This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofagriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofplants andbotany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP: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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Propose move tocorn – The common name for these crops as a collective is "corn", and has been for centuries. I see no need to use the obfuscating "grain". One drives by cornfields, not by "grain fields". Regardless, the present title is rubbish, so please eliminate it somehow.RGloucester —☎13:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But to most modern English speakers (North America, Australia), "corn" meansmaize. Since we have successfully resisted multiple RM's ofmaize tocorn, let's not overdo it, and let that particular horse please rest in eternal peace.No such user (talk)14:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed move, strong oppose move toCorn. I understand how the "corn" move is aWP:WORLDWIDE suggestion, but we shouldn't be changing the status quo of the current situation of "corn" without a broader consensus elsewhere. My recommendation is to nominateCorn forWP:RFD to see if it should be retargetted toFood grain or where it moves. In fact, I'd rather seeCorn (disambiguation) move toCorn than see "corn" represent any other specific subject perWP:WORLDWIDE, though I think "corn" redirecting to "maize" is the preferable situation.Steel1943 (talk)19:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed move, strong oppose move toCorn. The latter does not work for English speakers of North America. For American and Canadian average WP users, it would seem silly and perverse. As for fighting to force the front-of-mindsense ofcorn to include all grains, that ship already sailed, 2 centuries ago, with regard to North American English. — ¾-1001:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I do not think this is the primary topic. Grain is frequently discussed in materials science, and it is not this topic, rather it is a feature of materials, with grain size, granularity, grain boundaries, etc. And in woodworking. The problem with this article's title can be solved withgrain (food).Grain (disambiguation) should be moved toGrain --70.51.202.113 (talk)05:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here in England "corn" still means the seeds from any cereal crop. The USA usage of "corn" for specifically maize, started as a short form for "Indian corn", because European settlers found Amerindians growing maize.Anthony Appleyard (talk)07:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe common usage of grain includes both food (rice, wheat, maize, barley, etc.) and material science (particle, crystalline structure, unit of mass, etc.); and disambiguation is a more appropriate initial routing forgrain. The older English use of corn is similarly ambiguous, with early gunpowder manufacture includingcorning mills to break the dried solid cake of mixed and wetted powdered ingredients into smaller pieces for screening into what might be calledgrains of gunpowder (although present US use of that phrase might imply mass of gunpowder rather than number of particles.)Thewellman (talk)12:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewellman: But let us take the position of an average reader: 'edible seed' is the original (wikt:grain < lat.granum 'seed') and the only unadored meaning ofgrain plausible; by typing "grain", arriving at this page would hardly be a surprise, would it? Besides, I find it unlikely that many would arrive at this article by searching -- following a wikilink would be a much more likely method, and we should present the reader with the most sensible title available. Thereare many derived meanings ofgrain indeed, but all of them would be onlyWP:PTM in any sensible nomenclature.No such user (talk)17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I concur use of the term to describe small particles was likely derived from cereal seeds, the lead paragraph (or disambiguation link) of the food article would require greater volumetric emphasis on the single seed (rather than the broad food group) to clarify common US expressions likegrain of sand,grain of salt, orgrain of truth. The meaning ofagainst the grain might remain quite baffling despite such change.Thewellman (talk)19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Particularly asgrain is now a redirect. Should be WP:PRIMARY andGrain (disambiguation) covers the rest. My second choice would be for grain to be the dab.Oppose move to "corn." I have no way to assess whether "maize" or "corn" is the more common word for English speakers worldwide, but it clearly is often enough used interchangeably that "corn" as a generic word for "grain" would create more drama than is useful.Montanabw(talk)23:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Something that might be appropriate would be a table giving the type of grain, an estimation of when domesticated, and the geographic origin of such. For example: Maize (corn), 9 thousand years ago, Central America.73.110.37.12 (talk)21:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed that this article may contain original research, and here’s why. A) it implies that pseudocereals, pulses, and oil seeds are grains, yet I couldn’t find any source of information, outside Wikipedia confirming that. B) I see a distinction between warm season and cool season cereals, but then again I see no source of information, outside Wikipedia confirming that.
A quick look at Scholar would have set you at peace: the other sorts of seed are certainly also sometimes called grains. I've added some reliable sources.Chiswick Chap (talk)09:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many new theories suggest grain or elements of grain may be harmful to health, including but not limited to, gluten, omega-6, starch, and anti-nutrients. While it is not currently common medical consensus, it may still be noteworthy enough to compile for future reference.Altanner1991 (talk)19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
