Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 5

Name change?
I think this article should be renamed Article titles (plant taxa), first, to match the change of the main article, and second, to be more precise.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is clearly a convention, and in this case should be kept with the current title. Circéus (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. Before the main article (which is policy) had its name changed, it was Naming conventions. This article is a guideline; I don't see where "convention" has a formal meaning in Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Circeus, Naming conventions was recently moved to Article titles. Hesperian 03:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this page should be retitled Manual of Style (flora), with article title as a subsection. This is a more legitimate name to also encompass non-title issues such as treatment of common names within aricles, listing of synonyms, redirects, disambiguation etc. Melburnian (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could agree with Manual of Style, but I've never been happy with "flora": to the extent that this article has been useful, it is about taxa. A lot of the resistance has been from editors who work with commercial and culinary plants, the articles about which are not always about taxa.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not paying attention to the word(s) in parentheses, I agree that (plant taxa) is a better fit than (flora). Melburnian (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have Manual of Style (plant taxa). Should I put a notice at WP:PLANTS, or is there really no interest in changing it?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a notice there to gauge interest/opinion. Melburnian (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I have no strong feelings, one way or the other. We could, of course, come up with a manual of style that reflects the way we write about plant taxa. We seem to have a pretty much standard collection of sections, etc. And therein, of course, we could include a section on articles titles. If we did that, then this page and Article titles (plant taxa) could redirect to that section. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be more keen on Manual of Style (plant taxa) if this were actually a manual of style (it covers a much smaller range of subjects than I would expect from something with that name). Seems to me better to keep this page short and focused, and write a manual of style separately, if we want one. So Article titles (plant taxa) makes sense to me (although "plant taxa" instead of "flora" narrows the scope somewhat, that is a good thing, as the guideline as written doesn't really make sense for something which isn't a taxon). Kingdon (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul
I have overhauled the convention. My main purpose was to add a statement of principle at the top, in order to harmonise this guideline with the broader policy on Article titles—more details on that below. However in doing so I got sucked into a long-overdue major restructure and copyedit. I think you'll find it acceptable. If you don't, revert me and we'll talk about it. Or just go ahead and fix it.

Now, about this statement of principle:

A while back there was a protracted and bitter dispute over this guideline, because our general naming policy of the time said "use the most common name", and this was being interpreted as "use the lowest-common-denominator vernacular name preferred by the man in the street". Under this interpretation, our naming convention was in conflict with the broader policy, and we had to fight long and hard for the freedom to follow the nomenclature of our field.

Since then the general policy has been revised, and "use the most common name" is now being interpreted as "follow usage in reliable sources." This is an excellent outcome for us, as indeed for all Wikipedians. However some people remember the battle we fought back then, and have come to the rather odd conclusion that we are opposed to following usage in reliable sources, and have adopted a policy of consistency-for-consistency's-sake. This is, I believe, wrong. But it has to be said that our convention was not very clear on this point. Therefore I have added a statement of principle to our guideline, saying that following usage in reliable sources is our guiding principle, and our specific guidelines emerge from that.

I believe this to be an uncontroversial reading of what was consensus back then, and as far as I am aware consensus has not changed since.

Hesperian 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything objectionable here. Thanks for doing the update. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did small additions, but overall Ithink you did an excellent job. Circéus (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might like to consider a few words on graft hybrids, and nothotaxa in general. (Nothogenera are like nothospecies, except for the location of the multiplication sign; I'd have to look up how e.g. nothosections and nothovarieties are treated. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it a lot. I'm still flogging the pining horse of "taxa" versus "plants": I think making that distinction could clarify some of the rest. I may take a stab at wording that later.

Please note this; it may be a good forum to put the rules into action. On initial inspection, it does seem that a single standardized common name is more used in reliable sources, and it would make a good contrast to Joshua tree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on. The new wording is just clearer in many cases, and does a better job of explaining why we name articles as we do (part of what has sometimes made this guideline controversial was the poor writing rather than the substance). Kingdon (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me as well, but there are two points I don't see addressed explicitly. Either these points are missing, or are not fully expounded upon so I'm not finding them where they are.  (1) the issue of potential confusion from use of common names for article titles.  Sequoiadendron is a possible case for this, since the common name "Giant Sequoia" harkens to the genus Sequoia but it is not a member of that genus.  (2) capitalization of common names in article titles and within the article.  Have we adopted a standard, and what is it?  If we don't have a standard, we should at least say so and explain why. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter is dealt with: "There is currently no consensus regarding capitalization of common names in articles." Hesperian 03:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's partly dealt with. That text doesn't address article titles.  It also doesn't explain why there isn't a consensus, and the very good reasons for this ought to be summarized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. The old version never went into further detail on this point, and expanding it was not a priority for me. Hesperian 03:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days, and I'll see what I can do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a proposal on WT:AT, which has turned into a discussion of whether to change the policy on  consistency to


