DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Maize

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

The title of this article

[edit]

THIS IS NOT A MOVE REQUEST

Last discussion closed two years ago with no consensus with a note that “in the future we may need to revaluate why this article is called maize and not corn”.

No consensus does not mean consensus for staying at maize. There was never a decision to call this article Maize.

To repeat some of the usual arguments for corn:

Original name for article improperly moved.

North American name of a North American crop

Maize is not more universally familiar than corn, it seems like our UK friends use corn in many contexts (popcorn etc) whereas Americans use maize in only very technical contexts.

One way to see that corn is the more common name is that all corn topics (corn starch, corn syrup, creamed corn, sweet corn) on Wikipedia use corn in their names because people don’t say maize syrup.

Please read the former move requests because the arguments both for and against are better written than mine.

Please please do not tell me that maize is the consensus because it is fully not the consensus.

Please do not say there should be an FAQ because there is no consensus.

Thank you for your time. 75.172.122.225 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue has always been WP:PRECISE. In phrases like "corn starch", "corn syrup", "creamed corn", or "sweet corn", the extra word makes the meaning clear, as it does in "corn dolly" where "corn" has a different meaning. Internationally, using "corn" alone is not precise. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to piggyback, the text of the article itself already outlines the key reasons why we stick with maize too, especially on the precision issue and other WP:PAG. It also doesn't help the "corn" argument that we use both corn and maize here in North America. We often get editors coming in claiming that maize isn't recognized here, but sources contradict that. We probably do need a FAQ for how often people keep bringing it up, but it's a ways down my to-do list. KoA (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(not trying to sock puppet I’m the same guy)
The problem isn’t that the article is called maize the problem is that there is not a consensus to call the article maize. There was no decision to call the article maize. If you love the name maize you should also want a consensus and we can put up a note on top. I’m asking how do we get consensus for either
Also anecdotal but I wrote the word “maize” on the board and asked my 6th graders what it meant and none of them knew. One term is preferred by either country neither is unused. Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alwaysbelieveinhope: you're just going over old ground, yet again. (1) There is no consensus to move the article to a different name, so it stays at "Maize". (2) No-one has ever disputed that in the US "corn" is the common name. (3) The issue, which you don't address, is that internationally "corn" is not precise, and this is an international English encyclopedia, not a North American one. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think arguments for keeping at the current name are not unreasonable, minor ambiguity vs. Minor unfamiliarity. I want to know if it's possible for consensus to happen, I don’t think articles should be named essentially due to a coin flip. Though I guess I might not care if my opinion won the coin flip and KoA might be the one talking complaining about consensus and coin flips Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alwaysbelieveinhope, I don't know why you're making out like a coin was flipped. And there is consensus for this title--look at the comments here. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: if you had looked through the archives you would have found literally hundreds of instances of the name, and discussion on it. Just to pick one: Archive_3#Rename_the_article_to_corn, where in 2010 already David Levy pointed out that there had been many discussions. The fact that there were, and that the article's name never changed, is a clear enough indication of consensus. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't put that template up like that"

[edit]

@Chiswick Chap, the template documentation disagrees {{Wiktionary}}: "The template may be placed anywhere, such as the External links section, the beginning of the article, or in the article's etymology section if one exists. It may also be placed inline." Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see amazingly little value in placing the link in any well-constructed article which defines its topic with good citations, and which provides etymology and history and all the rest: a bare Wiktionary definition adds exactly nothing to such an encyclopedia article. It certainly doesn't belong at the top of this one, whatever a bit of ill-thought-through template documentation may wish to assert. Common sense and logic always come way before blind reliance on that sort of blanket statement, even if such a statement is called Wikipedia policy, which that one isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Wiktionary entry is, precisely, a dictionary entry, showing its etymology with better details (the Taíno word seems not to be attested, so it should be written *mahis – and incredibly enough Oxford Dictionary is not a perfect source for Indigenous languages, I've seen lots of factually incorrect content there). Wiktionary also presents cognates, pronunciation, quotations, translations, etc. I'm going to readd it to a different section then, since the other way didn't please you. Yacàwotçã (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is pointless, and tantamount to editwarring as the insertion is challenged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange to accuse someone of edit warring when they have addressed your initial criticisms of the positioning. Regarding challenging the insertion entirely, most articles link to the sister projects at the bottom. Wiktionary has a different purpose to Wikipedia, so I am fine with the current position. Greenman (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made clear that the template was entirely unnecessary, actually. But it's less harmful down at the bottom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

food - feed - fodder

[edit]

Please change "animal feed" to "animal fodder". In my understanding (southeastern England), food is for humans and birds (birdfood), feed is for small animals (chickenfeed) or young animals, and fodder is for large animals (fodder for horses and cattle). Opinions from other English-speakers welcome. ~2025-38948-14 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Animal feed in agricultural usage and here (and in the linked article) includes both grain, used as fodder, and whole plants, used as forage or made into silage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]