Talk:Maize/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

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)

The terminology could do with a bit more explanation somewhere in the article... This and other articles (google corn vs maize) show that usage varies in the English-speaking world. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a perennial subject. See a recently archived section for that. The article also covers this at Maize#Names where the above edit request is already covered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed that archive...the support and arguments seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of using "corn" and not "maize". The only argument for using maize is that it is the "vernacular" word, which I don't believe is really true, and that corn has a variety of meanings, which appears to be true only in the UK. 97.96.172.49 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@97.96.172.49: if you really reviewed the archive, you would have seen that it's not just the UK that uses "corn" in a more inclusive sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sierra Mixe lineage & nitrogen fixing symbiotic bacteria

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)

Transubstantion

"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)

The statement is sourced to a book from Cambridge University Press, which is presumably accurate. It's in a paragraph which includes mention of other hurdles to be overcome in the acceptance of maize as a food by the Spanish. This is one of them, so it seems relevant to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Section has been updated to indicate that this believe was held by some Spanish during the 15th century, and it is not a point of theological debate in the present century.

Corn

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)

Read the archives, which explain why what you wrote above applies in North America, but not worldwide. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the archives, but the poster has a point. The article is supposedly written in American English, in which the word is "corn", not "maize". Maybe English-speakers in Australia call it "maize", but isn't American English appropriate for what is an American product-- especially when you throw in Canada, which also, I would imagine, uses "corn". Corn is hardly even grown in the United Kingdom. And it's quite humorous how the article says "The six major types of maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn." Shouldn't they be dent maize, flint maize, pod maize, popmaize, flour maize, and sweet maize?

editeur24 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Names section of the article is worth a read, and gives us some guidance here - "Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region." HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to piggyback off your comment, but maize is also the preferred language under North American English too in scientific circles. Part of it has to due with the ambiguity issues that has lead to consensus of this page being called maize instead, but when I publish in journals, maize is generally the preferred common name. That kind of stuff happens all the time with other organisms like lady beetles even though most people call them lady bugs, etc. This has all been rehashed time and again though, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – robertsky (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cystine - the first sentence. More at Cysteine if you want. 220.235.97.3 (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone anywhere actually call corn "maize"?

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 refer to the archive. There really isn't anymore more to rehash on this subject yet again, and we even have a fancy talk page template relating to that too. Especially among scientists, maize is the preferred global English formal common name, which is where much of previous discussions are anchored in terms of WP:COMMONNAME due to ambiguity, etc. of other names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What English people certainly do is call other things "corn", like wheat, or any standing grain crop in fields. Growing maize will very often be called so - perhaps you don't live in an agricultural area. You will find maize or maize syrup in huge numbers of ingredients lists on packets. Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 13 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)

I updated the "round and round" template to point to the archived section that used to be at the top. That archived section really isn't the best to link to as a FAQ or keeping permanently unarchived on this page, but that template should handle things as best we can without additional clutter here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please leave the summary of arguments here on the talk page. AFAIK, the "Round in circles" tag has no effect. I believe keeping the summary of arguments here did a pretty good job of discouraging people from restarting those arguments. Nothing is perfect, of course. People do sometimes violate the instructions in the summary and add clutter—but at least they know the present consensus and the reasons for it, so hopefully they advance the conversation in some way. Retaining a special section like this is what DoNotArchiveUntil is for. If you know of a better FAQ about the arguments or a better way to prevent rehashing them, please let me know. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ben, you need to stop edit warring this back in. You had your say, and it was archived. I get that you might have a personal interest since you started that section 8 years ago, but yours is not the only summary to pick from, and you need to get consensus for inclusion, not the other way around. We already tried doing what you just tried doing here again, and that did nothing but clutter up the talk page and draw in more comments at times rather than solve issues. We already have all the move requests and the round and round template directing editors on the subject linking straight to the archive. If they ignore that, even more redundancy really isn't going to help.

It also wasn't that comprehensive, which is why just linking to it in the archive is more feasible in its current state. If you want to do a more formal comprehensive FAQ that is collapsible in the header of the talk page instead of the body, there is guidance on that at Template:FAQ page, but the round and round template basically fills that role for now. What you wrote still exists and is prominently linked (which is already a lot), but it doesn't get to perpetually remain in the talk page body forever, especially when it remained both unarchiveable and open for comments there. At the end of the day, just pointing new editors that ignore all this to the link at the top of the talk page is a lot less work than having the previous sort of open forum invitation on a well settled issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand your objections to keeping the summary of arguments. Is this right? (1) People sometimes commented on the summary, which caused clutter. (2) The summary omits some important arguments ("not comprehensive"). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Two out of the many things I mentioned above. At the end of the day, if you want to do something in a FAQ style sub-page, you have the guidance for that. Otherwise, the burden is on you to demonstrate that this case is so exceptional that your 8 year old summary must remain in the talk page body.

There's been criticism of your presentation in the archive making it seem like maize actually has very little weight compared to corn. As I said before, after 8 years, there isn't really need to have your particular summary on the talk page and exclude all other move discussions, etc. that also summarize it for us. If anything, having a list a pro-maize vs. pro-corn arguments listed in the very first section encourages more argument either in the section itself or in new ones. A more appropriate FAQ would simply state why maize is the consensus version and why corn is not instead a present both sides approach. Until then, just linking your section prominently in the archive is already plenty of compromise in that regard. Normally, old talk sections would just be archived and not linked directly at all afterall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying further, Kingofaces43. Let's see if I understand you correctly now. (1) People sometimes add counterarguments within the summary, which causes clutter. (2) The summary omits some important arguments. (3) The summary is 8 years old—and therefore obsolete? (I might be misunderstanding why you emphasized the time since the summary was written.) (4) The summary made the argument for maize appear to have less weight than the argument for corn. (5) The summary is redundant because the same information is summarized in the debates over whether to move the page, linked from the top section of this talk page. (6) The summary encourages people to start new sections with new arguments. (7) A proper FAQ would explain only the reason for preferring maize, not the opposing arguments. (8) Explaining the opposing arguments violates WP:GEVAL by giving fringe ideas false equivalence with mainstream ideas. I'm not completely sure about a few of these. Can you please correct what I've gotten wrong or let me know if this is right? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That summarizes most of the issues I've seen. That said, 8 isn't really accurate in terms of fringe, etc. Since this is the talk page though, we don't need to explain opposing arguments, just put them in context of why maize is preferred. Even then though, the effort and continued time on this subject isn't likely worth it, better to develop the Names section with more explanation instead of meta-issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Genetically modified maize with sufficient B3 vitamin

Please add data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410e:8156:7c62:87ed:987b:3176 (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

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)

 Done. Thank you! Soveryvivid (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Staple crop comparison table

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

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)

add link suggestion

In the Genetics section, the first bullet point type, Flour corn, has no link. However, there is a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_corn to which it could be referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.210.224.199 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

move the page to corn

It is called corn in majority of places so it should be moved to corn. FizzoXD (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rejected at great length multiple times – see the Archives – and should not be re-proposed without very good new reasons.

• How would anyone know the subject was discussed, since the archive is not linked on this page? Had there not been an active item here, I would have proposed the same move.

Scyg (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that if an archive exists we need access to it here. I don't know how to fix that. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Scyg, the archive is linked at the very top of this page multiple times, especially the bit about 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)

with great sadness in my heart, corn.