 * Consistency When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

This may have a significant effect on this guideline. Comments are welcome here. (The scope of the section has changed since it was titled.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oreocallis
I am out of my depth with extra-aussie species - anyone have any books on flora of Peru or Ecuador to add some details to this article (monotypic genus with now one species but unusual history)? I need to sleep now...buffing it or DYK...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added one of my usual sources for Ecuador (in Spanish). It has a botanical description if you want to bring in some/all of that (I never know how much of these to include, although I do find them a bit too detailed to include in their entirety), and common names in Spanish (although I think our usual practice is just to do English in the English wikipedia). Kingdon (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of common name
See Talk:Synsepalum dulcificum for a discussion of moving Synsepalum dulcificum to its common name Miracle fruit. Does any of that discussion suggest changes that could advantageously to be made to this guideline? --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranks
I've puzzled over this bit in the article: "Taxa of minor rank that contain a single taxon of major rank are treated at the article on the major rank. Similarly, taxa of major rank that contain a single taxon of minor rank are treated at the article on the major rank." Minor ranks contain major ranks (1st sentence) and major ranks contain minor ranks (2nd sentence)?? Can someone explain it to me, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I found the answer in the article Taxonomic rank. It provides an example, Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, and presents a detailed taxonomic breakdown.
 * At the beginning, it explains that it gives the eight major ranks in bold, and gives several minor ranks as well. The major ranks are the familiar ones: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.  The minor ranks given are subphylum, subclass, suborder, and subfamily.
 * I suspect you took the terms major and minor taxa to mean the higher and lower groupings respectively--as I would have taken it myself. But apparently, this is not the case.  The minor ones are apparently lesser used ones stuck here and there in between the major ones to deal with more complicated cases.  72.83.149.28 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
 * Or, to put it in diffeent words: If a family contains a single subfamily, there shouldn't be an article on that minor rank (subfamily); treat the subject instead at the family article. Or if there are several subfamilies, but one of them contains a single genus, that genus article should cover the subfamily instead of giving the subfamily a separate (repetitive) article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very clear example, which explains policy much better than the project page! I'm going to add it there. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Organism capitalization synch
I'm working to make sure that WP:Manual of Style, WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), WP:Naming conventions (fauna) WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters, WP:Naming conventions (flora), etc., are synched with regard to common name capitalization.

Please centralize discussion at WT:Manual of Style

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that there is still a lot wrong with this naming convention, (as is expressed in great detail in the archives of this talk page) however this edit by Hesperian back in 2010 fixed the major problem I thought existed with it. I am disappointed that the logic of that change has not filtered through to the sentence "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except..." .... Although this paragraph is off topic it is for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the former dispute as a statement of previous involvement in this guideline.


 * I think you are getting confused. This is a guideline to the WP:AT policy page. It has nothing to do with content. In just the same way as the WP:MOS is to do with content and not article titling/page naming. Capitalisation of article titles should follow WP:AT and then onto the more detailed  WP:Naming conventions (capitalization). Editors concerned with this issue should also consider what is recommended in the MOS as that is guidance on content and it does not help the project if the two different areas contradict each other. But a sure way to end up with contradictory advise and hence unnecessary conflict on article talk pages, is if naming convention guidelines start to give advice on how to format content, or start to suggest that the names of articles must be formatted contrary (and not complementary) to the Article Title format policy and conventions.


