Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158→Archive 160

Bird common name decapitalisation

Shortcut

Closed per request on WP:ANRFC, and because no new arguments are being presented. In closing this, I am using the following principles: (1) the purpose of a manual of style is to make things easier for the reader, to facilitate editing for the contributors so they don't have to figure them out each time--and to avoid repeated arguments over details, to improve the perceived quality of WP, and to facilitate technical development of the database. The reader is helped by seeing a consistent, clear, and familiar style. Contributors are helped by having a fixed form for trivial matters. The correction of errors and the working of tools like wikidata is facilitated by uniformity of presentation; the perceived quality of WP is improved by looking to some extent like a professional, copy-edited publication. (2) The general rule is that the MOS should be uniform across all of WP unless there is good reason otherwise. The simpler it is, the fewer exceptions, the easier it is to follow. (3) The desire of those working on a particular subject to make exceptions is subject to the oversight of the community as a whole, though the community will give reasonable deference to specialist views. (4) The rationale for making exceptions is usually one of the following: the need of a particular subject for clarity; the technical limitations of our format as applied to a particular subject; the strongly predominant usage of all writers on a particular subject, or at least of writers on the subject at a level similar to that of WP articles. (5) In deciding, the various factors involved need balancing and will often be a matter of judgement. As always at WP, subject only to technical limitations, the basis for decisions is usage and clarity, not theoretical structural or philosophical consideration. (6) There is often a need to accommodate the standards of the different dialect communities composing the English WP. Traditionally, we do not favor any one of them but permit them all, despite the lack of uniformity. (7) As a rule, individual preferences are irrelevant, except to the extent they are backed by reasons.

As applied here: in reverse order: (7) My personal preferences is to see the names with Initial Capitals. I find it more familiar. That's not enough of a reason, unless the usage is really predominant. (6) I don't see dialectal variation here. Chronologically, the older form would have been initial capitals, but the uniform use of Capitals for Nouns is an dead Tradition. (5) The philosophical basis of what species names represent is unclear. Even technical biological opinion is divided about the nature of a biological species, whether it is a convenient assemblage or a true evolutionary construct. The more general question of the nature of our concepts for collective objects has been argued for 2500 years, and is unlikely to be settled here. (4a) There is a reasonable argument that the possible ambiguity is greater for birds than for other animals, because so many names for common birds begin with an adjective, especially an adjective of color, that might be used in a general sense. Though these names occur for other classes of vertebrates, they aren't as frequent, nor do they as often apply to widely known species. But the examples of ambiguity presented here are not very likely to often appear in WP article--they might be more frequent in other types of prose. (4b) There are no special technical problems. (4c) There is no strongly predominant use, nor do the formal nomenclature authorities have a consistent use. However, there is a very strong predominant use in one class of publication, bird guides. It could be reasonably be argued that the level of writing in bird guides is roughly similar to WP articles, but our articles are usually much longer and in more depth than such guides, and there is less need for immediate recognition. (3) The general trend in WP has not supported increasing the number of special rules for special subjects. (2) It is very clear that the community as a whole has decided to treat animal names in lower case, and that this is the general rule. The burden is therefore on those wanting to do it differently. (1) The purposes of a manual of style are best served in this instance by uniformity. These names occur so frequently in running text that a common practice is rational.

Thus, were this an Encyclopedia of Birds, I would decide for initial capitals in all cases, As this is a general encyclopedia, the burden of showing a strong reason for the exception has not been made. Thus, bird names in WP should follow the general rule for animal names, which I understand to be lower case except when the word would otherwise be capitalized in English. If that rule should ever change, bird names would change as for all others.

I suggest that all existing usages in titles or text ought to be changed as rapidly as possible. I think it might be wise to do this by a manually supervised bot, not fully automatically. I think making such changes rapidly contributes to a definitive settlement of the question, so everyone concerned can return to questions of substance. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The specialist style fallacy that WOULD NOT DIE is back.

There's even more going on, but I have stuff to do offline and will get to it later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  22:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye. His name is Big Bird, and the common name of his species is "big bird". I stand corrected. He's apparently a golden condor. It's capitalized in his article. I'll get on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The creeping capitalization of bird common names outside of ornithology articles is a constant issue. Life would be much simpler if the birders would just agree to follow MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bird case above, though perhaps meant as a joke to bring up here, is actually a very good example of how this bird capitalization nonsense is in fact a genuine slippery slope. That's aside from innumerable cases of other groups of editors running off to try to capitalize other kinds of life forms based on the WP:BIRDS example (see, e.g. Talk:Cougar/Archive 2#Capitalization? for "Cougar" being advocated, citing WP:BIRDS specifically, I kid you not, and the same thing happened at lion as well as at various cetacean and rodent, articles, among others). Here we have editors trying to capitalize a descriptive phrase, "golden condor", on the assumption that because it kind of looks like a species (the non-existent golden condor or as WP:BIRDS would do it Golden Condor), that it "must" be capitalized, because this is being mistaken for some kind of official WP style. WP:BIRDS people are always harping on the idea that their capitalization is essential to reduce confusion with regards to what is or is not the name of a species, and here we have it dismally, comically failing and doing the exact opposite.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  03:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd always figured the best way to be clear which species you're talking about is using the italicized, lowercase Latin name. Only one thing named geococcyx californianus, in any language. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the use of binomials for botany articles here has been very helpful, despite it being a divergence from WP:COMMONNAME which some people really obsess about. However, it really only resolves the article title issue. People will still fight to the death over how to capitalize or lowercase the common name, until we just have a rule and put and end to that squabbling. (But it's Geococcyx californianus - genus is capitalized.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Over my dead body! Kidding. Thanks. You were right. About that, about the slope, about the obsession. About everything. It's crazy down there! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

It's clearly time to clean up WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA, MOS:CAPS and any other relevant pages to stop POV-forking from MOS, away from its "do not capitalize common names of species" standard, which has been stable since 2008, and was already the de facto practice in the vast majority of biological articles since the encyclopedia began.

Proponents of such capitalization (who include some but not all regular ornithology editors, as well as some flying insect editors and some who focus on certain kinds of plants) have had years and years to gain consensus to change MOS to recognize special exceptions, and have failed to do so. Instead they've taken to tweaking the wording at MOS's subguidelines and the biological naming conventions pages (pages hardly anyone watchlists), and trying to push wikiproject pages as competing Wikipedia guidelines, all to incrementally diverge from MOS on this point, as if no one would notice. After canvassing disrupted a poll here back in Feb. 2012, MOS settled on some emphatically temporary wording indicating a birds-related dispute, and it still has that wording today, for no real reason. It's time to declare that dispute resolved: site-wide consensus at MOS:LIFE to lower-case the common names of organism has not changed, and those who would like to see it changed have had far more time than would normally be entertained to make such a case.

There is no reason whatsoever for MOS to continue to use wishy-washy wording here, nor to continue to ignore the POV-forking of its own subpages or other guidelines (or wikiprojects). Just fix it and move on. The one editor who threatened to quit over the matter already left the project (with a dramatic right-to-vanish act) a long time ago. No more histrionics are in evidence, just increasingly eroded tendentiousness. Even routine WP:RM cases are resolving in favor of lower case, including at ornithology articles. This debate is, basically, already over and has just been echoing lifelessly for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  03:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible/wise to have a formal RFC, advertised to logged-in editors site-wide via banner (as several previous major RFCs have been), on this issue of the capitalization of the common names of species? That would prevent or at least nullify canvassing. -sche (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me to be essential, and timely. There's a long history of discord on this point, and IMO both sides are making some valid points, on which a consensus might be built. But there are also some ruffled, dare I say, feathers, and the discussion has not been perfect. Allegations of people having been shouted down in the past have been made in the current discussion, for example, and where there's that sort of smoke the fire is not far away. While we don't want to reinvent the wheel, we need to try not to reenact past battles, too. Andrewa (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not we want another RFC to try to change MOS (I doubt we do) has no bearing on whether or not to fix MOS:CAPS, etc. to stop contradicting MOS (yes, we do). If there were to be yet another RFC, it should be here, not at some subguideline or wikiproject backwater, and yes, it would have to be advertised in the broadest possible way (previous RFCs and polls have in fact been canvassed and derailed). The problem, however, is that any such RFC will necessarily be nothing but a "reenact[ment] of past battles", because there's been a consensus for lower-casng of common names of species since April 2012. Going back to at 2008 that consensus was also actually there, but someone added in something that looked like an exception for birds, citing a wikiproject page as if it were a policy. No one really noticed or cared until 2012 when it was wisely stripped out (after an involved discussion, about a month long, in which WP:BIRDS members were very, very vocal and tried to get consensus to go their way, without success). I really see this as a WP:RFARB matter at this point, not yet another RFC, but I'm willing to go whatever route others want to pursue to finally resolve this. Again, we should not wait for an RFC before fixing POV-forks from MOS now. If people want to try to force a change at MOS to recognize capitalizing a small handful of organisms as a virtue, good luck with that. They can't hold up the entire rest of the project having consistent guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  09:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this strikes at the heart of WP:Consensus. Interested in other views on that. Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not completely familiar with this dispute, but WikiProjects can decide to ignore the MoS on a given point if it contradicts the specialist sources (or for any other reason). Any individual can do the same, because the MoS is a guideline, and some parts of it are more widely accepted than others. If the MoS says there should generally be no caps, but specialist sources use caps, then our articles on those subjects are likely to use caps too, because specialist editors will be attracted to them. Likewise, British articles are more likely to use caps for certain things, and that's okay per ENGVAR. Trying to control these things centrally will just alienate people, and for no clear benefit. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
No, they can't, not because MoS is a guideline, not without convincing the broader community. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "... WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Specialist editors (whatever those are) are not the same as English differences. There are clear benefits to a manual of style, and to avoiding Significant Capitalization on Things That Are My Area of Expertise -- it looks silly to those outside My Area of Expertise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true of policy, but as a matter of fact it's not true of guidelines (otherwise what is the point of the distinction?). I gave an example below: the GA criteria, which do not include adherence to most of the MoS or to any of CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's true of guidelines, and absolutely nothing at WP:CONLEVEL a.k.a. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS suggests otherwise. See WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE for awhile and, well, just review WP:POLICY in general, if unclear on why certain things have been elevated to policy status over guideline status. You seem to be imagining a system in which policy = law and guideline = nothing. WP doesn't work that way. I suspect you must actually already know this, given that you've been around a while. You should also know better than to be making a patently pro-WP:Article ownership argument for wikiproject to control articles they consider within their purview, but that's what it amounts to. I'm not misreading you either; you clearly reiteraeted below your belief that wikiprojects can just make up their own rules. PS: As I quoted below, the WikiProject Council's own guidelines on wikiprojects specifically warn against them trying to push in-project advice and preferences as if they were guidelines. They're not {{guideline}}s. They're {{essay}}s (see WP:ESSAY), usually either {{WikiProject style advice}} or {{WikiProject content advice}} essays in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of instruction creep, I'm beginning to suspect that what is needed is to clarify that very point. What we have here is an attempt (for the best reasons I assume) to rigidly impose the capitalisation guideline on areas (not just birds) for which it's inappropriate, and even contradicts the nutshell of WP:AT. The role of a manual of style is to help editors to produce good, consistent articles, not hinder them. There's nothing wrong with what WikiProject Birds is doing. If the MOS and other guidelines are leading people to challenge it (forcefully and repeatedly, I might add), then we need to tweak the guidelines to address that problem. And that seems to be exactly the case. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I've proposed no such thing at all. I've said that MOS should cite the policy at CONSENSUS that it relies upon for superseding its own subpages (since people are unclear about this), and that as a separate matter, the text should clarify that it also obviously supersedes style advice (not anything else) being made on other guidelines here. They already defer to MOS anyway on these matters, and even if someone were to editwar that out of them, it wouldn't change anyhting, since WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy still applies. Again, nothing I've proposed here changes policy in any way at all, it simply makes MOS's own wording clearer so people stop misinterpreting MOS's application. This is important because people, e.g. at WP:NCFLORA, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCCAPS, etc., are constantly trying to work in article content style rules that have absolutely nothing to do with naming conventions, and on points for which they have specifically and repeatedly failed to gain consensus at MOS. See WT:NCFLORA#Proposed rewording for a huge example of this, from earlier today, coming from a participant in this very discussion. I couldn't make this stuff up. In at least 5 different ways the proposal there to change NCFLORA (specifically to evade MOS:LIFE, I might add), is entirely about article content style. This is exactly the kind of shenanigan that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy exists to prevent, and you and SlimVirgin are trying to tell me that I cannot cite that policy at MOS? Please, enlighten us on what policy-based rationale you have for that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think my post is quite clear in what I'm talking about, and suggest you reread it. There are too many problems with your reply to sort out here, and the relevant bits have been said before and answered then. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The next-to-last resort of someone who cannot muster a rational response to an opposing argument is to wave away the argument as something impossible to respond to. The last resort being ad hominem attacks; someone else is making those below. I think this means the argument has already technically concluded in favor of my position. Thanks for participating.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The relevant distinction between policies and guidelines is that the latter generally have more wiggle room. This, however, does not mean that editors (whether individually or as part of a WikiProject) are entitled to disregard them whenever they please. As noted above, Wikipedia consensus cannot be overruled by local consensus.
Guidelines have more exceptions than policies do, but WikiProjects have no special authority to enact them. Their guidance can be valuable, but it doesn't supersede the views of the Wikipedia community at large. —David Levy 22:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree on all of that. But assessing so-called local against community consensus is a lot trickier than most assume, and the policy does not currently [5] use the term anywhere at all, despite the often used shortcut WP:Local consensus. I think we should avoid both terms! They always seem to lead to trouble. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(re the comment above about whether to hold an RFC or RFARB:) Holding an RFC and advertising it site-wide would be preferable to going to ArbCom by every metric I can think of. I imagine everyone would be more likely to accept as legitimate a site-wide consensus (assuming the site could reach a consensus rather than there being a near-tie and "no consensus"), reached after editors of all viewpoints had a chance to make their case and attempt to persuade others to it, than to be happy with the decree of the small number of editors who make up ArbCom. It's not clear to me what case could be made out of this that ArbCom would accept, anyway, since they seem to see it as their purview to rule on behaviour and potential violations of policy, not on questions of content (or style?). ArbCom also seems to be geared towards meting out punishments, whereas it seems like simply settling the question of whether or not to capitalize, without punishing anyone, would be preferable. Besides, if the RFC is held and reaches no consensus, the door to ArbCom will still be open, AFAICT. -sche (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If the proposal is to support MOS:CAPS over the other variations, then no consensus may in effect be clear support. To overturn that would require a clear and convincing case, something well over 70% against. Right? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's <ahem> consensus on an exact numerical formula, but yes, MOS has had a clear "do not capitalize this" consensus since 2012 (actually since 2008, but one project pushed for an "exception" that was later rejected). Years and years of attempts to undermine that consensus have all consistently failed. Peter coxhead likes to trot out the idea that some other projects (on certain kinds of insects and birds) "did not come to a consensus" about what to do with regard to capitalizing coming names, as if that's change something somehow. MOS did come to a consensus, and that is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What I like to do is to question what "consensus" means. Read the whole of WP:CONSENSUS, and not selective bits of it. What I see is an attempt to impose "majority-rules" not true consensus. So long as substantial numbers of editors who create content (which we need) rather than consistent style (which is a nice add-on) don't accept the one-size fits all view of the MOS, there is no consensus. Merely asserting that there has been a consensus since 2012 (which is not "years and years" anyway) does not make it true. There is not a consensus, since this requires the majority not to attempt to force its views upon a dissenting minority who do not accept them. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I see what you did there! Anyone who quotes the policy to contradict you is, according to you, failing to "read the whole of WP:CONSENSUS, and not selective bits of it", meanwhile you can't be challenged to cite evidence for your position, because you'd have to copy-paste the whole guideline! Cute, but silly. Well, anyway, by your reasoning every consensus on the system would be invalidated by a single editor defying it. There is very nearly nothing in MOS that some group of editors somewhere do not object to. This is probably true of most provisions in most policies and guidelines. It is important to actually quote WP:CONSENSUS here: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The pro-caps (and SSF in general) camp lose on this score, every time their peeve comes up for discussion. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." This directly overrules your position that defiant editors at projects you agree with somehow prove that there is no broader consensus. "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." So much for the idea that MOS is secretly not really a broader consensus, somehow (Travatore, you reading this?). I could go on, through all of that policy, but our discussion get over-long and I've made my major points about that policy already.

BTW, MOS arrived at a consensus to lower-case species common names in 2008 [see diff I gave you earlier of my early 2012 BOLD edit; that was me changing the language that had been stable since 2008, and what emerged from 2 months of discussion and polls was what we have now. No one made a sneak edit that slipped under the radar and didn't really represent consensus. You were a major player in the discussion then, and in previous ones in 2010 and 2011 at WT:MOS and elsewhere that led up that discussion). Anyway, what changed in early 2012 was recognition that, despite the activism of some of that project's members, WP:BIRDS#Naming does not really constitute an "exception" to this rule and does not constitute a Wikipedia guideline, but rather indicates a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in conflict with MOS:LIFE, controversial enough that the issue was better left unresolved to be picked up later. If you look back through that debate, you'll find several attempts by me to better protect WP:BIRDS, to include explicit language to avoid editwarring with project members over bird articles, and I was overruled. You really need to quite treating me like an enemy of a wikiproject I've actually long been a member of. I'm even a significant contributor to WP:BIRDS#Naming itself!

So, it is later now; it's two entire years later, and things may well have changed significantly. Support for birds being an "exception" has clearly eroded. For one thing, people are successfully – with no help from any "MOS regulars", and against concerted opposition by WP:BIRDS members, having multi-article WP:RMs go in favor of lower-case common names even for birds. Despite MOS even suggesting to leave birds alone for now. If you insist on the idea that guidelines reflect practice and don't set it [which is not really true of MOS, which is prescriptive by nature as all style guides are], well, be careful what you wish for.

Note carefully that a storm of raging controversy has newly erupted, entirely from the direction of pro-capitalization regulars, when I simply suggested stopping some other guideline pages from intentionally contradicting MOS (not just on capitalization), yet I notably did not advocate any change at all to the present wording at MOS:LIFE, with its "just leave the birds issue alone for now" implication. This very strongly suggests that the problem isn't me and sure as hell isn't MOS. It's clearly evidentiary of a "persecution complex" type of "us vs. the world" attitude among the "we demand to capitalize common names" camp. I hate to break it to you, but it's not all about you. The kinds of WP:SSF problems that need to be addressed by keeping these pages in sync with MOS are far broader than your birds, bugs and buds upper-casing concerns. There is no conspiracy persecuting you, you're just advocating an anarchistic approach that already been overruled by policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WikiProjects do not just get to make up their own rules, sorry. I didn't make it that way. Getting mad at me for trying to ensure that this policy is actually followed, and that MOS is not undermined by people who refuse to follow that policy, is highly counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A new proposal regarding bird article names

I am in the process of writing the close, which I shall post in about 12 hours. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

{{rfc|style|policy|sci|rfcid=6FC5C66}} NOTE: This RfC was filed after Andrewa's original comments below. He intended to ascertain how the RfC should be filed, but people started to respond to it as if it were an RfC. I, Red Slash, then placed the {{rfc}} template in order to draw a wider audience, and hid certain parts of Andrewa's comments in order to shorten the space between where the choices were listed and where people were !voting. I did this unilaterally, and while it has led to a true RfC that will hopefully establish a consensus, I should have sought and received the explicit consent of Andrewa before doing so. I did not, and have since apologized. Red Slash 02:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we immediately and directly seek a community-wide consensus on the question of captitalisation of bird names.

The question to be answered is simply do we:

  1. Eventually remove captitalisation from the names of bird articles such as black crowned crane. [i.e. "black crowned crane" and "New Zealand scaup" in the text, "Black crowned crane" and "New Zealand scaup" in titles. Mama meta modal (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC).]
  2. Indefinitely retain capitalisation on the names of bird articles such as Black Crowned Crane.
  3. Do something else (and participants are free to say what and should, but it doesn't really matter just so long as it's clear that they reject both of those other proposals).

I'd like to have made it a two-way choice but I don't think we can without somehow biasing the discussion. I'm hoping to achieve a clear consensus for one of these three options, and if people do support the something else option, I'd encourage them to also indicate which of the two more specific options they prefer.

Discussion of how to hold the RfC

I further propose that:

  • This discussion should be notified wiki-wide, to produce as global a consensus as possible within English Wikipedia.
  • The discussion should focus on simply making the articles (our bottom line) the best possible, rather than conforming to any existing policy, guideline, etc..
  • A voluntary moratorium should be observed on related changes to policies, guidelines, MOS, etc. until this consensus is either achieved or the discussion concerning it bogs down.

The wiki-wide notification is an extreme but essential and IMO justified step. We need this to be clearly not a "local" consensus. The focus on the article namespace is also essential. Related discussions currently question the relevance, interpretation etc. of guidelines and even policies. We need to focus on some "bricks and mortar".

But if the moratorium is not respected, no big deal. It's all there in the history anyway. It will I think help, and the more it's respected the more it will help. It's voluntary, so we don't need to clarify its exact scope, which is probably impossible anyway. Current proposals already flagged by their proposers as related are obviously included, but if they continue, I repeat: no big deal.

Having established a non-local consensus as to what to do with the articles, we'll then be in a good position to make any necessary changes to policies, guidelines, and so on. We will have evidence to cite of a genuine and recent consensus decision. But without it, I can't see any good resolution of many (perhaps any) of the current related discussions.

Comments? I have posted heads-ups at WT:Consensus and the related MR. Where else is appropriate (just as a start)?

Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note:

  • I did not raise this as an RfC.
  • I am not convinced that it is a valid RfC.
  • The hatted comments above are a key part of the proposal I did raise.
  • In my opinion, the current state of this section gives a false and misleading impression of the content of my signed proposal.

Please do not edit my contributions in ways that misrepresent them. Please do not further edit my comments above, the damage is done. It's all in the page history. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Extended discussion of how to hold the RfC
I propose option 3 - that this discussion is abandoned leaving WP Birds with capitalised bird names, which is a long standing tradition on the Wiki. The monotorium on this topic starts when this discussion is abandoned. This discussion in only a repetition of several non-conclusive discussions. Snowman (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a tradition on the Wiki, it's an editwarred WP:FAITACCOMPLI demand by one wikiproject. It wasn't a bad faith one, but it was singledminded and opposed by a large number and broad range of editors the entire time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(Sigh) Note the non-standard stringing. It would be normal to have put this after the earlier responses. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"Stringing" isn't a word normally used here. What do you mean?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean that the post concerned appears to start a new thread but has been placed above older threads at the same level of indentation etc.. It's normal to place it after. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend that if such an RfC is held that part of it should be regardless of the results part of the motion should be that a moratorium of at least a year ( maybe even two ) of trying to change it again. I would also suggest that closers ( and possibly alternates in case a closer has to drop out ) that have not expressed an opinion on the issue be chosen at the start and it should be the closers job to close the discussion ( instead of allowing what happened at the PC 2 RFC where it got closed in the middle of active discussions when the closers were hoping to see a little more. ). Finally I suggest a draft RfC page be set up before hand so those that have a strong position can be assured that it represents their side fairly. PaleAqua (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to the one year moratorium but don't see what it would achieve. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • This topic keeps getting brought up again and again in many different venues, for what is essentially a trivial style manner regardless of which approach is taken. It's probably for the best that a once and for awhile consensus is reached that effectively closes the issue. PaleAqua (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that revisiting PC 2 RFC is helpful, but if we must, then a link is essential IMO, so we all know exactly what we're talking about. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, here's the link. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Quick and dirty summary: It's currently in the process of being closed, had some issues at the start as it didn't have a draft phase. Several of the closers involved ended up dropping out. When it approached 30 days discussion got closed despite the closers expecting some of the discussion continuing etc. Both sides are fairly heated with little common ground. I'm concerned with the intensity of opinion on this topic that it should be handled carefully. PaleAqua (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No one but WP:BIRDS would agree to such a moratorium, and with good reason. If the discussion is said to have failed to come to consensus, it would breathe another year or whatever of life into their version of how to do things, so all they have to do is pursue every effort to derail a finding of consensus if they're not gaining consensus (which is very likely to be the case). Then in a year, do it again, and so on indefinitely. It would be the most egregious WP:FILIBUSTER in Wikipedia history. This particular poorly structured discussion is almost certain to fail to come to consensus. So, no, we're not agreeing to a moratorium that would only serve the interests of one side of the debate. The thing is we already have a site-wide consensus at MOS, and WP:BIRDS has had two years to try to get this to change. They've failed. There is no reason to keep dragging this out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm wary of the draft RfC page as I don't see what it would achieve, and can see no reason that discussion concerning it would be any easier than immediate discussion on the three options proposed above would be. I'm not even yet sure whether RfC is the best channel. It's the obvious one I guess. Any other ideas? Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Again this is an issue with strong opinions and heavy discussions, I feel it would be best to have a clean RfC to avoid concerns about how the sides are presented etc. In effect though that is kinda what this discussion is. In someways I see this conflict as part of a wider divergence of opinion and it might be good to allow the wider issues to be cleanly covered by a site wide consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Draft RfCs have been used to good effect in the past, but also bad effect. Depends mostly on whether someone attempts to WP:OWN it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the reference to the article title to use a capital "B" as article titles are generally capitalized. The proposal should also address the use of bird names in running text. SchreiberBike talk 04:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that was helpful at all. Would you mind awfully if I change it back? Call me wrong by all means, but please don't edit my signed text unless it's really necessary. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I've gone ahead and changed it back. It seemed to me that you were talking about an article title there. SchreiberBike talk 04:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Others need to be able to judge what I said by what I said, not by what others think I meant to say or should have said! As I said to another user recently, [6] if you think I've made a mistake, I'm always keen to hear about it on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree that the question of bird names in running text is relevant, but I think the question should be simply the article titles. Running text should be considered, but only as it impacts that decision. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Good idea to start this, and I support publicizing as widely as possible so that it's clear beyond doubt that the outcome is a site-wide consensus. @Andrewa: why do you prefer to restrict the question to article titles? --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Simplicity. It will be difficult enough without including anything else. Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that this simplifies anything. Article title casing on WP is very simple: use the casing you would use in running text but capitalize the first letter. That's it. I think it is safe to say that is not going to change here. So, any question about title casing is necessarily going to be about running-text casing; it's the same discussion. These kinds of discussions normally take place in RMs as a practical matter but there is no reason to go out of our way to frame the issue this way. Why confuse the issue by pretending it's just about titles? You raise a cloud of confusion for no reason. Just make the RFC something like "Should bird species names be capitalized per the IOC or should they be capitalized per {what it says at MOS:LIFE}. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that general approach, except I'd drop the reference to the IOC. Given that, it still seems to be a more complex question to me, but not badly. Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we might need the IOC in there. Maybe we can drop it and pretend that the guideline is just to capitalize everything, but that isn't really what is happening now or exactly what people want. Consider: Cape Robin-Chat vs. Asian Fairy-bluebird. As far as I can tell, these are both quite deliberate and in-line with worldbirdnames.org/etc. The RFC can try to outline exactly how it's decided what to capitalize Chat but not bluebird (the robin-chat is a chat, the fairy-bluebird however is not a bluebird—there's more at WP:BIRDS), or it can say "per IOC" (which is what is really wanted: there's an official list, and I think what is wanted here is simply to use that list), or it can just try to get it mostly right and say "capitalize the words". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't capitalize chat or bluebird. "Cape robin-chat"[7], "Asian fairy bluebird"[8]. No IOC needed; we can drop it and recognize that the guideline is to capitalize only the proper adjectives (such as "Cape" here or "Asian"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, my point here is just to clarify what the two main positions are in this discussion, not to argue for capitalizing chat. I don't subscribe to the follow-the-IOC position; I'm just noting that it is somewhat more nuanced and complicated than "capitalize every word". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
True. The problem with mentioning IOC explicitly is that it's a big WP:NPOV problem. IOC names are not even accepted by all ornithologists and all ornithological organizations, some of whom feel that IOC is sometimes making up stupid names that no one would ever use, rejecting ones that are already in widespread use, and stepping on the toes of various national and regional authorities. This is a real world politics-of-science dispute that WP cannot take sides in. WP:BIRDS has a LOCALCONSENSUS to treat IOC as an authoritative standard, but WP does not and probably cannot. I'm not certain we care whether the wikiproject's editors decide amongst themselves to use these names (capitalized or not); WP:COMMONNAME trumps that wikiproject essay, and any editor is free to start a WP:RM discussion to move an article away from a particular lame IOC name to one that actually is used by most people, and/or preferred by orgs. that are real taxonomic authorities (IOC isn't one, they're just an annual meeting of misc. ornithologists that votes on this common name list; even calling it an organization is a stretch), or more preferred by more regional authorities, or whatever. PS: It should be "Asian fairy-bluebird"; the hyphen is meaningful there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:Birds have been using capitalized bird names consistently for a about a decade. I think that it would need a majority consensus opinion here to change this, which has never happened despite numerous discussions. An outcome of no-consensus here would not change the use of capitalization by WP:Birds. Snowman (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a no-consensus vote should default to the top-level MOS. i.e. "There is no consensus to ignore the guideline and form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS". But of course, this will suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS like before. Sigh. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a the long standing tradition of capitalization of bird names on the Wiki consistent with important ornithological authorities. Also, in approximate numbers there are 10,000 bird species articles, 2000 genus pages, and 500 long list pages, numerous redirects, and numerous disambig pages all with capitalized bird names. Surely, only an impressive consensus for lower case will change this. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we already have a strong tacit consensus - that's apparent by the amount of times this subject comes up. It just suffers the systemic bias that every time this subject does come up, the bird project editors fight until no-one else can be bothered any more. What should happen is that they need to make an incredibly strong case as to why we should ignore every other standard style guide and make an exception for birds. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Capitalized bird names has been a part of the Wiki for about a decade. Snowman (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You already said that, again. Repetition ad nauseam doesn't make your opinion stronger. See WP:FAITACCOMPLI for why "we've been doing it a while" doesn't necessarily mean anything if you've been doing it against constant objection from lots of editors. See User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names for proof that it's been done against constant objection from lots of Wikipedians, who raise the same logical arguments that are just ignored, such that the pro-capitalization people repetitively trot out the same already-debunked rationales for capitalization every single time they're challenged on it it, as if those rationales haven't already been shot full of holes 50 times. The wikiproject has tried and failed to present a strong case for capitalization every single time the discussion has come up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because the pro-caps camp keeps recycling the same arguments no matter how many times they're debunked.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A more considered reply to Snowman This discussion in only a repetition of several non-conclusive discussions above...
AFAIK and as previous discussions seem to have assumed, there has been no previous attempt to establish a non-local consensus concerning bird article titles. Happy to be proved wrong on this... link?
Yes, there's a lot here that patently fails to even try to address the question I asked and the proposal I made. I'm afraid that was inevitable. The trick will be to simply disregard the off-topic stuff and any other distractions when we come to evaluate the result. I'm hoping that will be possible. It may not be easy! Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to make you happy, then. Of course there have been previous attempts in achieving a site-wide consensus on this. The two month discussion on this very page in early 2012 was the last really big one. See User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names; there's an entire section there devoted to this history of MOS changes on this issue. This discussion is rehash, but it needs to be rehashed until the question gets answered. Discussion to seek consensus doesn't end forever simply because some people give up on the discussion for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose restricting the scope to article titles. There are mandatory redirects, so it's futile. If we're too bogged down in history to solve the real issue, let's not waste the community's time. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed; this is a general content, MOS issue. It trickles down to AT/NC level. The idea that we'd have an article called Sunda Cuckooshrike beginning "The Sunda cuckooshrike..." is not tenable. There's a major overlap between the overcapitalization camp and the crowd who perpetuate the fantasy that AT makes up its own style rules. AT explicitly defers to MOS, as do the NC pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: option 1

