Naming policy

[Jaap Winius]

Who here believes that we can now address this question? Personally, I'd like to have an answer sooner as opposed to later. Larry has asked me to make all of my viper articles "significantly more valuable" so as not to mirror WP, or else I guess they will all be deleted. That would mean a lot of work, but I would nevertheless be willing to do it if we were to implement the proper naming policy. Otherwise I might be asked later on to rename them all in order to conform with the rest. So...

Can we decide now to create a policy at CZ to use scientific name for article titles on biological organisms and common names only as redirects?

Right now we seem to be mirroring WP's policy to use common names for this purpose. If we continue down this road, we'll end up being plagued by the same problems they've been experiencing. Take a look at this exchange...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Can_we_come_up_with_a_common_name_policy.3F

... and see how they still struggle with this issue. It seems to me that eventually they will come to the right conclusions and make the necessary changes, but it may take years. We can avoid all that by doing this the right way to begin with.

[tkjazzer]

i didn't really skim the entire link, but I would recommend that
1- the scientific name be the article title
2 - common names are redirects to the scientific name title
3- the first thing under the scientific name should be the common names
4- the first sentence should be any other names that it is called.

Thoughts?

[Derek Harkness]

While we did drift off topic a bit with the discussion about categories; I thought the general consensus of this thread was that Scientific names should be used in the article title.

[Gilles Tran]

Recently I had to study this problem at work and while the scientific names are theoretically a better indicator than common names, there are many cases when it's the other way round. Not only taxonomies evolve, but there are cases where they are competing.

One example I used as a demonstration is a pantropical grass called Guinea grass, a very common forage plant that certainly deserves an entry. Of course, there are many (local) synonyms for "Guinea grass", but the English name is well understood in the literature. The scientific name, however, is a mess: the most common is Panicum maximum Jacq. (which is used by the FAO, for instance), but there are 10 or so synonyms in the literature, and since 2003, some authors have started calling it Megathyrsus maximus (Jacq.) B. K. Simon & S. W. L. Jacobs (used by the USDA GRIN database).

In fact, it's not unusual for plants to "belong" to different genera depending on the author (in the example above, Panicum, Megathyrsus and Urochloa) and even within the same genus the situation can be completely obscure for someone not familiar with plant taxonomy: the Brassica and Sorghum genera, for example, are quite complex and these are major plants from an economic perspective. Barley is another interesting case: 2-row and 6-row barleys are often grown for different purposes, and have different names in some languages. Older literature would often refer to them as two different species, but now it's considered to be a single one.

Note that I am not a specialist in plant taxonomy: I'm just pointing out that even for someone who is a little familiar with the subject matter, scientific names can end up being more confusing than well-established common ones.

[Jaap Winius]

Recently I had to study this problem at work and while the scientific names are theoretically a better indicator than common names, there are many cases when it's the other way round. Not only taxonomies evolve, but there are cases where they are competing. ...

In my experience, scientific names may only be ambiguous when you deal with competing taxonomies. The idea is to select a leading taxonomy for a whole group of articles and stick with that, synonymy and all. If other taxonomies disagree in certain cases, then be sure to mention that in a separate taxonomy section for those articles. The redirects for the synonyms will always point people to the correct article according to the taxonomy in use.

I'm for avoiding a situation of half measures: we select one or the other naming method, but not both.

[Larry Sanger]

A reply to Jaap's original arguments.

* Articles names at Wikipedia have to be unique anyway, so why not use the only ones that are always unambiguous?

This is a solid enough argument, it appears.  It certainly appeals to the scientific mind, which hates ambiguity and likes clarity--qualities I like as well.  So this is probably the main argument for the policy proposal.

* Scientific names avoid conflicts, since many common names often apply to different species. In such cases, one article gets the "good" name and the others have to be, um, different. How is this good for presentation?

