Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea

Lingonberry or cowberry?

Is there any real reason, other than Eurocentrism, to move this article from lingonberry? WormRunner | Talk 05:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a redirection, now, so I don't know if it should be such a big deal which word is in the title...

Actually, I'm european, and I got surprised, first I thought cowberry was AE, but then I read the description, and I suppose cowberries is what they say in GB? Because I actually never heard the word. In almost all european languages, there are other words for it - for me actually "lingonberries" is more natural - I'm a swede, and in swedish it's lingon (I guesstimate the AE term has swedish origin), or in my dialect, "kröser", german "Preiselbeere", danish "tyttebære", and the list with unique names continues... ;-) As Swedes probably would be a prime audience even for the article, due to the importance of the lingonberry in the swedish cuicine, I suggest it should be moved back too. TERdON 02:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The most common name seems to be lingonberry. The EB article is under "lingonberry" with "cowberry" as an alternative.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The name lingonberry is also preferred in the English translations of Finnish puolukka products. I suppose that cowberry doesn't sound commercial enough. --Silvonen 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just another thing to note: in Newfoundland, they are always referred to as Partridgeberries, but, because of the prevailing need to explain what they are to tourists, they are sometimes called Lingonberries. Is it possible to note that they are also called Patridgeberries in Newfoundland on the page? I also don't see why the other alternates names couldn't be listed: I've seen them referred to as foxberry, European Cranberry, mountain cranberry, alpine cranberry, rock cranberry, and, in the majority of mainland Canada, Low-Bush Cranberry. I think adding this information on alternate names would be helpful. For example, the current page that comes up when you search 'Partridgeberry' is a completely different plant than the one known as Partridgeberry in Newfoundland. Justin Bathurst.

I've moved the page to the scientific name to avoid the question of which name takes priority - MPF 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea having the taxonomic i.e. Latin name as the lemma in an encyclopedia meant for the general public. In addition, the differentiation between var. minus Lodd. and var. vitis-idaea L. looks very strange to non-botanists, especially because the physical differences described are more or less "statistical", i.e. the information provided does not even enable a user to identify the variants. This differentiation is therefore more or less superfluous information that should at best be added at the end of the article. It is in any case incorrect to claim a direct and exclusive correlation between these taxonomic names and the normal English word "cowberry" and the newer, "classier" import and synonym "lingonberry". A short look into New Oxford, American Heritage, Merriam Webster, and other British and US dictionaries shows what i've described here. --Espoo 10:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the most common English name as the title. I've only ever heard people refer to them as Lingonberries, and a google search in English Language pages reveals 41,800 pages with the word Cowberry and 174,000 for Lingonberry. [1] [2] Britannica lists Lingonberry as the main name, with Cowberry a synonym[3]. Personally I would go with Lingonberry, but if there is a prolonged row between Cowberriers and Lingonberriers the Latin name seems a good compromise.Kaid100 21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't understand what i explained above, that cowberry is the normal English name for Vaccinium vitis-idaea. This can be easily seen by looking in the dictionaries i listed above. All also list lingonberry but clearly label it as a variant. The full version of Britannica 2000 that i have also lists cowberry as the main name and lingonberry as the variant (at the end of the cranberry article) and doesn't even mention lingonberry as a variant in the Vaccinium article.

The online free (very reduced) Britannica version may have decided that lingonberry is becoming more popular, and the googles you have provided seem to show the same trend, but you must realise that most of the pages Google finds will be by people excited about this "new" berry and the new recipes and new source of income etc. so they are not an indication of what is the current situation in serious publications on the topic. Since all standard dictionaries i have consulted (even in their online versions) have cowberry as the main entry, that is what Wikipedia policy demands as the entry name ("title"). If we want to emulate the apparent but not yet proven shift of Britannica to lingonberry (which would have to first be checked by someone with a newer full version than me or in a more reliable way than looking at the reduced free online version), we could also use that as the entry name. Anything is better than a Latin main entry in an encyclopedia meant for the general public. --Espoo 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I now took a closer look at the Britannica link you provided, and all the three articles on the left "For Members" are identical to those in my version of the encyclopedia, and these all list lingonberry as a variant name of the normal main name cowberry in bold. Only the free "Concise Encyclopedia" has an article where it's the other way around. It's a clear case: all reference works both you and i have found list cowberry first and lingonberry as the variant; the free concise version is not an update of the main entries. The reason they decided to put an entry there for lingonberry is no doubt because that name is "in" now and gets the most queries. --Espoo 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that there are two taxa involved, nominate V. vitis-idaea var. vitis-idaea (Cowberry) in Europe and Asia, and V. vitis-idaea var. minus (Lingonberry / Partridgeberry) in North America. I would suggest moving the common name listings to the varietal listing, and in the rest of the text use the common names as per which taxon / region is being discussed (e.g., cite collecting Cowberries in Scandinavia, and production of Lingonberry jam in Canada). I haven't had the opportunity to try both, but it is possible they may differ somewhat in flavour, vitamin content, etc. Should a future botanist conclude they are distinct species and split them as V. vitis-idaea and V. minus, it then becomes much easier to split the page into two separate species pages. - MPF 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image at the top of the page needs improving. It is hard to recognize the features of this plant.