  1. Option 1 (i.e., adhering to WP:NCCAPS) will always be my choice. Since I recognize the value of compromise, I would be willing to agree to a compromise that observes naming conventions while allowing title-case capitalization in running text. Whether that's a helpful way to meet in the middle or whether it amounts to splitting the baby, I can't quite say. --BDD (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of capitalisation for WP:CONSISTENCY across all WP:NCFAUNA articles, as this is how general style guides (CMOS, etc), and the Encyclopedia Britannica deal with these, avoiding WP:SPECIALISTSTYLEFALLACY and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's not just fauna; WP:NCFLORA has been pushing this, too, with a local "consensus" of what seems to be a whopping two editors. There are some botany fields where some journals capitalize some plants names, and this has been seen as an excuse to force it on articles here. Sames goes for three kinds of flying insects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support removal of capitalization and not only for article titles - the fact that general-purpose references like OED don't need capitalization convinces me that this is just a specialism eccentricity we don't need to follow. I'd have felt less strongly (but would still have taken the same view) if we didn't have the knock-on effect of capitalizing non-avian species in the running text of bird articles. This effect becomes particularly ugly in places like Bald Eagle#Diet and feeding, where the requirement to capitalize species but not families gives us "predators such as Ospreys, herons and even otters". For these reasons, I favour applying WP:NCCAPS to all common names of fauna, without exception, though I would also accept the compromise that BDD suggests for article titles only, not running text. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per the above comments. Especially when considered with the other style guides, dictionaries and encyclopedias, along with WP:SSF PaleAqua (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support using the generally correct capitalization (e.g., lowercase for fauna, Title Case for individual animals) for all articles, rather than the jargony Significant Capitalization for Things That Some Find Important. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    To be clear, do you mean "individual animals" such as Tweety Pie or Felix the Cat? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Right, "individual animals" analogous to "individual people". So William Shakespeare or Old Ephraim (or characters like Tweety Pie or Fox Mulder). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support unless we also start writing "Black Rhinoceros" and such. I note that the (external) guideline that supporters of the deviating capitalization cite states that bird names should be capitalized in "an ornithological context. Here we are writing in an "encyclopedical context"... --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    The same camp actually did have us doing just that; see talk archives of Cougar (which was being capitalized mid-sentence) for how indefensible but strident that position got.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support per the above, per WP:NCCAPS, and per usage in reliable sources, which nearly uniformly supports lowercasing bird species names by a healthy margin. (See ngram evidence below.) Dohn joe (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support. The evidence is that generalist publications do not capitalize bird names. An exception for birds would lead to awkward sentences: "An Egyptian Plover cleaning the teeth of an Egyptian crocodile..." Pburka (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  9. Eventually remove captitalisation from the names of bird articles [as we did by consensus at ] black crowned crane – since that lets WP be both more self consistent and more consistent with general-audience publications that talk about birds. Being out of sync with specialist ornithology publications will not make WP look less professional. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support removing capitalization. The community's overwhelming use of lowercase has been codified in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. I'm not necessarily against making exceptions to that consensus, but uppercase bird names are far from universal in biology and even in ornithology (good examples include the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Geographic, The New Zealand Orinthological Society, The Journal of Avian Biology, and The Journal of Orinthology, which has discussed bar-headed geese, sand martins, European robins, and red-legged partridges in recent years). It's not a critical issue, but if we're going to make project-wide style rules we shouldn't override them when actual use among reliable sources is only mixed.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support removal of capitalization, per virtually all real-world sources that are not specialist publications for a specialist audience who (wink, wink) already know the convention in those journals and field guides [and the two actually capitalize for different reasons, a fact the pro-caps arguments always try to ignore]. Also remove exceptionalism verbiage from all five relevant guidelines and normalize them to MOS, which is the controlling guideline here, not WP:NCFAUNA; it may need to elaborate, with a focus on article titling, upon what MOS says, but must stop being POVforked to contradict it. Meanwhile, don't panic: Upper-cased (or otherwise different) names provided by reliable sources can be provided in article text, with citation to the source that capitalizes them. See the article domestic long-haired cat for this approach. An extended example of how to handle the naming would be a lead-opening sentence beginning something like "The three-winged death hawk (Acciptermortis tresalas, listed as the Three-wing Death-Hawk by the IOC[1] and threewing deathhawk by [some regional authority][2]) is a species of...." [Whether the IOC form, aside from IOC capitalization, should be preferred for the actual article title is an AT not MOS matter, and despite WP:BIRDS's second radical WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in insisting on always using the IOC name even when reliable sources overwhelmingly prefer something else, WP:AT already tells us that WP:COMMONNAME generally overrules WP:OFFICIALNAME, so whatever spelling is most used by RSes (this time the specialist sources, which are reliable on facts, not style), is the spelling to use on Wikipedia, regardless how we style it, and regardless what some org. like IOC prefers.] I'll elaborate, later, reasons why the capitalization being forced on running prose and on article titles (that's a style matter, not a factual AT naming matter; AT defers to MOS on style, as do all the NC guidelines) is not tenable and is not in fact justifiable with the claims made by its proponents; for now, it's way past my bed time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I've added a list of 6 reasons why IOC's own statements about capitalization are clear rationales to not use it here at WP, and an analysis of the policy reasons that IOC's real-world lack of acceptance and points of conflict with other sources mean we can't impose it as a standard here to begin with, style questions aside.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    If it's necessary for a compromise, so be it, but I really wouldn't want to see ledes cluttered with "alternate" names that differ only in capitalization, even if they are sourced. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Right; the example I gave had different grammar and hyphenation, not just different capitalization; I was trying to make the point that if there's a significantly different name, it can be given in the lead. The material worked up at #A simple way forward on common names of species shows such a case, too, and then examples where in a similar case, e.g. just a difference of capitalization, this would just be noted in a footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  12. Decapitalize. But seriously? Why can't we ever file a legit, actual RfC with a clear yes-or-no? There's no actual closing date here. I hope this receives the attention it deserves. Rereading the C/cougar archives (to say nothing of the cheetah) infuriated me yet again, and people just... I mean, it's really not a big thing, but consistency is good. A class of animals is not under any circumstances a proper noun. Red Slash 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment. It raises an idea: if it improve the process, can we simply advertise this discussion as a request for comment (and add the relevant template at the beginning)? Mama meta modal (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support removing capitalization per User:Pburka's example above (Egyptian Plover cleaning a crocodile's teeth). Ericoides (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  14. Decapitalise. Having read most of below, I find JHunterH convincing. Space Shuttle & Assistant Secretary of State should also be decapitalised, as they are not proper names, not referring to specific things. Don't support BDD splitting the baby. Where careful writing can't avoid an ambiguity, use italics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support avoiding capitalization. I see no reason why avian species in particular should not follow the general community consensus on orthography for fauna. Snow (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support general-English rules. Wikipedia is a general-English publication and, right now, the general English rule is to use lowercase. However, I could certainly live with SchreiberBike's second or third proposal. I'd also like to add that I love all the sources and evidence that have been posted in support of both sides of this issue. This shouldn't be about one person's whim over another's. It should be about what's correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support as the local consensus on this matter doesn't override the fact that we are a general encyclopedia which should be following standard English capitalization rules. Incidentally, since there seems to be some confusion over what a proper noun is, I'd advise anyone who argues bird names are inherently proper nouns to consult the linked article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support. The current state of affairs seems like an unjustified deviation from our standard practices, as explained in MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Our policy is that we don't do something just because others do it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support. I can see no damage being done to the encyclopaedia from decapitilising and no major damage from keeping the capitals. So for the sake of consistency, slightly improved readability and to hopefully put this ongoing feud to bed for once and all I see this as the best option. AIRcorn (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support Option 1 (no caps) for purely political reasons. My purpose is piling on, specifically to create a supermajority and force a decision. The headcount is running 20-7 in favor of no caps, and I'm putting in with the majority (if it was running the other way I'd support Option 2). I have no opinion on the merits, think that either choice is equally acceptable and that it's not worthwhile to over-think this. I believe that headcount matters and should be taken quite strongly into account for a discussion that's this well attended and is running 3-1 in favor of one of the propositions, and where the merits of the case come down to opinion and personal style preference and so no camp has the clear upper hand on strength of argument. I insist that my "vote" not be discounted for being political; quite the opposite, since I'm thinking first and foremost of the benefit to the Wikipedia of ending this trivial contention which is causing high emotion and bad feeling over a small matter. And I encourage other editors to join me. Herostratus (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support lowercase/no special caps—Not uppercasing is absolutely a legitimate choice for a serious published work; for example, top-shelf journals like Nature use lowercase for bird names. So which do we pick? Well, why not be consistent with other biology articles here? Why not be consistent with normal English writing? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support Option 1 – well said, Herostratus. And Erik, I like what you're saying too. Tony (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support for option one as this is proper English by almost any standard. The sections below comparing usage of lowercase vs. uppercase is very telling. I also strongly agree with the points raised by SMcCandlish at #IOC's own wording makes it clear it's not intended for use here. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support lower case. Correct English usage should be Baltimore oriole, English sparrow, Siberian husky. What barbarity would be next, capitalizing Russian roulette and French kiss? —Neotarf (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support lower case. Style manuals recommend lower case. General reference works use lower case. Lower case can give additional information: "Cooper's hawk" tells us that the bird is named after a person, where "Cooper's Hawk" does not. Lower case for human, cougar and yellow-bellied sapsucker. Usage in running text should also be lower case. Article titles should follow WP:AT. This should apply to birds and all other species. Consistency lends credibility to Wikipedia. SchreiberBike talk 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  26. Support lower case to match the style used by the large majority of generalist sources, and even most non-ornithological academic journals (and some ornithological journals). Tdslk (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  27. Support—Wikipedia is a generalist publication. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  28. Black crowned craneis a common noun, and capitalization would make it a proper noun. In most generalist publications this is the way Black crowned crane is referred to, and Wikipedia is a generalist publication.Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  29. Support, for the reasons discussed above and below. There has never been consensus to deviate from the mainstream convention (lowercase) at Wikipedia, a practice that exists in some specialist publications for reasons inapplicable to a generalist encyclopedia. —David Levy 04:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  30. Support per generalism rationales above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support. I also edit in subfields which capitalize things that WP doesn't, but when in Rome... Homunq (࿓) 20:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
  32. Support. I've always found it strange that we use such capitalization. Time to restore normal capitalization. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  33. Support Option 1 Having skimmed through the arguments for and against, and the body of evidence in favour of each option below, I can only conclude that this is the most sensible way forward. WaggersTALK 12:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  34. Support lower case per many of the discussions above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  35. Support Using capitals looks silly. This should also apply to butterflies and plant names too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  36. Support. Lowercase is the standard style, whatever the strange and occasionally tortured rationales put forth by the uppercase proponents. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  37. Support lower casing. If I understand correctly, the name of a bird species is currently capitalized in bird articles, but lower cased elsewhere? This is just bizarre, as if bird articles were some sort of independent kingdom. All the style heavyweights say to lower case vernacular species names: Merriam-Webster, Oxford, American Heritage, Random House, Columbia, and Britannica. Two from one (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    You've linked to "articles" (if you can call a dictionary entry that) about groups of birds: eagle, bluebird, finch. WP:BIRDS wouldn't capitalize those articles either. What do those references say about individual species? Nothing! Because they don't write articles about individual species. Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges. MeegsC (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good point. What about these? Merriam-Webster, Oxford, American Heritage, Random House, Columbia and Britannica. Pburka (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, Pburka. At least we're comparing like with like now! MeegsC (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  38. Support lower case. WP should be consistent in style across all its topics: we shouldn't have mountain strongholds at individual WikiProjects. WP should also reflect general modern usage: the current capitalization of bird names looks very odd to the general reader. Spicemix (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  39. Support My spontaneous reaction on encountering this controversy was "Yeah, sounds sensible to distinguish a white-throated warbler from the White-Throated Warbler...". As I delved into the debates and discussions, I became more and more dubious. It's bad enough with awkwardnesses like "predators such as Ospreys, herons and even otters" in a section on feeding habits mentioned in !vote #4. But my mind was finally made up when I noticed that "bald eagle" was capitalised, in both the body text and the legend in the United Stated article. Further, it had been so for years. If it spreads and remains uncorrected in one of the absolutely most high profiles articles of Wikipedia, what chances are there that this convention is restricted to ornithology pages as meant? We cannot expect and demand of user:Joe Editor to know the very special circumstances of such a convention, both in its origins and applications. As they see birds consistently capitalised in bird articles, it is natural for them that they will tend to do the same all over wikipedia. And as the example from the "United States" article proves, we can't expect this will be corrected, until the spread of inconsistency becomes more and more disruptive in a positive feedback loop.
    In the end, it all boils down that wiki is an encyclopedia and wp:NotAbirdspotterfieldmanual. It is not a helpful convention from a didactic and encyclopedic point of view. walk victor falk talk 22:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  40. Support per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The evidence provided in discussion above and below seems clear to me that lowercase is generally used. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 08:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Comment on option 1
  • Support removal of capitalisation. We have no reason to maintain the current fait accompli (and specialist style fallacy).
    We have to chose between following the internal rules of a group of ornithologists (option 2) or respect the Wikipedia community guidelines (and standard practice) regarding animal species name (ensuring quality, clarity and consistency, e.g. naming conventions).
    See also Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane for more complete explanations.
    Mama meta modal (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC).     :vote struck - sock of blocked user - see [9]
    Was it not stated at the beginning of this discussion request to discuss whether option 1 or 2 was correct based on their individual merits and NOT on the fact that that is the way the MOS says to do it. The question is should we change the MOS? and if the argument against changing the MOS is "No, because the MOS says this is the way to do things, therefore that is the best way", then why bother having the discussion in the first place. Sorry It kind of bothers me that the first vote stated this as rationale. speednat (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your message. Do not worry, the source of my position is not the current rules of our encyclopaedia. My motivation is common sense and standard practice for animal species name, even outside Wikipedia.
    External guidelines may not be consistent; for this and other reasons, Wikipedia has its own conventions. It seems obvious that the usual practice for fauna species name as well as general external style guidelines should prevail here and also apply to birds.
    The reason usually given to support capitalisation is to avoid potential ambiguities. But it is not always a solution and, more importantly, there are many other ways to tackle this issue. For example "common types of starling" or "common starling" or "Sturnus vulgaris" or other formulations allow to precisely define what you would like to write about. Also, even if it would in some cases potentially reduce ambiguities, it make no sense to violate grammar as well as standard practice or to treat differently different groups of animals.
    Mama meta modal (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
    What I don't see, is the mass confusion that capitalization will cause. Interspersing Latin names for the laymen is substantially more confusing than the odd Capital.
    I MeaN ReallY whiCh is HardEr to Read?
    The in esso previous statement imperium in imperio or this intra muros piece of lohannes est nomen eius writing?
    Just checking speednat (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    You make two mistakes because genus names are capitalised and Latin words such as species names are italicised. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
    I simply see no reason to capitalise these names and no reason to treat birds differently than all the other animals. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Bird article names: option 2

  1. Option 2 - my vote is for changing the guidelines to include caps for bird names - we need somewhere (discussion section?) to show external evidence/sources to reflect why we (or anyone) feels we should pursue either option. Agree about opening this up now and a moratorium. If this is tabled and gains broad community input, I will live by the result indefinitely. Life's too short to argue over this repeatedly. Agree that having this out now is much preferable to dickering around with guideline pages to reflect usage that is not guideline. The reason I vote caps is that birds have proper names as per the IOC, plus government departments and guidebooks use caps. There is nothing to lose - it's not as if you can't read a capitalised name either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Not to pick on you, you're just first, and listed so many things to address here, in summary form: The preferences of the IOC (not actually a taxonomic authority) are not universally followed in ornithology generally or ornithological publishing, academic or vernacular. They are ignored by zoologists in every other discipline even when writing about birds. Even other ornithological organizations that support capitalization have different standards for exactly how to do it, and frequently also disagree with IOC on the actual names themselves. Everyday publications like newspapers and other encyclopedias do not follow IOC style. Not even all WP:BIRDS members support this capitalization. See User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names for all of these facts being admitted by WP:BIRDS members themselves (mostly in the section that logs previous debates about this at WT:BIRDS itself, in that talk page's archives). Entries apeearing on IOC's list is not what proper name means; please see that article. Government agencies are the worst possible source to attempt to cite for writing style in the entire world; they violate more style rules than they obey. Most field guides on everything capitalize the names of the things to which the guide pertains; it is emphasis [See MOS: "Do not capitalize for emphasis"], to aid rapid visual scanning. In the case of birds, it's pure accident that it also happened to coincide with IOC's recommendations. I find it interesting that no matter how many times these points of yours are debunked, and capitalization proponents fail to refute the debunking, these bogus arguments just get recycled a day or a month or a year later, as if no one is going to remember they were debunked already. We have an essay about that: WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I have a page, just now linked to, that catalogues most of these previous debates specifically so no one is fooled into thinking the pro-caps side has any arguments that have not already been shown to be faulty. PS: All of this groveling toward IOC as an external party dictating what WP "should" do with regard to deciding what correct article names are and even how to style them, is a sterling example of undue weight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Animal species names are not proper nouns. The fact that committees of specialised scientists study, discuss and define them does not make them proper nouns. Otherwise, diseases, proteins and virtually anything could be classified so... Also, Casliber, could you detail why should not birds treated like any other animal species?
    Mama meta modal (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
    Funnily enough, when I started editing here, most animal, plant and fungi names were capitalised. The decision to push lower case in force came through from the efforts of a few editors in 2007 and 2012 in reaffirming the MOS. As I have said elsewhere, no other organism has a big committee made up of experts from all around the world decreeing on common names.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] And we reflect what the outside world does. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think "most" is actually true, though to some of us it seemed that way. Certainly quite a lot were capitalized. My caps log page covers many of the high points, like an early version of WP:NCFAUNA actually telling wikiprojects to just pick their own rules, WP:BIRDS editors actively promoting the capitalization as a WP-wide idea, even for mammals (despite the fact that there's an explicit convention against capitalizing mammal common names in the zoological literature), etc. It was a time of chaos, not of order. The outside world does not capitalize the common names of species except (and even then not consistently) in some very particular circumstances that do not apply to Wikipedia, typically field guides, and the house-organ science journals of a handful of biological specialties. I don't know why the pro-capitalization argument keeps trying to return to reliable sources, when the RS facts are firmly against it. WP:BIRDS members and other biology editors of all kinds were major participants at the discussions you characterize as "a few editors...reaffirming the MOS". There's a frequent claim by people who disagree with something in MOS that MOS doesn't represent consensus, but they never can seem to demonstrate this. Well, for that matter, people make claims like this about every guideline and policy on the system, the more so it affects content (WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. are often complained about in this way). There's no actual consensus problem with any of these guidelines and policies or they wouldn't be labelled {{guideline}} or {{policy}} and people wouldn't be following them with remarkable consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    On what RS basis do you suggest that only among birds does a big committee decide common names? Actually, let me ask that below; you raise another point that's part of the same sub-discussion. (Other than me looking stupid.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish - stop using emotive phrases such as "grovelling" - it makes you look stupid - if you had any idea and actually looked at the names made up of the board it is a collection of researchers and scientists - would only there was more of that in botany. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Casliber: And of course using even more emotive language that's also a personal attack is a huge improvement (especially when you use it as an ad hominem to distract from the fact that you're not addressing a single point I raised. Thanks for conceding so dramatically). Anyway, you're seemingly completely mistaking my argument. I'm not talking about genuflection and catering by members of the IOC naming board to anything. I'm talking about abasement and suborning of Wikipedia, and its goals for its readers, and even its standards in policy (e.g. COMMONNAME over OFFICIALNAME), by a small handful of editors to force the whole project to agree with some external body on style matters simply because they're made up of scientists you most respect on zoological matters. It's confused argument to authority and hero worship. Why would we decide that Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson must be obeyed on what to italicize just because they're amazing cosmologists and (hypothetically) they decided that we should now italicize the names of stars, galaxies and planets (in cosmology/astronomy journals)?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    I am not sure why we, the bird editors, even bother to instigate change, we are obviously not as smart as these other editors, and should relegate ourselves to just following what others tell us to do. speednat (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I am not sure why we, the Wikipedia editors, even bother to have style guidelines; we are obviously not as smart as the bird editors, who are infallible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    This "us versus them" attitude is a major part of the problem. At no point has anyone outside WikiProject Birds attempted to segregate (let alone subordinate) its members. On the contrary, we ask that you join us in following our common set of style guidelines (which you have as much right as anyone to help shape). It's the WikiProject, through the will of some participants, that seeks to separate itself from the rest of the Wikipedia editing community and disregard the input thereof. —David Levy 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Casliber, one group of ornithologists is not a good representation of the outside world. And their internal guidelines are not consistent with the standard practice for animal species in and out of Wikipedia. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
    Not even consistent among ornithologists, don't forget. IOC's is just the most favored among them of competing naming standards ideas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Option 2 (although I'm quite looking forward to american kestrel as the new style if it happens) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, proper names within bird names should still be capitalized (e.g., American kestrel). If this is not already clear, it should be. Compare to, for example, Przewalski's horse. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly. "The American kestrel (Falco sparverius), sometimes colloquially known as the sparrow hawk, is a small falcon, ..." -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    No one has ever, ever in this debate in the entire nine or ten years its been running has proposed nonsense like "american kestrel", and the wording at all four guildilnes pages says not to do something like that (it's about the only thing they do get consistent with each other). Injecting FUD like that is argument to emotion combined with straw man and red herring: three fallacies for the price of one! We'll pass, thanks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with BDD, JHunterJ and SMcCandlish. And I would like to ask Jimfbleak to explain the motivations of his vote. Mama meta modal (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
    I am not sure why we, the bird editors, even bother to instigate change, we are obviously not as smart as these other editors, and should relegate ourselves to just following what others tell us to do. speednat (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I am not sure why we, the Wikipedia editors, even bother to have style guidelines; we are obviously not as smart as the bird editors, who are infallible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    This "us versus them" attitude is a major part of the problem. At no point has anyone outside WikiProject Birds attempted to segregate (let alone subordinate) its members. On the contrary, we ask that you join us in following our common set of style guidelines (which you have as much right as anyone to help shape). It's the WikiProject, through the will of some participants, that seeks to separate itself from the rest of the Wikipedia editing community and disregard the input thereof. —David Levy 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. I support allowing editors to capitalize bird names given that this is what the specialist sources do. But I'm confused about what we're voting for here. Where did options 1 and 2 come from? Is this the RfC, or is this a discussion about setting up an RfC, and has this discussion been publicized? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not a request for comment or RfC, there are quite specific rules for those. I didn't even initiate the poll, I just asked for discussion on having one. It could become the basis for an RfC, or it may not be necessary, if we reach a clear consensus then WP:SNOW might well be applied. Let's see where it leads. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    But "the specialist sources" don't do it; some of the specialist sources do it. Meanwhile, the overwhelmingly vast majority of reliable sources do not do it, including the most prestigious zoological journals even when they run ornithological papers. There is no policy-based rationale anywhere on Wikipedia for a) ignoring a preponderance of reliable sources because their target audience isn't as narrow as you'd like, or b) ignoring the most reliable academic sources in favor of less renowned ones just because the scope of the former are a little broader and their peer review panels aren't so insular, or c) ever, to begin with, treating reliable sources on scientific facts about a biological category (for example) as the most reliable sources on English language style in an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Per Jimfbleak and BDD. Perhaps MOS needs to better define what a proper noun is. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Cas Liber. I posit that these bird names should be treated like proper names/proper nouns. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    But BDD supports option 1. As for proper noun, the MoS uses it as defined; there's some misuse of it in application to species, but not in the MoS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think you both mean proper name not proper noun. There is a difference. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think I meant to use the term I was responding too. Some linguists treat them differently, and some do not. You'll note that they land on the same article, which discusses this. I happen to agree with the do nots, but in any event, here I was using the term as it was raised in the comment I was responding to. Now, this difference you see, how does it affect Chris Troutman's statement or mine? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Understood. My point is, proper noun either includes or is exclusively (depending as you say on the authority) names that consist of a single word, and those are not at issue here, so I think it might be helpful to use the more specific term. But feel free to use the term you think best. Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Bird name are not proper nouns and will not become so whatever the result of the vote is. We are not deciding how English grammar should be - we are simply voting about style recommendations. Mama meta modal (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
    @Chris troutman: As pointed above you've !voted per someone who opposed capitalization, BDD, but also someone who supported capitalization, Jimfbleak, simultaneously. Furthermore, Jimfbleak provided a demonstrably false rationale (that "American" would be decapitalized as "american"). So, could you maybe clarify what your actual position is?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish:, et al. Sorry for the confusion. Decapitalization of American kestral and the like proves the foolishness of option 1. I'm not sure how that's a "false rationale." Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Chris troutman:: It's a false rationale because no one has proposed such a thing, none of the five guidelines in question would ever permit it, no real-world style guides would allow it, and it's simply never been suggested by anyone in the discussion. Changing "American kestrel" to "american kestrel" would be reverted on sight by anyone on either side of this debate. Hope that is clearer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. If we are to capitalize proper nouns and the Chicago Manual of Style states " A Proper noun is the specific name of a person, place, or thing or the title of a work." It then gives examples of John Doe, Moscow, the Hope Diamond, and Citizen Kane. How does American Robin not fit into this class? An American Robin is a specific name of a thing, as much so as John Doe is a specific person. The thing that the American Robin is being specific about is not a specific bird, as that would be like Big Bird, but a specific class of bird, the thing being a class or species.[1]speednat (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. Harper, Russell David, ed. (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. p. 204. ISBN 0-226-10420-6.
    And plumbers, baseball players and used car salesmen are specific classes of people. Should we refer to them as "Plumbers", "Baseball Players" and "Used Car Salesmen"?
    Under your interpretation of what constitutes a proper noun, what nouns aren't proper? —David Levy 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Which brings up a fine point, it is all subjective. By definition of one of the rock-solid authorities for the rules that we are basing the MOS on, in its quoted definition, one can break it down, very simply. So, yes there is a problem with the rules that we have based the MOS on. The Manual of Style wasn't just thought up one day, though it was created through the habits, uses, practices etc of our society. Did all of the people wake up one morning and say we capitalize England, but not house, no it evolved and this is what is happening with birds and other fauna. Some people use one style, some use another, and over time who's to say that the Chicago Manual won't change what we capitalize, just like words that weren't, are, and spelling changes. Do we go downe to the local shoppe, do I refer to someone using the word thou, is ain't considered a word. The language and the rules that govern our language are constantly evolving and not based on people standing around saying "This is not the way to speak", or "Ain't isn't a word". I mean how many of us remember being told that last one, but guess what? it is a word. Why because people ignored those that said it wasn't a word and kept using it and now it is. The change is coming, oh you naysayer, accept it or be a footnote in history. :) speednat (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, it's not all subjective, even if the language is living. The style we use is the current one. It may be different than the style of ye olde Wikipaedia (1650 edition), and it may differ from whatever the 2114 edition of Wikipedia calls itself. That it changes doesn't mean it must be subjective. But let's say that it's subjective. Wikipedia articles would still be subjected to it. So this "fine" point is pointless.-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    It certainly is true that "some people" capitalize the common names of birds species, but not because they're proper nouns. I'm aware of exactly one ornithologist who advocates that they be treated as such (and even he hasn't claimed that they actually are in the real world). —David Levy 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    And he's not a linguist anyway. There are probably linguists who think it's stupid that ornithologists concoct pseudo-Latin names like Ninox novaeseelandiae, but we don't treat them as ornithological authorities.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    In wielding The Chicago Manual as an authority (with a footnote!), I'm wondering how User:Speednat somehow missed page 357, section 8.128, which explicitly states, Whether in lists or in running text, the specific "Latin" names of plants and animals are italicized. The genus name is capitalized, and the species name (even if it is a proper adjective) is lowercased [emphasis mine], not to mention section 8.136 (vernacular names of plants and animals) which specifically uses "Cooper's hawk" as an example? --Calton | Talk 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    speednat, how many Citizen Kanes have you seen? Know how many Hope Diamonds there are in the world? Ever had a flock of John Does in your backyard? (Yes, there are multiple John Does, just as there are multiple Moscows, but these are merely individuals people/cities that share a name.) --BDD (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    There is one species of birds called American Robin, that is more of a proper noun, if a proper noun can be compared in a superlative manner, then John Doe or Moscow. speednat (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Also, I assume there are thousands or millions of Citizen Kanes on DVD, they all get capitalized right?speednat (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Right. And if you wanted to, you could refer to them as "the digital video discs of the film Citizen Kane", since "digital video disc" is the common noun there, not the specific film Citizen Kane. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Think of it this way. I could have a cage with three American robins in it. Let's say I call them Batman, Robin, and Cobie. Conversely, I could visit Moscow, Moscow, Idaho, and Moscow, Pennsylvania. I could call them Moscow, Potatoland, and Coaltown in my head if I wanted to distinguish them. But still, the relevant analogy would be Moscow is to city as Batman is to American robin. I could use more or less specific terms (settlement, bird, etc.), but it doesn't change the fact that in the analogy, the former term is a proper name, while the second is not. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    What kind of bird is that in your backyard? Oh, that's an American robin. What kind of bird is that on Sesame Street? Oh, that's Big Bird. Not Oh, that's a Big Bird. American robin is not a specific name of a thing as much as John Doe is a specific person. A specific class of bird is still a common noun (or "class of entities"), just like the specific class of people "plumber". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with David Levy, BDD and JHunterJ. Animal names are simply not proper names. See also my comments above (19:15, 10 April 2014 and 19:08, 10 April 2014). Speednat, do you have other arguments supporting your vote ? Mama meta modal (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
    Of course the aforementioned other authorities that use Caps. speednat (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Speednat, if you're serious about your !vote, I have five Hope Diamonds I'll sell you. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per Aldous Huxley. I think I qualify as a disinterested editor: I was unaware that there had been much contention on this topic and to the best of my recollection I have only one bird species on my watchlist and I had to look it up to see if was capitalized. I just thumbed through twelve books on birds, half of them major field guides and the rest hardly obscure, and was surprised to see how many capitalize bird names: all twelve. Other editors note above that the IOC and other relevant entities also capitalize, so it's clearly common practice. Now, the common practice among authorities on birds might not sit well with the taxonomic establishment, but that need not concern us; our articles on birds should reflect the way that myriad reliable sources refer to those birds, not the way taxonomists would prefer they do. There's also a little matter of avoiding ambiguity. I see some silly examples in this discussion, but in fact it's a genuine concern. For instance, the phrase "American yellow warbler" can be read two ways and the lowercase style could introduce confusion in certain contexts (since there's more than one species of yellow warbler and neither respects international boundaries). "American Yellow Warbler", on the other hand, is absolutely unambiguous. As a more general comment, I would note that the MOS has guideline status, not policy status, which ought to mean that the bar we set for making exceptions isn't ridiculously high. So what if birds get treated differently from other clades or classes? Maybe they should be. (If so, that's no excuse for trying to extend the bird exception to other critters, of course.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    You're quoting incorrectly inappropriately! The Huxley observation, like Emerson's famous "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", is about a person changing his or her mind over time, not about a publication using conflicting style rules or anything even vaguely comparable to that. As far as I can determine (and I've looked, more than once) every well-known quotation on "consistency" refers to personal consistency of opinion and action. You're presenting arguments already dispelled many times. The way to distinguish between the yellow American warbler and yellow varieties of the various warbler species in the Americas is to simply write clearly and use wikilinks, as I just did in this sentence. Bird field guides, like field guides on all topics, capitalize as a form of emphasis; that it happens to agree with IOC practice is blind coincidence. WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE is a fallacy; there is no policy on Wikipedia that conflicts with WP:MOS. The vast majority of reliable sources do not capitalize bird name names; only bird-specific sources tend to do that, and they don't even do it uniformly (you are confusing "specialist sources" with WP:reliable source; see WP:SSF for why that doesn't work). Did I miss anything? I'm not trying to be dismissive, it's just that this is all rehash and people get irritable with me for being wordy, so I'm keeping this short.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    I just hate it when people are short with me. What I wrote may be rehash, but I conceived most of it independently, before I'd skimmed more than a quarter of the discussion here, so maybe great minds hash alike. I don't believe I claimed that any policy conflicts with WP:MOS, but now that you mention it there's always WP:IAR, which doesn't so much conflict with it as expressly permit conflict with it (and with other guidelines, and even policies, when there is a good reason). Thanks for linking those two essays (the latter of which you wrote). I agree with both of them in part but not completely. Wikipedia has grown more rigid over the years. In some ways this is a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily serve our coverage of a given topic very well. (Incidentally, I didn't quote "incorrectly". I applied a quote for illustrational purposes, never intending to suggest that Mr. Huxley was writing about "style rules or anything even vaguely comparable to that".) Rivertorch (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't mean "rehash" to imply you're personally recycling arguments; rather, many of us have been over these arguments so many, many times before. Essays aren't part of a hierarchy of rules, they're jus stored reasoned arguments/rationales we're tired of repeating. I went into this (and just-a-guideline) in more detail on the related thread at WT:CONSENSUS yesterday. All essays were written by someone, and which names those are doesn't determine the validity of the points an essay raises. (And it's not like the "spin" of WP:SSF is any secret.) If this current poll-like discussion concludes clearly against bird capitalization (which seems likely) and the wikiproject were to accept that (which I think is terribly unlikely), I would not be among those interested in de-capitalizing bird articles all day (I would be way more interested in decapitalizing every other kind of creature in bird articles, to stop the spread of the capitalization to rodents and fish and berry bushes and whatever). There are quite a few dragonfly, moth/butterfly and (I forget what) some kind or another of plants articles that are capitalized because of similar academic journal [alleged] conventions that prefer capitalization and few people but specialists in those areas working on these articles here. There's no wave of style stormtroopers lower-casing them. No one really cares as long as a) it's not spreading to areas where many do care (see the talk archives of Cougar, etc.), and b) the us-vs.-everyone wikiproject rebellion stuff stops, which is what I most care about. It's a WP self-governance problem. You're right, I used "incorrectly" incorrectly. My poorly made point was that people in MOS-related disputes rather frequently quote Huxley or more often Emerson without realizing it doesn't apply to this context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Damn, you mean I rehashed Huxley too? I've never seen that quote before on Wikipedia. Ah, well. What you've said here about capitalization vis-à-vis birds and other animals is nuanced and makes quite a lot of sense, but if "no one really cares" about bird capitalization per se I can't help wondering if we're going about this in the best way. If the exception that has been made for birds is being erroneously applied to mammals or fish or whatever, I'd assume that could be addressed without removing the exception for birds—perhaps by codifying the exception and defining its boundaries or maybe just by dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. As for the question of "rebellious" wikiprojects, just how much of a problem is this? A wikiproject is a loose affiliation of users who edit certain topics. If such editors are doing the lion's share (note: I didn't say "the Lion's share) of the work in a given topic area and want to establish stylistic conventions that are particularly appropriate to that topic, I don't necessarily see that as a problem. Sometimes it will conflict with MOS, sometimes it won't, but such conflicts don't seem to me to be inherently problematic. If they lead to behavioral problems, such as tag-teams coordinating reverts of good-faith "corrections", then those can be handled as they arise. I don't know. Maybe I'm naïve. As I said above, I'm not exactly familiar with the backstory here. I just am concerned about MOS being enforced too rigidly and what I see as a one-size-fits-all set of rules being applied across the board in specialized topic areas where it might be better to allow some leeway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Rivertorch: I have seen the Huxley one here before. :-) Wikiprojects making up their own rules against consensus and "enforcing" them has been a serious enough problem to generate the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and various WP:RFARB cases; some of them are linked from WP:FAITACCOMPLI, I think, though there are others.

