Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Units of measure

It would be good to have a formal guideline for the disambiguating phrase to use with units of measure. Currently, most such articles are disambiguated as "(unit)", but a number use "(quantity)" (where quantity = "mass", "length", etc.), a few use "(unit of quantity)", and a couple use something else entirely. For some of the more obscure units, it probably doesn't matter much, but for key SI units, such as pascal or newton with hundreds of incoming links, it seems fairly important to have a stable and predictable naming system, backed by a reasonable consensus. So let's hear some opinions. For consistency, if possible, please label your !vote as unit, quantity, unit of quantity, no convention (i.e., a formal naming guideline would not be desirable), or other (explain). For the purpose of this discussion, let's ignore units and pseudo-units perhaps better disambiguated as (domain), e.g., cent (music) or pinch (cooking), and stick to measurements of physical quantities.

Survey

• Unit. It's short to type, easy to remember, and avoids potential disagreements on what exactly to call the quantity. For example, though stone is nominally a unit of "(mass)", it's virtually always used in the sense of a "(weight)". Is knot a unit of "(velocity)" (per Category:Units of velocity) or "(speed)" (per its most common use)? Other quantities have long or awkward names: do we want henry (unit), henry (electrical inductance) (per Category:Units of electrical inductance), or henry (inductance)? Should it be gauss (unit) or gauss (magnetic flux density)? While there is something to be said for having the disambiguator indicate what kind of quantify is being measured, the vast majority of units do not have a disambiguator at all, so the phrase should just suffice to distinguish the unit from other meanings of the term. In the (very rare) case of ambiguous unit names that cannot be otherwise resolved (e.g., pound (force) currently redirects to the arguably more accurate pound-force), I'm fine with either "(quantity unit)" or "(unit of quantity)" as the disambiguator. Hqb (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit with any necessary further disambig being "Unit of X" (eg "Minute (unit of time)" and "Minute (unit of angular size)"). "Unit" is the most generic term and requires no pre-existing knowledge of what the term actually measures. This doesn't mean redirects can't be added (they are cheap). --MASEM 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit. I think it's a sufficiently unambiguous shorthand for unit of measure. If there is more than one unit possible, it could be further disambiguated, as in "pound (unit of mass)" versus "pound (unit of force)".RockyMtnGuy (talk)
• Unit. Of great value for hassle-free linking, and I don't see a downside. what Gene says below makes sense. But it would seem important to fix all the redirects.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unit. As far as I know, this must be a rather consistent convention here since that is what I would have typed to find it. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Leave as is. Much of this has already been done—and we aren't likely to be inventing a whole bunch of new units of measure deserving a Wikipedia article which do not already have one. Most of the rest of what the original poster raised (e.g., "it seems fairly important to have a stable and predictable naming") is easily handled by redirects; make sure that the appropriate ones exist. Foot (unit) works just fine, for example.
• The fact that newton (unit) doesn't link to the proper article is just due to idiots moving articles around haphazardly and not fixing the redirects properly. You are just leaving the door open for more idiocy along the same lines if you try to make wholesale changes in what exists now. Fix that one on an individual case basis by moving from the verbose disambiguation now used to newton (unit) and check any other redirects to the mess someone has created, otherwise leave well enough alone. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• And look here for an example of what some well-intentioned editor did when trying to fix the problems of improperly linking newton (unit) to a disambiguation page, using the edit summary "(WikiCleaner 0.85 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!)". Needless to say, the disambiguation was botched. But there was absolutely no reason to lay this trap in front of any editor in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not necessarily arguing for actively moving all existing disambiguators to a uniform scheme; but I think a standard naming convention is still needed, precisely to discourage random moves like the recent newton (unit) → newton (unit of force) (which should probably be undone before it gets too entrenched). Also, while we should not expect many articles on brand new units, several of the currently undisambiguated names might still be turned into dab pages or redirects to the unit's namesake, as has in fact happened to both Newton and Pascal. While the merits of any such move should of course be discussed individually, a general guideline would at least make sure that if, say, becquerel were to be moved, it would be to becquerel (unit) rather than to becquerel (radioactivity), becquerel (unit of radioactivity), becquerel (decay rate), or whatever. Anyone moving a page and repurposing its original name is of course responsible for fixing all incoming links (which, indeed, far too many editors don't realize); but that's no different for measurement units than for any other naming convention, so I don't see why it should discourage us from having a guideline at all. Hqb (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have the facts wrong. The move wasn't from newton (unit); that was a long-standing redirect, which did link to the right article. Then it was changed to link improperly to the newton (disambiguation) when the article to which the "(unit)" redirect used to point was needlessly moved, rather than to the new name of the article to which it used to redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And it wasn't that it Newton was a "currently undisambiguated name" before the recent move; in fact, the Newton (disambiguation) is an page has been there since Time Immemorial (back 7½ years ago, when Wikipedia was a crude infant). It was simply a matter of having the primary disambiguation going to the one thing most likely to be intended if newton standing alone were linked. If the link were intended for a person, for example, it should normally include that person's given name. Likewise, we do already have becquerel (disambiguation) as well—and that page is linked to in a disambiguation hatline in the article which holds the primary disambiguation slot for this name.

Like I said above, the fact that becquerel (unit) is a redlink as I write this should be fixed by creating the appropriate redirect to becquerel. I'll do it tomorrow, if no one has beaten me to it; I'll leave it red a little while here for clarity. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Now I've looked into it a little bit more, and I'm just downright pissed off at the lunacy of the people who moved Newton to Newton (unit of force). We should not do anything which would encourage more of this nonsense.

1. The double redirects haven't even been fixed. That is something you are reminded to do every time you make an article move. So now if you click on a link to meganewtons, you get stuck on a page where you need to click on another link to get to an actual article.
   1. And when you do click on that link, you don't get taken to the page you want, but rather to a disambiguation page where you need to do your own hunting around to find the link you are really looking for.
2. The move has improperly left hundreds of unfixed links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I undid the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, is your leave as is really the same as the current no convention, i.e., editors should continue to use whatever they feel like for the disambiguating phrase in unit names? The reason being, if there is any designated such phrase (like "(film)" or "(band)" in other areas), people will just improperly move pages to conform to it, without fixing incoming links? If so, is the implication that naming conventions in general are a bad thing, or that unit names are somehow particularly vulnerable to this problem? Nobody is arguing that existing pages with a primary (or sole) meaning as a unit name should be moved to "(unit)"; I just want to make sure that, given the expressed preferences above, the article about newtons ends up at either newton or newton (unit), rather than at newton (unit of force) or newton (force), and likewise for becquerel, etc. Hqb (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't particularly vulnerable to the problem.

Or rather, the vulnerability has been pretty much dealt with. Much of this has already been done. There was a lengthy discussion of it somewhere. I think it was most likely on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Somebody with more ambition than I have should go wade through the old archives there and try to find it.

But things like ton (unit) should never be anything other than a disambiguation page--which is essentially what ton is, disambiguating a ton of different units with that name, with further disambiguation in the non–units of measure sense at ton (disambiguation).

Same for pound (unit), a link which redirects to the general disambiguation page for pound; that's why one (well, actually several different units of mass, including avoirdupois pound, troy pound, tower pound, and a number of others) are at pound (mass), the unit of force is at pound-force (disambiguated that way because it should generally be visibly disambiguated in the articles as well).

This isn't a one-size fits all issue. Somebody really should go try to dig up the old, lengthy discussion when many of these were changed. One clue as to the time of this discussion is that one of the moves involved then was to change foot (unit of length) to foot (length), if my memory serves me right. That took place on 24 October 2007. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 89#Article titles for units, which unfortunately looks like it ended without any definite conclusions. But the examples given by User:Lightmouse reiterate that it's much more of a zoo out there than it needs to be. The problem is actually not so much with terms that (among possible other meanings) have a single, well-defined sense as a unit, such as pascal or newton: it seems that those articles should naturally reside either at "unitname" or "unitname (unit)" (unless someone still wants to champion "unitname (quantity)" as the general convention in such cases), though possibly with "unitname (quantity)" as a redirect in cases where it seems useful: inch (length) → inch is probably a good idea; Tesla (magnetic flux density) → Tesla (unit) might not be. The real question is then what to do about the truly problematical cases where "unitname (unit)" is itself ambiguous or inappropriate for some reason. I'm starting a list of such hard cases below, to make sure that any emerging policy can take them into account. Hqb (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a guideline: For every unit of measure, there should exist a page Unitname (unit), either as a redirect or as the article name. Articles should never be moved to accommodate this; redirects should be created instead. New articles about units should be given the form Unitname if the name is unambiguous; otherwise, Unitname (unit) should be used, unless there is compelling reason for a different name. If a new article is given a name other than Unitname (unit), the redirect should be created at the same time.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, except that new articles should only be named Unitname (unit) if disambiguation is necessary for Unitname. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the wording above, to make the diff available.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you don't literally mean "never move [say] Hasta (measure) to Hasta (unit)"; how is that different from moving any other non-standardly named article, like Transformers (movie) to Transformers (film), to follow the disambiguation guidelines in that domain? Simple moves are not the problem; but what should never happen is that the redirect created by such a move then gets overwritten by a dab page, or a (redirect to a) different article, breaking incoming links in the process. Of course, the best way of preventing that is to actually update all incoming links at the time of the move, which is fortunately trivial for most obscure or newly created articles. We could perhaps make it a formal requirement when moving any unit page, if there's a good case to be made that link-breaking is more of a problem for units than for other kinds of articles. Hqb (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Gene (above) may have a different view. I'm good with either way.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Unitname (unit), how about: if there is a Unitname (disambiguation) (or an equivalent hatnote at Unitname) , then there should also be a Unitname (unit) (either as the actual article name, or as a redirect). Otherwise, we would seem to require creating dubious extra redirects like Hvat (unit) → Hvat or hectometre (unit) → Hectometre, that are extremely unlikely to ever be used. Hqb (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the disambiguation pages fit into this, but as for your last statement, redirects are cheap, and if every unit has a Unitname (unit) form, every link to Unitname (unit) will succeed. And whereas Hvat and Hectometre don't need disambiguation, Newton should arguably be a disambiguation page rather than the unit (I'd argue for leaving it where it is, but I'm a scientist; a historian might suggest that it go to the person, just as Pascal does).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying that if the term Unitname has any other meaning than as the unit (whether or not that's the primary meaning), there should be a Unitname (unit), but for terms whose sole meaning is a unit, there's no reason to preemptively create additional redirects, just like we don't automatically create Filmname (film) for every single film, or Bandname (band) for every single band. I have yet to hear a reasoned argument for why articles about units of measurement in particular should be treated any differently with respect to moving or preemptive disambiguation – all I wanted to resolve in this poll was whether the standard disambiguation phrase should be "(unit)", "(quantity)", "(unit of quantity)", or nothing in particular. Hqb (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of ambiguous unit names

This is a list of unit names for which a title of the form "unitname (unit)" might be problematic. The intent is to develop a sensible naming convention covering at least some of these cases, if possible (or to conclude, on a factual basis, that the situation is truly hopeless).

Currently very incomplete; feel free to expand.

• ton (long, short, or metric)
• pound (mass, force, or currency)
• second, minute (time or angle)
• gallon, pint, quart (US or imperial volume)
• mile (statue or nautical)
• cup (imperial, metric, or Japanese)

Note that having two or more units sharing a name is in principle no different from other dab situations. In particular, if one sense is much more common or important than the other, the primary meaning can still sensibly reside at "unitname (unit)", and the other(s) at "unitname (clarifier unit)" with a hatnote, as in Stone (unit) vs. Stone (Chinese unit). Some of the examples in the list above might fall into this category. Hqb (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Add:

• Mcf (1000 cubic feet, or 1,000,000 cubic feet, depending on whether "M" stands for Latin mille or Greek mega)
• ounce (mass, force, or fluid ounce, US or imperial, avoirdupois or troy)
• barrel (US oil, US beer, US dry, imperial)
• ton (register ton, displacement ton, freight ton, refrigeration ton, nuclear explosion ton)
• calorie (gram calorie, kilogram calorie)
• dram (avoirdupois, apothecary, or fluid dram)
• cable (US mariner, British Admiralty, or metric)
• hundredweight (long or short)
• inch (length, in HG, in WC)
• tablespoon (US, imperial, Commonwealth metric, Australian)
• teaspoon (US, imperial, Commonwealth metric)
• yard (length, cloth area, cubic)

RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even RockyMtnGuy's additions for tons have only scratched the surface. The short, long, and metric tons have all spun off force units in addition to the standard mass units; "refrigeration tons" might be either units of energy or units of power; other energy units include various tons of oil equivalent, tons of coal equivalent, etc. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there also a Heavy lourde? Just kidding. However, I believe that when the tons are metric, they are spelled "tonne". Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple question

Simple question which honestly most of you probably don't care about the subject for (professional wrestling), but i'm asking anyway to end a conflict: should articles be named by their given name or by a wikiprojects manual of style? Wrestling promotion Ring of Honor held a pay-per-view event which they titled "Rising Above 2008" but shortened on promotional posters to simply "Rising Above", which is also the same named use for another pay-per-view they taped in 2007. Rising Above 2008 was filmed in November 2008 and is airing in January 2009. The official name for the event as given by Ring of Honor is "Rising Above 2008", however it is WikiProject Professional wrestling's policy not to go by what they titled it. Instead, it has been changed to Rising Above (2009) because it is being aired in 2009. So my question is should the article be title by what the promotion who held the event named it (Rising Above 2008) or by what the wikiproject says it should be named ("Rising Above (2009)")? Nenog (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wine and viticulture

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Glossary of wine terms

I may have jumped the gun by inserting a section and guideline sentence at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Wine and viticulture, not realizing this might be the place to propose such things first. The line refers to what has long been (mostly) the practice at WP:WINE, but would be nice to have in writing, and better avoid new anomalies. Are there other important issues we should consider? MURGH ^disc. 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to place it in a new section called Proposed conventions, so that we can see if there is a consensus for it, it can be move up once there is.

How does this convention fit in with "WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name" and the general "WP:NC#General conventions"? It would seem to me to fall foul of WP:PRECISION (see also WP:DAB.--PBS (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to a few of us preoccupied with the topic of wine, to fit nicely with WP:COMMONNAME. As for as the WP:PRECISION guideline, we opt for the "not overly precise" bit, as we were getting a host of variants on the same theme. But yes, there are surely many cases more where (wine) is the less appropriate DAB choice, other than just the two exceptions mentioned, and we'd like to define more of those. But at least as far as a unifier of (wine writer), (wine critic), (wine authority), (wine columnist), (wine correspondent) it seems functional. MURGH ^disc. 11:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template naming conventions

I've suggested standardizing template naming, at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Template naming conventions. If you're frustrated with typing template names and constantly guessing at the right capitalization and spacing, please chime in. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:48 z

Reverting changes

Just as a general rule (because this annoys me every time it happens), there doesn't have to be a talk page discussion before every change of wording, as implied in Philip's edit summary, particularly if it's a stylistic change only. So while you are perfectly entitled to revert, I think it would be more helpful for discussion if you gave your actual reason for reverting (i.e. why you think the edit was unhelpful), because the statement that there has to be discussion beforehand is just incorrect. It quite often turns out in practice (on policy pages in particular) that people have just reverted blindly because they wrongly think everything needs to be pre-discussed, and this disrupts the BRD process since we can't distinguish between cases where there is real opposition necessitating discussion, and where there is only misguided bureaucracy at work. </rant>

All the changes I just made were only intended to make the meaning clearer - if people don't think I've succeeded, or if they think the meaning's been inadvertently changed, then that's fine, revert them, but please say what the objection actually is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree "lack of discussion" or "insufficient discussion" alone does not justify a revert. A specific objection to the change being reverted should also be provided, either in the edit summary or in the talk page with a note about that in the edit summary. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixed and non-capitalization in personal names

A request for comment has been opened at the talk page of WP:MOSCL, on how the Manual of Style should handle mixed and non-capitalization in personal names. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Steinerner Steg

An interesting discussion on which name should be used for the disputed region between Austria and Italy deserves a wider and more knowledgeable eye than I can give it. Please take a look. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, John: there have been tons of discussion about this issue and a consensus as been reached about the naming of the region: Talk:Communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Archive 3: the political entity is named Province of Bolzano-Bozen and for the history section History of Alto Adige-South Tyrol is used: Alto Adige a being a creation of Napoleonic times (and reintroduced after World War I) and the literal translation of Südtirol= South Tyrol. With the important distinction that this term Alto Adige-South Tyrol iy only being used from 1919 onwards.

