Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Collaboration redux

OK, we had secretary bird for three months, I listed two of the articles for FT as candidates for the next collaboration, so we can at least make one an official collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Collaboration#Nominations....

I didn't have the heart to nix plumage as it hasn't quite been three months and it is a central topic, so have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Parentheses on Order and family authorities

Hello, I have a doubt about the use of parentheses in authorities of orders, families and genera. Articles like Tinamou, Struthio, Rhea (bird) and others use paretheses in authorities/dates. This is correct? There are any convention in wikipedia articles to put parentheses in this authorities? I don’t found any comment in ICZN code about higher taxa (i found only in species: 51.3. Use of parentheses around authors' names (and dates) in changed combinations.). Best Regards Burmeister (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into this a bit, and I cannot find any consistency, either in WikiPedia or on any number of third party sites (ICZN, ZooNomen, System nature 2000). Having some sort of consistency would not be a bad idea and having the Name and date set off by parentheses increases the readability. I guess I really would like to know though If there is a style convention? Thanks speednat (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
See: Author citation (zoology). Maias (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So if I've read this correctly, The name and dates are in parentheses if this was not the original authority, or if there was a name change. speednat (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that parentheses are used to enclose the authority name and date in binomials when a species is shifted to another genus. However, I am definitely not an expert and, as Shyamal has indicated below, there may be subtleties and complications I am not aware of, or misunderstand. Maias (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed a bit problematic and it can be even trickier when clade names are involved. http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/Art9.html Shyamal (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Anything above species cannot use parentheses. They indicate "that author called it differently" which in such higher-level single-name taxa is kinda self-contradictory with the taxon being currently valid if you think it through. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right, apparently it is just the name author even in the PhyloCode and changes in circumscriptions if indicated require square brackets for the original author and braces for the emending author . http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art20.html Shyamal (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
They haven't got a fixed system yet (I think), some sources I have seen used small caps for phylotaxa. But for the purposes of Wikipeedia, phylotaxa are better discussed in the maintext if necessary. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Parrot move suggestions from IOC name to non-IOC name

The following are popularly known by a name other than the IOC WBL name: Snowman (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Forshaw 2006 uses Goffin's Corella, so I think that this is used in aviculture and in large books. Goffin's Cockatoo is probably more widely used in the UK. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of moves

