are irrelevant as they are a breach of that policy. If on the other hand you think that the current exceptions are needed, then you recognise that the scientific name is not always appropriate, in which case it follows this guideline is in breach of the naming conventions policy." So in you opinion should we keep this guideline or delete it? -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you actually read our replies instead of just repeating the same claim over and over again. Really, you should be ashamed for making me say this yet again: the problem is the process not the outcome. You would make us do pointless research, and mire us in days (months, apparently) of pointless arguments, only for us to end up at the same outcome as under the current convention. Of course it most certainly does not "follow that you will not mind deleting this guideline". Hesperian 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (The "great circle" argument came from Gnangarra not Guettarda. Hesperian 10:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Yeah it was my conclusions that drew and named this discussion a great circle, and I respond to your suggestions. Gnangarra 12:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I suppose that confirms my original conclusion. Philip can't even be bothered to do more than skim. Between his wikilawyering, Chewbacca Defense-style streams of irrelevant prose, and his insistence on repeating, over and over, the same points...points which have already been refuted...it's seems to me that this is a clear case of tendentious editing on his part. Someone needs to ban him from policy pages. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello?

 * Greetings and salutations. I am wondering why, precisely, anyone is arguing for the vulgar over the educated, precise, and accurate (i.e. scientific). Use the correct terms, people. Botany is a scientific field; add the common names etc within the article as appropriate but the naming convention is clear and it is not going to be changed by some editors on Wikipedia. This whole argument is nonsensical. It makes about as much sense as arguing on the Star Trek article to change the name to "Kirk in Space" because that's what some website or book calls it. Except it is worse; common names vary from locale to locale and may refer to many different plants. Chaos! Have redirects so people can find the plant for which they wish information. Have dab pages. But don't go down the rabbit hole. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Common names and taxboxes
I have been browsing some articles in en-wiki and just realized that there are so many articles with a whole paragraph of common names and places where they are used. Why don't you simply add a final section in taxboxes to common names and let them standing there? That would be much easyer than bugging readers with names no one has ever heard of, before going into what it really does matter. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. But the issue remains that using the scientific Latin name as the title of the article is in conflict with Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions whenever one of those common names is more commonly used to refer to the topic of that article than is the scientific Latin name. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dalton, you may appreciate the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Personally, I wouldn't want to add any more info to the already stuffed taxoboxes. Some plants can have dozens of long vernacular names. If you also include multiple synonyms in the taxobox and a status, image, and subdivisions if there are any, it gets a little messy. Anyway, that's a discussion for perhaps WP:TX or Template talk:Taxobox. --Rkitko (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rkitko. The taxobox is no place to dump common names; that would amount to a blatant subversion of its intended purpose. --Jwinius (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can only safely put something into an infobox if you can boil it down to a word or two without over-simplifying or adopting a POV. We already struggle with this occasionally; e.g. when trying to provide a taxobox for a taxon with disputed systematics. It would be sheer hell for common names. Hesperian 10:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, It is clear now for me that proposing that common names should go on taxboxes was a silly thing. Most of them are just curiousities and need lots of explanation, therefore, there is no way of doing so in a taxobox. But as curiousities, names someone made out of the latin at some point to have a common name otherwise wouln't exist, should common names be mentioned at all on the articles? Curiosities are not recomended on wiki. Maybe one percent of them should be mentioned somewhere in the text article, yes? Knowing what the most used common mame is almost always is original research. All the plants have only one accepted name, the scientific one, all other are just especutation and POVs. Is there any reliable published research stating what are the most common names used to each plant? Checking google and choosing that as a reliable source is quite odd, actually it is crazyness, it is a statistic made out of who knows what. Absolytelly all peer rewied articles use sci name because it is the only one that can be checked. All other names cannot be truly verified and just generate confusion. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think recording and discussing common names is a good thing so long as it is done properly. Hesperian 13:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most WP:RS do note in some way what these common names are, providing they are attributed to a reliable source its not OR. Gnangarra 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, now let's get an example that may lead to mistakes. In 1988 Carl Withner published the first book of his series Cattleyas and their relatives. For some reason he decided that he would name each one of them with English names, so he just trasnlated their names from latin creating monsters like Slender-stemmed Cattleya for Cattleya tenuis. Of course there was no common name to this plant anywhere because it was described almost at the same time the book was published. Now, are Withner's books a reliable source of information? Supposedly, yes (actually don't). Is there any common name available in English, well, yes. Is it used? Of course does not. Who is going to decide what name to use now? anytime someone who knows nothing about orchids many decide this is the most common used name. And this may happen every other month, turning out to be and endless strugle to last for years, again and again. To avoid a case-by-case discusion on every article writen which always are more time consuming than writing the articles themselves, the sci name always should be used to name articles. Exceptions are those named on the proposal, duplicate articles to products on the grocery stores and such, which are not the whole plants, but fruits, fibers, chemicals, decoration stuff, etc. But then we still need an article with a sci name to the plants, one that will describe something completely diferent. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another way of dealing with common names. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a "fake" common name? In my research on snakes, I've found that some authors actually go out of their way to list all the names that local communities might use to refer to a certain species, but most just mention one or more names that other researchers have used for it in their publications. For newly described taxa that have no (English) common names, authors will usually just make up reasonably descriptive names. The same often happens for species than get moved from one higher-level taxon to another: the author will make up a new common name for it that that they think is more descriptive, or to help it fit with others in the group. If they catch on it's simply because they are eventually mentioned in so many other publications.
