I'm writing a paper on graphs. Personally, I've always disliked the vertices/edges terminology. I found it very confusing when I started working with graphs, and I much prefer the alternative names nodes and links respectively. These terms are used, but far less than vertices/edges, and it depends highly on the field. I think nodes/links is more intuitive (to a modern audience) and I would like to see people move to this convention.
Now, I have a habit of choosing less common conventions if I don't like the common ones, sometimes to my own detriment. On the other hand, if nobody ever bucks the trend, there's no chance of poor conventions ever improving.
So my question is, specifically, is it acceptable to use nodes/links, and would it give a reader/reviewer that immediate slight sense of distrust towards the paper? Are there fields where it would simply be unacceptable? My paper is somewhere in between practical computer science and machine learning, but I'd be interested in the unwritten rules of other fields as well.
As a secondary question (if you care to elaborate), how should these situations be judged in general? Is it ever smart go against the most common convention, just because you don't like the common way? Are there good heuristics for such decisions?
EDIT: I edited the question to make it a bit more subtle. The original phrasing suggested that I'd made up the nodes/links terminology myself, when it's more about choosing between a popular and an unpopular convention, rather than introducing a new one. Apologies for changing the question after answers have been given.