Talk:Corn (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This was a redirect to Talk:Corn but Corn was a redirect to Maize. I moved Talk:Corn to Talk:Maize/Archive 1 and removed the redirect here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right too. Barley was missing from the list, so I added it. Can corn really refer to oats? It was used to generalise over wheat and barley where I grew up, and I can see it being used for rye by extension, but I'm suspicious about oats. Also, is 'corn can be used to refer to... Korn' correct? BarryNorton 11:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


As to the first question, I think I saw a comment that it was used that way in Scotland, though I don't know where I saw that. Might inquire at Talk:Oats. As to the second, I have no idea.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It's actually at Oats#Cultivation in the Oats article.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Corn is not a synonym for maize

Could those who use the word corn as a synonym for maize or sweetcorn please note the wider meaning of the word, as it is used outside the area in which you reside. [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.129.31 (talk • contribs)

The Corn vs Maize discussion occurs often at Talk:Maize, please read those comments and bring up any conversation about it there. Jeepday (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Corn. Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Merriam Webster.
  2. ^ Corn. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford University Press.

[edit] Cleanup

ASIDE from the whole "Corn does not equal maize" thing (which I think I've addressed--I personally don't know how much of the world is referring to maize when they say corn, but the redirect goes there) (although it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's only the "midwest USA" who does; I'm in Virginia and when we say corn we're definitely not talking about barley), does anyone have any actual disagreements with the changes I made, ALL of which were only to bring this page into compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style? I mean, I hate to keep reverting to my own version, but the edit summaries are absolutely inexplicable. "I agree but that is a different matter"? What is a different matter? And the whole point of cleanup--or part of it--is to remove extra information that does not help users disambiguate multiple topics that could be referred to as "corn." The cereal crops are all listed on that article. There IS no existing article specifically on "corny humor." Peppercorns are a phrase that contains the word "corn", not something actually referred to as "corn" (and if I'm wrong, it's not mentioned in the peppercorn article). Similarly, the Cornwall article doesn't support any reference to the nickname "Corn", that I can find. Oh, also, people in the USA call popcorn popcorn, not corn. Please refer to WP:Disambiguation#Lists.

Also, is there a reason why so many anonymous IPs are so protective of this page? It's bizarre. Propaniac (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, scratch that, I really, really do not care anymore. I'm trying to make the page look nicer and be more useful, but if that means spending precious minutes of my life debating with people whose biggest obsession is whether corn means the stuff that comes on a cob or not, it's really not worth it. Keep your page, put as many links on it as you want, make it as ugly as you want, I don't care, I'm taking it off my watch list and since when I say corn, I mean corn, I don't expect I'll ever have reason to revisit it. Propaniac (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Question Has a user violated the spirit of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? Jeepday (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Corn v barley and wheat

A recent edit has put both barley and wheat as synonyms. I am not convinced but don't want to waste time reverting too often as I am not positive ... I can find no mention in the target articles. Can others who may watch this page please assist. Abtract (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See Dictionary.com entry no. 4 (doesn't reference barley but I suspect it's included).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your suspicions have any place in a wp article but, either way, I have solved the problem by putting them all in "See also". Abtract (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reinstated the claim (for British English), with a reference. With respect, I don't think that the "see also" section is the appropriate place for this, since it doesn't make clear that these are the primary meaning of the word (in Britain). Grover cleveland (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an international/multicultural encyclopedia. My 'See also' solution solves the problem in a way that shouldn't be a problem to anyone, I am surprised you do not see this. This is not the place for "claims". Your use of more than one link in a line shows that it might be prudent for you to view MOS:DAB before making too many more edits to dab pages - there is a lot to learn as I have discovered. Also you might like to look at some of the discusions above where consensus seems to favour non-inclusion. I hope this helps. Abtract (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course if the articles on barley and wheat mentioned corn as an alternative name that would be different, but they don't so far as I can see. Abtract (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Abtract. Thanks for your arguments. I'll respond to them below.
  • The articles on barley and wheat do not mention corn as an alternative name.
They do now. I've added referenced claims to each of them.
  • This is an international/multicultural encyclopedia.
Exactly. So the usage of British English deserves to be mentioned, along with the usage in other varieties of English.
  • My 'See also' solution solves the problem in a way that shouldn't be a problem to anyone
The problem is that in British English wheat, barley and oats are a primary meaning of the word "corn". Putting links to these in the "See Also" section does nothing to indicate this. According to WP:SEEALSO the "See also" section is for "a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles". Wheat, barley and oats are far more than merely "related" to corn, they are the actual denotation of the word in British English. For a speaker of British English relegating wheat barley and oats to a "see also" would be like relegating maize to the "see also" section for a speaker of American English.
  • This is not the place for "claims".
They are not mere "claims". They are supported by a reference. I can find more references if necessary.
  • Your use of more than one link in a line shows that it might be prudent for you to view MOS:DAB before making too many more edits to dab pages
My apologies. I therefore propose that wheat, barley and oats be reinstated in the list of alternate meanings with one link on each line.
  • you might like to look at some of the discusions above where consensus seems to favour non-inclusion
I don't see any. Can you point me to a precise link?
I know there have been revert wars over this, and I have no intention of kicking off another. I have no problem with maize being the first link on this disambiguation page. But wheat, barley and oats can be the meaning of "corn" in British English just as much as "maize" is in American English. I really don't see why anyone should object to putting them as alternative meanings of the word. Can we really justify putting an emulator for the Nintendo 64 in the list of meanings of the word "corn" and rejecting wheat, which is the primary association of the word in the minds of millions of people of British origin? I'd be very interested to hear what other editors think. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is so easy once you understand what a dab page is for; it is to aid navigation to articles of a similar name or synonyms. Now that these other cereal articles contain the info that corn is a synonym in certain countries it is quite valid to dab to them, but when that wasn't so there was no justification to do so. Abtract (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So there would be no objection to put wheat barley and oats in the dab list, one on each line? Grover cleveland (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a mention in Wheat. Abtract (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
here. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)