Talk:Northern New Zealand dotterel
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 13 June 2020
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was proposed in this section that Northern red-breasted plover be renamed and moved to Northern New Zealand dotterel.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
- Northern red-breasted plover → Northern New Zealand dotterel
- Southern red-breasted plover → Southern New Zealand dotterel
References
- ^ Rowe, D. (2019-12-15). "Stewart Island deer pose threat to critically endangered southern New Zealand dotterel". Southland Times. Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
- ^ Czerwonatis, J. (2020-01-21). "Good breeding season for rare Northland seabird with chicks fledgling at Matapōuri". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
- ^ Lord, A.; Waas, J. R.; Innes, J. (1997). "Effects of human activity on the behaviour of northern New Zealand dotterel Charadrius obscurus aquilonius chicks". Biological Conservation. 82 (1): 15–20. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00013-X.
- ^ Dowding, J. E. (1994). "Morphometrics and ecology of the New Zealand Dotterel (Charadrius obscurus), with a description of a new subspecies" (PDF). Notornis. 41: 221–233. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
- To add to this – a Google Scholar search returns 126 results for "Northern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 2 results for "Northern red-breasted plover"), and 34 results for "Southern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 3 results for "Southern red-breasted plover"). -Air55- (Talk)
- IUCN seems to use "Northern red-breasted plover". Does Wikipedia have a convention about whether to ordinarily follow IUCN or IOC? Have you considered using the scientific names? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- To my understanding: WP:NCFAUNA is the relevant Wikipedia guideline here (which follows WP:COMMONNAME). According to that guideline, the article name should "usually consist of the name that is most common in English". In regards to international nomenclature authorities (in this case, the IOC), WP:Birds states that "bird article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." WP:NCFAUNA also mentions that the names used by authorities such as IOC is to be preferred when "what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained." Overall, there is no requirement for the names stated by IOC/IUCN/etc to take priority over common names (except where the 'most' common name cannot be ascertained) – hope that makes sense.
As for the scientific names - I think it would make more sense to name the articles by the common name, as most literature do not refer to these subspecies solely by their scientific names. Though I would be happy to accept it as a compromise if a consensus cannot otherwise be reached.-Air55- (Talk) 05:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)- Sometimes the scientific name is the most common name in reliable sources. (See Talk:Daboia palaestinae.) —BarrelProof (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- To my understanding: WP:NCFAUNA is the relevant Wikipedia guideline here (which follows WP:COMMONNAME). According to that guideline, the article name should "usually consist of the name that is most common in English". In regards to international nomenclature authorities (in this case, the IOC), WP:Birds states that "bird article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." WP:NCFAUNA also mentions that the names used by authorities such as IOC is to be preferred when "what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained." Overall, there is no requirement for the names stated by IOC/IUCN/etc to take priority over common names (except where the 'most' common name cannot be ascertained) – hope that makes sense.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories:
- Start-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/08 May 2019
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Start-Class bird articles
- Low-importance bird articles
- WikiProject Birds articles
- C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class New Zealand articles
- Low-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles