Talk:Wineberry (New Zealand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Wineberry (New Zealand) is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Scientific name vs common name

(discussion meved from User talk:Bogdangiusca)

Why did you move the Wineberry (New Zealand) article to Aristotelia serrata? Is it not more appropriate that the article is listed under its most common name? Alan Liefting 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For less known species, instead of disambiguation, it's recommended to use the scientific name. bogdan 08:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is well known in New Zealand under that name. There is no official policy on plant names so I feel that the move was not justified. Alan Liefting 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll stick in support for using the sci name here - I know what Aristotelia is as a genus, but to me, 'wineberry' means a species of Rubus. Even in New Zealand, the common naming appears split according to the article, with the Maori name in use as well. More good case for the sci name. - MPF 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many common names for plants that bear no relation to the scientific name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says the wineberry should be used. Makomako is rarely used so wineberry is a clear choice for the article name. It is time that a plant name guideline in produced. In the interim I am putting categories in the redirect pages for the common names. This makes the categories are readable for the non-specialist. Alan Liefting 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, why "Aristotelia serrata (New Zealand)"? Isn't the scientific name unique??? --Russ Blau (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Wineberry (New Zealand): it's an English, unambiguous, commonly used name, so there's no reason for it to be here instead. —Nightstallion (?) 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)