Talk:Maize

Maize has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 13, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maize article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

This FAQ summarizes common questions about whether this article should be named maize or corn. Sources and content also summarize the common name topic at Maize#Names. To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: We in the US and some other countries usually say 'Corn' for this crop plant, so why isn't the article titled 'Corn'?

A1: American usage does not determine use on English Wikipedia, which is answerable to usage in all English-speaking countries. The section Maize#Names in the article summarizes this usage, which is clearly to prefer 'Maize' internationally. As an international encyclopedia, maize is the most recognizable name for our readers across all variations of English and does not have the ambiguity of other names for the plant. Most questions on this subject are directly addressed in sourced content at Maize#Names.

Q2: Since 'Corn' is a common name for the crop, we should use it.

A2: 'Corn' is ambiguous as described in Maize#Names. Its original meaning, still in use, is simply 'grain', any large seed such as a cereal seed. In England this usually meant Wheat; in Scotland, Oats. Old names for maize included 'Indian corn' and 'Turkey corn', grains which seemingly belonged to faraway countries. The single word 'corn', shortened from such old names, remains ambiguous. Because of this, Wikipedia policy discourages terms like 'corn' as article titles when more precise and recognizable names exist.

Q3: If this article is in American English, surely it should be titled Corn as used in American English?

A3: The choice to write the article in American English depends on factors such as the language the article was first written in, which are internal to Wikipedia. That is unrelated to the choice of title, which depends on practice across the world outside Wikipedia. Also, both 'corn' and 'maize' are used in American English, so this is not a case of mutually exclusive regional terms such as color vs. colour. American dictionaries recognize maize as having usage in US English,^[1] and U.S. agricultural trade organizations explicitly state the terms are interchangeable in the US.^[2] The term maize has specific ties to North American English especially as the region of origin and an original name.

↑ "maize". dictionary.cambridge.org. 26 August 2026. Retrieved 31 August 2026.
↑ Allen, Guy H. "U.S. Grains – Commodity Overview, Production Cycles and Descriptions" (PDF). U.S. Grains Council. Retrieved 31 August 2026. Maize (which in the U.S. is interchangeably referred to as corn) is indigenous to the Americas.

Q4: If 'Maize' and 'Corn' are controversial titles, why not use the scientific name Zea mays instead?

A4: The policy on common names mandates the use of English titles for articles where these are in wide use and unambiguously denote the subject of the article, which 'Maize' does. Article titles only default to the scientific name when there is not a suitable common name.

Q5: What about other articles that use the corn in the name such as corn on the cob, dent corn, sweet corn or popcorn?

A5: The additional qualifiers help determine what type of grain is being discussed in these cases and avoids precision issues where the name primarily describes one subject. This isn't the case when using the single word 'corn'. Other names such as maize weevil would be ambiguous if they were labeled corn weevil as other types of weevils infest grains also labeled as 'corn'. Naming of other articles containing the words 'corn' or 'maize' is highly dependent on such context.

Q6: The naming question is important and deserves to be discussed.

A6: It has been debated thoroughly in at least 8 move discussions. You can see all of them in the 'Discussions' list below.

Agriculture High‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mesoamerica (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica

Food and drink Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.

Discussions

No consensus, 20 June 2007, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
No consensus, 21 February 2011, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
No consensus, 11 August 2013, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
Not moved, 22 June 2015, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
No consensus, 11 September 2022, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
No consensus, 9 February 2023, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.
Not moved, 25 September 2024, from Maize to Zea mays, see discussion.
Not moved, 13 June 2026, from Maize to Corn, see discussion.

Name

Latest comment: 12 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Almost all reliable sources call it corn and not maize ~2026-55631-64 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, they do not; please read the FAQ above, and see the sources in the 'Names' chapter in the article. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are going to have a hard time because page move has been tried 8 times now. Consider reading all those discussions before starting a move request if you wish to. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Binomial nomenclature in lead formatting

Latest comment: 2 days ago19 comments5 people in discussion

@Chiswick Chap, In this edit, I meant that the langx template is factually incorrect. Latin, as a common language, did not exist when binomial nomenclature was used nor when maïze was first discovered by Europeans. Further, other articles do not use the langx template like lion. I see no reason why this article should be the exception, especially as it also produces incorrect formatting. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I find that very strange, as it's now the standard template; editors are enjoined not to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in deletion discussions, and it seems to apply just as well to matters like this one (Wikipedia is everywhere imperfect, is admittedly "not a reliable source", and is a work constantly in progress). If you mean that the word "Latin" should not be in boldface, then sure, I've fixed that, but this much fuss about mere markup is not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not a deletion discussion and part of maintaining a style is ensuring continuity across articles. Also, even if "Latin" is not boldface, it is still not fully correct. It is not a native Latin term and binomial nomenclature is not strictly Latin-based (though many older names are), including Aquila chrysaetos and Neimongosaurus. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Zea is not even Latin; it is Greek. Due to service issues with WP:TWL, I cannot check the linked article's citation. However, it seems to check out. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's often the way with botanical Latin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is still not strictly Latin. There is also the fact that no other article (or very few to the point that it should be changed to follow the system used by every other article) uses this system and the MOS asks for italics and not lang templates in these cases. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

1) It seems to say that the output should be in italics; it doesn't appear to say anything about how that is to be accomplished. 2) Talking about other articles is, as I've already said, out of scope. 3) I already thought you were making a mountain out of a molehill some comments back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:OSE does not apply. This is not a dispute of whether an article or subject should be included. This is a stylistic issue and thus consistency across articles is prioritized so long as communication does not weaken as a result.

