![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says "also known as corn (American English)" can that please be changed to also include Australian and New Zealand English as well. Proof. 101.100.128.116 ( talk) 22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There's some revolution going on in the field of maize breeding because of the discovery of a lineage of maize from the Mixes District of Oaxaca in southern Mexico. The plant grows aerial roots (not uncommon) which produce a mucus that harbour nitrogen-fixing bacteria. This boosts the nitrogen availability and opens new territory by growing maize on soils that were previously known to be too poor in nitrogen.
Reference article: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1133:B600:A093:E350:CD16:1301 ( talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
"Maize flour could not be substituted for wheat for communion bread, since in Christian belief only wheat could undergo transubstantiation and be transformed into the body of Christ."
This sentence is irrelevant and should be removed. CharleyEarp ( talk) 01:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean come on.
The vast majority of people refer to the plant described in this article as corn, not maize. "Google Trends comparison 'corn' vs 'maize'". Google Trends. Retrieved 2020-09-08. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not since some genius thought it would be a good idea to name the Wikipedia article on corn "maize."
Real talk: when was the last time you've heard someone call corn maize? That's right never cause nobody calls it that. There are some cases in which it is reasonable and expected for a Wikipedia article to use an object's uncommon name. This is not such a case. Maize is not corn's scientific name. It is not a name used to refer to multiple types of the same species of which corn is the most well-known. It is just another name for corn that literally no one uses.
I can guarantee you, promise you, that the only reason why this article is called "Maize" instead of "Corn" is because the Wikipedia circlejerk hivemind insists on being Anglo-centric for literally no reason. Why? What is the purpose of that? So the rest of us need to pretend that corn is called maize just because 0.73% of the world's population calls it maize? What kind of stupid logic is that?
There is no reason for this article to be called "Maize." It should be immediately moved to "Corn." Cc330162 ( talk) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
editeur24 ( talk) 04:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Please read the summary of arguments at the top of this talk page. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Nutritional value table pls change "Cystine" (not an amino acid) to "Cysteine" (the amino acid). Thx 220.235.97.3 ( talk) 06:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I am an American who has lived in the UK (England) for several years and I have never in my life heard the word "maize" used in conversation. In the US it is simply "corn", while in the UK it's usually "sweet corn". I am genuinely interested if *anyone* uses the word "maize". What do people from Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, and India typically call corn/maize?
I know that this has been discussed before, but I want to consider this situation reasonably. I don't want to be that "my English is the only correct English" type of person, but if *nobody* uses the name "maize", that should be grounds for changing the article name. I understand that maize is indeed the formal (though not scientific) name, but Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of using the most common rather than the formal name. (Besides, the reason given was that "corn" can refer to other grains, but that point is moot if "corn" is also the international standard name of what is also called maize, in modern english) Topotrivl ( talk) 21:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please read the summary of arguments at the top of this talk page. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410e:8156:7c62:87ed:987b:3176 ( talk) 04:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to turn the countries in the list of top maize producers into links to the pages about those countries. Mapufacturer ( talk) 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods#Fresh/dry_comparisons regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE ( talk) 12:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the photo caption that reads “ Ancient Mesoamerican engraving, National Museum of Anthropology of Mexico.” the word “engraving” should be changed to “relief”. Engravings are cut into metallic or similar materials while reliefs are made by chiseling into stone which is clearly the case here. Wiki articles on the two terms are very clear. 24.233.118.98 ( talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Done - corrected, with thanks.
Zefr (
talk)
16:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In the Genetics section, the first bullet point type, Flour corn, has no link. However, there is a page /info/en/?search=Flour_corn to which it could be referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.210.224.199 ( talk) 16:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It is called corn in majority of places so it should be moved to corn. FizzoXD ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about the title of this article (maize vs. corn), being restated.The move discussions are also listed there, so really, the information you are asking for already takes up over half of the talk page header and should be pretty apparent already. KoA ( talk) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I see the note at the top of the page, I have read the archives.
Corn less precise of a term than maize, this is correct, but this is not the most important metric for deciding an article's name. This is entirely an argument about WP:COMMONNAME. WP:ENGVAR seems to favor corn by every metric, article is in American English and corn is much more relevant to North Americans than it is to the br*tish. It is true that WP:COMMONNAME says that a precise title is good but WP:COMMONNAME it is also literally also called "COMMONNAME" so the fact that corn is a better common name seems to hold more weight than me than the fact that there is such thing as a peppercorn. I doubt anyone would be confused by the title "Corn". in the UK they are familiar with things like Sweet corn and Pop corn so I doubt this articles contents under the name "Corn" would be shocking to a br*tish person. The term Corn devoid of a specifier like "pepper or barley" doesn't seem like a common way to refer to something other than Corn in any variety of modern English. While less precise than "Maize" "Corn" is not an imprecise term like "energy" or "Bothell".
Please don't respond saying "this subject has been talked about look in the archives", what the archives say is "this subject has been talked about look in the archives",
I understand bringing this up is lame but like, I don't care.
this argument was brought up 6 months ago but it will also be brought up in 6 months so you might as well just respond now.
also please please please don't respond "this has been talked about" because it does not seem like there was a very good concencous, many replies were about how the Move was improperly conducted.
I will actually cry if you respond "this subject has been talked about look in the archives" Always beleive in hope ( talk) 06:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Always believe in hope
okay but actually can we get the ball rolling on the corn thing again? ENGVAR COMMONNAME all that. I feel like since the last consensus 7 years ago it has become much more clear on other articles that ENGVAR and COMMONNAME are the most important rules for naming. Corn sometimes meaning something else in England? Maize being a more professional term? Moot. the colouial North American, Australian and New Zealand term recognizable to people in areas with more corn consumption in the article written in American English is clearly the proper term. I have no idea why everyone is so resistant to the names change, maize is confusing to many people, corn is confusing to less people. Always beleive in hope ( talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ethanol is mentioned twice within 2-3 sentences in the intro. The 2nd occurrence should be deleted, and 'other biofuels' moved to the first occurrence. God knows why this page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.173 ( talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. I suggest trying a different form of discussion to reach a consensus to move or not move, though I don't have a particular method that might work better. UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Maize → Corn – The WP:COMMONNAME of this plant is "corn". It has been this way throughout the entire NGRAMS corpus, including when limited only to British English and separately when limited only to American English. (The article, according to the talk page, is written in American English).