 * Some people seem to have a problem with this practice. A few years ago, the maintainer of the TIGR Reptile Database told me that he had used a book called A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Amphibians of the World by Frank & Ramus (1996) to provide common names for many of the species listed there; he had simply scanned in the entire book. Then he admitted discovering later on that many of the names in the book had simply been made up by the authors. At the time I found this upsetting, because many of our articles get their information from TIGR. But then, there's really nothing to do about it. As opposed to scientific names, common names are completely unregulated and authors create/use them simply to help readers get a grip on the subject. Besides, what's really the difference between the names that Frank & Ramus made up as opposed to those made up by any other authors? Nothing at all, really. --Jwinius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which only shows that what some botanist lists as a "common name" (or a scientific Latin name for that matter) in a flora is probably not a reliable source for what is actually commonly used to refer to that plant, while a newspaper article, for example, or even a blog entry, that refers to a plant with some name is a reliable source for what is actually commonly used to refer to that plant in the context of determining "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".  However, what botanists list as "common names" are probably reasonable candidates for most commonly used name - to be validated or ruled out by looking for links within WP as well as using the google test, etc.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just say that what botanists list as a "common name" probably isn't the most common name? Hesperian 10:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm never ever ever going to go along with using a blog entry as an authority for an article name. Poor quality of reliable sources doesn't magically make unreliable sources desirable! Stan (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about finding an "authority for an article name". There is no such thing for just about any article in Wikipedia.  When we're deciding to name an article, what we're supposed to be looking for are examples of usage that help us determine what "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" for the given topic.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize": This is just a guess, B2C, guesses are not recomended, on wiki. We need a very good and reliable source for a given common name, no POV, no original research, no guess. We need information we can verify. Blogs may only reflect a commom mistake, and that's all I do not know if what I call apple is the same thing you do. Readers do not come here to get a perpetuation of an ordinary error. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dalton, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" often cannot be definitively determined (though I wouldn't go nearly so far as saying that makes it "just a guess"), but, for better or for worse, it is the primary naming policy in Wikipedia [1]. It's way beyond the scope of this talk page to explain why or debate whether it's a good idea or not.  It is within the scope of this talk page to discuss how that policy applies to this guideline, and whether this guideline adheres to it.  I submit that using the scientific Latin name without even trying to determine what name would be most easily recognized by English speakers is blatantly violating policy (and that part of the policy does not list any exceptions).

Also, there can almost never be a single source for determining the most commonly used name, by definition. Most commonly used implies the name that is used most often among all sources, so at least we need to have a reasonable sample size to reasonably determine which name is used most commonly. This is how and why using sources for determining the most commonly used name is fundamentally different from using sources to determine the veracity of a given fact, and also why the nature of sources are fundamentally different in these two very different type of endeavors. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is within the scope of this talk page to discuss how that policy applies to this guideline, and whether this guideline adheres to it. No B2c. No.  Stop with the misinformation.  This page serves as addendum to the main NC page, this page explains an exception to the main NC page.  As you well know.  Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only blog I would trust would be something like UBC's Botany Photo of the Day, which begins every entry with the scientific name of the plant being featured. Rarely do they include vernacular names, depending on the author of the post. I'm with Stan on this one, though. --Rkitko (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How is a scientific blog, written by a specialist and probably read mostly only by specialists, a more reliable source for how names are actually used for plants in the context of determining "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", than is, say, an ordinary (non-botanist) person's blog in which they write about the plants in their garden using the names that they know because they are the ones that are commonly used at the garden shop, etc.? Can someone please explain this to me?   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the comments? Very few of those are specialists. Mostly community members with an interest in gardening read that blog. Regular blogs not written by experts in their field are not reliable sources. End of discussion. We cannot source any information from them. They are full of misspellings, inaccuracies, and possibly misunderstandings of what species they're actually talking about. What blog, really, of any non-specialist will go out of its way to verify that "common name I usually call this plant" widely refers to the species pictured or described? I would guess none. --Rkitko (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but to put my point in your terms... What source of any kind will go out of its way to verify that the "name I usually use to refer to this topic" is the name most commonly used to refer to that topic?  I would guess very, very few, and none for most topics, including most plants.