    "Conflicts with MOS" is kind of a red herring, I suppose, or at least imprecise. No one has a problem with projects establishing stylistic conventions that they gain consensus for here. I helped do this myself, for articles within the scope of WP:CUE, and MOS is largely made up of material added to it in that way (either by insertion into MOS or by addition of a subpage that is elevated as topical style subguideline, MOS:whatever). The problem is when a project's preferences conflict with broader interests of the encyclopedia and the wikiproject fails to gain consensus to change MOS to account for the "rule" they like. There's a big difference between doing something like italicizing climbing routes because there hadn't been any consensus not to (there probably will be, because the case for it is contorted), and still pushing capitalization of common names of species after a site-wide consensus has been established for two+ year (really more like six, but very clearly for two) to not do that, backed up by WP:CONLEVEL policy. The first "conflicts" in a vague sense with the spirit of the general italicization provisions in a way, and will soon be settled with either a consensus to not do it or a new case for it added to MOS. The second involves the advancement of a wikiproject essay at WP:BIRDS#Naming as a direct competitor to MOS's site-wide style convention, and the essay was even being advertised as a "guideline" at WP:NCCAPS. A major part of the problem here is that, failing to gain consensus at MOS, capitalization proponents have been shaping WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA and even MOS:CAPS (all rarely watchlisted), to diverge from MOS itself more and more.

    Wikipedia doesn't need any "Anti-MOSes". Birds project members were heavily, necessarily, involved (as were other biology projects) in the MOS consensus discussion, a very long one, in 2012 (and the one before that, etc.). That discussion led to the MOS:LIFE do-not-capitalize rule, and just to keep the peace for a while, an observance being included that a LOCALCONSENSUS dispute existed about birds, which was mentioned mainly to "wall off" birds and stop the re-spread of the capitalization. That has not worked, and two years is plenty of time for the pro-caps members of the wikiproject to have gotten consensus at MOS for their position if consensus was going to change. Of course this is just my take, but I've been doing the homework to back it up, and I have a lot more evidence than the 'some ignorant people are just trying to tell WP:BIRDS how to do ornithology' argument does.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

    That discussion led to the MOS:LIFE do-not-capitalize rule, and just to keep the peace for a while, an observance being included that a LOCALCONSENSUS dispute existed about birds, which was mentioned mainly to "wall off" birds and stop the re-spread of the capitalization. That has not worked, and two years is plenty of time for the pro-caps members of the wikiproject to have gotten consensus at MOS for their position if consensus was going to change.
    Not only has it not worked, but some WikiProject Birds members have been citing that text as evidence that an exception for common names of bird species has been formally codified in the MoS. I assume that this reflects a sincere misunderstanding, but that doesn't make the situation any less problematic. —David Levy 02:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Worse yet, it's led to expanding this to insects and stuff in other guidelines (WP:NCCAPS and WP:NCFAUNA, I think, maybe also MOS:CAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  7. We should follow the sources that we rely on to write the articles - if the specialist sources use capitals, use them. It makes no sense to use specialist secondary sources for the content but not use the way they format names. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    And if general sources don't use capitals, don't use them. It makes no sense to ignore the majority of sources. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The Official Congressional Directory uses all-caps for the names of representatives. Should we mimic this source? Specialist sources use various stylistic tricks to make the subject of their specialty stand out. Wikipedia is not a specialist text, so it does not make sense for us to follow conventions which are used almost exclusively in specialist texts, particularly when we have examples of non-specialist texts demonstrating a more standard style for the same words. Pburka (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support option 2. To those who say option 1 follows policies, guidelines, etc., I retort with WP:COMMONNAME, it is standard practice for bird names to be capitalised, those (such as the mentioned Nature) that don't are the ones deviating from common practice. Yes, this is different from 'normal English grammar' (whatever that is) and different from all other biological organisms - but that's just the way it is. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Not much of a retort. With WP:COMMONNAME, it is standard practice for bird names to be sentence-cased; those (such as the IOC) that don't are the ones deviating from that practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't COMMONNAME—assuming it made sense to apply it to style issues—suggest that we decide on a case-by-case basis? (I think we can leave COMMONNAME out of this, though: "Bald Eagle" and "bald eagle" are the same name. The question isn't which name to use. It's just how to style that name.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    And IOC naming for birds already raises frequent WP:COMMONNAME conflicts anyway (see thread below about this).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    The only sources I have ever seen lowercasing bird names are not sources I would consider reliable on ornithological matters. But it's clear (even without the socks) that this is going to become yet another case where Wikipedia decides to march to its own tune and ignore the way things actually are in verifiable, sourced reality in the name of "proper English". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Bushranger, surely you don't mean you've never seen authoritative sources with lowercase bird names. Is Nature really unreliable on ornithological matters? How about National Geographic or the Journal of Avian Biology? Unless you define "reliable on ornithological matters" as "uppercasing bird names," I don't think you want to make such unqualified statements. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I haven't actually read those, so I stand corrected on that point. It doesn't change the fact, however, that both those sources are in error in lowercasing the names. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Many top-shelf journals routinely write bird species names in lowercase. I don't think it's meaningful to argue that they are in error; such usage is common enough that it is by definition not in error, unless we decide to be quite wildly prescriptivist. Anyway, I think we can set aside any argument that claims that Science and Nature are not reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support option 2 as they are proper names, and by the typical convention in the field. All the arguments have been opened here & elsewhere, & I won't add more. No heckling please. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Just to clarify; nobody is proposing that proper names would be lowercased; e.g. it would be New Zealand scaup not new zealand scaup; that is not, and I'm pretty sure never has been, on the table. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    But there is clearly a dispute as to whether New Zealand Scaup is a proper name, as I believe it is. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Except there isn't. That's a WP:FRINGE idea. No reliable sources on linguistics or the English language would agree with you, and this debate has already been had again and again for years, with zero evidence to support the odd-ball notion that bird names are magically proper names like Michael Jackson and Pakistan. Even ornithologists who like the capitalization don't suggest this, they just argue for treating common names of birds as if proper names, because it makes highly compressed-journal writing and on-the-spot field guide reading easier. As a matter of clear policy, Wikipedia is not a guidebook or journal, and those rationales do not apply here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, I don't think the argument that "bird species names are proper names therefore we should capitalize them" can possibly hold water, since there are so many reputable journals, books, etc that don't capitalize them. Are you really arguing that they are all wrong about a basic point of grammar like this? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry to heckle Johnbod, but you have made an inaccurate statement that would be misleading if not challenged out of courtesy. Nils Olav, Mr Percival, Sam the Seagull, Petros and Big Bird are proper names. New Zealand is a proper name. New Zealand scaup is not a proper name. There is no entity that is "New Zealand Scaup". There are few definitives in linguistics, but the question as to what is a proper name is pretty firm. Some fields using capitalisation as a style does not change the definition of "proper name". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    That really depends on what you mean by "entity" - the species? - and that leads to a philosophical position is with regard to the species concept based on which it can be a proper name. (See Jensen, Richard J. (2011). "Are species names proper names?". Cladistics 27 (6): 646–652. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00357.x.; de Queiroz, Kevin (2011). "Plural versus Singular common names for Amphibian and reptile Species". Herpetological Review 42 (3): 339–342.) Shyamal (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Interesting, thank you. From what I see, it is the nature of "species" that is in doubt, not so much the linguistic meaning of "proper name". The abstract uses difficult language, but I feel "Are species names proper names?" is asking whether a species is (or can be) an entity that can be given a proper name. Personally, I think the answer is "no". No normal species is an entity. Species frequently don't have boundaries, with some variants able to breed with other species, and variants within a species unable to breed together. I understand that this is common in bird species, more so in insects, and increasingly worse in lower organisms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support option 2. Official bird species names function as proper nouns. If it is Wikipedia policy to capitalize the genus in Passer domesticus, how can it be incostient to treat House Sparrow in a similar fashion by capitalizing it? Should we start using "passer domesticus", instead? No. Both refer to a specific species, and a consensus among scientific authorities on the subject agrees with how to write them. A blue jay (of which there are dozens of species) is not the same thing as Blue Jay (which is a particular species). Ornithological authority maintain official lists of birds-- the IOC List which WikiProject Birds uses. This is a longstanding practice that is not decreasing in usage--it is INCREASING and spreading into other fields, like butterflies, dragonflies, and mammals. Why people who know nothing about birds feel the need to dictate what happens on bird pages is beyond my comprehension. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    (Note: this is in response to this version of Natureguy1980's comment above) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blue%20jay -- it's a particular species, even when correctly lowercase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    A dictionary is hardly an authoritative source on ornithology. What a dictionary says in this matter is completely irrelevant in my view. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It covers specialist topics in an in-depth manner. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    On the contrary, a dictionary is an authoritative source on what "blue jay" means (the species) and whether it should be capitalized (it shouldn't). Its irrelevance in your view is irrelevant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    We will have to disagree. Ornithologists know more about birds (and their names) than dictionaries. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    And dictionaries know more about English grammar than (some) ornithologists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please, do not confuse common name and binomial nomenclature (Latin name). Firstly, none of them are grammatically proper names. Secondly, by convention, genus name and not species name of all living species are capitalised (e.g. Passer domesticus, Latimeria chalumnae, Salmonella enterica); as virtually everybody respects these convention, Wikipedia also do so. Thirdly, capitalisation of the common name of birds is only recommended by the internal rules of one group of ornithologists and is not widely used by general sources. For these reasons, as Wikipedia is not a database for specialised ornithologists but a general encyclopaedia, there is no reason to capitalise bird common names. Another important argument against capitalisation of common names is that there is no reason not treat them as all other animal species. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
    This comment I found in another forum is, I feel, worth repeating here: "When I'm providing links for non-birding friends I sometimes refer them to Wikipedia when, for instance, Cornell's All About Birds site doesn't have the information they need. But, perhaps irrationally, Wikipedia will SEEM less authoritative if they start behaving like a newspaper or popular magazine/website and not capitalizing bird common names. Every time I visit a bird-related Wikipedia page I'll notice what, to a birder, will look like non-standard use and start to wonder who wrote the article and why they dropped the capitalizations. I'll probably stop referring non-birders to it, even when the information seems to meet their needs, partly because it seems less authoritative but also because it sets a bad example to prospective members of the birding community." For better or worse, when many birders and ornithologists see uncapitalized bird names, they automatically think the source is not credible. Regardless of whether it is silly, it is true, and the result of Option 1, above, will certainly be decreased traffic from birders and ornithologists, both as users and--detrimentally for Wikipedia--contributors. Is a decrease in traffic and quality of content worth what seems to me to be a misguided crusade for ideological purity? Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    You realize everything you're saying also applies to Nature, right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    From a bird expert in another forum: "And this is why I no longer edit Wikipedia. Don't understand why non-bird people are even getting involved. " Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    They left because they don't understand Wikipedia's pillars? How they don't own their contributions, and the contributions might be mercilessly edited by others? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support option 2. MeegsC (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    As everybody is automatically warned when commenting this page: "If you are coming to express an opinion on a topic of discussion, please include a rationale that addresses Wikipedia policy, or your opinion may be ignored." So, please, explain us the rationale of your vote. Mama meta modal (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
    Right. For clarity then. To indicate the name of the species as clearly as we indicate the name of a car model (i.e. Ford Galaxy). I've written many, many newspaper articles, including some which included references to bird species. As you say, very few newspapers capitalize bird names (though a few do). And more than once, I've had well-meaning editors completely screw up bird names while "revising" the articles. One, for example, removed the "little" from every reference to "little blue heron" after the first instance (i.e. leaving "blue heron", a non-existent bird) and later told me "Well, I thought you'd already said it was little." If such mistakes happen with careful editors, I expect even more to happen here on Wikipedia. MeegsC (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support keeping capitalization. Example: "Joe returned from a trip out west and was happy to have seen a blue jay." Without capitalization this is confusing because we do not know if Joe saw a Blue Jay, an eastern species rare in the west, or a jay of that has blue plumage which could be any one of several species such as Stellar's, Scrub, or Mexican Jays— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haans42 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 April 2014‎ (UTC)
    Another likely sock/meat puppet. One other edit in the previous six years before this !vote, and timing is also suspicious, coming on the heels of the other likely puppets. Dohn joe (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support option 2. Experts in a given domain often have a good reason for their idiosyncrasies. The birders have explained this one to my satisfaction; it is not, or at least not purely, a mere caprice, but has some plausible advantages. Experts may be presumed to know what facilitates communication on the topic, probably better than general style experts do. If they were asking for something really weird, that would be different, but it doesn't seem to me that they are. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Compare WP:JARGON. Experts in a given domain often do not know what facilitates communication to general audiences. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    That can happen, but it does not appear to have happened here. As I say, if they were asking for something really weird, that would be different, but they don't seem to be. The "general audiences" line is often overdone at WP. WP should not talk down to "general audiences", but should be their tool for entry to the material at an expert level. When experts have found by experience that a certain choice improves precision of discourse, that needs to be taken on board. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    To interject quickly: 9 years of documented continuous dispute over this matter conclusively proves that it very definitely has happened here. And forced re-education to use the One True Way of writing according to one field of scientists and enthusiasts is not what Wikipedia is about in at least 5 different ways listed at that page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Taken on board alongside the expert experience from Nature, National Geographic, Journal of Ornithology, Journal of Avian Biology, etc., etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Our bird experts are more qualified to weigh those various inputs than our style experts are. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support option 2. Capitalizing bird names imparts clarity in a very simple, elegant way. Capitalized names may look like 19th century poetry to someone who does not read, write, and think about bird species, but lower case names look amateurish to those of us who do. The sentence "The arctic tern is a common tern" is confusing nonsense that would require much verbiage to explain. Unambiguous and totally different in meaning are: "The Arctic Tern is a common tern" (perhaps written about the species at Potter Marsh near Anchorage) and "The Arctic Tern is a Common Tern" (perhaps written regarding a photo of a bird photographed at a lake in Arizona). And to say "The Common Tern is an arctic tern" has yet another totally different meaning, but it would be a false statement. Birdernaturalist (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I truly hope that we're not relying on capitalization where clear writing would be preferable. If a sentence relies solely on capitalization to avoid ambiguity it's in need of editing. "The arctic tern is a seabird commonly found in maritime habitats." "Common terns have occasionally been spotted north of the Arctic Circle." (NB: Arctic Circle is a proper noun.) Pburka (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    To be fair, your example sentences would have to express the same ideas as mine. For example,"The species known as arctic tern is a common species of tern." Or "The bird claimed to be the species known as arctic tern is actually the species known as common tern." So, I'd mirror that if a sentence relies solely on excess verbiage to avoid ambiguity, it's in need of editing. Capitalized bird names are merely an extremely useful, simple, and elegant way to refer to actual species and to avoid memorizing scientific names, and there really should not be any controversy over it. While it may rub some people wrong from a stylistic point of view, they would eventually change their minds if they ever started trying to communicate about birds on a regular basis. Birdernaturalist (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    But the point is that Wikipedia can't really rely simply on capitalization to clarify how to parse the sentence. "The Arctic Tern is a common tern." is probably not a sentence we should have in any article here, since few readers will know this convention. The ability to write otherwise-difficult-to-parse sentences, in and of itself, ends up not really being much of a benefit to Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    (ec)Ah, no. This is a general encyclopedia and the style should reflect that. Why should everyone learn a different style when they are reading an article on birds? Your argument for capitalization, is based on maintaining a specific style while choosing to ignore the style that is in palace for all other articles here. The encyclopedia style is what needs to be maintained within the encyclopedia, right? Maybe you have us confused with Wikispecies? Why should an external style drive us? How does it help the readers? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I admit I didn't express the same ideas as your sentences, largely because, as a non-expert, I couldn't discern what those sentences meant, even with the specialist capitalization. Are there examples you can point to in actual bird articles which would be ambiguous without the capitalization, and can't be easily reworded? Pburka (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support editors who build content, and oppose hectoring. I would have liked to have seen some discussion regarding the issue, but any sensible points are lost—sorry MOS advocates, but repetitive walls-of-text to dominate opponents is not the way to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative project. Double-crested Cormorant#Taxonomy seems clear ("White-crested Cormorant") whereas alternatives seem artificial. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    WP:AGF. Are you saying that positions should be challenged? Or that only those supporting option 2 contribute content? Also, the encyclopedia is for readers and not for editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

# Support Option 2 The Bald Eagle is the national bird of the United States of America. The bald eagle would be an eagle that is bald, "lacking the natural or usual covering" as of feathers. Whistling duck and whistling duck are correct because that article is about a sub-family of birds. Black-bellied Whistling Duck is a common name for a species and correct when writing about birds of that species; black-bellied whistling duck refers to any whistling or tree ducks with a black belly such as the White-faced Whistling Duck. Capitalization convention for bird names was adopted by ornithologists centuries ago for clarity. The reasons are still valid. I read a scholarly piece about why the common names of birds are capitalized a few decades ago. I'll try to find it and add a link if I locate it and find that it's available on-line. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Found it as well as opposing commentary. I'm a bird geek who will continue to follow the AOU convention of capitalization when I write for birding publications but I find the arguments for lower case in Wikipedia compelling. I can write well enough that it will be obvious from context whether black-bellied whistling duck refers to all tree ducks with black underbellies or to a specific species. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 04:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment on option 2
Removed the number sign wikiformatting, since this should not be counted in the list of supports for option 2. (No tsking needed.) This should be re-positioned to the discussion below. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Aye, it seems to be a !vote for option 1, but Neotarf already has a !vote in that section. This one is actually clearer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I smell a WP:SOCK. And not a well-disguised one.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hardly. I know Chuck in real life. https://www.flickr.com/photos/2154chuckstreet_pics/ Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
But Chuck has never before made a wikipedia edit; why is he entitled to an opinion about a guideline subtlety? Sounds more like a meat puppet than a sock puppet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Dicklyon is right, "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." (Wikipedia:Meat puppet). Mama meta modal (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Capitalizing the names of actual species is important to avoid confusion. This should be considered for all species, not just birds. For example, "cardinal" is not a species, and should not be capitalized. "Northern Cardinal" is a species, and should be capitalized. If I say, "a northern cardinal," I may be referring to a bird that lives in Canada. If I say, "Northern Cardinal," I'm referring to a particular species, and referencing all of the collective knowledge that name encapsulates. Similarly, "a yellow warbler" is saying something entirely different than saying, "a Yellow Warbler." A "Blue Tit" is very different from a "blue tit." Ornithologists and birders capitalize the English names of species to be clear in what is being said. Inasmuch as Wikipedia has an interest in maintaining clarity of expression, it should use this convention, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urracahermosa (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Urracahermosa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I smell a WP:SOCK. And not a well-disguised one.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
People are only allowed to comment if they're longtime Wikipedia content-generators? What's your proof this is a sock? Did you check the IP address? This topic is getting a lot of discussion in birding and ornithology fora. These are undoubtedly people coming here to voice their valid opinions. It's pretty sad that you have to put them down.Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop inviting your friends to make accounts just to vote with you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
We do not need a proof that it is a sick puppet. Indeed, "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." (Wikipedia:Meat puppet). Mama meta modal (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Support option 2. Regardless of the debate about what constitutes a proper name or naming other animal species, in terms of clarity, retaining capitalization is the clear choice. There can be many "yellow warblers" or "meadow pipits." Distinguishing the "common grackle" from a "common grackle" is confusing: are you referring to the "Common Grackle," Quiscalus quiscula, or a "common grackle" for the region, which may be Boat-tailed or Great-tailed? Capitalizing bird names, therefore, eliminates confusion and makes it clear to what you are referring: a specific bird or a species? Furthermore, capitalization emphasizes that you are speaking about the specific species. As Wikipedia is a "general encyclopaedia," it would be most clear to both biologists and the general public that the phrase "Cliff Swallows" is referring to the species in general, not swallows that nest specifically on cliffs. 68.40.49.28 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)HOLA
I smell a WP:SOCK. And not a well-disguised one.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it looks like a Wikipedia:Sock puppet or a Wikipedia:Meat puppet. Please not that: "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." (Wikipedia:Meat puppet). Mama meta modal (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
This—disappointing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, Mama meta modal. I honestly did not realize the good faith provision does not apply to new users when it comes to discussions like this one. Regardless whether their votes "count", I think they're worth listening to. Many of them are undoubtedly Wikipedia users. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith does apply to new users. It's the recruitment of new users to influence decisions that's bad faith. New users are worth listening to in general, but new users specifically recruited to stuff a ballot box often don't say anything new; they're just parroting the recruiter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You mean like how the last 15 people voting for option 1 just said, "what those guys said"? Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean like that, no, since they weren't recruited in a show of bad faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, you should not accuse someone of bad faith when he was not aware of a rule. I've apologized once, and I'll do it again. I'm sorry I broke a rule of which I'm unaware, even though I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for nigh on 10 years. That was not my intention. I'm now aware of the rule, and it will not happen again. I'm sorry. That doesn't change the fact the most of the "yeah, I agree with Fred" posts are less substantive then the "meat puppet" posts that were a result of my actions. I really don't understand how those posts are ok. It seems like a double standard. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Seriously? Canvassing again off-wiki for meatpuppets? [Someone from WP:BIRDS did this in 2012 and at least one previous debate on this as well, as I recall, to stack polls in precisely the same way. And still did not gain consensus outside their own project page to do what they're doing.] You know, if I made one post, not even a "rise up! rise up!" advocacy one, just a simple, neutral "isn't this interesting..." post on a single English-language writing e-mail list I can think of, or on another group I can think of, on Facebook, I could deluge this page with probably 100+ meatpuppets in favor of down-casing, within an hour. That's not how consensus is built here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: option 3

  • Abandon this discussion. This is a re-run of previous non-conclusive discussions, which are disrupting the work of those who edit bird page. Capitalization of bird names is established on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    There is nothing here that could disrupt bird-page editors' work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've replied above regarding the re-run claim. [10] Very, very important point, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

    Asking birds editors to follow the same style guide as the rest to the encyclopedia is not "disrupting the[ir] work" at all; their own decisions to insist on their way at all costs is doing that. Capitalization of bird names was "established" by WP:FAITACCOMPLI editwarring, against years and years of consistent opposition (much of which I've catalogued at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names). It was then given a totally WP:FALSECON seal of imprimatur by an early version of WP:NCFAUNA, created mostly by the same handful of editors, directing wikiprojects to just use whatever convention they wanted. We're still cleaning up after this utter chaos, explicitly overridden by MOS:LIFE in 2012, after in a discussion that was actually dominated by WP:BIRDS members who failed to convince others of their preference's validity/advisability here. We've already left this alone for two solid years, since the early 2012 debate that stabilized MOS on this subject. The result of MOS being wishy-washy, and advising that people just leave the birds dispute alone, on the feeling that hopefully it would just resolve itself amicably over time, has been nothing but more strife.