You're saying, I believe, that there are species for which there are no common names at all, except for a common name that they share with other species.  Can you give an example or two?  Isn't it almost always the case, however, that there are also other common names for the varieties, subspecies, or different species that go under the same name?  If so, one simply uses the name for the variety, etc., in question.  Besides, this is a pretty rare problem, isn't it?

* Choosing between two or more more common names only on the basis of which one shows up more often in Google is arbitrary and unscientific.

Perhaps, but there is nothing arbitrary, or even unscientific, about preferring a common name on the basis of its popularity.  To say that is simply to claim that common names are unscientific because they are common.  I'm not sure that's a very good reason to think that a name is "unscientific."  In any case, if Google doesn't strike you as a good indicator of popularity, we might not use Google; we might consult some popular guidebooks, or--better--our own local experts (when they arrive).

* Selecting one common name for a species over all the others gives people the impression that it's more importance or more official than the others, even though that's not the case. An exception might be the AOU where they've tried to make certain common names for birds "official", but that's only for American species and even Wikipedia aren't following their lead.

You're inferring what people will infer about our placing an article about a species under a certain title.  This is an very uncertain inference; so this is a very weak argument.  The fact that my Field Guide to North American Birds makes use of common names for different birds does not make me infer that the other names they list are not also common names.

* Using scientific names avoids petty conflicts between editors: no more fights about Siberian Tiger vs. Amur Tiger or Puma vs. Cougar.

I suppose that's a very slight advantage--very slight, because the number of species with such competing names is relatively small.  Moreover, we're going to have more effective means of settling such disputes on CZ.

* Common name tiles make category overviews pretty useless: just compare Category:True vipers with Category:Sharks at Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.

If we don't use the Category feature at all, when giving an overview of a family (or whatever), then we can use whatever groupings we like, instead of relying on alphabetic.  So on CZ I don't think this is going to be an advantage at all.

* Using scientific names for article titles can teach readers more about how organisms are related: "These names are weird, but look how the first names are all the same... maybe they're all related!"

This advantage applies not when looking at an individual article page, but at a page that has many different species names.  Well, again, you can bring out this sort of information by constructing a page with it.  I see nothing wrong with a page, or a section of a page, such as "True vipers in alphabetical order by scientific name".  That does not require that we name the articles after the scientific names.

* Scientific names are universal while common names are not; people in one (English speaking) country may not be familiar with the common names in another.

This doesn't seem to be an advantage at all.  CZ in English is...in English.  We are not writing for non-English speakers.  Therefore, we are under no obligation whatsoever, indeed we should find no advantage whatsoever, to make article titles more "international," i.e., non-English.  We are writing in English.  Dutch speakers can write for Dutch speakers when we start up nl.citizendium.org.  I would not insist that they use international terms so that I can understand them better.

* Using scientific names for article titles promotes better continuity when linking with other articles inside and outside of Citizendium.

Again, a very minor advantage if an advantage at all.  The point seems to be that if we are using a single unambiguous title for each species, then people will make fewer mistakes when they go to link to a species.  First, not usually; second, if there is any question about what a page to link to is called, standard practice has us look the name up.  How often will it be necessary to look up the name of species because their common names are ambiguous?  Not often, I think.  And you ignore the argument on the other side, namely, that even biologists have to look up the names of species when they know the common names very well.  If you're worried about saving contributors time in making links, I'm sure the policy to recommend is that they should use the common names.

Decisions aren't well made by counting up the number of arguments on each side.  It has much more to do with evaluating the importance and the certainty of the leading arguments.  There is one argument, on the other side, that you didn't address here.  It goes like this.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give people information they're looking for.  It is far easier for people who need an article about a species to find that information if the article is titled by its common name--first and foremost because the common name is all that a person has.  It is also easier for the simple reason, which must not be overlooked, that by titling an article with the scientific name of the species one gives the ordinary user the impression that the article is too specialized or scientific for him/her to be able to understand.  I'm not looking for information about Panthera leo, I'm looking for information about lions.  I wonder how much of your desire to organize articles about species by scientific name ultimately stems from a desire to create a beautiful system representing our knowledge of life.  I can appreciate that sort of thing, because I am a system-builder myself.  It's just that there is a difference between creating a fantastic, scientifically perfect system, on the one hand, and creating an information resource that is of maximal use to our audience, on the other hand.