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

The key point to note is that COMMONNAME is only one of the five criteria at WP:AT. Yes, because of the preponderance of American English in online sources, "corn" is the most common, but it fails important other criteria, as has been pointed out over and over again. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Other criteria are important this is true but consistently COMMONNAME holds more weight than other criteria. Especially sense I don't really think "corn" fails other criteria, precision is a criteria to prevent confusing article names like "power" but I don't see evidence an article named "Corn" would be confusing, I have never even seen it argued that it would be confusing. Always beleive in hope (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Always beleive in hope: then you haven't read all the previous discussion, because this has been argued repeatedly. In British usage, for example, "sweet corn" has a clear application, but "corn" means mainly wheat, barley or oats. We're just going over old ground, I fear. As noted below, this has been talked about repeatedly. Enough from me. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I get that it's been discussed a lot but that doesn't mean the arguments are good, for the past 15 years the main argument against corn is "it has been discussed". According to ENGVAR British usage is moot. The name of this article is an exception to the consistently most important article naming convention COMMONNAME, and is a silly name. Maize is really inconsistent with other consensus in similar arguments. Always beleive in hope (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This was already talked about, repeatedly. The notification at the top of the page is to avoid people coming in and repeating the same arguments like this. Not to mention that maize is still considered the universal term even in North America. Internally we may use corn, but most that deal with it in any capacity are also taught that it's maize from a worldwide perspective. The encyclopedia is written from the latter perspective. KoA (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ya of course this has been talked about, it's been talked about because the arguments for maintaining "Maize" are pretty unsatisfying. Naming in this encyclopedia is NOT from the perspective of people who deal with the subject professionally, consistently on this website colloquial use is deemed more important than technical jargon. Also working in agricultural science I have only herd maize is only used in the most formal of settings and even then a lot of papers not specifically about maize will call it corn. I feel that the name of this article and the unenthusiastic consensus reached 7 years ago contradict most consensuses reached in similar lame arguments. Always beleive in hope (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

There's nothing to get rolling on. Nothing has changed in that time in usage, and your questions have been answered repeatedly in past discussions already. There's no need to rehash them yet again. KoA (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor editing

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)

Requested move 11 September 2022

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: 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)

As this has been discussed so many times before, you as nominator should provide linksto those previous (unsuccessful) discussions. You can probably pick up the trail at the last one. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The prior requested moves are available atop the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Who on earth looks there? So here they are again. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment The BBC references are to wheat, not maize, and should not be used to support this request. The Guardian references appear to be to maize. Tevildo (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia should serve readers by using the same term that the largest portion of the English-speaking population uses - full stop. I note that the article was created using "corn", as well. We need to oppose nationalistic motives that lead to use of minority terms. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support (slightly) per reasons listed by nominator, and by Netoholic above. (Plus, "corn" was the original title of this article.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Snow oppose per all the previous closes the nom didn't address at all. This has been debated and attempted ad nauseam to the point that multiple templates are placed at the top of the page to prevent superficial nominations like this. The same issues come up again of ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, namely WP:PRECISION, which has why maize has been maintained. It is the universal term whether we are dealing with American or British English, and is the standard in science publishing for this reason too unless you are dealing with very local or regional publications. The ambiguity with corn is already concisely addressed at Maize#Names, with the much more extreme depths in the previous move discussions we shouldn't have to rehash every time this comes up per the talk page template.

In short, nothing has changed since the most move request that would necessitate another. That's a pretty extreme hurdle as long as someone isn't ignoring all that's already been covered on this subject. KoA (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is WP:SNOW in opposition whatsoever; the fact of the matter is that claiming that this should be a snow closure on the basis of a single editor objecting borders on being incoherent. The articles from The Guardian that I referenced are from this year may be evidence that British use of the term "corn" to refer to the big lump with knobs that has the juice frankly cut against the assumption in many past arguments that Brits don't use "corn" to refer to this plant, while it is uncontroversial that this is commonly known as "corn" in basically the whole rest of the anglophone world. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That is called WP:CHERRYPICKING and doesn't address the sheer volume of why maize was chosen in past discussions. KoA (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking articles from The Guardian here. If you'd like more, here's an article about a corn maze, an article on corn and soybean being used in chicken feed, an article on the use of corn in ethanol manufacturing, an article covering a study that utilized Zea mays and is referred to therein as "corn", an article that notes that Ukraine produces "wheat, barley, and corn", et cetera. My greater point is to say that even the U.K. quality press uses the term corn to refer to this plant, which indicates that we don't actually lose WP:PRECISION in British English to the extent that you (and others in the past) claim that we do.

On the other hand, U.S. publications often use Maize to refer exclusively to field corn, such as the San Diego Union-Tribune, which itself shows that the term "Maize" loses precision in American English relative to the term "corn". This is the case even in academic settings, where Maize can serve a shorthand for "field corn" to the exclusion of "sweet corn". The assumption that the current title causes more issues with WP:PRECISION than the proposed title of "corn" is frankly something that I think is incorrect when examined in a global context, so the notion that we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME on the basis the current title is more precise than the proposed seems to itself be dependent on excluding American English from the calculation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This still amounts to cherry-picking random sources and talking past or outright ignoring what has actually been the focus of past discussions. I do believe Johnbod is correct below that this proposal is not showing understanding of the actual topic in any depth. The templates on this talk page were put in place to prevent superficial comments like these. I should also note that this proposal is basically just a repeat of when the oddly similar Red Slash account tried this a previous RM. There's nothing new here we could substantially act on. KoA (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, "superficial"? How long of a nomination do you require before calling something "superficial"? This is a well-researched and sourced request, much better than mine from nine years ago. Second... "oddly similar"?? What in the world gives you the basis for that ridiculous statement? Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting, @KoA:?? Red Slash 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Length!=not superficial. It didn't address the core content and policy issues at all related to the subject, which was a recurring issue in your last RM and previous ones. Both RMs were very poor at describing what's going on in the subject, and the omissions are a very serious issue that should not have occurred again whether it was you or Red Tailed-hawk. It should be no secret below in earlier comments that I'm pretty critical (and find odd) repeated superficial often policy violating arguments that don't end in the now five RMs, so sniping to try to make that something else isn't appropriate. KoA (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Since writing my summary below, I should add on here that Red-tailed hawk's initial request isn't formed quite right after noticing. If it's found there is consensus against maize, the target would become Zea mays per WP:FLORA as first priority. Corn couldn't override the scientific name because of the ambiguity issues with WP:PRECISION. Any policy and guideline based move discussion would be between maize as the international common name or the universal scientific name. KoA (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Corn has redirected to this article for over a decade and has "overridden the scientific name" that entire time. This is not a malformed move request. Red Slash 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This was a fairly late comment, and it seems we've reached the point of supports repeating common misunderstandings again from further down. This have been addressed as confounding WP:TITLE and WP:DAB below plenty. It's in the same vein as a WP:TWODABS situation, but to just claim it should be moved because of a primary redirect is ignoring all the other underlying policy. Corn can redirect here because many people are referring to maize when they say corn, but the disambig is needed due to significant usage otherwise. WP:TITLE then deals with quite a few more underlying issues that DAB does not, such as the precision issues, what sources tell us to use, etc. TITLE and DAB are mutually exclusive to a degree with some overlap rather than DAB dictating TITLE.