  • (after edit conflict with Kim)As I believe that I've made clear several times in the past, it's my belief that articles for the popular aviary birds/pets/companion parrots should be named per whatever title that the majority of *English-speaking/reading general readers* will know the bird by. I don't think that we should lose sight of the fact that enwiki is thus aimed. I'm not expecting much by way of agreement here but in the case of species that are fast becoming common-going-on-ubiquitous-in-the-case-of-some-species housepets in the 00s, I think that we should use the avicultural names, with a paragraph explaining how and why the IOC/AOU/birders in general have selected a different name for the species. I agree with Snowman on the G2 issue - I'd also personally like to see the Nanday Conure and the two Caiques renamed. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that in this situation, a Google test is useful here in determining how widespread the general usage of the various names actually is on interwebs. In each case, I've searched for "Species name" -Wikipedia in an attempt to weed out a significant proportion of the WP-sourced/propagated-via-mirrors material.
  • sigh* tHis didn't take long to crop up did it? Can we please not turn this into WP:FLORA? The point of a standardised list is precisely because it takes the voodoo science out of trying to work out whether which common name is more commonly used (Google is useful but not definitive). Yes these birds are important to aviculturalists but they are also important to birders, ornithologists and conservationists too. As has been shown time and time again on the arguments on the plant people (where a vocal minority tries relentlessly to overturn the established consensus to use scientific names as opposed to whatever title that the majority of *English-speaking/reading general readers* will know the plant by - establishing what the most common name is is tricky. So I oppose the suggested deviation from IOC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the WP:FLORA situation and I assure you that I've in no way been inspired situation (whatever went down there). I just fail to see the need to overturn the use of familiar species name that have been in use for years because one half (or so) of 'aviphiles' say that we should. IMO, the views of aviculturists should not be given less weight when the issue of encyclopaedia article naming comes up when it involves the species that they also live and work alongside on a daily basis. Standardization is not always a good thing. The Google-Fu is not perfect - but it at least gives us something of an indication in determining which name is in most common use. That's my point, really - just choose the name that's most commonly used by the people who 'interact' with these birds (in whatever capacity). If it involves discussion, consensus-building and exceptions being made for individual species, then so be it - it's not as if there's any sort of time limit to get this done... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Aviculture is just one aspect of the entry of any species kept in aviculture, along with biology, taxonomy, and conservation issues. Moreover I really feel I should point out that aviculturists pissed at their pet (pun not intended!) names are not picked need to join the queue of people who are unhappy with the whole list. Most everyone up above had some bone or another to pick. Every ornithological region had to take some lumps - divers are now loons, hawks are now buzzards, guillemots are now murres, lots of names have modifiers. In my region Red-crowned Parakeets are now Red-fronted Parakeets, Orange-fronted Parakeets are Malhbere's Parakeets, Grey Warblers are now Grey Gerygones, New Zealand Dabchicks are now New Zealand Grebes, a modifier has been added to Rock Wrens, and Brown Creepers are now Pipipi (a Maroi word never really used here). I'm not remotely happy with any of those changes (except the wren one, that one is fair enough) And those are just our endemics. But in spite of the grumbling everyone swallowed their regional pride and preferences and voted for the change.
And yes, standardisation is not always a good thing, and I usually fight it tooth and nail, but it is needed here because it stops us having endless fucking battles over every fucking bird. And, again, because I have to keep pointing this out, we have always had a standardised way of naming birds, even if we haven't always followed it. We always have and we still do. All that has changed is a)which standard. There is wiggle room, as there can be consensus to chose another name - but that means you have to convince everyone that there is a case for doing so. If you wish to discard standardisation entirely then make a proposal to do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That would make a good speech. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not proposing doing away with standardization - but I am absolutely, 100% opposed to mass article moves with little-to-no discussion outside of the twenty or so people who regularly view this page whenever the IOC releases a new set of official bird names. What I'd personally suggest is that a list of potential renames are announced somewhere prominent (similar to what was done here today but at somewhere like Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)), with plenty of time allocated to allow users to read and digest - and then any suggested moves (yes, I suggest that we treat them as suggestions) that are contested go through the full WP:RM process, with each case being discussed on its own merits, independent of the outcome of other move debates. I don't have a problem with lengthy discussions if they lead to a useful outcome (I don't see it as a battleground - I mean, it's not as if it's something worth getting angry about) and I'm certainly willing to abide by whatever the eventual consensus dictates. In a nutshell, I'm proposing that we *do* use the IOC list - provided that a community decision has not been made *not* to use the IOC list in certain specific cases. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I do see it as something to get angry about because I see my time slipping away wasting arguing about it when I could be writing. This is boring maintenance shit, and it isn't why I edit here. Now you are proposing something that will massively complicate lots of no-brainer moves. We have handled many moves in the past without jumping through so many hoops. I am not rushing to move anything. I have so far posted a few birds from a few obscure areas. No one is proposing moving anything identified as controversial without wider discussion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Naw, man - I don't think of it as a 'no-brainer move' if someone legitimately objects to it once made aware of the proposed rename. I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone here was immediately going to perform a unilateral mass-move and I apologise if it came across that way. Still, I can't honestly envision that a 'Hey! We're thinking of renaming these articles soon - are there any on the list that you think need further discussion?" thread posted outside of WP:BIRDS is going to cause that much extra work for anyone. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, this is Wikipedia. I will make a bet with you that every single fucking move of a species shared between the US and UK will be contested and will result in no consensus unless one side or another can muster enough people. The rational for standardisation will seem small potatoes to the language warriors. You'll have to forgive me for being less than enthusiastic when the whole fucking point of this standard is exactly to avoid these fights. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a popularity contest most of the time, and if it really wants to go above being that, it should start dealing with things a bit more rational, such as adopting a standardized list of names and only deviate from it when there is a REALLY good reason. Does anyone really think it will help to have a bunch of pages at conure names, each with aviculture sections that are to bad to discuss and are frequently completely unsourced and full of how-to and opinion? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The two do not have to be coupled like that. I really really hate the general use of parrot/parakeet/cockatoo when there are more specific describing nouns out there in general use. However, I do believe in usign the standard in case there is a good reason. I believe tehre is a good reason in some of the cases above but if there is no consensus to move then I can live with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to turn your question around on you (and I'm not intentionally trying to be a dick here) - but how exactly will it *harm* the project to have a bunch of conure articles? Maybe you've seen something I haven't - but the only time that I've ever noticed substantial debate arise is when someone suggests *renaming* them. As for the aviculture sections, I suppose we can a) finally make a start on that 'parrot care' article we've been talking about, and make most of the separate sections obsolete b) get serious and take a scythe to all the howto/long-term-unsourced content or c) accept that WP is a work-in-progress and just leave it all alone until someone comes along, sources in hand to improve it. Actually, I've been tempted to do b) several times myself recently... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
How does it harm the project? Everyone agrees in principal that there are advantages to a standardised system of naming - even you said you don't not want it. Everyone wants it - except for just a few exceptions. My case is a special case. Not like those other cases, they can take the standardised system, but I'm different. Thing is, everyone has different reasons not to like standards and want exceptions. And if one set of objections get an exception why shouldn't all the objectors? And if every special interest gets and exception how the hell can anyone claim there is a standard? So exceptions for cases where everyone agrees that the names are wrong (like the African Grey) doesn't harm the project, but pandering to special interests arguably does. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that every special interest be given an exception - just the ones that gain a decent community consensus to use the 'oldskool name'. At the end of this, there might only be three or four exceptions (or maybe none at all). I'm okay with that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it from my experience of WP, unexpected page moves are an almost *sure fire* way of igniting WP:LAME edit wars and triggering the standard accusations of bias/POV/racism/cultural imperialism/etc. Someone sees something pop up on their watchlist that they consider an affront to their cultural/national identity and they'll likely just move it straight back with a snarky edit summary and flame the person who made the move. Then someone involved with the original page move will likely revert them, then someone else with the same opinions as the first guy will revert the second guy and blah, sockpuppets, blah, meatpuppets, blah, 3RR, and so on, etc. Eventually, everyone ends up at ANI/RFC/etc... A well advertised discussion beforehand at least provides the opportunity to form a consensus which can then be cited in the face of the more persistent edit warriors. These are definite worst-case scenarios, however. I don't think that we should refrain from widespread discussion of species naming because of the fear that the above *could conceivably* happen one day. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be easier to fight the edit warriors if we aren't pushing for our own exceptions. But I am tired of this. Fine. Rather than spamming other pages with massive lists why not create a subpage of this page and list all the moves there. Once the list is assembled put a link to that page on a few pages asking for comments. Then we'll see whether my pessimism or your optimism is warranted. I hope you're right, I really do. But - and this is important - it should be phrased in a way that makes it clear that there needs to be consensus to overturn the standard. Otherwise there is no standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Okay - once we've hashed out exactly which articles are going to be proposed to be renamed to what, I'll draft up a subpage to show to the project. I won't post anything outside of my own userspace until the wording has been okayed. I suggest that the list be composed of the species from Kim's list that are currently flagged as 'uncontested', with any that have already been contested here put through a RM as a matter of process. Are we all in agreement that African Grey Parrot is untouchable, though? SS - you are *absolutely, positively entitled* to slap me with a WP:TROUT and give me a hearty 'I told you so!' if this ends up coming back to bite me in the ass... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps Snowman could help by providing a rational for his objections to some of the other names. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have questioned some because of taxonomy problems and a number of editors have made comments on the individual parrots or taxa. I am opposing other parrot name changes because they are all widely known as something else. These are mostly (but not exclusively) birds seen in aviculture where name changes are controversial. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change standard for Common names