[Chris Day]

Let me throw this out.  But which common name?

Arabidopsis thaliana has at least three common names,it is called arabidopsis, thale cress, or mouse-ear cress.  Which is the most common, common name? Scientific naming conventions do not generally have such issues.

Drosophila melanogaster is commonly referred to as the fruit fly, as are all others in the genus. So should the article "fruit fly" be for the Drosophila article or the article that is specific to Drosophila melanogaster?

Zea mays could be corn, indian corn, sweetcorn or maize.

Caenorhabditis elegans could be roundworm or nematode but again, similar to fruit fly, both terms are too general and used to describe many species.

This will be quite a common problem, whereas the scientific name is relatively unambiguous. One possible approach is to have some kind of exception for the most common animals and plants.  But even then, where does the common name go.  For example, Cat. Should house cats get the article or should it be Cats in general? i can see many merits to Jaap's approach. And, as an educational resource, there is no harm in having scientific names prominent.

[tkjazzer]

In medical school during our microbiology class we learn of microbes by their scientific name that is the current accepted name by the higher powers which decide these things.  However, we learn the  names of the diseases they cause as well as common names of the diseases like "shingles."  Also, science is always changing.  People realize that this microbes are actually more like this other genus and will completely change the name.  That doesn't mean that the new name is more popular or found in more hits with google, but it is what experts decided to do.  However, we also learn the old name to avoid confusion in the future - or least have it written down somewhere.

There are other cases where cancers have been named after people which... if they knew what we know today about the same disease, would be named something different.  People looking under a microscope thought highly transcriptionally-active, differentiated neoplasms were actually undifferentiated blast cells... but, despite the misnomers, some of those names have stuck around.

Overall, experts are needed. 

Go with the scientific name for the article head unless is something like Burkitt's lymphoma, etc.

give all other names in the article.
make redirects.

People sit around daily, monthly, and yearly and hold big conventions deciding nomenclature for things.  Figure out who they are and ask them for advice.

Go for the academic opinion as priority. 

[Jaap Winius]

You're saying, I believe, that there are species for which there are no common names at all, except for a common name that they share with other species.  Can you give an example or two?  ...

What I mean is that many well-known common names apply to more than one species. Blackbird is a good example, since the name is applied to something like 20 different bird species. At WP, one is called simply "Blackbird", while the others are given more descriptive names like "Red-winged Blackbird" and "Red-breasted Blackbird," even though such names may or may not be used that much. My solution would be to make "Blackbird" nothing more than a disambiguation page -- let the reader know immediately that this name alone is not specific.

Another example. With snakes, when "Copperhead" was already a disambiguation page and some WP editors wanted to create two articles about the venomous snakes that share this name, they ended up creating "American Copperhead" and "Australian Copperhead". I'm not entirely sure about the latter, but the former does not occur in any of the literature I've seen. They both look like silly fabrications to me. These particular titles were changed to scientific names last year, but with the correct naming policy in place this would never have happened.

... if Google doesn't strike you as a good indicator of popularity, we might not use Google; we might consult some popular guidebooks, ...

Different guidebooks use different common names, even though some common names are more common than others. The more species you attempt to describe, the more often you'll run into conflicts of opinion.

You're inferring what people will infer about our placing an article about a species under a certain title.  This is an very uncertain inference; ...

I would think that it's this kind of inferring that, for instance, leads editors at WP to squabble about which common name is best for a particular article title. "My guidebooks suggest that this common name is more often used than the others..." and so on.

I suppose that's a very slight advantage--very slight, because the number of species with such competing names is relatively small.  Moreover, we're going to have more effective means of settling such disputes on CZ.

Most species of snakes with a common names seem to have have more than one. Your plan is no doubt to simply let a resident expert settle such disputes. I predict that, in time, when new experts replace old ones, we'll be seeing them change some article titles to suite their own taste.