/Simon

• I changed the picture to one from Wikimedia Commons. Ianthegecko 03:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Move Request

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what was wrong with the procedure. It seems that the only "problem" is that Kaid100 objected to the move after the move had been in the backlog for many days already and shortly before it was decided on. --Espoo 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Step three under the instructions on how to request a page move request that you create a requested move section with survey and discussion sub-sections. You did not do that (or the equivalent) when you requested this move. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a policy, but simple a guide. Perhaps Espoo moved a little fast, but you cannot demand people follow something that is not policy. Perhaps you can rally consensus to make it policy as it seems wise. I would probably support it. HighInBC 21:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Vaccinium vitis-idaea → Cowberry — correct English name according to all standard reference works consulted Espoo 08:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose Per my comments above. [4] The Wikipedia Policy on article names suggests using the most common English name, which is not necessarily the most common name in Encyclopedias and Dictionaries. Encyclopedias and Dictionaries take some time to adjust to new usage, which a Google search will reflect much quicker. Although I'll point out again that Britannica Concise redirect Cowberry to Lingonberry [5]. I would support a move to Lingonberry. It may well be that the name Cowberry fell out of usage because people selling them didn't like the name and changed it.. but the reason for the change shouldn't affect our recognising that it has changed. Kaid100 10:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments: Please see discussion above. I originally tried to make this a natural continuation of the previous discussion, but it seems the standard procedure does not allow this... --Espoo 08:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion by Kaid100 and Espoo moved from Survey Section to Discussion by Kaid100. Espoo's comments below are addressed to Kaid100 in response to his Oppose vote above. (move made Kaid100 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC))

I've often defended use of Google to help decide what the usage frequencies of different alternate expressions are, but there are several logical errors in your reasoning concerning the Google results and concerning the entries in the reference works i cited.

• This article and its entry is primarily about the plant and its berry, which means that the entry name ("title") and also the primary name in the article should be the one accepted and used by botanists, not the one cooks and restaurant owners prefer.
• There are countless examples of new or euphemistic expressions for foodstuffs, but these do not mean that the normal English expression for the foodstuff is not still the correct one. The "classier" name can be mentioned and one can even make a new article specifically about the foodstuff's gastronomic use in which the "classier" expression is listed first.
• Google searches produce many more pages of gastronomic interest than botanical expertise.
• The online versions of the dictionaries are updated much more often than the printed versions. Since the online versions of major dictionaries list cowberry first, this is still the current state of well-edited articles on this plant.
• Declaring a term as more common or more correct than what is said in dictionaries or other reference works on the basis of the frequency of Google hits amounts to original research, and you know what the Wikipedia policy on that is: WP:OR. Google frequencies can only be used to disprove claims by provincialists that some term is incorrect or doesn't exist just because they don't have it in their regional form of English. Such Google frequencies cannot be used to claim that something is better than what is in reputable and up-to-date reference works. The only use you can make of Google to have a different name in first place than in other reference works is to find a reputable page where someone else has performed such frequency research. I'll give you a hint how you might find support for your claims: add site:edu to your search.
• The only mention of lingonberry in first place in a reliable source that you were able to find is the "Concise Encyclopedia" entry, and that is obviously a scaled-down and less reputable source than the full entries in the complete encyclopedia. As i already said, the free concise version is not an really an update of the main entries, which seem to be the same as i have in my version, which either doesn't mention or lingonberry or clearly calls it a variant. Just because the concise version doesn't have an entry for cowberry doesn't mean that Britannica has decided lingonberry is more correct. If they'd decided that, the lingonberry entry wouldn't say "also known as cowberry"; it would say something like "formerly called". And as i already explained, the reason they have an entry for lingonberry is no doubt because that name is "in" now and gets the most queries.
• Cowberry did not "fall out of usage because people selling them didn't like the name and changed it"; most people in English-speaking countries are so estranged from nature that they stopped picking berries or mushrooms etc. a long time ago. This means that cowberries were not eaten even though they grew and grow in many English-speaking countries. The word cowberry was and is fairly unknown simply because no one ate them. The name didn't change; many new ones have simply been introduced by restaurant owners and vendors because they felt, rightfully so, that "cowberry" doesn't sound like something most people would consider fit for human consumption. Yes, we can recognise these new names and even note that cowberry is never used except by botanists, but once again, this article is primarily about the plant, not primarily about its use as a foodstuff, so the name used by botanists should be first and in the title. --Espoo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• First I'll discuss your suggestion that comparing pagecounts on Google contravenes WP:OR. WP:OR states in its definition section Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I do not propose placing the Google count information in the article, I am simply using it to propose that Lingonberry is the more common English name. Using Google to justify page names is specifically endorsed at Wikipedia:Search engine test: Idiomatic usage. The English language often has multiple terms for a single concept, particularly given regional dialects. A series of searches for different forms of a name reveals some approximation of their relative popularity.