    PS: The only two other projects who even faintly care about this sort of thing are WP:BOTANY who note without trying to force it on everyone that capitalization is preferred by some journals in some plant specialties, meanwhile WP:INSECTS observes the same thing about two kinds of flying insects, again without trying to push a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against MOS:LIFE, though a couple of editors keep trying to promote the idea at some of the NC guidelines (on the basis of arguments that mostly seem to be anti-MOS rather than pro-capitalization, and about making expert editors rather than average readers happy).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The project you quote is, of course, the one that uses lower case, but not English common names, so its default style is Corylus avellana not "common hazel". Apparently not a problem. It amused me also that that some of the style fanatics (not you,  SMcCandlish) actually took my "american kestrel" seriously Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: as much as I disagree with the MOS on this particular issue, I am a fan of conformity and strongly support the idea of a coherent- and professional-looking wikipedia, so I'd rather it either be incorporated as official or sunk rather than float along as a guideline-not-a-guideline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Taking your seriously presented statement as serious does not make the reader a "style fanatic"; it's simply indicative of poor writing ability. It amuses me also to see fanatics call others fanatics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Option 3a Use scientific names
  • Change style guidance to use scientific names - binomials for article title and in running text. This is assuming that the aims are:
    • A) to make things consistent
    • B) because (untested hypothesis) uppercase mixed with lower case makes Wikipedia look unprofessional, illiterate etc. (also unverified claims)
Most (almost all the inconspicuous insects for instance) organisms have no English names, this would ensure consistency across taxa. Since we are considering a major surgery after 10 years of being in stasis, we might as use the more future proof option.
Lower case might actually hinder readability of articles - (untested hypothesis, ideally meant for actual readers to respond to in a large scale sample test) - with test articles on the sandy gallito, invisible rail, greater peewee, baya weaver, sarus crane, shaheen falcon (incidentally those last three are just baya, sarus and shahin in their source languages), oleaginous hemispingus, predicted antwren, tractrac chat, foothill schiffornis, rifleman, yellow-bellied elaenia, firewood gatherer, spectactled tyrant, weebill, warbling doradito, rufous hornero, common miner, ʻAkiapolaʻau, ʻAkikiki, Kauaʻi ʻAkialoa, Kauaʻi ʻAmakihi, ‘Akeke‘e, ʻAkepa, Oʻahu ʻAlauahio, ʻAnianiau, Van Dam's Vanga (which I believe should become"van Dam's vanga" ).
If the idea of codifying this consistency is the aim the same questions need to be asked of - Painted Lady, West Coast Lady, Brown Argus (numerous others would come up if this question is broadened, which is how this style question should ideally be handled) - lower casing that should need something like "the painted lady butterfly" so it cannot be solved merely by lower-casing.
Alterations needed in the style/"rules" such as "always use scientific names to avoid confusing text" (which ultimately may or may not make Wikipedia better for the reader. That is a question we are not asking anyway!). Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"Lower case might actually hinder readability of articles". Yes, that is easy to see. It can also be shown that capitalisation can also produce text that could be difficult to read. I have suggested that where readability is a concern, that italics be used to help readability. I can see italics being helpful, and not harmful, for readability for many species, bird or other, whether capitalised or not.
Consistency is good, but not paramount.
Disagree that a wrong decision here will make Wikipedia look unprofessional, illiterate etc, to a reasonable reader.
What is best for the reader, especially the widest selection of readers, should be the main question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This idea comes up every once in awhile, and we actually do it for a lot of plants; coast redwood is a redirect to Sequoia sempervirens, which I think is not something we would do if it was an animal. We even do it in a lot of cases for animals that either don't have common names or for which the common names are ambiguous or when it's not clear which common name is the common name (e.g.(?), Pelobates fuscus). These are all quite rare for birds, however. And for any large animal group, I would suggest that this guideline change is simply not going to happen: we are not going to move Bald Eagle to Haliaeetus leucocephalus. It's like FairTax—you might think it's a good idea, and it might be fun to discuss it, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The aims of Wikipedia include to be reflect the standard practice in general sources as well as to be clear and consistent. These does not support your idea of using Latin names.
In any case, by convention, genus name and not species name of all living species are capitalised (e.g. Passer domesticus, Latimeria chalumnae, Salmonella enterica); as virtually everybody respects these convention, Wikipedia also do so.
For these reasons, we should respect the habit of using common names. Their capitalisation is only recommended by the internal rules of one group of ornithologists and is not widely used by general sources. For these reasons, as Wikipedia is not a database for specialised ornithologists but a general encyclopaedia, there is no reason to capitalise bird common names.
Another important argument against capitalisation of common names is that there is no reason not treat them as all other animal species. Treating all animals in the same was allow to increase quality, consistency and clarity.
Mama meta modal (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
That's a lot of points to cover. People vent at me for long paragraphs, so here's a bullet list:
  • None of this addresses the common name capitalization issue at all, since all this scientific name titles thing addresses is article title, and MOS people, like most other readers, are mostly objecting to the capitalization in running text, with titles as an afterthought. (Personally, I hate WP's use of sentence case for titles and headings anyway. It's annoying bureaucrat-ese that doesn't have anything to do with encyclopedic style. The point being, some of us actually like title capitalization.)
  • Most botanical articles were moved to scientific names. Interesting experiment. Lots of people hate it, but it's mostly stable, indicating that it's not that big a deal for uncommon species.
  • What mostly happens is that things that do have obvious common names that satisfy WP:COMMONNAME get moved away from the taxonomic name eventually. A lot more of this needs to happen. If I had time, I'd go RM 100+ articles right now on that basis, and would prevail, because there is no real site-wide consensus for the scientific name as article title, meanwhile WP:COMMONNAME is a pretty clear policy. Binomial-as-title was a wikiproject idea that people kind of went along with, and today just work around and slowly undo when they actually care. The botany project doesn't browbeat and canvass about it, and consequently, tempers don't flare much. Virtually no one wants to emulate their idea when it comes to animal species. That said, binomials would actually be preferable to using IOC names in cases where the latter were just made up out of thin air at an IOC meeting to fill their list, and which are not represented in any other sci. literature or any mainstream sources that establish common use in the real world. That's quite a lot of names, BTW.
  • Lower case and title case on species common names both affect readability, just in different ways. Readability is not the only concern, probably not even the main one. "WTF is this weird capitalization? I'm going to stop reading and go try editing Wikipedia for the first time, just to fix this typo, since this looks like a ten-year-old wrote it" is a bigger one. (Funny enough, it's how I made my first, anon-IP edit, though it wasn't about birds, but about capitalization of a job title). The revert of such an editor's honest attempt at writing standard English, and the editwar leading into another three-month-long debate, that all ensues from that initial "WTF" reaction is an even bigger concern. The birder reaction of "oh, this is one of those sites, like all newspapers, and mainstream magazines, and non-ornithology websites, and encyclopedias, and dictionaries, and [...] that don't capitalize like my field guides do, oh well" is not an important one; no birder on the planet is unfamiliar with lower-cased bird names. But surely 99%+ of the literate anglophone human race are unfamiliar with bird (or other) common names being capitalized.
  • Painted Lady/painted lady and the like should have been at better article names to begin with. This is not some huge issue that "questions need to be asked of", it's a simple matter of following WP:AT and very easy to clean up (yes, it should be painted lady butterfly). [Note: That's a redirect I just had to create because, like the bird editors, the butterfly editors are often not adhering to MOS:LIFE's admonition to always create redirects from the other capitalization. Another reason to just one one standard, not two different ones.]
  • It's funny that you mention names like Kauaʻi ʻAkialoa, since IOC naming dropped the ʻ characters, quite jingoistically. Fortunately WP:DIACRITICS, WP:RM, MOS:DIACRITICS, etc., do not recognize IOC as authoritative on WP. To their credit, birds of Hawaiʻi is one area (diacritics I mean) where I haven't see WP:BIRDS people advocating IOC-isms against WP norms; the Hawaiʻian language bird articles I've looked at don't show any evidence of move-warring. This may be because MOS:HAWAII has been around in some form or another and very defensive of the ʻokina since 2006. WP:BIRDS people love to fight with MOS people, but not so much with other wikiprojects.
  • Re: may or may not make Wikipedia better for the reader. That is a question we are not asking anyway! I don't even know how to respond to that other that to guess you must be joking. Honestly, it's the entire point of MOS, meanwhile the failure of specialists of all sorts to keep that goal in mind, to remember to put lay readers not their own colleagues first when writing here, is why the WP:SSF essay had to be written.
  • I concur strongly with M.m.m.: there are just some narrow specialty venues that want the capitalization, and it does not match general sources; there's no reason to treat birds differently from other animals, either.
  • WP is a large scale sample test. Almost all organism articles have been lower-cased at this point other that birds, a few plants and two kinds of insects, and some misc. stragglers (I think I saw some capitalized snake articles or something). I've been looking, and so far there there seem be no negative consequences of any kind at all. The end. Let's put this to bed and move on.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: discussion

  • Thanks for your vote, BDD. But why do you think that WP:NCCAPS give the best answer? That's what I'm asking here. Step back from all previous claims of consensus (however local or not-so-local) and let's ask, what's the best way of writing and (particularly) naming these articles, and why? Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    AndrewA we need an evidence section below so folks can put all external sources below - and quickly. I am a bit tight for time for several hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    OK... although I would have preferred someone else to do it, and don't really see the rush. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    NCCAPS is so well established that I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to deviate from it. But in a nutshell, I would say that whether or not a letter is capitalized can convey specific information, so there should be a default, a baseline of either all small or all large caps. Small caps work well because they're more common in the English language in general. But my position is merely that we should follow our own internal standards. Were the positions reversed, and bird articles used sentence-case capitalization, my position would be the same: stick with our naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Agree about the burden of proof, but off-topic. Please reread the proposal. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. I note that the evidence for option 2 comes mainly from guidebooks, while evidence for option 1 comes from general sources. WP:MOS: "Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, ..." -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    True. But the MOS represents a local consensus (and this clause arguably also concerns content rather than style, but we don't need to go there). The purpose of this section is to step back, and consider only the question: What makes for the best articles? Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    As far as capitalization of bird species names, isn't the answer the same whether you follow the MOS, or if you follow usage in WP:Reliable sources? Dohn joe (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's exactly what many have assumed or implied. But this is taking a step back from that, and even from the usage criterion, the problem with which is: Which reliable sources do you consider, and which do you disqualify? Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's easy - we consider all reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. It even gives a handy list of types of reliable sources: academic and peer-reviewed publications; university-level textbooks; books published by respected publishing houses; magazines; journals; and mainstream newspapers. Why would you want to disqualify any reliable source? Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Agree totally that we consider all reliable sources. My point exactly. But read the whole paragraph you quote... the handy list of types of reliable sources you quote is introduced by Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: (my emphasis). Surely that includes sources such as guidebooks? But others wish to disqualify them (I assume you've seen examples of this without my needing to quote diffs). Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    I certainly would not wish to disqualify guidebooks, or any other reliable source. They're all part of the mix. But looking at all of the reliable sources, it seems clear that the MOS is in fact in line with a clear majority of reliable sources in using lowercase, which was my point. I don't think the MOS is infallible or universally mandatory by any stretch, but especially when its guidance matches the format found most often in the real world, I don't see why we shouldn't go along. Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Nobody is disqualifying guidebooks as reliable sources. However, we've got a situation where different reliable sources differ in the style in which they present the same information. Since there's a conflict between the reliable sources (on style only), and because many of us believe that Wikipedia should strive for consistency, we need to choose which style to use. As Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, it only makes sense for us to lean towards the style which is favoured by most non-specialist reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    What makes for the best articles? Sentence casing. Using jargon or Significant Capitals for Things That Don't Need to Be Capitalized hinders readers who are not specialists or steeped in the IOC rules. -- JHunterJ (talk)

    A belief that MOS "represents a local consensus" is a failure to understand WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at all. We don't disqualify any reliable sources, we just note that pretty much the only reliable sources that capitalize this kind of stuff are some but not all field guides and some but not all academic journals in ornithology, following a convention the authors of which specifically state is intended for ornithological publications. The vast majority of reliable sources in English do not capitalize bird species common names, or anything comparable to them. No reliable sources about English writing (which matter for Wikipedia's writing purposes more than specialist science journals, which are reliable about science facts not writing) capitalize such things. Capitalizing them here offends of the grammatical sensibilities of nearly all readers. "What makes for the best articles" is not taking an ungrammatical convention created by an annual meeting of scientists (not a nomenclature authority or any other sort of actual organization) specifically for ornithology journals, that not even all such journals agree with, and forcing it on an encyclopedia, for no clear gain. One can recycle one's pro-capitalization position endlessly and it will never change these facts. The argument that MOS is some local consensus one can ignore is an argument that has already lost; the entire reason the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy exists (read it – wikiproject cannot make up their own rules against the consensus established in broader guidelines and policies; this was originally codified at WP:PROJPAGE) is specifically to put an end to such misapplications of WP:IAR. If you believe that MOS is missing something or has something wrong, then seek to change it. This is how WP:consensus works. You'll find, if your reasoning is logical, instead of contorted and circular, and your presentation grounded in policy and collaboration, not demands and ego, that WT:MOS frequently comes to a consensus to make additions and other changes. You'll also find that in this case the issue has been talked to death for 9 years, and consensus emphatically has not changed in favor of bird (or other) species common name capitalization; the consensus against it has become progressively more obvious. If you believe that MOS itself should be deleted, you know where WP:MFD is, and you'll rapidly find that virtually no one agrees with you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: related Wikipedia guidelines and essays pages

Wikipedia policies
Wikipedia guidelines
Local projects
Essays

Mama meta modal (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Bird article names: evidence supporting option 1

  • Questionably relevant; this isn't about whether their taxonomy is correct, it's about what they do with style; you still keep confusing the two. Also, "thee" and "thine" aren't current usage, but you'll find them in the same dictionary. "Contains obsolete entries" is a feature not a bug in dictionaries.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The English language until the late early 1800s, and even in some places the late 1800s, had a tendency in common with the rule in German to capitalize nouns and noun phrases. It isn't evidentiary of what you think it is, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
CMOS recommends following Merrian Webster, as it happens. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: evidence supporting option 2

A specialised source which acknowledges that they are going against convention and states that capitalisation is "preferable for the name of a bird species in an ornithological context". An article on Wikipedia is not "in an ornithological context". It also seems like they have an axe to grind with standard convention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. See the relevant capitalization page, which says outright, "this is contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms." --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's hilarious. That's enough to just put this silly matter to bed, forever, right now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The IUCN Redlist consistently uses title case in the Common Name/s section, but generally uses lower case in running text see e.g. G/giant P/panda. It does conform sometimes to specialist practice; i.e. birds are often capitalized in running text, but IUCN doesn't always capitalize even bird names (California Condors are "condors" in running text). IUCN certainly does not support always using capitals. Field guides usually use title case for emphasis in headings (as has been mentioned previously in these discussions). Do the field guides you mentioned capitalize in running text.? Plantdrew (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not just in headings; field guides on all topics usually capitalize and/or otherwise emphasize the name of anything that has an entry, e.g. "Note that Basalt is visually distinct from Schist and Quartz" or whatever, including in running prose. It is field guide style, not a naming convention.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
IUCN uses upper case for the West African Manatee here in the text. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Grasping. That's a blog article not likely subject to much if any editorial control; it's not something formal produced by IUCN to indicate a convention.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait a minute, that's a mammal! This does not support the birds case at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The point is the IUCN uses upper case consistently for mammal and bird name. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Which again does not support the birds case at al. WP:BIRDS claims that bird names are special and different, not that all species common names should be capitalized. The IUCN article contradicts this by treating them as subject to the same convention in their style guide, which happens to capitalize. IUCN, therefore, supports the pro-MOS, pro-consistency position here. D'oh! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
IUCN also also capitalizes all species where it capitalizes any of them, not just birds. It does this for mammals, which brings it into direct conflict with, well, virtually everything ever written about mammals, including in academic literature; see Talk:Snow_leopard#Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources_on_Capitalization for a much longer list of references than we've built here so far. Oh, and elsewhere in IUCN materials, they use BLOCK CAPS for species common names. So much for your "they capitalized like I do" theory. All of this demonstrate that IUCN not a reliable source on style in taxonomy at all. Which makes sense, since they're not a taxonomic group or a style guide, but an species conservation organization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
A linkfarm of invalid "evidence"
Tigershrike (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Tigershrike, you have a lot to learn about the books n-grams. These comparison are all wildly biased toward title case because the n-grams include a lot of titles and headings (many birds species names appear seldom other than in tables and headings). You can remove much of the bias by including lowercase "a" or "the" in front of the bird name, or "is" after it, to narrow the search to certain sentence contexts. Some birds, especially rare ones mentioned only in birder books, may still survive as mostly capitalized, but I'd be surprised if many of these terns do. Like the black noddy; of course, many more variations are too rare to be in the database. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Many (not all) ornithology journals. An incomplete list:
    • someone should add some here
Notice that they're pretty much all bird specialty books, and largely field guides? Haven't we been over this already about 50 times?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: questions

See MOS:CAPS#Common names. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, proper names are capitalized, but "black crowned crane" isn't a proper name. If I had a black crowned crane that I named Dark Phoenix, "Dark Phoenix" would be a proper name, identifying a particular black crowned crane. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
JHunterJ, the question is why the Black Crowned Crane isn't regarded as the proper name for a type of crane, as in "the French" (a type of person) and "the Alps" (a range of mountains). A German shepherd is someone in Germany who looks after sheep, as opposed to the German Shepherd; a toy poodle is something a Toy Poodle might play with. The style guides are inconsistent on the point; even the ones that prefer no caps make exceptions, often for birds and companion animals. No one has explained why some editors want the MoS to adopt a "no exceptions" position. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"The French" is a specific people, not a type of person. ("What kind of person is he? Oh, he's the French!" No. "What kind of bird is that? Oh, it's a black crowned crane!" Yes.) Common nouns are classes of things. The Alps are a specific mountain range, not a class of mountains. Yes, good writing is needed for clarity. This is true with or without Significant Capitals for Things I Like. No one wants a "no exceptions" policy; we do want to adhere to the exceptions that help improve the encyclopedia policy. No one has explained why some editors want the MoS to adopt exceptions that not only don't improve the encyclopedia but worsen it for the typical reader (the reader who is unfamiliar with the IOC). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: That answer should win awards. Saving for later, because it very succinctly and clearly gets at two of the most serious cognitive dissonance problems in the pro-caps argument, and they get rehashed constantly. It's like verbal Whack-a-Mole. @SlimVirgin: "German shepherd dog" is the proper name of the breed [in registries that use that name at all; it's a.k.a. the Alsatian dog and the deutsche Schäferhund], whether you capitalize the dog/Dog part of it or not; it's not the capitalization that disambiguates. This is even clearer in an example like Norwegian Forest Cat (or Norwegian forest cat, as you prefer). To some, calling a dog just "German Shepherd" doesn't sound as weird as calling a cat just "a Norwegian Forest", but it's only because German shepherd dogs are more common and familiar to English speakers than Norwegian forest cats are, by and large. In context, I can call a cat a Burmese, but otherwise it's presumed I mean a person (or python or whatever best fits the non-feline context). A breed name isn't a proper name beyond the proper names (usually geographical) it may already contain. Arguments can be made that the published names of formal breeds are in fact proper names, but that has nothing to do with the present debate, there is no consensus on the question on WP yet, and it's not at all a good analogy for the species question. "Italian" [person, food, whatever] is capitalized because it an adjectival proper name, derived from the proper noun Italy. Some languages don't even capitalize that far (e.g. Spanish: Italia, italiano. But "Italian Woman", "Recipe from Italy" and "Italian Language" are not capitalized like that. These are more closely analogous to a bird species name like [[Sunda cuckoo-shrike]; it contains a proper name but is not one in its own right. See also the canine landrace St. John's water dog, and so on. They're identifiable categories that contain individual members, nothing more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate on the examples, Statue of Liberty is a specific statue, New York Public Library is a specific library and Memorial Day is a specific holiday. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Black Crowned Crane is a specific type of bird. Wouldn't it compare to something like Space Shuttle (capitalized as the proper name of a type of space craft... even though the individual Shuttles were named "Columbia", "Challenger", etc.) Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The point is that all style guides and non-specialist publications do not recommend capitalising for common names of fauna. For some reason the bird folk want to be different. There should be no difference between how we treat pot-bellied pig and black crowned crane. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There should indeed be no difference. And capitalization of these is not logical, it's like capitalizing "dog", "cat", "human". --JorisvS (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and "playwright" is a specific type of human, but playwright is not capitalized while William Shakespeare is. We easily say "a human", "a playwright", "a bird", "a black crowned crane", or "a grizzly bear", but not "a William Shakespeare" (just "William Shakespeare") or "an Old Ephraim" (just "Old Ephraim") or "a Statue of Liberty" (just "the Statue of Liberty"). Species names are not proper names, no matter if they are capitalized generally (that is, not capitalized) or jargonly (that is, with Significant Caps). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And as for Space Shuttle, we should fix that one too. http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/the_shuttle/ -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@JhinterJ.... Should we also change the capitalization of Assistant Secretary of State... that is not a specific person (there are multiple Assistant Secretaries of State), but a specific type of governmental official.
@JorisvS... Um... we do capitalize Dog, Cat and Human... but since those are single word titles, they are poor examples.
@Robsinden... I understand that non-specialized style guides say to not capitalize the names of fauna ... and I also understand that bird specific, specialized style guides disagree and say to capitalize the names of birds... what I am trying to wrap my brain around is why these various style guides say what they say. We can't settle the debates between MOS editors and the members of WikiProject:Birds until we understand why generalized style guides say to not capitalize types of fauna... why bird specific style guides say to capitalize them... and why we woundn't treat them both the same way we would treat other things, such as types of space craft. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If you read this, which I believe to be the source of all of this, it seems some bird guy decided one day that the rules and conventions of the English language didn't apply to them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Who invented USA spelling? Snowman (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny you should ask... It seems that Some guy decided one day that he did not like the existing rules and conventions of the English language ... and so invented USA Spelling. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ummm - I really hope you don't think that's really what happened! Besides, non-specialised style guides take those established differences into account. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar. "Cat", "dog", etc. are not capitalized. Look at the articles; do they capitalize these words mid-sentence? No. They're perfectly good examples. --JorisvS (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
When species caps were proposed for everything, this actually would have included both "Dog" and "Cat" in their species-specific senses, and that may be one of the main reasons the idea (sanely) failed to gain total WP:FAITACCOMPLI-level traction. Some articles like this were already being rewritten to uppercase Lion and Cheetah and Cougar. See the talk archives of Talk:Cougar for how inane that putsch was, a campaign championed by a brow-beating WP:BIRDS pundit (now disappeared) insisting that the capitalization was "required" and "a standard" and blah blah blah, when there's actually an explicit convention against capitalizing the common names of mammals. The whole exercise should win some kind of Ultra-lame Disruptive Nonsense Award. It was positively shameful. But before it was over, almost every single article on rodentia, primates, cetaceans, ovids, bovids (I think) and other orders of mammals (among many other life forms) were all capitalized in a tendentious, editwarring avalanche we still haven't entirely cleaned up. And it was pushed by many of the same now claiming they fear an incautious WP:RANDY rush to decapitalize their work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Blieboar: I think you've got it: the specific office is the Assistant Secretary of State, even though there might be multiple assistant secretaries of state, just like the NASA program is the Space Shuttle program, even though there might be multiple space shuttles (or orbiters). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, we capitalize dog, cat, and human? What?? Only if they start a sentence, or are being used as a proper noun (e.g., I say to my dog, "Hi, Dog."). Are you thinking of the MediaWiki restrictions that make all initial letters of article names capitalized? --BDD (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
See the talk histories of Cougar and Lion. "Dog" and "Cat" have actually been debated about, back when there was a putsch to capitalize common names of mammals too (advanced by - you guessed it - style activists from WP:BIRDS, who were blissfully unaware that there's a formal zoological convention against capitalizing mammals' common names). Cat and dog are borderline examples because they're ambiguous, and many argue that the "real" zoological vernacular names are the domestic cat and the domestic dog, and many people on the bird-caps site also want to see this as Domestic Cat, etc. Just yesterday someone in this debate (SlimVirgin I think) on one of the other pages (WT:NCCAPS, I think), said there a difference between a dog and the Dog. So, yes, some of these people do even want to capitalized Dog and Cat when they mean Canis familiaris and Felis catus. Meanwhile seriously about 0.001% of English speakers would ever capitalize "the Dog" like that. It's clear (not just from this) that people exposed for a long time capitalization of common names of one type of organism have a tendency to "believe" in it and to start proselytizing it. I've observed that the pro-caps arguments are usually wallowing in confirmation bias and the false consensus effect (in the real-life, off-WP sense). So, no, it is not just about the fact that article titles have first letter capitalized by the software on en.wiki; people were literally capitalizing in mid-sentence, e.g. "The Cougar or Mountain Lion is..." in real Wikipedia articles, I kid you not. Proponents of this farce were arguing with (in retrospect hilarious) self-righteous puffery and superiority that this was "required" and "correct" and "a standard". This is a big reason why this bird exceptionalism has to go. It inspired people every single tday to go capitalize something else that should not be capitalized. And I'm just talking about on Wikipedia. I can't imagine how many people have embarrassed themselves in school or work writing by capitalizing common names because they saw it here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just noting that I have never suggested capitalizing Dog (unless it's part of a proper name). SlimVirgin (talk)
  • @SlimVirgin or whoever: are there sources that suggest that bird species names are proper names? From what I've seen, that was not the basis for their recommended capitalization (by the IOC) in ornithology writings, but if it's going to be invoked here as a reason, we should know whether there's any support for that concept. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dicklyon, Jon S Greenlaw (a biologist) of the OIC discusses them as proper names:

The value of capitalizing the English names of animals seems obvious to me. Somewhere deep in the history of our language, we came to regard vernacular and “common” names as second-class citizens. Thou shalt not capitalize them. I believe that it has something to do with the (mis-)perception of species by folks in the humanities as “categories” or “classes” rather than as real entities (to the extent that we can know them). Well, biology has come a long way from that typological view. The standardized English names now have graduated from the realm of “common/vernacular” names. From my perspective, the strongest argument for capitalizing the English names of birds is that we now have a single, unique name ... for each of the biological entities that we call bird species. These names must be regarded as proper nouns (thus receive capitals in all English publications), rather than as common nouns (vernacular names). [12]

SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that answer. I can understand the logic/desire of some to do it that way. But since it hasn't really caught on widely in English writing, I still feel that WP should stick with the old pattern until it is generally agreed that species names shall be treated like (or even as) proper names. His statement that "These names must be regarded as proper nouns" seems to be more about his wishes than any analysis of linguistic practice or reality. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I admit to being puzzled that people will accept Rocky Mountains as a proper name but not Black Crowned Crane. I can't see a difference. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to find a logical explanation for the difference if you just note that in normal English usage it is a longstanding tradition to give mountain ranges proper names (or to capitalize the names of unique mountains ranges, as we'd say more empirically), whereas the same has not traditionally been the case for species names – not even birds, in spite of organizations trying hard to make it so. Or if your point is that "Rocky Mountains" is not a unique range but a group of ranges, what can I say? It's based on longstanding usage, which is why people accept it. Now if you can explain why some people are happy to accept caps at Oregon Coast or Andromeda Galaxy, in spite of longstanding lowercase usage, I'd like to hear... Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Rocky Mountains is a proper name. It is a specific mountain range. Is that a Rocky Mountain? Black crowned crane is a common noun. It is a class of birds. Is that a black crowned crane? I do not know why you cannot see the difference. Let's get back to the Alps. The Alps is a specific mountain range, but through back-formation, "alp" is now also a common noun meaning "a high rugged mountain". And you still can't say Is that an Alp?. You have to say Is that an alp?, because it's a common noun. The difference is clear and simple. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll simply copy and paste my message from four days ago:

It certainly is true that "some people" capitalize the common names of birds species, but not because they're proper nouns. I'm aware of exactly one ornithologist who advocates that they be treated as such (and even he hasn't claimed that they actually are in the real world).