The problem here is that the IP 192.45.72.26 is editing with an agenda: if you look at his other edits you will see that said IP it is trying to remove all mention of South Tyrol from articles example (which he can do, as the name we have settled on the name of Province of Bolzano-Bozen) but he is also trying to purge the term South Tyroleans from articles and replaces it with German speakers of Bolzano-Bozen [1] - short he has a agenda and he is aggressive and insulting in his behaviour, he also likes to remove warnings from his talkpage and edits other users pages in his crusade to remove the term South Tyrol. In short: this is one of the many instances, when someone with an agenda tries to impose his nationalist view on articles related to South Tyrol (and it is so much worse at the German and Italian wiki...) --noclador (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal (was merge proposal)

For a proposal to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to something outside "naming conventions space" (it was previously proposed to merge it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)), please see and comment here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't WP:NC in conflict with WP:NOR?

At WT:NC (flora) it was just brought to my attention that at the top of WP:NC it states:

Naming conventions are Wikipedia's policy on how to name pages. The conventions are supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy. This policy should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies and not in isolation. In particular editors should familiarise themselves with the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This implies that we must adhere to Wikipedia:No original research when naming articles. I don't see how that is even possible.

Do we not necessarily violate WP:NOR every time we name or rename an article based on our own research (including using WP:GOOGLE) because rarely (if ever) is there a reliable source that clearly shows that a given name is "the most commonly used name" for a given topic, or is "the most easily recognized name"? Are we not violating WP:NOR every time we find a new creative way to disambiguate a title so that it won't conflict with other uses? By its very nature, isn't the process of determining "the most commonly used name" and "the most easily recognized name", not to mention the whole process of disambiguation, a process of original research? Isn't WP:NOR really meant to apply to article content, and not to article naming?

Can we strike the reference of WP:NOR at the top of WP:NC, and, better yet, even explicitly state that WP:NOR necessarily does not apply, and cannot apply, to the process of determining article titles in accordance with WP:NC? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. Article titles need to reflect core Wikipedia policies, and need to be verifiable by reliable sources - as opposed to just made up. First Light (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose NOR still has a role to play in naming; after all, we don't make up completely original names. I think it would make things clearer if WP:OR were amended to make it clear what sort of things are not regarded as forbidden original research - but last time I looked at that page there was a core of hardliners opposed to including anything which might be interpreted as "weakening" that policy, regardless of what actual practice is.--Kotniski (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, interesting, and good point. I would hope that limiting the exception to the process of article naming would alleviate their concerns. I've posted a note about this at WT:NOR as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But First Light, WP editors make up titles all the time, and we must. I just hit SPECIAL:RANDOM and got, Historical U.S. Census Totals for New London County, Connecticut. Where is the reliable source that verifies that name at all for that topic? Hitting random again... how about for Black Creek (Florida)? Is there a reliable source with which we can verify that Black Creek (Florida) is even a commonly used name for that topic, much less the most commonly used name? Tama, Podlaskie Voivodeship? Tughlaq Road? Maybe we can find reliable sources that indicate that some of these are valid names for their respective topics, but where do you find a reliable source that clearly shows that each name is "the most commonly used" for that topic, or is the one that is "the most easily recognized name"? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are reliable sources for plant names, and those sources almost always show the scientific name, which is why the naming policy (flora) works quite well. First Light (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, my concern is about the reference to, and implication of, WP:NOR in WP:NC in general, not necessarily just with respect to plant names, even though this issue was brought to my attention at WT:NC (flora). Is your objection ("Bad idea") to my point in general, or only how it applies to plants?

But, yes, flora are reliable sources for plant names, but they are not necessarily reliable sources for determining what WP naming policy requires: "the most easily recognized name" and the name that the "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". That can only be determined on a case-by-case basis (and by engaging in what might be considered to be "original research"), just like for any WP article, and may or may not coincide with the Latin name specified as the scientific name by the reliable scientific sources. For relatively well-known plants, the most easily recognized name is unlikely to be the scientific Latin name, except in rare cases such as Aloe vera. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WRT Black Creek (Florida), yes. GNIS is pretty much definitive for most US geographic names. Since Black Creek is ambiguous, appending "(Florida)" is an arbitrary convention for disambiguating the title and is not part of the name for the stream. As for Historical U.S. Census Totals for New London County, Connecticut, there is likely to not be any reliable source with a common name for that precise set of data. So long as such descriptive titles are accurate and NPOV, there is no reason to consider the name under OR. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GNIS might very well be "pretty much definitive" for stating what the geographic names are officially, but does it explicitly tell us what name is most commonly used to refer to those places, or what name would be most easily recognized? We surmise that they are one and the same, and that's arguably OR. Now, in such a trivial case it seems a petty point, and, well, it is, but it actually illustrates my point: even in the most obvious cases what the reliable sources specify is not what WP:NC requires us to determine. When you have a topic with multiple names, I don't know of a single case in which a verifiable source specifies which is the most common, or which is most likely to be easily recognized. So that determination is almost always, if not always, arguably OR. Same with determining whether a given name has a primary topic. The concept of "primary topic", is, so far as I know, unique to WP, and so the process of determining whether there is a primary topic for a given name, and what it is, is inherently OR. Even the process of disambiguation, by adding dab info in parenthesis to a title, is arguably a creative process, and thus OR too.

I'm not saying any of this is a problem - it has to be that way. Of course. But it is OR, and WP:NC should explicitly acknowledge it and state that it is kosher, so that when an objection is raised based on an argument that following WP:NC to determine an article's name is a violation of WP:NOR, something could be cited to definitely make clear that WP:NOR does not apply when determining which among several candidates is the most commonly used name, which topic, if any, is primary for a given name, how best to disambiguate a name that has multiple conflicting uses, etc. I think WP:NOR should state something to that effect too. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re GNIS: in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is purely conjecture as to whether some other name is more commonly used. And in the absence of such evidence, it would be OR to assume that any other name is more commonly used. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not just OR, that's just making stuff up out of whole cloth. Obviously, the determination of what is the most commonly used name, or what is the name most easily recognized, needs to be based on evidence. But that determination is still OR. To put my point in your terms, in the absence of any reliable source that clearly states that the name specified by the GNIS is also the most commonly used name for that place, and the name most likely to be recognized, it is (arguably) OR to assume never-the-less that it is the most commonly used name for that place, and that it is the name most likely to be recognized. Again, I'm not saying that is anything wrong with doing that, just that it is OR, and the WP:NC and WP:NOR should be clear about that being okay. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is an assumption that GNIS is a reliable authority for place names in the US. Choosing a different title that is at odds with a reliable authority would require a significant burden of proof. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept that GNIS is a reliable authority for place names in the US. That alone doesn't necessarily make the GNIS a reliable authority for most commonly used names. Jumping to that conclusion is arguably OR, though it happens to be a reasonable thing to do in the case of place names because place names tend to have only one name, and, even if they have multiple names, the most common one is almost certain to be coincident with one specified by the GNIS.

I also agree that in this case choosing a different title that is at odds with a particular authority requires a significant burden of proof, especially in a case like place names where the authoritative names and the most commonly recognized names tend to be the same. But that is not always the case, and, in particular, in the case of plant names, the authoritative name (the scientific Latin name) is often at odds with the common English name most commonly used and which is most easily recognized by readers. In those cases there should be just as much burden on proving the authoritative name meets WP:NC criteria (in particular, "most easily recognized") as is put on any other name, don't you agree? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those times when it's good to remember WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I think if folks ever run into a disagreement here, the right answer should be chosen based on producing the best possible encyclopedia that behaves in a way that we think our readers will expect. If we can't reliably ascertain that a particular article name is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is always a safe answer. You know, sometimes I wish we could easily gather statistics on how often each link in a disambiguation pages is used -- there'd nothing better than actual usage statistics to help guide us in the right direction. Hmmmm... Warren -talk- 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"If we can't reliably ascertain that a particular article name is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is always a safe answer." Absolutely. Funny you should say that. You might be interested in this proposal I just made at WT:D. Anyway, that's a related, but separate issue.

The problem with invoking WP:IAR is that it opens Pandora's Box. For example, the dispute might be about whether the determine the most easily recognized name clause of WP:NC should be ignored because doing so violates WP:NOR. If I argue we should ignore WP:NOR in this case per WP:IAR, then that opens the door for them to cite WP:IAR to ignore the easily recognized name clause. So I don't like to use it. Yes, we all carry the IAR card to ignore "stupid" rules, but that's really only useful when everyone agrees on what rules are "stupid".

Similarly, "the right answer should be chosen based on producing the best possible encyclopedia that behaves in a way that we think our readers will expect." sounds good in theory, but it's full of too many ambiguous and subjective terms ("right", "best possible", "we think our readers will expect"). In fact, in the particular dispute I have in mind, one of the core issues is about what "we think our readers will expect". The botanists and botany-hobbyists think readers will expect scientific Latin names as titles of plant articles, and non-botanists (of the few of us that are involved over there) think common names, at least for relatively well-known plants, are more likely to be expected by our readers. So the botanists are arguing to use "reliable sources" (i.e. scientific flora) to name all plant articles, because anything else, like trying to determining the name most likely to be expected or recognized, is a violation of WP:NOR. That's why I am looking for some explicit clarification on this point at WP:NC and WP:NOR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Born2cycle. I've actually invoked IAR for editing purposes maybe once a year; I like to think of it more as a reminder of what our real purpose is.

On to your concern -- It's generally established that we go with the most widely recognized names rather than the most technically accurate names. Marilyn Monroe instead of Norma Jeane Mortenson; Marilyn Manson instead of Brian Hugh Warner; and so forth. I fully appreciate why a botanist would prefer the Latin names for all articles, but they have to be willing to give a bit of that up for the most popular plants so that we do the best possible job as far as helping non-experts find information. List articles and categories can and should be used to ensure we still have lists of plants based on their Latin names (redirect articles from a Latin to a common name can be given categories so that they'll appear in a category article, albeit in italics). We've already long since decided to use the English names for places (Vienna instead of Wien, e.g.) and people (Muqtada al-Sadr instead of سيد مقتدى الصدر), so you'd think it wouldn't be too contentious to stick with English for the names of things, too.

As an aside, I find it fascinating that when it comes to naming things that humans didn't create (animals, plants, natural phenomenon), humans have managed to create two sets of words to describe these things -- one in Latin, and one in each modern language. I don't quite fully understand the fixation with using Latin to build taxonomies, when people in the 21st century don't actually use Latin to meaningfully communicate with eachother except for taxonomies and the occasional cutesy phrase (ad hoc, quid pro quo, etc.). I'd love to know the answer to why this practice continues today. Warren -talk- 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren, it is because plants exist all over the world and all countries write about them. One and only global name is usefull to make clear that the subject treated in a given article is understood as the same wherever you are in the world, without the need of a dictionary to translate the name of a plant to every other language. It is also the only way to know what you are refering to as there is no organization that regulates common names and they vary from place to place. That's why. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, join us at WT:NC (flora), particularly the section at the very bottom (though I'm checking out for a few days now). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please don't join us there for this anymore. At this point Born2cycle is simply hounding the plants editors to get them to stop writing, editing, and maintaining plants article because he doesn't like the Wikipedia plant naming guidelines. He needs to stop. He's been hounding us for two months now without a single break.

Oh, and, by the way, Born2cycle, as I have pointed out before, it's Botanical Latin, not necessarily scientific Latin, because it's not used except in the Botanical sciences.

Born2cycle, you're doing nothing but disrupt editing of plant articles with this ceaseless forum shopping and going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with no one agreeing with you. Please just stop it. --KP Botany (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I just read B2c's start of this discussion. At first it looks like he's about to argue in favor of using only scientific-name titles for articles on biological organisms -- but, no! He just wants WP:NC to throw out WP:NOR in order to make it easier for people like himself and PBS to argue in favor of the Googletest to determine the most commonly used names for article titles. What I don't understand about you, KP Botany, is that you think it's important enough to avoid this kind of endless blather at WP:NC (flora), but that it's okay if your counterparts at WP:NC (fauna) are saddled up with it. --Jwinius (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got the same comment via e-mail, although a bit politer. It is the thing that is beginning to sink in from listening to PBS and B2c is that they advocate a policy that is impossible. So, I appreciate that instead of just defending the plant policy, I should also be over there is animals advocating for just such a policy for fauna naming. (Just to be clear, I, like most other editors being maliciously overwhelmed with the nonsense, am no longer listening to or really reading anything they have to say, and they seem only to engage each other.) --KP Botany (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The three content policies are there for content the NOR specifically says in the first paragraph "In articles". Any editor not familiar with the Naming Conventions Policy, could be excused from reading this section that such things as Google searches were not appropriate for helping to determine the most suitable name for an article. However a view of the pages under discussion at WP:RM will show anyone that it is the practice to use internet searches an other methods to determine the name to use for an article title. A view into the archives of the talk pages of POV page names will show that this is the way page names have been chosen since the start of the encyclopaedia. The section "Article naming " in WP:NPOV, could just as easily be in WP:NC as the two policies they do not contradict each other. --PBS (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a problem. With the amount of websites endlessly forking/copying/mirroring wikipedia, if a given article stays at "common name A" for any length of time, there tends to be ungodly more GoogleHits for "common name A" vs "common name B". So the GoogleTest is already tainted. Shrumster (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between original research and just plain research

There is a big misconception above about what "original research" is. WP:NOR was formulated to prevent people from adding their own first-hand accounts of things to articles; as such it works in tandem with WP:V. So, I am free to look at what the New York Times says, and use that information. I am not free to use myself as a source. Applying this to naming conventions: If we go and do a google test to determine what the most commonly used name of a topic is, that is not original research; we are not making anything from scratch, we are using other sources. If we make the name up on our own, because we think it is the right name, then that is original research, and is frowned upon. Any questions?--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I kind of sort of agree with you, but I also think you've missed B2c's point. Do you think it would be okay for me to insert into article X "the most commonly used name for X is Y", and to cite that assertion with a Google search? Hesperian 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here lies the distinction. Putting such a statement into an article is a statement of fact, and therefore requires (in principle) a better source than a Google search. But using something as the name of an article is not equivalent to stating that it's the most common name (or even that it is a name) - it's just an editorial decision, and these necessarily have to be made on our own judgement. Anyway, it's imposible for two articles to have the same name, so if the most common name (or only name) for two things is the same name, then it's not possible to use it for both.--Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski has a good point. While I use WP:COMMONNAME as an example, we don't always use the most commonly used name, because sometimes we just can't, so we use other naming conventions, which, as Kotniski says, are there for editorial guidance. While we certainly can't put first-hand (i.e. "original") research into an article, the article has to have SOME name, and we rely on the tools at hand to guide us in making that editorial decision. That's not original research, that's just research. This is not the same as a content decision.--Aervanath (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So why not just use the officially accepted name that will never be mistaken for anything else? No two organisms share the same scientific name. The fact that some scientific names are junior synonyms of the more correct ones are an entirely matter altogether. Shrumster (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is precisely what a policy of using common names for organisms amounts to, and not just original research, the very worst kind of original research when put into light with how high Wikipedia article pages often rank on web search engines: we are dictating what the most commonly used name is and making it what we declare it to be, at least on the web. --KP Botany (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, I don't see the distinction you're drawing, unless you're saying that context determines whether a given process amounts to "original research" or "just research". But if that's the case, the distinction is merely semantics, which is my point. Hesperian's example hits the nail on the head, if it's OR to assert that "X is the most commonly used name for Y" in an article, based only on google search results, why is it not OR when doing so implicitly in the process of naming an article? One way or another, I think this needs to be cleared up. Either WP:NOR has to clearly say it does not apply to article naming, or WP:NC has to say that in the context of article naming determining the most commonly used name is not OR, or something to that effect. Otherwise we have the absurd situation in which there are those who claim that the naming process used to name the bulk of the articles in WP is inherently in violation of WP:NOR, and should not be used if there is any kind of alternative reliable source to draw from. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I see this all the time with brand new translated common names. You go and check the sources and there it is: Wikipedia. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The most common name versus the canonical name

As you're probably aware, there is currently a long-running dispute over at the flora naming convention, which hinges on whether or not we're paying our dues to "use the most common name". I'll try not to import that long-running dispute over here (more than it already is), but there is one matter that arises from it that really does need to be dealt with here:

This policy is supposed to be descriptive of how we operate, not prescriptive; and as a description it is woefully inaccurate in the emphasis that it puts on "use the most common name".