 * That's why to determine the most commonly used name we don't look to one, two, or even a few sources. We must look at myriads of sources (which is why the google test is so widely relied on for this purpose) to see which name, among all the names potentially used to refer to a given topic, is the one most commonly used.   That's why the nature of the source (in terms of "reliability") is so irrelevant in the process of determining the most commonly used name - because each one is one of myriads, and the outliers should cancel each other out.  When we're determining the most commonly used name what we're looking for is high prevalence of use among thousands if not millions of examples of usage.  Some of them might be books, others might be newspaper articles, still others blogs and, yes, even myspace entries... it doesn't matter because there are so many.  A few totally unreliable whacked out references to some obscure name in a teen's myspace entry is not going to matter.  What matters is what name is most commonly used, among all uses of English to refer to the topic in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Google test: notoriously unreliable. Utterly useless unless the difference is one of orders of magnitude.  Useless since it cannot be considered a reliable source.  Useless because it violates WP:NOR.  Useful for getting a sense of things for yourself.
 * That's why the nature of the source (in terms of "reliability") is so irrelevant in the process of determining the most commonly used name - because each one is one of myriads, and the outliers should cancel each other out. No.  Google, blogs and myspace are not independent.  To begin with, using online sourcing creates serious bias.  Online sources are not an unbiased source for use in English.  Online sources are biased towards wealthier countries, and towards younger, more educated members of those societies.  Familiarity with plants is likely to have the opposite bias - towards older, less educated, less wealthy people.  These are the people who rely on plants, who interact with plants, who need to know one plant from another, and who are familiar enough with plants that they can reliably employ common names.  Secondly, blogs and myspace make up a disproportionate fraction of the internet.  There's no way that Google results can balance out blog results.  That's a ridiculous assertion.  Blogs also tend to copy from one another.  A name that got used on one popular blog might propagate through hundreds of blogs, without most of the bloggers having any clue what the plant might be.  Add that to the vast number of zombie blogs and scrapers.  And, of course, the Wikipedia mirrors, and mirrors of mirrors.  Then there's things like street names - one street name can add hundreds of hits...and yet says nothing about usage of the plant name, says nothing about whether the people living on the street even know what that plant may be.
 * Add to that, of course, the problem of how you know what people mean when they use a common name. Most people suffer from plant blindness.  They just don't look at plants.  Hence, common names are applied to totally different species.  And even that may not really reflect what people are talking about.  So...we need reliable sources...  Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

<--User:Guettarda you wrote above that "Google test: notoriously unreliable. Utterly useless unless the difference is one of orders of magnitude.  Useless since it cannot be considered a reliable source.  Useless because it violates WP:NOR." How does it violate NOR? NOR does not apply to the name of an article. ''"No original research" is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Every day there are hundreds of discussions over what is the best name to use for an article, and every day Wikipedia editors use Google searches to help decide'' on what is the best name to use. If one spends a week monitoring WP:RM this is self evident. No one who regularly involved in these discussion (for example the closing admins) would consider the argument that Google searches should not be used in helping to determining an article name because it is a violation of WP:OR, so please do not raise that issue again because it is misleading for new editors who might not know that such surveys are an integral part of determining names on Wikipedia. (BTW I am very surprised that an editor such as yourself who has been editing here for years was not aware of this).

