Talk:Maize

Requested move 25 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:Snow close as not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Maize → Zea mays – Why not the scientific name? As is the case for many other notable plants—the Tea plant, Arabica coffee, the Giant Sequoia, the Gingko, the Common juniper, etc., etc.—just use the binomial/scientific name. If even a species as ubiquitous as the Tea plant uses Camellia sinensis for its article title, there's no doubt it would hold up here. The "grass" family itself uses its taxonomic name, Poaceae. Also, the change would ideally put an end to the longtime haggling over this article, ought to be uncontroversial among users and readers, and I think would actually cause less confusion. I hereby put it to a vote. Indefatigable2 ^talk 05:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Lets not make a confusing situation even more confusing. We use common names for countless species, and until there is project-wide consensus to use scientific names for all species, I think the status quo is best. "Coffea arabica" introduces no confusion. "Ginkgo biloba" is in everyday use. "Cacao" is not confusing because all literate people know that several different food products are made from cacao. Redwood species are commonly called "Sequoias". Nobody will get confused by "Juniperus". As a visit to a tea shop or a website selling teas would show, many species other than Camellia sinensis are actively marketed as teas. As for "Poaceae", there are about 12,000 species, many of which are not commonly described as "grass", so the scientific name is appropriate for such a broad group. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  What about Black Cherry Prunus serotina? European ash Fraxinus excelsior? There's plenty of taxonomic names on Wikipedia not easily connected, at first glance, to the plant they refer to. Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Prunus serotina has many common names, not just two, as in the case of corn/maize which are clearly differentiated between (broadly) American English and British English. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, but there's still more than one common name in both cases. What inherent difference does it make if there's "many" different names, or just two? Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  As everyday experience and common sense should inform you, there is a dramatic difference between "many" and "two". Cullen328 (talk)

  That 100% depends on context, and how often the "many" or "two" are actually invoked in common discussion.Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. This is possibly even worse than the Corn suggestion. No one calls this "Zea mays". O.N.R. ^(talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Does anyone call the Sugar Maple Acer saccharum, or the European Yew Taxus baccata? Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with the "sugar maple" comparison is that the name is not dominant, except in the context of Maple syrup. I have worked in the cabinet, countertop and millwork industry for 40 years, and in that context, the tree and its lumber is far more commonly known as "rock maple" or "hard maple " or "birds-eye maple" or "curly maple". Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. I think "Sugar Maple" is actually one of the most common types of trees laypeople know of. I'd guess it is, probably, one of the top five most widely known tree species names. Perhaps it's different where you are. Also, I think far more people in general are familiar with the tree though the context of maple syrup than through woodworking, so I'm not sure what the more niche names prove. If these more obscure names are enough of a reason to use the scientific name for "Sugar Maple" it's definitely enough to use the scientific name here. Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Where I am is California with a population of 39 million people, which is not exactly a linguistic backwater. Our population is greater than Australia and New Zealand combined, and only slightly less than all of Canada. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Neither England or America are "linguistic backwaters" either, but there's a dramatic difference in the plants that grow in either place, to give just one example. I live in a place where "Sugar Maple" is common. Someone in Greece probably wouldn't have heard of it. Not sure what you're trying to say. Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This lay person from Australia has never heard of sugar maple. Surely it's rather inaccurate too.HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I mean you're saying the scientific name is justified for "Sugar Maple" because there is more than one everyday name. But isn't that the exact issue we're discussing for this page? Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here, there are only two common names. Corn is almost universally used in everyday speech in the United States and Canada. Maize is almost universally used in other English speaking countries. Zea mays is used by nobody except scientists. Scientific names are entirely appropriate for lesser known species and for species with many common names. This is a widely known species widely discussed in everyday language, and no consensus has emerged for anything other than "maize", although as an American, I would much prefer "corn". But I respect consensus and oppose rocking the boat. I can happily live with maize. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Farmers in Australia might call the commercial crop maize. I don't actually know. But the rest of us here call the stuff corn. Nobody calls it zea maize. 06:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know how a formal renaming request is "rocking the boat," but that's neither here nor there. And the fact that "nobody except scientists" uses a scientific name hasn't prevented their use on a huge list of Wikipedia articles, so I don't see the strength of that point either. Lastly, you say no consensus has emerged against "Maize," but this is also not the whole picture, as there are many people opposed to this title also. I am one of them—but I'm opposed to corn also. The reasons given thus far to use scientific names are very clearly applicable to this article, also. Indefatigable2 ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Alright, look people, the Common Marigold is called Calendula officinalis so let's at least dispense with the notion that common plant articles don't use scientific names. You can go through Wikipedia and find a bunch.Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Reply Marigold is a term applied to several species in English, so that comparison lacks validity. The fact of the matter is that you need to gain consensus for your proposal and so far, you are not succeeding. Things can change as other people join the discussion, but the examples you have selected so far have major logical holes in them. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, but "Sugar Maple" is not a term applied to several species in English, so that point has a logical hole in it also. Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Does anybody actually call this ze mays? The most common names I see for this plant are corn and maize, and both far surpass the scientific name in usage. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Zea mays, as in the scientific name, friend. It already links to this page if you type it in. Does anyone call the Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum? But that's the page name. Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Logically invalid example. In California where I live, that tree is also called the "giant redwood" and "Sierra redwood". Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and "Maize" is also called "corn." This is exactly the point being made. Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It is all about consensus and you do not have it yet. In California where I live and where the two main types of redwood trees flourish, we have several common names for them. There is only one common name for maize in California, and that is corn, although educated people are well aware that maize is a synonym. If you want to gain consensus, you must be more persuasive. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has been exhaustively discussed and rejected repeatedly, and should not have been started all over again. The article explains very clearly why. Maize is the internationally used name; it is a shame that the general term for grains, "corn", has via the obsolete names "Indian corn" and "Turkey corn" been co-opted in the US to mean maize; in other countries "corn" means wheat, or sometimes oats or other grains. Please see the many old discussion threads above on this page: a move to "corn" here is a non-starter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Chiswick Chap, this discussion is not about moving the article to "corn". That being said, it is by no means a "shame" that the largest predominantly English speaking country by far uses "corn". That crop has been cultivated in what is now the United States for over 4000 years, has been literally worshipped by many Native American cultures, even until today, and Native Americans universally call it "corn" when speaking in English. I have no problem with "maize" as the worldwide term, but please do not disrespect the common usage by hundreds of millions of English speakers living where the crop has been grown for millenia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. But the rest of your post wasn't at all my point; the pity is simply etymological as a cause of confusion. As for the worship, that was for a plant with a name close to "maize" in their languages. And see my note below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• A move to “corn” isn’t what was proposed. Not entirely sure what you’re saying. I’m proposing a switch to the scientific name, not to “corn.” To my knowledge, this hasn’t been voted on yet. Indefatigable2 ^talk 07:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  That too should be vigorously opposed; Wikipedia policy states quite clearly that the WP:COMMONNAME is preferred; and the common name for this species is maize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chiswick Chap and others. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chiswick Chap and others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per everybody. 162 etc. (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

There is NO mention of the spread of, nor the existence of, maize through what is now Northern Mexico and then into North America. 2601:244:4601:BA50:2CC2:8250:4783:1309 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. We can only go on what the sources cited say. The spread that is well-documented is from the Americas to Europe. The lateral spread, as it were, is a lot more obscure, as is its timing and extent. As far as any edit request goes, the idea is to propose an exact new wording, supported by an exact new source (or sources), so that the intended change is unambiguous. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)