Talk:New World oriole
Move to Icterus
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like moving this article to Icterus would be appropriate. ENeville (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or move it to Icterus (bird)? "Icterus" is a disambig page and also means "jaundice". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's where I started (Icterus (genus)), but the medical condition has the preferred, primary, and uncontested use of "jaundice", so dedicating the namespace "icterus" to the genus wouldn't impair linking in WP as a whole. And for functionality, it's preferable to have an article at "topic", rather than a DAB. ENeville (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since we name the species "orioles", sensibly, why use Neo-Latin for the article on the genus? Call the articles New World orioles and jaundice; and leave the obscurity of a learned language to the Latin wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's advocating moving jaundice. Re the bird genus, while articles on individual species are often and appropriately (IMO) located by common name, most of the genera articles (AFAIK) are titled after the binomial. For the past few years or more of this article's life, editors have apparently preferred having Icterus as the primary bold title in the intro, according to the edit history. I only just edited the intro to conform to WP:LEDE.[1] "Icterus" is also easier to work with than "New World orioles", as far as composition and reference. Perhaps the case for a move wouldn't be as strong if the common name title were one word? ENeville (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with having the intro be The genus Icterus, which contains the New World orioles... This is a descriptive title and need not be repeated or bolded, per WP:LEAD; and it is quite common to have the first line contain the less known form of a name; compare Ptolemy, which begins Claudius Ptolemaeus (Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος Klaúdios Ptolemaîos; 90 – 168), known in English as Ptolemy...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that this is a case of a "merely descriptive" title, as referenced in WP:LEAD:First Sentence. The subject is reasonably well known and defined. Re Ptolemy, that's a case where one term (and a one-word term) is much better known than the other (a two-word term), and the article so placed. Re this article, I think that Icterus is the term that's easier to use linguistically and a better fit with WP conventions, and it happens to be the more "scientific", as well as established. ENeville (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am unpersuaded; this violates our fundamental naming convention: Wikipedia is optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. But I have had my say; let's see what others think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seems at least we agree on principles, if not interpretation (I had also looked to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) for guidance, but didn't find anything quite relevant). I believe that WP:NC's tenet of recognizability would be maintained because I think that readers aware of "New World orioles", as distinct from Old World "orioles", are also aware of "Icterus" in the same sense. I would add, regarding audience accessibility, that identifying this article's subject primarily as Icterus might also help avoid confusion arising from the inconsistency of (Old World) "oriole" referring to a family (that includes a non-"oriole") while "New World oriole" refers to a genus. ENeville (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had hoped to end this; but I am aware (or at least unsuprised) that the New World's "orioles" are unrelated to the Old World orioles - any North American should know of such cases; I had never seen Icterus before this discussion. Your generalization is unfounded and unlikely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seems at least we agree on principles, if not interpretation (I had also looked to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) for guidance, but didn't find anything quite relevant). I believe that WP:NC's tenet of recognizability would be maintained because I think that readers aware of "New World orioles", as distinct from Old World "orioles", are also aware of "Icterus" in the same sense. I would add, regarding audience accessibility, that identifying this article's subject primarily as Icterus might also help avoid confusion arising from the inconsistency of (Old World) "oriole" referring to a family (that includes a non-"oriole") while "New World oriole" refers to a genus. ENeville (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am unpersuaded; this violates our fundamental naming convention: Wikipedia is optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. But I have had my say; let's see what others think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that this is a case of a "merely descriptive" title, as referenced in WP:LEAD:First Sentence. The subject is reasonably well known and defined. Re Ptolemy, that's a case where one term (and a one-word term) is much better known than the other (a two-word term), and the article so placed. Re this article, I think that Icterus is the term that's easier to use linguistically and a better fit with WP conventions, and it happens to be the more "scientific", as well as established. ENeville (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with having the intro be The genus Icterus, which contains the New World orioles... This is a descriptive title and need not be repeated or bolded, per WP:LEAD; and it is quite common to have the first line contain the less known form of a name; compare Ptolemy, which begins Claudius Ptolemaeus (Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος Klaúdios Ptolemaîos; 90 – 168), known in English as Ptolemy...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's advocating moving jaundice. Re the bird genus, while articles on individual species are often and appropriately (IMO) located by common name, most of the genera articles (AFAIK) are titled after the binomial. For the past few years or more of this article's life, editors have apparently preferred having Icterus as the primary bold title in the intro, according to the edit history. I only just edited the intro to conform to WP:LEDE.[1] "Icterus" is also easier to work with than "New World orioles", as far as composition and reference. Perhaps the case for a move wouldn't be as strong if the common name title were one word? ENeville (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since we name the species "orioles", sensibly, why use Neo-Latin for the article on the genus? Call the articles New World orioles and jaundice; and leave the obscurity of a learned language to the Latin wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.