Either way, a request is malformed in this case when corn isn't even a valid option. Too many policy violations to jump to that when they all point to using the scientific name is there actually was concern that maize wasn't appropriate. Someone has to establish that maize itself has serious problems (no one has really done that yet) without violating WP:OR/what sources say, and after clearing that hurdle, they then have to clear an even higher hurdle of surpassing the scientific name or what source instruct us to use, which WP:FLORA covers well. Corn is at the bottom of that list, and we can't ignore that so readily. KoA (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as usual, per previous debates. I don't think the nom actually lives in the UK, or has a good understanding of what British publications do. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, even if in the UK maybe it's the opposite.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME that resulted in consensus in the previous closes was maize not corn. That policy is very clear about weighing the five criteria for article titles that has resulted in maize, and COMMONNAME is not simply doing a Google NGRAM or just superficially oversimplifying that it's a UK thing. Repeating that at this point is just being blatantly misleading at this point. KoA (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME that resulted in consensus no consensus in three previous closes was maize not corn – fixed that for you. No such user (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Corn better fits the 5 WP:CRITERIA, and has a greater score in recognizability as per search in https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=corn,maize. Corn is a more worldwide recognized term, while maize has limited reach.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous debates. Corn is ambiguous and not used to refer specifically to maize in every English-speaking country (or even most English-speaking countries). Maize, however, is unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous debates; no new arguments either way. Corn is ambiguous in an international context; this is not the US Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• support UK is a minor producer and its terminology should not dominate. Note that it's "corn" in USA, Canada and Australia and "maize" in UK and India. see "Corn: Canada's third most valuable crop" https://www150.statcan.gc.ca Rjensen (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As can be seen from Maize#Names, maize is the common name internationally and in most English-speaking countries of the world. India, which uses "maize", produces nearly twice as much as Canada. The fact "UK is a minor producer" is irrelevant as to the name we should use when the common name internationally is clearly maize, especially when "corn" is clearly ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. This article is supposed to be written in American English, so it should use the term that is used in America. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • You seem to be misusing (or at least mis-reading) WP:COMMONNAME, which has five criteria. A major problem with "Corn" is that it fails WP:PRECISION. As Necrothesp says above, and has been established in multiple previous move discussions, the common name internationally is clearly "maize". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    It most certainly does not fail WP:PRECISION, since corn has redirected here for over a decade. Red Slash 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Responding to the ENGVAR recent edit, that is a common mistake made in previous archives too. Maize is an accepted common name in the US and doesn't conflict with the US vs. British English template. KoA (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:COMMONALITY (and noting that consensus can change). I'm neither from US nor from UK, and I dispute the claim that "maize" is the common name internationally; in fact, I think I first encountered "maize" in Wikipedia back in the day. For god's sake, Britannica has the article about zea mays titled Corn, which I find very convincing that this is not an WP:ENGVAR issue. I am also aware that the word wikt:corn also means grain in British English, but that usage by now rather archaic and poetic, and it hardly hurts WP:PRECISION; I don't really buy claims about ambiguity. Finally, I can't believe I would ever quote User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, but it very much applies here. No such user (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Corn" does not just mean "grain" in British English and that of many other countries, but also the growing crop. This is neither "rather archaic" nor "poetic", not least because a word is needed for what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell whether a field is growing wheat, barley, oats or any other grassy grain crop, as they all look the same to the lay person (unlike maize or rice). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@No such user: firstly, as has been pointed out before, Britannica is now an American publication, not a British one, so quoting it is a totally unconvincing argument. The use of "corn", especially in the context "field of corn" or "corn field", is far from archaic, it's the normal usage as Johnbod says. I regret having to write this, but it seems to me that this is an attempt to impose US usage on everyone else. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for corrections Peter; did not know about Britannica. Nonetheless, my point stands; I still think that the alleged ambiguity argument is stretched to the extreme, and that no British reader would expect to find an article about a thing described as what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] crop under the title "corn". No such user (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@No such user: no, they wouldn't, which supports the case for not using "Corn" as a title: it has multiple meanings and doesn't meet WP:PRECISION. 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.
It's instructive to compare the labels on the tins here and here or here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Additional WP:COMMONNAME summary. A recurring problem with past move requests have been drive-by commenters not reading the article itself trying to override consensus (the common/vernacular name in the article will remain maize regardless of title) or previous request discussions that already cover the depth needed in for subject-matter competency rather than someone just saying they think corn occurs more frequently. That burden shouldn't be on those dealing with perpetual move requests, but I'll summarize the real WP:COMMONAME applications with maize anyways that haven't really changed in all this time.

Remember WP:COMMONNAME is not whatever shows up most frequently in Google searches. There are five criteria, and the overriding criteria in this subject has been in past discussions (and still is) 3. Precision. Just a reminder than in any organism naming related articles, that criteria usually rules the roost. We also have WP:FLORA, a guideline which specifically addresses plants, which focuses on using the names formally described by reliable sources as preferred.

First, let's pull key paragraphs straight from Maize#Names:

The word maize derives from the Spanish form of the indigenous Taíno word for the plant, mahiz. Using the maize common name, Linnaeus included it as the species epithet in Zea mays. It is known by other names including "corn" in some English speaking countries.

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. International groups such as the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International also consider maize the preferred common name. 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 maízThe 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.

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. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". "Indian corn" primarily means maize (the staple grain of indigenous Americans), but can refer more specifically to multicolored "flint corn" used for decoration. Other common names include barajovar, makka, silk maize, and zea.

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.

Maize

The second paragraph is maybe the best summary. The take-home is that maize is the preferred name internationally, and we are an international encyclopedia. Reliable sources of higher tier than just newspapers, etc. specifically state this, while you aren't going to see sources claiming corn holds this this level of preference or precision. We are expected to globalize articles rather than create a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. If you just focus on what shows up in the US, Canadian, Australia, etc. in newspapers and the like, it's going to be an NPOV violation. Maize is used both in those typical English speaking countries, but as the article shows, when English is used in other countries like India, Mexico, many African countries, etc. where English is used, but not the main language. WP:TITLEVAR is also an issue here, 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.

As to why maize is preferred, I'll pick out from the article 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.

Corn

Corn however, is ambiguous, and has no such endorsements of specifically being on par with maize by sources. For a concise quote from one reference 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. 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.

Old move discussions

There have now been a total of 5 requested moves trying to change the title to corn linked above. In each of those, a move as been rejected. It got so disruptive that in the last requested move in 2015, the page was move protected and a new RMs were banned for at least a year. Going into the archives of old move discussions, a frequent complaint about those wanting corn is that maize is already established as the common name, and they bring nothing new to show a substantial change in usage. That is perhaps the easiest way for a closer to assess this without delving into the subject much. Generally arguments supporting corn offer nothing new and POV summaries that drift into WP:OR. Without high-quality sources (not someone cherry-picking Google searches or random newspapers) showing a change or directly saying sources that do address what name should be used are wrong, we just stick with the previous consensus version. Since this an attempt at a summary, here are a few good comprehensive posts from previous RMs.

Perhaps one of the best summary comments of the "meta" on this article came from Hires an editor:

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. . .

From Zzyzx11:

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.

From Cynwolfe:

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.

Those three are good summaries that also cover some of the tailing arguments and misunderstandings that often come up. While I prefer to keep comments concise, this should illustrate just how much discussion and topic material the supports gloss over here now (and from previous RMs). In the end, those wanting corn are typically arguing editor preference or WP:OR against what reliable sources actually say. Our policies and guidelines say to rely on the latter. There is a reason why page regulars are growing tired to repeated attempts to move the page with superficial arguments. The only other solution at this point if editors so abhor maize is that we then go to the default Zea mays for the page title. If there was ever consensus against maize, then Zea mays would be next in line well before corn. KoA (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I may add additional summary here later if there was something I missed. KoA (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the only things I had left to add were first that the closer definitely should read the content in the article first to get an idea what content we are grounded by, namely the lead and the Names section].

The second is an example our agronomist down the hallway reminded me of that relates to WP:DAB vs WP:AT I address a few comments below. Here, the primary redirect for corn is to maize instead of a disambiguation page. That is not an indication the article title should be corn, but is instead very similar to Lady bug in that it redirects to Coccinellidae rather than Lady_Bug_(disambiguation). It's very similar in the DAB situation here.

The only major difference is it's a case where the scientific name Coccinellidae was used as the title instead of trying to weight lady bug vs. lady beetle common names. There, lady beetle is the preferred term among scientists, but it is a term a bit more isolated to scientists. Maize instead has both the scientific community and widespread public usage, which in part led to it being the WP:COMMONNAME here, though if it were more a niche term like lady beetle, then we'd be at the WP:FLORA baseline of scientific name Zea mays like that article. KoA (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So I'll repeat my argument from above: I still think that the alleged ambiguity argument is stretched to the extreme and used as a sledgehammer to reject all reasonable move requests, no matter how well argued and backed by evidence. In fact, no British reader would expect to find an article about a thing described as what is growing in fields, and only farmers can tell [which] crop under the title "corn". A simple piece of evidence is that corn redirects here.
Also, the argument that repeated requested moves are disruptive does not stand: the last RM was 7 (!) years ago. And (various) people tend to repeatedly post RMs because they are irked by the current title: just as they were irked by Yoghurt, by New York or by Kiev, articles that experienced recurring and arduous RMs until they were eventually moved (and guess what, nobody has ever later started a RM to move them back).
Finally, if you don't see anything wrong with the sentence from the current lead, bold mine, I don't know what to say:
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)

Thank you for providing other commonly debunked arguments to include in this list.

1. The first is basically editors engaging in personal WP:OR against expert sources. Sources are clear on the ambiguity, and we follow sources per our policies and guidelines on article names, such as WP:FLORA, not personal opinion.
2. That corn redirects here is another common one anyone should be familiar with if they actually review past discussions. That's really reaching, and ignoring the network of disamgbiguations, including at the very top of this page for Corn_(disambiguation). WP:DAB is a slightly different topic of discussion that frequently gets confounded with the article title discussion here. That would be more of a discussion of whether the redirect should go to the disambiguation page rather than here. However, it's currently handled as a WP:TWODABS situation where corn has significant usage in terms of maize, but there is so much else going on that you can't treat it as an absolute WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is why the redirects and disambigs are set up as they currently are. WP:OTHERNAMES already gives guidance on this. 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.
3. That last is an extremely common talking point that gets rehashed in these circles talking about sweetcorn, etc. WP:TITLECHANGES is clear not to do this: 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.