 * For example this guideline currently includes "Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms" is wrong -- it may be "see also" -- but it is not the "Main Page". The main page is WP:AT and guidance is at WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), because this is a article title naming convention not a content guideline. -- PBS (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Coffee
Why is coffee given as an example of a plant with a common name? This article discusses the beverage. The plant is at Coffea. Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rice is not a good example, either, since it covers the food use of only two of the species of Oryza. (Rosa (plant) is not even listed on the disambiguation page Rosa, so that's a different issue.) I think we need better examples. Apple seems to be one (it is about a single species), as is rye and watermelon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The three sample articles should be ones that have a taxobox. I changed the last two examples to apple and watermelon per Curtis. Rye is a good example but the article needs work. BTW, rose is mentioned on the Rosa disambiguation at the top. --Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant about Rosa (plant) is that the genus redirect page is not mentioned anywhere that I can find.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But Rosa (plant) would only be listed on the disambiguation page Rosa if it was the article name (instead of Rose). According to WP:MOSDAB redirects (except in special cases) should not be used in disambiguation pages.--Melburnian (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Inter-kingdom homonyms
I'd like to see this guideline address how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirects, disambiguation and set article indices
I would like to amend the wording regarding redirects and disambiguation. There are several different methods to achieve this, and I believe these should be outlined with examples. Connected to this, I would also like to reintroduce the sample lead sentence that was formerly in this guideline. Some of the proposed wording and examples used are from the WP:PLANTS guidelines.

The text to be amended is:

"Redirects should be created for all commonly used names, including vernacular names and synonymous scientific names. All such names should be mentioned in the article. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

"In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used. In cases where multiple taxa share the same scientific name, that name can only be nomenclaturally correct for one taxon, so this is considered the primary use of the name."

and the proposed amended version is:

"All known common names for a taxon are to be listed in the article about that taxon. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph:


 * Hesperoyucca whipplei (syn. Yucca whipplei ) (chaparral yucca, our Lord's candle, Spanish bayonet, Quixote yucca, common yucca, foothill yucca) is a species of flowering plant...

All common names and synonymous scientific names referred to in an an article should be entered in one of the following page types: Alternatively, a hatnote may need to be created where a primary topic for the name has already been established (e.g. geranium,  Myroxylon)"
 * redirect (e.g. → Drosera anglica,  →  Lambertia formosa)
 * set index article (in cases where ambiguous common names are applied to multiple taxa) (e.g. Tree peony)
 * disambiguation page (e.g. Yucca (disambiguation), Crataegus pubescens)

--Melburnian (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, with a small change I'm strongly in support of fully aligning these two texts; differences simply cause confusion. I also think that the fuller guidelines on dealing with alternative names is important. However, simply saying "All common names" is, I think, unwise; it has resulted in some articles having long lists of names, most unsourced, and many not English. I would say "Sourced English names for a taxon ...". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that specifying English names would, by definition, exclude names such as harakeke and pituri which, in my opinion, would be undesirable.--Melburnian (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One solution would be to say "...in English language sources." Normally we don't exclude non-English sources in Wikipedia, so that might be an issue. But if those non-English names are covered in English language sources, then that shows some notability for that name, in its English form or transliteration. First Light (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems a good solution to the identified problem.--Melburnian (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my wording was bad and not what I meant. Another possible wording is "Sourced names used in English ..." I'd like to use the term "sourced" rather than "in ... sources" to make the point that the sources must be given, as for other information. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about: "Sourced common names used in English are to be included in taxon articles. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph."Melburnian (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's good advice and generally the way we'd like to see plant articles done, but is it suitable advice for a guideline on article titles? I can see how mentioning redirects would be necessary and how that might lead one to want to caution that when redirected names are mentioned in the text they should be sourced, but this is advice directed at article content and more appropriate for a guideline that we don't really have yet, e.g. MOS:FLORA. Or am I being a pedant? Rkitko (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the para beginning "All known common names" and the example can simply be removed, which is possibly the best solution here. All I think is that common names in the text are mentioned, some qualification should be added. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree also, but it does highlight the fact that we really need a MOS:FLORA to point people to, for common names and many other reasons. First Light (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an MOS:FLORA should be created, perhaps named MOS:PLANTS to align it better with the project and avoid confusion with this guideline. The proposed guidelines would be a place to move the guidelines "hidden away" on the WP:PLANTS page and add future additional guidelines not relevant to this page.

here's the revised proposed text for here (dropping the first bit from above):