I agree that we seem to be going round in loops here. The content policies do not contradict the Naming Conventions policy, they work in harmony but are semi-detached, it is this guideline that contradicts the Naming Conventions policy. The addition of Reliable sources to the Naming Conventions policy was added so that the Naming Conventions policy and the content policy did not throw up contradictions where the name of an article was based on things like foreign blog site counts (for example (see the Kiev or Kyiv debates). Using reliable sources can be justified by the contention that this is a general encyclopaedia so it is reasonable to use names as a person would expect to find in such a tome. It has the added advantage that some of the complicated rules that were built up in the naming convention guidelines prior to the introduction of reliable sources into the Naming Conventions policy -- to try to get around the difference between the content and the name -- by making rules to in effect use reliable sources for specific cases, are now unnecessary. The wording in this guideline is a classic example of that. Given that we are now using reliable sources to determine what is the commonly used name, there is no need for these complicated rules, as usually the scientific name will be the name that is used. There will however be some cases where that is not true, because reliable sources, (and reliable sources include general magazines and newspapers that are from respected mainstream publications), use a name other than the scientific name. "That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."

It concerns me that some of the comments here seem to be that we should use always use the scientific name because it is easier for editors and saves them wasting their time on considering what name to use. This is a completely understandable argument, and there is no reason why anyone who edits a flora article should spend their time on the name of an article, if they think to do so is a waste of time. If they create an article with a scientific name, or contribute to such an article it is highly unlikely that anyone would put it up for an AfD because of the name (let alone that it would be deleted by that process). However WP:NC says "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." If some editors wish to look into the names of articles, and reach a consensus over what is the best name to fulfil that requirement, with a WP:RM, there is no reason for this guideline to be constructed to frustrate that because some editors do not want to bother with that requirement. --PBS (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dalton Holland Baptista The best solutions is as you have suggested, or to footnote them. So long as the name appears somewhere on the page internet searches should pick up the names. A good example of this is the section "Multiple anglicizations" in the Naming conventions (Norse mythology) as a template for wording that could be modified to be added to this guideline. See also Naming conventions (use English). --PBS (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DFTT
Hesperian 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Born2cycle has stated that there is no such thing as an unreliable source for the most commonly used name of a plant;  when it comes to "seeing what name reliable sources use";
 * 2) From this peculiar premise, Born2cycle quite rationally concludes that the "see what name reliable sources use" clause is vacuous, and should be removed;
 * 3) Born2cycle proposed the removal of that clause; that proposal went to a poll, where it was overwhelmingly rejected. Not a single person supported it.[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)/Archive 3] Even Philip, who abstained, is on the record elsewhere as opposing it. There is a clear consensus that people want to base article titles on the names that reliable sources use.
 * 4) So when Born2cycle continues arguing here that blogs and the google test are more appropriate sources for assessing the most common name, than are journal articles and online systematics databases, you should bear in mind that he does so in full knowledge that he is peddling a personal view that has been utterly rejected by the community. There is no need to give him another soapbox upon which to espouse it. It will suffice to remind him that he has already lost. And then ignore him.


 * Close, but not quite, H. Except perhaps in very rare cases (I've never seen one, have you?), there is no such thing as a source, reliable or unreliable, for the most commonly used name of a plant, or for any other topic in Wikipedia.  I've mentioned this challenge several times now, and no one has taken me up on it: hit WP:RANDOM a few times in a row, and for each article see what reliable sources you can find for the title of that article being the most commonly used name for the topic of that article.  Any???  Good luck.


 * What there are are examples of names that are used to refer to various topics, and it is our job to determine which are used most commonly to refer to each Wikipedia article topic in the context of determining "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Given that context, yes, any source of usage is reliable as a single example of what name is used to refer to the given topic.  Should we give some such examples more weight than other uses?  Sure, but since the ultimate goal is to determine the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", the exposure (in terms of number of people that are exposed to it) of each example is probably the most important factor to consider.  So, say several popular bestselling books use one name to refer to some topic, and a few obscure academic texts tend to use another. Maybe the popular novels use, for example, Big Ben to refer to the famous clocktower, while the academic texts are careful to refer only to the bell in the tower with that name. Shouldn't we give the bestselling novels more weight?  After all, we're not trying to determine the "correct name" for each topic - we're trying to reflect the most common use, so as to select the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".  If there is something amiss in this reasoning, I would like to know what it is.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * TLDR. You have already lost this debate. Stop trying to bully us into bringing this convention in line with your personal interpretation of the naming conventions policy, which has been overwhelmingly rejected by the community. Hesperian 10:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a debate, it's an honest question. But if you want to punt, fine.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * oh what a fun challenge 1st random article Vyborg with reliable source for the name, 2nd Salvatore Todisco rs for name 2 from 2 oh such a small sample but hey it wasnt all that difficult, next! Gnangarra 12:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The only way to win is not to play". :-) Take the pledge! Let B2c or PBS have the treasured (top) notation for this page in their contributions lists. Stan (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, Stan, avoid the challenge. Denial is bliss.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gnan, thanks for giving it a shot, but apparently I'm not being clear (I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but let's make sure we're understanding what we're disagreeing about).  The challenge was: see what reliable sources you can find for the title of that article being the most commonly used name for the topic of that article.  I see nothing in either of those sources that even hints that the name at issue is "the most commonly used name for the topic" in question.