Previous arguments have incorrectly assumed that British publications do not frequently use "corn" to refer to the plant (or alternatively, the plant when in a field), but mainstream publications in the United Kingdom like The Guardian regularly refer to the plant as "corn" without any reference to "maize" ( [2] [3] [4] [5]) and the BBC refers to fields of this crop as "corn fields".
The proposed title currently redirects here and the plant referred to herein is the WP:PTOPIC for the term "Corn", so usurping the redirect poses no challenge.
For these reasons, the title of this article should be moved to "Corn", which is this crop's WP:COMMONNAME. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME that resulted in– fixed that for you. No such user ( talk) 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)consensusno consensus in three previous closes was maize not corn
what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] cropunder the title "corn". No such user ( talk) 07:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The word maize derives from the Spanish form of the indigenous Taíno word for the plant, mahiz. [1] Using the maize common name, Linnaeus included it as the species epithet in Zea mays. [2] It is known by other names including "corn" in some English speaking countries. [3]
Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage as a common name because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region. [4] International groups such as the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International also consider maize the preferred common name. [5] According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the world calls this maize or maíz [6]The word maize is considered interchangeable with corn in the West; during early British and American trade, all grains were considered corn. Maize retained the name corn in the West as the primary grain in these trade relationships. [2]
The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is synonymous with grain referring to any cereal crop with its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple. [7] [4] In the United States, [7] Canada, [8] Australia, and New Zealand, [9] corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". [7] "Indian corn" primarily means maize (the staple grain of indigenous Americans), but can refer more specifically to multicolored " flint corn" used for decoration. [10] Other common names include barajovar, makka, silk maize, and zea. [11]
In a 1999 journal article, Betty Fussell describing calling maize corn was "to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history." Similar to the British, the Spanish referred to maize as panizo, a generic term for cereal grains, as did Italians with the term polenta. The British later referred to maize as Turkey wheat, Turkey corn, or Indian corn with Fusell commenting that "they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain", especially with Turkish people later naming it kukuruz, or barbaric. [12]
Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa. . .Those supporting changing the title to corn are in direct violation of that policy. That is usually one of the most frequent complaints because a subset of editors are used to the term corn in their respective areas if someone mistakenly tries to pin it as just an British vs. American thing. In the end we are bound by sources here.
it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region.. Again, full stop, the article already calls that sources say what the best common name is, not anonymous editors. That speaks to WP:COMMONNAME in that WP:PRECISION is the key issue in this topic. Generally WP:SCIRS sources are going to be higher quality than newspapers or media websites, and we don't have any equivalent or better sources saying corn is instead preferred. It also doesn't limit itself to just niche uses of formal name or scientific uses. It just says universal use.
The word "maize" is preferred in international usage because in many countries the term "corn", the name by which the plant is known in the United States, is synonymous with the leading cereal grain; thus, in England "corn" refers to wheat, and in Scotland and Ireland it refers to oats.[4] The issue has never been that corn is used more or less than maize. There was a time that this was called Indian corn, which differentiates itself from other corns mentioned above. That would be similar to how Association football is handled, except that Indian becomes ambiguous here too, so that really isn't an option. Corn really can't ever get consensus as a common name because sources are pretty explicit that there is a better name and corn is too ambiguous. In the end, even in the US, Australia, and other frequented mentioned "corn" countries, maize is still a recognized synonym, contrary to repeated claims in all the previous RMs. This usually is taught in school, especially if someone grows up farming, but if someone is that much out of the loop or just doesn't remember, corn will still lead them to the maize page without any real issue. There is no technical reason even for corn to supersede the common name of the plant either. Even the third RM close was explicit that there was consensus that
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts[6] That corn gets use frequently in countries (even using Google search results) has been constantly weighed as not an overriding factor for COMMONNAME in each close so far, and nothing new has been presented as of this post that would change consensus. Even if there was something new, WP:FLORA still cautions against that metric. In practice, WP:FLORACOMMONNAME means taking the name that is used universally, either a vernacular name, or more commonly, the species Latin name.
Despite the fact that "corn" has an older, non-maize meaning, and that people refer to it as corn, many of the arguments made in support are superfluous: there's the "Google" argument, there's the geographic argument (it's mainly the United States and others that call it this) - except that it's not encyclopedic, there's the majority of people do it argument: I think the total numbers cited are 2:1 in favor of "corn", but so what? Most of all, there's no effort to build consensus; this is an extensive set of arguments that seem written to browbeat others into submission. Lastly, I'm finding this discussion to change the page title to be disruptive - even though consensus can change, I'm not seeing that and haven't seen it. It seems instead to be one person's mission to make this change, never mind that it's been 4 years and consensus isn't changing. If anything, this repeated argument is preventing time and energy that could be devoted to making the article better is spent doing this - preventing a perfectly good article name from being changed. . .
The article's title has been stable for several years, even though this controversial issue has previously been frequently and heavily debated during that time, with no sufficient consensus yet to change it. Also, the third paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME outlines important exceptions such as "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable source". And "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". As stated in previous discussions, "corn" is a generic term in various English-speaking countries to refer to any cereal crop besides maize. Thus, it is not really a suitable precise enough title. Since various biological sources use "maize", it seems to be more common across multiple varieties of English.
The danger of astonishment for us Americans who call it "corn" seems exaggerated, as we generally learn the word "maize" in elementary school when we study Native Americans and Thanksgiving. If you search "maize" and "first thanksgiving" on Google Books, you get many children's books from U.S. publishers, so the word is hardly esoteric. "Maize" makes regular appearances in American popular culture, from the old Mazola margarine ads, [7] to homespun puns on "a-maize-ing" corn products or activities. [8] Increasing Spanish-English bilingualism in the U.S. also contributes to familiarity. Though used less often, "maize" is not alien to Americans. A move should yield a greater benefit, and I don't see one here, as "maize" offers encyclopedic precision and more educational value as a title.