Even if you dismiss all that, corn is not an option this RM can be closed as. The most that can happen for any support !votes is that there is consensus against maize (rather than no consensus), and then we default to the scientific name Zea mays per all of our other naming guidelines. If sources weren't explicit that maize is the preferred common name, we'd be using the scientific name as the title instead. KoA (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Netoholic, Paintspot Infez, Ortizesp, CreateAccou4343nt555, Rjensen, Rreagan007 and No such user, . The main title header of this article, upon its creation on October 18, 2001, was indeed "Corn". As the years passed, the header was unilaterally moved a number of times according to the article's move log. "Corn" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, but the header is currently frozen at "Maize" and there is insufficient consensus for either form, thus it remains at "Maize". Judging by the positioning of votes in the current discussion, had the main header been able to remain as "Corn", there would be likewise no consensus for a move to "Maize". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, corn is not a valid option in this RM, so we can't close it as such. Corn is more ambiguous than maize in terms of WP:PRECISION, so the most that can happen here is that there is consensus against maize, followed by changing the title to Zea mays per WP:FLORA (though unlikely because few even mention it). Then someone wanting corn as a common name would have to pass that second even larger mostly unaddressed hurdle of saying corn is a more appropriate title than the scientific name, which would violate policies like WP:COMMONNAME, and direct guidelines like WP:FLORA that say to go with the scientific name is there isn't a clear common name. This shouldn't have to be repeated again and again over all these years.

As for the history on article titles, that does not matter. If there had never been a move request that could maybe be said if this RM was in the 2000s, but it's not valid to say it should be moved to corn unilaterally after 4, now 5 requests without consensus for it. Also remember that that last RM did not result in no consensus, but rather that it was not moved and protected against future RM's for a time. It's been stable for over 12 years. Yes, some people don't like the universally accepted common name of maize that best satisfies our policies and guidelines if we go with a vernacular name over scientific, but there's a point where that has to be dismissed when comments gloss over so many of the key underlying details. KoA (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Corn" is indeed a valid option for this article's main title header if there is strong consensus for it. Since it has been posited that "Corn" would represent an imprecise form of this article's header, while "Maize" represents a precise or, at least, a more-precise form, I would support splitting this lengthy article into two articles, one that would use "Maize" as its header and another that would use "Corn" as its header, thus leaving each of the two entries to specify the differences and amplify precision. An inexact comparison may be the articles Carrot and Daucus carota.

Short of that solution, "Corn" is undoubtedly the common name for the all-inclusive single article per Britannica, even if it is now-Americanized. As for the potential replacement of the header "Maize" with the header "Zea mays", that would be akin to proposing a replacement of the header "Potato" with "Solanum tuberosum" or the header "Tomato" with "Solanum lycopersicum", resulting in a certain "oppose", rather than the less-certain "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That's directly violating policies and guidelines, so no, that cannot be used in WP:CONSENSUS. WP:FLORA is explicitly clear that the scientific name gets the most weight if there are disputed vernacular names and that 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.

As for, 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).

As for what you propose for a "split", that would be called a WP:POVFORK given the context here, and isn't really an option because of that. No one is really offering substantive reasons why maize is inappropriate in the current setup outside I prefer corn comments. For your last sentence 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)

Consensus is obviously a key aspect of Wikipedia process and a strong consensus would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. Whether such consensus is likely in this instance is of course dependent upon the interest and / or commitment of users over the coming week. The actuality of claim that "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.

As for "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 disputed is 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)

The vernacular name "maize" is indeed disputed and so is the vernacular name "corn", thus positioning the use of the scientific name "Zea mays" per "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)

That's another WP:OR violation and doesn't have any place at a RM. Regardless of how many "supports" there are, it's still anonymous editors directly disagreeing with published reliable sources without equivalent ones. Even WP:EXPERT editors like myself don't get to do what you're asking ti directly violate the WP:FLORA guideline with that comment. We instead rely on what sources tell us to do when available like what we have here. There's no way around that in terms of what gets discounted vs. followed in WP:CONSENSUS, so that's why we need to be careful about inappropriate arguments like that. KoA (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, all of us know that English Wikipedia is consensus-based and positing that Regardless of how many "supports" there are, it's still anonymous editors directly disagreeing with published reliable sources without equivalent ones runs 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.

I assume that you have professional reasons for not wishing to reveal your identity, but it certainly leaves unverified the claim of WP:EXPERT. As for "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)

That is a very strange response to me saying not even expert editors get those kinds of special privileges to bypass policies and guidelines. KoA (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per arguments above. Although 'corn' is becoming more frequently used as an unambiguous synonym is countries which mostly follow UK English it is still not entirely unambiguous in my experience. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but this is a good point to note for the closer that the Maize#Names section that addresses ambiguity was updated a bit before Invasive Spices comment, so comments before that would not have read some of the material there. There is also a historical appropriateness bit of content added that compounds some of the issues with using the term corn as "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)

• Snow Oppose impossible nomination as corn has no PT. Btw known as maize in India. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is baloney - corn has redirected here for literally over a decade with no problem; don't lie. And given that the national variety this article is written in is American English, Indian/British/Jamaican/etc. usage is not very relevant. Red Slash 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose move (but not snow). It's been seven years, so this RM needs time before we go straight to a snowclose. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't stated your arguments for opposing the move, which is required for your oppose to carry any weight. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:AT. Corn satisfies the WP:CRITERIA much, much better overall. Maize is essentially not recognizable to a modern Canadian, US, New Zealand or Australian audience as the everyday vegetable, whereas corn, as it is known as sweet corn, corn on the cob etc. in other English-speaking countries, is recognizable everywhere. As evidence of that universal recognizability, reputable English-language publications around the world use standalone corn frequently (I didn't say exclusively, or mostly!) to describe the crop/vegetable:

  The Times (UK)

  The Hindu (India)

  The Times (South Africa)

  Jamaica Observer

  South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)

Btw, ambiguity is a red herring. Everything is ambiguous to some extent. But Corn is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, so for WP purposes, we've already decided that the crop is unambiguous enough to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "corn" as well as "maize" (and "zea mays"). Moving the page would help recognizability for a much larger proportion of our readers and editors, and would not harm it for many. The next best option would be to move to Zea mays, to resolve the national variety issue by using an actually neutral term, as with Soft drink, but I don't think that's necessary, where "corn" is already recognizable and used worldwide. Dohn joe (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that using the title "Corn" for Zea mays does not satisfy WP:PRECISION. The need to qualify corn as sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. in many English-speaking countries (including on the labels of products sold in those countries where the same product sold in North America has just corn, as I demonstrated with links above) makes the point that corn alone is not sufficient. It's also clearly not a neutral term in relation to ENGVAR. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Times did not need to qualify corn, and I assume its British readership was not unduly confused. This is not really an ENGVAR issue - "corn" is understood and used throughout the world to a reasonable extent. Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, to call WP:PRECISION policy (a part of WP:AT they cite), a red herring is pretty astonishing, but part of the trend of supports directly ignoring the totality of policy and guideline here. KoA (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Just another note to the closer that this support has a string of policy violations:

1. Maize is essentially not recognizable is 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]
2. 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.
3. WP:PRECISION is policy rather than a red herring, especially when sources (rather than anonymous editors) mention the ambiguity issues. Instead, it's one of they key highlighted parts of related titling guidelines like WP:FLORA.
4. Even if you do pick random links and find newspapers using the term corn, the same can be done with even better sources in the US that use maize without any qualifiers assuming readers may be confused,[11] or Indian government sources doing the same in English.[12] Even giving those sources similar to your list is pretty moot though considering we have higher tier sources directly addressing the naming issue. I would again challenge supports to actually provide equivalent sourcing that the term maize is so confusing. Instead, we have US sources that use maize as the lead with quick parenthetical about corn, which reflects how we currently have our article.[13] We're already reflecting how sources handle the subject, so supports would need something absurdly strong to deviate from that.
5. While it doesn't really "count" for consensus (parallel to maize being confusing to everyone statements) by taking off my editor hat and leaning into personal experience as an expert in ag. topics, we'd maybe only be confusing a portion of US readers for a second until they read the lead, while according to sources, most of the rest of the world would recognize maize. Most anyone here in the US that actually works with the crop is familiar with the alternative name situation when you talk to actual farmers or related workers. If someone hasn't hit that subject in US schools yet, that's not really on us. Again, kind of moot in this discussion like many support reasonings, but we do also need to be careful about mischaracterizing reality rather than going with random internet opinions coming up here.