This proposal generated a great deal of discussion last time and in some respects has lead to some movement (for example Blackbird is now at Common Blackbird. But the discussion kind of petered out after a while, and since its sat for quite a while, I thought I'd actually try and see where people stand on it. Therefore I propose changing the wording on our project page from

to

Once we feel that the moves have been finished we can amend the page to reflect that. I think that uncommon species not in aviculture could probably be moved without much discussion. Obviously moves would have to reflect our taxonomy, which may vary from WBL. Nevertheless I feel it is important to make this more. I'm not a huge fan of standardisation and rule creep (as previous discussions have shown) but the fact is that a) there is a case for standardisation in this instance, and this has long been acknowledged as b) we already have a standard. This proposal is just an update of that standard. We have a number of exceptions already and no doubt we will continue to do so in the future, but I think we should finally catch up and do this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Benefits of switching

  1. The HBW list hasn't changed in years. It is out of date, and we have moved beyond using it as a taxonomic source. Even the HBW books now use the WBL instead!
  2. The list has been adopted (with some modifications in some cases) by a wide range of ornithological institutions, putting us in line with the worldwide convention

Disadvantages of switching

  1. Many pages will need to be moved. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It occurs that some pages need moving anyway, as many of the Polbot pages are not consistent with HBW either. Others too, like the Shovel-billed Kookaburra, which should be Shovel-billed Kingfisher using either standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah! HBW has kingfisher, IOC has koukaburra. So that is one change that doesn't need to be made. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Support

  1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Speednat
  3. Jimfbleak - if Shyamal's hyphenation/punctuation idea is adopted
  4. Maias (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I note that WBL is a work in progress and that they welcome input
  5. MeegsC | Talk 08:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Long overdue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Shyamal (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Aviceda talk 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) , also noting Shmayal's punctuation.
  10. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Upon further thought, forced to choose between HBW and IOC, I'd hesitantly pick IOC as the lesser of two evils. At least it's dynamic. HBW is as good as using a stone tablet for your standard. I'd still prefer to see Amendment 6 adopted.
  11. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Would be better I think.