—David Levy 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Bird article names: questions - break
Because they deal with specific wars, battles, conflicts or eras, not a "type" of war - see "civil war" for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds the same as using capitalized bird names for species and lower case for groups of birds. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, see JHunterJ's explanation using "playwright" above. But in any case, we need to mirror real-world usage in non-specialist sources. Hence, we should be following what the CMOS and similar style guides do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is, see other user's explanations above. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not; see other users' explanations above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It may actually be a good idea to get a hold on the history of the issue at hand. From what I understood, there are two ways to think of "species" (the quotes are because while we all have some working view of the concept, it is problematic as it defies a general definition - see species problem) - as some kind of "entity" (like a human family name) or as individuals who belong to a group. And that in turn lets you say something like "Canis familiaris is found across the world." Or you could say "dogs are nice pets." In the singular form, it is a unique entity, in the plural form it is a category. The problem seems to be that early English ornithologists decided that they need to mirror Latin binomials and taxonomic relationships in English (with a shared group name and discriminating prefixes). The problems compounded when the English landed in America and started using contrived names (as opposed to more natural single-word names like junco or vireo) that did not reflect taxonomic relationships. Committees were established to standardize and establish formal names. These formal names often had ambiguous adjectival prefixes like "common" or "gray" leading to the need for avoiding ambiguities in writing. All this was not and is still not entirely without dissent. Ludlow Griscom (1947) [who was not on the naming committee] for instance suggested that everyone could use of scientific names because English names were based on primitive ideas and fancied relationships that did not reflect taxonomy and that attempting to make vernacular English nomenclature more meaningful would make it just as complicated as scientific nomenclature.[history 1] The idea of using Latin was also pointed out as being problematic by others like Skutch. Skutch (1950) says: "I saw two Pirangae rubrae" would be decried as pedantry; but "I saw two Piranga rubras" is an intolerable solecism. "I saw two individuals of Piranga rubra" is formally correct but clumsily long.[history 2] The tradition of using capitals to English names is however quite old. John Ray (1678) used an overdose of capitals. Alfred Newton compiled the first ornithology dictionary, an attempt to help people look up information on birds that they would not find in traditional dictionaries. He made use of capitals in his dictionary.[history 3] He also used capitals in the ornithology entry that he made for Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th edition). Later attempts at standardization have tried to regularize the use of capitals, apart from rules on how case is used across hyphenated words. One of these, Kenneth Parkes (1978)[history 4] even went on to claim that : "In spite of the editorial policies of some journals and book publishing companies, most ornithologists (including the writer) appear to believe firmly that the names of bird species should be capitalized. The usual reasons given for this, which are valid, are that it prevents the ambiguousness such combinations as "gray flycatcher" and of "solitary sandpiper," and that it makes the names of birds easier to spot in a page of print. In addition, the English name of a bird species can be considered to be a proper name, and thus entitled to capitalization (see editor's footnote in Cheesman and Oehser 1937: 335). Group-names in the plural are sometimes capitalized when they are intended as parts of two or more species names: thus, Common and Roseate Terns rather than Common and Roseate terns (U.S. Government Printing Office 1959:22). However, the Council of Biology Editors prefers the second (uncapitalized) version (Council of Biology Editors 1972: 184), which should be used in manuscripts intended for biological journals." Some modern bird books [example: Birds of South Asia (2005)] avoid the problem of capitals by making use of all-capitals in the headings and referring to species in running text entirely through the use of Latin names (genus contracted where needed). Some people have considered the entire Linnean system as so flawed as to invent the PhyloCode system. Those in favour of this system have had to consider similar questions. Is the name of a clade a proper name and so on. A paper by Richard Jensen (2011) asks "Are species names proper names?"[history 5] and says: "Some argue that species names are Millian proper names: names that have no meaning. Others have countered that species names are Millian general names that have stipulative definitions. Here I argue that species names belong to neither category. In particular, unlike Millian proper names, species names have unique referents and are connotative. Further, species names are names of intension that, unlike Millian general names, refer to specific collective entities. Because species names have unique properties not associated with Millian general or proper names, but recognizing the similarity to proper names in most respects, I propose that they be categorized as extra-proper names." Another systematist Kevin de Queiroz (2011) brings back the plural/singular or species-entity problem and says[history 6] : ... use of singular common names as the equivalents of the scientific names of species is inconsistent with modern species concepts and the meanings of the words from which the names are formed, and therefore, that plural common names should be used instead and adds that Under the interpretation of the common names of species as proper names (e.g., Parkes 1978; Potter 1984), those names are commonly capitalized. However, because common names are more appropriately interpreted not as the names of species as wholes but as names of the sets of organisms of which species (as population lineages) are composed (de Queiroz 1995), common names are not, strictly speaking, the names of individual species. Therefore, they are not proper nouns and need not be capitalized (compare Atkins 1983). This conclusion is consistent with the use of common names for the organisms comprising our own and other species (“humans,” “dogs,” “cats,” etc.), which generally are not capitalized. I am not arguing however, that common names should not be capitalized. There may be other reasons for capitalizing common names, such as distinguishing the common names of species from general descriptions of organisms (e.g., “Green Frogs” versus “green frogs”) and ease of recognition while reading (Nelson et al. 2002; Parkes 1978). There is a tradition to use capitals in the names of formally recognized breeds and one author has suggested that the rule should extend to "formal"/"official" English names for groups outside of the birds. The bird typography has largely been because the consumption of information on birds must exceed all other taxa in the English speaking world. Another driver for the creation of standards and the IOC committee (in the past there were more regional committees) has been the rise of trans-national bird-watching tourism. Similar standards are being adopted in other taxonomic groups where English name usage is seen as needed. The trade in fish species and the international fishing industry has led to the American Fisheries Society to make a change in 2013 to the 7th edition of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico (AFS Special Publication 34; 2013). An early proposals in this field comes from 2002 (with a case of "white crappies") but it is not clear how much traction this standard has. I have tried to put both sides of the argument as fairly as I can despite editing on bird related pages. My synthesis of biology does not support the idea of species as any "real" entity (however see Cracraft, Mishler[history 7][2]) and therefore philosophically I should support the lower case names but then there is a problem of traditional usage. I suspect that regardless of how this poll turns out that I will be changing my style of running text in bird articles, with more Latin names in italics.
Footnotes
  1. ^ Griscom, Ludlow (1947). "Common sense in common names" (PDF). Wilson Bulletin. 59: 131–138.
  2. ^ Skutch, Alexander (1950). "On the naming of birds" (PDF). Wilson. 62 (2): 95–99.
  3. ^ Newton, Alfred & Hans Gadow (1896). A dictionary of birds. London: Adam and Charles Black.
  4. ^ Parkes, Kenneth C. (1978). "A guide to forming and capitalizing compound names of birds in English" (PDF). Auk. 95: 324–326.
  5. ^ Jensen, Richard J. (2011). "Are species names proper names?". Cladistics. 27 (6): 646–652. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00357.x.
  6. ^ de Queiroz, Kevin (2011). "Plural versus Singular common names for Amphibian and reptile Species". Herpetological Review. 42 (3): 339–342.
  7. ^ Mishler, Brent D. (2010). "Species are not uniquely real biological entities". In Ayala, F.J. & Robert Arp (ed.). Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (PDF). Blackwell Publishing.
Shyamal (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No one but me will read that without paragraph breaks. Anyway, the "quite old" observation is more important than you're realizing. It was common in the 1600s because English had not diverged so much from German on handling of nouns. Even the late 1700s, it was still very common to capitalize nouns simply for being nouns. This intimately related to why we capitalize for emphasis so much, in titles, on posters, in field guides, and so on. It's just a coincidence that, while expunged from formal writing, it is a kind of written slang & jargon usage that persists and will persist for generation to come. In formal prose it has been substandard since the 1800s. Ergo, we do not do it on Wikipedia, not even just a little bit because birders think it should be done with birds and nothing else. This sort of capitalization isn't quite old in the sense of "well established" but rather in the sense of "obsolete, especially in running prose".
With this quote, you pretty much gutted your own position the pro-capitalization position you seemed to be supporting: "The usual reasons given for this, which are valid, are that it prevents the ambiguousness [of] such combinations as "gray flycatcher" and of "solitary sandpiper," and that it makes the names of birds easier to spot in a page of print." Neither of these rationales are valid here. We fix the first problem by wikilinking (and by just writing better), while the second is the very same capitalization for emphasis that MOS says do not do. The authors' third idea, that bird common names are proper names, could only be arrived at by someone with no linguistic (or even serious English writing and grammar) background. The more linguistically astute approach you quoted is highly speculative, and is an example of a non-linguist wandering far outside his area of competence (doesn't mean he's wrong, but this should be printed in a linguistics journal with their peer review process, not a biology one). The American Fisheries change has been viciously lampooned, has largely been completely ignored as a "standard", and was never, ever intended to be a taxonomic matter, but only a standard for U.S. commercial fisheries to use within their ambit; if you'd bothered to read the User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names page I put together and frequently point to, you'd see that I already covered that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
gutted your own position - this is ridiculously immature and adolescent wording that has no place here. Your opinions are not supported by references "viciously lampooned and completely ignored" - for instance has no evidence in support either. The change was only included in 2013, if that is really so badly opposed it should go away in the next edition, whenever that happens. Anyway, you do not really seem to know my position (if you read carefully you would have seen that my philosophical foundations stand in opposition to capitalization). In any case, it would be good to see a positive debate. For instance, would this debate include demonstrations to show that there will be no side effects due to blind-conversion to lower-case. It might be nice if either side can actually show some examples where a mechanical lower-casing conversion will cause ambiguity and difficulty in reading that would require manual copy-editing. For instance how would it look if we used a bot to lower case and produce something like: "the genus Cisticola includes a large number of African species including the singing, whistling, chattering, trilling and bubbling cisticolas"; would that need to be altered, perhaps by shifting to the use of Latin names or by appending Latin names in brackets. (I expect that any typography change options are already ruled out by the MoS!). Shyamal (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE: You can't complain that I'm being hyperbolic in the same sentence that you use the phrase "ridiculously immature and adolescent". :-) But fair enough; I get carried away sometimes. I've already pointed you to the reference; see my log page on this issue for direct quotation from the piece and an actual link to it; it's damning, and accurately sums up what's wrong with this capitalization mania even off of Wikipedia, including that it undermines public credibility in the professionalism of the organizations advancing it, etc. Revision: I skimmed too fast originally and didn't realize you were reporting on 2013 news in this regard; I'll have to go check that stuff out. I'd been writing about about a July 2002 proposals by the American Fisheries Soc. to upper-case fish common names. It was totally ignored except, I guess, in some US-based fish-farming circles. If they've bene pushing it further that's frown-inducing news, but it doesn't strongly affect the MOS analysis here. II did not make any argument about your position, I addressed what I could in the huge text block you posted, because those are the arguments you presented. I'm not making a "TL;DR" argument here; I'm wordy myself, it's just a tough reading task to go through that much prose with no breaks in it.

I agree that the auto-editing showings you would like to see are a good idea. I also observe that there has been no huge, reckless decapitalization rush, anywhere. Even in mammals, it was slow and methodical work (I know because I did a lot of it, all by hand, without AWB or other tools). To return to "your position", looking over the major changes you made to a couple of the relevant guidelines, the reason they were not reverted immediately [not because of any bad faith on your part, but because they were quite significant but without a consensus-building discussion] is because they aided the capitalization cause, whatever your beliefs/intent, and few others watchlist those pages. The noisy cisticolas example: We'd actually fix that mess by wikilinking and surely use a bulleted list, not a ridiculous sentence like that. Please tell me that's not from live article content... Anyway, tens of thousands of biological articles have been methodically decapitalized over the years almost without incident, so I wouldn't worry about it much. We're all clear that birds names are a bit more often than others in forms that could be mistaken for descriptive phrases, but there are lots and lots of non-bird examples, in lower case, without any issues arising when written sensibly and linked appropriately. Reworking in this regard often improves the quality of the article text anyway. Remember that these pages are read aloud to the blind, so it's generally better to have a phrase like "predated by the bubbling cisticola (Xxxxxx yyyyyy) and the trilling cisticola (X. zzzzzz)" than "predated by bubbling and trilling cisticolas". So, yes, by all means, more Latin names in italics!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The proper name issues is a sideshow. It doesn't matter much whether they are proper names or not (they aren't, but again, it doesn't matter wrt. this discussion). The bottom line is that either style is correct: "Bald Eagle", "bald eagle", or even "Bald eagle". To claim one is "correct" is prescriptivist in the extreme: both styles appear quite regularly in the wild, even in highly reputable and authoritative sources. There is no issue of "correctness" here. This is purely a question of style. Please, if this issue comes up, consider whether you really want to argue that our use of "brown bear" and Nature's use of "brown bear" or "bald eagle" is grammatically incorrect. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a sideshow and definitely not proper names. But there's more going on here than what you may be seeing. "Correct" is a meaningless phrase here except in a particular context. "Either style is correct" cannot always be true, and rarely is true. If I submit a capitalized-common-name article to Nature, it was incorrect usage, because their style guide does not permit that, and I won't get published. Etc. On WP, lower case is correct, other than one project argues the opposite for "their" articles, and I think two projects argue for "either way is okay", but MOS trumps their wishy-washiness on the matter. As a descriptive linguistics matter, to claim one is correct for the whole of English language usage would of course be a big FAIL. But MOS, like all style guides, is prescriptivist by design and in intent. That's what makes it a guide not an linguistics textbook.

It's more than just purely a question of style, in real practical ways. It's first and foremost a matter of WP:ASTONISH – are we annoying and confusing our readers? – and more broadly of WP:ENC/WP:NOT – are we doing what is best as an general-purpose encyclopedia for the largest proportion of our readers? These concerns are #1 at MOS, and regularly trump concern #2 (what do most reliable sources, of all types, especially generalist ones do in English), #3 (what do other style guides on English writing do, especially ones that are not journalistic or otherwise hard to apply to encyclopedia writing, and last, what do specialist sources do. Not sure what you meant with the examples; they look the same to me. I get your point, I think. I don't believe, however, that anyone is really arguing about style here; we're arguing about prioritization of editorial community decisions (are a zillion readers' expectations more important that a way smaller number of specialist editors' preferences?) etc., and about Wikipedia self-governance, especially whether editors can form groups that defy site-wide standards and norms in wider policies and guidelines. It's about the readers, and it's about WP's future operation, not about letters (or hyphens or italics or whatever the next style squabble will be).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well put. Yeah, I'm not trying to say it's fine for us to use caps on one page and lowercase on another. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's as important as WP:V, but I do think it's something worth getting right. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some elephants in the room are these two questions: On what basis do several members of WP:BIRDS mataintain that only for birds does a "big committee of international scientists and researchers" (as Casliber put it) decide common names? More importantly, on what logical basis do they suppose this idea makes those proper names, makes IOC a more reliable source than anything else, and makes WP:BIRDS unique among biology projects with regard to MOS and LOCALCONSENSUS policy? Is it just that the IOC is more international that some of the others? That seems to be the only difference. E.g. for reptiles [not including birds >;-] and amphibians, there are two lists that complement one another (one for North America, now available online, and one for the rest of the world, still on paper and due for an update I would think). Merging them into one list and arguing about it's content at an annual meeting would not somehow qualitatively change its nature or reliability in any way. Centralization and a difference of division of labor does not confer special authoritativeness. Nothing made the IOC list qualitatively different just by virtue of the fact that it combined names from more than one regional authority.

Casliber, way above, seemed to imply that in botany the names are not arrived at by scientists and researchers; but if that's they case, where are they coming from? I'd rather hear from a botanist on that, honestly, but whatever. For reptiles and amphibians, the Center for North American Herpetology isn't staffed by hobbyists! Its board of directors is plenty eminent, and Taggart's work I've known for 20-odd years (not that my knowing it makes it good, I mean that I know it's good). The CNAH list was put together by "groups of herpetological systematists" and "a broad spectrum of systematic herpetologists". I.e. a big committee of scientists, given by name and institutional affiliation, albeit not an international group (hard to find many Japanese experts on American lizards). I haven't looked into these details for the other one (published in book form as A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Amphibians of the World; I have this, of course, but due to moving a while back it's in a box, so I can't dig around in it for whose work it is en toto; still, I really doubt it's a bunch of unqualified schlubs under the editorship of Frank & Ramus! Moving on, what horrible defect are we supposed to find in the reliability of Common Names of Mammals of the World (Wilson & Cole, 2000), other than it, too, is aging enough that it needs an update. Why are we to trust the self-published website of an ornithological meeting group of experts, over whom no one else is exercising any editorial oversight, vs. the work of experts published by the Smithsonian Institution (in the case of Wilson and Cole here, both of whom are senior-level people in their fields)? That strikes me as perfectly valid WP:RS question. It's also a serious WPO:NPOV issue, because some of the regional authorities are unhappy with IOC stepping on their toes, making up names no one in the real world uses, even contradicting actual real-world names, etc. These are real-world, actual scientific political disputes that WP cannot pick sides in.

In short, what exactly is the "birds/IOC/WP:BIRDS are just special" case actually being made here?

PS: Here's a fantastic example of why IOC style isn't workable here, copied directly from their own webpage: "Long recognized to be an artificial assemblage of taxa, the Gruiformes now is restricted to flufftails, finfoots, rails, trumpeters, cranes, and Limpkin". To anyone but Gruiformes experts this looks like a list of bird families and some person's surname. It's not even proper English writing in other ways (try no "the" before Gruiformes [or change "is" to "are" - one or the other], then add "the" before Limpkin). Even after that cleanup, the average reader is going to stop parsing, jarred out of absorbing what they're reading, and now wondering why it looks broken, thinking "WTF? Why is that capitalized and the rest aren't?" The average editor is going to go through the same process, conclude "typo", and correct it to "limpkin", no matter how many birders would complain.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird article names: notifications and publicity

We have jumped the gun above. I was asking for comments on the proposal. Instead we have implemented half of it. Less than half of it, actually, and jumped to a poll.

I don't think that's surprising or even a bad thing, all things considered. But this discussion will only be helpful if it becomes a true wiki-wide discussion, and it's not that yet. It's mostly (not all) just the same old hands. There has been a little discussion of that above, but it's mixed in with the poll. This subsection #Point one and notification is where it now should be.

What other notifications are necessary to achieve this? Is a wiki-wide banner justified? I was hoping someone else might suggest that. If not that, then what? Will anything else be adequate? Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

With hindsight (sorry) it might have been better just to have the proposal itself at the top, and then a subsection for discussion of what the options should be. When I arrived this morning, UK time, it was already divided into !voting subsections, and I didn't even realise that was premature. Which is a pity, because I'm not sure that we yet have the right questions: your proposal was "that we immediately and directly seek a community-wide consensus on the question of captitalisation of bird names", but your first set of questions only address article titles. That may be simpler, as you say, but I don't really see the point. We have mandatory redirects for article title capitalization. Are we just mired in our history here? If so, better admit it and not waste any more time. If not, since this is an attempt to get a community-wide consensus, and maybe the last such attempt we can hope for for a long time, shouldn't we try to get a consensus on the real issue? --Stfg (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
In hindsight, maybe. But now we need to run with what we have IMO. Agree that it doesn't seem to make much difference, but it seems to be very important to many.
I think it's important to focus on building the best encyclopedia, which means a focus on the needs of readers rather than those of editors. But also think that this focus will, long term, best serve the needs of editors, too. So it's a win/win. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree with the first sentence of your last paragraph. But the best encyclopedia has the best text, not merely the prettiest article titles. And indeed that won't make much difference, and it will have the negative effect that we'll never get to solve the real problem, because if we try at some time in the future, everyone will point to the solution to the non-problem and say "We discussed it! We discussed it already!" And I'm sorry this is being kicked into the long grass with "too late", because from what I can see, the discussion was never had. --Stfg (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Mama meta modal (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Bird article names: concerns about parameters of the debate

Andrewa's third demand request, expectation, whatever up top – no editing anything relevant until this huge proposal plays out, which could take a very long time to produce no better consensus – is unacceptable. There's already a level of revertwarring going on that I'm going to take to WP:ANI very soon if it does not abate; this proposal process cannot sanely be used to stamp actual approval on that behavior! Some of these 5 guidelines' wording in relevant sections is directly contradictory, extremely POV-forking, factually incorrect, even ungrammatical, and there is no reason that incremental changes cannot be made, per WP:BOLD policy and per normal WP:BRD process or any other reasonable consensus-building process (BRD is not mandatory, remember). I imply no intent that it should have such a result, only observe the effect, but even the notices of this debate added to the other pages listed above were done in a way that tended to short-circuit ongoing discussions in those places that need to be resolved in the short term, not delayed for the outcome of this one, and may have no relation to it at all in some cases. I agree that material that would change MOS itself on this matter should not be altered for now. MOS:CAPS, a real mess, can be mostly left alone for the short term because it's tagged as disputed in the relevant section, as well it should be; MOS supersedes it's own subpages, but MOS:CAPS has been POVforked into another galaxy. WP:NCFLORA has a proposal for simplification on its talk page, and that should not in any way be held up by discussion here. I've engaged in four days of consensus discussions on even the most minute changes to WP:NCCAPS (which is just a summary page of capitalization-related rules in other guidelines and how they apply to titles – except of course where it's been POV-forked to contradict MOS on this one topic), I just fixed that stuff to the extent that it would not impinge on this discussion here, about an hour ago. I don't know if the tweaks will stick this time, but they need to be made, because the text there is simply bad, incorrect guidance in several ways. WP:NCFAUNA needs some cleanup too. I'm not even talking about removing stuff that tries to add new "exceptions", I mean just basic wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My third demand was and is for a voluntary moratorium. I further said that if this was not respected, it was no big deal. That's a demand?
This seems to me to be the clearest example yet of a long post which adds no value at all to the discussion. Perhaps even negative value. Other views?
The problem is, such posts do have the effect, whether intended or not, of impeding progress towards a consensus. We are I think making some progress, but given the distractions, I'm pleasantly surprised by that. And they seem so unnecessary. Again, interested in other views on that. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you seem to feel that no one but you gets to have any say in the appropriateness of this straw poll and the negative effects it's having on ongoing discussions elsewhere. Just because you presonally don't care what is going on the five guideline pages in question does not mean no one else does, BTW. I'll take the more obvious concern with what you just posted to your user talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Focus and distractions

Can I just recap part of the proposal that has been largely overlooked above:

  • This discussion should be notified wiki-wide, to produce as global a consensus as possible within English Wikipedia.
  • The discussion should focus on simply making the articles (our bottom line) the best possible, rather than conforming to any existing policy, guideline, etc..
  • A voluntary moratorium should be observed on related changes to policies, guidelines, MOS, etc. until this consensus is either achieved or the discussion concerning it bogs down.

As I also said, the third point is no big deal, but the first two are essential. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your phrasing of point two assumes the conclusion, doesn't it? We can probably all agree that how we title these articles doesn't directly impact their quality. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you see what I'm trying to say? How would you phrase it? Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would omit everything after the comma. We create policies and guidelines to the end of making our articles the best possible. If they're failing to do that, we should be discussing their removal. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And would this change the meaning? How?
There's no suggestion that they're failing to do that generally. They work remarkably well most of the time. But in this particular case, we're bogged down. If this discussion can reach a consensus, it should then be reflected in changes to guidelines and perhaps even policies. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the current wording suggests that "conforming to [an] existing policy, guideline, etc." is of secondary concern to "making the articles." I think that's a false dilemma. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, that explains a lot. Strongly disagree. The article namespace is our bottom line, and that is a key consideration, and basic to our fundamental policies and polity. The policies, guidelines etc are all there just to help us achieve the best possible results in the article namespace.
There is no false dilemma. That's exactly what having the third option prevents. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Not really; in a polarized dispute like this, the "third party" option is like voting for Libertarians or Greens in US elections, and everyone here knows that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your point there. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a "wasted vote" if you want to actually affect the outcome more than you want to simply show moral support for the policies that more closely match your beliefs but which are not going to be put into practice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The point is, people do have the option to waste their vote if they so choose (and I disagree that it's been wasted, although that's exactly what the major parties want you to believe... it is very important), and this is important as it allows us to escape the false dilemma and design an unbiased poll. Without this third option that's nearly impossible; With it, it's not even difficult. It does mean that the result may be uncertain, if enough people waste their votes (and again I don't think it's a waste at all, for that very reason), but it also makes a far clearer result possible, if not many people do. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You really need to stop declaring everything you disagree with "irrelevant". If it weren't relevant, we couldn't be having a discussion about how it relates. I never said people did not have the option; I pointed out they won't generally use it for the same reason people generally don't vote for the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. You've not done anything to dismiss that idea. Also, if editors here feel that a poll is too binary, they'll create the additional options themselves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Point two and has it all been done before

There's been some discussion regarding whether this has all been done before, whether it's just a re-run. And the answer is, most (not all) of the discussion above is just that, and that is simply because point two has been disregarded. There are places for re-running previous discussions if you must. This is not one of them. I hope you won't be too disappointed if off-topic discussions are simply ignored when it comes to evaluating the result.

Or, if it is simply a re-run, link please. This section #Point two and has it all been done before is the place for that. An explicit link to a non-local consensus regarding capitalisation of bird article names. I wish you luck, but if you can come up with it, case closed. If not, then conclusion obvious IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you won't be too disappointed if you think you get to evaluate the results for everyone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm allowed to express my interpretation, as are you of course. Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Other distractions

Just for completeness, see here. I'd appreciate more comments there, both to help them (or perhaps me if you disagree with me) to understand, and also just in case we do need to go to an RfC/U one day.

The permalink above is because previous talk page discussion on the topic has been simply deleted by the user, so I guess that may happen again. Please don't edit that old version, it's their user talk page and we must respect that. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The unilateral restringing, reindenting and restructuring by Mama meta modal has continued, and has now made a real mess of this already untidy discussion IMO.
Without wanting to be dramatic, this strikes at the very heart of Wikipedia governance. You need to be able to see my comments as I made them, rather than as Mama meta modal thinks I meant them or thinks I should have made them. They're still there in the page history, of course, but who has time to sort them out from that? I certainly don't, and it should not be necessary. See User talk:Mama meta modal (and again here's a permalink, see comments above).
I think we need to resolve this before real progress here will be possible. Other views? Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not edit your comments. You have a confusing way to indent your comments, and I simply tried to adapt the indentation of discussions to make it more clear and legible for readers without altering the content. Bullet points are in principle used for votes or initial messages. The comments and responses are then indented below without bullets. This usual system has proved it usefulness and clarity. You can try to make things more complicated, but do not complain afterwards if it works. Finally, you should maybe try to focus more on the main subject of this proposition and discussion about titles, rather than scatter the discussion in so many directions. Mama meta modal (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Mama meta modal, please stop editing other editors' comments' structure, indentation, or placement. (Note that I have also edited indentation markup at times, but without affecting the display.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that User Mama meta modal should stop altering other people edits, which has also happened on the WP:Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a strong consensus to that effect on their talk page (where behaviour discussions belong of course).
The question for this section is, how do we best untangle the mess that they (and possibly others following their example, I really don't have time to check who did what) have now created? It's all in the history, but people shouldn't have to look at the diffs to see what I said and the specific context in which I said it.
And the position now is, that's exactly what they have to do, and not just to my posts that have been reindented, retitled, moved to another section or subsection, etc.. They now have to check all posts, as there's no other way to tell whether they have been reindented etc.. And I don't think any of us have time for that.
As I said before, I don't want to be dramatic, but this strikes at the very heart of our decision making process. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Then don't be dramatic. It doesn't "strike at the very heart" of anything, it's just poor talk page etiquette. Yes, it should stop, but this is not a venue for personal venting about other editors or reporting problem editing behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree this isn't the place to discuss problem behaviour, but it needed a mention here as it has to some degree compromised the discussion here, by making it almost impossible to be sure who said what and in response to what. So it's the edits that are the topic here, not the behaviour. We are discussing behaviour in other places.
This complication is completely unnecessary (we seem agreed on that) and more serious than mere etiquette. Just how serious this is, I'm not yet sure; Another editor, not me, has labelled it disruptive on MMM's talk page. If we do seem to come to a consensus but some are reluctant to accept it because of such problem edits, then I think that's very serious. Andrewa (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the caribou

I believe "Woodland caribou" and "Barren-ground caribou" are offensive to both sides in their half-and-half approach. If a decision is to be made, that article's future must be considered. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird names are not special; the proposal is inappropriate favoritism to one wikiproject

The entire notion that birds should have some special rule all to themselves on Wikipedia just because a handful of editors insist on it is divisive, violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, will lead inexorably to every other wikiproject on the system demanding exceptions to guidelines it doesn't like, and is not based on any solid factual basis, only outright falsehoods about bird capitalization in real-world sources. (Short version of the real facts, many of which are touched upon above, and which are dealt with at the User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names log in detail : It is not a univeral standard in ornithology; even ornithology organizations and journals that capitalize common names of bird do not do so with consistent rules; some do not use it at all; virtually no non-ornithology journals, including the most prestigious science journals in the world, do no permit the capitalization even in ornithology articles; much more important for MOS purposes, virtually no mainstream, non-specialist works like other encyclopedias, newspapers, dictionaries, science magazines, etc., capitaliz this way; and it is not a special convention in bird field guides, but is a common form of emphasis for easy visual scanning in most field guides on all topics).