In every field in which there exists canonical (i.e. official, standardised or formally published) names, I see a constant tension between "use the canonical name" and "use the most common name", with the former winning reasonably often, perhaps more often than not. Consider these examples:

• Books, movies, albums, songs, etcetera, are nearly always known by their actual names, irrespective of whether or not these are most common.
  • e.g. Metallica (album), not some disambiguation of "The Black Album".
• If it is easy to ascertain the gazetted name of a geographic place, the article on that place is almost without exception given the gazetted name as the title. Editors don't give a moment's thought to what the most common name is; they just consult the GNIS or the Gazetteer of Australia or whatever, and go with the gazetted name.
• Birds and mammals have standardised common (i.e. vernacular/vulgar) names, so our article titles always follow them, irrespective of whether they are the most commonly (i.e. usually) used names;
• The astronomy naming convention pays its dues to WP:COMMONNAME, but the tension is still there.
  • e.g. Talk:Halley's Comet/Halley's Comet archive. The article is now at Halley's Comet but the naming convention still advocates Comet Halley.

There are many more examples—in chemistry, medicine, ships, aircraft, broadcasting, ...—but I think I've made my point, which is that in practice "use the most common name" is not given the weight that a reading of this policy page would mislead you into thinking. On the contrary, when there is a canonical name, it is not at all unusual for editors to adopt it as the right name, without giving "use the most common name" a moment's thought.

I think the current wording of this policy reflects the prescription of a few idealists, rather than a description of how we actually operate in article space. Unless there are strong objections, I propose to begin editing this page to bring it in line with current practice.

Hesperian 12:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to object to this. Maybe trying to find the most common name is an idealistic goal; however, if you want a descriptive policy, I can tell you that it's very descriptive of how I and the other admins at WP:RM evaluate move discussions. (Of course, the four or five of us active there obviously can't impose our will on the whole community, so maybe we are the few idealists you are referring to.) However, we are supposed to be optimizing this encyclopedia for the layman over the specialist; that implies that we should be applying the principle of least astonishment to article names, and locating them at the most common name. This is distinct from the "vernacular" or "vulgar" name (which I think everybody already agrees on, I just wanted to restate it for anyone new to the discussion), and instead means the most "commonly-used" name, i.e. the name that most people would expect to find the article at. I don't think I'm saying anything revolutionary here. I am, however, willing to accept the possibility that sometimes people expect to find the article at the canonical name and not the most commonly used name; is that more along the lines of your thinking here?--Aervanath (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is: what would most people type in the search box when looking for the article? If it's the most commonly-used name, then use that; if it's the canonical name, then use that; I expect this will vary depending on the category.--Aervanath (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter half of your reply is reasonably persuasive. But whilst disagreeing with me, you seem to be mounting a fresh argument that leads to the same conclusion: this policy is overcooking "use the most common name". Hesperian 13:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think our opinions are not that far apart, actually. I originally mistook your position as "Forget WP:COMMONNAME, and just go with the canonical name." However, what you're actually saying (if I understand you correctly) is "Don't forget WP:COMMONNAME altogether, but the canonical name is used more often than not." Before I go on with what I think, please tell me if I've correctly understood your postion; I initially started off with a misunderstanding, and I don't want to continue if I'm working off different assumptions than you are. Have I read you correctly?--Aervanath (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. In fields where there is a canonical name, an across-the-board "use the canonical name" would be just as inaccurate as an across-the-board "use the most common name". What actually happens is each field makes its own tradeoff. Ornithographers says "The standard names for birds are very widely accepted and we would look silly if we didn't follow suit, so always use the standard name." Geographers say "Gazetted names are very widely accepted, so use the gazetted name in general, but be ready to make exceptions in exceptional circumstancesf (e.g. see the last paragraph of Uluru#Name. Geologists might say "Attempts to standardise the names of stratigraphic units have not been widely adopted, so lets just stick with using the most common name". My point is that these decisions are routinely made on Wikipedia per field, and this policy should reflect that reality, rather than inaccurately putting "use the most common name" on a pedestal. Hesperian 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this proposal. It makes sense, and it reflects the reality of how we tend to do things. I believe that it describes the way we do things for plants, it works for mammals and birds, it works for chemical elements and trains. As Hesp said above, it's descriptive, not prescriptive...which is the way that works best in the formulation of policies and guidelines. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also support this idea. Each project can, should, and in fact tends to use what works best for their field. "Use the most common name" is often ignored, because it is not always what works best. Policy should be descriptive of what actually works. First Light (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"rather than inaccurately putting "use the most common name" on a pedestal." There is a big difference between putting the common name on a pedestal and turning a guideline 180° against policy. See the difference between WP:NC (astronomical objects) and WP:NC (flora). The former starts with: "Common names should be used where these are popular or otherwise the official names. Where there is a conflict between official names, a hierarchy of preference should be used according to the most common naming system. Redirect articles should be used wherever possible." and the latter that starts with "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following,...". A changing in the wording of flora to that similar to astronomical objects would be sufficient to solve the current dispute at flora. --PBS (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Using canonical names as titles for the main content would generally avoid some difficulties, e.g. need to move / rename if the common name is challenged, is known only to readers in certain regions / cultures, turns out to be shared by 2 or more subjects, is non-existent in English, etc. However I would expect articles to provide all common names in the appropriate language, with refs of course. I would also expect either redirect or DAB pages with common names as titles, to facilitate searching via the WP search and external ones such as Google. --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed in full at Wikipedia naming conventions or somewhere appropriate. --KP Botany (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Common names cause article disruption, editing disruptions, arguments, and endless battles about the policy itself when naming organisms. They lead to problems such as using original research to decide what the common name is, and to Wikipedia then dictating, through prominent search engine results, what the most commonly used name in English is. They are ethnocentric, they're not standardized, and they may refer to many organisms. They're impossible to use and disrupt Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a more extreme version of what Hesperian is proposing above at #The most common name versus the canonical name; please comment on his suggestion.--Aervanath (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will read it thoroughly. Thanks for the link. --KP Botany (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• This won't go anywhere, but allow me the first to say absolutely not. I'm happy to defend WP:PLANT's choice, even as I see the opponents point of view to a point, but I will defend WP:BIRD and WP:MAMMAL too. First off I object to any attempt to impose heavy top down rules from on high when the current system of maximum autonomy for the individuals and projects. Secondly I disagree with the assertion that it causes difficulties (occasional discussions at best) nor, with the standardised names available, does it entail much original resreach. Finally, from the point of view of consumers (ie our readers) common names are preferable when available for birds and mammals. What you gain in accuracy in scientific names you lose in approachability. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • In approachability for what? You have to first be clear you're all approaching the same thing. Flora is still deep in the midst of a two month assault by two single minded editors who disagree with our policy (and strongly with each other) completely interrupting editing on plant articles by consuming plant article editors with their endless battering of points they cannot make. How is this "occasional discussions at best?" This is long term, pernicious interruption, not a discussion. And, they get away with it by using the "maximum autonomy" against us. Not by offering usable arguments or making salient points. --KP Botany (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After over two months of a small group of people wanting to "impose heavy top down rules from on high" on plant naming; it might be time to take a long hard look at the current conventions covering the naming of organisms, which seems to foment endless and pernicious discussions covering the same ground over and over and over again. Its seems that one of the core policies of Wikipedia is "no original research", and the "commonly used name" issue seems to be very problematic in that regards. Hardyplants (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So because two plant editors are in nasty disagreement, all biological projects get swept up in the same thing? What sense does that make? Yes, we have occasional disagreements at WP:BIRD (blackbird being a recent example), but these are quickly sorted with a DAB page. And while in-the-know botanists may refer to plant species by scientific name, very few of our general readers will search for tigers or wolves or Common Blackbirds that way. And if we're just redirecting them to a scientifically named article when they type in tiger or wolf or blackbird, how is that "improving" things at all?! Even print encyclopedias (unless you're talking about specialized plant encyclopedias) use common names. MeegsC | Talk 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually they aren't plant editors...which is probably part of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And don't throw WP:NOR at me. If you are suggesting that titling the article on Aves in the order Sphenisciformes with Penguin constitutes original research I think you are twisting the policy out of all meaningful bounds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC): "...nor, with the standardised names available, does it entail much original research."

It is good that those outside of Wikipedia with interests in birds have managed to come up with a standardized naming scheme that works. This is not true for plants and most other living things, and when wikipedia picks one vernacular name over others, it does constitute original research and has POV issues too.

Which is why I have defended WP:PLANTs decision to set their own standards. But I will also defend WP:FISHs choice of Fishbase, WP:MAMMAL's choice of MSW3, and whatever system the reptile and amphibian people use (see to use common names were they exist, otherwise scientific). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no standardized English common names for reptiles that I am aware of, and certainly not for snakes, which is what I've been working on. Over the past few years of my involvement with Wikipedia, I have found WP:NC (fauna) to be an immense source of frustration. Once, I stopped editing for over a month after having prevailed in such a debate, because I found the experience so draining. Also, these lengthy and pointless debates have always been with other editors who have no knowledge of the subject and have made no further specific contributions. This current naming standard is anti-logic, anti-science, anti-editor -- anti-common-sense. It invites pointless disputes and endless blather. It is not a naming convention that scales properly and it promotes disorganization. It must be abandoned in favor of scientific names for all article titles on organisms. --Jwinius (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For perspective - there are maybe 10,000 bird species and half that number of Mammal species WORLDWIDE, but 20,000+ species of plants in North America alone and maybe 400,000+ world wide. The argument that is being used to force us to change out convention on plant naming, is namely that this policy says we have too, since the problem is with this policy (or the interpretation of it) then this policy needs changing. Hardyplants (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale for inflicting this on the other tree of life projects is simply to stop people from bothering the plant people? You aren't going to win many friends that way, and you're not going to get much support either. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not "my rationale for inflicting this upon other tree of life projects." The reason plant editors get hounded in part is because our hounders see the common names in use on plant articles for example, then say plants should do it, too. Strangely, they don't bring up bird naming policies, where common names are used, usually just the mammal articles. And it's not about winning friends, it's about gaining consensus on a workable policy to forestall being hounded by non-plants editors for two months about article names. I thought the policy said just what it says already, but the hounders are claiming that it doesn't, that it says something else. So, if community consensus is that it says what it says, I want it clarified that this is what it says, that flora articles are named in accordance with flora naming conventions, bird articles in accordance with bird naming conventions, mammal articles in accordance with mammal naming conventions. But, if the community consensus is that organisms should have scientific names as article titles, names conforming nomenclatural codes, then I want the policy to be just that. --KP Botany (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::The rational is that we need a policy that works: If we are going to use one standardized police across all the different biological fields, then it needs to be the Binomial name, which has been given and agreed upon by those that know their field of study and have been published in reliable sources. The other option is to strengthen the hand of each project, so those few fields that have standardized names can utilize those names, and the others are not bogged down. Hardyplants (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a proposal one section above that does exactly that: "strengthen the hand of each project, so those few fields that have standardized names can utilize those names." But I fear this proposal will rob it of oxygen. Hesperian 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What name is given prominence in the work MSW3, shouldn't we use that if the consensus is to adopt its titles? 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with using scientific names for all ToL articles but it's not my call to make. Guidelines should describe what editors really do. In the case of birds and mammals, there are systems that work. It might be worth trying to document what's done for other taxa, and perhaps standardising whatever works best. But this should be done at the level of the WikiProject. Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that EVERY biological project on Wikipedia already have a mixture of Scientific and common names in ther care. The vast majority of extinct taxa articles are found at their scientific names. For examples Anomalopteryx, Florissantia, Sphenacodon, and Smilodon. It seems like it would actually be bringing everyone into agreememt, the title would be the scientific and the article could easily discuss any and all common names.--Kevmin (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Kevmin, how would the average general reader find these scientifically named articles, since they won't have the foggiest clue what scientific name they should be looking for? MeegsC | Talk 23:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects if a unique common name exists, Disambiguation pages for those common names which are used to refer to multiple different species/genera. In the cases I list above there have NEVER been common names excpet in the case of Smilodon which is called a "saber-toth tiger", however since a number of different taxa have used this name the page is rightly a disambiguation/explanatory page with links to the different taxa.If they are looking up the page they are generally looking to learn about the organism what is wrong with learning the scientific name in the process?--Kevmin (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night :
What immortal hand or eye,
Could name thy fearful synonymy?

cygnis insignis, with apologies to Wm Blake [2]

Saber-toothed cat is an example of a "disambiguous" article, which tends to occur when the different taxonomic groups are — or historically were — conflated. Both Wild horse and Tarpan have been similarly disambiguous articles. --Una Smith (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is not an article. Rather, it's a tool for navigation. Dekimasuよ! 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to disambiguation pages that masquerade as articles, such as some versions of Wild horse that discussed 3 different things called "wild horse": Equus ferus, feral horse, and Mustang (horse). --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's that only when used as intended, however, the dabs Una is creating tend to include everything and including information that requires references. For example, Tarpan (disambiguation) includes Grullo, and an explanation for why Grullo is included on the dab page, but an unreferenced explanation on the dab, and the article Grullo doesn't include the word Tarpan, so having this on the dab page can only confuse the reader. These uber dabs are confusing, and difficult to use as dabs, because they require a lot of work to read and find the correct usage you are seeking. Sometimes the need to include something in the dab appears to outweigh common sense, as in the Tumbleweed article and the Tumbleweed (disambiguation) where a plant's habit is specifically described, does not relate to tumbling weediness, but is called such by the author, then pointedly this reference is included with undue weight all over Wikipedia to prove the point, it seems (although I'm certain not). I suspect a nefarious plot by EB to ruin Wikipedia's page rankings on Google;). The uber dabs are full-fledged articles, not even worthy of a stub designation. --KP Botany (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not create dab pages in isolation, KP. Your objection re Tarpan (disambiguation) and Grullo is valid, but transient: Grullo now explains the connection. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, you do create dabs in isolation, that is the issue. --KP Botany (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No one does anything in isolation on Wikipedia. KP Botany, it seems to me that you are the one here who wants to create a new policy. You object to creation of dab pages at base page names without prior consensus. You also object to editors' merely proposing to put dab pages at base page names. Talk:Magazine#Requested move and Talk:Bird of paradise#Requested move are just two examples, among others. --Una Smith (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is my opinion as a reader of animals articles: I have no particular knowledge about them and the dozen of scientific names I know, I've learnt at school 35 years ago. I have never edited any article about animals. As a reader, when I look for tiger, I want to learn more about them so, being driven to a family, tribus, or whatever page with a scientific name would be perfectly fine and welcome. I do not know the problems editors face with common names of these beings. I think redirects work properly and scientific names are part of the learning. I also think each project should have the final word of how to call their subjects. Now, as an editor of plants articles, I do not have any doubt that scientific names for article titles should be mandatory, not an option. The reasons have been exaustively discussed at project page so I will not repeat them all here. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the solution. The plants editors have firsthand experience of people outside their field trying to force upon them a naming convention that simply doesn't work in their field. I have no intention of doing the same thing to our good friends in the ornithology department. We have something that works for us. They have something that works for them. The inconsistency between the two approaches reflects an inconsistency in the real world. Hesperian 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Hesperian. Having worked on bird articles, I've seen firsthand the common sense in using the worldwide standard naming that is being used for bird article titles. The only standard worldwide naming for plants is the scientific name. Each project should use what works. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson). First Light (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to repeat (reworded slightly) what I stated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) for the wider audience here: I've seen the suggestion that we use Latin names in order to avoid conflicts over common names, but I don't think it will work. What is the proper Latin name for Sperm Whale? That caused a major edit war just over which name to put in the taxobox. That was resolvable, but I doubt it would be if we were talking about the actual title of the page. Similarly, should the Zebra mbuna be Maylandia zebra or Metriaclima zebra? I do not think this issue has been resolved. And then we have fauna whose Latin name changes regularly. For example, over the last few years this fish went from Cichlasoma nigrofasciata to Heros nigrofasciata to Herichthys nigrofaciata to Archocentrus nigrofasciatus to Cryptoheros nigrofasciatus to its current Amatitlania nigrofasciata (I may have the endings of the species name incorrect in a few cases). And during the Heros/Herichthys period, it was also known as "Cichlasoma" nigrofasciata, with the quotation marks. But throughout the period, one could always refer to it as Convict Cichlid, and almost everyone would know what you were talking about. While there could also be disputes and changes over common names, I think Wikipedia is on much firmer ground picking a particular common name, then attempting to adjudicate an ongoing scientific controversy in picking a Latin name. After all, the fact that there isn't necessarily one, single, "official" common name for a species can be handled well within Wikipedia. Since all the sourced common names are "correct", the one name out of the potentially several correct, sourced names is a decision that lends itself to consensus. All the correct common names would be linked to the appropriate article, and consensus can determine which of those names becomes the title of the article. But since there is theoretically one and only one unique Latin name for a species, and there are official mechanisms for validating which name is used, Wikipedia picking among multiple Latin names (either because of a current dispute or a recent paper proposing a change) really is OR. Add to that the fact that this is the English Wikipedia, and not the Latin Wikipedia, so people expect to see Human when they type "human" rather than Homo sapiens, and I think we should stick with common names whenever an appropriate one is available.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 February 2009

Using canonical names as titles for the main content would generally avoid some difficulties, e.g. need to move / rename if the common name is challenged, is known only to readers in certain regions / cultures, turns out to be shared by 2 or more subjects, is non-existent in English, etc. However I would expect articles to provide all common names in the appropriate language, with refs of course. I would also expect either redirect or DAB pages with common names as titles, to facilitate searching via the WP search and external ones such as Google. --Philcha (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The biggest impact of changing titles to scientific names would be in the actual article text. Just think about this:

"Sperm Whales, along with [[bottlenose whale]] and [[elephant seal]], are the deepest-diving mammals in the world..."

OR

"Sperm whales, along with [[Hyperoodon ampullatus|bottlenose whale]] and [[Mirounga|elephant seal]], are the deepest-diving mammals in the world..."

Yes, I know about redirects and the bots that fix up the wikilinks, but what if a user takes a stab at a bot-fixed article's text? Isn't this a tad too much for a non-scientist (i.e. the majority of editors/users) to work on? And, what about disambig pages, which are supposed to be user-friendly: "did you mean M. angustirostris or M. leonina?". I think this whole argument is over a minority of articles with name issues, not the quiet majority of solid articles. Those "problem articles" need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, not an overarching, umbrella policy. StevePrutz (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, per Maluku frogfish, which is obviously a new species discovered several years ago, but still has not had a species paper written and has not been assigned a name. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I too have a sp. nov. waiting to be scientifically recognized before I write the article. Biologists don't believe an animal exists unless it is verified. Although, bigfoot does have an article... StevePrutz (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then let's release our sp. nov. articles per Bigfoot and all the other cryptids.

What we've all been overlooking (I think)

Currently WP:COMMONNAME starts with the words "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..." I think that our problems lie in that a few editors are ignoring that clause. It is perfectly OK for other accepted naming conventions to say "Hey, we're not going to use the most common name we can find by Google test, because there's already an established usage that is also widely-used. It may not strictly be the most common name, but generally our naming convention produces article names which are used widely enough in reliable sources that people will not be too surprised to find themselves there." I think that each specific naming convention should include an exception for "if a name is far more widely used than the name dictated by this convention, then we should still use that." Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa: I have, in the past, also been one of the editors putting WP:COMMONNAME on a pedestal. It's amazing how selective blindness works.--Aervanath (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, above you asked for thoughts. I did answer below (in a separate subsection), but I have reason to believe my point was missed there. My thought is that the exception for "where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication..." exists for WP:COMMONNAME, a subsection of section 3 of WP:NC, but not for "use the most easily recognized name", section 1 of WP:NC. So I agree with you when you say, "It may not strictly be the most common name", but it must be a commonly used name, and it still must be the most easily recognized.

Now, when we're talking about a variation of a given name, perhaps with or without some precision, which of the two is most easily recognized is arguably moot. But when we'e talking about two completely different names (say one in English and the other in Latin), determining which of the two is most easily recognized becomes highly relevant. And, again, there are no exceptions allowed for that. This is where the flora guideline has gone astray. I can't think of any other naming guideline that calls for using any name other than one that is at least tied for most easily recognized, can you? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Further: it might be good to add a clause to WP:COMMONNAME to clarify why it starts with that clause. Ideas?--Aervanath (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For those of us who have been bogged down in dispute these last few months, this is very exciting. :-)

Perhaps a section below "Use common names of persons and things" along the lines of

===Observe established nomenclature===
If there is a firmly established standard nomenclature in a field, and adoption of
that nomenclature would result in unsurprising article titles in most cases, then it
may be adopted as the field-specific naming convention. Exceptions should be made in
cases where some other name is much more recognisable; e.g. Halley's Comet not
Comet Halley.

But I think the main problem in emphasis is the way that "use the most common name" gets two bites of the cherry, by having the first top-level section "Use the most easily recognized name" in addition to a subsection under "General conventions". If that first section is supposed to be a succinct summary of the principles in play here, then the priority must be to rewrite and retitle it.

Hesperian 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this would be useful, to forestall the two plus months of PBS and B2c hounding plant editors that that clause is meaningless. Since, in fact, what happens is, editors decide to use pieces of the policy to their benefit and ignore the rest in order to enjoy two months of hounding the plant editors and preventing them from editing and creating and discussing plant articles as these two non-plant editors have done for going on three months now. --KP Botany (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More than 2 editors have pointed out that the current WP:NC (flora) guideline is inconsistent with the naming conventions. The naming conventions policy has an old established formula 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." Trying to alter policy to fit around a guideline is one way out of the current impasse but I think it is the wrong way to go. However I think that it is encouraging that KP Botany and Hesperian recognise that there is an incompatibility between the NC policy and a guideline.

I didn't say this, so don't say I did. --KP Botany (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Aervanath before the clause "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" was added to "use the most easily recognized name" there was some justification for adding such a clause as you suggested. But I think there is no such justification now as in most cases the name used by specialists will be the common name (there are 350,000 species of beetle most of which are only known by their Latin names but do we want the article Beetle moved to a scientific name?). Where reliable sources indicate that a name other than that used by specialists in the field, is the commonly used name then that name should be used.

To give you an example where the sort of clause you are suggesting would give no end of problems is with the naming of Soviet offensive during World War II, the Soviets military historians had a very specific naming convention which granulates offensives quite precisely, for example there is a difference between "strategic offensive operation" "offensive operation" and a "tactical offensive operation". There is one particular editor who has argued long and hard that we should use the names that Soviet military history use for these operations and not the names used by western historians because western historian base their names on German military biographies written during the Cold war so they carry a POV and they are not systematic. This argument has been refuted several times at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, because in a general encyclopaedia like this the public are more likely to know the Battle of Berlin by that name than as Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation consisting of the "Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation", "Settin-Rostock Offensive Operation", "Settin-Rostock Offensive Operation", "Spremberg-Torgau Offensive Operation", "Brandenberg-Ratenow Offensive Operation" among other. When enemy forces are forced into a pocket (military) during one of these attacks then they kotel (cauldron), to reflect very large, strategic, size of trapped enemy forces; a meshok (sack) to reflect operational size of trapped enemy forces; a gnezdo (nest) to reflect a tactical size of trapped enemy forces.

Apart from the fact the English sources do not usually make these distinctions, (the word cauldron is sometimes used because it is the German military term for a pocket), so the terms are not often used they are used in some translations of Russian military texts. They are firmly established terms and often there is no common English equivalent, but do we really want an general English encyclopaedia using terms that only specialists use when it is generally agreed that we should cater to "readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Before such a change is made there should be very wide consultation, because such a clause is likely to come back and bite us, particularly as many corners of Wikipedia are written by people who are very familiar with a field and think that the names they usually and are comfortable with are the ones that the general public should use. This attitude often crops up with regional variations of spelling and words, for example see the WP:RM debate for "gasoline" and "petrol", and human nature being what it is, it crops up with specialists over the usage that they are familiar.

Now that the Naming convention policy includes the "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" many of the previous work arounds, to fix the problem of blog sides being included in the decision over the name, are now redundant and this proposed change is IMHO instruction creep which is not needed -- see for example Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) guidelines which are compatible with the NC policy yet give sensible guidance for the specialist areas without the need for adding anything to the policy or general guidelines. --PBS (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of "trying to alter policy to fit around a guideline". This is a case of making this policy page more accurately describe the modus operandi of editors. All over Wikipedia, people are adopting canonical names where they exist. They use gazetted geographic names; they use standardised common names; they use the official names of medical conditions, astronomical bodies and chemical compounds; they use the exact titles of books, films, albums and songs; they use the registered names of companies; they use the registered names of ships and trains; and so on. In many cases they don't give a second's thought to what is the most common name; they simply follow the canonical nomenclature of whatever field they are working in. This is what they do whether this policy page says so or not.

This proposal is about making this policy page an accurate description of what people are actually doing. You, on the other hand, are arguing for a prescriptive policy that declares the usual practice to be wrong. In fact, as Aervanath has pointed out, this policy was never prescriptive in the way you wish it to be; it has always supported editors adopting the nomenclature of their field when appropriate. The fact that you and others ignore those provisions and insist on treating the bits that you don't ignore as prescriptive, is precisely what has brought about the need for this policy to be more accurate and explicit in this area.

Hesperian 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hesperian here; policies and guidelines are supposed to represent what the consensus is, not what some editors think it should be. If most editors are not following the policy, then it is clear that it doesn't have consensus, and should be changed to fit that consensus. However, I think Hesperian's wording goes a little far. My recommendation is this: WP:COMMONNAME currently reads

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

I propose rewording it like this:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things, except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, as there are sometimes other considerations that come into play. If there is a conflict, use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

You can see I haven't really changed it much; I've only switched some clauses around and added one clause. But I think that this wording would somewhat increase the ability of specific conventions to diverge from an ironclad COMMONNAME rule, while still reinforcing the fact that COMMONNAME is still something that should be respected, and therefore still forestall the problems that PBS sees in the proposed rewrite above.--Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"If most editors are not following the policy, then it is clear that it doesn't have consensus," most editors are following the policy, one only has to read WP:RM debates to see that this is true. Further AFAICT the only guideline that does not start from a premise of "use the common name, but ..." is the flora guideline which is another indication that most editors are following policy. BTW, it is unfortunate that we still have the policy called the "naming conventions", as it is not clear from what you write here whether by naming conventions you mean "naming conventions policy" or "naming conventions guidelines". --PBS (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM is a silly place to look for evidence of what people are doing. WP:RM is driven by the letter of the policy, and therefore reflects what the policy page says. If the policy page is out of step with what people are actually doing, then WP:RM will be too. Is this the sum total of your refutation of the examples I have given above and below? Hesperian 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an ambiguity that's sort of built into the system. I meant "naming convention guideline". If adding that word to COMMONNAME will help reduce the ambiguity in your eyes, then sure, I'm all for it. Maybe the page should be moved to WP:Naming policy, just so it's more clear?--Aervanath (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME redirects to policy page. It is a very bad idea that a policy page delegates to guidelines, see for example the comment in WP:SOURCES "For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." which was put in there because of all the problems there were between the two pages. There was a similar problem with the MOS and sub-guidelines, so it is generally accepted that policies do no delegate to guidelines rather guidelines as "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." (WP:Policies and guidelines), this is because it is too easy for a small group to alter a little watched guideline, which then goes against policy and we have been bitten by that too often. It is much better that any potential conflicts are sorted out on the policy pages not spread around all the sub-guidelines. --PBS (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PBS about not spreading the meta-discussion everywhere, and I wish KP Botany and Lar would stop trying to cast this as a user conduct issue with me as their target (their comments on my talk page are a small sample). That didn't fly in the AN/I KP Botany filed against me in December (?), and still doesn't fly. --Una Smith (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Una, you appear not to have read my posts. I didn't know you were involved in trying to force plant editors to use common names. I'll be glad to add your name to the post above, if you require being personally listed for attention on this issue of forcing plant editors to conform to common name usage. However, I'll need the diffs. So, please provide the diffs where you do this, and I will alter my post to include you. --KP Botany (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany as far as I am aware no one is trying to force anyone to do anything, I thought what were were all trying to do is build a consensus, on how best to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --PBS (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note:

If you don't listen to or read or hear or acknowledge a single response or provide the basics when repeatedly asked for, yet you continue for months on end with the same comments, then, indeed, that is what you are trying to do: wear down others and force your policy upon them. --KP Botany (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do try to read every response, but I might miss some occasionally. I am sorry, I thought I had responded to every question you had asked me. If there is anything that I have failed to answer adequately please ask it again and I will try to do so. But I suggest you ask me on my talk page unless it is directly relevant to the current conversations. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really reply to what PBS says, because I stopped reading in the first paragraph where he inaccurately puts words in my mouth. If the rest of the comment is based upon what he is saying I said, rather than what I said, he's arguing with himself, rather than discussing the issues I've raised. --KP Botany (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I though that after Hesperian made the comment "But I think the main .... If that first section is supposed to be a succinct summary of the principles in play here, then the priority must be to rewrite and retitle it." and you followed up with "Yes, this would be useful, to forestall the two plus months of PBS and B2c hounding plant editors ..." you were agreeing that the section entitled "Use the most easily recognized name" should be rewritten so that WP:NC (flora) would then be in compliance with the policy without any changes being made to the WP:NC (flora) guideline. But I must have misunderstood your position and I am happy for you to explain it. --PBS (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and read the whole of my comment, and when you have read and understood that, maybe we'll be starting from the same point. However, since this post of yours and the one above indicated you haven't bothered, why should I be bothered to do that for your post? --KP Botany (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS: As usual you don't bother to read what anyone else writes. I can't blame you: aftera all, you bear The Truth, whereas the rest of us merely have opinions. I don't know why I keep bothering, but I will again repeat myself, since to do otherwise is to allow a lie to stand unchallenged: "this policy was never prescriptive in the way you wish it to be; it has always supported editors adopting the nomenclature of their field when appropriate. The fact that you and others ignore those provisions and insist on treating the bits that you don't ignore as prescriptive, is precisely what has brought about the need for this policy to be more accurate and explicit in this area." In light of that, would you care to retract your false assertion that I have acknowledged WP:NC(flora) to be in violation of this policy?