 * I'll illustrate what I mean by looking at the first example closer. If one accepts the vyborg.ru website as a reliable source for determining the official name of that city, it works for that (or is it "Vyborg, Nekrasova"?  Note that for U.S. cities the official name might often be "City of Cityname", when just "Cityname", or "Cityname, Statename" might arguably be the most commonly used name).  The site is also of course an example of the use of the name "Vyborg"  to refer to that city.  But it is not a reliable source that even addresses, much less shows, that Vyborg is "the most commonly used name".  We have to look at many more examples, enough to warrant a sufficient (and randomly selected) sample size, to accomplish that.  Again, this is why the google test, traffic statistics and counting incoming links is so often relied on to determine the most commonly used name.


 * Now, in the case of cities, we can combine the knowledge of the official name with the knowledge from our own personal experiences that usually the official city name is the one and only name ever used to refer to a given city, and from that reasonably assume that the name given on the city website is the most commonly used name for that city. But that's about as good as it gets.  For topics with multiple names (including plants) it's often not that easy, and we usually must rely on google test results, and internal link counts, etc., to determine which name, among myriads of examples of English usage in which the topic is referred to by name, is the one most commonly used, and therefore the one that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".  When we're determining the most commonly used name what we're looking for is high prevalence of use among thousands if not millions of examples of usage, not one, two or few reliable sources that simply tell us explicitly what the most commonly used name is.  Rarely do we have that luxury (again, I can't find even one such source for any topic, hence the challenge).   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a challenge - figuring out how to name plant articles. So we figured out the best way to do it - use the one name that can be consistently reliably sourced.  That is the way we do things with plant articles.  You can't keep quoting the main NC - misquoting the main NC, since you take just part of it out of context - and pretend that doing so somehow changes the way we do things.  Policies and guidelines are descriptive.  If you want change, convince us that your way is better.  Try it.  Take a medium-sized genus, and write a consistent set of articles in user space.  Show us how you picked your names.  Show us that your way will somehow reduce conflicts while also keeping to our core WP:ENC policies.  And maybe people will adopt your ways.  And maybe consensus will change.  And then, if that happens, we will change this page so that it describes the new way we do things.  Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the words I'm quoting from the naming policy mean something different when quoted separately as I'm doing, please explain. Their meaning seems clear to me, and the same within the context of the policy and when I post them here separately.
 * Now you're back to hinting at an argument that implicitly (you guys never seem to do so explicitly) admits the current guideline is at odds with WP naming policy, but the exception here is justified. I've noted above that I, for one, might ultimately be swayed by such an argument (I even outlined how such an argument might be constructed), but I have yet to see anyone actually present a compelling version of it.  Again, you guys are unwilling to even admit (perhaps even to yourselves) that this guideline is at odds with policy, much less clearly explain why that's justified.
 * And it's not about your way or my way. It's about your way or the standard WP way.  So the onus is on you to show that your way is better (particularly for readers, not editors) and warrants deviating from the standard WP way.  But you can't even begin to do that until you understand and appreciate what the standard WP way is (indefinite and problematic as it is), and realize and admit that you are deviating from that here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NC: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing B2c: Use the most common name of a person or thing' You don't see how ignoring the first part of the sentence turns its meaning on its head? Nope. The WP naming policy says "we do this when no other rule applies". Nothing to be at odds with. Ummm...OK. No one is trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to convince us that we're doing it wrong. Fine. If you don't like the way we do things here at Wikipedia you are welcome (a) to change the consensus, and thus, policy, or (b) leave. What you don't have the right to do is to waste the time of other volunteers as part of some crusade of yours to force Wikipedia to adhere to your way of doing things. We have our own way of doing things here at Wikipedia. It is far from perfect, but until we find a better way, we'll keep it, thanks. No B2c. This is the Wikipedia way. That's what policy and guideline pages do - they describe the Wikipedia way. You are trying to make them out to be something they are not. I realise that you don't understand what policy and guidelines are at Wikipedia. But you can't use that as a stick to beat other people over the head. If you want to understand, there are lots of resources to help you understand. If you don't want to understand, then that's your right. This is, after all, a volunteer project, a hobby. You don't have to do anything you don't want to. But if you can't be bothered to understand how "the rules" work in Wikipedia, you should stop arguing with people about them. Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think the words I'm quoting from the naming policy mean something different when quoted separately as I'm doing, please explain
 * Now you're back to hinting at an argument that implicitly ... admits the current guideline is at odds with WP naming policy, but the exception here is justified
 * I've noted above that I, for one, might ultimately be swayed by such an argument
 * And it's not about your way or my way. It's about your way or the standard WP way.  So the onus is on you to show that your way is better ... and warrants deviating from the standard WP way.