It's very apparent supports feel strongly, but these repeated comments keep bringing more and more policy issues out of the woodwork the more that corn is pushed (and too much typing for us topic editors familiar with the subject). KoA (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope it's obvious to everyone else that I was saying the ambiguity argument is a red herring because any ambiguity has been taken into account by the WP community already via WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT - not that WP:PRECISION as a policy is a red herring....

I'd also point out that scholarly journals and official government papers are not "better" sources. WP is a generalist encyclopedia. As much as we rely on subject-matter experts, and appreciate their contributions to content, WP:CRITERIA puts it bluntly:

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.

Dohn joe (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For ambiguity, that comment is confounding WP:DAB with WP:AT, which are related, but not the same thing, especially when this isn't a simple DAB situation. I already commented on the DAB situation, so I'm not going to rehash that, but I will say that WP:FLORA, WP:COMMONAME, etc. deal with article titles largely independent of what redirects have done in the past. WP:TITLEDAB is very clear that even if corn were the primary topic for a DAB (a bit iffy and vastly misrepresenting that subject, but not the topic of this RM), the titling still needs to follow other policies, which has been pointed out in quite a few areas not to be the case. DABs don't determine article initial article titles though in that policy, it's article titles first followed by determining the DAB situation.

As for sources, that directly contradicts our reliable sourcing guideline, namely WP:SOURCETYPES. 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)

Some data from Google Scholar for articles with maize or corn in title: corn=201,000, maize=254,000. Very close, but maize does have a slight edge. Kstern (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the need for finality in these decisions. This has been decided, on reasonable grounds, and should remain so. BD2412 T 06:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  And yet, it's a policy that consensus can change, especially when editors raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances as has occurred in this move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Policy violations cannot contribute to WP:CONSENSUS by definition, repeated debunked arguments from many years ago are not "unconsidered" and nothing has really changed in circumstances over time that would change the usage. The whole premise of WP:CONSENSUS is that there needs to be substantive policy-based arguments, not assertions like this. KoA (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• This has never been settled, as proven by the fact that people keep bringing it up. (Check the archives! It keeps getting brought up because it keeps being wrong.) It took eight RMs like this to finally get yogurt to the right place. How many will it take for corn? You and I both know that if it ever moves to corn, there would be absolutely no reason to move it back; the Yogurt Principle applies. If you want this settled, then it needs to be moved. Red Slash 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  This comment is really pushing WP:RGW attitude, which is a WP:POV issue we need to keep in check on this talk page or keep it from affecting RMs that in part resulted in the last round of move protection. That supports continuously repeat poor and policy violating arguments in decent volumes does not make it "not settled". Recent edits to the article itself on the name should help at least to some degree, though we can also ignore those who ignore actual content in terms of WP:CONSENSUS too. If this were moved to corn, we'd then have to deal with a whole pile of policy issues to fix, so threats of give us what we want or we want stop are not helpful in a fairly complex topic. KoA (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for a few reasons. First off, this article is written in American English, and this crop is called "corn" in American English. Done. That's enough. Secondly, when people are arguing that "corn" is ambiguous, that's an extremely illogical argument. Corn has been a redirect here for over a decade, a decision that has yet to be seriously argued against. You cannot accept corn as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and then argue against it as a title for reasons of ambiguity. (If you do believe it's too ambiguous, please, try to suggest moving Corn (disambiguation) to Corn!) Even many newspapers and other quality sources from countries besides the United States have begun to use "corn", as shown in sources above. It's the common name, after all--why wouldn't they use it? Our policy on common names all but dictates this title. And, if that's not enough, it's also more WP:CONCISE Red Slash 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. Secondly, when people are arguing that "corn" is ambiguous, that's an extremely illogical argument. As already covered, this is a WP:OR violation.
3. You cannot accept corn as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Already addressed ad nauseum above re: DAB issues.
4. Our policy on common names all but dictates this title. Which would violate WP:COMMONNAME ironically.
5. 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)

You keep bringing this up, but no one in the USA commonly refers to corn as maize, except in scientific contexts or in reference to the Native Americans. Sure, it may be a known name, but it is not the common name in the USA. Stores and supermarkets sell corn, not maize. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just commenting since this is a direct reply, but we need to go by what sources say, which do say the two are interchangeable, and the third RM was closed as 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.

@KoA: - replying to every vote, particularly votes opposed to your viewpoint, is WP:BLUDGEONING. You've verbosely made your viewpoint known, let others express theirs unimpeded. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Considering there's a fairly wide diversity in initial responses to support votes, replying to every vote is an extremely inappropriate comment on an article talk page. I'm usually only responding to "new" arguments now (especially warranted with policy violations) or just pointing out that a talking point is essentially already being WP:BLUDGEONed through repetition rather than basis in policy. I would not have made such a concise comment above and would have had a much more verbose repetition of the issues if I were bludgeoning, not to mention my comments to Red Slash above were mainly due to them pinging me directly. That's seriously loaded question territory framing things that way and having me need to respond even this much when I was just thinking about sitting back from this talk page before I saw your ping. Remember that RMs, RfCs, etc. are not a place to express views "unimpeded". If someone makes a WP:!VOTE that has major policy or guideline issues, it's our responsibility to address that per WP:CONSENSUS policy in discussion. In short, don't shoot the messenger because there's a large amount of underlying policy and content issues coming up in !votes. We can't gloss over that, and that's been a recurring criticism in past RMs re: superficial comments, so we can't turn it into a catch-22 to address the issues appropriately. I'm sure not telling supports to not bring up sourced issues with maize, and we can't limit the more numerous issues with corn to match. Depth matters in a subject like this. KoA (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Removing the "off topic" label that you applied to the reply by Netoholic. Editors should be able to vote without being intimidated. Others need to see that it's being called out so that (1) They can vote freely and (2) It's not called out again. You've made your point(s), in some cases multiple times. Let the voting process play out now. (Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your stance. I've refrained from voting so far.) Kstern (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Just a note that I restored the collapse, these comments do not belong on an article talk page per WP:TPNO. Please follow WP:FOC. KoA (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Please don't hide criticism of your own actions. If a 3rd party believes this is off-topic, they can collapse it. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I re-collapsed this section. I don't believe that this needs to be "seen by others" and is off-topic to the main discussion of the topic of the Maize -> Corn RM. As a side note, I did make a comment on this RM earlier. Natg 19 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. US vs UK aside, the common names for all the subject's byproducts seem to use the word "corn" instead of "maize". Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2022 (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.

How to establish consensus

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)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Greenman (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is vaguely written on purpose so reading the link is not very helpful in this instance. The administrator who declared "no consensus" in the last discussion said "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." The wikipedia rules for arguments about article content is clearly more suited to dealing with situations where compromise is possible. There are 2 possible names for this article and the third option, going for the Latin name goes against standard naming for articles about familiar plants. If the majority of people thought the article should be moved then it feels wrong to give up on trying to reach consensus for the move. Always beleive in hope (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This has had so many WP:RM discussions, and so many other ones on this page in between, that the closer may have felt the rather low turnout for the latest (relative to previous numbers) did not reflect a general or lasting consensus. There are also the quality of the arguments - i'm certainly not going to read it all, but the closer should have done so. Anyway don't let's have another discussion for a good while. We waste far too much time on WP arguing about titles. Btw, you can bet if this were moved to "Corn", in no time at all well over 8 people would turn up to support a move back to Maize. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've read this discussion, and all previous discussions, all the way back. There is only ever arguments from the 'maize' proponents about why 'corn' is a bad idea, including such ridiculous statements as 'corn isn't eligible to be the title of this article because it's not at the front of the line' and 'corn is only clear enough to be a redirect but not clear enough to be a title, it's too ambiguous to be a title'. It's very clear to me that 'maize' proponents are personally motivated by something other than a desire to make Wikipedia a better resource for laypeople. And, the most vocal of those proponents use the Wikipedia guidelines as a cudgel that only applies to people they disagree with, and not their own arguments. Very little introspection from them, on the whole. Being able to quote regulation line and paragraph is not a valid argument. Saying "this has already been discussed" is not a valid argument. Saying "We waste too much time arguing about this already" is not a valid argument.