Oppose

  • The motion should include the complete section from the main page, so that more of it can be discussed. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This project is still very much a work in progress with few followers and many problems, like a complete abandonment of diacritic marks and informative hyphens. It even includes aloof and confusing names like "Roughleg" for Buteo lagopus, a name never used by any authority I'm aware of. Why not add an amendment that says, "When a species falls primarily, natively, or wholly within the area covered by a regional nomenclatural authority, that authority's name will be used. Only birds occurring in more than one nomenclatural area, therefore, will trigger usage of an IOC name." I could then be persuaded to be in support of the greater measure. Why should we follow IOC usage for a bird like Western Wood-Pewee? It occurs only in the AOU's jurisdiction, so there should be no confusion. This will also help with the gray/grey problem. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Few followers? Also please note that most people here are in favour of the below amendment to retain our previous style of hyphens. As for diacritic marks, good riddance, although I do not recall them being in any names except a small number of names based on people in our existing standard anyway, and umlats are retained if they are based on names still. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, few. Unless I'm missing something, only one English-language ornithologists' union has adopted it, with changes. Diacritic marks are important pronunciation guides. There's a HUGE difference between Maranon (MARE-uh-non) Thrush and Marañón (mahr-ahn-YONE) Thrush, for instance. And if the AOU had retained them, there wouldn't be people walking around saying things like "juh-KAHN-uh" and "ar-uh-KAR-ee". They carry much meaning without taking up any room, and in the age of the Character Map, there's no excuse for excluding them other than laziness. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. While the naming and species boundaries are usually reliable here. I find some of the IOC hyphenation rules unclear and sometimes appearing very inconsistent and following only this as a guide would require a huge number of renames on WP. Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
We could certainly retain our own punctuation style, that is what the BOU did. I think I would prefer to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It would still lead to a lot needless disputes. According to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-compound.html it is "Bush Lark" but apparently "Skylark", "Woodlark" and "Steamerduck" are ok since they are in "widespread use". Widespread it may not be, but I find "Jerdon's Bush Lark" a rather inelegant substitute for the "Jerdon's Bushlark". (a search on archive.org for old literature suggests that "Bush-Lark" is the oldest usage but in that era it seems that names tended to be toponyms rather than patronyms) Shyamal (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Jerdon's Bushlark is more elegant, but no list is going to be perfect, and as long as the results are consistent for a genus there is certainly wiggle room to leave things as is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Guess we have a lot of moves at hand. Shyamal (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The motion ends in "or ..." and I think is open to misinterpretation. I think it should be clearer what the motion is and what people are voting for. The later part of the section on the main page should also be discussed it goes on to say "... those dealing with a country or region, where the appropriate local official list should be used, as in List of North American birds and British Birds. Thus the article on Buteogallus anthracinus is called Common Black Hawk, following HBW, but in List of birds in Canada and the United States this species is called Common Black-Hawk, following the American Ornithologists' Union." Snowman (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that it was implicit that the text continued on as before (as it would be noticed if otherwise!) but I have amended per your request. I wonder if we should amend it to favour our own rules for punctuation as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This vote is technically flawed, and I think this vote should be restarted as the wording has changed. This will also give the opportunity to discuss the full clause prior to voting. Snowman (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Snowman, I think the rest of us understood that only the first part of the clause was being changed—that the rest of the sentence remained was to remain "as is". What is the reasoning behind your comment re: the vote being "technically flawed"? MeegsC | Talk 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The votes before the re-editing of the nomination were with HBL in the first part of the clause and HBW in he second unchanged part of the clause on the main page. Also, with such a large change, I think that the full clause should have been included for clarity and up for discussion from the outset. Snowman (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The nomination lists "Benefits of switching", but does not list any "disadvantages of switching". Does the nomination present a balanced discussion? Snowman (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have already pointed out a disadvantage, which is that we need to move a number of our current articles. Additionally I would expect problems with how group article names should be handled since this is not covered by the IOC standard. And attempting to extend the same rule can cause some of the capitalization and hyphenation principles to conflict with current WP conventions. See for instance what Honey Buzzard, Honey buzzard and Pernis (bird) link to. Shyamal (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So one of you be bold and add a "disadvantages" section. But I hardly think that's a reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and start over, nullifying the votes of the 8 people who've already responded! MeegsC | Talk 10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If there are enough people who also think that the disadvantage (which I do not understand yet), which occurs with Honey Buzzards, then the wording should be changed to avoid the problem. So perhaps, someone could be logical and start a section for voting in amendments. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess my "honey buzzard" example is in error since I now see that there are a couple of species under Henicopernis - http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-raptors.html . My point is just that we may not be able to extend this standard to higher taxa for which there may be no appropriate common name. Shyamal (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, the wording of the motion should be seen as a suggestion, and that the final wording should be negotiated. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Green-naped". This is a rule that is followed by good typography in ornithology and everywhere else: we should hyphenate compound adjectives whose second element is a past participle, whether or not they're part of bird names (unless the adjective is written solid in dictionaries, such as "widespread").
To answer your general question, the WBL doesn't give subspecies names, so we would still have to decide those however we've been deciding them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that WBL does not cater for genus names. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many zoo articles. Presumably the regional species names are used for zoos. So if there was a Common Blackbird at London Zoo, it could be called a "Blackbird" in the zoo's article. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never considered the project's coverage to include things like that, or also things like birds you might find in national parks, in the biodiversity sections of country articles, or even mentions in cultural works. I would fully expect a zoo article to conform to regional usage in a similar way to a regional bird list would, but at any rate that is not really our problem and we don't really get much of a say here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What exceptions do we have now? Deliberate ones, not accidental ones we haven't noticed or otten around to fixing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Should a new name be implemented the day after it has been suggested in WBL, or should there be a specified period of thought before a new name is used so that its reception can be evaluated? Snowman (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely it depends. If the WBL changes the Orange-fronted Plushcrown to the plain old Plushcrown, it can probably move that day as no one really cares very much (the article has barely been edited since its creation and I doubt many of us could even hazard what family it is in, I certainly have never heard of it before). For more controversial moves (Say they decided the Scarlet Macaw should be renamed the Scarlet-and-Blue Macaw) the changes would not happen that day but would happen after we've talked about them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We handle them like we do now, unless we have a compelling reason not to we follow the list. Most of these cases are situations where the there is an American name and a British name, (or an Aussie, or a Kiwi etc etc etc). The principal benefit of standardisation is that it stops nationalistic bickering, where consensus is sometimes only established by weight of numbers of one country or another. Americans can call out for Common Loon and Brits for Great Northern Diver and neither is wrong or right, but if we follow the list we can piss off both sides (I mean, remove any sense of nationalistic favouritism) and call the poor thing a Great Northern Loon. (Unless of course both sides hate the name so much that they choose not to) Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that the previous three questions are the kind of thing you'd ask if we were adopting standards for the first time. We aren't. We have a standard already, and we have done so for over 5 years. We are simply discussing changing that standard. We have a number of existing deviations from that standard, some deliberate (particularly due to the taxonomic deficiencies of the old HBW list), many not. Between the thousands of articles created by polbot, and the many articles created by dozens of users that inadvertently deviated (I certainly did so on occasion) there are a number of unnoticed mistakes (particularly amongst the brown rainforest type of birds) and we need to do some work anyway. But the questions above apply whether we switch or not, and they somewhat irrelevant to this particular discussion, which is more about the merits of this particular standard versus the older one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to ascertain if anyone who has voted or expressed an opinion has an association with the IOC. Is there anyone with a conflict of interest? Snowman (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 1

I tweaked the wording on the proposal a little.

  • The preferred standard for common bird names is the World Birdnames List (WBL) of the IOC (http://www.worldbirdnames.org). This change is ongoing We are in the process of moving to this standard, and changing a name to reflect the new standard changes in order to conform to it need to be discussed individually (or in small groups when appropriate). Controversial moves need to be listed here and at WP:RM. This should be used for all articles except those where consensus decided otherwise and for those dealing with a country or region, where the appropriate local official list should be used, as in List of North American birds and British Birds. Thus the article on Buteogallus anthracinus is called Common Black Hawk, following HBW WBL, but in List of birds in Canada and the United States this species is called Common Black-Hawk, following the American Ornithologists' Union.

Possible addition:

  • The style of writing compound names does not need to follow the WBL. For example, there is no need to change "Jerdon's Bushlark" to "Jerdon's Bush Lark" (or "Jerdon's Bush-Lark"). Changes of this type should reflect consensus. However, the WBL names and any other widely used names should redirect to our names. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 1

Support

  1. I support my suggestion on compound names. Some of the IOC's decisions on this are the things I like least about their list. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. I have no problem with the addition of wording about compound rules. I certainly support wording on punctuation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    Aren't all the differences in punctuation part of the differences in compound names? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. I note Maias' concerns, but I think the size of the birds wikiproject is such that flexibility will not result in undue circular arguments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. OK - lets go with it, if it will get things moving. Maias (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    To me, "getting things moving" does not sound like a good reason for supporting this amendment, especially as you have accidentally voted twice - the other vote being "Neutral". I note that after your neutral vote you say "let us not water down the adoption of the list". Snowman (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I do apologise for abusing due process, thinking that my "neutral" vote was more of an abstention rather than a vote. However, I thought that my reason was absolutely clear, that I prefer a clear adoption of the WBL, including future changes, in order to avoid naming disputes. I have no objection, however, to some flexibility regarding punctuation, as mentioned above. Maias (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. That makes it clearer what your opinion is. Snowman (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Speednat (talk)