As for categories, I happen to like using them for certain things, even though I certainly agree that they are overused at WP. I guess the idea of using self-sorting, self-updating lists for some things just appeals to me. Perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict the use of categories to some extent, but I don't think I've been abusing the concept with what I've done.

... We are not writing for non-English speakers. ...

Yes, but many people speak English as a second language and hopefully they will be visiting CZ as well. I was thinking that if were to refrain from using "our" common names for article tiles, that this might seem more courteous to them. But, this is a minor point.

... It is far easier for people who need an article about a species to find that information if the article is titled by its common name ...

Well, then we could construct things so that the common names are displayed more prominently. That's what I've tried to achieve in my articles by starting each article with "Common names:." However, with a little group effort I'm sure we would be able to come up with something that is more effective and elegant at doing the same thing.

... It's just that there is a difference between creating a fantastic, scientifically perfect system, on the one hand, and creating an information resource that is of maximal use to our audience, on the other hand.

That argument may be okay if your collection or articles is no more extensive than the usual encyclopedia, which is quite limited, but systems like WP and CZ have the potential to describe every single species known to science. In that case, only a "fantastic, scientifically perfect system" (or something approaching that) can help up to avoid an eventual mess.

[tkjazzer]

My solution would be to make "Blackbird" nothing more than a disambiguation page -- let the reader know immediately that this name alone is not specific.

No, this is a bad idea in my mind.  Blackbird should have a disambiguation page in Addition to a basic primer level article.  Blackbird is a bird made famous by numerous songs, children's books, etc.  "Blackbird singing in the dead of the night..." people who just want to see a picture of a blackbird should have a general article.  The species of blackbird should be listed in that article however. 

... if Google doesn't strike you as a good indicator of popularity, we might not use Google; we might consult some popular guidebooks, ...

Different guidebooks use different common names, even though some common names are more common than others. The more species you attempt to describe, the more often you'll run into conflicts of opinion.

right. this is why we need a nomenclature expert.  I'm sure someone who teaches a college class in zoology, or whatever will have an answer to this.

Most species of snakes with a common names seem to have have more than one. Your plan is no doubt to simply let a resident expert settle such disputes. I predict that, in time, when new experts replace old ones, we'll be seeing them change some article titles to suite their own taste.

That is ok to some extent, I think.  Such is life.  However, if we have a zoology naming article with links to the proper society of experts that decides these naming issues, we should be ok.  If we educate the majority of biology authors and editors and constables about the issue, we should be fine in the long run.

As for categories, I happen to like using them for certain things, even though I certainly agree that they are overused at WP. I guess the idea of using self-sorting, self-updating lists for some things just appeals to me. Perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict the use of categories to some extent, but I don't think I've been abusing the concept with what I've done.

A general workgroup category is essential for tracking recent changes in one workgroup field. Wikipedia tried to make portals and such but failed in organizing in such a way that you can easily track all medical articles or all biology articles.  By having general workgroup categories tagged on every single article we can follow changes easily.  I also see the benefit of more specific categories.  For example, if you wanted to look up hematology pathologies... having a category like this would be helpful.  If you check the bottom of most wikipedia medical articles they have this excellent table which we should incorporate.  For example, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia
Scroll to the bottom to check out the heme pathology table.

over and out

[Larry Sanger]

There's a very simple solution to this--don't know if anyone has thought of it before.

We simply title articles about species [[Common name (scientific name)]].  For example: [[Lion (Panthera leo)]].

We then construct a set of rules for determining what the "common name" ought to be.  One problem with Wikipedia is that they have no way of settling upon definite rules: "consensus" has been a joke since about the summer of 2001.  Well, we have.  We can specify a method for workgroups to arrive at decisions, and then the decisions are binding.

This conveys the most information, is scientifically precise, and includes the names of species that are most often used by English speakers who care about those species.  It also obviates the need for many redirection pages.

