Talk:Maize

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UtherSRG (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 29 September 2022 (→‎Requested move 11 September 2022: closing - no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" ([1] [2] [3] [4]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The prior requested moves are available atop the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth looks there? So here they are again. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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.[1] Using the maize common name, Linnaeus included it as the species epithet in Zea mays.[2] It is known by other names including "corn" in some English speaking countries.[3]
Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage as a common name because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region.[4] International groups such as the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International also consider maize the preferred common name.[5] According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the world calls this maize or maíz[6]The word maize is considered interchangeable with corn in the West; during early British and American trade, all grains were considered corn. Maize retained the name corn in the West as the primary grain in these trade relationships.[2]
The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is synonymous with grain referring to any cereal crop with its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple.[7][4] In the United States,[7] Canada,[8] Australia, and New Zealand,[9] corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn".[7] "Indian corn" primarily means maize (the staple grain of indigenous Americans), but can refer more specifically to multicolored "flint corn" used for decoration.[10] Other common names include barajovar, makka, silk maize, and zea.[11]
In a 1999 journal article, Betty Fussell describing calling maize corn was "to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history." Similar to the British, the Spanish referred to maize as panizo, a generic term for cereal grains, as did Italians with the term polenta. The British later referred to maize as Turkey wheat, Turkey corn, or Indian corn with Fusell commenting that "they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain", especially with Turkish people later naming it kukuruz, or barbaric.[12]
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.[4] The issue has never been that corn is used more or less than maize. There was a time that this was called Indian corn, which differentiates itself from other corns mentioned above. That would be similar to how Association football is handled, except that Indian becomes ambiguous here too, so that really isn't an option. Corn really can't ever get consensus as a common name because sources are pretty explicit that there is a better name and corn is too ambiguous. In the end, even in the US, Australia, and other frequented mentioned "corn" countries, maize is still a recognized synonym, contrary to repeated claims in all the previous RMs. This usually is taught in school, especially if someone grows up farming, but if someone is that much out of the loop or just doesn't remember, corn will still lead them to the maize page without any real issue. There is no technical reason even for corn to supersede the common name of the plant either. Even the third RM close was explicit that there was consensus that It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts[5] 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,[6] to homespun puns on "a-maize-ing" corn products or activities.[7] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "maize, n. (and adj.)". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  2. ^ a b Ranum, Peter; Peña‐Rosas, Juan Pablo; Garcia‐Casal, Maria Nieves (April 2014). "Global maize production, utilization, and consumption". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1312 (1): 105–112. doi:10.1111/nyas.12396.
  3. ^ Head, John W. (2016-11-25). International Law and Agroecological Husbandry: Building legal foundations for a new agriculture. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-44650-9.
  4. ^ a b c Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994). Foods and Nutrition Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. CRC Press. p. 479. ISBN 978-0-8493-8980-1. 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.
  5. ^ "Zea mays (maize)". www.cabi.org. CABI. Retrieved 16 September 2022.
  6. ^ Espinoza, Mauricio. "'All Corn Is the Same,' and Other Foolishness about America's King of Crops". cfaes.osu.edu. Ohio State University: College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
  7. ^ a b c "corn, n.1". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  8. ^ Boberg, Charles (2010). The English Language in Canada: Status, History and Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-139-49144-0.
  9. ^ Rhodes, L. L.; Eagles, H. A. (1984). "Origins of maize in New Zealand". New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 27 (2): 151–156. doi:10.1080/00288233.1984.10430414.
  10. ^ "Indian corn", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, definition 3, accessed June 7, 2012
  11. ^ Rouf Shah, Tajamul; Prasad, Kamlesh; Kumar, Pradyuman (4 April 2016). "Maize - A potential source of human nutrition and health: A review". Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2 (1). doi:10.1080/23311932.2016.1166995.
  12. ^ Fussell, Betty. "Translating Maize into Corn: The Transformation of America's Native Grain". Social Research. 66 (1): 41–65. Retrieved 19 September 2022. To say the word "corn" is to plunge into the tragi-farcical mistranslations of language and history. If only the British had followed Columbus in phoneticizing the Taino word mahiz, which the Arawaks named their staple grain, we wouldn't be in the same linguistic pickle we're in today, where I have to explain to someone every year that when Biblical Ruth "stood in tears amid the alien corn" she was standing in a wheat field. But it was a near thing even with the Spaniards, when we read in Columbus' Journals that the grain "which the Indians called maiz... the Spanish called panizo.' The Spanish term was generic for the cereal grains they knew - wheat, millet, barley, oats - as was the Italian term polenta, from Latin pub. As was the English term "corn," which covered grains of all kinds, including grains of salt, as in "corned beef.
    French linguistic imperialism, by way of a Parisian botanist in 1536, provided the term Turcicum frumentum, which the British quickly translated into "Turkey wheat," "Turkey corn," and "Indian corn." By Turkey or Indian, they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain, with which the Turks concurred, calling it kukuruz, meaning barbaric.
I may add additional summary here later if there was something I missed. KoA (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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,[8] 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. . .[9]
  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,[10] or Indian government sources doing the same in English.[11] 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.[12] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Off-topic from content, accusing KoA of WP:BLUDGEONING.
  1. @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maize&oldid=1113108753"