References
The word "maize" is preferred in international usage because in many countries the term "corn", the name by which the plant is known in the United States, is synonymous with the leading cereal grain; thus, in England "corn" refers to wheat, and in Scotland and Ireland it refers to oats.
To say the word "corn" is to plunge into the tragi-farcical mistranslations of language and history. If only the British had followed Columbus in phoneticizing the Taino word mahiz, which the Arawaks named their staple grain, we wouldn't be in the same linguistic pickle we're in today, where I have to explain to someone every year that when Biblical Ruth "stood in tears amid the alien corn" she was standing in a wheat field. But it was a near thing even with the Spaniards, when we read in Columbus' Journals that the grain "which the Indians called maiz... the Spanish called panizo.' The Spanish term was generic for the cereal grains they knew - wheat, millet, barley, oats - as was the Italian term polenta, from Latin pub. As was the English term "corn," which covered grains of all kinds, including grains of salt, as in "corned beef.
French linguistic imperialism, by way of a Parisian botanist in 1536, provided the term Turcicum frumentum, which the British quickly translated into "Turkey wheat," "Turkey corn," and "Indian corn." By Turkey or Indian, they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain, with which the Turks concurred, calling it kukuruz, meaning barbaric.
what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] cropunder the title "corn". A simple piece of evidence is that corn redirects here.
The six major types of maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn.[6] Sugar-rich varieties called sweet corn are usually grown for human consumption as kernels, while field corn varieties are used for animal feed, various corn-based human food uses (including grinding into cornmeal or masa, pressing into corn oil. No such user ( talk) 08:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term.. The current setup is merely following that policy because corn is a significant, low much more ambiguous, alternative title.
Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage.As Peter Coxhead mentioned earlier:
In the UK, we distinguish "maize" from the generic "corn" by using terms like "corn on the cob" for the fresh product, "sweetcorn" for the tinned kernels, or "popcorn" for the snack eaten particularly in cinemas.Corn is used when there is a qualifier to make it additionally clear what is being specifically talked about. If it's just generic corn, the ambiguity question comes back into play, which is where maize is used instead.
The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources.Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience and why, supports don't have anything like that for corn, so it's sources vs. editor personal opinion. There's no way to make corn jump the queue of maize and Zea mays followed by corn without extreme evidence to circumvent policies and guidelines. It would take a lot to get corn past maize without ignoring sourced content (most of these conversations so far), but even more to get it past the species name, of which next to nothing has been offered for the latter. When you have one good common name and a scientific name, an additional problematic common name in corn due to it's confusion with other crop products (again, sourced), it isn't something you can force through so easily. If it were just another common name on equal grounds with maize in terms of WP:PRECISION (again, a main focus for FLORA articles), we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
if there is strong consensus for it., remember that it's those who actually examine the entirety of policies and guidelines and weigh them that are supposed to have WP:CONSENSUS. WP:!VOTE is a thing because consensus is not the number of people who make often repeated superficial assertions on this page that don't actually address the relevant subject matter. It's instead what best reflects policy and guideline. In your !vote for example, you don't offer concrete reasoning, just hand-waving about Britannica, which doesn't even address the topic of names at all outside of a standard list of names, unlike sources for maize. Instead, it's just assertions that corn is the COMMONNAME, which ends up violating that very policy if followed through on. Among other comments, there's not even substantive comments on one of the last closes
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts.You need to juggle all of that in addition to many of the other name issues brought up here to get anywhere close to true consensus. This is a recurring problem between oppose votes that tend delve into policy and guidelines, and supports that only superficially address them at best here (and many previous RMs).
that would be akin to proposing a replacement of the header " Potato" with " Solanum tuberosum. . ., that is exactly what we would do per in terms of WP:FLORA if there wasn't a universal sourced common name like we currently have with maize. If it wasn't for that, it would just be dueling random sources with some happening to use maize, some corn (like your example with Britanica), without any explanation as to why a certain term is used. Then we'd just follow the guideline and related policy that would land us on the scientific name. KoA ( talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience"is naturally at the heart of this discussion and will be hopefully further explored in the coming days.
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names", since there is no doubt that the vernacular name " maize" (pronounced the same as " maze"), which is alternatively used to describe corn, is indeed disputed, and if the scientific name will split the difference for both sides, I would support the replacement of this article's main header " Maize" with " Zea mays", although my primary choice for the header, awaiting consensus, remains " Corn". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
since there is no doubt that the vernacular name " maize" (pronounced the same as " maze"), which is alternatively used to describe corn, is indeed disputedis another WP:OR violation. Sources do not mention any real dispute with the term maize being used (though for corn, yes). The only disputes mentioned are sometimes how/where exactly the term maize originated prior to corn being a thing. KoA ( talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names". The names "maize" and "corn", both of which are widely used throughout the world, are not themselves in dispute, but the putative primacy of "Maize" over "Corn" as this article's main title header is directly in dispute as is the contention that "Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience", which is obviously not accepted by a substantial number of "support" voters in this RM. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how many "supports" there are, it's still anonymous editors directly disagreeing with published reliable sources without equivalent onesruns directly counter to Wikipedia's basic principles. As for "anonymous editors", I have been editing under my name since my first edit in January 2006 and have published my photograph as well as my IMDb link on my user page.
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names", if such extremely WP:COMMONNAME naming disputes as " maize" versus " corn" cannot be considered as a "disputed vernacular name" then I cannot see how any English vernacular names within this specific area of discussion can be considered as "disputed". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history."Anyone closing this really should read that part of the article so that the RM do not conflict with sourced content. KoA ( talk) 15:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Maize is essentially not recognizableis entirely unsourced, while we have sources in this very article saying the terms are interchangeable. Even commodity groups in the US straight up say it is known as maize in much of the world, [9] and higher quality sources that actually address usage (rather than just random newspaper links) say
While the United States and a few other English-speaking countries use the word “corn” . . ., the rest of the world refers to this crop as “maize” or maíz. . .[10]
it is known as sweet corn, corn on the cob etc.The additional qualifiers argument has been addressed repeatedly. Maize is distinguished from generic corns by the addition of sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. to the name. It's only with qualifiers that corn becomes less ambiguous, which is why maize is used instead. WP:TITLECHANGES specifically cautions against these types of arguments as mentioned earlier in a reply that basically covers most of this repeat !vote response already.
Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage.
Dohn joe ( talk) 20:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.Academic sources are generally considered our highest tier sources, especially when lay sources are loose with language, we usually check the academic sources to see what is preferred. To use your language, focusing on that like you did is a bit of a red herring from what's actually going on. We have sources directly telling us what language to use and why. None of the lower quality sources are mentioning anything of the sort, so we don't even have to worry about whether something is academic or not. There's a very clear dichotomy between supports here randomly picking sources and saying "Look! This one uses corn." vs. the opposes using sources actually discussing the use of the terminology (along with cases of random usage). We do have to respect the immense WP:WEIGHT of sources pushing back against corn while potential anti-maize sources remain silent. KoA ( talk) 21:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
this article is written in American English. Yes, that is why the article is maize. We use the term maize in the US in addition to corn, so that is why there isn't a contradiction between the template on American English.
Secondly, when people are arguing that "corn" is ambiguous, that's an extremely illogical argument.As already covered, this is a WP:OR violation.
You cannot accept corn as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Already addressed ad nauseum above re: DAB issues.
Our policy on common names all but dictates this title.Which would violate WP:COMMONNAME ironically.
it's also more WP:CONCISE. That's called slinging mud at the wall and trying to see what sticks. A four letter word vs. a five letter word is not a real difference and just tendentious arguments at that point that ignores what WP:CONCISE says KoA ( talk) 00:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable. . .. I haven't seen any sources saying maize is unrecognizable or really any additions to that point since the last RM. We go by what overall international usage is, not just what the US does. Someone satisfying that quote would at least have some traction for moving the article from maize towards the scientific name though. KoA ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic from content, accusing KoA of
WP:BLUDGEONING.
|
---|
|
I missed the move discussion but looking over it I’m pretty confused. By my count it was 12 support to 8 oppose which is 60% 40%. Though my count might be off because the discussion is a mess to look at because of one very passionate editor responding in essay format to every single support vote and trying and being overall aggressive (WP:SNOW clearly doesn’t apply). I’m curious why 12 to 8 isn’t good enough for a move? Was one editor able to prevent a move by being so toxic that a real discussion was impossible? I’m genuinely asking what the requirements for consensus are and how we can work to have a better discussions in the future
(Also sorry I’m signed out this isn’t my computer) 97.113.60.164 ( talk) 00:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Solves all issues Maracta ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad that the "should the title of this article be Corn or Maize?" question is, overall, of extremely little consequence, because that means nobody's suffering from how "Maize" is clearly, blatantly, by every measure, the wrong answer. It's so wrong. Corn is the term people use and look for, and Wikipedia institutionally sneering "oh you mean MAIZE" every time someone looks up Corn is like seeing a smear of dung on white cloth. Krinn DNZ ( talk) 05:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
"The six major types of maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn". TanookiKoopa ( talk) 01:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow! Would you look at that! When you search corn on Wikimedia Commons, the results are corn! No wheat in sight! I wonder why that could be... Silent-Rains ( talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It's bizarre that the opening paragraph claims "corn" is only American and Australian. I'm British and I've never heard anyone call it "maize", except on American TV shows. -- Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 15:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should clearly state where, if someone is looking at a corn on the cob, is going to call it maize. The English-speaking places that call corn corn are explicitly noted, but there seems to be a bit of hand waving concerning maize.
Part of the Names section currently reads:
According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the world calls this maize or maíz. (Ref: Espinoza, Mauricio.
"'All Corn Is the Same,' and Other Foolishness about America's King of Crops". Ohio State University: College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Retrieved 21 September 2022.)
I could've just deleted it as nonsense, but it's such a good illustration of the obtuseness of ivory-tower academics locked in their offices and the insecurities of some who would blindly reprint something so easily disproved. A cursory glance at the Wikipedia article titles in other languages against the list of languages by total number of speakers shows that only four of the top 25 languages in the world commonly use a cognate of maize: Spanish, French, German and Tagalog. And as discussants have noted above, maize is pretty uncommon in the English-speaking world as well. What is this "rest of the world" the author is referring to? — AjaxSmack 07:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The context is pretty clear that we're talking about English usage. Once you say, as an already English-focused source for an English audience, that you're talking about English-speaking countries, it's pretty clear they're talking about the rest of the English speaking world in terms of WP:RSCONTEXT. Normally when someone lists names for a certain audience, you aren't going to rattle off all the other names in other languages, or constantly say English-speaking, English-speaking in front of every word. Sources generally define their scope in some fashion like this one. Would adding somethingWhile the United States and a few other English-speaking countries use the word “corn” (from the Proto-Germanic kurnam, meaning “small seed”), the rest of the world refers to this crop as “maize” or maíz — which comes from the Taíno (a Caribbean indigenous culture) word mahiz.
, but use of the word maize or maiz is widespread elsewherebe a better paraphrase of the text in your mind? KoA ( talk) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
"The use of the word "corn" for what is termed "maize" by most other countries is peculiar to the United States. Europeans who were accustomed to the names "wheat corn," "barley corn," and "rye corn" for other small-seeded cereal grains referred to the unique American grain maize as "Indian corn." The term was shortened to just "corn," which has become the American word for the plant of American genesis."
As part of the name section, we had this source until I just removed it. [1] It was used to say corn is used as the name in New Zealand, but instead the article actually primarily uses maize instead and never mentions corn as a singular word, only when there's additional specification on varieties like sweet corn, etc.