The only thing that hasn't been tried is changing it to 'corn' and seeing if that'll prevent more arguments.

I've never seen someone so invested in a topic so eager to avoid discussion of that topic. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:3421:36A2:F00:8E82 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Always beleive in hope: It should obviously be moved per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Consensus, per weight of arguments, statistics. IMO the contributor who closed it @UtherSRG: was not WP:BOLD when needed. This is where we can see Wikipedia processes failing. For me this is also a WP:NPOV issue for such a simple issue. CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why this didn't come up in the latest discussion, but actually WP:NATURAL says it all. First sentence there: Natural disambiguation Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred.

This seems like a perfect example for such a preference of Precision (Maize) over Naturalness (Corn). Flexperte (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the guideline here, could you clarify? To me it looks like the guideline is for cases where the most common name is a candidate for multiple page titles. Could you tell me what other page would also be a candidate for 'corn'? 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:3421:36A2:F00:8E82 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wheat, for a start. Plantsurfer 19:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But "wheat" is the common name of wheat, not corn. Silent-Rains (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Corn is a generic name for any ceral, as in Corn [kɔːn] noun, the chief cereal crop of a district, especially (in England) wheat or (in Scotland) oats: "fields of corn" Plantsurfer 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that 'Corn' could potentially be a title for the article currently named 'Wheat'? Could you please clarify how that would match up with the guidelines? 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Cereal as referenced by Corn (disambiguation). That is the actual meaning of "corn", while the common usage started out as shorthand for "indian corn", later expanded to all sorts of different maize corns (see article). Flexperte (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Just rename it to Common Corn

Self explanatory. Solves all issues Maracta (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. What does it even mean? Plantsurfer 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

See TanookiKoopa's post "Oh, the irony..." Maracta (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, each of those terms depend on two words for precision. The single word corn could mean any number of things, not all of which point to maize. There is no consensus on what "common" corn would refer to. It may mean maize to you, but it means other cereals to other people. Plantsurfer 20:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a completely bad idea, as this would be a "Natural disambiguation" as proposed by WP:NATURAL. But, as you can read there: However, do not use obscure or made-up names. "Common Corn" would be such a made-up name, while "Maize" is Precise, Concise and Recognisable even in those countries using predominantly "corn" for maize, making it the much better "Natural disambiguation". Flexperte (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

pouring out an emotional snarl and walking away

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)

Well don't you worry, because Corn redirects immediately to Maize anyway, so it's a fully Significant Alternative Name (see WP:OTHERNAMES) for the article, not even necessary to use a Piped Link in references. Many articles have Alternative Names, and Wikipedia isn't "sneering" on british readers by redirecting Colour to Color for example.

"Corn" just isn't suitable to be the main Article Title, because it's ambiguous. See WP:NATURAL.

And yes, "corn" is ambiguous, because it doesn't only refer to types of maize. Just think of a cornfield (which btw is severely missing a disambiguation page) that makes most people rather think of a wheat field. Probably even for those living in the corn belt? (And this is a serious question to those who know.) Flexperte (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Cornfield in the US only means "A field that grows corn", and corn is "A sweet yellow grain that grows on a cob." No one would call a wheat field a cornfield.

I do agree that there can be some ambiguity over the use of corn but ONLY within the UK and ONLY in certain contexts. In other cases there is not ambiguity, only a second usage. Corn refers to the yellow sweet grain, and wheat corn refers to the grain of a wheat plant. The only place where ambiguity exists that I've ever seen shown in the entire history of this talk page, and in every dictionary and every source provided, is in the UK. I really do feel that maize is being perpetuated due to lack of a neutral point of view by a handful of editors, most of which are from the UK. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Corn" is ambiguous not only in the UK context (which would actually be enough, Wikipedia is not a US encyclopaedia), but especially in the international context. As an example: in German "Korn" is synonymous to "Getreide" and means "Cereal". Just like in english "Korn" can also mean the single grain (another ambiguity of "corn" btw). Maize is called "Mais" in German, and nobody would ever call it any kind of "-korn", except in the latter sense where a "Maiskorn" would be a grain of maize. Could you call that a corn-corn in the US? ;-)

Anyway, there is already a ton of historic discussion about this, so if you are really interested, then read up on all the very extensive reasoning, before repeating everything all over here. See the Wikipedia:LISTEN block at the top of this page.

And if nothing else, please at least read the Maize#Names section of the article itself that you are talking about ...

... or read Wiktionary:corn where you will find out that this slightly ambiguous word has 7 meanings (5 non-slang).Flexperte (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any non-wiki sources for these assertions? Aside from the German one, because this is an English-language article. So I guess I'm just asking about the international English context which I haven't seen any sources on in all of the talk page history. And I've read all of it.

The sources provided in the second paragraph of Maize#Names, where the primary argument for the preference of one over the other, in order,

1) Calls it Corn (Maize) and asserts international preference with no other information, sourcing, or context such as technical or scientific. (One would think a source more recent than 1994 could be found if there truly is such a preference) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#cite_note-Ensminger-36

2) A nonprofit organization headquartered in Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#cite_note-37

3) An op-ed news article that says' the rest of the world' not 'the rest of the English speaking world' so is doubly irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#cite_note-38

4) Is supporting a sentence that literally disagrees with your ambiguity argument by saying that "The word maize is considered interchangeable with corn in the West". (Last I checked the West includes Germany and the UK"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#cite_note-Ranum-34

Also, I find it mind-boggling that the 'maize' proponents would edit the page and then use their own edits as an argument for their side. Is there not a guideline on this? It just seems to go against all common sense to suggest that kind of argument should be allowed.

One final note: Repeating the arguments you've used before does not improve them. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krinndnz agreed. one of the reasons I don't donate to Wikipedia anymore (and I did for years - and bugged friends to every year on Facebook). I'm not supporting nonsense. Had I known earlier Jimmy woulda had to get by with a couple grand less over time. not much but I vote with my wallet. 2607:FEA8:A420:82F0:6461:A688:B184:5654 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, the irony...

"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)

Nothing ironic there, and it's been covered ad nauseum elsewhere already. It's the qualifying addition of dent, flint, etc. that specifies the type of corn since dent, etc. is a type of maize. Without that qualifier, we don't know if it's maize, wheat, etc. depending on the use. KoA (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You do if you take a neutral point of view. The only time there could be confusion is if you are a rural farmer in the UK. From a neutral point of view there is no ambiguity. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a dictionary be neutral enough for you? As you can read in Wiktionary:corn, the word "corn" has 7 meanings (5 non-slang), of which only 1 means maiz. Sounds objectively quite ambiguous to me ... Flexperte (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like, in the most sincere way I can manage, to request that you argue in good faith here.

Cherry has 10 usages in English according to Wiktionary.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cherry#Noun

Please tell me whether or not you would support changing the title for Cherry to Cherry (fruit) to avoid ambiguity on the same grounds as you argue for the keeping of Maize. Please, this is getting tiring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Knock off the bad-faith accusations IP. Again, I suggest reading what sources actually have to say in the article: Maize#Names It's pretty extensive and that's what we ultimately go by, not editor opinion. NPOV is going with what sources describe about a name in a case like this, especially when they address variation in use like is already done in the article. If someone has an issue with the article name, it's probably best to work in the article itself rather than this talk page. There is a point where we're getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory.

As a reminder, maize is essentially the original name too (or as close as you can get) in the Americas, so to call it just a British thing in other sections is vastly misrepresenting sources. "Corn" for this article subject had its origins moreso in the British empire as sources describe. There is a reason why WP:DUE is weighted much more towards maize in text when it comes to the universally accepted name compared to regional variations. Again, if you want more reading on that, you can delve into the sources already listed in the article such as the University/Extension based ones, secondary source books, etc. KoA (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I did, and posted my thoughts below. About ten hours before you posted this.