(unindent) Guettarda, yes, the common name policy allows for exceptions to "use the most common name", but "use the most easily recognized name" always applies. As to the specific exceptions to using the most common name, "the principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles." 1 Do you understand and appreciate that the naming of royalty is an exception to "use the most common name", but is not an exception to "use the most easily recognized name"? That is, "use the most common name" is a general mechanism to help identify "the most easily recognized name", but there are exceptions (such as with royalty), where, for example, the full formal title is used for reasons that are beyond the scope of this page, except to note that they have been justified in the past, and they do not conflict, at least not blatantly, with "use the most easily recognized name".

I am not trying to convince you that you're doing something wrong. Not necessarily. I'm trying to get you to admit that what you're doing is an exception to "use the most common name", like royalty is an exception to that (which isn't necessarily wrong, but should be justified, as it is for names of royalty, ships, etc.), and, more importantly, it is an exception to use the most easily recognized name, like nothing else is in WP that I'm aware of.

And I am trying to change consensus without wasting anyone's time (I have no control over other people's time - if they choose to read and participate here, great, if not, oh well, but you can't blame me for how others use their time!) The consensus here currently seems to be that the current guideline is consistent with WP naming policy, conventions and guidelines. That's what I'm trying to change. Maybe ultimately the result will be that the current guideline is the best answer, even though it is an exception to "use the most easily recognized name" (like no other specific naming guideline, so far as I know) as well as "use the most common name" (like royalty), but we can't get there as long as most of you continue to deny that the current flora guideline is an exception to either.

Your last paragraph is so absurd and uncivil it does not warrant a response. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've wasted hundreds of hours of people's time, with absolutely nothing to show for it. You should be thinking about what you're going to make amends for all the content that wasn't created because editors were sidetracked onto re-arguing a decision that was settled years ago. I have to not think about it, or I'll start getting really angry. Stan (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because every time I make a point you guys can't address, you resort to some kind of (not necessary intentionally and I assume in good faith) evasion, like playing the "you're wasting our time" card. No wonder you're on the verge of getting angry.  Anger usually says much more about the one feeling it, than the one who is the perceived cause of it.  But you probably would consider it a waste of time to think about that.  You guys won't even admit that the guideline for naming royalty is an exception to the common names guideline, even though it is called out as a principle exception right in the guideline, much less that the current flora guideline is an exception.   That kind of obstinateness is why we're not getting anywhere, and that's not on me.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because we've answered your points over and over and over and over and over again, and despite failing to persuade even a single individual, you keep throwing up some of the most off-the-wall "reasoning" I've seen in my six years on WP. An album cover as evidence for a plant name? There is not one single person on WP who buys it, and yet you bring it up repeatedly. It's not like you're ever going to spend one second actually working on any plant articles, I've reviewed your contributions, and you add less actual content to WP than many middle school students. Originally I didn't want to bring this to AC, but your persistence is at the point where it is harming rather than helping WP, and that's the kind of thing in which the AC takes an interest. Stan (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't mentioned in at least several days how The Joshua Tree album serves as a reliable source in terms of being an example of how the name Joshua Tree is used in common English usage to refer to that plant; why are you bringing it up? Why not address the points I'm bringing up now?  Not that I'm conceding the point about the album (which seems blatantly obvious to me), but I do concede it's apparently not helping others see my point, so I've moved on to trying other arguments, arguments that you are evading.