That's a pretty typical way of describing things in sources, so I'm guessing it was someone confusing the use of corn alone vs. things like sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. as meaning that country uses the term corn for maize. It at least didn't support what it was used for in text, and it doesn't really have a good home right now, but it is a good review of the origins of the crop in New Zealand. Just leaving it here in case it catches anyone's interest for content to flesh out. Could be a good addition for getting things to GA status. KoA ( talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says "also known as corn (American English)" can that please be changed to also include Australian and New Zealand English as well. Proof. 101.100.128.116 ( talk) 22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There's some revolution going on in the field of maize breeding because of the discovery of a lineage of maize from the Mixes District of Oaxaca in southern Mexico. The plant grows aerial roots (not uncommon) which produce a mucus that harbour nitrogen-fixing bacteria. This boosts the nitrogen availability and opens new territory by growing maize on soils that were previously known to be too poor in nitrogen.
Reference article: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1133:B600:A093:E350:CD16:1301 ( talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
"Maize flour could not be substituted for wheat for communion bread, since in Christian belief only wheat could undergo transubstantiation and be transformed into the body of Christ."
This sentence is irrelevant and should be removed. CharleyEarp ( talk) 01:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean come on.
The vast majority of people refer to the plant described in this article as corn, not maize. "Google Trends comparison 'corn' vs 'maize'". Google Trends. Retrieved 2020-09-08. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not since some genius thought it would be a good idea to name the Wikipedia article on corn "maize."
Real talk: when was the last time you've heard someone call corn maize? That's right never cause nobody calls it that. There are some cases in which it is reasonable and expected for a Wikipedia article to use an object's uncommon name. This is not such a case. Maize is not corn's scientific name. It is not a name used to refer to multiple types of the same species of which corn is the most well-known. It is just another name for corn that literally no one uses.
I can guarantee you, promise you, that the only reason why this article is called "Maize" instead of "Corn" is because the Wikipedia circlejerk hivemind insists on being Anglo-centric for literally no reason. Why? What is the purpose of that? So the rest of us need to pretend that corn is called maize just because 0.73% of the world's population calls it maize? What kind of stupid logic is that?
There is no reason for this article to be called "Maize." It should be immediately moved to "Corn." Cc330162 ( talk) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
editeur24 ( talk) 04:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Please read the summary of arguments at the top of this talk page. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Nutritional value table pls change "Cystine" (not an amino acid) to "Cysteine" (the amino acid). Thx 220.235.97.3 ( talk) 06:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I am an American who has lived in the UK (England) for several years and I have never in my life heard the word "maize" used in conversation. In the US it is simply "corn", while in the UK it's usually "sweet corn". I am genuinely interested if *anyone* uses the word "maize". What do people from Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, and India typically call corn/maize?
I know that this has been discussed before, but I want to consider this situation reasonably. I don't want to be that "my English is the only correct English" type of person, but if *nobody* uses the name "maize", that should be grounds for changing the article name. I understand that maize is indeed the formal (though not scientific) name, but Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of using the most common rather than the formal name. (Besides, the reason given was that "corn" can refer to other grains, but that point is moot if "corn" is also the international standard name of what is also called maize, in modern english) Topotrivl ( talk) 21:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please read the summary of arguments at the top of this talk page. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410e:8156:7c62:87ed:987b:3176 ( talk) 04:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to turn the countries in the list of top maize producers into links to the pages about those countries. Mapufacturer ( talk) 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods#Fresh/dry_comparisons regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE ( talk) 12:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Maize has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the photo caption that reads “ Ancient Mesoamerican engraving, National Museum of Anthropology of Mexico.” the word “engraving” should be changed to “relief”. Engravings are cut into metallic or similar materials while reliefs are made by chiseling into stone which is clearly the case here. Wiki articles on the two terms are very clear. 24.233.118.98 ( talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Done - corrected, with thanks.
Zefr (
talk)
16:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In the Genetics section, the first bullet point type, Flour corn, has no link. However, there is a page /info/en/?search=Flour_corn to which it could be referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.210.224.199 ( talk) 16:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It is called corn in majority of places so it should be moved to corn. FizzoXD ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about the title of this article (maize vs. corn), being restated.The move discussions are also listed there, so really, the information you are asking for already takes up over half of the talk page header and should be pretty apparent already. KoA ( talk) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I see the note at the top of the page, I have read the archives.
Corn less precise of a term than maize, this is correct, but this is not the most important metric for deciding an article's name. This is entirely an argument about WP:COMMONNAME. WP:ENGVAR seems to favor corn by every metric, article is in American English and corn is much more relevant to North Americans than it is to the br*tish. It is true that WP:COMMONNAME says that a precise title is good but WP:COMMONNAME it is also literally also called "COMMONNAME" so the fact that corn is a better common name seems to hold more weight than me than the fact that there is such thing as a peppercorn. I doubt anyone would be confused by the title "Corn". in the UK they are familiar with things like Sweet corn and Pop corn so I doubt this articles contents under the name "Corn" would be shocking to a br*tish person. The term Corn devoid of a specifier like "pepper or barley" doesn't seem like a common way to refer to something other than Corn in any variety of modern English. While less precise than "Maize" "Corn" is not an imprecise term like "energy" or "Bothell".
Please don't respond saying "this subject has been talked about look in the archives", what the archives say is "this subject has been talked about look in the archives",
I understand bringing this up is lame but like, I don't care.
this argument was brought up 6 months ago but it will also be brought up in 6 months so you might as well just respond now.
also please please please don't respond "this has been talked about" because it does not seem like there was a very good concencous, many replies were about how the Move was improperly conducted.
I will actually cry if you respond "this subject has been talked about look in the archives" Always beleive in hope ( talk) 06:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Always believe in hope
okay but actually can we get the ball rolling on the corn thing again? ENGVAR COMMONNAME all that. I feel like since the last consensus 7 years ago it has become much more clear on other articles that ENGVAR and COMMONNAME are the most important rules for naming. Corn sometimes meaning something else in England? Maize being a more professional term? Moot. the colouial North American, Australian and New Zealand term recognizable to people in areas with more corn consumption in the article written in American English is clearly the proper term. I have no idea why everyone is so resistant to the names change, maize is confusing to many people, corn is confusing to less people. Always beleive in hope ( talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ethanol is mentioned twice within 2-3 sentences in the intro. The 2nd occurrence should be deleted, and 'other biofuels' moved to the first occurrence. God knows why this page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.173 ( talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. I suggest trying a different form of discussion to reach a consensus to move or not move, though I don't have a particular method that might work better. UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Maize → Corn – The WP:COMMONNAME of this plant is "corn". It has been this way throughout the entire NGRAMS corpus, including when limited only to British English and separately when limited only to American English. (The article, according to the talk page, is written in American English).