Against

  1. everything is always in transition at wikipedia. So, no need to add that specifically. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Good to see you back, Kim. Is that a vote against my rewording or against the addition on compound names, or both? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    The rewording. I have no clear opinion about the composite names. As for being back, nah, that takes a desysop of a person. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Snowmanradio Snowman (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I agree that keeping a degree of flexibility in hyphenation and capitalisation is desirable, but let us not water down the adoption of the list to the point where endless and pointless disputes occur over every change of name. Maias (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    To me your wording seems to indicate that you are not very happy about this modification in that it tends to water down the WBL nomenclature. Perhaps, you could explain what you meant by "let us now water down of the adoption of list". Snowman (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion 1

Are there any other examples? Snowman (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples of differences in compound names between the WBL and us?
And many others. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be a few exceptions, but I see no reason to part implementing the nomenclature for names that have been in use for more than a year, but a new name might need some months consideration. Snowman (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 2

The wording should make it clear that only species common names are referred to. The WBL does not cater for subspecies names or genus names or any other taxa. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 2

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. This is a micromanagement and unnecessary. If there are no subspecies on the list, how the hell can it be used for those names. Same for higher taxa. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Agree. The list cannot be used to determine the names of subspecies, thus banning that use is redundant. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Kim. Maias (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Can see benefits of both points of view. Not fussed either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion 2

I think this amendment provides useful clarification of the scope of WBL common names, especially for general readers. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 3

Regional lists of birds are essentially bird pages and the names in the WBL should apply to them. Snowman (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 3

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. There's absolutely no reason why regional lists shouldn't use the names most commonly and frequently used by people in those regions. MeegsC | Talk 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. There are arguments for either option, and I have not yet seen a comprehensive discussion for either. However, currently, the regional lists are excepted, so I do not see a need to rush on this at this moment and to muddle the original proposal with this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. No, for the reasons given by MeegsC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Agree with MeegsC. Maias (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Agree as per Meegs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Weakly, I think MeegsC's point is a valid one, though I do like the idea of uniformity. The Common Loon example is a good one below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Speednat (talk)

Neutral

Discussion 3

This increases consistency across bird pages. Articles relating to zoos, local bird magazines or book, and other local articles, such as "Birds of Shakespeare" and others may use an alternative name. Snowman (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Birders in North America know of the Common Loon, not the Great Northern Diver. While an article will explain that the two names are shared by a single species, a list of species will not (and should not) list all of those alternate names. But why should a North American have to click on a species to discover what the heck it is?! A regional list for NA should show the names that NA birders are familiar with (and names that all regional bird books use), and a regional list for a European country should do the same! MeegsC | Talk 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Such an amendment could be looked at later if there are problems with inconsistency and if there is sufficient support for it. However, it is a distraction from adopting the WBL asap. Maias (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect that the Common Loon could be treated as an exception. Generally speaking, a few birds need not exclude this amendment. Snowman (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Common Loon is hardly the only exception! Just within that same family, we have White-billed Diver / Yellow-billed Loon, Black-throated Diver / Arctic Loon, Red-throated Loon / Red-throated Diver and Pacific Loon / Pacific Diver. While the latter two might be puzzled out, the former two wouldn't necessarily be. Then we have Slavonian Grebe / Horned Grebe, Black-necked Grebe / Eared Grebe, Little Auk / Dovekie... I could list dozens more! MeegsC | Talk 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Even scores of exceptions would be a small proportion of the total number of bird species, and they could easily be wikilinked in the list to the WBL name. I would agree that it is difficult to know what to do with birds that already have a widely known common name, and there is a case for using the widely known common names that you mention in both the bird lists and as the name of species articles for consistency. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any idea on who uses species lists? I guess that people outside of the region of a list would want to refer to the list more than the people of the region. Snowman (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on comments left on various talk pages, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the above statement. People talk about finally identifying something they see while driving home from work, as well as things they figure out on holiday. So I think it depends on which list you're talking about. Those for North America (including state lists, etc.) and the UK are probably used by people who live there. Those for more "exotic" locales (i.e. where English isn't the primary language) may indeed be used more by those who are visiting. MeegsC | Talk 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that it amounts to guess work who uses bird-list pages. I would guess that most people know the birds species that live in their locality. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As you say, guess work! We'll probably never know. I certainly disagree with the last sentence though. And that's based on a lifetime of work in the field on two continents!  :) MeegsC | Talk 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that I guess that people who are interested in birds and would look up a bird on the internet to identify a bird would probably already know quite a lot about local birds. Anyway, I think it is unproven that people from a locality would use a regional bird list more than all the people in the rest of the world. I think that your reason for opposing this amendment and the people that have followed your reasoning have done so without satisfactory evidence. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Snowman, I disagree with you. I think I have very satisfactory evidence. Birders and non-birders alike tend to know the names of the birds in their area based on the books they have available to them. I can tell you, having lead birding trips for decades on four continents, that even moderately interested birders are often very surprised to learn of different names for "their" birds. And I don't mean names in other languages. But I'm equally sure I'll never be able to convince you of that!  :) MeegsC | Talk 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The current consensus here is to populate regional bird lists with regional bird names. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 4

Poll on amendment 4

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, fair enough. I think IOC list is a suitable informal shortening, but IOC World Bird List is best in the formal text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

Neutral

Discussion 4

The phrase "World Birdnames List (WBL) of the IOC" is used in the statement. "Birdnames" is not recognised by my UK English spell checker. Is "WBL" a recognised abbreviation? Should it be "IOC WBL" for clarity? Snowman (talk)

Worldbirdnames is the name of the website the list is hosed on. IOC List or IWL or WBL all work for me, no preferences. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that it would be clearer to say that "www.worldbirdnames.org" is the url of the website that the IOC World Bird List is on. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 5

  • When the regional compound species name of a bird species differs from the IOC World Bird List name only by capitalisation and/or punctuation, then the IOC name is used on the regional page, in preference to the regional from of the compound name. Where an alternative wikipedia consensus agreed from of capitalisation and punctuation supersedes the IOC World Bird List name on the wikipedia, the consensus compound species name it is also used on regional pages. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 5