Aervanath: You are the only person here with any hope of brokering a resolution. Do whatever you think best; you have my support.

Everyone: I've absolutely had the shits with PBS's obstinate insistance on quoting half the policy at me whilst blindly refusing to acknowledge the other half. I don't want to argue over this any more. Is it time we took this to a poll so that we can get over it and move on?

Hesperian 04:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We need more input before we consider changing anything on this page. It might be worth trying to narrow down the language we are proposing. As for Philip, I think it has reached the stage where he should simply be ignored. There's plenty of material for an RFC if someone wants to file it, but personally I think it's easier just to ignore him. Guettarda (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, you of course know what you think, I merely made an inference from what I read, so I am sorry I misunderstood you. If you do not think that the WP:NC(flora) is contrary to the NC policy why do you wish to change the policy? --PBS (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking me again?! This has got to be a fucking joke. Hesperian 11:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We say five hundred times what is wrong, and they just keep asking, what do you think is wrong. It's a pretty damn mean joke, too. Intended to be as nasty as it is. --KP Botany (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the original discussion, and Aervanath's and Hesperian's proposed rewording: Aervanath, your suggestion to reword the first paragraph—as opposed to Hesperian's additional paragraph—needs some more clarification to work, in my opinion. It's apparent that some editors choose to ignore or interpret policy based on their bias, so the clearer the better. Instead of "...except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, as there are sometimes other considerations that come into play", it could read something like "...different indication, based on well established nomenclature in various fields and other considerations." Now, the advantage of Hesperian's added paragraph is that it actually supports using vernacular names when helpful, as his example of Halley's Comet shows. Note that none of these changes make a change to the policy, they only clarify it so there will be less confusion and arguing. First Light (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not about common name, it's about "easily recognized"

Hesperian wrote:

This is not a case of "trying to alter policy to fit around a guideline". This is a case of making this policy page more accurately describe the modus operandi of editors. All over Wikipedia, people are adopting canonical names where they exist. They use gazetted geographic names; they use standardised common names; they use the official names of medical conditions, astronomical bodies and chemical compounds; they use the exact titles of books, films, albums and songs; they use the registered names of companies; they use the registered names of ships and trains; and so on. In many cases they don't give a second's thought to what is the most common name; they simply follow the canonical nomenclature of whatever field they are working in. This is what they do whether this policy page says so or not.

In general I agree with this, however, so far as I can tell, in every case outside of flora (and this is why I object to the current flora guideline/convention), whether they give a second's thought to what is the common name or not, they do seem to think about what name would be most easily recognized by readers. That is, the name they come up with may not necessarily be the most commonly used name for the subject in question, but it's often a derivation of it, and is always (so far as I know) easily recognizable. The flora guideline, in contrast to all other specialized guidelines in Wikipedia, pays no heed to choosing the name that is "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", per WP:NC.

Yes, common name explicitly allows for exceptions when specialized guidelines call for them, but the implication is that the resulting name will still comply with "easily recognizable". That is, there is room for compromise from using the most common name in favor of uniqueness, predictability, standardizations, etc., but the difference between the resulting title and the theoretical "most common name" is typically a difference in degree, not in kind (much less language). Every guideline that is an exception to common name (ships, royalty, U.S. city names, etc.) that I'm aware of does ultimately comply with "most easily recognize". The current flora guideline does not do this, and that's a violation of "modus operandi of editors" (outside of a dozen or so plant editors), as well as a blatant violation of the WP:NC policy which does reflect the behavior of WP editors (outside of flora).

KP Botany wrote:

Yes, this would be useful, to forestall the two plus months of PBS and B2c hounding plant editors that that clause is meaningless. Since, in fact, what happens is, editors decide to use pieces of the policy to their benefit and ignore the rest in order to enjoy two months of hounding the plant editors and preventing them from editing and creating and discussing plant articles as these two non-plant editors have done for going on three months now.

The implication here is that PBS and I have decided "to use pieces of the policy to their benefit and ignore the rest". I would like to know which pieces of the policy KP believes we are ignoring (and are applicable here). I also would like to know how posting on a guideline talk page prevents anyone from doing any editing to any articles.

It's unfortunate that plant editors have been getting away with doing whatever the heck they want to do with respect to naming, without regard to WP policy, conventions and guidelines for so long, but now that more outsiders are aware of it, and especially with their derision of editors who do not edit plant articles, and these new attempts to change policy and conventions in other areas (like fauna) to make their guideline seem less inappropriate within WP than it actually is, it's high time to put a stop to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, B2c. You and PBS have been a real pain for the past two months. Perhaps you both mean well, but you are apparently incapable of learning. It's ironic that your efforts have only helped to highlight an important problem -- one of many -- that exist with the current version of WP:NC (fauna). Surly, this is the opposite of what you intended. --Jwinius (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The "problem" at WP:NC (fauna) is typical of WP - it is part of WP because of the imperfect and subjective inherent nature of naming according to "easily recognized" and "common name". Yes, it can be "solved" by naming all books by ISBN #, all people by personal ID #, corporations by stock ticker symbol, all flora and fauna according to scientific Latin taxa names, all chemicals according to chemical symbols, etc., but that would not be Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. Books usually have differing ISBN numbers for different editions and releases, for example, hardbound and softbound. There is no national ID# that applies to all people worldwide. Not all corporations have ticker symbols and the ones that do may differ from country-to-country depending on where they're traded. Many compounds have multiple correct ways of writing their formulae. (C2H6O for Eth? C2H5OH? CH3-CH2-O? Fatty acids come to mind.) But for almost all organisms, only one and one scientific name is valid. And please stop referring to them as "Latin" names. Many scientific names are Greek-derived. Shrumster (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Common name vs sum of parts

Currently bugging me is a case where the "official" common name of a mammal is also a sum-of-parts phrase meaning something else. I refer to Wild horse, now an article about the species Equus ferus rather than Mustang (horse) or feral horse. Wild horse keeps mutating into a dab page by the addition of content about mustangs and feral horses. My proposed solution, to make Wild horse a dab page, seems to be causing fits. See Talk:Wild horse#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the type of situation that scientific names would fix. As an editor, a systematist and also a semi-lay editor (concerning plant articles - I'm like 95% zoologist) I'm 100% behind scientific names as article names. Contrary to what most people think, only one and one scientific name is official for any organism. So there is no confusion as to what the article name should be. In whatever case that the ruling body approves a reclassification of said organism, it doesn't take much work to move an article to the more appropriate name, then fix the redirects/disambigs. And the whole "what would they search for" issue is easily solved by proper disambig pages anyway. As an encyclopedia, it's our duty not only to simply inform, but also to educate. And this is an excellent, noninvasive way to do so. User:Jwinius has a great article on the use of scientific names here User:Jwinius#Scientific_names_vs._Common_names. I suggest everyone concerned to take a look at it. Shrumster (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shrumster, please say this on Talk:Wild horse#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a related problem with Tarpan, a common name of Equus ferus ferus but also of some other animals: see Tarpan (disambiguation). Discussion of the requested move of the article is here, and the WikiProject Mammals and WikiProject Equine contingents have already weighed in. --Una Smith (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there are serious problems with many of the common names used for mammal species in general. This discussion, brought to my attention by User:cygnis insignis, is very revealing. --Jwinius (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I hope you're not surprised (if you are because you assumed plants were somehow unique to this problem, that explains much). You can find similar discussions about essentially the same "problem" with just about any category of names within WP for which many of the topics typically have several potential names competing for "most common" and/or for the one which is likely to be recognized by the greatest number of English speakers. As far as I know, it is only the plant names guideline that chooses to address this "problem" by ignoring WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and going with a separate taxonomy comprised of names that are not only not common (in the sense of commonly used by non-specialists), but that are unlikely to be recognized by most English speakers, and are not even English. And now you plant guys have the audacity to invite the fauna article editors to follow you down this dark path??? Perhaps there needs to be a separate wiki which catalogs all flora and fauna, notable or not, by scientific Latin name, but trying to achieve such a goal within WP is too much like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, I'm afraid. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a plant guy? I take that as a compliment. --Jwinius (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, are you not a "regular editor of plant articles"? If not, my apologies for wrongly assuming that. In any case, that's all I meant by "plant guy"; certainly not as an insult. Any comment on my observation that it is only the plant names guideline that chooses to address this "problem" by ignoring WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and going with a separate taxonomy comprised of names that are not only not common (in the sense of commonly used by non-specialists), but that are unlikely to be recognized by most English speakers, and are not even English. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Going with a separate taxonomy"?? What do you mean by that B2c? As far as I can see, the WP Plant folks aren't talking about changing taxonomies. They're talking about changing the plant article titles. Those are two very different things. MeegsC | Talk 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "going with a separate taxonomy" is not changing taxonomies, but using a taxonomy that is different (used by specialists, non-English names, likely to not be used or even recognized by non-specialists) from the names that would be used by following WP general naming policy, guidelines and conventions (commonly used and easily recognized by non-specialists). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a separate taxonomy? Garden plants, wild herbs, and florists' favorites, instead of pelargonia, Lamiaceae, and Asteraceae would certainly be different. Who is going to make up the taxonomy? Let me, please! Please. So it is just a creationist plot to do away with science! --KP Botany (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle is not the last person you'll meet who struggles with the difference between taxonomy and nomenclature. I did try to explain it to him but evidently he would prefer to remain in a state of ignorance. Hesperian 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahah! I think I see where B2c is coming from: "if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". B2c may see nothing peculiar in Saber-toothed cat and Wild horse and possibly Tarpan, but each an article that combines content about two or more groups of animals that share a common name. Of the three, Saber-toothed cat seems to be the most successful. If regarded as a clade, then Saber-toothed cat is polyphyletic and Wild horse and Tarpan may be polyphyletic and/or paraphyletic. B2c may simply disregard polyphyly and paraphyly, in which case B2c's preference for common names makes sense: "a wild horse is a wild horse because that is its name and who needs the scientific name?" B2c's POV is linguistic, as on Wiktionary where "saber-toothed tiger" properly has just one sense. The same goes for Tumbleweed. In contrast, Wikipedia articles about taxonomic groups usually have a systematics POV. --Una Smith (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this before, it is very common for a common name, and a species classified by scientists to not correspond to each other. It is common for a "common name" to refer to many different species, and often these species are not even evolutionarily closely related to each other.Hardyplants (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we know B2c does not understand. But now maybe I know why he does not understand: common names or scientific names, to him both are just sets of words. --Una Smith (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good god, I think you're right, and that explains it. No wonder nothing I or anyone says seem to make any impact, we're writing about organisms from the viewpoint of the organisms themselves having something about them, we're not writing about the names of the organism (or, I do, but usually we're just including them as identifiers. --KP Botany (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

B2c doesn't dispute that, Hardyplants. But where the circumscriptions of a common name and a scientific name differ, he declares the circumscription of the common name to be interesting and notable, and the circumscription of the scientific name to be... not so. This is the nub of the issue: B2c wants us to stop writing articles about groups of plants that are defined by the phylogenetic relationships discovered by qualified botanists performing cutting-edge systematic research; and instead write articles about groups of plants that are defined by how similar their common names are. Hesperian 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. No matter how many times both users prove me completely wrong, I keep thinking we're talking about the same thing as the hounders--you're right. --KP Botany (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My head is spinning, considering this. B2c sees no significant difference between systematics and folk taxonomy, and thinks folk taxa are more interesting (and in fact some are very interesting). I gather B2c lives near La Brea Tar Pits, home of a saber-toothed cat. We were blind; we did not see where he was coming from. Let this be a lesson to all of us. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most folk taxa are more interesting in a lot of ways. This doesn't mean I think Wikipedia should be rewritten for my convenience and personal taste. Wait a minute, actually, I do think it should be rewritten for me and me alone. But no one would spend two months arguing against me if I tried to push that wish onto a bunch of volunteer editors: here, instead of creating something lasting in time that can be useful to you and lots of people, why don't all of you create what I want! Now! --KP Botany (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You guys are so far off base it's ridiculous. I'm not anti-science. I'm a pro-science atheist engineer for crying out loud. I'm not a biologist by any stretch, but I have a layman's interest in biology; for example, I do appreciate the distinction between Darwinian evolution and Lamarckianism. What's relevant here is none of that, but that I'm pro "consistency in Wikipedia naming" across all articles (including scientific ones). And, yes, Hesperian, I do conflate taxonomy and nomenclature - sorry about that. Instead of "going with a separate taxonomy" I should have said "going with a particular taxonomy instead of following the nomenclature process that is in accordance with the general WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions used for naming all other (AFAIK) articles in WP". But I suspect you already knew that's what I meant.

Una, I understand and appreciate the significant difference between systematics and folk taxonomy. What I also see is that WP naming policy, guidelines and conventions (for better or for worse, and I admit possibly for worse) are consistent with the latter, not the former.

Hesperian wrote:

But where the circumscriptions of a common name and a scientific name differ, he declares the circumscription of the common name to be interesting and notable, and the circumscription of the scientific name to be... not so.

It's not about the names, it's about the specific topics and whether the topics are sufficiently notable and well-known to warrant coverage in Wikipedia. I understand the view that every known species is notable and warrants coverage here (and that the only way to do that reasonably is in accordance with scientific taxonomy, not with WP ad hoc nomenclature), I just question it (note that I question it - I'm not saying that view is necessarily wrong). I've said as much many times before, but I'll say it again in these terms: There very well may be an argument that flora naming needs to be an exception, perhaps even good reason for it to be in blatant violation of WP naming policy. But that needs to be accepted and explained, and you can't do that if you won't even admit that it is an exception.

Hesperian also writes:

This is the nub of the issue: B2c wants us to stop writing articles about groups of plants that are defined by the phylogenetic relationships discovered by qualified botanists performing cutting-edge systematic research; and instead write articles about groups of plants that are defined by how similar their common names are.