Previous arguments have incorrectly assumed that British publications do not frequently use "corn" to refer to the plant (or alternatively, the plant when in a field), but mainstream publications in the United Kingdom like The Guardian regularly refer to the plant as "corn" without any reference to "maize" ( [2] [3] [4] [5]) and the BBC refers to fields of this crop as "corn fields".
The proposed title currently redirects here and the plant referred to herein is the WP:PTOPIC for the term "Corn", so usurping the redirect poses no challenge.
For these reasons, the title of this article should be moved to "Corn", which is this crop's WP:COMMONNAME. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME that resulted in– fixed that for you. No such user ( talk) 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)consensusno consensus in three previous closes was maize not corn
what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] cropunder the title "corn". No such user ( talk) 07:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The word maize derives from the Spanish form of the indigenous Taíno word for the plant, mahiz. [1] Using the maize common name, Linnaeus included it as the species epithet in Zea mays. [2] It is known by other names including "corn" in some English speaking countries. [3]
Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage as a common name because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region. [4] International groups such as the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International also consider maize the preferred common name. [5] According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the world calls this maize or maíz [6]The word maize is considered interchangeable with corn in the West; during early British and American trade, all grains were considered corn. Maize retained the name corn in the West as the primary grain in these trade relationships. [2]
The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is synonymous with grain referring to any cereal crop with its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple. [7] [4] In the United States, [7] Canada, [8] Australia, and New Zealand, [9] corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". [7] "Indian corn" primarily means maize (the staple grain of indigenous Americans), but can refer more specifically to multicolored " flint corn" used for decoration. [10] Other common names include barajovar, makka, silk maize, and zea. [11]
In a 1999 journal article, Betty Fussell describing calling maize corn was "to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history." Similar to the British, the Spanish referred to maize as panizo, a generic term for cereal grains, as did Italians with the term polenta. The British later referred to maize as Turkey wheat, Turkey corn, or Indian corn with Fusell commenting that "they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain", especially with Turkish people later naming it kukuruz, or barbaric. [12]
Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa. . .Those supporting changing the title to corn are in direct violation of that policy. That is usually one of the most frequent complaints because a subset of editors are used to the term corn in their respective areas if someone mistakenly tries to pin it as just an British vs. American thing. In the end we are bound by sources here.
it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region.. Again, full stop, the article already calls that sources say what the best common name is, not anonymous editors. That speaks to WP:COMMONNAME in that WP:PRECISION is the key issue in this topic. Generally WP:SCIRS sources are going to be higher quality than newspapers or media websites, and we don't have any equivalent or better sources saying corn is instead preferred. It also doesn't limit itself to just niche uses of formal name or scientific uses. It just says universal use.
The word "maize" is preferred in international usage because in many countries the term "corn", the name by which the plant is known in the United States, is synonymous with the leading cereal grain; thus, in England "corn" refers to wheat, and in Scotland and Ireland it refers to oats.[4] The issue has never been that corn is used more or less than maize. There was a time that this was called Indian corn, which differentiates itself from other corns mentioned above. That would be similar to how Association football is handled, except that Indian becomes ambiguous here too, so that really isn't an option. Corn really can't ever get consensus as a common name because sources are pretty explicit that there is a better name and corn is too ambiguous. In the end, even in the US, Australia, and other frequented mentioned "corn" countries, maize is still a recognized synonym, contrary to repeated claims in all the previous RMs. This usually is taught in school, especially if someone grows up farming, but if someone is that much out of the loop or just doesn't remember, corn will still lead them to the maize page without any real issue. There is no technical reason even for corn to supersede the common name of the plant either. Even the third RM close was explicit that there was consensus that
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts[6] That corn gets use frequently in countries (even using Google search results) has been constantly weighed as not an overriding factor for COMMONNAME in each close so far, and nothing new has been presented as of this post that would change consensus. Even if there was something new, WP:FLORA still cautions against that metric. In practice, WP:FLORACOMMONNAME means taking the name that is used universally, either a vernacular name, or more commonly, the species Latin name.
Despite the fact that "corn" has an older, non-maize meaning, and that people refer to it as corn, many of the arguments made in support are superfluous: there's the "Google" argument, there's the geographic argument (it's mainly the United States and others that call it this) - except that it's not encyclopedic, there's the majority of people do it argument: I think the total numbers cited are 2:1 in favor of "corn", but so what? Most of all, there's no effort to build consensus; this is an extensive set of arguments that seem written to browbeat others into submission. Lastly, I'm finding this discussion to change the page title to be disruptive - even though consensus can change, I'm not seeing that and haven't seen it. It seems instead to be one person's mission to make this change, never mind that it's been 4 years and consensus isn't changing. If anything, this repeated argument is preventing time and energy that could be devoted to making the article better is spent doing this - preventing a perfectly good article name from being changed. . .
The article's title has been stable for several years, even though this controversial issue has previously been frequently and heavily debated during that time, with no sufficient consensus yet to change it. Also, the third paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME outlines important exceptions such as "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable source". And "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". As stated in previous discussions, "corn" is a generic term in various English-speaking countries to refer to any cereal crop besides maize. Thus, it is not really a suitable precise enough title. Since various biological sources use "maize", it seems to be more common across multiple varieties of English.
The danger of astonishment for us Americans who call it "corn" seems exaggerated, as we generally learn the word "maize" in elementary school when we study Native Americans and Thanksgiving. If you search "maize" and "first thanksgiving" on Google Books, you get many children's books from U.S. publishers, so the word is hardly esoteric. "Maize" makes regular appearances in American popular culture, from the old Mazola margarine ads, [7] to homespun puns on "a-maize-ing" corn products or activities. [8] Increasing Spanish-English bilingualism in the U.S. also contributes to familiarity. Though used less often, "maize" is not alien to Americans. A move should yield a greater benefit, and I don't see one here, as "maize" offers encyclopedic precision and more educational value as a title.