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. speednat (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. AshLin (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. We aren't following the IOC punctuation anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The amendment is phased to take into account the occasions when IOC World Bird List and wiki differ, so I find your objection difficult to understand. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In view of a more recent poll on the use of IOC WBL names (including compound names), I think that the reason given for User Sabine's Sunbird objecting may be out-of-date soon. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion 5
  • I do not think that this will lead to any confusion to readers reading a regional page about their region. Thus the article on Buteogallus anthracinus is called "Common Black Hawk", following HBW WBL (or alternative wikipedia consensus agreed capitalisation and punctuation), and in "List of birds in Canada and the United States" this species is also called by the same name, although it is called the "Common Black-Hawk", by the American Ornithologists' Union. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A completely different poll is currently being taken about the use of IOC WBL compound names, and is seems likely that IOC WBL compound names will be taken up by the wiki for names of species articles. Actual poll result not available yet. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 6

"When a species falls primarily, natively, or wholly within the area covered by a regional nomenclatural authority (i.e., BOU, AOU), that authority's name will be used. Only Birds occurring in more than one nomenclatural area, therefore, will trigger usage of an IOC name. When there is a conflict where two authorities use the same name for different species, the IOC names will be used." Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 6

Support

  1. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. Strongly. This amendment ignores probelsm arising when two species share the same name and are restricted to a single regional nomenclatural authority. Examples Brown Creeper and Brown Creeper, Orange-fronted Parakeet and Orange-fronted Parakeet, and Rock Wren and Rock Wren. The whole grey/gray is a red herring, the IOC guidelines allow author or publisher to choose their own preference. We can keep Gray Jay if we want to, and I feel no inclination change it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    The last sentence in the amendment addresses this problem. Why do you not feel comfortable supporting the amendment? What, if anything, needs to change? Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    The whole point of a standardised list is well, standardisation. If we're going to undermine that aim to please parochial regionalism why bother? Besides, we already have our own way of doing hyphens and compounds, which is incidental to adopting this standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've been thinking more about why this amendment bothers me - damn insomnia, and it is essentially this. It essentially is saying that we should scrap a world list entirely and use regional lists instead, relying only the world list to deal with cosmopolitan species (or ones where the names are shared), unless, and here things get really murky, the species in question is "more in one area than another". Complex and, with that last bit, fraught with the problems we are trying to avoid. I'm sorry that the list doesn't do things exactly as your region does things but it isn't perfect for anyone. It's a compromise. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    There is no need as I see it for a worldwide authority when the subject is an endemic species; there is then by definition no controversy because there are no conflicting regional authorities. That's the whole point of the IOC. If there is real need for the IOC to (hypothetically) step in on, say, Red Grouse, Scottish Crossbill, Kōkako, or Island Scrub-Jay, I certainly haven't heard it. If anyone can make an good argument, I'm quite willing to listen. This proposal was intended to help avoid controversy, not create it by using a manufctured name not used by locals (because it differs) and not used by others (because the bird doesn't occur elsewhere), and thus, used by no one .Natureguy1980 (talk)
    I've said it above somewhere and I'll say it again, we already have a worldwide standard for birds here on Wikipedia. We have had a worldwide standard for longer than I've been here, and that is almost five years. That standard is HBW. This discussion is not about whether we should have a worldwide standard, it is about which standard we should use. What your amendment is proposing is a great deal more controversial than the current proposal. It is essential proposing ditching a worldwide standard, which has served us well in reducing conflict (not to mention fending off spirited attempts by grammarians and MOS types to change our names) for a long time, and replacing it with a more complicated, parochial and inconsistent (Your proposal would lead to problems like families having Ashy Storm-Petrels, New Zealand Storm-petrels and European Storm Petrels) standard. Believe me when I say I am no fan of overbearing standards here on Wikipedia (I usually fight them tooth and nail) but there needs to be some standards sometimes and this is one that has worked well and is worth keeping. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    This amendment does not eliminate a worldwide standard. Eliminate and ditch mean "to get rid of completely". What the amendment does do is recognize that there is a need for a worldwide standard, when that standard is needed, where it isn't, and apply it accordingly. Regarding Storm Petrel, Storm-Petrel, and Storm-petrel, it makes sense to me to use the IOC standard on a family or genus page for simplicity's sake, but the local version on a species page. I have a feeling we already do this in some cases. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    We have quite a bit of divergence between family pages and species pages because we had a bot (PolBot) create thousands of articles and genus pages a few years back, and it used a list that wasn't the HBW. We've done some moving around to conform with the HBW since, but obviously there is a lot of work to do and we haven't given it much priority (I have been waiting for this change to start). As for whether your amendment eliminates a worldwide standard or not - it simply strikes me don't adopt a standard uniformly then you haven't adopted a standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. speednat (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Mixing names from different authorities is a bad idea. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion 6

