The Curator Guide is very clear that we should not make up names to add to iNaturalist, but I’d like some additional clarity on whether we should avoid adding names made up by other people. In the cases I’m dealing with, there’s no question that the names are made up: the source explicitly says the …

You’re right, people are not purposefully avoiding species they know do not have common names. But many, many people care far less, and are often disinterested, in species that lack them. I interact with these people all of the time. Most of the general public falls into this camp. I am sure most iN…

Also, while I do understand why iNat does not allow common names specifically created for iNat use, I really struggle to see why a name of fairly recent origin spreading through it being added to iNat is a bad thing. Why is it bad for an organism to have a common name?

[image] raymie: Why is it bad for an organism to have a common name? It’s not. What is bad is for iNaturalist to become a free-for-all where everyone is making up and adding their own common names.

[image] jdmore: It’s not. What is bad is for iNaturalist to become a free-for-all where everyone is making up and adding their own common names. Why? (again!) Many of the people on iNat are highly experienced in the taxa and arguably often the best people to invent some common names for the c…

Inventing an informal name for something doesn’t make it “common”. It’s common if it has widespread use in some group or region. And if it has that, it can be documented and inat can refer to that. Inat isn’t the place to start that process - it’s here to observe it :)

[image] sjl197: why do iNat seem to want to instead appeal to the names from external providers rather than their own base of expertese? In my experience “experts” are often (not always) the last people I want suggesting names to become “common names.” The results tend to emphasize taxonomic…

[image] sjl197: I see scope for some fun community engagement and discussion Who gets to have fun? The loudest and most obsessive voices? No thank you. You can have all that fun without dictating to everyone else what that bird should be called.

I think a big part of the issue is not strictly that newly invented common names are bad universally, but that there are too many “bad” examples of them, for reasons that have already been listed in this thread. Like they apply just as well to multiple other species in the genus, are straight up ina…

[image] environ: It’s common if it has widespread use in some group or region Not necessarily. The word common has many definitions, including familiar, ordinary, shared, vulgar, for use by all, etc. There’s no requirement that it be in widespread use in the general population and for obscu…

I disagree. A common name for biodiversity - should make it possible for an iNatter to find the name they (not one individual, but people in that place) USE for that, and in their own language. Complicated by the fact that iNat deletes their Placeholder text - if they do not know to use Notes or …

Curator guidelines about made-up names

Curators

JeremyHussell September 24, 2024, 11:04pm 82

The beetle names apparently have quality issues too: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/adding-common-names-by-interpreting-scientific-names/44290

Topic		Replies	Views
Common names invented on iNat General common-names	192	12713	March 29, 2023
Definition of made up common names Curators	37	1351	February 17, 2024
Interpretation of rule against invented common names General	85	1882	September 12, 2025
Common names from "not good enough" sources Curators	72	5535	November 16, 2021
Inventing common names redux General	68	2558	May 6, 2023

Curator guidelines about made-up names

Related topics