Talk:Vitex lucens

Use of macrons

(Sorry, messed up the undo revision without a proper summary) I don't know the exact process for this, but I have made the change due to the use of pūriri being used by known sources such as NZPN (https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/vitex-lucens/), Te Ara (https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/11671/puriri-berries-and-flowers), Landcare Research (https://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/PeoplePlantsDetails.aspx?PKey=1aaa3c96-8bb1-454d-8498-d3396e0a1b30), Te Papa (https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/category/803), Auckland Council (https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/news/2018/1/ancient-forests/), and is the correct use as per the Māori dictionary (https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/6304). It is also used in recent news articles from various sources (one of several from Stuff: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300508225/how-these-gardeners-survived-lifes-highs-and-lows, The Herald: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/native-plants-used-to-halt-stream-bank-erosion/NDJJKZIOI2GEJL7BMXNXY6VXHM/, and Newshub (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2021/05/tree-activist-says-auckland-council-has-no-respect-for-the-dead-after-firewood-giveaway.html), along with scientific literature (e.g. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.282). This also follows the increasingly large number of articles changed to reflect the correct tohutō, albeit largely among animal species (but examples exist such as pōhutukawa). Pseudomugil (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Pūriri or Vitex lucens?

Requested move 8 August 2025

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 to move There is some support for moving away from the scientific name on commonality grounds, but not enough support to override the plant project's general preference for scientific names. I find the dispute over whether a macron is "accessible" to be largely a sideshow; a macron clearly falls into the first bullet point of WP:TSC rather than the fourth, so that seems to have no clear basis in guidelines. But that doesn't help resolve the more fundamental dispute over plant article naming conventions, which is largely a fact-based rather than guideline-based endevour (both sides are largely relying on the same rules but interpreting the data in different ways), and I can't interpret the facts in my own preferred way because that would be a supervote. So I must merely reflect that the community is split over the matter, and close accordingly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Vitex lucens → PūririPūriri – Per WP:NCFLORA, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNISABILITY. I acknowledge that botanists tend to prefer the scientific name, but that exceptions are accepted if the plant is known in other fields. Pūriri is a well-known, widespread NZ tree, and was logged heavily for timber, and is important in the Māori world (e.g. https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/princely-puriri/). Pūriri is often used in academic articles [1] and preferred on ngrams [2]. Also c.f. mānuka and kohekohe. TreeReader (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCFLORA and the ngrams data. I did wonder whether some of the significant preference for Pūriri on ngrams was to do with the Pūriri moth, but searching for that as well didn't yield any statistically significant results. Turnagra (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Support as per nom. Also main topic over Puriri, New Zealand and HMNZS Puriri. Prosperosity (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Plants has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jeffrey34555, could you please elaborate on why you've relisted this? TreeReader (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, someone messaged me in my talk page about wanting to relist this discussion. See my talkpage for more details. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see! Thank you :) TreeReader (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Support as it is fair to say this is the common name and I prefer that over the scientific name because it is more accessible. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, common explicitly alows for the use of binomial names when they are the most commonly encountered name of a species. Additionally the ngram results are contaminated with other uses of the name, e.g. "Pūriri moth", which also creates ambiguity as to what is being referred to when Pūriri is used without modifier.--Kevmin § 22:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, I investigated potential other uses such as the moth specifically and there wasn't anything significant in ngrams. If you can demonstrate otherwise then please do so. Turnagra (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've updated my earlier google scholar search to Puriri tree (to try exclude the moths and places) ("pūriri" OR "puriri" AND tree - Google Scholar) and most of these articles still use Pūriri. TreeReader (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is a longstanding consensus that plant articles stay at their scientific names. Even extremely well-known species, such as Japanese maple, is kept at Acer palmatum, and articles such as Wheat are actually about more than one species. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose In what way is a word in the Maori language written with a macron accent not used in writing English more "accessible" than the scientific name, as is claimed above? This is not the Aotearoa wikipedia. The scientific name connects it to the genus Vitex, so is meaningful worldwide to people with same botanical knowledge. The Maori name means nothing outside New Zealand. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, we should use the famously English words of Vitex lucens, for all of those Praetorians browsing the internet.

  WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME state that we use the most common name in reliable English sources. Per the ngrams above, that is overwhelmingly Pūriri, regardless of its language of origin. Per WP:TIES, we also use NZ English, which makes common use of macrons (the use of which is experessly provided for in the New Zealand naming conventions). Turnagra (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Try searching for "Vitex". Google produced over 6 million hits for me. Vitex agnus-castus produces a well known herbal product. Using the binomial links the species with a genus containing several well known species.

  I'm not arguing against the use of a macron if the Maori name were used, just that it cannot possibly be correct that pūriri is more "accessible" than Vitex in an international English encyclopedia.

  Common names for plants need justifying in relation to WP:NCFLORA. I cannot see that this has been done. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the WP:NCFLORA policy again: This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany – for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural significance – then a vernacular name may be more common