This amendment would give regional nomenclatural authorities preference when dealing with localized birds. Florida Scrub-Jay, for instance, occurs only in the AOU's jurisdiction, so there should be no confusion with capitalization or hyphenation. This will also help with the grey/gray issue in some instances, such as with Gray Silky-Flycatcher. Birds like Buteo lagopus and Phalaropus fulicarius which commonly span more than one nomenclatural region, would not be affected by this amendment. It would affect a bird like Pacific Loon, which only occurs as a vagrant outside one area. I think this amendment strikes a nice balance between regional authority (when it functions well) and the need for a worldwide standard when regional authorities are in conflict. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the propsed list the Pacific Loon would be Pacific Loon. In fact all the divers become loons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Amendment 6" is not compatible with the general principal of the IOC World Bird list use proposal. So when voting for amendment 6, I think that it would be logical to also vote against the IOC World Bird list proposal. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually just changed my vote to support the IOC switch; I don't understand why it's incompatible. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that completely, Snowman. It's not an amendment; it's an alternative.
Natureguy, what regional authorities did you have in mind, for what regions? (For example, does the AOU "get" South America?) And what are some examples where the IOC name differs from the regional authority's name of an endemic (other than hyphens and the like)? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
South America is covered by the South American Checklist Committee. The only examples I can think of off the top of my head will have an American bias, so please forgive me for that. With the Sharp-tailed Sparrows IOC didn't use "Sharp-tailed", but this just changed last month so that AOU now agrees with IOC. If there's very little conflict (at least with American birds), then it doesn't seem like the amendment would actually "kick in" much at all. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy for this idea—in fact, I've considered proposing it at times. It's in the spirit of utiliZing American spelling for American topics, etc. But to me it makes sense only
  1. if it were limited to truly endemic birds. Lots of birds breed only in the Palearctic but are important parts of the avifauna in various tropical regions, and I don't think we should let our authority for the Palearctic decide their names.
  2. if we had an agreed-on set of authorities for various regions of the world. I suspect North Africa, the Middle East, the sub-Antarctic, and maybe Oceania could be problematic.
  3. if we had some reason to believe that the IOC was forcing unwanted names on the people who live where the regional-endemic birds do.
Even then I'd be in doubt. A single standard is much easier to use and saves arguments (such as whether a species that occurs mostly in one region occurs enough in another region to go to the IOC name).
Overall, I'm hoping that the IOC and other authorities will continue to converge, and the differences will become less and less important. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 7

"When appropriate, diacritical marks may be used." Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on amendment 7

Support

  1. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. speednat (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Very strong support, as it is a proper reflection of names in foreign languages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. Snowman (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Maias (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Diacritical marks are an ugly festering foreign carbuncle on the face of the English language. That said, the IOC guidelines allow their use at the author's discretion, so this amendment is unneeded. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion 7

Diacritic marks are important pronunciation guides. There's a huge difference between Maranon (MARE-uh-non) Thrush and Marañón (mahr-ahn-YONE) Thrush, for instance. There's a great argument for them in the words jaçana and araçari. Had the AOU had retained diacritics, there wouldn't be people walking around saying things like "juh-KAHN-uh" and "ar-uh-KAR-ee". Diacritics carry much meaning without taking up any room, and in the age of the Character Map, there's no excuse for excluding them other than laziness. There are also instances where what many (including IOC) consider a diacritical mark is actually a different letter, such as the 'okinas in Hawai'i 'O'o' and the ñ in Marañón. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These marks could be given in the introduction and the pronunciation explained with the special pronunciation alphabet as well, without them being included in the page name. Snowman (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The amendment says "When appropriate, ..." and I am not sure what this means. Does it mean every time the species name contains one of these characters? Snowman (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Many of these marks are difficult to type with an English keyboard. Pronunciation tips and the version of the species name with the foreign character could be provided at the head of the introduction in a very compact format. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Snowman. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what it means. It means that "Gréy Płòvĕr" and other placements of diacritics where they are not appropriate, would be incorrect. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is that these marks do not normally occur in the English language, and most people would not know what they mean when they are present. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why this is a reason against using them? Most people don't know why knife has a K on the front of it, but we keep it, anyway. It's precisely because they've fallen out of favor that people don't know what they mean. If everyone wrote naïve and façade correctly, there'd be much less confusion about their pronunciations. People would see those "funny marks", and many would ask what they mean. Leave them out, and confusion ensues (jaçana). Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you studied these marks at college? Pupils are taught about the k in knife at school, and might learn a few accents in French language lessons, but not as many as in "Gréy Płòvĕr". You do not see many of these pronunciation helpers in "The Times". Rüppell's Vulture is an example and Gyps rueppellii is alongside it with no German language marks. Should the scientific names have these marks as well? Snowman (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No one has proposed that we should put diacritical marks on scientific names, and the ICZN forbids it. "Article 27. Diacritic and other marks. No diacritic or other mark (such as an apostrophe), or ligature of the letters a and e (æ) or o and e (œ) is to be used in a scientific name; the hyphen is to be used only as specified in Article 32.5.2.4.3."
Most languages have a few such marks, but you are apparently advocating that we use them each and every time we have a bird loanword name. Most people might be familiar with a few - I for example grew up in Argentina and now what a Ñ means - but if we wish people to pronounce things properly (how would you use diacritics to render Chough properly I wonder, and would anyone be able to understand) then Snowman is correct that explaining it in the intro is a more useful way to do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To me it sounds a bit like you are not in favour of this amendment. I am not sure how to equate your neutral vote with your opposing stance in the discussion, and I guess it would confuse anyone counting up the votes and assessing opinions? Snowman (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am neutral insofar as the IOC guidelines do not have an opinion. They do not use them, but allow a certain amount of digression to everyone else. A such I am happy to allow us the right to decide where we stand, and that said my own opinion in that argument is no, we don't need them. Essentially I have no desire to preclude discussion, but my contribution to that discussion is to oppose their use. Clear? Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I think your comment "Diacritical marks are an ugly festering foreign carbuncle on the face of the English language." does tend to imply a wish to preclude discussion. There is probably no need to worry about influencing people any more with your vote going one way or the other. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is absolute bizarre that one can just change how for example a family name is written. It is a form of dominance that I as a non-native English speaker despise. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely it is part of the process of what happens in loanwords - they get beaten about to conform to the destination tongue. It happens whenever a word is adopted into a language, be it English or any other language - tricky and unfamiliar sounds are modified, spellings are made to conform to the adopting language, meanings may drift, and these marks are dropped if they aren't normally used. English is a particularly borrow-y langauge (as well as a loany one too) and that process has turned bestia into bitch, garzubo to garbage, cœur méchant into curmudgeon and chaudière into chowder. Its not dominance, it is language. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, language is dynamic, and words change. But we are not talking about the general language, but about family names that are not loaned, but used because the person accidentally had that name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean like Rüppell's Warbler? I took family to mean Gavidae or something, so apologies. That isn't a problem - the list spells all names derived from people's names as they would have, so they retain the umlaut. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we English speakers are the only ones to blame. The Dutch, French, Spanish, and Italian words for family Jacanidae are all "jacana".
S's S, I agree with your point on anglicization, but the NSOED disagrees with all your examples except "chowder", which it gives with a "perhaps". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dammit Jim (or Jerry) I'm a doctor not a wordsmith! I was relying on Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe "ü" is modified to "ue" even in Germany when it is difficult to type because of the keyboard (or typewriter), so I think this is another reason why the change of Rüppell's to Rueppell's does not represent the dominance claimed above. I have asked a German and English speaking person about this. I would be perfectly willing to learn to the views of German speaking people about this. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that jacana and aracari are pronounced or spelt in a particular way in Spanish does not preclude an English spelling and Anglicised pronunciation. I don't pronounce Paris as "Paree" or write "Firenze" instead of Florence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I should hope not...they're of Portuguese derivation, and there is no cedilla in Spanish. ;-) Regardless, they're being mispronounced by English-speakers precisely because someone decided the marks were inconvenient. Façade a commonly-used English word, and anyone who says "fuh-KADE" because they see it written facade is simply mispronouncing it, and if the printer had left that cedilla where it should have been, an astute reader would at least have the opportunity to ask why it was there and perhaps go find the proper pronunciation. Without the cedilla, a new generation is born into ignorance. In the age of the typewriter and crazy keystroke combinations, there was a case for eliminating diacritics, but anyone with half a brain can use a character map. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of brains, its a matter of simplicity and speed. People don't wish to do things that take more time, and if you are writing and you write facade or Façade you will be understood either way, only one way is faster, and most people aren't particularly bothered about being sentinels for pronunciation, guarding the language against slipping standards, especially when the shift away from the marks happened generations ago. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 8