• It seems that we'll have to get some linguistic experts to explain in more detail what is described very naively on Wikipedia:Search_engine_test. And i did not say one shouldn't use Google hit frequencies to help determine usage frequencies, but if you use the results to claim that dictionaries and other reference works are wrong, that is very clearly OR and definitely not said or even implied on that WP page. The only exceptions would be, for example, situations like specialist use of a word in a field that may not be covered by the dictionaries or other reference works available to WP editors. But such amateur linguistic research is only a band aid; if someone finds even one Internet page by a specialist contradicting the results of the Google frequencies, deductions based on those Google frequencies have to be deleted from WP.
• When you use Google frequencies to engage in amateur linguistic research, that is definitely original research. (When used correctly, that kind of research should be supported and OR is clearly sloppily formulated in criticising or even prohibiting that and similar research.) But if you then use the information gained by this original research in deciding to write something in WP that contradicts other reference works, you are clearly in violation of the main idea of OR policy. Apparently you don't know that entries in reference works are made on the basis of extensive research and large data banks of citations from reputable well-edited publications. The only thing one can use general Google pagecounts for is to say that there may be a recent trend in the general public to use a term more or less than in the reference works. You didn't understand my hint about edu pages either; most edu pages are personal documents written by non-experts.

• I have accepted your hint to find support to my claims by adding site:edu to my google searches. 169 english language .edu pages included Cowberry [6] compared to 782 preferring Lingonberry [7] It seems that Lingonberry is preferred by the scientific community too. Further evidence that Lingonberry is preferred by the Scientific Community: Searches for these names next to the Latin name also favour Lingonberry by 17,500 to 14,400: [8][9]

• You have to do a lot more work than adding site:edu (not site:.edu) to eliminate university student blogs and high school and elementary school pages. And just because a page's author knows the Latin name of a plant does not prove that s/he is a member of the scientific community! My suspicion that the cowberry/lingonberry divide is a UK/US divide has been confirmed by comparing your search results with the following: this and this show an overwhelming 579/157 bias for cowberry in the UK on pages whose writers know enough about botany to know the scientific name of the plant.
• And using edu Googles the way i meant, as a way to find expert opinion, not only as a frequency count, i was able to find a page written by an expert on both gastronomical and botanical aspects of cowberries, who says "V. vitis-idaea, most commonly called the cowberry in English, but also the mountain cranberry". Since the author is a biology professor at a US university, this is proof that cowberry is perhaps much more common in the UK than the US, but definitely not wrong in the US either. And this US university site explains "...lingonberry. This latter term originated right here in the United States, only about 50 years ago." The same page has that as its title but goes on to say "Thus a common English name for this particular species of Vaccinium is cowberry". An expert's page at Purdue adds "Holloway (1981) notes at least 25 common names for V. vitis-idaea worldwide. Among the more common English names are lingonberry, cowberry, moss cranberry, mountain cranberry, partridgeberry, red whortleberry, alpine cranberry or simply lingon or lingen. For marketing reasons, Pliszka (I 985) suggested the name lingonberry be used in preference to cowberry". So, even on this US page with lingonberry in the title, the name cowberry is presented as common and vital enough in 1997 to require a recommendation against its use "for marketing reasons". I will report on other interesting edu pages and edu Googles later.