This really needs to be settled by an RfC on whether wikiprojects, on any topic, can continue to defy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy indefinitely. Two years (since the last major discussion of this species capitalization idea, with lots of participation by WP:BIRDS members, resulted in the current language at MOS:LIFE after that project failed to gain consensus to capitalize bird common names, or all common names generally, or to have no rule. Two years is more than long enough for a project to try to change consensus. It did not happen. Close the issue, remove the reference to bird capitalization from MOS and other guidelines, and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your assertion they are not special. We're trying to explain why but you're not listening. I agree with you that guidelines should be decided by consensus and that having non-guidelines intrude on guideline pages is wrong. This is why we're going to have this out once and for all here and now. We supply all evidence supporting our respective cases above, have a wide input of hopefully over fifty editors so that it's not just the partisans on either side, and live by the decision. If a decision is reached that lower case it shall be, I will abide by it and drop the push for caps. We're just wanting settlement once and for all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree that we will eventually need an RfC. All that we can establish here is a wiki-wide consensus on one narrow question. Both sides are claiming that the other is using local consensus, and of course that's true, in that almost all consensus is to some extent local. The only way I can see to unbog the issue is to establish a non-local consensus. Otherwise we just continue in circles.
Agree that we should not have a special rule for birds, but that should also be a community decision. One thing at a time.
And again, I find your rhetoric unhelpful. The facts please, Ma'am, just the facts. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There already is a non-local consensus; read MOS:LIFE, let it sink in, and get on with productive editing. If you agree that we shouldn't have a special rule for birds (you just wrote that you did), stop helping lay out piled-on, misleading alleged reasons for a special rule for birds! We've been listening to (well, reading) this birder exceptionalism for ten nine (feel like 25) years now. It's simply not convincing. This is self-evident; no group of editors has fought consensus for so long, so many separate times in so many forums over one issue with so little success at changing anyone's mind.
I haven't even started a refutation (yet again – every single point raised by the pro-capitalization side has been refuted again and again and again previously) of the above "wall of text", a phrase so often thrown in the face of anyone who takes the time to argue against this one-speciality, incessant demand for special treatment by a tiny fraction of our editorship. I'll do that tomorrow; it's dark:30 my time and it will take several hours.
You're also contradicting yourself again. This discussion isn't an RfC, it's a one-sided presentation of entrenched exceptionalism in which you assert "we're going to have this out once and for all here and now", yet you also say you don't think it'll be resolved except by an RfC.
No, not one thing at a time. This divide-and-conquer game has already been played and splayed across at least 5 guidelines in a big shotgun pattern of FUD. This is not really about one project and "their" articles; it's a general Wikipedia self-governance issue.
NB, and I mean that in the full, literal meaning of the Latin phrase it abbreviates: A significant number of participants here (and at WT:AT, etc.), would take plenty of exception to your own rhetorical approach, too, Andrewa. If you have an issue to raise in this regard with me or anyone else, use user talk; attempting to cast aspersions on someone's argument on a talk page like this on the basis of how you feel about their presentation is the ad hominem fallacy and is not fooling anyone. For now, be reminded that the entire WP:AT/WP:MOS topic area is under WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions (because of people pushing capitalization demands, I might add), participants in which are warned to avoid personalizing style or article naming disputes, broadly construed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing at all that's both new and relevant here, as far as I can see after several minutes spent on it, and I don't think it's worth any more time than that. Agree strongly with some points, disagree strongly with some others, and everything in between. I'm happy to comment on any of the points made, but only if another editor wishes me to. Please be specific. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, Andrewa, you don't get determine for everyone else what is relevant. I shouldn't have to make this point twice with you in the space of a few minutes on two different threads. What could be more likely to be thought irrelevant and to be ignored that pointed declarations that others' opinions are irrelevant and should be ignored?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree that I don't get determine for everyone else what is relevant, and nor do you... they make up their own minds. That's why I've explicitly asked whether anyone else wants to discuss any of your points. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And in that nobody speaks, it would appear to me that either nobody else is listening, or they agree with me that it's not worth discussing. Either way, we have empirical evidence (not proof) that this particular post was at best just a waste of time and bandwidth, do we not? Andrewa (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate phrasing of the proposed request for comments

{{hat|Discussion about how to word RFC. The RFC is currently running at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#A_new_proposal_regarding_bird_article_names. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (premature closing --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC))

I'd like to suggest an alternate phrasing of the proposed RfC.

  • Bird names in Wikipedia should be capitalized when using names from the IOC World Bird List.
  • Bird names in Wikipedia, like the names of other animals, should generally be lower case.

Please feel free critique or propose alternate phrasings. For this section, please discuss the wording of the proposed RfC rather than the merits of either option. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 05:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the IOC has put most bird common names on their list (with minor adjustments, tweaks, caps, etc.), this would effectively extend the bird caps from bird articles to all articles. Not going to happen. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. How would it sound to ask people to choose between these options?
  • Bird names in Wikipedia ornithology articles should be capitalized when using names from the IOC World Bird List.
  • Bird names in Wikipedia, like the names of other animals, should generally be lower case.
Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 06:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this is ok. It's not quite complete: the capitalization side would, if I may speak for them, want bird names not on the list to also be capitalized; they want them capitalized as they appear on the list, not just generically capitalized (Cape Robin-Chat and Asian Fairy-bluebird, as examples); and of course "generally be lower case" has to be taken to exclude proper name components etc., e.g. nobody is suggesting "american kestrel". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I also think this is OK. Whether it would be any more successful at getting people to work for a genuine consensus that both sides will respect (the goal surely, so we can all get back to better things)... Well, I guess there's only one way to really find out. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking this needs to be done in steps, with as little passion as possible. Perhaps:
  1. establish consensus on the need for a request for comment (Can we call this done?)
  2. establish consensus on what the options are
  3. establish consensus on who should be notified
  4. establish consensus on the format for the RfC
  5. establish consensus on the procedure for closing the RfC
  6. then open an RfC
I'm open to any changes to the above steps.
Here's a new proposal for what the options might be.
  • Bird names in Wikipedia ornithology articles should be capitalized when using names from the IOC World Bird List: Black-crowned Night Heron, American Kestrel.
  • Bird names in Wikipedia, like the names of other animals, should generally be lower case: black-crowned night heron, American kestrel.
I think the above makes it more clear that "generally" allows for capitalization of proper names, but keeps it short. I'm working on draft language for steps 3, 4 and 5 at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Bird names if anyone would like to help. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This slow and careful approach is very wise. Thanks for trying it, SchreiberBike. Just a couple of questions: first, your current proposed options don't read as a clear either/or, because the first is phrased as if to apply to ornithology articles while the second seems to be phrased to apply everywhere. I think the questions are assuming that all common names of fauna (including birds) shall be lower-case except in ornithology articles, and that both options relate to ornithology articles alone. Have I misunderstood? (If that's right, perhaps change the third word of option 2 from "in" to "throughout"?) And second, what would the first option make of the capitalization of non-avian species in ornithological articles, as is currently done? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to respond to the feedback from Stfg and ErikHaugen. Please take a shot at this version:

Please select one of these options or participate in the discussion below:

  • Capitalize: Common names of species should be capitalized in Wikipedia bird articles (examples: Black-crowned Night Heron or adult Bald Eagles eat Pacific Salmon) but lower case, except for proper names, in all other articles.

or

  • Lower case: Common names of species throughout Wikipedia should be lower case, except for proper names (examples: black-crowned night heron or adult bald eagles eat Pacific salmon).
For this section, please discuss the wording of the proposed RfC rather than the merits of either option. Does it need to say "except for proper names and the beginning of sentences" or is that obvious? Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 04:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, those wordings look very clear. (Maybe lowercase "adult", though?) Imo "except for proper names" is advisable but the bit about the beginning of sentences is obvious enough. --Stfg (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Change made above. Also removed period since we don't need to indicate that it is a sentence. SchreiberBike talk 20:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any interest, among participants in the discussion about capitalization in bird articles, or others, in pursuing something like the steps I proposed above? I don't know if it will work, but I'm willing to do the work to try. There is a draft of a framework for such a discussion at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Bird names. If there is interest, I can move that framework to this page for discussion. SchreiberBike talk 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: this phrasing gets to the heart of the issue. Imo it's the one that should be used. --Stfg (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Objections:
    1. As written this is a poll to rewrite MOS, which already answered this capitalize vs. lower case question two years ago (actually 6 years ago, made really clear 2 year ago). Instead of addressing the policy problem of a wikiproject that doesn't want to abide by WP:CONLEVEL policy, you're rewarding them and encouraging more such behavior, by giving them yet another shot at questioning the consensus they've invested untold man-hours wearing everyone down on, to the point of exhaustion.
    2. This entire line of questioning is prone to "I want an option 3 that includes goats and blowfish" and "I want an option 7 where we change the following other 12 things about MOS", and "I want an option where MOS is declared just some essay, so I can go capitalize the names of Lego Pieces and Government Job Titles", etc., etc. You know that's very likely to happen with polls setup as a list of options. It's much more practical to put this in yes/no, do/don't, support/oppose terms (see below).
    3. My above objection that this poll (and now this new variant) is inappropriate favoritism to one wikiproject still stands. That would be obviated by using a yes/no format as I outline below.
    4. In the case that I'm ignored and we proceed with something like this "support option 1", "support option 2" structure you're laying out, putting the birds option first implies it's a default. But the default is the MOS rule that the WP:BIRDS#Naming essay is ignoring, and we mustn't endorse a version that treats a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy violation like it's normal.
    5. Also, "except for proper names" is too imprecise.; use "except where proper names occur in them". Half of the people in this debate have been making linguistically unsound arguments that species common names are proper names, so we have to clarify that we mean proper names insde species common names. If this seems too obvious consider that someone above was dead certain that we were talking about decapitalizing so much that "american kestrel" would result, and even after it was explained to them that that wasn't true, they still thought it was true! One would hope "at the start of a sentence or heading" is not also needed, but be prepared to add it if you go this route. But why on earth go this route? See below for simpler approach. Why try to come up with iffy approximations of wording we've already hashed out in great detail? Just use MOS's own wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    6. Plus JHunterJ's observation below that "Wikipedia bird articles" is too vague and broad; even WP:BIRDS says its caps preference should only be applied "to ornithology articles", and so does MOS:LIFE, so use that language, if using this poll format emerges as the consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this gets to the heart to the issue, too. Either we capitalize in bird articles, or we don't. The current wording in the MOS says "in ornithological articles", maybe we should use that exact wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A simpler yes-or-no take that would make this much less prone to gaming, stacking and disrupting

Should the sentence:

"Some editors prefer to capitalize the IOC-published common names of birds (Golden Eagle) in ornithological articles; do not apply this style to other categories."

be removed from the following Manual of Style passage:

"Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, gray wolf, but Przewalski's horse). Some editors prefer to capitalize the IOC-published common names of birds (Golden Eagle) in ornithological articles; do not apply this style to other categories."

and conforming edits made to relevant wording in other pages, including but not necessarily limited to MOS:CAPS, WP:NCFAUNA, WP:NCFLORA and WP:NCCAPS?

Simple, easy and focuses on not treating WP:BIRDS like its own special kingdom with more rights than other editors.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Great. My concern has been that while there has been a great deal of discussion, people are often talking across one another and there has been confusion about exactly what is being proposed. I've take the liberty of putting your suggestion above in a {{Quotation}} box so that it stands out in the same way that the earlier proposals do.
To establish consensus on the question to be answered in an RfC, please give feedback below on the question that SMcCandlish has proposed in the box above. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 08:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. In addition to SMcCandlish's objections, the earlier proposal also does not identify what is meant by "Wikipedia bird articles". Any article whose topic is a bird species? Any article the WP:BIRDS tags as in their project? Any article that mentions a bird species? But: would this mean that, if the consensus is for removing the sentence, bird articles could be moved to the style-compliant titles? Or would that be two questions? I'd like to see this RFC address that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

About the request for comments

Discussion has wandered away from the topic of making a RfC? At this pace, the RfC won't be done. Maybe we should gather the different wordings proposed, and make a poll to see which wordings should be presented in the RfC? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this sub-discussion about making a request for comments really useful? Didn't you realise that the discussion about bird article name capitalisation was already set as a request for comments (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names)? Mama meta modal (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
Also, no matter what the exact wording of a request for comments could be, the consensus is clear up there, in the ongoing request for comments. Mama meta modal (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
In a topic as contentious as this, it seems to me that the request for comments voted upon should be very clear, otherwise the faction on the losing side may refuse to accept it. Look at the wording of the proposal above: "Eventually remove captitalisation from the names of bird articles such as black crowned crane." First, it only refers to "names of bird articles", not usage in running text. Second, reading it literally, it says that article titles should begin with a lower case letter, which is a very big change. Third, it only mentions bird articles and leaves unaddressed other areas in which there has been a local consensus for capitalization of species names. I think it was a good faith attempt to cut this Hydra to its stump, but it may become an opportunity for the growth of more heads. I think that if a clear decision is going to be made, the plan for how the decision is made should have a consensus around it first. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 17:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree in the strongest possible terms with the general direction here, thank you!
This was an attempt to gather a widely based consensus, one way or another, around a very restricted and specific question, and I still see something along those lines (wide discussion, tight focus) as the only possible way forward. Any other decision either will not be stable or will nor be conclusive or (probably) both, in my opinion.
It hasn't worked. Partly at least, that seems to be because people just didn't understand the proposal. Some of the comments so blatantly ignored, rather than discussed, those key points that one must wonder.
I'd now be very interested to see your proposal for the way forward in concrete terms... You've criticised my scope and that is exactly what I originally asked for, but how would you word your alternative? It's not easy, take it from me! And the difficulty in wording is, in my opinion, an important indicator of deeper issues.
(I still am unconvinced that the original proposal can be improved. But it needs a more careful reading than it's generally had so far, at the very least. Your criticisms are all valid and I wrangled with exactly those issues in writing my scope etc.. It's just that I suspect that the cure will be worse than the disease.)
And perhaps discuss it in a new subsection with an accurate title? But let's not change the title of this section now. There's been too much of that already! Andrewa (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This RfC is a gathering of opinions for the "real" RfC. People started voting for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the desire to keep some semblance of parliamentary order here, but that car may have left the barn. I think whoever winds up closing the current RfC will have plenty of fodder for consensus-reading. If the closer sees consensus for a comprehensive solution, fantastic - that would make this the "real" RfC, and no need for another. If not, we should at least be somewhat closer to finding one. Despite the wording and intent of the "original" RfC, I think most people have made it clear their stances on the overall topic - a narrow reading of that wording is not the likeliest option for the closer. Not to toss out wiki-jargon for its own sake, but we are not a bureaucracy. Dohn joe (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup; the RFC is already going and has been for several days. I would have liked to see more care in getting it started, per Schreiberbike's efforts, but I don't think I see another one being necessary; it doesn't seem to be getting derailed or anything. It's well-advertised, etc/etc. Rewording it/etc would probably do more harm than good at this point. Maybe we can hat some of this or something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, don't hat this. Premature declarations of consensus will only cause further disagreements in the future. This RfC won't be accepted by everybody if we give the perception that parts of it were closed prematurely. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't declare consensus and I don't see how this is part of the ongoing RfC. But if you like it then by all means we'll leave it unhatted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, agree.
I've been only sparingly online for the last few days owing to musical and sporting commitments, but I would strongly suggest we immediately stop using the term RfC so (good Aussie modifier deleted) carelessly.
Sorry to shout (and for the word deleted look to Henry Lawson's The Drover's Wife where it's used as an adjective, it may be a milder term than you would use), I don't do it often, but the terms RfC, request for comment and request for comments (and other variations) all have an important technical uses here at Wikipedia, and AFAIK we do not yet have an RfC, nor even a draft of one. I'm not even sure we have a proposal for one (have I missed it? I may have), and I certainly have not yet attempted to propose having one, and if you think I've done so please reread what I actually said and perhaps even tell me (perhaps on my talk page not here) how I could have said it more clearly.
But we may soon have an RfC, or decide not to, and we go around in circles quite enough. So let's try to be clear on what we're proposing and discussing, and bear in mind that some contributors here (and everywhere on Wikipedia) may be relative newcomers, and are particularly disadvantaged by misuse of technical terms by old hands. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was "RfC'd" mid-stream by User:RedSlash. You can see the RfC banner at the top of this section. Not the usual move, but certainly not unprecedented in the annals of WP. Dohn joe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
OHO! Thank you, what a mess. No, not unprecedented. That doesn't make it a good thing. Andrewa (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid?

It's TL;DR for me, and I don't know much about the science or the language in this field. I'm by nature a downcaser, but I'm picking up from these discussions that neither total downcasing nor total upcasing is a magic solution. Could we not formulate a wording that allows either, as long as (i) consistent within each article, avoiding the jarring of readers; (ii) allows me to call the robin in the yard a robin without a cap; (iii) in scientific contexts, uses caps where appropriate? I note that most tertiary sources downcase; but that scientific bodies sometimes upcase. Normally I'd go for simplicity and brevity in a style guide, but this is such a hot and long-fought-over issue that a bit more detail to allow flexibility might be one solution. I'm sick of this war.

SMcCandlish, a 100-word maximum for your posts would ensure that more people engage with your points. SMc and Andrewa—could you depersonalise this discussion, please? I'm just not interested in bad vibes. Start again and negotiate the details. Tony (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tony1: You actually re-edited your own comment (already at over 100 words, by the way), to {{{1}}} a non sequitur personalizing comment, asking others to stop personalizing and to stick to under-100-word posts? I'd put a {{minnow}} here, but I don't like peppering discussions (or articles) with icons. Andrewa and I had already taken our personal dispute to user talk, BTW.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Second all of this. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The "magic" solution is simple enough:
  • There's no consensus for Title Casing bird names, although there's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for it.
  • There's no problem with applying the normal uncapitalized style to birds; it has already been applied to fauna successfully. Ambiguity is possible (and proper rewording can address it) no matter what.
  • There's no problem with applying the normal capitalized style for the first word in the binomial nomenclature of birds; it has already been applied to fauna (and birds) generally.
There's no reason for the war, except the lack of recognizing the local consensus for a local consensus and ending it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It takes two. Part of the reason as I see it is that one side (the anti-capitalists) are quoting local consensus, while not acknowledging that the same applies to many of their arguments. That was one of the key reasons for my new proposal which we are discussing here (in theory at least). Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't take two. The one side has the broader consensus (which you've chosen to label "anti-capitalists", but I'll label "the consensus"). The other side, and only the other side, tilts against that broader consensus; let's call them the "anti-consensus", if we're to use loaded labels. Your claim that the broader consensus (or "the consensus") is somehow in disagreement with the broader consensus (since that's when local consensus would apply) can't be used as a foundation for any argument. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagree that it's that one-sided, but that (fairly common) perception is probably the key obstacle we need to overcome in order to achieve a genuine consensus. Your label is oversimplified... there is no consensus as to which consensus is broader or how to measure this, and then we just go around in the same old circles.
My label, by the way, is an attempt at humour, I think we all need to lighten up. I don't expect the capitalists to much like their label either. Can we avoid both labels and stick to the issues? Problem: One of the issues seems to be the polarisation of the debate, which of course is the opposite of consensus, and why it's completely inappropriate to label either side as the consensus or the anti-consensus. Andrewa (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The labeling point is actually important, and it's not about you in particular. People on both sides of this debate have frequently mischaracterized themselves or the opposition this way: "pro-consensus", "anti-standards", "anti-MOS", "anti-WP:BIRDS", etc., etc. It requires some significant thought and revision to self-police this tendency and write "pro-capitalization" or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Your attempt at humor fell flat, which is often the case when you attempt humor at the expense of the people your don't agree with. Feel free to lighten up by using a self-deprecating label instead. I'm happy to continue stick to the issues: there is indeed consensus on which consensus is broader: the broader consensus is the manual of style guideline, including the narrower section of the same guideline at MOS:LIFE, which itself is still broader than the essay at WP:BIRDS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Everyone is sick of this debate, Tony1, and it would have ended two years ago if WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy would just be applied and followed, as Dougweller and JHunterJ suggest. Appeasement (making concessions to an entrenched and unyielding opponent in a futile effort to avoid conflict) did not work last time, and more of it will not make matters better, only worse, because it just inspires other wikiprojects to ignore wider consensus with impunity until they get what they want through more wars of attrition. It's already been happening. Being tired of the debate is no reason to agree to something that does not serve the best interests of the encyclopedia's readers to keep a handful of specialists happy; that just rewards the problematic tactic and ensures its continuance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestions all. I'm very disappointed to be tarred with the same brush as SMc, but I'll heed that as a warning from an uninvolved party. Agree it's necessary to depersonalise, and agree I haven't been succeeding at it, but I've been trying. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No argument from me. We've already taken it to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Well, actually that comment was a further WP:CIVIL violation by Andrewa, but hopefully our user talk discussion will be start to be productive of resolution and collegiality.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you can write robin without caps, since robin is not a species. But in general, (i) and (ii) already are in effect: an article that isn't predominantly about birds should have all species names in lowercase. in scientific contexts, uses caps where appropriate—what is "appropriate" in bird-themed articles is the debate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The sticking point seems to be article titles on bird species where there is more than one word in the title and the second and subsequent words are not capitalised for other reasons, but we now have several proposals to address this by looking at it from other viewpoints, such as how these titles relate to use in running text, both in bird articles and generally. I'm happy to have a go at these; There seems no particular reason they should work any better than my new proposal, but none that they shouldn't work as well either other than what I see as the relative simplicity of my proposal, and that's not agreed by any means. So let's have a go. But robin doesn't seem a useful example in any scenario. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We would never agree to the idea of a divergence between the style used in the title and the style used in the running prose. To the extent that proposals along that line come up, they're just a distraction.

Agreed that "robin" by itself is not a good example, but I think we all know what Erik meant; he's drawing a distinction between observance of a formal, conventional ornithological science usage, and usage in everyday English. The thing is, the birders who care about this mostly want capitalization of common names of bird species regardless of context.

If this were really only about the reliably sourced IOC common name, the solution I've proposed elsewhere is the simplest fix by far: Use lower case for title and running prose as MOS:LIFE says, and mention and source the capitalized IOC name and other variant names in the text of the article as appropriate. This is the only Wikipedia-normal approach, and is how I handled the lead of domestic long-haired cat, etc. (it's about a landrace/variety, not a species, but the exact same issue arose there - organizations using non-standard English-language style, both of capitalization and compounding, in "official" names within their purview). I should write this up as a formal proposal, I suppose. Wouldn't be the first time I have, but I think the poll-like debate elsewhere on this page, with its sections of reliable sourcing, demonstrates that the rationales for capitalizing bird names in particular as if magically special isn't viable and that there's no support for it outside one project. If this were to actually go to an RfC, WP:BIRDS would not get a result they like. (I don't think the result would make fans of lower case happy either, because "issue fatigue" on this is so high, the turnout would not be sufficiently large to convince the wikiproject that consensus was finally proven to be again them, and we'd be right back here in a month or a 3 months or a year, whatever, having the same debate.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Same here; it's not about titles. That's just where the discussion comes up more, since you can just change text, but you can't just move an article without an RM when things are contested. So people get the impression it's about title because that's the context of the discussions. Not sure it really causes a ton of confusion, but it doesn't hurt to get extra clear about it as you say. Andrewa is confusing the point with his "The sticking point seems to be article titles...". Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a concern about hybrids arising by default. I assume that if lower case was adopted, a bot could change the text, and presumably be trained not to lower case "American" in the kestrel, "Bonaparte's" in the gull, "Caspian" in the tern or "Eversmann's" in the redstart. However, you would have to move around 10,000 species article titles over redirects. I think it's very unlikely that the bird project admins like Cas, Shyamal or me will take on that very tedious task, so what is the intended approach to this? It's one thing to propose a policy, quite another to implement it. Full cap titles and lc text seems the worse possible outcome, but all too likely once your bot is unleashed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
A bot could not figure out which name parts need to remain caps; it will need some real people work (perhaps to train a bot...). But we don't need to know how, or how soon, it will all be brought into MOS conformance if we change the guidelines; as it stands, it will be brought into conformance never. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see this as a bot task. And it doesn't matter; moving the articles isn't urgent. The urgent thing here is stopping the spread of This Is Really Important capitalization any further; virtually every specialization of any kind, vocational and avocational, does this (or something almost as inappropriately emphasizing, like italicizing them or pretty often Both At Once) within their own publications and we certainly know they want to impose it here, always. We have to get rid of this magical exceptionalism for birds in our guidelines or it will never stop. "If that project gets its own rules, so do we" is very compelling logic to every single person who has a pet peeve to push with regard to style and titles. I've suggested before that this may require an RFARB case to determine that, no, WP:BIRDS is not somehow specially immune to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. People keep telling me that another RfC or poll will do it, but it never does it, because the wikiproject people just claim that not enough of their views were represented and understood, "therefore" it's a false consensus. As an aside, just as one reserved administrator power, the Template Editor bit, was finally, @#$*ing finally delegated to competent template coders, after about a decade of demand, this kind of huge cleanup job is very good case for spinning off the ability to move pages over redirects as another ability people can apply for and be granted without being admins. Maybe it would need, like bots, to be an approval process that only permits certain vetted uses; I don't care. The point is, the "it can't practically be done" handwringing message the pro-caps crowd use simply is not true. There were thousands and thousands of capitalized non-bird animal articles, and hardly any remain. People like me, when we're bored, will throw an idle hour at the problem, and after a few years that adds up to no more problem. (I think the non-bird capitalized common names that do remain are mostly there because one guy claims there's a "consensus" at the insects project to have dragonflies and moths/butterflies capitalized [there isn't, there's was as lack of consensus there, and it was overriden in 2012 by MOS], and it's easier to just ignore those pages for now than fight with him any longer until this exceptionalism is put to an end more broadly. If there's to be another poll or RFC, it has to be managed, such that comments on !votes are not permitted to be inlined, and any commentary has to go in commentary sections. These things always bog down by interleaving of recycled arguments in the middle of sections intended to gauge buy-in. The reliable sourcing section in the last go-'round that Andrewa started should be added to any future round right up-front.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Broadening the question

Apparently the use of official names involves the use of capitalization in many (specialized) areas beyond ornithology and registered breeds. In geology, Late Jurassic differs in meaning from "late Jurassic". Apparently rock and mineral types also have similar issues for instance Westerly granite, granite from Westerly, is different from the official name Westerly Granite (from this specialist style guide) which has specifications on the composition. I feel that this entire debate should be broadened and not restricted to the bird names case. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we might invite other "official" naming schemes into WP? Or that there are already other local sets of articles following such things, that we should look at? Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
First, the logic for not doing that kind of stuff is covered in more detail than probably anyone needs at WP:SSF. Second, the entire rationale for WP:BIRDS members demanding capitalization of bird common names is that the IOC list is somehow not like other published lists of common names (e.g. of reptiles or rocks); it is seen as qualitatively different in intent, authority level, etc. [It is a view I do not support.] Treating it as just the same as any list of jargon is perfectly fine by me, but will completely invalidate once and for all what's left of the position for special treatment of bird names. Just saying. Third, Wikipedia is not a geology thesis. That "AGU" guide (I'm assuming it means American Geophysical Union) is unattributed and an unofficial copy, so not a reliable source. Even if it can be authenticated, it has nothing to do with how to write an encyclopedia; it is specifying the intentional use of non-standard practices in English to "connote" things in a jargonistic way (e.g. sentence case for explosions, and no I didn't make that up) for a very narrowly defined context. No Wikipedia reader other than some AGU members would understand the micro-conventions that guide recommends, and they would never expect to find them here. (The only reason so many bird people do expect to find bird names capitalized here is because the IOC's usage happens to blindly coincide with the habit of virtually all field guides on all topics capitalizing in title case, and this makes it look like all the field guide publishers are promoting a standard, when in fact they've always capitalized liek that, since before the IOC existed.) Also, the AGU guide contradicts MOS on a zillion things that don't even have to do with geology and such, e.g. "Latin phrases are not italicized except genus and species names", no recognition of what we call ENGVAR, all sorts of rules MOS would never impose ("Delete 's' in -ward words: toward, northward, etc."). Thanks for digging this up, though. It's a stellar example to use at WP:SSF.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps more the point, there is only one project on Wikipedia with a significant number of members who have consistently for two+ years decided that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy doesn't apply to them. This is a policy debate as much as a style debate, and as no other projects or their members are implicated in that way, it cannot be broadened. I agree that the wording in MOS should be broad, and thus we should remove the reference to the birds local-consensus business, and stick with the broad "do not capitalize common names of species or other groups of animals" message.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, as a matter of policy at WP:AT the common name in the WP:COMMONAME sense (which may or may not be any particular "common" a.k.a. vernacular name of a species) is more important for article naming purposes than the WP:OFFICIALNAME, so the reasoning in opening this sub-thread is flawed from the start. MOS defers to AT name naming ("morepork" vs. "boobook"), AT defers to MOS on style ("boobook" vs. "Boobook"). There is no policy-based principle anywhere that ties styles to OFFICIALNAME, and we have an entire page at MOS:TM, echoed in other places including AT itself, outlining that we do not consider style to be a part of "official" names, even the most legally binding ones. And there's nothing "official" about IOC names anyway. Nor for most other things people like to call "official" for no real reason. Sorry this is getting long, I just think of another reason that the direction you're trying to go with this isn't workable every time I come by here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Since many are quoting the Chicago Manual of Style, here is something it says:

8.128 DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND HORTICULTURAL CATEGORIES Either a dictionary or the guides to nomenclature ICZN and ICBN should be consulted for the proper spelling of breeds of domestic animals and broad horticultural categories

As far as this bit goes, it is quite incorrect on suggesting those sources - neither the ICZN or the ICBN have anything to do with the topic of "breeds" or "horticulture". However see the previous quote:

8.127 PLANTS AND ANIMALS--ADDITIONAL RESOURCES For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.118. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

And this more general guiding principle for specialized topics:

8.118 SCIENTIFIC STYLE--ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The following paragraphs offer only general guidelines. Writers or editors requiring detailed guidance should consult Scientific Style and Format (bibliog. 1.1). The ultimate authorities are the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), whose guidelines are followed in the botanical examples below, and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (see bibliog. 5). Note that some fields, such as virology, have slightly different rules. Writers and editors should try to follow the standards established within those fields.

It seems that the general principle of these authors is to be pragmatic and to actually follow what is recommended by specialist sources. Shyamal (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The examples that follow (Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, and Cooper's hawk) suggest that they ignore specialist capitalizers like the IOC. It's better to stick to what they describe as their "general" recommendation, which, like ours, is to reserve capitalization for proper names and such. Consulting the official sources is still valuable, for example to determine whether the "Cooper" in "Cooper's hawk" refers to a person, or a generic maker of barrels, in which case it would be "cooper's hawk". Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"[T]ypography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature."

– "Preface", The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), 2011

Shyamal, I already quoted and cited all of this material and more at #Bird article names: evidence supporting option 1. Chicago specifically illustrates not capitalizing bird (or other) species common names! It defers specifically and only to ICZN and ICBN (recently renamed ICN), calling them "the" (not "some") authoritative guides to nomenclature (they actually forgot the one for viruses, but oh well). They do not drill down to the IOC level, much less recommend specialty-specific capitalization rules! The level of WP:IDHT going on in pro-capitalization arguments is really quite astonishing. How can anyone read this material (and more that I quoted from Chicago including their rules on proper names and more general statements about capitalization) and walk away with any other idea but "do not capitalize common names"? Why do you think Chicago would pick ICZN and IC[B]N to rely on? How about because they do not confuse names with how a particular publication styles them. ICZN doesn't use caps, and doesn't say to do so. Neither does IC[B]N, and see their quote in the box here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You are not responding to the main point. A style guide is meant to be pragmatic (contra dogmatic) and even the CMOS (which errs in suggesting that the ICZN/ICBN should even be consulted for the English names of organisms, making it a questionable source for your arguments) is wise enough to point out that one should only be guided (contra ruled) by the document and that one should use subject-specific resources in decision making. See this piece on how to create a style guide - it has an explicit statement on things you should not do which says "Almost everyone who writes has a pet peeve that he/she hates to see in print ... Whatever your bugbear is, you need to put it to one side and focus on the key message." Shyamal (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Shyamal: That's pure psychological projection. The key message of WP:BIRDS is the facts of birds, not how the IOC wants to style their names. The key message of WP:MOS is to provide a consistent style manual. Clearly the pet peeve style bugbear message applies to WP:BIRDS. MOS is simply doing its job; the birds project is wasting time and cycles pursuing something that's not central to their mission, a style matter that not even all ornithology journals agree on!!! FFS!.