"Thus the article on Buteogallus anthracinus is called Common Black Hawk, following HBW WBL, but in List of birds in Canada and the United States this species is called Common Black-Hawk, following the American Ornithologists' Union."

This is an example given in the statement that should be removed.

Poll on amendment 8

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

Neutral

  1. I'm fairly sure this kind of thing doesn't need an amendment - just be bold and change it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would rather not be foolish and change it at the juncture, because people have already voted and I think this amendment needs to be considered properly. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I am not sure why you are voting neutral and at the same time suggesting that I change it directly. I sounds a bit like you are in favour of the amendment. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    What you are proposing is non-controversial and doesn't substantively alter the main proposal. We don't argue over ever single change made to the Main WP:BIRD page, and this falls under the realm of those changes you can make without worrying about it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion 8

I think that an addendum in a subsection could be added with a more comprehensive and better list of examples. Anyway, I think that the example is not a very good one as the only difference in capitalisation and hyphenation. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A list of examples for the addendum could be formulated when all the amendment counts are finalised. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on handling the moves

Since this change looks like it has a fairly robust consensus (quibbling being mostly over details) I've been thinking about how best to handle the moves that will need to be made to get us vaguely in line with the IOC list. I think the following could be one way of handling the moves.

  • As a courtesy and to maximise transparency all moves are listed 24 hours beforehand on this page. We could handle them in a similar fashion to the bird ID requests now, although possibly more than ten to each section. That way everyone can keep an eye on potential moves and call out if they aren't happy.
  • Any moves likely to be controversial should be listed here as well, but also have a discussion started on the talk page and a note left at WP:RM. It is hard to pin down exactly what constitutes a controversial move, but it would certainly include 1)any bird found in North America or Europe 2) any bird with a cosmopolitan or widespread distribution that has a lot of common names 3) any parrot commonly seen in aviculture. These should be given at least a week to see what people think.

Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All that makes sense to me, though the point of adopting a standard is to follow it even when it's controversial. Or especially then. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I know, I know, My personal preference would be "no exceptions". However this isn't Sabine's Sunbird's Wikipedia, this is Wikipedia, and there are drawbacks as well as strengths to the way we do things (as there are drawbacks and strengths to any way of doing things). Besides, I'm hoping there will not be many exceptions. Because optimism is a triumph of hope over experience! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree a standard should be adopted without an endless list of amendments and caveats. From personal and professional experience, many people have much emotional investment in the names they are used to, and will fight any attempt to change them. As Jerry has indicated, a standard is something to adopt for convenience and consistency even when you do not necessaarily agree with every case; perfection is illusory. And when you try to cut the red tape, you get into arguments about whether the tape is really red or just reddish, rosy, rufous, rufescent, rubescent or rusty... Maias (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I always thought quibbling meant fine tuning to achieve something everyone can live with (or something to that effect). Apparently it means trivial objections. Well, you live and learn. At any rate, I had the former meaning in mind. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

This proposal has been open for nearly a month and is currently standing at 11 support, no oppose, no neutral. As such I think it is safe to conclude that the motion passed and there is consensus for our naming standard to change to change to the IOC World Bird List, although reservations made by several of the supporters are noted. With regard to the amendments, 1 passes (several support commend for the main proposal voiced support for something without adding to the actual amendment); 2 and 3 didn't; 4 did; I'll let someone else call 5 (or perhaps more people might want to weigh in), 6 didn't, 7 is rather close and could use more input and 8 didn't generate any opposition but is rather uncontroversial. It obviously should be noted that we can discuss further amendments as and when we need to, and if more people want to discuss the amendments my tallies above can be changed. Anyway, yay, we made a decision! Now the job of finding the names that don't match. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the voting gives a clear answers. My interpretation is that amendment 5 has passed. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So few people voiced an opinion that I would rather someone that didn't participate called it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hold the amdt 5 choice for a while. Email discussion ongoing. Post discussion, will 'support' or 'against' it. Please decide after that Supported Amdt 5 above. AshLin (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that User Sabine's Sunbirds comment above implies that amendment 5 has not been closed. He says that "perhaps more people might want to weigh in". Snowman (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_42&oldid=1046362172"