Sure, I can understand that this is probably what you meant but it is not explicit - that’s why I’m being so annoying and keep repeating that the current guideline saying that common name is a name “in usage” or “name exists somewhere” is as good as no guideline. Or perhaps worse: users who want to invent names will do so and once they do, it is difficult to reverse it because once a common name is in the system it is considered necessary to prove that the name really “does not exist somewhere” before it can be deleted while it is not necessary to prove with the same effort that the common name “exists somewhere” when being submitted.
Most of these paragraphs describe “adding” common names, just few times “choosing” is used. Again, I do not want to troll over word choice - I’m trying to show how the guidelines suffer from surprising lack of description of the criteria for a suitable common name which contributes (together with lack of functionalities that check if a suggested common name is “in usage”) to the invention of common names and the propagation of iNat-originated common names or propagation of names that have a single occurrence “anywhere”. I’m just still surprised that iNat gives to any user a tool that can instantaneously generate the default names which are by most iNaturalists likely considered one of the main outputs of the platform.