• You have argued that botanists prefer the name Cowberry, and that this article should use that name. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora): Common names are to redirect to scientific names. English sundew → Drosera anglica According to this, the page should be kept on the current scientific name of Vaccinium vitis-idaea.Kaid100 06:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• According to this, it seems that we'll have to leave the article where it is unless we can get that senseless policy reversed. It seems that that policy was decided without sufficient input by non-botanists. WP is an encyclopedia for the general public and Latin article names are a very bad idea. --Espoo 11:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional information:

from the Botanical Society of America's PlantSystematics.org: Vaccinium vitis-idaea: Cowberry, Mountain Cranberry, Foxberry, Lingonberry

from Integrated Taxonomic Information System (Integrated Taxonomic Information System): Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. -- lingonberry

from Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports: It is also interesting to note the presence of a few seeds of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L) and cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L) within the ash...

and this and this Google of that Scottish scientific site seem to indicate that lingonberry is not used in Scotland.

from Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, this lists only cowberry --Espoo 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Espoo, could you source your asserted Wikipedia guidelines please? I cannot find anything to confirm that these are currently Wikipedia policies:

The only use you can make of Google to have a different name in first place than in other reference works is to find a reputable page where someone else has performed such frequency research.

..if you use the results to claim that dictionaries and other reference works are wrong, that is very clearly OR.

You yourself quoted the main statement that pertains to this although it seems the wording has been changed a tiny bit: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. I went on to explain why engaging in frequency research using amateur methods like Google frequencies without a scientifically defined theory and method can only be used as a band aid to decide on terminology in case no information from a published reliable source has been found. More importantly, i explained why such research is research and specifically original research (and why WP's OR policy has to be amended to specifically mention and allow this in case it's needed, i.e. no reliable published source yet found). You don't seem to understand that you are producing the data that you want to add. Unless you are quoting a reliable source that has used a scientific method to come to the conclusion that C or L is the more common name, it is original research when you add the results of your research. (And because your research lacks a scientific framework and method, the result is wrong; as in most similar discussions about which expression is more common, this is a clear UK/US difference, although L is becoming very popular on UK food pages.)

And quite contrary to what you said (I do not propose placing the Google count information in the article, I am simply using it to propose that Lingonberry is the more common English name.) placing the Google count information is a fact that can or at least could be added to any article, but using that data to claim that C or L is more common is OR. This is explained as follows in the policy:

An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

That means that in case we don't have dictionary and other reference works stating what the most common English name of V. v.-i. is, we can make a descriptive claim on the basis of an explained and easily verifiable Google search. It is however not permitted according to WP (and logically and linguistically incorrect) to claim that your research has shown the reference works to be wrong.

In addition, the only acceptable claim you can produce for L on the basis of the reference works so far consulted is that one, single reference work that is only a concise edition but perhaps more up to date than the others consulted seems to prefer L. Since we don't know what the target group of that concise encyclopedia is, we don't even know if this is a claim that C is now less common in British English too. Since this concise enc. perhaps only exists online, it could very well be leaning towards US usage, and this has been the tendency for a long time ever since company headquarters moved to Chicago in 1930(!).

Basically what i'm saying is that you are incorrect in claiming that you can add some information just because it is the truth, i.e. because you are convinced it is the truth. Your research methods should only be used in those rare situations in which information cannot be found in reputable published sources. Nowhere does Wikipedia:Search engine test or any other WP policy say that you can use your own research to remove or disqualify information added to WP from published reputable sources! Specifically, if almost all reference works (including both American Heritage and Oxford Dictionary and Britannica full edition 2000) mention C as the normal and most common name, you cannot claim something different on the basis of your research. At most, you can claim that this information is perhaps outdated on the basis of Google search X using method Y.

I wouldn't count on others not removing such a claim though, especially if you don't have some good reasoning to back it up. For example, you could argue successfully (in other cases) that the reference works consulted do not cover a certain region of the world or a certain specialised field. (In this case, the reference works consulted very well cover both UK and US usage and the English and scientific nomenclatures of plants.) Another possibility is to find a published expert's opinion that refutes the reference works cited. All of this paragraph can be summarised by the following quote from OR policy:

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.