That's not necessarily true. I just want you to admit that doing so is contrary to WP naming policy, and really to WP "philosophy", and explain why doing so never-the-less is justified, and get consensus on that. But yeah, if you can't admit, explain and justify the exception, I do want article naming and organization within the area of flora to be in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Is that really asking for too much? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can the selection and scoping of topics be contrary to WP naming policy? WP naming policy has nothing to say about what articles are notable and how they should be scoped.

We work like this: (1) identify and scope a topic meriting a distinct article; (2) identify the best title for that article. You're so deeply involved in naming issues that you've turned it around to: (1) identify an interesting title for an article; (2) find a topic to live at that title, and scope it so that the title is as accurate as possible. That's not just wrong; that's insane. Hesperian 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

H, you've now resorted to a bizarre straw man argument. The way it works is a topic is identified, and then the name is determined. Of course. For example, the topic might be the tree-like high desert plant that (in this example) happens to be the namesake of Joshua Tree, California and Joshua Tree National Park. Those plants are the topic. Then we determine the name. In this case the creator of that article, following WP policy, conventions and guidelines, chose Joshua tree. Years later others decided that the topic was not the plant commonly known as the Joshua tree, but the species known in the scientific taxonomy as Yucca brevifolia (for the life of me I cannot remember that Latin name - every time I want to refer to it I have to open another tab to WP, and search for Joshua tree to find it, that's how "recognizable" it is... not). In other words, it's those in favor of using taxonomy names that are the ones changing the scope of articles in order to fit their preferred names, not the other way around as you claim (with no examples, I might add). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it is a straw man. I can hardly be blamed for thinking this was your argument in the light of your previous response: "'B2c wants us to stop writing articles about groups of plants that are defined by...; and instead write articles about groups of plants that are defined by....' That's not necessarily true. I just want you to admit that doing so is contrary to WP naming policy." The inevitable conclusion from that is that you think naming policy mandates article scope. A simple misunderstanding; let us move on.

... except that it is impossible to move on, because you're taking us back into an argument we've had previously, and I'm not interested in going over it for the gazillionth time. I take my leave of this discussion for now, safe in the knowledge that your view on this particular issue is so obviously oddball that my efforts at further refutation are not needed.

Hesperian 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. If you get the difference between identifying and scoping a notable and coherent topic, and choosing a name for that topic, then you get the difference between taxonomy and nomenclature.) Hesperian 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"you're taking us back into an argument we've had previously". Well, I don't think you've worded quite this way, but just to clarify, and to put it in the terms you're using here, do you mean the argument that when one scopes a flora article "properly", then the only appropriate name for it is the scientific/taxononomic/Latin name, and, so, that name is not a violation of any naming policy, guideline or convention since it's really the only name for that topic? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was Curtis who put that position; I can see his point, and there is a great deal of merit to it; an example of it in play can be found in the third paragraph of Centaurium. However, I think it would be overstating the case to claim that common names are never synonymous with scientific names. I wouldn't have much trouble coming up with a handful of common names that correspond exactly and precisely to a scientific name.

No, the argument I'm not interested in going back to is the one where I say that if "Joshua tree" and "Yucca brevifolia" have different meanings, then only the latter meaning refers to an notable concept with a coherent scope. Then you try to come up with a definition of "Joshua tree" that refutsd my point, and I declare your definiton to be silly and/or meaningless. Hesperian 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember the argument going quite like that (however, my memory is not perfect!) In any case, if "Joshua tree" does not refer to "a notable concept with a coherent scope", then most WP article title names have meanings that do not refer to "a notable concept with a coherent scope", because most WP article title names are just as incoherent in scope as "Joshua tree" is if "Joshua tree" and "Yucca brevifolia" have different meanings. In other words, WP has a de facto standard for this kind of thing, and it does not require that article topics necessarily correspond to meanings as precise as scientific taxonomic terms circumscribe. For better or for worse (and I'm not arguing it's necessarily better, it's just the way it is), WP topic selection values corresponding to the approximate and imprecise meanings most people conceive of and use, and those are the topics it has articles about, and attempts to name according to most commonly used/familiar nomenclature. Again, you're trying to turn WP into something that it's not (albeit into something "better" from many value systems, but not from all). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is really asking for too much, and now I, as a fauna editor, would like to see WP:NC (fauna) brought in line with WP:NC (flora). Over 250 years ago, binomial nomenclature was shown to have huge advantages over folk taxonomy and has been of immense importance to our understanding of the natural world in general -- not just plants. Considering this history, scientific names should be regarded as an obvious exception to WP:NC. There are simply too many good reasons why we should make this change. A switch to a default policy of scientific names for all of our articles on biological organisms -- just the the Spanish Wikipedia has already done -- would be a huge improvement for us. As a reflection of how editors work, I think such a policy would be at least as accurate as what we have now, and probably even more so. --Jwinius (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if "scientific names should be regarded as an obvious exception to WP:NC", then you're implying that using scientific names for flora articles is an exception to WP:NC. Admitting that is the first (main) step to what I'm asking for, which you say is "too much" (and everyone has been reluctant to do). The second step is to justify it, which you proceed to quickly do as well, informally. That is essentially almost all I've been asking for, which you just did (informally), and yet you say it's "too much". Are you just being argumentative? I just want to see this done a bit more formally, in the flora guideline itself, and acknowledgement at WP:NC, and of course consensus established about this. Since mostly only plant editors seem to be paying attention, you should be able to do this very easily. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jwinius, you should consider that even though the Linnean system is 250+ years old, it has still not caught fire with the non-biologist, English-speaking public. However, it is a "better" system, despite what typical encyclopedia readers may strongly feel. If the "binomial changeover" were to happen (across the board), expect immense backlash. StevePrutz (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it has still not caught fire with the non-biologist, English-speaking public. Proving what, exactly? Most of my friends distinguish between various types of small brown birds, and my friends are biologists. I can't tell the difference between various species of oak. To me they are all just oaks. The binomial system hasn't caught on in the public because the public for the most part has no need for it (but watch Gardeners World on the BBC for situations where it is needed and is used by the public). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The binomial system hasn't caught on in the public because the public for the most part has no need for it - yes, and that's the counter-argument to using the binomial taxonomy in WP. But we can't even have that debate until those in favor admit that going with that taxonomy is an exception, and then explain and persuade why it's justified. Instead, they seem to prefer to contend that going with the taxonomy is consistent with naming policy and so they have nothing to explain, much less justify. And here we are... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

that's the counter-argument to using the binomial taxonomy in WP - no, its not. Binomial hasn't caught on except for those that need it - gardeners, botanists, ecologists, people that deal with plants basically. Anyone that wants to learn about plants needs to do so using their names - and the only universally recognised naming system. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

B2c, WP:NC (flora) is an exception to WP:NC in your mind -- not in mine. You may nitpick at the semantics of my statement, but I think the meaning is clear.

Steve: I expect the only backlash to be here. Besides, if the es-wiki has already managed to get away with it and their readers apparently accept it over there, what makes you think our readers will view the same decision here any differently? Because they're not as smart? I sincerely hope not.

SS: to me they are all just oaks as well, but that's certainly not a reason to dumb down the very place we hope people will turn to as a source of knowledge and learning. We have an obligation to educate -- not just to entertain.

To expand further on my last comments, it's possible to argue that the use of scientific names for article titles need not be regarded as an exception to WP:NC at all. After all, great numbers of English speakers are familiar with them and they appear throughout English literature. That makes them very common. As for optimizing articles for readers over editors, what about all the readers who are disappointed that Wikipedia's editors have not shown better judgement in this respect?

As for how this unfortunate situation got started, take a look at the first version of WP:NC (2001). It speaks only of the importance of using the most commonly used names for persons, and for a number of reasons:

1. "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. ..."
2. "We want to maximize the incidence of accidental links."
3. "Using full formal names requires, if one wants to link directly to the article, both that people know the full formal name and that they type it out, both of which are a royal pain. If one links to a redirection page, there's the messy "redirected from" announcement at the top of the page."

This is where and how it all started, and you can see that it's purely prescriptive. However, if they had known back then that Wikipedia would soon become a such a success, I'm sure they would have been more careful with this policy. Clearly, with Google giving our articles a search preference nowadays, it isn't necessary for us to "maximize the likelihood of being listed", or "the incidence of accidental links." The last item of the three above only means a little more work for editors and at worst results in a minor cosmetic problem. Obviously, we've reached a point now at which we can afford to have more precise naming conventions: holding on to WP:NC (fauna) now in it's current form is just holding back Wikipedia. It's time for us to show better judgement and fix this. Our readers will thank us for it. So, I'd say It's time for change. --Jwinius (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jwinius, you wrote: "scientific names should be regarded as an obvious exception to WP:NC". Now you say, "WP:NC (flora) is an exception to WP:NC in your mind -- not in mine".

I'm not playing semantics. I don't understand how you reconcile these two statements. The first implies that using scientific names (per WP:NC (flora)) is an exception to WP:NC -- after all, why should they be "regarded" as an obvious exception if they're not actually an exception? In the second you deny that they are an exception. It's this kind of nonsense in this ongoing discussion that makes rational discourse impossible. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

J, you also just wrote: it's possible to argue that the use of scientific names for article titles need not be regarded as an exception to WP:NC at all. After all, great numbers of English speakers are familiar with them and they appear throughout English literature. That makes them very common. Well, to be consistent with WP:COMMONNAME it's not about being very common; it's about being most common. Besides, the main policy point being violated by use of scientific names for topics which have common names is not common name at all, but is use the most easily recognized name. Ignoring points like this, much less failing to even try to refute them, also makes rational discourse impossible. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, J, you say it's time for a change. Why? If use of scientific names is consistent with existing policy, guidelines and convention, why the need for change? How one might reconcile such logically contradictory assertions is fascinating. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

B2c, if it'll make you happy, then we shall regard scientific names, and thus WP:NC (flora), as an exception to WP:NC -- I guess I don't really care. However, I do believe that WP:NC (flora) is fine the way it is and that Wikipedia would be better off if WP:NC (fauna) were changed to look about the same. The point is that, in order to deal effectively with such a large and ever growing number of articles, we need to switch gears and opt now for the better naming convention.

As an editor I have basically given several years of my life to Wikipedia: many thousands of edits for only about 500 articles on snakes. I have worked hard to improve article quality and consistency and have reverted countless acts of vandalism. In particular, I have done my very best to show what is possible when all of the articles and names involved are organized in the most logical manner. For example:

1. Category:Crotalus (valid scientific names) - 54 articles, 13 redirects, 1 list.
2. Category:Crotalus by common name - 175 redirects, 28 disambiguation pages.
3. Category:Crotalus by taxonomic synonyms - 166 redirects, 5 disambiguation pages.

If this can be improved upon, it is certainly not by moving all of the articles from category 1. to 2. That effectively renders the organization useless, because in that case nobody other than myself could be sure that the redirects in 1. point to the right articles in 2. without checking each one individually. Unfortunately, if any moves take place via WP:RM at the moment, it is usually from 1. to 2. When this happens, I'm always faced with people who have little interest in the articles themselves, their content, or how they are organized, and my arguments count for nothing with them because WP:NC (fauna) is on their side.

I want for scientific names to become the standard for all articles on biological organisms so that I can eventually hope to complete my work, A) without having to bend over backwards to disambiguate hundreds of vague and misleading article titles, B) without having to worry that I will often have to argue for days about which common name to move a perfectly good article to just because somebody feels it is "necessary," and C) in the knowledge that those who will eventually take over for me will be able to easily maintain the articles because their organization is logical and obvious. Readers, I believe, will appreciate the clarity and consistency.

Or, look at it this way: scientific names have so many advantages over common names, that if we were using scientific names now and somebody suggested that we should switch to using common names instead, the proposal would never stand a chance. --Jwinius (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<--If the use of specialist names for article names was to be agreed, as a new standard for Wikpipeda (overthrowing the long help policy of using names familiar to the general audience over specialists) then it would result in the balkanisation of Wikipedia and the duplication of many articles. For example there are many definitions of Genocide, but principally there are two scholarly groups interested in the subject. One is the discipline of genocide as a scholarly undertaking and the other is as a crime under international law. The two are related, but genocide scholars, and legal scholars who write about genocide, are distinct scholarly groups. The general public does not know this, and would be very confused if we had two articles written about an event. One stating it was a genocide the other not. At the moment what we do instead is write one article and present both POVs. If we are to go down the path of article names as used by specialists in a discipline then we are also going to have to rewrite parts of WP:NPOV to accommodate such changes. --PBS (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This paraphrases as "I can think of an example of a technical term that has more than one meaning. Therefore using technical terms as titles will result in POV forks." Huh? Hesperian 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, this thread started as a discussion about the term wild horse, a term that has a single meaning to specialists, but two meanings to the general public. Holy shit! WP:COMMONNAME is going to result in the balkanisation of Wikipedia! Hesperian 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that wild horse does not not have two meaning, they use the term "wild horses" for any horse not owned by anyone. Are the feral dromedaries in Australia the only wild dromedaries (shrug)? The point I am making has also been touched on recently by others.[3] [4]. If page names are to be created in accordance with specialist names and presumably with specialist content for those pages, then we are moving away from a general encyclopaedia and that would have a profound effect on the content of Wikipedia (and hence the content policies). Before such a change was made, there would have to be very large consultation bigger than that for the proposed creation of WP:ATT (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Attribution) as it is a much more profound issue than WP:ATT was. It may be that after such a consultation that the consensus was that Wikipedia is now too large to remain a general encyclopaedia and that to advance further it should be reconfigured to become a grouped into specialist areas (after all we already have the Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects), but until such a consensus emerges, I think it is too soon to move in that direction piecemeal -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS, if some people think that "wild horse" does not not have two meanings, then that's their problem. "Wild horse" is simply another ambiguous common name that should not be used for an article title in the first place -- it should be a disambiguation page. Furthermore, Shrumster and I did not touch on this issue; please re-read those comments.

Your fear that our natural history articles will begin to fill up with "specialist" content after they are moved to their scientific names in completely unfounded. We haven't heard this happening at the es-wiki either. This issue has nothing to do with content and everything to do with precision, uniqueness, organization and the wish to avoid endless pointless discussions, to name a few things. The change will soon seem superficial to readers, but be very important to Wikipedia.

Bigger than this discussion? Actually, I've already posted notices of this discussion on multiple WikiProject pages, and I know that User:Sabine's Sunbird has also done this. And I don't believe we should do this in a piecemeal fashion either: it should be done at once and across the board, which is why I think it's appropriate that the subject is being discussed here. --Jwinius (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS, you make a good point about balkanization, but I disagree and don't think this will happen in significant numbers. However, I am still against the "binomial article name law" that would affect all [fauna] articles in one fell swoop. I am still reading and analyzing points, though. StevePrutz (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For those that "want" reading material - check out [5], note especially archive #2. Hardyplants (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Balkanization... WTF!?

This notion is complete and utter FUD. All that we want to achieve by using scientific names for natural history article titles is an end to the needless ambiguity that is inevitable when using the folk taxonomy that is currently our default. As our article base expands, this problem will simply become ever more critical. What is so difficult to understand about the problems posed by nomenclatural ambiguity on such a large scale? How is turning Wikipedia into a gigantic talk shop a good thing? Yes, WP:NC talks of optimizing articles for readers over editors, but there are practical limits to how far you can take this. Remember: capable editors are currently the limiting factor at Wikipedia -- not readers (are we currently dominant on the web, or are we not?). --Jwinius (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not FUD, because it is another way that Wikipedia could be organised, I have no idea if it would be better or worse (I would have to see the arguments for and against), but it would be a very different web site from the one we have at the moment. As I said it may be that the project is large enough that it needs such a change, I have no idea, but what we should not do is make changes here that could move it in that direction without a much wider input that that few editors who have been discussing it here. --PBS (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're darn tooting its FUD, Jwinius. I suspect that both "Balkanisation" and the "genocide" example fall within the spirit of Godwin's law.