 * Anyway, I've explained the latest arguments in a relatively succinct form in the section below. If you and a few key others (you know who you are ;-) ) involved here address what I'm actually saying, instead of providing excuses to ignore it, I promise to take another break from here, for at least a few weeks, perhaps much longer or even forever, depending on how persuasive the responses are.  Fair enough? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Every one of your points has already been addressed a dozen times in the past two months, in different ways by different people, and several times in response to newly-created summarization sections. Somebody responds point-by-point to your summary, you nitpick their response, and boom, we're off and running again. I'm resolved not to fall into that trap any longer, but no doubt someone else will. When people don't want to participate, you add little snide remarks to try to get them to react, which is classic trolling technique. You manage to just barely stay on this side of the civility line, but the AC is smart enough to recognize the tactic of trying to discredit other participants by bugging them until they lose their cool. We've given you a great deal of our time and attention, far more than you deserve, and you need to move on. Stan (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody responds point-by-point to your summary, you nitpick their response... You say "nitpick", I say refute. Actually, often we agree on some points.  But my fundamental objection, that I summarize, explain, and clarify in a response below, has not been addressed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

B2c said: Your last paragraph is so absurd and uncivil it does not warrant a response. No, it's the crux of the matter. Everything else is trivia. Policy is descriptive. Wikipedia is a hobby. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. It's not a place to engage in absurd power plays. Seriously. If you're here to force everyone to assimilate to the rules of B2c, you're in the wrong place. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the point, I'm not here to assimilate to my rules. I don't even think in those terms, but it's revealing that you do, and explains much.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Stan, I haven't checked but if what you say, that B2c contributions to wiki are less than the ones that have not been done by us these days because we were here discussing. I can clearly see it is the case of ArbCom. I myself have to confess was not able do make any real contribution last 4 days. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom won't take a case like this, because the other DR options haven't been pursued. I strongly recommend you guys open an RFC before you get any angrier: this has been going on a long time and it's been relatively civil, but it looks to me like tempers are getting pretty short and once you pass that threshold things can really get ugly. I realize nobody wants a drama, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go from here. -- SB_Johnny | talk  02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already agreed to "go away" if I get some substantive answers to my summary statement of objection to this guideline below. But if anyone wants to wast time on an RFC, go ahead.  I'll start by pointing them to that section and my agreement to go away. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The last time you "went away", you went away to another policy page, to try to change the rules, so that you could come back here with a fresh arsenal. You failed, but you still came back here anyway. That's not what the rest of us understand by "go away". Hesperian 03:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentle reminder
Just to clarify, for those with a love a wikilawyering who make claims like "NOR does not apply to article names", the opening paragraph of WP:NC. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen. First Light (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But, Guettarda, there is something I can't understand here. As scientific names are the only ones always verifiable, never need any original research, and the most neutral, besides being uniform and easy to organize, what are you all waiting before just adding there the link to the set of rules beautifully presented on this page main article? I do not see any need of more discussions. Personal agendas should not be considered here. As you probably know, Spanish, French and Italians are already naming the articles under scientific names, and gradually moving all the old badly organized stuff to them. Waiting to do so will just add extra work to the inevitable. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem, but Philip has said that NOR does not apply to article titles, and B2c, who wants us to stop using scientific names, advocates conducting original research into "usage" to determine common names. It's not a problem for plant articles, because the consensus is that we use scientific names, but it would be if Philip and B2c's proposals were implemented.  Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's a real problem, and I've addressed it, along with a slew of questions, here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Our naming convention (flora) avoids it. So no, it's clearly not a problem.  Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda and First light I am please to see that you have read something that I have written, which you approve of :-) I chose the words carefully and I don't think the words support the position you are presenting, which is this guideline can reverse the emphasis which the Naming Conventions policy puts on choosing a name (from use the commonly used name except in cases such as xyz to use the scientific name (even when it is not the most commonly used name) unless xyz. Which may mean that the commonly used name is not used either for some names which ought not to use the scientific names and under the exceptions may use another name when the scientific name is the most commonly used name.

The NOR does not apply to naming articles as far as using internet searches and other methods used to decide on the name, all one has to do is loiter around WP:RM for a few days to verify that this is true. WP:NPOV has a section that applies to descriptive names (whether that section is in WP:NC or WP:NOR does not really matter as they are complementary), but descriptive names are not an issue in this case --PBS (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)