You argued originally that the name Botanists use should be preferred: ...the entry name ("title") and also the primary name in the article should be the one accepted and used by botanists, not the one cooks and restaurant owners prefer. As the article on Flora naming conventions shows, this would be the Latin name. More recently you said According to this, it seems that we'll have to leave the article where it is unless we can get that senseless policy reversed. It seems that that policy was decided without sufficient input by non-botanists. WP is an encyclopedia for the general public and Latin article names are a very bad idea suggesting that the name more familiar with the general public should be used- as I have shown this is Lingonberry. Either way, Cowberry is clearly out.

You are confusing things here. I was talking about the English name used by botanists and was responding to your arguments comparing C and L frequencies in Google searches. I did not know about the article on flora naming conventions, and neither did you originally. I of course immediately admitted that we have to leave the article where it is on the basis of that policy as long as it is in force. That does not mean i agree with that policy, and the whole idea of WP is that policies can be changed if there are good reasons to do so. The discussion about that does not belong here though. And it is not at all true that you showed L to be more familiar to the general public either. I specifically showed that C is probably more known and used than L in the UK.

As a comparison for the pages you linked, here are some educational pages that describe the name for Vaccinium vitis-idaea as Lingonberry without even mentioning the name Cowberry: Virginia Tech: [10], Cornell: [11], Washington State University: [12].Kaid100 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't understand the logic here. I'm very well aware that L is more common than C in the US. My examples however proved the following:

• C is however also used in the US by experts and at least sometimes also exclusively or primarily.
• Most UK experts apparently use exclusively C, and a large majority of British people who know enough about the plant to know the scientific name use C not L.

(Your examples only support what we "know" or suspect, that L is more common in the US generally and used by some or perhaps many experts [which info is more or less trivia considering that L is listed only in 4th place by the Botanical Society of America!])

--Espoo 10:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From Third Opinion: Hi I did a quick check:

Encyclopedia Brittanica uses lingonberry[13] and even redirects Cowberry to lingonberry[14].

However, Encartia uses Cowberry[15].

and Yahoo uses lingonberry[16].

So, my opinion is based on the fact that encyclopedias from different locations use a different word. In accordance with the word view policy of wikipedia I think the latin name should remain and that all variant names of the fruit should redirect. HighInBC 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New Proposal.. call the berry Lingonberry throughout, but keep the Article name the same

The proposal to move the page to Cowberry seems to have run out of steam thanks to the naming conventions on Flora, but something that hasn't been brought up is the fact that currently the berry is called Cowberry throughout the article. On the basis of current usage, I propose changing it to Lingonberry. Espoo, I realise you and I are probably not going to agree on this, which is why I am proposing it here rather than unilaterally making the change myself. Users new to the debate (as well as myself and Espoo) are invited to come here and discuss it, to help establish consensus. Kaid100 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the same objection to this change as I do to the last. As said just above the header. HighInBC 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.. I am not proposing changing the name of the article. The article itself calls the berry Cowberry at the beginning of nearly every sentence. It is this usage I am proposing to change, not the name of the article Kaid100 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, sounds good. HighInBC 01:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The following has been explained several times and illustrated with reliable sources in great detail above:

• C is more common than L in British English when referring to the plant. Specifically, British botanical gardens and other botanical experts and scientists in other fields use exclusively C as the English name. We have not been able to find any use of L by UK scientists in this sense.
• When referring to the berries as food, British English seems to have originally preferred C but to be increasingly using L (apparently due to Scandinavian gastronomical and US influence), but no verifiable, authoritative source has yet been presented here that would indicate that L is more common than C in that sense in British English. Specifically, British dictionaries refer to L as a variant of C. (E.g. New Oxford: "lingonberry noun (pl. -ies) another term for the cowberry, especially in Scandinavia where the berries are much used in cookery." This specifically refers to English cookbooks made in Scandinavia, and it is clear that such use of English in non-English-speaking countries cannot be considered a valid reason to prefer it in an encyclopedia article to the normal English word.)
• Unless we find a different general UK dictionary or a gastronomical UK dictionary or other authoritative UK source saying that L is more common than C in UK English, there is no reason to claim that L is more common than C in UK English when referring to the food, specifically because we do have UK dictionaries saying that C is normal and L is a variant. And any attempts to use Google frequencies or other amateur linguistic methods to remove information based on reliable sources are clearly in violation of OR policy. And [|WP policy] specifically says A conflict over the precision of a word may arise. The best way to handle such conflicts is through authoritative dictionaries (the most authoritative being The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's). This is of course quite naive in declaring which dictionaries are more authoritative by arbitrarily excluding e.g. Collins and Longman (to name just 2 reputable ones), but it seems to be the laudable intent to at least keep out non-authoritative or at least less accurate and bad ones (like Encarta and Yahoo etc., which are usually just scaled-down versions or sloppy copies of better ones).
• In US English, both C and L are used to refer to the plant, but L is apparently more common. Nevertheless, the Botanical Society of America and some US experts continue to prefer and sometimes use exclusively C. Since the Botanical Society of America lists C first and L in 4th place, there would be strong evidence to use C for the plant even if this article were written from a US perspective. A decision by a specialist organisation like the Botanical Society of America (on the most common name in US English) would even overrule in case L were declared more common by general dictionaries. This is because we are here dealing with a case like "aluminium", a specific English name for a specific thing, not a case like "airplane/aeroplane", a general name for a class of things. WP policy on "aluminium" shows that the English name for the plant should be the one used by experts, and if there is disagreement, the name used by organisations like the Botanical Society of America, and this clearly speaks for C in both US and UK English.
• When referring to the berries as food, many or at least some US English speakers apparently use L more commonly than C, but the American Heritage Dictionary "prefers" cowberry and Merriam-Webster prefers mountain cranberry These "preferences" are not the editors' personal decisions; they are based on hard facts, i.e. usage data collected from published, well-edited sources.

In summary, my response to the "new" proposal is that based on WP policy, correct terms used in articles should not be changed to equally common and valid terms from a different regional kind of English.

Since C is more common than L in UK English, and in fact the only English term used by scientists when referring to the plant, there is no reason to change all mention of C into L. But since many US users of WP are probably unfamiliar with use of C for the food and since probably most UK users will not object to use of L in talking about the food, a possible compromise would be to use C when talking about the plant and L when talking about the food. There are however several good reasons not to do that: This is probably not necessary or even allowed according to WP policy (mixture of different terms for same thing). It seems enough to have L prominently visible at the beginning of the article as already is the case. More importantly, such use of C for the plant and L for the food could confuse readers. Worse still, due to WP's already massive influence on English usage, we could be accidentally establishing the incorrect claim that the plant is called C and its berry called L. When enough people read that and when that incorrect differentiation we invented to find a compromise in an edit dispute is reproduced on enough search engines, we will have influenced and changed English usage instead of recording it faithfully, as all modern dictionaries do. Dictionaries are scientifically produced based on usage in well-edited sources and specifically label slang or colloquial usage as such. Attempts to discredit and contradict entries in authoritative dictionaries based on Google frequencies would not only be against OR policy but also against one of the main concepts of the WP style manual, that WP should not be written in a colloquial style or using slang. (WP can and should describe colloquial and slang usage, not use it.) Just because large numbers of normal people have produced more Internet pages talking about L than C does not mean that L is the more common term used by editors of authoritative publications on plants or even cooking in either US or UK English.

It seems that this whole discussion is caused by a clear case of regional differences, and WP policy clearly states that one form of English should not be preferred. I am a US American, but i have defended a term more common in UK English because no form of English is better than another, and this is fortunately WP policy too. In addition, C is also the preferred term by American Heritage and the Botanical Society of America. If this were an article on use of cowberries in gastronomy, i would try to find evidence of use of L in UK cookbooks or specialist dictionaries that would justify departing from the preference for C of general UK dictionaries. In any case, all edits that want to ignore descriptions of English usage presented in authoritative dictionaries based on personal, amateur research or on the basis of naive personal, regional bias (I've only ever heard people refer to them as Lingonberries) should not be permitted. I will no longer spend time here explaining these basic principles of WP and any other serious encyclopedia and dictionary and will revert all possible attempts to get rid of the word "cowberry" from this article. Since "lingonberry" is prominently displayed at the beginning of this article, there doesn't seem to be any reason for English speakers who know only that term to feel offended or excluded. I suggest we therefore stop this waste of time and take the following words to heart in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

PS: Kaid100, it is not very polite nor a sign of trying to be an objective editor when you mention yourself first (as well as myself and Espoo)...