I've tried repeatedly to read past the FUD and figure out what PBS is trying to say, and I simply cannot find a coherent argument. My best guess is

Specialist names -> names with very precise definitions -> names with multiple irreconcileable definitions -> POV forks -> balkanisation of Wikipedia.

A ludicrously weak argument. The stupidest bit is the premise that specialist terms are more likely to have multiple disputed definitions. The exact opposite is true: technical terms are far more likely than lay terms to have unique, well-defined, undisputed definitions. The second-stupidest bit is the premise that any of this has any implications for our long-established proscription against POV forks.

Hesperian 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article "Godwin's Law": "However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, ..." Balkanization has nothing to do with Godwin's law, neither does my example of genocide see this comment "The U.N. definition of genocide was never intended as a research tool but as a legal instrument that emerged from a political compromise. It has a number of supporters because it has the legal credibility that all the other definitions lack. ..."[6] see also genocide definitions. --PBS (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I note you haven't addressed the fact that your argument is ludicrously weak. Hesperian 11:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully comprehend PBS' argument either (I often do not), but I think this concept of the folk taxonomy really gets at the root issue here. The topics covered in WP should more or less be those that correspond to the meaning of each term within the folk taxonomy. Using the scientific taxonomy takes it in a different direction. Using a scientific taxonomy within WP is like serving foie gras and hot dogs; it just not a good pairing. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when whales were considered fish; after all, they have fins, and they swim around. Later, biologists realised that the characters of having fins and swimming around are not as fundamental as the characters of having hair and giving milk. At this point, the term fish was redefined so as no longer to encompass all "animals that swim", and the term mammal was defined to encompass all "animals that have hair and give milk", including whales.

"Animals that swim" is now completely abandoned as a taxon. It is not even a folk taxon now. But suppose that it were a little more popular; suppose that it was still clung to as part of a folk taxonomy — as are, for example, the folk taxa "invertebrates", "reptiles", "dinosaurs", etcetera. In that case, would "animals that swim" warrant an article? My answer to that is "yes". As far as I can tell, everyone's answer to that is "yes".

But you're going a lot further than that, B2c. You are saying that "animals that have hair and give milk" does not warrant an article, and we should delete mammal. No, don't deny it; don't protest; there's no other way to interpret what you've just written. You're going beyond asserting the validity of folk taxa (which we all agree with) to denying the validity of scientific taxa (which is patently ridiculous). You really need to think about your position on this some more. Hesperian 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I will deny and protest. You are defining folk taxonomy in a way that excludes anything that is part of scientific taxa, like "mammal". That is a false dichotomy of the most blatant kind. Anything "cataloged" in folk taxonomy belongs in Wikipedia whether it is also part of scientific taxonomy or not, including "mammal", an article about (essentially) "animals that have hair and give milk". What I don't see a need for in Wikipedia are articles about topics that are cataloged in scientific taxonomy but not in folk taxonomy. That's not to say that they must not be included here, just not in a way that compromises a quality presentation of topics within folk taxonomy. In other words, topics that are exclusive to scientific taxonomy should either be not covered in WP, or covered in a way that is a pure bonus (adds, but does not detract). Whenever there is a conflict, priority should always be given to folk taxonomy. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Hesperian 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And "because its like serving foie gras and hot dogs" is not an answer. Hesperian 05:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"In other words, topics that are exclusive to scientific taxonomy should either be not covered in WP, or covered in a way that is a pure bonus (adds, but does not detract)." - This is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER read in my entire Wikipedia career so far. The way he thinks, we wouldn't have articles about specific compounds, comets, philosophical concepts, religious texts, etc. that isn't "public knowledge". I interpret my mission as a scientist on Wikipedia as a mission to bring the hardcore science closer to the unknowing public - not to document what they already "know". Shrumster (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hesperian... Why you ask? Priority should be given to folk taxonomy over scientific Latin taxonomy whenever there is a conflict because using folk taxonomy is much better at meeting the fundamental tenets of the WP:NC policy:

1. prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity
2. making linking to those articles easy and second nature
3. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
4. Use common names of persons and things except when specific guidelines say otherwise (as long as those guidelines comply with 1-3 which do not allow for exceptions).

That's why. And disambiguating a term from the folk taxonomy per WP:D and WP:PRECISION should also be preferred over using a scientific Latin name for the same reasons. Make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a reiteration of your previous argument, only taking advantage of the term "folk taxonomy". And I hate to say it, but you're misusing the term. This is hardly your fault, because our article on it is shit. (Most embarrassing is the fist eight words, which again conflates taxonomy with nomenclature. A folk taxonomy is a way of organising things, not a naming system. Recall from a previous thread that the recognition of the group "animals that have hair and give milk" is a taxonomic decision; the decision to call them mammals is a nomenclatural decision.) Examples of folk taxa in the plant kingdom include tree, shrub, vine, grass, grain, cereal, millet, fodder, weed, wildflower... but Joshua tree is not a folk taxon; it is merely the vernacular name of a scientific taxon. Hesperian 03:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Wikipedia has always used the folk taxonomy for naming articles. Look at the article on atheism, for example. It doesn't pick one definition or other, it talks about both. I don't see why flora (or fauna) should be an exception to this. What benefit is there to use the scientific taxonomic name, Digitiria, instead of the name from the folk taxonomy, crabgrass, for the article about crabgrass? You see how I use crabgrass rather than Digitaria when I can use either? Even scientists do that in my many books too - they mention the scientific name, but they use the common name in the bulk of the text, photo captions, etc. People use the terminology that is most familiar to them, not terms they have to look up every time they need to use it. And Wikipedia names its articles accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

B2c, it's true that it's not at all uncommon for "specialist" authors to use common names in their texts to refer to one species or another. That is a literary freedom that the authors of any individual publications are entitled to make use of -- even if those names are actually ambiguous. However, it is entirely inappropriate to compare such works to Wikipedia articles. These differ, because not only are they eternally works in progress and subject to the efforts of numerous unknown authors, as opposed to the traditional publications you refer to, wikis such as WP use titles as the primary key to distinguish among articles and these are the only names that are inextricably linked to the articles. That's why our article titles are crucial from an organization point of view: the more article we have to take care of, the more important it becomes that they be unique. Scientific names are far more suited to this than folk taxonomy. --Jwinius (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP titles are not just supposed to be unique keys. If they were, then we could just use sequential index numbers for titles. For example, perhaps WP0345981 could be the article about Joshua trees. But the problem with using sequential index numbers for article titles like that is that doing so would not meet any of the following WP policy article naming requirements:

1. prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize
2. with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature
3. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
4. Use common names of persons and things (except for some exceptions, but which do not alleviate article titles from meeting requirements 1-3)

Using sequential index numbers for article titles would of course fail to meet each of these naming policy requirements. But what's relevant here is that using plant names from the scientific taxonomy rather than names from the folk taxonomy (adjusted with additional precision as required for disambiguation, like all WP articles titles) also fails to meet these same requirements. For example, the fact that many scientific authors prefer to use common names when writing about plants is what also makes linking to articles named with common names "easy and second nature" (requirement 2 above).

It's not that fauna articles need to be named in a manner that is consistent with flora articles (per the scientific taxonomy), it's that flora articles need to be named in a manner that is consistent with flora articles and the rest of Wikipedia (per the folk taxonomy). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

B2c, don't exaggerate: we're not asking for numbered article titles. All we ask is for a departure from the ambiguity and arbitrarity that currently plagues our collection of natural history articles and hobbles its development. However, if I understand you correctly, then your anti-science attitude has reached a new depth. Apparently, to prevent a new consensus from forming here in favor of adopting binomial nomenclature as the new default naming convention for our natural history articles, you would prefer that we basically reject most of the science behind that system and instead embrace folk taxonomy -- a system that was considered an impediment to our understanding of the natural world decades before Charles Darwin was even born. Are you really so selfish and desperate to retain your warm and fuzzy common names that, despite the fact that people come here looking for knowledge, you would rather have us A.) accommodate rather than correct their ignorance, B.) entertain rather than inform, and C.) basically dumb down Wikipedia all the way back to the 17th century?? --Jwinius (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

B2C has a point, page names could be assigned as sequential index numbers and all access to those page names could be either via the index number or by a redirect, that way all redirects would be as valid as each other (no more WP:RM debates). But at the moment it is not done that way, it is done through choosing a name through the WP:NC policy which the guidelines are supposed to supplement and explain. --PBS (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

<--I am not in favour of "folk taxonomy" or "scientific taxonomy" within Wikipedia I am in favour of guidelines reflecting Wikipdia policy. That in the case of the naming conventions, guidelines should be framed within that the naming conventions policy "use the most easily recognized name". In some cases that will be a name that is familiar to everyone, in others it will be a specialist name (what ever name is most appropriate to fulfil the naming conventions requirement). If we are to move towards names used by specialists for other specialists as policy, then far more than the naming conventions will be affected by such a change -- content forking is an obvious one. --PBS (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear, though. We certainly do not intend to ignore folk taxonomy at Wikipedia. On the contrary, dealing with it is an important part of the educational process as well as an essential tool to prevent misunderstandings regarding the binomial articles. I consider Anaconda an excellent example. This article started out as a description of the species Eunectes murinus, but was later changed to cover the entire genus. The problem is, however, that many people are confused about whether "anaconda" refers to the species or the genus. As a result, even when the article was for a time renamed to Eunectes and it was made clear in the introduction that it was only about the genus, roughly half of the editors continued to add information that was specific to Eunectes murinus. The situation was finally resolved when "Anaconda" was turned into a set index article -- a kind of specialized disambiguation page -- the main purpose of which is to clear up the confusion. It works perfectly.

Of course, such elaborate measures are unnecessary for most common names for which only redirects to the correct articles suffice, but in cases such as "Anaconda" I consider this strategy essential to prevent significant numbers of editors from wasting their efforts by working on the wrong articles, as well as the efforts of others to later correct things again. --Jwinius (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, PBS, but WP:NC also goes on to say " ...with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, ..." The point is that the amount of ambiguity that natural history editors have to put up with is no longer considered reasonable. I also take offense to your continued efforts to subvert our intentions as thought they include making significant changes to article content. Like I said before, this is your idea, it is a false accusation, and if you continue along this line it will be grounds to suspect you of deliberately spreading disinformation (FUD) regarding our intent. Besides, we already have plenty of binomial articles and they are essentially no different from those at common names. --Jwinius (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My point a about Balkanisation was not aimed at anyone group in particular it was in response to the suggestion that the Naming Convention Policy should be changed to move away from the the long standing policy of common names by default. I do not say that it should not be done -- I don't know because the wider ramifications have not been discussed in detail by enough people -- but it would be a profound change to Wikipedia and it should not be done unless there is a project wide discussion involving many more editors than have been involved in these discussion to date (for example along the line of the numbers who took part in WP:ATT).

To the specific point about the flora guideline, " ...with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, ..." is a perfectly good argument, and one that can be included with specific detail regarding flora once the flora guideline is in harmony with the policy (see my last edit to the flora guideline talk page, on the harmony issue). I do not agree with your contention: "The point is that the amount of ambiguity that natural history editors have to put up with is no longer considered reasonable", because the "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists", as no editor needs to be involved in naming discussion of an article if they do not want to be. --PBS (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Come off it PBS; the mere suggestion that our proposal would only serve to balkanize Wikipedia is an exaggeration, and you didn't mean to accuse just "anyone group in particular" of that. Your only intention with it is to mislead others regarding our intent. It is a very shaky assumption to say the least

Not being discussed by enough people? Pardon me, but we are in exactly the right place for this and we've already done our best to warn many other projects of this. Also, you seem to forget that lots of people have dropped in on this discussion during the past two months -- we even know that people from other language wikis are following this debate closely to see if it turns out the same as at the es-wiki. We have an audience all right, only you don't seem to be satisfied with it.

"...once the flora guideline is in harmony with the policy..." -- Oh, for crying out loud, PBS!! After my recent response to you on my talk page and after this admission, it's crystal clear that WP:NC (flora) is and always has been in complete and utter harmony with WP:NC -- just not you're version of it. Yet, somehow you still expect us to simply roll over for you... in good faith or something? Yeah, right. I now see even less reason to change our current proposal -- binomial nomenclature for all natural history articles by default -- so perhaps the past two months will not have been a complete waste after all. --Jwinius (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of participants in this debate has been but fraction of that which took part in the WP:ATT debate (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll). What admission? --PBS (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind also, PBS and B2C, that a binomial-default naming system has been operating smoothly for flora (30,000+ articles) for over two years now. If you want to claim that the application of this system to the greater Tree of Life wikiproject would be detrimental to Wikipedia, the onus is on you to point out where the system has failed in the last two years. Balkanization? Where? Readers unable to find articles? ¿Donde? Readers unhappy about articles being under the precise and unambiguous binomial titles? Where? If you want to claim that folk taxonomy is better for Wikipedia than the established binomial nomenclatural system, show us where the latter system has failed! Since we can and have presented plenty of examples of failings in the folk taxonomy system, your failure to do so would establish the current flora naming policy as superior in practice to folk taxonomy. Its not just that we don't want to stick to folk taxonomy because it fits your interpretation of the current NC better... its that we shouldn't if the binomial system serves Wikipedia better! You should know by now that Wikilawyering, when it doesn't benefit Wikipedia, won't fly here. --NoahElhardt (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Were have I said that the name of flora articles should be under what you call "folk taxonomy"? Where have I said that "folk taxonomy" fits my "interpretation of the current NC better"? What I have suggested is that the flora guideline is in breach of the WP:NC policy and that the emphasis should be turned around to use the most commonly used name with exceptions, rather than use the scientific name with exceptions (see my last edit to the flora guideline talk page). --PBS (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as this is in the guidelines you continue to direct users to a policy that specifically supports flora naming guidelines while saying that the guidelines are in breach. They are NOT. You, however, are completely, 100% in breach of Wikipedia's Civility and Point guidelines by continuing to falsely represent your case for months on end in every single venue you can find. --KP Botany (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany I am not sure who "you" means please clarify. Whether a guideline is referred to or not in a policy two considerations have to be born in mind: "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature" (WP:PC) and from WP:V "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly" (WP:V). Guidelines should supplemented and explain polices they should not contradict them. I know that you do not think that the WP:NC (flora) guideline contradicts WP:NC, but if you do not, then why are you not willing to support the inclusion from the WP:NC of its general principles -- and then list the specific guidance for the naming of articles to which the flora guidelines applies -- if as you maintain the flora guideline does not contradict the WP:NC policy? --PBS (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing games, PBS. You neglect the policy in whole, I will neglect to read any more of your posts in whole. I consider your continuing to post while dishonestly addressing policies to be mere disruption of Wikipedia. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Order of subtitles

Could there be a section on the sequence of punctuation within titles? I.e. "TITLE: SUBTITLE - SUBSUBTITLE", as well as some general guidance on the inclusion of taglines (currently I think taglines are frowned upon). SharkD (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All Blacks / NZ national rugby union team

There is a long and annoying debate going on at Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team which might benefit from input from someone experienced in sorting out naming conflicts. --Helenalex (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sub-articles

Resolved

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that sub-articles should generally be titled like "Transport in England" or "History of America" rather than "English transport" or "American history". I can't seem to find it again. Am I imagining reading this or is this true?--Patton^t/c 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Subpages. I think that is all we have on the subject, but follow the links, there may be more advise. --PBS (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No I read that it wasn't what I was looking for. I have found it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Thanks anyway.--Patton^t/c 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

for the topic

"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English for the topic call the subject. "

I see no advantage in adding "for the topic" to the sentence as it adds nothing but potential confusion over what the additional phrase means. --PBS (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). Hesperian 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to change a policy page it is better that it is debated on the policy talk page. --PBS (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A related MOS question

A question has come up concerning what to bold in article ledes when the topic is a taxonomic group. Options include: (1) bold only the common name, (2) bold the scientific name as well, if it is used in the page name, or (3) bold all names reflecting alternate page names. The last involves bolding the scientific name and all common names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#MOS question. --Una Smith (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually any redirect target should be bold. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please weigh in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#MOS question. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BC v BCE issue

If you are interested in a rename between BC and BCE for categories, you can drop in on this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not that one again...here come the bots...sigh... (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No the bots are only involved after a change is approved for categories :-) Like I said, comments welcome in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation for buildings and/or landmarks

I couldn't find a relevant NC guideline to apply here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) doesn't really apply to buildings or landmarks, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) is marked as historical and doesn't really answer the question either. The disambiguation pages at Empire Tower and Victory Monument reflect the lack of a standard disambiguation scheme for buildings pretty well. For example, should the Empire Tower in Bangkok be at Empire Tower (Bangkok), Empire Tower, Bangkok, Empire Tower (Thailand), or Empire Tower, Thailand? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation for buildings and/or landmarks. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Should as be capitalised in the middle of a title?

