Poll: Species article naming

When I enter the CN in the “what do you want to know” box and hit Enter, I want to find myself at an article with both CN and SN in the title. Similarly if I enter SN. When I look at the listing of Biology articles, I want to see both SN (CN) and CN (SN), each of which takes me to the article. Tend to prefer CN (SN) for the article title.

We are not writing for experts. We are experts (or amateurs revised by experts), writing for the general readers who would like something more authoritative than wikipedia.

The essential feature is to have both names, but I think using different ones for the article and the page is confusing. Multiple common names will be a problem no matter how we do it, just as they are everywhere else. Cross references and a comprehensive list are what help straighten it out.

I just added support for the new option.

Similarly i can see that scheme working with option three and four too. i.e. SN (CN) (or CN (SN)) as the article location but the article title being the common name alone.

Otherwise, it looks like option 3 is winning the vote.

As I see it, the issue over multiple common names will occur wherever you put the common names; first, second, or in the text. The multiple common name issue must be dealt with by the authors. I will switch my vote to SN first, popular CN in parentheses, and all common names listed in the text near the start of the article, if that will help get us past this impasse.

In reply to David: "Chris, from what you say, you equally or almost equally like choice 4."

Yes, 4 would be my next, followed by 3. In both cases Noel's proposal would work to make the title less ugly too.

However, I cede that scientific names for species such as the Giant Panda or Giraffe will look strange for an encyclopedia.

So, we only have one real option here. We must adopt Noels proposal, and the software/extension, that allows use to have the unique article name (scientific name) but have the article title be the common name (along with as many redirects and disambiguation pages as we need for more confusing cases).

This is not one of the options above but might be one that we can all agree on.

Common name only is a none starter in my book since there are many examples of the same common name being used for different species.

On the other hand, there will be one scientific name only. While there may be confusion about which one it is, but the fact remains there is one, and our experts will be able to resolve those discussions. (continued in next comment)

Redirects from the scientific name alone and common name(s) alone should go to the correct page, and that may solve bot issues. I'm voting for the SN first because presumably that's unique (or at least more unique). If the CN is the primary (first) name in the title, I think there would be great contention as to which CN to use. Perhaps that debate will be less difficult if CNs are secondary, and we can simply use the most-common CN.

(cont.)

By adding the common name either after or before, we lose all the advantages of having just the scientific name, such as bot friendliness. It also loses the other benefit, which is how clear the policy is for writers. Example: arthropods in the order Diplura are called... Diplurans! Do I name the article Dipluran (Diplura)?

I am strongly against having both names in the title (Sorry, Aleta!)

If we have the article listed under the scientific name, then it's no big deal to put the common name afterwards in the text of the article.

I originally voted for common names because of user friendliness, but we are different from Wikipedia. Since we are expert based, we're writing for a different audience- one that theoretically cares less about quick and easy information and more about credibility.

We are trying have an expert appeal - I vote the scientific name comes before the common name.

I am in great sympathy with Marielle. For reasons I have expanded on at CZ and at the biology workgroup page many times, I think scientific names only is disastrous.

If Noel's idea could be implemented so that the Common Name would be displayed regardless of where the article lived, I would certainly go for it.

In the absence of further information, I'm voting for Common Name (Scientific Name) to try to keep the biologists from apoplexy.

I agree, as long as both names are present, I don't care about order. For average people, common name will be easier.

When there is confusion, the various names should all be given in the article.

Chris, from what you say, you equally or almost equally like choice 4.

As for me, choice 4 is my second choice after #3. The key thing is to have both names, not the sequence.

I think the page should be titled with the accepted taxonomic name. But i would have no problem at all if the common name could be displayed as the title. I have seen this done on wikipedia but it does not seem to work at citizendium. This ties in with Noels proposal for having article names and articles identifiers as being distinct (see http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1654.0.html ).