  My understanding of this policy is that yes, for the vast majority of plants on Wikipedia we will use their latin names - this is an excellent general policy. And it explicitly allows for that small percentage of plants non-botanists are interested in to have their vernacular names as the title. Because pūriri has strong cultural significance to Māori, as well as some significance as a dye and for woodworking, it fits the criteria. TreeReader (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Per the nom, Pūriri is the quite obvious WP:COMMONNAME in New Zealand English, for one of NZ's most well known endemic trees, and the ngrams evidence supports WP:FLORACOMMONNAME. The fact the etymology is of Māori origin makes no difference given it's adoption and widespread use in en-nz. One could (tongue-in-cheek) just as easily say that this is not the Latin wikipedia. Nil🥝 00:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also noting that WP:FLORATITLES says a vernacular name should be used when it has a significant cultural role outside botany. I think a substantive argument could be made about pūriri's significance in Māori culture, especially around it's use in funeral rites; the fact that pūriri groves were considered tapu (sacrosanct) speaks for itself. Nil🥝 00:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, for two reasons: First, for flora in general, it is best to stick to the scientific name; if moved, it would be the sole species in Category:Vitex listed by a different format to all the others. If listed under P for Puriri, how many people would know it was a species of Vitex at all, and what its species name is? Second, letters with macrons are not accessible, since most keyboards (and particularly so on mobile phones) are not designed for typing them easily. - MPF (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  To your second point, macrons are actually easier to type on a mobile keyboard, as holding down the vowel will bring up all the options. But regardless, Puriri redirects to the page already (and so will Vitex lucens) so having the macron isn't too big of a deal in terms of accessibility. Nil🥝 10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that seems like textbook WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP and aligns with NZ conventions on macron usage. Turnagra (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  You make an interesting argument re the categories, and I sympathise with wanting them to be all neatly ordered. But surely using categories is not the main way people navigate wikipedia, but a handy subset for those interested in botany? TreeReader (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have posted this in Wikipedia:Closure requests - Wikipedia since it's been a week since the relisting. Please let me know if that's not the appropriate step! TreeReader (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Nominator makes a compelling case that the vernacular name is sufficiently widely used to meet WP:NCFLORA's standard for this plant being "of interest outside botany", as well as that the vernacular name is the WP:COMMONNAME outright. I'm not concerned about the macron since puriri already redirects here and will presumably continue to do so; thus, including the macron in the article title will improve accuracy without impeding searchability or readability. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom, WP:NCFLORA, WP:COMMONNAME; as stated by others, redirects will ensure all readers reach their intended destination. Wracking ^talk! 04:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't appear to be the predominant name in reliable English language sources outside of a New Zealand context, the link to show that the term is "used often" in academic articles has mix results that includes other references to the word, like the moth, a researcher's last name, and the word used in a diff language etc, so WP:COMMONNAME can't be established using that. And while the tree may be commonly known as Pūriri in NZ, it may not be as recognizable name outside of the country, therefore making the scientific name more recognizable. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that it matters outside of a NZ context - it's an endemic NZ tree that I doubt grows much overseas outside of botanic gardens.
  • My first search for academic articles was a bit messy sorry, it was clearer when I searched for puriri + tree.
  • Many opposing arguments here seem to forget that both names will be prominent no matter what the title is - the first sentence for plant articles is always Name, or other name... so it is still fairly easy to know you've found the correct page if you're coming from the botany route. This argument could also apply to leaving the page as is, however I suspect the group of people who approach this from a botany perspective are a minority - surely most ordinary people will be looking for a Pūriri tree, and perhaps be confused when they arrive on a page headed Vitex lucens. I was certainly confused the first few times I looked up kauri and kept landing on a page titled Agathis australis - except in that case there are multiple species of plants called kauri, so it is sensible to keep the latin titles. With Pūriri as the title, the page will be instantly recognisable, and people might even learn that it's also called Vitex lucens when they read the first sentence of the article.

  TreeReader (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @TreeReader - your last point is not actually true; if this page is moved, Category:Vitex will list every species under its scientific name, except for V. lucens, which will be listed under P for Pūriri, without any indication of its scientific name, and no entry under L. So someone who goes to the category looking for V. lucens will, uniquely in the genus, not be able to find it.

  You also raise an interesting point with the Kauri comparison: it is sensible to keep Agathis australis at its scientific name, because other species in the genus, even though not known to Māori people historically, have become known by the Māori language name generically. The same might easily apply to at least some other Vitex species. If a Māori travelled to another area with a different Vitex species, would they call it a Pūriri? And given the similarity of the Māori language to some other Polynesian languages, are any other Vitex (e.g. Vitex vitilevuensis on Fiji) already also called Pūriri, just as Tī is used for several Cordyline species around the Pacific? MPF (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just noting that Fiji is Melanesian, which is a distinct language group with seperate origins to Polynesia.

  But given that Pūriri is only used as a common name for this single species, I don't see it being an issue.

  Regarding categories, Pūriri can still be categorised under L for lucens, in the same way Mānuka is still categorised under S. for scoparium over at Category:Leptospermum. Nil🥝 12:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just to add, in the last 30 days, the article has had 830+ views, but the category has had just 13. I think it's fair to say, readers aren't relying on the category listing to navigate to this page. Nil🥝 13:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see any reason why we should go against our usual convention - WP:FLORATITLES - for plants/trees. Exceptions to the "use scientific names as article titles" rule are meant to be for plant names like "wheat" and "rose" that are very commonly used worldwide. Just "known by a different name in the country where it originates" is not enough - otherwise it would apply to all but the most obscure plants. What's next? "Kauri", "Tōtara", "Kawakawa"? PatricKiwi (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The exception is for when they are more commonly known outside of botany, not worldwide. The guideline uses "wheat" and "rose" as its examples, because they're familiar with editors world wide; it doesn't exclude localised common names, it's just best to use examples everyone would know when writing global guidelines. Nil🥝 22:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, but can you give some examples of plants, not known worldwide, whose "localised common name", rather than the scientific name, is used as the Wikipedia page title? In other words, can you show that what you want to do with "vitex lucens"/"pūriri" is not an outlier? PatricKiwi (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I mentioned Mānuka and Kohekohe in the original move request :) TreeReader (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Kōwhai, Pōhutukawa, and the Silver fern are other examples too. Turnagra (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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.