Hi I asked this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) but got no replies so I'm trying here:

[7] seems to suggest it is a subordinating conjunction, rather than a coordinating conjunction; is this distinction significant? Other subordinating conjunctions with fewer than five letters are:

1. if
2. that
3. till
4. what
5. when
6. as if
7. as long as
8. even if
9. so that

(each word of the compounds has fewer than five letters)

Current usage on Wikipedia is mixed, although lowercase seems to dominate to me (no absolute figures to prove this) e.g.:

• As Slow As Possible
• Victoria Wood As Seen On TV (but on certainly should not be capitalised)
• Dry As a Bone (note a is not capitalised, which is correct)

vs.

• Venus as a Boy
• Justice as Fairness
• Life as a House
• Thick as a Brick
• A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
• I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

It seems to me that strictly conforming to the letter of the manual means as should be capitalised, but is that how it is actually applied, both on the Wiki and elsewhere?

Any guidance gratefully received. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Flora guideline dispute

I'm very concerned about the position held by the editors of the plant articles to name their articles using unrecognizable (by most English speakers) Latin names even when common English names can be used instead. They are now claiming the dispute is over and won't even allow us to leave the dispute tag on the flora guideline page. See WP:NC (flora) and the associated talk page. Thanks. --07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)

As for the editors of the plant articles, they are very concerned that two non-plant-editors feel free to consume over three months of our time, and then, despite having nothing new to say, and a 75% consensus against them, insist that further discussion is warranted. The fact is there is a supermajority against them, and they just won't let it go. Hesperian 11:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

B2C editors who work on plants dont WP:OWN the articles please dont imply that we as editors have expressed that they are our articles, the true situation is that over the last three and a bit months we discussed the way in which articles about plants are named. In that time the various suggestions that have been put forward have failed to live up to testing as being applicable to the majority of articles. There have been a number of different test suggested to identify what is the most commonly used name everything from google hits, to blog discussions to record album covers, we've even discussed how other wikis name article and how britannica names articles. We've explored that origins of "common name" for plants and what it actually means, we've even explored common name as applied to WP, B2C even acknowledged he miss understood the meaning of "common name" as applied to plants. In all of this there was even the suggestion of using Vanacular name(taxonomical name) as the way to distinguish between different uses of the same common name, this format created absurb names that no one would find.
The end result of all of this is that the current format has clear consensus, if you want to continue looking for other methods then maybe you'll find someone willing to consider them but after three months 2 requests for comment there has been no change in the consensus, with more then 75% of the editors responding support the current convention there is no reason to continue tagging it as disputed. Gnangarra 12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While I actually tend to agree with Born2cycle that the Flora guideline should give more priority to common names, I don't think it's appropriate to keep the disputed tag there anymore, considering the supermajority that's developed in favor of keeping the current wording.--Aervanath (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aloe vera. --KP Botany (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking for help here is because the "supermajority" is almost exclusively made up of people who edit plant articles and so are biased in favor of a naming system that is self-consistent and easy to use within their particular area, a classic example of how WP general naming policy, conventions and guidelines are getting more and more ignored, and so naming overall in WP is becoming more and more of a hodgepodge. That's why we need outsiders to weigh in there, not here. If all the people who were concerned about this weighed in there, then it would not be a majority favoring those guidelines at all, much less a supermajority. Unfortunately, what is happening is that only those who are particularly interested in plant articles are weighing in, and they don't feel the need to work towards some kind of consensus, much less trying to make their guideline more in line with how articles outside of the flora arena are named in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by Hesperian's stats it's less than 75% - that is hardly a supermajority. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

18 / 28 = 64% of people affirming this current convention are hardcore plant editors. So let me get this straight: 64% is "almost exclusively" when it comes to plants editors unfairly skewing a !vote; but 75% is "hardly a supermajority" when it comes to you losing that !vote. WtF_{abrev. by Gnangarra} are you on?

But really, 64% is way too high. How dare a consensus be skewed by people who know what they are talking about and have a vested interest in coming to the right decision! If only we could attract some more people with no knowledge of the field and no stake in the outcome, I feel sure we could find some way to come to the wrong decision! So roll up, everyone! The less you know, the less this decision means to you, the better!

While we're waiting for your forum shop to bear fruit, here's another equation for you: 28 - 18 > 9. Shall I spell out the implications of that? Even if you denied the plants editors a voice, as you'd like to, and took this decision solely on the opinions of the drive-by two-centers, you'd still be losing 10 !votes to 9.

And as for your last comment, 28 / (28 + 9) = 0.7567568 > 75%.

Hesperian 10:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I included Aervanath. 28 / ( 28 + 10) = .736 < 75%.

So if we excluded biased plant editors, and only counted unbiased voters who give naming consistency within WP in general a higher priority than making naming less of a chore for editors within any particular area of articles, it would be 10 to 10. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Say after me: "Even if plant editors are entirely excluded from the debate, there is no consensus for my position." Hesperian 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You make my point. Whether plant editors are excluded from the debate or not, there is no consensus for any position (yes, including mine) with respect to the current flora guideline, (i.e., the guideline is in dispute) which is why it needs to change to one which can be supported by consensus (not to mention one that is not in conflict with general naming policy). That's why we need substantive discussion. For example, I'd like to see someone other than you put forward the taxonomy vs. nomenclature argument. I don't think that has been fully addressed, and, so far as I can tell, has the most potential for actually providing a justification for the current guideline. But no one other than you, so far as I know, has even made this argument. But that's the kind of discussions we should be having, including more discussion here about the actual points I've made in that section, rather than all this evasive hand-wringing which serves no purpose other than avoiding consensus-building discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You've had 77 days of discussion now, much of which was substantive. If any time was wasted in filibustering or off-topic threads, I think you share the responsibility for that. And if at this point people are more interested in making you go away than discussing this further with you, it is because they are sick to death of you, and because you have nothing new to say, and because what you do have to say has already been responded to numerous times.

Look, it has now been 15 days since you made an edit in the mainspace. Obviously naming discussions are your raison d'être, and you'll happily carry on with this until the cows come home, because you are doing what you love. You're not here to write articles; you're here to participate in naming disputes, and this dispute is sustaining you. What you don't get is most of your opponents hate this shit. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not argue endlessly over whether 75% equals "consensus", "supermajority" or merely "majority". If we knew how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, we'd add that information here, with a solid reference, and be done with it. You need to understand, if people don't want to discuss this with you any more, it is not because their argument is weak; it is because participating here for the 78th, 79th, 80th day running is a miserable prospect for everyone but you.

Hesperian 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has been discussed every which way, with well over .5Mb (!!!) worth of discussion. The supermajority has only grown larger over time. According to Template:Disputedtag, "There is no such thing as an indefinitely disputed policy or guideline." It's long past time for everyone to move on to productive editing. First Light (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been actually very little substantive discussion. With a few notable exceptions (Hesperian), the discussion has been dominated by discussion about the discussion. If I were cynical I might suggest that those who defend the guideline can't refute the arguments, so they prefer to complain merely about the fact that the arguments are being made. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is new to this is invited to read the archived discussion (.47Mb) and the discussion page (.3Mb) and decide for themselves whether (or why) there has been "very little substantive discussion". First Light (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can explain why there have been no substantive responses to this in the three weeks since I posted it... --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I count five substantive responses there, in addition to many previous responses to the same line of arguing. But rather than trying to prejudice people to what I think, or continuing with this discussion about the discussion about the discussion, new editors can go there and decide for themselves whether your claim of "no substantive responses" is true. Read the entire archive, though, to get the entire story. First Light (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got to five, but arguably my saying there were no substantive responses was an exaggeration. At any rate, very few of the responses even addressed my main point, and I addressed every point raised (except I originally missed Noah's, which I just responded to now). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than trying to prejudice people ahead of time, I'll again suggest that anyone interested in this issue read the archives and talk page, and make up their own minds on this issue. First Light (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We can agree about that, at least. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your problem, Born2cycle, is that you have a personal conviction that we should be following a certain PRINCIPLE in naming articles. Our naming convention POLICY kinda-sorta endorses that principle, in a wishy-wishy kind of way, and as a result you've run off with the idea that the PRINCIPLE is the spirit of the POLICY, and any discrepancy between the two is due to the letter of the POLICY not being up to snuff. That is incorrect. It is high time you accepted that (a) there is no consensus for your PRINCPLE other than as one of many conflicting priorities; (b) our naming conventions POLICY is carefully worded to reflect the absence of a consensus for your principle other than as one of many conflicting priorities; and (c) it follows that what you have been doing these last three months is trying to bring the flora naming convention in line with your personal PRINCIPLE, not Wikipedia naming conventions POLICY.

We keep telling you that our convention is in line with POLICY, but you can't see it, because you're no longer capable of reading the policy page as anything but an imperfect articulation of your PRINCIPLE. Your line of reasoning seems to be something like this:

1. Premise: my PRINCIPLE is the spirit of the POLICY;
2. Premise: the flora naming convention violates my PRINCIPLE;
3. Therefore: the flora naming convention violates the spirit of the POLICY;
4. Therefore: all evidence that the flora naming convention is in line with the letter of the POLICY is due to mis-interpretation and/or wikilawyering.

Where you're going wrong is in Premise #1.

Hesperian 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to intrude, but is there any chance you could continue this discussion on the talk page of the page it's actually about?--Kotniski (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

Its ok to intrude, but its already being discussed there as well this is just the standard B2C forumn shopping when the majority of editors choose to move the discussion forward but not in line with his WP:POV Gnangarra 23:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"more panic"

I am kind of new here but it seems logical to me that an encyclopedia should be neutral. Adding the words "more Panic" seems to take a side. I have read a recent research in which close to 1,500 survivors’ reports this is not merely panic but an actual crime which affected their lives very deeply. Higherpowered123 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please name the article concerned. cygnis insignis 09:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

In the section #The most common name versus the canonical name above, and again in section #What we've all been overlooking (I think), I offered an argument, and evidence, that in situations where a canonical name is available, Wikipedians will often use it, without giving much thought to what is the most common name. Therefore, I argued, this policy page, which is supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive, places way too much emphasis on the "use the most common name / use the most easily recognised name" clause, improperly raising it to the status of an overarching principle, whereas it is in fact just one of many competing priorities. My argument may be summarised by the following quote:

All over Wikipedia, people are adopting canonical names where they exist. They use gazetted geographic names; they use standardised common names; they use the official names of medical conditions, astronomical bodies and chemical compounds; they use the exact titles of books, films, albums and songs; they use the registered names of companies; they use the registered names of ships and trains; and so on. In many cases they don't give a second's thought to what is the most common name; they simply follow the canonical nomenclature of whatever field they are working in. This is what they do whether this policy page says so or not. This proposal is about making this policy page an accurate description of what people are actually doing.

Progress was made towards resolving this, but this can to a sudden end with the appearance of a couple of editors who wish this policy to be prescriptive. Thus this policy remains an inaccurate description of the modus operandi of editors. I have therefore marked the policy as disputed. Hesperian 02:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and what Hesperian describes is the actual practice, the actual best practice of thousands of editors who work together to contribute content within the scopes of numerous WikiProjects. --Una Smith (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

False dichotomy alert! Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions are neither purely prescriptive nor purely descriptive. They are an ever-evolving blend. The guidelines describe convention which in turn are supposed to provide guidance for consistency with those conventions. Nothing is written in stone, but it's not a blank slate every time an article is named either.

All of Hesperian's examples -- gazetted geographic names, standardised common names, official names of medical conditions, astronomical bodies and chemical compounds, exact titles of books, films, albums and songs, registered names of companies, registered names of ships and trains -- are consistent with WP:NC in a way that WP:NC (flora) currently is not. Each of these examples involves the use of commonly used names (if not the most commonly used name), or a recognizable derivation of it, and ultimately results in a name that either is the most recognizable name for a given topic, or is just as recognizable. This is not at all the case when using a scientific Latin name used by plant specialists to refer to a given plant, like Yucca brevifolia, that is commonly known by a common and recognizable English name, like Joshua tree.

As far as I know no other guideline calls for the use of a completely different name, as opposed to the commonly used English name that is most likely to be recognized by a general audience (rather than specialists) [1], or some related derivation of it. But if anyone can identify another guideline that does that, I would like to know about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about flora? Are you trying to roll this thread into that other one? Two points for you: one for derailing this thread, one for finding some way to sustain the other one for a few more days. Hesperian 05:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To return to the point at hand, in the hope that Born2cycle will not have succeeded in hijacking this thread, the problem is that

This naming convention places way too much emphasis on the "use the most common name / use the most easily recognised name" clause, improperly raising it to the status of an overarching principle, whereas it is in fact just one of many competing priorities.

Hesperian 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It might help to list the other priorities. I can think of 2... --Una Smith (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Use a cannonical name
• Use an unambiguous name

I agree with Hesperian's premise. It has been my impression also that most of our contributors understand the value of using canonical names in general, preferring uniqueness over most common / most easily recognizable names that sooner cause problems when used on such a large scale.

My feeling is that the current wording is a relic of the past that got started with the first version of WP:NC in 2001. It was written at a time when Wikipedia was still relatively unknown, when the most important thing was for our articles to get "noticed" by the various search engines. If we had known back then that Wikipedia would soon become a such a success, I'm sure we would have given this policy more thought. Clearly, with Google giving us a search preference nowadays and so many visitors coming here directly, things are different: we can now afford and should therefore take advantage of the more precise naming conventions available. I see this as a logical and natural development to ensure maintainability as our collection of articles grows ever larger. To ignore this is to hold back Wikipedia. Besides, redirects are cheap, they remove most of the inconvenience for readers and constitute only a minimal esthetic compromise. --Jwinius (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)