I'm not going to rake you over the coals for not reading the entire talk page. It's a lot to take in. But I would appreciate an apology for being accused of bad-faith accusations.

Let me break down your reply here to each of it's arguments:

"As a reminder, maize is essentially the original name too (or as close as you can get) in the Americas"

How is this relevant? Seems like a deflection. Historical usages of words does not carry significance in this context. In addition, there were multiple native inhabitants of the Americas that each had their own name.

"so to call it just a British thing in other sections is vastly misrepresenting sources"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/corn (UK usually maize)

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/corn [British]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Noun "(chiefly Britain..."

It's notable that even the UK-POV edits to wiktionary can't list another country.

""Corn" for this article subject had its origins moreso in the British empire as sources describe."That's interesting info. How does it apply as an argument for keeping 'Maize' as the title? Seems like an appeal to authority/history/tradition to me. Also, the original title on this wiki was Corn.

"There is a reason why WP:DUE is weighted much more towards maize in text when it comes to the universally accepted name compared to regional variations." You're going to have to support this. My reading of the guideline suggests that 'corn' should be more favored because 'maize' is minority usage and opinion.

"Again, if you want more reading on that, you can delve into the sources already listed in the article such as the University/Extension based ones, secondary source books, etc."

Already did, 10 hours before you made this argument. I'm of the opinion that the sources were cherry-picked. Potentially by you, personally, though I'm not too sure when exactly they came in, it might have been just before your edit.

Rapid fire arguments might work to browbeat some, but likely not in a place where you can take the time to break down a reply into each of it's individual arguments and address them specifically. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On your Cherry example: Meanings 1, 2 and 3 are about the fruit and plant the article is about. Nr. 4 is the color that is named after the fruit. The rest are metaphorical uses of Nr. 1.

In contrast, for Corn only Nr. 2 refers to maize. More importantly the more general meaning of Cereal is Nr. 1, and all metaphorical uses are derived from that or Nr. 3, and not the "maize" meaning.

I concede however, that merely counting meanings was not a valid argument. But first meaning vs. second meaning is, and metaphorical uses support that "cereal, grain" is the primary meaning of the word "corn". (As stated before, Nr. 2 is undoubtedly the most common use of the word, but that doesn't make it the preferred title for a plant that also has a more correct, generally accepted and unambiguous name, see WP:NATURAL) Flexperte (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The first meaning is only the first meaning on wikitionary because someone from the UK made it the first meaning. I've pointed out the exact edit elsewhere on this talk page.

In addition, first/second meaning does not really have any weight here besides. It seems like you missed the further discussion that took place in the meantime. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C927:9F89:95C5:52F3 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

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)

Here you have your wheat: The Cornfield. See also Wiktionary:corn for the ambiguity of the word and WP:NATURAL for what to do in such a case.

Also you should have followed the WP:LISTEN block at the top of the page before opening another section here. Feel free to remove it, including my answer. Flexperte (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite interesting that the 1st usage for Corn under 'noun' was changed in 2012 by an English editor to be the nearly entirely UK exclusive usage rather than the more common usage:

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=corn&direction=next&oldid=16795092

This all seems to be very motivated by a non-neutral point of view. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Flexperte typically if something is ambiguous you use a disambiguation page. you don't endlessly insist on calling something by the wrong name for years. 2607:FEA8:A420:82F0:6461:A688:B184:5654 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Two points, which have both been made endlessly above:

• See WP:NATURAL as per many previous comments above.
• Neither "corn" nor "maize" are the "wrong name" (any more than "elevator" and "lift" would be the "wrong name" for the same thing). The best choice is the least ambiguous.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What Peter said ^, and I might add that there is a Corn (disambiguation) page, and that Corn as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is already directly leading to the article. Flexperte (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any content changes being mentioned here other than a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If someone wishes to contribute additional content to the names section or discuss potential additions to it on the talk page, then please do so. KoA (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's just incorrect usage of the guideline. Encyclopedic knowledge of the guidelines may not confer proper usage of said guidelines.

This is a relevant discussion as it's about whether 'Corn' or 'Maize' is more appropriate in context of the wiki. Examples are being used to support the discussion about this article. This is not whataboutism.

However, this may be a good example of someone who has a vested interest in this topic trying to shut down conversation about it when it goes in a direction that person doesn't like. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I specifically said a "variation" of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to avoid inviting comments like that. IP, this is not appropriate use of a talk page, so please leave if you cannot stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS (normally that belongs on usertalk, but you're editing logged out with a changing IP). These pages are for discussing content. KoA (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk about content. My last post above was about content. You're telling me to stop talking about content and leave, on this talk page. You have not presented any arguments to support your position or counter my position, you've just pointed out I don't have a username. That has no bearing on the validity of my arguments.

"variation" here does not carry any weight. Guidelines cannot change to what one needs them to be in the moment, especially not by just applying one word as a modifier.

I don't even have an account in the first place. Thankfully the wiki model allows everyone to contribute, whether or not they'd like to record their edits and gain kudos and clout among the community. Unless I'm mistaken, my contributions are just as valid as anyone else's, so I don't see how pointing that out helps things. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

IP, please slow down. The whole point of mentioning you being an IP is that is makes it difficult to discuss behavior issues on a user talk page since that changes regularly, and now I'm forced to address it here in the hopes that you follow WP:FOC policy. You are making accusations of editors (and pretty wild ones at that) on an article talk page in the post you reference against WP:TPNO, and that is considered disruptive editing if you read the talk page guidelines. Multiple editors have asked you to slow down and listen now. Full stop, just don't even respond to this paragraph here and only comment on content, not editors.

For the topic at hand, the whole spirit instead of WP:LETTER about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that something existing in a wiki, in this case Commons, does not normally dictate what we do in other areas (or at most is a very minor consideration). That general idea applies outside of just deletion discussions. Instead, we focus on the topic at hand and look at what actual sources, content, etc. say, not wikis.

Either way, it's a bit of a WP:DEADHORSE to talk about the article naming itself here. We just had a recent move discussion, and multiple (I believe uninvolved) editors have already said to put energy elsewhere for now, in part because no one is functionally going to get a title change with the current status quo. The only way to do that would be to improve related content first, which was partly already being done during the rename discussion. If someone has additions to suggest for the names section, or any section, this page would be the place to discuss it. If there is to be a case to be made for a name change, it should be made apparent through content first. Tl;dr, get to work on content if you feel strongly about something. KoA (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that if someone (probably not myself but not ruling it out) edited the article to remove the name section, improve the name section, or change it, then changed most or all references from 'maize' to 'corn' where appropriate, that would then support a name change?

I'm just wondering how feasible that is when certain editors do not like or support that idea. It seems to me like changing the name would clear the air and allow for the article to have a more neutral point of view. Right now, a lot of changes could be considered contentious precisely because of the name change discussion. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:1039:63B6:A454:E55C (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing the section would be considered disruptive and WP:POINTY, as would removing well-sourced content that is already established. The key thing at this point is that it's what sources have to say the rules the roost, not personal opinion that this article should be called corn or maize. Right now, the section makes an extremely strong WP:DUE discussion about the name maize, so if there was a sudden sea-change in what sources say, the best thing would be to bring those equally strong or better sources here for discussion first or briefly introduce them into the article. That is a pretty high bar though given current context especially since I'm not aware of any reliable sources directly contradicting the content there, and to claim maize isn't the preferred international common name would then be WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE. KoA (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem I have with the stance you're taking is that you've decided the point of view you are a proponent of is the majority viewpoint. Every time anyone has provided any measure of the usage of 'corn' and 'maize' it's always very close in usage.

Why would 'maize' not be a minority usage in this context? There are more books published for a wider audience than specifically for scientific contexts, and since the other data supports the common sense viewpoint, why do you say 'corn' should be considered a fringe or minority viewpoint similar to that of a flat earth? Or that we didn't land on the moon? That's the sort of thing I mean when I say that there might not be good faith arguments, or a non-neutral point of view.