The only dogma coming from anyone in this debate is from some members of WP:BIRDS (and maybe two other editors who are not members of that prjoect), who are following one organization's would-be standard as if it were holy writ; it's patent WP:ADVOCACY, against Wikipedia policy, and it violates WP:NPOV and WP:CONLEVEL policy, too. MOS is entirely agnostic on this crap. MOS does not care if you want to improperly capitalize or italicize bird names or climbing routes or Star Wars space ship types or whatever. Just don't do it here, all of you; it's not encyclopedic style.

MOS is nothing but pragmatic. It's all about ensuring that this encyclopedia is editable by anyone, which is a major, central part of WP's mission statement, and understandable by everyone, pretty much WP's entire raison d'etre. The WP:BIRDS camp that won't let this go (and similar loci of the WP:Specialist style fallacy) operate as if they don't care about this at all; they want their specialist quirks of style no matter what, no matter how hard they are to understand, no matter how much people who are specialists in other fields object, no mater how much editors who aren't specialists at all object, no matter how much it looks ungrammatical to average readers, no matter how hard it is for lay editors to actually get it right because doing it correctly requires very detailed specialist knowledge (*e.g. about whether a cuckoo-shrike is really a shrike or not thus a "Cuckoo-Shrike" vs a "Cuckoo-shrike", as just one example). There is nothing at all pragmatic about WP:BIRDS pushing IOC style here. It's a damned practicaly nightmare. Even IOC names without the style raise as many problems as they solve.

It cracks me up that you were all psyched to cite Chicago as reliable until I pointed out that you were misrepresenting it and that it directly contracts you. Nice reasoning there; oh, wait, that's the sour grapes fallacy, not reason. Finally, it's simply hypocritical that you and other demanders of this capitalization are berating the MOS (and me personally, and others who care about style on Wikipedia) for suposedly being inflexible and uncompromising when you're the ones trying to require all other editors here to obey a "convention" even other biologists ignore, one that is so obsessed with there only being one true common name for every bird species and subspecies that they'll just make up fake ones rather than permit two conflicing real-world common names that have been used for centuries. Well, no thanks. (An argument could be made that IOC's name list ought to be banned from WP on that basis alone, unless and until it actually is globally accepted as a real standard in zoology, beocming "the" reliable source instead of a not-really-reliable source that tells other actually reliable sources they're relegated to teh trash jsut because some meeting voted to invite a new name.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You are getting most of the points wrong and conflating many things, thrashing out wildly and producing the wrong conclusions. Let us see if we can start clean again:
  • Lower case for common names of birds is a perfectly tenable and valid choice to seek. I think everyone takes that seriously enough.
  • IOC is one of several options in terms of English names but the one that is most up to date. Unfortunately names are linked with systematics (not to be confused with taxonomy btw) and changes keep happening and you probably get the idea for why IOC is the better of several options. That choice is a different debate and something we do not need to get into at all in this RFC. You appear to be confused about how systematics and English names are connected. I am not sure how your attempt to discredit IOC helps at all in this lower case proposal discussion.
  • Style is that - convention, not logic. There are numerous mathematical notations and everyone has the right to choose what they want. Sometimes you just use the option that the technology allows, it is easier for me to put x! for factorial(x) in this medium rather than say |x. Neither is wrong. Style is usually the domain of publishers, and in most places it is enforced not open to discussion. Wikipedia is not a typical publisher. (... WP:NOTPAPER)
  • CMoS (or any other MOS) as a style guide may be inappropriate to apply blindly - CMoS actually recommends that you examine subject specific sources to decide style in specialist areas. So should have "lower Jurassic" instead of "Lower Jurassic" in geology/paleontology articles because CMoS or some high-school grammar guide does not consider a time period as a proper name. Similarly should Painted Lady become painted lady and should West Coast Lady become west coast lady? Hence the suggestion to broaden the question. Why is that something that needs to be avoided.
"psyched to cite Chicago as reliable" - you must mean unreliable? Whoever altered that particular bit in the CMoS clearly did not really understand what the ICZN and ICBN (more correctly ICN as you have pointed out) deals with, but wise and pragmatic they are as a style guide for general writing ought to be. A response to the rest would be wasteful and not helpful to the RFC at hand. Shyamal (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is WP:BIRDS really a "Local" consensus?

I am seeing a lot of people pointing to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS... I am not sure it's appropriate in this case. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS refers to a Consensus among a limited group of editors. However, the Birds WikiProject is one of our largest projects (both in terms of articles and the number of active contributors)... their project specific guidelines reflect the consensus of quite a large number of editors (I have not checked, but it is possible that they may actually have more active contributors than WP:MOS has). I don't think it is really appropriate to dismiss the BIRDS guideline as being a "Local consensus", as if it was written by just one or two disgruntled editors trying to buck the system. The BIRDS guideline enjoys fairly broad consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is appropriate. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject or Reference Desk page cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." There is no "unless the WikiProject is big enough" clause. They do not have more active contributors than the Manual of Style, or else there would be a consensus at the Manual of Style to recommend the capitalization of bird names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the Birds WikiProject is so large, and their "exception" to the general MOS has been in place for such a long period of time, that we can say that they have already convinced the broader community. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The "exception" has persisted because certain members of WikiProject Birds have engaged in ownership of ornithological articles (and gone to great lengths to ensure this, with some even threatening to leave Wikipedia if their preference wasn't honored), thereby overruling the broader community and wearing down dissenters to the extent that resistance almost seems futile. —David Levy 17:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying the exception would go away if the consensus to not follow it was actually acted on? The cost would be losing some number of editors? Sounds like blackmail to make a point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that the birders seek to disrupt Wikipedia (or harm it in any way). From their perspective, they're defending a desirable practice that enhances the encyclopedia. The problem is that some of them, under the mistaken belief that WikiProject Birds is in charge of ornithological articles, have dismissed others' opinions to the contrary. —David Levy 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The exception would go away if we stop not following the guidelines, yes. The threat of losing some number of editors in order to enable a local consensus sounds like blackmail to make a point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Since they haven't convinced the broader community, we can't say they already have. See WP:FAITACCOMPLI. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the evidence also lean toward WP:FACTION?

"Blackmail to make a point"? Let's look at some evidence. Each of these quotes comes from a different WP:BIRDS participant in just one thread on one WT:BIRDS archive page, here, and there are many, many more of them:

  • After one blatant and one veiled threat to quit if they didn't get their way by two different birds-focused editors, and a long stream of arguments full of hyperbole and psychological projection, with many assumptions of bad faith and outright personal attacks (mostly against me in particular, I might add), comes this bomb:
  • "A thought: why don't we just go on strike? If all of our big names (all of whom seem to be in agreement that capitalisation is fine) were to stop editing for an agreed period, progress on bird articles will almost certainly grind to a halt. That would, if nothing else, demonstrate the strength of feeling." To their credit, one member of the wikiproject did observe that this was a WP:POINT problem.
  • But another response was "I like that. But I think a better way to go is to start thinking about WP+ (Wikipedia Plus) ... for experts to flag articles, sections, paragraphs or sentences that are correct." I.e. an editorial board of self-selecting specialists who get to tell Wikipedia it's wrong.
  • See also, in the same thread, Godwin's law in action, with non-capitalizers labeled a "totalitarian power ... crushing the neck of [WP:BIRDS] under their jackboots". There is no "power" seized by consensus being made openly on site-wide pages that attract the attention and participation of the widest variety and number of potentially interested editors.
  • Note also the WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:BATTLEGROUNDing inherent in this stuff, e.g. "This is just another chapter in an age-old struggle, that of those daring to be free-thinkers striving for excellence, against those desirous of the accumulation of power ...." Freethinking is usually not characterized by demands to follow an external convention, on pain of mass resignation.

Note that I'm not naming any names here; if you want that, you can go look it up yourself. There's no point in personalizing the debate here; what's important is illuminating the walled city-state mentality prevalent collectively at that wikiproject page.

Let's continue. Is it just me, or does this read like a boldly published plan to manipulate WP:NCFAUNA so the wikiproject can feel justified in simply treating MOS:LIFE like it doesn't exist, here?

  • "I editted the Manual of Style to accurately reflect that standard [i.e., the WP:BIRDS preference editwarred into it -SMcCandlish] from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).... But I may have just opened a small can of worms."
  • The response was this: "I've... suggested reverting your change .... We don't need to change the MOS so long as we can quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), it was upsetting too many peeps."

And people wonder why some of us call NCFAUNA and related pages (WP:NCFLORA, WP:NCCAPS) disputed, and consider this a policy debate much more than a style debate. How is that not a well-intentioned but ultimately disruptive plan to use faction-based editing and multi-editor ownership to game the system, by intentionally ensuring that one rarely-watchlisted NC guideline agrees with the wikiproject in their tight grip on all bird articles, no matter what the main style guideline says, and to resist efforts to synchronize the guidelines? Am I missing something? Doesn't this all sound familiar? It sure seems like precisely the pattern that's been maintained for the last two years.

But this isn't the only policy violation that looks to be collectively engendered here. See, e.g., here for an unmistakable admission that WP:BIRDS's demands for IOC naming practices are a side-taking, tenacious, activist exercise in pushing IOC names as a convention, against the desires of more regional nomenclature authorities, there ironically deemed "officious":

  • "The tenacity with which [we] bird project editors now defend the initiative [to require IOC names] is in large part because we have all seen the need for the homologation of the English Common Names of avian taxa."

I.e., it's a crusade? What happened to WP:Neutral point of view? (Note also the false assertion of unanimity.)

I could go on, quite a bit, but this is enough evidence to chew on for a while. I'm not even touching on more recent antics, just focusing on material that may indicate how the debate can easily be interpreted as having been steered (whether carefully or incidentally) over the last several years against not just consensus but the entire consensus-building process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But another way of looking at it is that a group of content contributors are asking to be left alone to contribute content about which they have specialist knowledge, without editors who otherwise have no interest in those articles telling them how to write. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
which runs up against WP:OWN and the third WP:PILLAR: "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". And of course we do have interest in those articles; that's why this keeps coming up. I also don't care how you write the content you contribute, as long as you don't object to it being edited mercilessly to improve its style within the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If the birders wish to be "left alone", they're welcome to create an ornithology wiki (with every bird-related Wikipedia article copied over, provided that the licensing terms are followed) and operate it under whatever rules they believe are best. If they wish to edit Wikipedia, they need to accept the fact that they belong to a community extending beyond their WikiProject's walls. —David Levy 02:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about improving anything, just about changing it, because some editors have a style preference. The MoS itself warns against doing that, but that's conveniently ignored. The "we can and will edit mercilessly" approach is one of the reasons good editors have felt run off Wikipedia in recent years. You risk being left with no caps and no editors.
Seriously, why not adopt a "live and let live" attitude here? There is nothing major at stake – no neutrality issues, no BLP violations – just a minor style issue that non-specialist readers won't even notice. It isn't worth making anyone unhappy over. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about improving anything, just about changing it, because some editors have a style preference.
Editors on both sides of this debate believe (and actively assert) that applying a particular style improves the encyclopedia.
The MoS itself warns against doing that, but that's conveniently ignored.
Firstly, the MoS advises against switching from one MoS-compliant style to another without a good reason. This isn't an invitation to lock in any style in existence (in which case there would be absolutely no point in maintaining a style guide).
Secondly, I haven't seen the birders agree to retain lowercase styling of common bird species names in ornithological articles written that way originally. Presumably, said articles constitute a small minority, and I've seen members of WikiProject Birds argue that it's illogical to apply a conflicting style to a handful of articles. Many other Wikipedians agree, but we see Wikipedia articles, not WikiProject articles.
The "we can and will edit mercilessly" approach is one of the reasons good editors have felt run off Wikipedia in recent years.
In other words, they were driven away by the fact that Wikipedia is a wiki.
You risk being left with no caps and no editors.
As Cas Liber and I agreed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), quitting the project because one's preferred style (irrespective of which that is) isn't selected is quite an overreaction. No matter how this turns out, I hope that we don't lose many editors as a result. Either way, we mustn't set a precedent that encourages such threats. And if someone vows to leave Wikipedia if the birders' preferred styling remains, my response will be the same.
There is nothing major at stake – no neutrality issues, no BLP violations – just a minor style issue that non-specialist readers won't even notice.
That undermines one of the birders' main arguments in favor of capitalization (that it clarifies prose for Wikipedia's general readership).
Non-specialist readers do notice the unusual styling. They just don't understand why it exists.
It isn't worth making anyone unhappy over.
As in all matters of style, it's impossible to make everyone happy. —David Levy 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, seriously, I don't think everyone at the Birds project would hold your proposed "live and let live" attitude if I started fixing all of the names of birds in Wikipedia articles to use the lowercase, even though there's nothing major at stake. When I changed the bird species names to lowercase at an article not about birds but about a particular wetland, those generated the usual drama, including the claim that it was still a bird article because the Birds project banner was on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
David, just a point about your sentence: " ... the MoS advises against switching from one MoS-compliant style to another without a good reason." That's not correct. People have tried to add that a couple of times, but it has been rejected. The MoS simply says: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The MoS is advisory only, unless someone is using a style that is unheard of, or that most people would regard as a mess or wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The MoS simply says: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason."
The MoS's purpose is to document the styles considered acceptable at Wikipedia. If the wording in question meant "acceptable someplace", it would carry absolutely no objective meaning; editors could simply reject the entire MoS (apart from that statement) and lock in whatever styles they personally consider acceptable, which would accumulate in various combinations throughout the encyclopedia (thereby requiring editors to analyze each article individually and attempt to somehow determine which potentially undocumented styles have been established there and mustn't be disturbed).
Even under your interpretation, ensuring compliance with the best practices agreed upon by the Wikipedia community and described in the MoS is a "good reason" to make a style change. Heck, we even switch articles from one English variety to another for reasons like enabling the use of a title that doesn't require parenthetical disambiguation, so it's odd to suggest that we're supposed to honor style decisions that contradict the MoS outright.
The MoS is advisory only, unless someone is using a style that is unheard of, or that most people would regard as a mess or wrong.
I've seen you make similar statements elsewhere, seemingly reflecting a belief that Wikipedia's guidelines are optional and may be disregarded whenever an editor or group of editors disagrees with them (not because an exception is called for, but simply because they'd prefer to do something else). This is inconsistent with policy and common practice. —David Levy 21:53/22:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
David, it's the same with WP:CITE. No one is obliged to follow it. If someone comes up with a consistent referencing style that makes sense and isn't too wild for others to follow, they have every right to use it, and anyone arriving at the article to force in a change would be in the wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many areas in which we consider multiple styles acceptable when used consistently within an article. WP:CITE certainly is a noteworthy example, in part because an article's citation style (when consistent) is particularly self-evident and easy to duplicate.
But even WP:CITE documents preferred and non-preferred formatting, with encouragement to replace the latter with the former. And no citation style must be retained despite consensus that another is better suited to the article. The idea that any non-"wild" implementation is set in stone simply isn't accurate. —David Levy 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the most vocal pro-capitalization people I'm quoting here left Wikipedia for multiple reasons, one of which was ostensibly to do precisely that ["to create an ornithology wiki"]. The idea was introduced as "Wikipedia+", but then later changed to to a sort of BirdPedia plan to "build a far better bird wiki than ever could be made here". [It's discussed in at least three topics in the same archive page, e.g. here.] No idea if that went anywhere. I know how I'd wager, but you never know. Various other wikis (for some fiction franchises like "Star Wars" for example) blow away WP coverage when it comes to their specialty, but their content, style, article management/ownership and other practices would not be appropriate in many ways for WP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Last I looked, SlimVirgin, we have a policy about that called WP:Ownership of articles. They're not asking to be left alone to contribute content, but to dictate how others may contribute content. No one is telling them they have to user lower case; if they want to write in upper case, they can cite WP:IAR and get on with it. But they don't have a special right to editwar against people who are following MOS:LIFE and changing this to lower case (or adding new material using lower case) while editing the same and related articles. Another way of looking at it is that a much, much larger group of content contributors are asking to be left alone by bird specialists, who are not grammarians, trying tell them how to write in bird articles just because birds are involved and the others are supposedly not specialist enough to edit there.

No specialist knowledge is required to not capitalize common names of species. A boatload of specialist knowledge is required to properly capitalize them according to IOC's quite complicated system. That's enough by itself to end the debate in favor of lower case immediately.

Why would you think that people who aren't outspoken pro-capitalization participants of WP:BIRDS are "editors who otherwise have no interest in [bird] articles"? There's no evidence for such a notion, and clear proof in edit histories to the contrary, isn't there?

I'd bet real money that when site-wide consensus finally can't be ignored any longer [didn't we hit that point 2 years ago?] and the bird articles use normal English, that there'll be very little fuss except at first, and then wikilife will continue as normal. How do I know this? Because it's already happened again and again; see how many of these projects were capitalizing before MOS:LIFE made it clearer not to do that in 2012. Proof many times over that decapitalization did not destabilize anything at all, no one quit WP over it, and it and put to an end a large number of pointless debates (see here and here, with regard to everything but birds, for a very incomplete list of them).

PS: Promotion of the IOC names as a must instead of a maybe, perhaps a default, actually does raise WP:NPOV concerns, as I already noted (even aside from the capitalization issues).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy goes to the admin who has to read all this mess and make a decision. I've scanned over this point of contention and find myself echoing SMcCandlish: "No specialist knowledge is required to not capitalize common names of species. A boatload of specialist knowledge is required to properly capitalize them according to IOC's quite complicated system. That's enough by itself to end the debate in favor of lower case immediately." Xaxafrad (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is simply untrue. The whole point of the IOC names is that they are standardised. All you have to do is to copy precisely the name used by the IOC. It's de-capitalization which can be problematic, as noted above. If the source has "Cooper's Hawk", to de-capitalize you need to decide whether "Cooper" refers to an individual, in which case "Cooper's hawk" is the correct form, or whether it refers to an occupation, in which case "cooper's hawk" is the correct form.
For me this remains a key issue. Vernacular names should be sourced as with all other information. If the source has "Cooper's Hawk" then what gives Wikipedia editors the freedom to make decisions on how to de-capitalize it? It's argued that other encyclopaedias do this, so it must be ok. However they don't have the strict policies against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that we do. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Moot; "Cooper's hawk" et al. are easily sourced.[13] And hey, this allows us to avoid confusion with Cooper's Hawk! -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree that if there is a source which shows that "Cooper's hawk" is the same species as the one with the IOC name "Cooper's Hawk", and that source is referenced in the article, then there's no sourcing problem with de-capitalizing. My objections were (a) to the idea that there's something complicated about using IOC names – there isn't (b) to de-capitalizing based solely on a style rule in Wikipedia's MOS – this can tell editors to use the de-capitalized form, but it should also say that this form needs sourcing in its own right.
Note that the Washington Post article doesn't confirm that "Cooper's hawk" is Accipiter cooperii. A much better source would be [14]. It's dangerous to jump to assumptions about the connection between a vernacular name and the scientific name even when it seems "obvious".
Incidently, I think it's quite wrong at Cooper's Hawk#External links for the link name to have the word "hawk" capitalized. This is the title of the website and should not be altered. Both "sides" in this argument hold the belief that Wikipedia editors have almost total freedom to alter the style of sourced material; they differ only on the relatively trivial matter of which style they prefer. I'm much more concerned about whether, when and why it's right to manipulate sources in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The Cooper's Hawk article currently has references that use both upper and lower case. I would think that this is true for many, many bird articles. Are you suggesting that we use lowercase in a sentence where a fact is taken from a source that uses lowercase, but use uppercase in the next sentence where a fact is taken from a source that uses uppercase? Or simply that once it is established that sources use both, then either uppercase or lowercase is theoretically acceptable for use throughout that article? And if the latter, is it then appropriate for MOS to express a preference? Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
How about sources that show the "Cooper" in Cooper's hawk is William Cooper, not some cooper off the street, and notes its binomial name Accipiter cooperii?[15] Is there some source for a cooper's hawk that shows it is named after a cooper? There's no need in manufacturing problems where there isn't one; this area has enough actual problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Many sources do associate "Cooper's hawk", and a few even "cooper's hawk" with both William Cooper and Accipiter cooperii; some capitalize Hawk, but certainly it's not predominant to do so. We don't need to follow them, any more than we'd follow those that lowercase Cooper's name. WP style is to use caps in a way that convey what's a proper name and what's not. My original point in mentioning the concept of a "cooper" was just to reinforce that, not to suggest that anyone would seriously propose downcasing cooper. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: you wrote Promotion of the IOC names as a must instead of a maybe, perhaps a default, actually does raise WP:NPOV concerns. Indeed it does, and it would be wrong. However, I see suppression of the IOC names (or the BSBI names of plants, for that matter) as equally raising NPOV concerns. The IOC name of Accipiter cooperii is "Cooper's Hawk", not "Cooper's hawk" (just as the BSBI name of Arum maculatum is "Lords-and-Ladies", not "lords-and-ladies" or "lords and ladies" or any other stylistic variant). Where there are sourced English names in the de-capitalized style the MOS prefers, then they should, of course, be given; but so should sourced capitalized English names. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no suppression of IOC names. There are sources for Cooper's Hawk, cooper's hawk, Cooper's hawk, COOPER'S HAWK, Coopers Hawk, and Coopers hawk.p[16] How Wikipedia deals with capitalization, however is a question of house style, not of suppressing 5/6 of the options. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. And style aside (since at some point this sort of thing always turns to WP:AT questions, necessarily), the imposition of IOC names is a huge WP:COMMONNAME policy problems, as well as WP:NPOV/WP:ADVOCACY issues, WP:NEO/WP:NFT concerns ones. Too often IOC names are not the commonest names (the WP:COMMONNAMEs), but only made-up "names in common-English words" i.e. "vernacular wording not scientific Graeco-Latin names", that do not even exist outside of IOC's list, and which contradict real-world usage. IOC is standardized in the sense that its a proposed standard that many ornithologists and ornithological publishers have adopted for their in-house usage because it simplifies their work, but not all of them have, and WP's job is to be accurate, not to advance a simplification preferred by one camp of researchers.

This one wikiproject advancing it as "the only international convention", both "official" and "universal", advanced by a "taxonomic authority" "organization" are all falsehoods. Not a single one of those scare-quoted claims is true (not even "organization" - the IOC is just an annual meeting to vote on bird names). Yet at a never-ending stream of WT:BIRDS and WP:RM discussions, and here at WT:MOS, and at all sorts of previous discussions at WT:AT, WP:VPP, etc., every one of those claims is made with regularity. And worse yet, IOC naming is consistently misrepresented by this WP:FACTION as a formal, unquestionable Wikipedia standard. (One of many examples: "FYI, Wikipedia uses the IOC (Internationl [sic] Ornithological Congress) bidlist [sic] as it's [sic] official english [sic] names list.") This is just not acceptable.

The whole "move this article from a well-sourced common name to the IOC one and capitalize it in the article title and running prose because this is a WP standard based on the universal IOC official global name of this species" isn't just a house of cards, it's a house of cards in a wind-tunnel of fire. Even before we ever get to the style question, IOC naming has to survive all of these other policy challenges, and it frequently does not. Perhaps this is why WP:BIRDS so programmatically makes use of its own in-house "pet" admins to speedily perform loads of move requests that never see the light of WP:RM day, but which would clearly be controversial in many cases because of precisely what we're talking about here?[17][18][19] Hmm?

As usual, see User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names for the diffs. It's not like I'm making this stuff up, it just takes a lot of research to dig up and gather. I'm sure I'll be personally attacked again for doing so, too. Examples of most of these can be seen in the stuff I added yesterday alone, mostly the Archives 59 to 61 material from WT:BIRDS, plus some WP:RM requests and an ANI case (WP:BIRDS admin and another editor blocked for move-warring) in the article- and user-level section. My log page on this stuff is now better sectionalized for easier reading. Just for WT:BIRDS Archive 61 alone, I added 11 relevant entries and summaries of them. I may add some diffs and links directly to this post when I have this page and the that one open at same time, since copy-paste is easy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, I whole-heartedly agree with you that specific sources can be cited for the occurrence of capitalized names, from sources that specifically state that the capitalization is part of what they advance as a standard (otherwise it's just typography not nomenclature, and we have reliable sources including nomenclature authorities as well as English writing guides saying nomenclature and any typography applied to it are separate). I've been saying this for years, but no one (except you, to an extent) on the pro-caps side ever wants to hear it. The response is typically along these lines: "Any proposal that would alter the Capitalization [sic] rules at WP:BIRD is unacceptable." (Note that claim of a formal rule on WP about this again. We actually do have one, called MOS:LIFE.) I.e. "compromise = death". No thanks.

Anyway, nomenclature systems in which the standard-issuing body says that capitalization is a mandatory part of a standard are very rare, not a norm, and I can't find a single example in biological common names where it's not explicitly stated that the convention is specifically intended for communication between experts in that field in specialist publications in that field. The IOC itself and, e.g., the American Fisheries Soc. and IC[B]N are pretty clear on this, as three examples that pop into mind. ICZN doesn't suggest it as a convention even in biological publications at all. There simply isn't any group of people in the world except WP:BIRDS trying to tell other writers in non-specialist contexts "you must capitalize common names of [these] species"!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If typography is just a freely variable factor which doesn't alter nomenclature [which I find hard to accept], then it's a purely stylistic choice. It's just as reasonable to have all English names of species capitalized in articles about birds as it is to have British English spelling in articles about English towns. It's more reasonable than allowing some articles to use one citation style and others different ones with no demonstrable reason other than editor preference. (A point User:SlimVirgin has made before.) Why get so het up about what is (on the supposition that Wikipedia can freely alter typography from sources) just a "which end of the egg to open" issue? It really doesn't matter, and endless arguments about it just alienate everyone else.
As for choosing IOC names over others as titles, I see this as being for precisely the same reason as the WP:PLANTS preference for scientific names over English names. English names for organisms vary from country to country; the most common name is frequently imprecise (e.g. "robin" for Turdus migratorius) and WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:PRECISION. Imprecision is utterly unencyclopedic. If there were an internationally standardized list of the English names of plants, then they would be excellent candidates for use as article titles. It's fortunate that there is such a list for bird names and it's eminently sensible to use it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a caution on using WP:PLANTS as an analogy here. In the case of plants, we don't actually have a case of needing to balance WP:COMMONNAME against WP:PRECISION - since COMMONNAME and PRECISION both favor the use of the scientific (latin) name over the vernacular. Remember that COMMONNAME does not mean "the name that the common people use" (that's the "vernacular")... it means "the name most commonly used in reliable sources". An analysis of sources shows that the vernacular names of plants do vary from country to country (and even local region to local region within countries), and because of this, no single vernacular name is significantly more common than the others... However, the scientific (latin) name is used as an alternative in every country and region ... in other words, the scientific name is actually more COMMON than the various vernacular names. From what I gather, this is not the case when it comes to birds. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead:It's not freely variable, it's just not tied to nomenclature (except in rare cases, and even then only within specialist publications in certain fields, when it is accepted at all, and we have evidence that the IOC practice is not as well-accepted as some claim it is anyway). Surely you don't find that hard to accept? This is English, not German; we don't (any longer, since the early Victorian era) capitalize nouns and noun phrases simply for being "nouny", except in informal writing like advertising. It's not like "should I use big red lettering on this poster?" or some other actual freely variable factor of typography. Capitalization serves specific purposes in formal, general-audience English writing. Capitalization of species names is pure specialist jargon.
The IOC World Bird List is potentially a good idea in theory. It does not have the real-world buy-in that it's bordering-on-aggressive promotion at WP would have one believe. I'll cover that in more detail in a separate post. The facts in it are important enough it shouldn't be buried 6 indents deep in some sub-thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IOC's own wording makes it clear it's not intended for use here

Even the IOC World Bird List itself includes[20] six key things that indicate we should not try to impose it as a Wikipedia standard:

  1. Most importantly, "the committee believed the initial capital to be preferable for the name of a bird species in an ornithological context". Wikipedia is not an ornithological context, it's an encyclopedic context. Even in ornithology-related articles here, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not some "BirdPedia" or "WikiBirds", the external creation of which some WP:BIRDS members have repeatedly suggested and should get busy working on if that's what they want. Wikipedia is not a journal, as matter of clear policy. Note also (again) that non-ornithology-limited journals in biology, ecology, etc., do not use such a capitalization scheme even for ornithology articles.
  2. IOC states outright "this is contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters)". That alone is reason enough for WP not to use it, because it leads to inconsistency, confusion and strife here (we have nine years of proof of that). When applied by its fans outside of ornithology journals that have decided editorially to prefer IOC usage, this capitalization is just "we're magically different" special pleading and POV-pushing by a non-neutral party (we have a policy about that, too, remember) demanding an exception to normal practice in English.
  3. The capitalization was a "rule adopted from the outset" IOC says. I.e., it was imposed by the earliest participants, a grand total of 30 people[21], and anyone who objects can just zip it, regardless what subsequent years have shown to be resistance to and problems with the idea, including that most of the scientific community reject it, even when publishing bird articles, and outside of field guides, which were already capitalizing for emphasis (a practice MOS deprecates in all forms), no one anywhere buys this as a convention.
  4. Their main reason is that bird field guides do it! Seriously! By that rationale everything that could ever be the subject of a field guide of any kind must be capitalized. I would like to sell you my Mid-Century Walnut Armoire with Locking Drawer, since it appears that way in my antiquing field guide. Field guides do it because it aids on-the-spot visual scanning, and that has nothing to do with encyclopedic writing. Note carefully that WP:BIRDS's reasoning is totally circular here. They say "do it because IOC is a standard" and point to field guides falsely as proof that it's been adopted, but IOC itself says they're just doing it in imitation of field guides and because it's convenient for their journal-writing shorthand.
  5. The old saw is that this "needs" to be done to distinguish, say, the species white-throated sparrow from various sparrows that have white throats (that's IOC's own example). But of course we know that's nonsense in our context, for the very reason I just illustrated by writing and linking that sentence the way I did instead of dropping my brain on the floor and writing "the white-throated sparrow is one of several white-throated sparrows".
  6. The supporting mini-essay they quote is linguistically ignorant (as language writing by biologists and probably biology writing by linguists often is), and even self-contradictory in two places. It's very poorly thought out mumbo-jumbo to justify an "I like it because it's familiar to me and it makes birds seem extra special" preference.

