Talk:Eurasian woodcock

Discussion copied here from User talk:Benwildeboer

Edits to Eurasian Woodcock

HI,

You incorrectly identified my post on the Eurasian Woodcock as vandalism. Please leave the edit as is.

Thanks,

John

Sorry for any confusion. I deleted the edits for a few reasons.

1. "This is particularly popular in the UK, where their size, speed and flight pattern makes them a very challenging shot"-- needs a reference
2. "A right and left at Woodcock..."-- This is confusing. Clicking on the wikilink for right and left redirects me to the Relative direction article, which doesn't help clarify what the meaning of the statement in game hunting is.
3. "...affords the shooter membership of a certain desirable club."-- give more details. What is the club? What are the exact requirements? What makes it notable?

Thanks for you editing help! (Don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~)

--Benwildeboer 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Re your remarks:

1. This must be referred to in the vast majority of books on shooting game in the UK. Should I provide one at random?

2. Perhaps I need to add some disambiguation to right and left. I'll get on the case.

3. I did mention the name of club before, but the people on the IRC channel for the vandalism program you are using said that it was not allowed as it could be deemed as advertising. What would you suggest?

My comments may well be poorly referenced and confusing, but they certainly aren't vandalism. We are asked to "Be bold in editing ... articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required."

82.68.226.202 21:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I labeled your edits as vandalism, that wasn't my intention. To answer your questions:

1. Any reference that backs up the information would be great, it can be from an electronic source as well. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the official policy and help.
2. That sounds like a great idea. I have no idea what a right and left is when being applied in a hunting frame of reference.
3. I would either just drop the entire bit if it only refers to one club. If a right and left with Woodcock is difficult or considered prestigious, perhaps explain that. A reference would probably be a good idea for this section too.

Hope this helps some! --Benwildeboer 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"A certain desirable club", as indicated above is not adequate since it can not be verified. it is up to you (82.68.226.202) to show that that your edits can be verified, not me. As a minimum, you need to name the club, if it's a real club, show that it is notable, and give a source. I'll leave the edit for now, to give you a chance to reference and verify, but I don't think it can stay as it is jimfbleak 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've removed the red link since it is difficult to see how it can be any more than a dic def, and put the def in the article. I've clarified the club - I can't see that it's any more advertising than, say, the Carling Cup. jimfbleak 11:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per the currently enshrined exception. I personally disagree with the exception, but if this is to change, doing it piecemeal is not the way to go and is a recipe for discord.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Eurasian Woodcock → Eurasian woodcock – In common names, low case must be used, not capitals. It is "Siberian tiger", not "Siberian Tiger". It is "Eurasian woodcock", not "Eurasian Woodcock". Kintaro (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree See WP:WikiProject_Birds#Bird names and article titles. Further detailed explanation is in that link. Capitalizing the common names of birds has been the custom in bird and ornithology books, journals and magazines (and encyclopedias) throughout the English speaking world for centuries. Per WP:Wikiproject_Birds, it is the convention here. DocTree (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that, really. Thank you for your answer. Kintaro (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also found that the naming convention to retain the original name is contained in Article titles. DocTree (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom; bird species are not capitalized in normal writing, and there isn't really much reason we should be treating birds differently from other animals on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (Sigh) This has been discussed ad nauseam, and the consensus has always bee that the bird project's preferred style is an exception to the general rule. It is incorrect to state that bird names are never capitalised in books etc, and it's difficult to see why this species alone, out of 9000 bird species articles, should be moved to lower case (especially as one word would be capitalised even then). If you want to do this this, do it as a general principle, not just select one article at random. After all, it's at least a month since the last exhaustive discussion... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

For the record, there is no such "consensus...that the bird project's preferred style is an exception to the general rule". MOS:LIFE itself clearly notes the wikiproject's insistence on capitalization of bird species names is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (i.e. a WP:CONSENSUS policy violation). This RM should not be used as evidentiary of anything other than that people are misinterpreting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to mean "a consensus that happens to be local"; it actually means a false "consensus" that is only recognized locally by a particular group of editors and is conflicting with broader consensus. See also the close rationale at Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested move, which concluded the opposite way this RM did, after considerably more discussion. That RM is under discussion as of this writing at WP:MR, so taking Eurasian [w|W]oodcock RM to MR as well would be WP:POINTy, since they raise the same issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistake for female/male size

The females are larger then males Natural HistoryThe Penny Cyclopaedia - just opposite as it is written now.Ingii (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

removed caption

I am removing the image of the Irish coin due to copyright concerns, but wanted to note the caption that is going with it in case someone wanted to integrate it back into the article.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Eurasian woodcock depicted on the old Republic of Ireland farthing coin (in use 1928–69). Despite its small size, the woodcock was an important game bird and an extra source of meat to poor farm labourers."