All common names and synonymous scientific names referred to in an an article should be entered in one of the following page types: Alternatively, a hatnote may need to be created where a primary topic for the name has already been established (e.g. geranium,  Myroxylon)" --Melburnian (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * redirect (e.g. → Drosera anglica,  →  Lambertia formosa)
 * set index article (in cases where ambiguous common names are applied to multiple taxa) (e.g. Tree peony)
 * disambiguation page (e.g. Yucca (disambiguation), Crataegus pubescens)
 * Good. I'm going to put Melburnian's wording re common names on the project page so we don't lose it (before we create MOS:PLANTS, which I agree is a better name). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, the amended paragraph above has now been added to this guideline.--Melburnian (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Categorization note
I updated the temporary comparison table at WikiProject Plants with the new wording. Given that the bit about common names is now in a new subsection, the only thing that I can see that would disappear if the WP:PLANTS wording is deleted is:
 * The redirect page can be placed in categories and tagged as printworthy. For example see, which has the content
 * #REDIRECT Utricularia aurea

I think it is worth mentioning categorization of redirects here. As I understand it, actually should be used, which adds "printworthy". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Plant articles, set article indices and disambiguation pages all require categories as well. I think all category related issues should be grouped together in the WP:PLANTS guidelines ( or MOS:PLANTS :) )--Melburnian (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right; this isn't about titles. (So it should be moved out of the part of WP:PLANTS now to be deleted.)
 * When we get MOS:PLANTS sorted, as I'm sure we will, there is other material here which is not strictly about titles which should be reduced and/or moved. Styling – e.g. the use of italics, the use of single quotes for cultivar names but not selling names, etc. – applies to both text and titles. I think styling is probably best explained in full elsewhere and then summarized here in relation to titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for monotypic taxa
I've split the old WP:FLORA#Ranks subsection into two. There are two different topics here: monotypic taxa and ranks with connecting terms.

The wording at WP:FLORA seems to be unclear, judging from a discussion at WT:PLANTS. The main problem is that it starts by implying that article titles are always chosen from the given list of principal ranks. My suggested re-wording is: When a taxon at a given rank contains only a single member of a lower rank (e.g. a family with a single genus and a single species), all are treated in a single article. The article title is chosen to be the lowest of the "principal ranks" specified by the ICN, or the lowest rank where none of those involved are principal ranks. The principal ranks are: Thus:
 * Order
 * Family
 * Genus
 * Species
 * Suborders that contain one family but multiple genera are treated at the article of that family.
 * Divisions of families (subfamilies, tribes and subtribes) that contain one genus but multiple species are treated at the article of that genus.
 * Divisions of a genus (subgenus, section, subsection, series, subseries) with a single species are treated at the article of that species.
 * A subfamily with a single tribe but multiple genera is treated at the article of that tribe as no principal rank is available.

However, exceptionally, because genera are better known than the other ranks
 * A genus with a single species is treated at the article for the genus, not the species.

The other "special cases" in the existing wording are covered by the more general guidelines above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It will create other inconsistancies, though. I want to write good articles on all the grass subfamilies, but two will be at the tribes. I am not sure it matters, as it is easier for editors to have understandable guidelines to follow. -AfadsBad (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However, these inconsistencies only echo ones existing already. Thus articles on the APG families may be at the family or the genus (e.g. Amborella). The guidelines should say to put the 'missing' higher ranked taxon in the lead. Then with a redirect, it works as well as possible without having redundant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I should lead with the subfamily, that is prosaically better. I am okay doing it thus, as, obviously it will not be common, a few tribes in the subfamilies, or vice versa, and redirects work well, as long as the redirect is mentioned in the lead and bolded, also, in these cases. -AfadsBad (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not lead, I think, but you can start "X is the only tribe in Y, a subfamily of ...". But I'd like to see what some other editors think. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of monotypic titles, I'm being bold and adding a disclaimer that the binomial should be used as a title when the name of a monotypic genus is ambiguous. My understanding is that the point of using the genus as a title is to have a mostly consistent titling scheme, and to discourage duplicate articles on a genus and its only species. Alberta magna is a more likely search term, and a more natural disambiguation of "Alberta" than Alberta (plant genus). Plantdrew (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of a practice which was agreed at some time but never got documented. So you're not being bold, just helping to ensure that we remember this! (I forgot recently and had to be reminded by Stemonitis.) I've slightly strengthened your wording. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, would you mind taking a look at the autotaxobox on Alberta magna? It's got the genus as a blue link (should just be bolded and not linked) Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Template:Taxonomy/Alberta needed the link to be changed to "Alberta magna". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a long time ago but I believe I was the author of this original text. It was only ever intended as a clumsy attempt at documenting community practice. I'm surprised it survived so long. For what it's worth, I support these revisions. Hesperian 13:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)