--Espoo 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine as it is

Using both names, as the article does now, seems a fine and sensible approach. If someone wants to alter it to have all of one name or all of the other for printing out, just make a subpage, print it, and then mark the subpage for speedy deletion.

As long as all the common names are mentioned -- and preferably redirect, though Partrigde berry might need a disambig -- it seems to me that the article contains the information it needs to have. This is really just a tempest in a teapot (or coffepot, depending on one's nationality), not worth edit-warring over :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much hoopla over one small word. But the alternating use results in an moderately confusing article. All alternative names should be listed in the introduction, but only one should be used throughout. Alternating between them results in an extremely confusing article. I personally think it should be referred to as "Lingonberry", as this is the only term that I've ever heard applied to the fruit. But some people seem to have a strong objection to this. I would argue that as a primarily scandinavian foodstuff, the scandinavian-derived name is the one which should be used throughout, especially where referring to usage as a food item. At the very least, when referring to uses by scandinavians or in scandinavian dishes, the term "lingonberry" should be used, as that is more appropriate in that context. --PSUdain (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless....

In case nobody noticed, a new plant article naming convention was instated a few weeks ago. It states that the article title is to be the latin name, and that all known vernacular names are to be listed in the article. (There are exceptions, but this article doesn't fall in those categories). Hope this clears things up! --NoahElhardt 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As a closing admin, I take it as meaning "no move". Move tag removed & unlisted from WP:RM. Duja 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the consensus seems to be against continuing the discussion about the two words, I'll drop the subject. When I brought up the subject of changing the name within the article (as opposed to the title) I made these posts in an attempt to make the proposal as gently and politely as possible: [17] [18]. Espoo, your reply had this postscript: PS: Kaid100, it is not very polite nor a sign of trying to be an objective editor when you mention yourself first (as well as myself and Espoo)... Why don't you look again at what we each posted and say which of us was polite? I'm not looking for a reply, just for you to consider. Kaid100 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy contains the qualification "Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered [sic]." Lingonberry is always the name I see for this berry on food products in the United States. Thus I don't believe it's appropriate to have this article under the Latin name, when "lingonberry" is widely known in the English speaking world. Badagnani 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lingonberry is not "widely known" in the English speaking world; in British English the species is always Cowberry, and Lingonberry almost totally unknown. But also to repeat what I mentioned earlier; there are two taxa involved, nominate V. vitis-idaea var. vitis-idaea (Cowberry) in Europe and Asia, and V. vitis-idaea var. minus (Lingonberry / Partridgeberry) in North America. The species page should be kept at the scientific name, and move the common name listings to the varietal listing, and in the rest of the text use the common names as per which taxon / region is being discussed (e.g., cite collecting Cowberries in Scandinavia, and production of Lingonberry jam in Canada). I haven't had the opportunity to try both, but it is possible they may differ somewhat in flavour, vitamin content, etc. Should a future botanist conclude they are distinct species and split them as V. vitis-idaea and V. minus, it then becomes much easier to split the page into two separate species pages. - MPF 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Commercial production

Much more information is needed about commercial production. It is hard to believe that all the lingonberry jam Ikea sells around the world is wild harvested. -69.87.203.227 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just taking issue with this statement "It is seldom cultivated". Ikea is a massive chain and sells jam and I believe several other products all based on lingonberry.--Crossmr 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ligonberry

I removed ligonberry as a common name because it is vastly less common than lingonberry (5000 google hits vs 200000), and isn't in any of the dictionaries at [19]. It certainly doesn't go in the "most often known as" names, and shows every sign of just being a (common-ish) typo for lingonberry. Kingdon (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NUTRITIONAL VALUES

contains organic acids?? i think you could pare that down to say at least 3 maybe?

there are a million organic acids , a large percentage of them entirely toxic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.101.58 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Uses / everyman's right

From the article: "Lingonberries collected in the wild are a popular fruit in northern, central and eastern Europe, ((snip)) , where they can be picked on both public and private lands in accordance with the European tradition of "everyman's rights" ".

The Freedom to Roam slash Everyman's Right only applies to Norway, Sweden and Finland in this case, Poland, Baltics and Russia do not have such a tradition. Haven't got a clue how to reformulate though. -- Pepijnk (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "and in some areas they can legally be picked on both public and private lands in accordance with the freedom to roam"? The article freedom to roam is the place to go into details about the legal differences in different countries. Kingdon (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Bergsten (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)