There are, of course, names that are used as if they were names of species, but which are actually names of families (or completely ad hoc sets of things).  It is crucial that we have articles with those names as titles--[[seagull]] (better, [[gull]]) is an example--because in the context of an encyclopedia, people need to know what those words do, and do not, mean.

As to "cat," that seems like an obvious one to me.  It redirects to [[Cat (Family Felidae)]].  In addition, there are articles about [[the big cats]] and [[domestic cat]].

[Jaap Winius]

We simply title articles about species [[Common name (scientific name)]].  For example: [[Lion (Panthera leo)]].

This solution has been suggested at WP before, but there was never much enthusiasm for it from either side of the debate. I can think of a few problems:

• It still forces you to select one common name over any others, so silly debates such as Puma vs. Cougar vs. Mountain Lion will persist. I know, CZ has a simple solution for this, but IMO this kind of choice should simply be avoided.
  
• Such article titles can become very unwieldy, for example "Transcaucasian sand viper (Vipera ammodytes transcaucasiana)."
  
• It makes the names of the articles harder to predict, which leaves more room for mistakes. After all, you have to know what a redirect ie before you can make one, and you have to remember to make the right ones. Making the relevant redirects would become very important, since very few wlinks (if any) would point directly to the article.
  
• Categories populated with names like this would still look hopeless. I know, that's if we use categories, although I'm still hoping we will. And even if we don't use categories, using such names will make it harder to make articles with lists of names. Such lists could, of course, rely only on the redirects, but that wouldn't be a very elegant solution either: the relevant redirects may not always be there, and if they are you'd always have to fix them all because of the double redirects.
  

Once again, what's wrong with using only scientific names for articles titles as long as we can devise a method for prominently displaying a few common names just below it? Along with an image, how could such an article still come across as confusing? We could make the common name more prominent than the article title, for all I care. Why can't this just be a question of formatting? We can still do anything we want, can't we? Seen from this angle, not being able to settle this question to the satisfaction of both parties really seems like nothing more than an intellectual shortcoming on our part.

[tkjazzer]

the decisions are binding.

And by binding, I'm going to read between the lines that it is open to change in the future under normal propositional that most committees use.

Overall, DON'T BE AFRAID TO WRITE because you think the system will never change if it is not initially set the perfect way.  CZ is different. have faith.

[Nancy Sculerati]

Naming each living thing by its scientific name is really the only way to give each a unique name. The formatting has to be done so that common names appear as well, but the reality is that, there cannot be a dogmatic way to include common names.

In some cases, like giraffe or Dog, common names must be most prominant on the article, and of course, must be searchable- just as everyone here has said. This issue of names is present in every hobbyist book on animals, Field guide to plants, animals, and seashells, and also in the entire ornamental horticulture industry. In all those places, it is usually handled by having an index for common names, and an index for scientific names. Sometimes it's one index that includes both, sometimes it's 2 separate lists. But, unless we are talking about a very abbreviated and low level text, the scientific names must be included because that is the only way to be sure that the species and subspecies are accurately identified.

Let's just proceed with scientific names, the only solution that can give a unique name for each species, but be reasonable, and make sure that for animal and plants with well known common names, it is those that are prominant in the "printed" title. Anything else will be silly and difficult to use.

We can be sure that this solution will not end arguments  -in fact, scientific names change with changes in classification and there are always some disputes over which is the proper classification. Common names that are obviously right in one region are obviously not right in another (do you have any idea how many fish are called striped bass?). So, we have to be reasonable and smart and -as we write the articles, make sure that we include all the names in ways that are easy to recognize.

But why worry? We can be smart and reasonable.

[Chris Day]

But why worry? We can be smart and reasonable.

More to the point our readers will become smarter and probably be reasonable too.

I suspect that all those with a scientific background will agree this is simpler with regard to a comprehensive taxonomic effort on our behalf. 

Which bring us back to the snakes. I would hope that that kind of coverage can be achived for many genera.  Obviously it will take time, but why not aim high?