Aside from that, the reason you may not have found reliable sources contradicting the ones in the 'names' section is because the sources would not reference 'maize vs corn', they would just say 'corn'.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22corn%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1968,cd_max:2019&lr=lang_en

There's a lot of them. I don't know if it's more or less than for 'maize' but I don't think that matters for this discussion, since if we remove the ambiguity argument, and the WP:DUE argument, then the only thing left is WP:RETAIN which is in favor of 'Corn'. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:4DB9:A930:AA46:5D1F (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As has been said so many times before: It's not about "corn" being the more common name (which it is by far, nobody doubts that), but about "corn" being ambiguous. WP:NATURAL tells us what to use as the Title when the most common name is unfortunately ambiguous. Flexperte (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I said this above but putting it here too where there's more context:

Only people from the UK seem to take this point of view, and it's not even all of the people from the UK in this specific talk page. I think maybe we should consider our own personal biases when talking about this sort of thing. If you want to say it's ambiguous you need to prove ambiguity. Dictionary definitions do not prove ambiguity. Multiple usages does not prove ambiguity. Personal opinion does not prove ambiguity.

I can't disprove ambiguity because it's proving a negative. Please prove ambiguity before continuing to make this statement. I have read the entire history of this talk page, all archives, this has never been proven, not even slightly, not even a hint. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C927:9F89:95C5:52F3 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick addendum here:

I think the problem here is that the way you view the ambiguity of 'corn' is how a lot of other editors view the common-sense application of the same. It seems very obvious to you, but you need to make it obvious to us too if you want us to agree with you. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C927:9F89:95C5:52F3 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

British English

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)

It's also Bizarre to me. There's been much discussion about this in the past, and the same four or so editors have decided that the general consensus is to be ignored in this case. Seems a bit like fighting for a cause to me.

For example, I don't even have an account and I'm invested in this now. Anecdotal, but that should tell you how obvious the case is. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:3421:36A2:F00:8E82 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are British people who know maize as "corn", especially in the contexts of sweetcorn and popcorn, but the word traditionally has a much broader meaning in British usage. It suprises me to hear that you only know "maize" from watching American TV, since it's a word that appears relatively rarely in American parlance. In any case, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so the ancedotal evidence you've adduced here can't form the basis of a change to the article. Zacwill (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Every time someone has mentioned actual reliable sources on the side of 'Corn' the 'Maize' proponents will say "That's nice but your list of sources is original research and not allowed". I find it stunning that this entire conversation is being perpetuated by a handful of people from the UK who insist on not allowing the change back to 'Corn'. This is entirely against the spirit of the guidelines and Wikipedia itself. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody ever disputed, that "corn" is more common, that's not the point here. But as "corn" is also ambiguous (especially in the international context), in this case according to WP:NATURAL a not-ambiguous, established title (Maize) is to be preferred, even if it's less common. Flexperte (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify how 'corn' is ambiguous internationally? England, Scotland, and Wales are all part of the same nation. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Maize is not limited to British English. It is the internationally accepted term (one of the major components of WP:COMMONNAME we need to follow), and it's an alternative term we use here in the states too. Either way, Maize#Names already tackles why we use the term maize within the article itself without needing to rehash things here. KoA (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It really seems like you're not taking a neutral point of view here. Maize is not 'the' internationally accepted term, it is a term that is recognizable in more than one English speaking nation. I've not seen any evidence presented in the entire history of this talk page that asserts that maize is the overwhelmingly preferred term, not even among academic circles. If you've got a source or two that does say that, though, I'll gladly change my mind. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:7869:5E0A:40D2:3D8B (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody ever disputed, that "corn" is more common, that's not the point here. But as "corn" is also ambiguous (especially in the international context), in this case according to WP:NATURAL a not-ambiguous, established title (Maize) is to be preferred, even if it's less common. Flexperte (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting deja-vu here.

As far as this (very frequently copy-and-pasted) argument goes, Maize has not been an established title (since there's been argument about it ever since the change) and the original title was, in fact, Corn. WP:RETAIN seems to be relevant here.

Aside from that, you continue to ignore my request for a source that proves the international ambiguity of corn. Just because you assert it to be the case, and have provided examples where the potential exists for it being the case, does not make it true. Please provide a reference when making this argument in the future, it will make it less easy to refute. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C576:5B06:E8C3:C634 (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was using a shorthand here. "…, established title …" should read "…, established name (Maize) as title is to be preferred, …". It's about "maize" being established in language, not on Wikipedia.

That "maize" is actually an established name for the thing that is most often just called "corn" (originally as a shorthand for "indinan corn" btw) you stated yourself ("recognizable").

For the ambiguity of "corn" as a word for "cereal", "maize" and "grain" please see Wiktionary:corn and the dictionary discussion above. Flexperte (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Only people from the UK are calling it ambiguous, and not even everyone from the UK who has commented on this talk page. I feel as if this is a non-neutral point of view. 2600:4040:7A15:9F00:C927:9F89:95C5:52F3 (talk) 00:38, 28 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.

The rest of what world?

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 there is the rest of the English-speaking world from the source and text. We are also using the English wiki, so it is expected we're primarily focusing on English usage and background here for readers.

And yes, there is a common WP:OR issue with people saying maize is uncommon, not the preferred term, etc. We still go with what sources, especially academic sources, have to say on the topic though, and they're abundantly clear on maize being the preferred common name. We cannot supersede sources by looking at random article titles on wikis as those are not reliable sources. KoA (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

​So now it reads "...the rest of the English-speaking world calls this maize or maíz" (my emphases) which is neither in the source nor true. (If it's relevant, I'm not in favor of changing the article title form maize to corn. I'm just opposed to a fallacious, talk-page style polemic supporting the current title appearing in the mainspace text of the article.) —  AjaxSmack  15:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That is what the reliable sources say. Please respect WP:TPNO. KoA (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ajax, I saw you you removed the entire source that we've had since September.[14] I've restored the text but left out the part you've been disputing for now. The remainder that's undisputed still gets across the part of the source that only a few English speaking countries use corn. A couple things to iron out though:

1. You claimed it's not an appropriate source. Most of our sourcing on the names of crops comes from experts in the field like agronomists, etc. in factsheets universities put out on crops, especially in the US because they deal directly with naming issues. Usually they are the ones assessing common names and use. Extension resources from universities are pretty much always where we'll find information on common names, etc., especially for usage by country. A linguistic source like you ask for would be more suited for other things we cover like the historical origins the word if something there was in dispute, but it's in line with the other sources there.
2. You also asked about the variation maiz. Regardless of opinion, the source mentions it, and it's not for us anonymous editors to just say we don't agree with it. That variation does show up though in sources partly because it is used more in the context of Native Americans. It's getting a bit into the weeds to pursue that further right now unless someone wants to expand more about the variation. In the meantime though, the source indicates that maiz is WP:DUE to mention briefly.
3. The big one though is you are saying the source doesn't mention the rest of the world. Here is the full context

   While 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.

   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 something , but use of the word maize or maiz is widespread elsewhere be a better paraphrase of the text in your mind? KoA (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   I don't want to bring the move argument up here too, so let's keep this focused on sources used in the article.

   Below you said:

   "We're talking about sources that actively discuss the name's use, not ones that happen to namedrop corn or maize in a graph, especially because we cannot cherry-pick things like that. Otherwise I'd just pull up a bunch of more relevant agronomist journal articles that use the term maize in the US in a much more purposeful manner instead of someone without crop expertise. We have plenty examples of what ideal sources are in the related article content."

   But above you say:

   "Most of our sourcing on the names of crops comes from experts in the field like agronomists, etc. in factsheets universities put out on crops,"

   This seems to be contradictory to me, could you clarify when would be appropriate to use sources that only refer to corn as a topic of research and don't talk about it's usage in language? OuroCat (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I already explained it in what you quoted (i.e., active discussion of name use in sources). KoA (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not really clear, could you please elaborate on what you mean? If possible be specific and detailed about when you would expect to see a source that just references a name, such as an article on corn-fed poultry, vs a source that needs to be discussing the linguistics of maize. I'd appreciate it so I can better understand the distinction.OuroCat (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• More sourcing. I was looking through some of our other sourcing, and it looks like they already reiterated what the OSU source mentioned (my bold). "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."

I updated the text to reflect both refs. The language I proposed on Feb 11 isn't quite a strong as what the sources use, so that wouldn't really be appropriate anymore. It's more reflective of the sources to just simply say most countries use the term maize, but open to other ideas too. KoA (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Maize in New Zealand

As part of the name section, we had this source until I just removed it. 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)