Including the claim that Zea mays is Latin is also misleading as it is, at best, not "proper" Latin, instead being from a derivation of the language used for labeling. That also does not consider that the etymology of the genus name is Greek-derived. There is also no benefit to keeping that language indicator. It is not like the Latin language is imperative to the understanding of context of maïze and I would be willing to bet the majority of readers either understand that much of binomial nomenclature is derived from Latin or Greek or they simply do not care what the etymology of Zea mays is. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're willing to bet, and to go on and on. I have better things to do. Goodbye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The examples in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Discuss taxa not names and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals#Article content do not claim Latin when the scientific names are added:

The radish (Raphanus sativus) is an edible root vegetable of the Brassicaceae family ...

The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an even-toed ungulate mammal....

PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

As Binomial nomenclature#Derivation of binomial names explains, binomial names are structured grammatically as if they were Latin phrases, but the actual words are not necessarily Latin. When, as in this case, one of the words derives from a language other than Latin, it is factually incorrect to say that the name is Latin. I would argue that even if both words happen to derive from Latin, it is misleading to say that name is Latin, because no native speaker of Latin would have ever used a modern binomial as a name for the species CodeTalker (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do have to agree with Chiswick Chap that there's a lot of non-sequitur in the comments above WP:OSE style comments. Binomial names are Latinized for pronunciation, and comments that the species name is "not strictly Latin" misunderstands the topic. Binomial_nomenclature#Derivation_of_binomial_names even spells out that one the most most common "other" originations of names (Greek) are still Latinized.

So when it comes to what was removed. I'm not seeing any WP:PAG-based reason for doing that, and even looser conventions mentioned above don't say you can't specify the Latin name. Chiswick's addition looked fine to me. KoA (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if I am sounding like a broken record but OSE does[n't] apply in the same way in regards to the stylistic dispute [as compared to a deletion discussion] as the whole point is to maintain uniformity across articles. Further, the language claim breaks WP:V and does not fall under a WP:BLUESKY exemption because it is reasonably disputable. The addition of such a marker is just an unsourced, iffy-quality fact given that there are valid disputes as to if the content or etymology is "Latin". From my perspective, there are two possible roads to go down to solve this issue. Either, the content is omitted or it is reintroduced with a particularly strong citation seeing as, with a Google search, I can find several sources claiming that the genus name is Greek-derived and Zea (plant) notes a (currently inaccessible through TWL) Cambridge University Press source that should also affirm that claim. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning OSE from that perspective is problematic, so of course it's not helpful to keep repeating it. The spirit behind something like "other stuff exists" is that arguments that we should do something X way because another page does not follow expectations here at Wikipedia even though editors do sometimes fall into that pitfall. It's considered a type of wiki-lawyering, and to dismiss it because this isn't a deletion discussion gets to an extreme level on irony in that regard. We follow WP:PAG instead.

I can understand Chishick Chap's frustration because some very artificial and novel rules are being proposed here based on misunderstanding of how species names are Latinized. I'm not aware of anyone making "valid disputes" here as you put it claiming it was invalid, so that's why I'm being a bit more firm as I caught up on what happened here. That you're insisting about the genus name is Greek-derived entirely misses the point when it come to species names as already detailed above. KoA (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would not be making OSE arguments if I did not have a secondary reason. I see no reason why this page should be different from every other page that I have seen when the difference is an oversimplification or incorrect, depending on the perspective at hand. For example, notice the choice in wording of Latinized against simply Latin in the above comment. There are also sources that only point out the non-Latin etymology of Zea mays, like this article by University of Nebraska–Lincoln. When the marker was there, it was unsourced and I do not think it should come back unless a very strong source totally one-upping UNL is found. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The content in question here is a statement in the article that the name Zea mays is literally "Latin", not Latinized. It absolutely is not Latin, any more than Archie Bunker's "Hold-o! Stop-o!" is Spanish. Adding a Latinesque ending to a foreign word or name does make that neologism part of the Latin language. Are we to accept that names like Syconycteris hobbit or Breviceps bagginsi or Aptostichus angelinajolieae are names from the Latin language? CodeTalker (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would also mention that in this particular case (Zea mays), neither component of the name is derived from Latin (Zea is from Greek and mays is from a Spanish version of a Taino word), and neither one even has a Latinized ending. So what possible basis can there be for saying that the name is Latin, unless the claim is being made that all binomial names are in some sense "Latin" regardless of their derivation and regardless of their form? CodeTalker (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's again missing the point here. At the end of the day it's still the Latin name, and anonymous Wikipedia editors misunderstanding the subject matter can't change that. It's not even a matter of needing sources , but rather this talk page isn't an appropriate venue for education on this matter if there are continued misunderstandings. KoA (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to note the term Latin name is a misnomer as described here. These names were not used in Latin and many have non-Latin etymologies. That would be like making the assumption that Guinea pigs are from Guinea just because their name says so. Now, Latin name is not as far off of a misnomer as Guinea pig, but the point still stands. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

[1] "maize". dictionary.cambridge.org. 26 August 2026. Retrieved 31 August 2026.

[2] Allen, Guy H. "U.S. Grains – Commodity Overview, Production Cycles and Descriptions" (PDF). U.S. Grains Council. Retrieved 31 August 2026. Maize (which in the U.S. is interchangeably referred to as corn) is indigenous to the Americas.

[1]