Talk:Common name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do we talk about common names when on pages about a Scientific name?

I encountered a new word luce today in Scrabble, and spent some time till I could associate it with Esox lucius and on that page couldn't find a convenient place to say luce -- please put hints on my Talk page. Chris

Contents

[edit] Common but Endangered

Did anyone else notice a recent BBC headline "Apes 'extinct in a genertion'" that announced the publication of a UN World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation? It coincided with Wikipedia's Featured Article (Main Page) linking to Common Chimpanzee.

In a fast-moving world, simply recording what we find in use, calling it encyclopedic, will tend to be dated. By using available information and thinking ahead (without promoting opinions or research ideas), we can still be encyclopedic as well as being responsible and showing leadership.

Common names of species are important in communicating environmental information; but very little is being communicated. Not just the Great Apes, but many species will be extinct within a few decades and even science has not (yet) really noticed. Wikipedians can help.

I've made major changes to this "Common Names" Article, hoping I've kept to what is acceptable, although I would have wanted to be more radical. In paraticular, I would have liked to say that we prefer to Capitalize Common Names! Our recent debate was trending this way; did we arrive at a conclusion? 218.101.117.67 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear para

The paragraph beginning "Botanists sometimes maintain ..." is very unclear. Can someone who understands what it means pls rewrite it. Nurg 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lower case naming convention

I was taught as an undergraduate zoology student that capitilizing species' common names was incorrect unless the name included a proper name (e.g. Wilson's storm petrel). This article notes that convention among botanists, but it is more broad than that. Scientific journals use the same convention, I believe. There is great inconsistency in Wikipedia in this regard, although I note that the references to species in this article are for the most part in lower case. --Peter3 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of "Trivial name"

The article trivial name covers the same territory for chemical names, and should be merged into this one. --Blainster 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge, but would want to keep discussion of chemical nominclature in a distinct section. I'd also prefer to wait a day or two to see if there are any serious objections to a merge. ike9898 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the common name article presents an overview of all its uses in science, trivial name will remain the specialist page V8rik 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'd say "trivial name" for chemistry, and "common name" for biology, which is the usage one sees for example at [1] and [2] (although other sources do not make such a clear-cut distinction). Instead of merging the articles, I'd remove the chemistry section from the Common Name article (replacing it with a short reference to Trivial name). Kingdon 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If we included as many trivial names for chemicals as de:Liste der chemischen Trivialnamen, this article would be quite unwieldy. That list should be kept separate, either as a list (as in the German wikipedia), or after the brief article as it is currently here. Rigadoun (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common names that repeat scientific names POV

In section Common names that repeat scientific names, there is no citing of sources, and no mention of any downside; I imagine confusion results from having multiple or dicrepant names. I find these phrases POV: "This is a useful feature", "common and scientific names should be treated differently with no systematic attempt to make them correspond", "New common names are to be welcomed as long as they are helpful to a group of users, no matter how small", "spontaneous names are ideal", "multi-lingual and multiple local common names an increasingly valuable feature". jnestorius(talk) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I (anon) pulled the weird POV text, since there's been no update on this since January and the text is bizarrely out of place. - September 23, 2007 Oh, okay, yeah, that was kinda weird. Probably whole article needs reviewed. Thanks.

[edit] Correct grammical syntax for common names.

What is the correct syntax for the common name of an animal?

For example a Siberian Tiger or Clown Loach or African Elephant. Or should it be written as Siberian tiger, Clown loach, African elephant?

The article main page indicates a common name for a species is a formal name therefore it surely should be written as 'Clown Loach, etc.'? But I've see so many books use the lower-case second name. Which form is correct?

Can an English expert put me right?

--Quatermass (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Firstly I have added comments about different cultures and scripts. We are inclined to be Western-0-centric about these things. Also I have re-defined common name to be more inclusive and reduce ambiguity.Let me know if you do not feel that the definition is an improvement. added a couple of paragraphs and headings to the introductory material and slightly altered what was written there before. Also addressed the capitalisation issue in a way which I hope is acceptable. There are a few more additions to go. Please bear with me until I've finished. I am now fully aware of the various Wikipedia conventions and policies and am not (I believe) transgressing any of these. I'm sure I will find out if this isn't acceptable ... --Granitethighs (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the opening statement just added because:

  . it repeats the sentiments of the definition given below it
  . common names are not only referred to as such by professionals
  . the ambiguity of common names is discussed in the section "scientific and common names" so it does not add anything

One possibility is to come to an agreement about the definition - let me know Granitethighs (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)