References
The word "maize" is preferred in international usage because in many countries the term "corn", the name by which the plant is known in the United States, is synonymous with the leading cereal grain; thus, in England "corn" refers to wheat, and in Scotland and Ireland it refers to oats.
To say the word "corn" is to plunge into the tragi-farcical mistranslations of language and history. If only the British had followed Columbus in phoneticizing the Taino word mahiz, which the Arawaks named their staple grain, we wouldn't be in the same linguistic pickle we're in today, where I have to explain to someone every year that when Biblical Ruth "stood in tears amid the alien corn" she was standing in a wheat field. But it was a near thing even with the Spaniards, when we read in Columbus' Journals that the grain "which the Indians called maiz... the Spanish called panizo.' The Spanish term was generic for the cereal grains they knew - wheat, millet, barley, oats - as was the Italian term polenta, from Latin pub. As was the English term "corn," which covered grains of all kinds, including grains of salt, as in "corned beef.
French linguistic imperialism, by way of a Parisian botanist in 1536, provided the term Turcicum frumentum, which the British quickly translated into "Turkey wheat," "Turkey corn," and "Indian corn." By Turkey or Indian, they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain, with which the Turks concurred, calling it kukuruz, meaning barbaric.
what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] cropunder the title "corn". A simple piece of evidence is that corn redirects here.
The six major types of maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn.[6] Sugar-rich varieties called sweet corn are usually grown for human consumption as kernels, while field corn varieties are used for animal feed, various corn-based human food uses (including grinding into cornmeal or masa, pressing into corn oil. No such user ( talk) 08:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term.. The current setup is merely following that policy because corn is a significant, low much more ambiguous, alternative title.
Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage.As Peter Coxhead mentioned earlier:
In the UK, we distinguish "maize" from the generic "corn" by using terms like "corn on the cob" for the fresh product, "sweetcorn" for the tinned kernels, or "popcorn" for the snack eaten particularly in cinemas.Corn is used when there is a qualifier to make it additionally clear what is being specifically talked about. If it's just generic corn, the ambiguity question comes back into play, which is where maize is used instead.
The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources.Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience and why, supports don't have anything like that for corn, so it's sources vs. editor personal opinion. There's no way to make corn jump the queue of maize and Zea mays followed by corn without extreme evidence to circumvent policies and guidelines. It would take a lot to get corn past maize without ignoring sourced content (most of these conversations so far), but even more to get it past the species name, of which next to nothing has been offered for the latter. When you have one good common name and a scientific name, an additional problematic common name in corn due to it's confusion with other crop products (again, sourced), it isn't something you can force through so easily. If it were just another common name on equal grounds with maize in terms of WP:PRECISION (again, a main focus for FLORA articles), we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
if there is strong consensus for it., remember that it's those who actually examine the entirety of policies and guidelines and weigh them that are supposed to have WP:CONSENSUS. WP:!VOTE is a thing because consensus is not the number of people who make often repeated superficial assertions on this page that don't actually address the relevant subject matter. It's instead what best reflects policy and guideline. In your !vote for example, you don't offer concrete reasoning, just hand-waving about Britannica, which doesn't even address the topic of names at all outside of a standard list of names, unlike sources for maize. Instead, it's just assertions that corn is the COMMONNAME, which ends up violating that very policy if followed through on. Among other comments, there's not even substantive comments on one of the last closes
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts.You need to juggle all of that in addition to many of the other name issues brought up here to get anywhere close to true consensus. This is a recurring problem between oppose votes that tend delve into policy and guidelines, and supports that only superficially address them at best here (and many previous RMs).
that would be akin to proposing a replacement of the header " Potato" with " Solanum tuberosum. . ., that is exactly what we would do per in terms of WP:FLORA if there wasn't a universal sourced common name like we currently have with maize. If it wasn't for that, it would just be dueling random sources with some happening to use maize, some corn (like your example with Britanica), without any explanation as to why a certain term is used. Then we'd just follow the guideline and related policy that would land us on the scientific name. KoA ( talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience"is naturally at the heart of this discussion and will be hopefully further explored in the coming days.
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names", since there is no doubt that the vernacular name " maize" (pronounced the same as " maze"), which is alternatively used to describe corn, is indeed disputed, and if the scientific name will split the difference for both sides, I would support the replacement of this article's main header " Maize" with " Zea mays", although my primary choice for the header, awaiting consensus, remains " Corn". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
since there is no doubt that the vernacular name " maize" (pronounced the same as " maze"), which is alternatively used to describe corn, is indeed disputedis another WP:OR violation. Sources do not mention any real dispute with the term maize being used (though for corn, yes). The only disputes mentioned are sometimes how/where exactly the term maize originated prior to corn being a thing. KoA ( talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names". The names "maize" and "corn", both of which are widely used throughout the world, are not themselves in dispute, but the putative primacy of "Maize" over "Corn" as this article's main title header is directly in dispute as is the contention that "Sources explicitly say to use maize for a global audience", which is obviously not accepted by a substantial number of "support" voters in this RM. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how many "supports" there are, it's still anonymous editors directly disagreeing with published reliable sources without equivalent onesruns directly counter to Wikipedia's basic principles. As for "anonymous editors", I have been editing under my name since my first edit in January 2006 and have published my photograph as well as my IMDb link on my user page.
"scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names", if such extremely WP:COMMONNAME naming disputes as " maize" versus " corn" cannot be considered as a "disputed vernacular name" then I cannot see how any English vernacular names within this specific area of discussion can be considered as "disputed". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history."Anyone closing this really should read that part of the article so that the RM do not conflict with sourced content. KoA ( talk) 15:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Maize is essentially not recognizableis entirely unsourced, while we have sources in this very article saying the terms are interchangeable. Even commodity groups in the US straight up say it is known as maize in much of the world, [9] and higher quality sources that actually address usage (rather than just random newspaper links) say
While the United States and a few other English-speaking countries use the word “corn” . . ., the rest of the world refers to this crop as “maize” or maíz. . .[10]
it is known as sweet corn, corn on the cob etc.The additional qualifiers argument has been addressed repeatedly. Maize is distinguished from generic corns by the addition of sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. to the name. It's only with qualifiers that corn becomes less ambiguous, which is why maize is used instead. WP:TITLECHANGES specifically cautions against these types of arguments as mentioned earlier in a reply that basically covers most of this repeat !vote response already.
Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage.
Dohn joe ( talk) 20:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.Academic sources are generally considered our highest tier sources, especially when lay sources are loose with language, we usually check the academic sources to see what is preferred. To use your language, focusing on that like you did is a bit of a red herring from what's actually going on. We have sources directly telling us what language to use and why. None of the lower quality sources are mentioning anything of the sort, so we don't even have to worry about whether something is academic or not. There's a very clear dichotomy between supports here randomly picking sources and saying "Look! This one uses corn." vs. the opposes using sources actually discussing the use of the terminology (along with cases of random usage). We do have to respect the immense WP:WEIGHT of sources pushing back against corn while potential anti-maize sources remain silent. KoA ( talk) 21:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
this article is written in American English. Yes, that is why the article is maize. We use the term maize in the US in addition to corn, so that is why there isn't a contradiction between the template on American English.
Secondly, when people are arguing that "corn" is ambiguous, that's an extremely illogical argument.As already covered, this is a WP:OR violation.
You cannot accept corn as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Already addressed ad nauseum above re: DAB issues.
Our policy on common names all but dictates this title.Which would violate WP:COMMONNAME ironically.
it's also more WP:CONCISE. That's called slinging mud at the wall and trying to see what sticks. A four letter word vs. a five letter word is not a real difference and just tendentious arguments at that point that ignores what WP:CONCISE says KoA ( talk) 00:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable. . .. I haven't seen any sources saying maize is unrecognizable or really any additions to that point since the last RM. We go by what overall international usage is, not just what the US does. Someone satisfying that quote would at least have some traction for moving the article from maize towards the scientific name though. KoA ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic from content, accusing KoA of
WP:BLUDGEONING.
|
---|
|
I missed the move discussion but looking over it I’m pretty confused. By my count it was 12 support to 8 oppose which is 60% 40%. Though my count might be off because the discussion is a mess to look at because of one very passionate editor responding in essay format to every single support vote and trying and being overall aggressive (WP:SNOW clearly doesn’t apply). I’m curious why 12 to 8 isn’t good enough for a move? Was one editor able to prevent a move by being so toxic that a real discussion was impossible? I’m genuinely asking what the requirements for consensus are and how we can work to have a better discussions in the future
(Also sorry I’m signed out this isn’t my computer) 97.113.60.164 ( talk) 00:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Solves all issues Maracta ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad that the "should the title of this article be Corn or Maize?" question is, overall, of extremely little consequence, because that means nobody's suffering from how "Maize" is clearly, blatantly, by every measure, the wrong answer. It's so wrong. Corn is the term people use and look for, and Wikipedia institutionally sneering "oh you mean MAIZE" every time someone looks up Corn is like seeing a smear of dung on white cloth. Krinn DNZ ( talk) 05:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
"The six major types of maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn". TanookiKoopa ( talk) 01:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow! Would you look at that! When you search corn on Wikimedia Commons, the results are corn! No wheat in sight! I wonder why that could be... Silent-Rains ( talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It's bizarre that the opening paragraph claims "corn" is only American and Australian. I'm British and I've never heard anyone call it "maize", except on American TV shows. -- Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 15:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should clearly state where, if someone is looking at a corn on the cob, is going to call it maize. The English-speaking places that call corn corn are explicitly noted, but there seems to be a bit of hand waving concerning maize.
Part of the Names section currently reads:
According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the world calls this maize or maíz. (Ref: Espinoza, Mauricio.
"'All Corn Is the Same,' and Other Foolishness about America's King of Crops". Ohio State University: College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Retrieved 21 September 2022.)
I could've just deleted it as nonsense, but it's such a good illustration of the obtuseness of ivory-tower academics locked in their offices and the insecurities of some who would blindly reprint something so easily disproved. A cursory glance at the Wikipedia article titles in other languages against the list of languages by total number of speakers shows that only four of the top 25 languages in the world commonly use a cognate of maize: Spanish, French, German and Tagalog. And as discussants have noted above, maize is pretty uncommon in the English-speaking world as well. What is this "rest of the world" the author is referring to? — AjaxSmack 07:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The context is pretty clear that we're talking about English usage. Once you say, as an already English-focused source for an English audience, that you're talking about English-speaking countries, it's pretty clear they're talking about the rest of the English speaking world in terms of WP:RSCONTEXT. Normally when someone lists names for a certain audience, you aren't going to rattle off all the other names in other languages, or constantly say English-speaking, English-speaking in front of every word. Sources generally define their scope in some fashion like this one. Would adding somethingWhile the United States and a few other English-speaking countries use the word “corn” (from the Proto-Germanic kurnam, meaning “small seed”), the rest of the world refers to this crop as “maize” or maíz — which comes from the Taíno (a Caribbean indigenous culture) word mahiz.
, but use of the word maize or maiz is widespread elsewherebe a better paraphrase of the text in your mind? KoA ( talk) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
"The use of the word "corn" for what is termed "maize" by most other countries is peculiar to the United States. Europeans who were accustomed to the names "wheat corn," "barley corn," and "rye corn" for other small-seeded cereal grains referred to the unique American grain maize as "Indian corn." The term was shortened to just "corn," which has become the American word for the plant of American genesis."
As part of the name section, we had this source until I just removed it. [1] It was used to say corn is used as the name in New Zealand, but instead the article actually primarily uses maize instead and never mentions corn as a singular word, only when there's additional specification on varieties like sweet corn, etc.
That's a pretty typical way of describing things in sources, so I'm guessing it was someone confusing the use of corn alone vs. things like sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. as meaning that country uses the term corn for maize. It at least didn't support what it was used for in text, and it doesn't really have a good home right now, but it is a good review of the origins of the crop in New Zealand. Just leaving it here in case it catches anyone's interest for content to flesh out. Could be a good addition for getting things to GA status. KoA ( talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)