Tendentious arguments from some members of a wikiproject who refuse to hear that they have failed to convince the wider editing community what they prefer is a good idea here, have no business imposing on our readers and other editors a highly specialized, ornithology-context convention that even some of the most reliable ornithological organizations and publishers reject, and which the wider scientific and academic worlds have very widely rejected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IOC doesn't have the acceptance its boosters claim, and is several kinds of policy problem here

Some editors at WP:WikiProject Birds consistently promote the idea that the IOC World Bird List is a universally or near-universally accepted standard convention in ornithology and in science in general, but we already know from many previous rounds of discussion that this isn't true. The thing is, even the IOC is clear that this isn't true.

Background

Clearly, the International Ornithological Congresses' general idea, to get scientific and academic consensus on English-language vernacular names of bird species, is according to some a laudable goal. (Some think it's pointless, though, like trying to force Spanish and German to use cat instead of gato and Katze – why do we need to impose one vernacular name instead of multiple local ones when the entire purpose of the scientific name, the binomial nomenclature, is to be the universal, unambiguous name for a species?) Regardless, IOC's list is not a scientific or academic consensus in the real world, it's an advocacy position in which WP has no business taking any particular side.

IOC isn't an organization, but an annual meeting to vote on bird names among other things, the two-member editorial board of which are self-publishing a bird name list that conflicts often with real-world usage and with regional authorities that are actual scientific organizations with long-standing histories.

IOC has only been putting this list out since 2006 from what their own published data indicates (the Intl. Orn. Congresses, i.e. the meetings, have been going on since 1988, with a group working on common name normalization since 1994, but the Handbook of Birds of the World says that IOC's own list was generated too late for the former to use the orthography of the latter, even if HBW wanted to, which it does not (see below for details).

The congresses are put together by something called the International Ornithological Union[22]. It does seem to be an actual organization (it's members or "fellows" list has 265 academics' names on it, but they may represent just an advisory board), and it exists mainly to put on the IOC events and to serve as the bird-related section of the International Union of Biological Sciences, an educational and ecological, UNESCO-tied NGO. Nothing suggests either of these groups are taxonomic authorities of any kind, though the members list looks professional and I don't see any evidence that their work and motives are not respected. They're simply not getting the world-wide agreement they seek (yet?).

Even in ornithology there is resistance to the sort of capitalization promoted by the IOC among others (the very journal Ornithology is, ironically enough, an example of one that eschews this upper-casing); in the life sciences in general, the resistance is close to total, and IOC freely admits they're in conflict with stylistic norms with regard to the rest of the tree of life on this capitalization business (see thread immediately above for details).

That's all independent of whether the names themselves, regardless of styling, are accepted, another point of frequent resistance within the field that IOC is trying to homologate. Many IOC names are just made up and do not reflect real-world usage, while a few even conflict with well-sourced usage and with previously published names settled on by taxonomic authorities who are established regional, national and international organizations. Forgetting style for a moment, IOC names sometimes conflict with the reliably sourceable WP:COMMONNAME(s) for a given species, and should not be used here in those cases. An argument could perhaps be made for IOC names as a default, at most; that is a discussion for WT:AT consensus, not WT:BIRDS and its WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, because it's been controversial for years. No one objects when a wikiproject comes up with a standardization idea that doesn't cause problems. This is not one of those cases.

How widely adopted is IOC's names list at all, style aside? Well, they maintain a page (updated as recently as 2014-03-08!) at http://www.worldbirdnames.org/the-project/reactions/ of "Adoptions & Applications" since getting rolling in 2006, and it's not as long nor nearly as illustrious or enthusiastic as you'd expect for the claims made here by some WP:BIRDS partcipants about IOC and it's "near-universal" adoption as a "standard". (See the long WT:BIRDS archives for skeptical editors being habitually derided by a shifting WP:FACTION of birders as ignoramuses for daring to question the promotion and elevation of IOC on Wikipedia.)

Many of the entries on that surprisingly short IOC adoption list are nothing but trivia in a scientific context, e.g. WikiProject Birds itself, individual tourism companies, local clubs, general-audience field guides, undeveloped software, and some random guy's Adobe Lightroom keyword scripts. A large proportion of the book entries are foreign-language books that picked IOC for convenience (it's a database they can copy-paste from, after all, not a book) when providing English names that their readers won't care much about anyway.

The IOC list is simply one available option in the several of the resources in question (e.g. Avibase, World Wildlife Recorder, etc.). IOC itself acknowledges that it has competition and is late to the game).

Only one ornithological organization, a national not international one, has formally adopted IOC names, and only partially; in some matters it still defers to the paper-published Handbook of the Birds of the World (a huge reference work, not a field guide; it's arguably the most reliable source in the entire discipline).

What about journals? Only one ornithology journal has formally adopted IOC names, and only for non-North American species, for which it considers the AOU NACC more authoritative. Not exactly a ringing IOC endorsement. Many (but not all) of ornithology journals (versus nearly zero non-ornithology journals) permit capitalization of bird species common names, because they really don't care; they care about the scientific binomial, and they know full well that vernacular names of species tend to vary widely on a regional basis, nor to they care how people want to capitalize that stuff. But even IOC itself doesn't present any evidence that "pro-capitals" journals are getting these names from IOC. It's clear that they're coming from misc. regional taxonomic authorities in many cases, form IOC in others, and that the journals don't care and are not taking IOC's "side". How can Wikipedia? (Hint: As a matter of both Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:Neutral point of view policies, we can't.)

How about the then-ongoing editing and publishing of the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW) itself, the actually-authoritative nomenclature authority? Its editors concluded to start using most of the IOC's names for future volumes (having committed to doing so all the way back in 1994 if the Intl. Orn. Congresses would just get on with it), but to reject their style scheme as not just too late to the game but actually unhelpful. [The HBW does use capitalization, but with a different system from IOC's, as to particulars.] HBW's editors label the IOC system one they would reject anyway because it "is rather a complicated system for vernacular names, which we believe should aim to be as simple as possible for the non-specialist to be able to follow and use easily and correctly." Ouch. I'm pretty sure that's precisely what WP consensus would say, too. HBW also labels the IOC's style an Americanism, which raises WP:BIAS concerns here.

Continuing, IOC's page also incorrectly lists Wikipedia itself has having adopted IOC, and quotes a now-vanished WP:BIRDS member telling them in 2009 that "The wikiproject birds [sic] at the English Wikipedia has adopted the IOC list now as the defacto [sic] standard. We are currently implementing the names, and soon we should have most names in line with the IOC". Note that this is after extensive discussions in 2008 that demonstrated very clearly that the capitalization did not have consensus here. A bit below this, the IOC page again quotes this same editor, proposing at WP:BIRDS that IOC be deferred to for both scientific taxonomy and vernacular naming. But we already know that IOC is not a taxonomic nomenclature authority!

Note again that all of this information is coming from the IOC's own website. To their credit, the do not pretend they don't have critics, the way some WP:BIRDS advocacy has.

Conclusion

Clearly, this IOC favoritism is a serious WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:RS problem, as well as frequently a WP:COMMONNAME one. Given how much at least one [former-]Wikipedian seems to have been involved with promoting them and being promoted by name by them at their site, it looks kind of WP:COI, too. There is certainly too much in question with regard to IOC naming at Wikipedia to use it as a basis for any continued WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and anti-MOS posturing.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is after extensive discussions in 2008 that demonstrated very clearly that the capitalization did not have consensus here. Well, this is one of the disputed issues. It may not have had majority support, but neither was there a true WP:CONSENSUS either way. Focus on the facts about IOC names is constructive; I'd like to see more discussion of this kind, albeit with less bashing of WP:BIRDS. (I note that HBW does use capitals, just a different system to the IOC, so it's not evidence for not capitalizing.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There certainly was such a consensus by 2012, though. I'm not bashing anyone at all; I'm even being very clear that WP:BIRDS as a whole is not to blame, only that some editors' arguments seem to indicate an axe to grind on this, and I'm not implying any particular reasons or motivation for it. We all know that ornithologists can freely switch between styles (they have to, because most journals will not permit the capitalization – only some ornithology-specific journals will). So there is no actual need for the capitalization here. It's a style choice, nothing more. WP:CIVIL is moderated by WP:SPADE. The amount of filibustering and disruption generated by WP:ADVOCACY on behalf of IOC has hit an unacceptable level. I decline to apologize for shining the light of some truth on bogus claims made about real-world buy-in with regard to IOC and its naming convention. Again, I'm not quoting some IOC critic, I'm quoting IOC's own website. Also, I pointed out myself that HBW capitalizes (differently from IOC); you don't need to point that out again as if I hid that fact. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, how many ornithologists do you think there are around the world? 256 would be a big number of them - it's amusing that you are dismissing an attempt to unify and streamline bird names while doing the same here with MOS - it comes across as highly hypocritical. wikipedia had adopted the IOC names as a consensus of active editors agreed to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing anything other than the claims by some WP:BIRDS members that IOC is already a near universally-accepted system. IOC 's own website clearly demonstrates that these claimas are false. Also, I never said anything about whether 265 was a large number in this context; to the contrary, I implied that it's a big enough one to indicate that the IOU is a real organization (which is not the IOC; the IOC is a series or meetings of some subset of that 265). I stated that it's unclear what roles those individuals play. Your response does nothign to make that clearer.
This is hilarious, SMC wants straitjackets everywhere else, but a free-for-all on bird names. The people who actually write bird articles agreed on the IOC names to avoid conflicts where different regional authorities have different names for the same birds. Let's go back to the good old days of interminable arguments over Great Northern Diver v Common Loon. The IOC Great Northern Loon is a compromise, but it stopped the Europe/NAm argument. Many other examples of cross-regional differences, such as Common Gull/Mew Gull, Parasitic Jaeger/Arctic Skua. This is a ridiculous suggestion, it obviously makes sense to a work to one standard, and the IOC has the advantage of not being regionally based like the AOU or BOU lists. I can see there is a least an argument with regards to capitalisation, but "pick a name, any name" is not going to work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What "straightjackets" have I called for? Don't be hyperbolic. You all cannot simultaneously claim that editors who think the MOS applies to you not just everyone but you are a "totalitarian power...crushing the neck of...[WP:BIRDS] under their jackboots"[23] as one of your colleagues put it, yet at the same time "straightjacketing" all topics but birds. I mean, what on earth are you talking about, really? What "free-for-all"? Do you perhaps mean the fact that we have long-establbished policies, e.g. WP:COMMONNAME, that frequently impede your desire to impose IOC names on articles that are at the actually common names not IOC's, among other reasons to not use one of IOC's names? WP:BIRDS participants are not the only editors of bird articles, but you refuse to recognize this no matter how many times WP:OWN is put in front of you for review. You're making a thinly-veiled argument that all non-WP:BIRDS editors are WP:RANDYs, even on matters of policy and style, if birds are ever involved. No one is actually going to believe that, and it's deeply insulting to the rest of the editors on the project. WP:BIRDS editors have many times strongly suggested that no one else should be editing, or even has any business expressing much of an opinion about, bird articles here and need to leave them alone, to you, the alleged experts. (It's actually pretty clear that many participants in that project are hobbyist birdwatchers, by the way, not ornithologists, but whatever; that's not the point). No one questions that the actual productive article-writing work by WP:BIRDS editors is exemplary, when it sticks to the facts and follows policy, and that it dwarfs the output of other biological projects. But you don't have to capitalize, based on a "standards that isen't actually standard and wasn't intended for an encyclopedia, in order to be great editors here; the two issues are not related in any way. "Leave us alone, we know better than you and are more productive than you" are this wikiproject's continual plaintive demands. Not going to happen; being a bird expert doesn't make you a writing style expert, and continual work toward goals the community rejects, like WP:FAITACCOMPLI article mass-moves, are counter-productive, not productive. WP:BIRDS does not have a special right to pick and impose a standard that conflicts with WP:POLICY in several ways. Finally, no one has suggested "pick a name, any name". We have a entire policy at WP:AT for resolving naming disputes, and avoiding them to begin with by following a particular stepwise, balanced set of rationales for picking a name here. That process has been refined to prevent relapses into the kind of dispute that surrounded Great Norther Diver vs. Common Loon, and yogurt vs. yoghurt. WP does not need you to force a "convention" on us that even real-world ornithologists are resisting, certainly not today, even if there was a perception back in, say, 2006 that this might be a good idea (but you've been resisted on this even longer than that, since at least 2004, and mostly by people who've never edited MOS at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are the Google Scholar citation counts for the "available" (several are actually quite outdated) standard lists:
  • Howard & Moore "A Complete Checklist of Birds of the World" - 534 - the last updated H&A 2003 edition has 15 cites
  • "Check-list of Birds of the World" - 2550 (J.L. Peter's list was started in the 1930s but no longer updated)
  • "Birds of the world: recommended English names" - 98 (updated online since the first print edition from Princeton University Press), but since they are online one should also check their impack - Google "linkto:www.worldbirdnames.org -site:www.worldbirdnames.org -site:wikipedia.org" indicates 257,000 links to the site.
  • "Clements Checklist of Birds of the World" - 284 (last edition in 2007)
I am not sure what is meant by "not taxonomic nomenclature authority" - if you are talking about classification, the higher level placement of species then there is NO authority. Anyone has the right to choose from alternative genus placements (but your credentials are at stake if you choose something outdated or outright foolish when you publish), but there is a deluge of molecular phylogenetic work which suggests that changes be made and there are decisions that need to be taken and the IOU committee does examine these to see if changes are needed. (For an instance that does affect the name used - the spotted wren-babbler got renamed its genus renamed from Spelaeornis to Elachura so it is no longer sad to say a wren-babbler but is now called the Elachura or if you prefer the scientific name Elachura. If you are talking about who governs disputes related to names, priority and propriety - that is the ICZN. (FYI, there are Wikipedia editors who are actually part of the ICZN - Commissioners no less. So it is not like Wikipedia does not have the specialists needed.) Shyamal (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Not a taxonomic nomenclature authority – I'm referring to this and related discussions. You're also ignoring the fact that the most current lists are maintained by national/regional authorities (this is also true in other biological areas for the most part, BTW). "You're wrong because all the international lists but IOC's are old" is a bogus argument, and you know it. There is no requirement at WP:RS that sources have to supersede all other sources on a geographical basis in order to be reliable (often the opposite happens). You're also engaging in apples-and-oranges comparisons. Of course online materials will cite something they can link to more than something they can't. Most of them are not reliable sources and not relevant for this analysis (who cares what Sam's Birdwatching Blog links to?), certainly not comparable to academic citations in Google Scholar, which already includes academic citations to online academic sources, so you're double-counting them for IOC. The fact that IOC's list accounts for very few of the academic citations is quite significant here). AND you're ignoring that most citations of this sort are going to be to taxonomic authorities for the scientific names; journals really don't care much what that common names are, in this field or any other. AND your google links search doesn't exclude sites that repurpose WP content, each of which add tens of thousands of duplicate hits. Look, I know that some editors at WP:BIRDS (and presumably elsewhere) really hate this regional fragmentation situation, and desperately want one world authority on bird naming, but that's a WP:ADVOCACY position some of you are pushing, in ways that tend to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD. It's way past time to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you are misunderstanding the debate on WP:BIRD that you cite. What you show exactly shows that there is no such thing as a single authority - ie. not IOC, not Clements, not anyone and all placements are acceptable but when there are opposing views zoologists will also sometimes suffix a sensu XYZ that qualifies the placement. Google's algorithms are not 100% correct but it does have a use. I cannot figure out what you are saying in the rest of your text. Shyamal (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding my argument. I've been saying all along that there is no central, global authority; that desire to see the IOC as the Promised Land of homologation is an advocacy position, not a fact. Lots of evidence here to demonstrate that. You'll have to tell me in more detail what you didn't understand about my earlier message; without any indication what may have been unclear it sounds like a refusal to address the issues I raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, if the above (about half of which is straw man and ad hominem fallacies, not real arguments) is the best you all can collectively muster in the face of this long stream of evidence from IOC's own website as to both what its stylistic intents/audience are and how much buy-in it actually has in the field it is trying to revolutionize, I guess this matter is pretty well settled then, isn't it? Please ask yourselves why the shift to lower-case in other fields of articles here, e.g. reptiles and amphibians (the specialist sources regarding which also mostly capitalize common names), has resulted in no controversies, no mass resignations of expert or hobbyist editors, no waves of editor confusion over supposedly too-ambiguous names, no off-Wikipedia backlash by academics in that field, no anything but smooth operation. How can you possibly maintain the dark WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that all of these terrible things are going to happen if we just stop treating WP like a proving ground for IOC activism? Show me Wikipedia failing because we no longer capitalize California slender salamander, or cougar, or red oak. I don't need to "win" an argument here anyway. I'm just presenting the facts and how I think they relate to WP policy and practice. People can make up their own minds, and I think they'll note that the evidence I've presented has not been refuted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
What are you on about? Seriously, you have the numbers, so why continue to filibuster ad nauseam and distort facts on this to prove a point. Why put words into editors' mouths about resigning because of one comment by one exasperated editor some years ago. The only person carrying on like a toddler throwing their toys out of the pram when he doesn't get his way is you - any time makes an edit you disagree with...it's like cue post with bluelinks to pejorative pages...list straw man...and generally ooze indignance. Do you really think that repeating yourself 20-30 times and adding a generous dose of self-righteousness and indignance convinces anyone? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm "on about" this: IOC's own website debunks claims that its list and orthography are near-universally accepted in ornithology, and the belief that IOC intended to produce a list for anything other than formal ornithological use; these showings raise more than just MOS, but also NPOV and other concerns (read the article Birds of the World: Recommended English Names and tell me you don't see any POV problems there). I'm not sure what you mean by the toddler-not-getting-his-way comparison when you're conceding that the poll is going the way I've suggested it should. I must be like a baby who throws things when I'm happy. Or maybe metaphoric insults aren't your long suit. Heh. Filibustering is the refusal to yield in an attempt to prevent process from continuing. Given that MOS came to a consensus in 2008 and even more strongly in 2012 against upper-casing species common names, yet years later we're still arguing about why one project keeps trying to cast doubt upon, stall and evade that consensus and impose it's own rules on other editors, I'm obviously not the one filibustering. I predict that WP:BIRDS will reject this poll, too, as "not really a consensus" somehow and just keep on with their "local consensus" behavior. Why change now, right? Honestly, I'd rather see a proper RfC than this mess anyway (though I guess I'll take it).

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth about resigning, I'm talking about the dire predictions of Peter coxhead, et al., that expert editors will leave, in part (he never said entirely) because of not being able to capitalize like [not all] ornithology journals do. There's no evidence of this; some other fields (e.g. ichthyology, at least here in Yankeeland) regularly capitalize, but we did not see a mass exodus of editors in those areas in 2012 when MOS became clearer and the vernacular name decapitalization began in earnest. We know from pages like WP:Expert retention that experts leave because they're busy, Wikipedia is a weird, anarchic subculture that takes a lot of time and energy to figure out, it has a tedious system full of rules and egos, where teenagers with admin bits have more authority than department heads at major universities, and no one respects or even believes in any researcher's credentials here, thus experts have no special merit- and tenure-based clout here, and have to cite sources for even the most basic, obvious facts in their field like freshmen writing their first paper. It's every frustrating for academics. It is not plausible that simply having to follow the same style rule for lower case species names as used in almost all journals that aren't ornithology-specific (and some that are) and most all non-academic publications, too (other than field guides) is going to be the thing that destroys anyone's willingness to be part of Wikipedia. It's like supposing that the difference in electrical systems is a huge impediment to European emigration to North America, or that Americans are going to stop visiting England because British English is just too unfamiliar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to move on?

Is there any doubt remaining that there is a WP-wide consensus that the birds project should not go their own way? If such doubt remains, someone please open a well-organized and neutrally presented centralized RFC so we can finish this and move on. Or, if it's clear already, as it appears to most of us, someone please just close and let us move on. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the RFC just above. I realize Andrewa didn't intend for it to happen like that, but in the end we've had a fairly well-attended and well-advertised discussion here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with trying to assess consensus on the informal poll above. But I do again suggest that we don't call it an RfC. WP:RfC reads in part Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct. RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. (Link as in original, emphasis removed.) The page to which it links of course reads in part This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow. What exactly is the rationale for departing from this policy in this instance? Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why we wouldn't call it an RFC; it seems pretty clear that it is one? What policy are we talking about departing from? I don't think I understand you here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The policy is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as linked to above. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It still isn't clear; I still don't know what policy deviation you are referring to here, or why this might not be considered an RFC. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues? I particularly call your attention to clause three Sign the statement with ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date).. When was this done?
Clause 1 If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better. In a case where polling had already started, and where it was generally agreed that the terms of the poll were unclear... the mind boggles.
A new section was clearly the way to go. You might also note that the person who did add the RfC template has now apologised for doing it, both on this page and on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Oh; that page isn't a policy, though? Even if it was, I missed the relevance of these points: they seem like the tiniest of quibbles. Sure—an RFC that had been called one since the beginning would have been preferable, but as it says If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section—if a focused discussion is already well on its way that's probably no reason to start over. The sig thing is just instructions to get the bot to do what it needs to do; that wasn't an issue here. Red Slash was acting in good faith, I think, in an attempt to advertise the ongoing discussion, which was something that absolutely needed to happen somehow; I realize and can certainly understand that you weren't happy about the way he edited your commentary at the top and I'm glad you two were able to work that out. it was generally agreed that the terms of the poll were unclear—but there is clarity about the issue being discussed, so all is well. Pretty much everyone in the discussion knows exactly what the discussion is about. This has been a well-attended, well-publicized discussion. The off-wiki canvassing was unfortunate, but these things happen. The confusion in the first few days about whether polling had begun or whether we were still discussing how to word the RfC was also unfortunate. I think it wasn't 100% clear at the beginning that the discussion was still supposed to be "meta", if you will—the decentralized nature of this forum makes that kind of distinction quite difficult to make! But in the end, though, there really wasn't any confusion about what the question was, there was plenty of involvement, it was well-advertised, etc; it certainly seems legitimate to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrewa, no minds appear to be boggling. Of course it's an RfC, it's just a messy one. Your own wording shows it's an RfC: "...trying to assess consensus on the informal poll above. ... WP:RfC reads in part '... is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct...'". An RfC is an "informal poll" "to assess consensus". As a side note, your complaint of others supposedly departing from normal process is grossly unfair, when the entire thing is messy because your "proposal" didn't follow WP:RFC and WP:CENT standard operating procedure, and instead tried to set up some kind of personally-managed, non-standard process for a structured discussion. We have a standardized RfC process today precisely because highly individualized attempts at straw polling, like the one you used here, have historically often lead to messy sprawls like this one. Also, your bit about clause 3 and such, above, seems to verge on WP:WIKILAWYERING. Why are you posting an [ineffective] filibuster against consensus closure on a discussion that you opened yourself with the clearly expressed goal of gauging and working toward consensus on this issue? Is it just because someone else put an RfC tag on it? (Your going on, above, about getting an apology for this from someone is not encouraging.) I feel my "I hope you won't be too disappointed if you think you get to evaluate the results for everyone" note[24] was prescient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
SMC, please: I think Andrewa was just trying to carefully set up a good discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification of proposal

Where the proposal is about titles of bird articles, it is well-defined. But where it is about mentions of birds within articles, it is less clear what is being proposed. Does it seek to govern all mentions of birds in articles, so that upcasers would require "her cat caught a Bird"? Or just species names: "it was either a dunnock or a House Sparrow"? Either way, upcasing within articles will give "the native fauna of Bermuda includes the Bermuda Petrel and the Bermuda rock skink."

I feel that a proposal which sought only to regulate capitalisation of article names would be more likely to achieve a consensus. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we pretty much always capitalize article titles as the words would appear in running text, except for the first letter which is almost always capitalized. So the question is both titles and running text. I'm not sure if that seems likely or unlikely to you to achieve consensus? Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the B is capitalized in "her cat caught a Bird"—we're just talking about species names, not all bird-related words. So, option 1: "It was either a dunnock or a house sparrow." and option 2: "It was either a Dunnock or a House Sparrow." There does seem to be some confusion about whether to capitalize names of lizard species in bird-related articles, although I think even with option 2 we'd write "the native fauna of Bermuda includes the Bermuda petrel and the Bermuda rock skink." in a non-bird-themed article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Consistency within articles is a key principle of the MOS. There's no reason to treat bird names in any article, whether about a bird taxon or not, as special. There are other "official" lists of species names which deliberately capitalize; the IOC is not unique in this respect. Given that always capitalizing English species names is a non-starter, there are only three alternatives that I can see which might command at least some support:
  1. De-capitalizing English species names everywhere, in titles and in text (remembering that "de-capitalizing" means still capitalizing words normally otherwise capitalized)
  2. Allowing consistent capitalization of English species names in articles where there is a reasoned consensus for this style
  3. De-capitalizing English species names as per (1), except for direct quotation of a source that explicitly capitalizes – if that name is then used as the title or the "main" name in the text it would be de-capitalized.
Personally I would prefer (2) for the reasons I've given many times before in this debate, but I would settle for (3). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
(3) is my preference; we should not alter direct quotations without indication (brackets, ellipses), and sic tags could be used if needed (although even they shouldn't be needed for most cases). (2) would be true as well (although it should have the same exception as 3), except for our inability to date to distinguish between consensus and local consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer (2). IUCN does it, Clements does it, observado does it, Bubo does it, IBC does it, and above all: all people that are even only slightly involved birdwatching do it, and that is the argument of the silent majority. I really wonder why somebody is firmly against, at least if that person does anything with birds professionally or as a hobby. This would be a reason for me to even less frequent wikipedia. Regards, another straw man (Lieven) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.194.60 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no difference between (1) and (3) as direct quotations (in quotation marks) should not be modified (except with square brackets). And I think that (1) and (3) is clearly what most people here ask for. It is what is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines and standard practice for animal species. What is more, it is beneficial for the quality, clarity and consistency of Wikipedia. Mama meta modal (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
@JHunterJ: @Mama meta modal: you both say that direct quotations should not be altered, but this is not what the MOS says. Read Wikipedia:MOS#Typographic conformity: "Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment". Not "can be adapted", but "should be adapted".
Personally if I read something like "English names include ..., common tern,1 ..." even without quote marks round "common tern", I don't expect that [1] actually has "Common Tern". With quote marks it's definitely not the standard of accuracy I expect of an encyclopedia, yet this is what the MOS says should be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I stand corrected. Perhaps that portion of the MOS needs its own discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be discussed again, but the decision to be taken now has to be made with this portion in place. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'm not certain that interpretation is correct anyway. We would not remove emphasis from quoted material, and a very good case can be made that capitalization of species names in this way is simply a form of emphasis. In fact, that's been a key point on both sides of the debate (down-casers say it's just a form of emphasis, and up-casers of a certain stripe say it's some very special/different/unique/whatever form of emphasis. For my part, I would not change the case of quote like this, not even in a totally different context. E.g., we (for whatever reason) up-case Art Nouveau and other art movements, but if I were quoting "Sevres, Tiffany, Liberty and WMF are among the biggest names of in mass-produced art nouveau" from a source I would not "normalize" the case to upper. If the original source had used boldface or underlining or small-caps for the routine emphasis of "mass-produced" there, however, I would normalize it to WP's (and nearly everyone else's) preferred italics. I.e., capitalization and other style issues have different approaches, and there are different levels to which something is "just" a style issue. The very fact that birders, et al., feel (incorrectly, from a both a linguistics/philosophy and a English usage perspective) that [some or all, depending on whom you ask] common names of species are proper names indicates and intent to use upper case and to really mean it, so it shouldn't be changed in quotes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There are not likely to be further replies from User:Mama meta modal as they are now blocked indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive#17 April 2014. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing suggestion

I am prepared to close this discussion if my doing so would be considered acceptable. I offer the following reasons why I would be an appropriate person:

As a biologist and a biology librarian who has worked for many years for a department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and has written professional reviews of books dealing with nomenclature, I understand both the biological issues involved, and also the nomenclature issues.
I have no personal interest in birds, and do not work substantially on the sort of articles involved
I have not previous engaged substantially in the discussion
I have no close personal involvement with any of the editors discussing the issue
I have read the entire discussion, as well as the past discussions
I have a reasonable amount of familiarity with Wikipedia
The close I have in mind is opposed to my personal view on what form I prefer to see DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, DGG. I had previously suggested that we wait until the discussion had run for a month, but especially if you think there's clear consensus, the quality of the close is much more important than the timing. Unless you're simply volunteering early; that's fine too. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that my essay is relevant to this discussion. It was started in response to one of the earlier ones in which claims were made that English species name were proper names and hence should be capitalized. This is no longer a common argument. I think there's a consensus of sorts by both "sides" that capitalization of such names is an independent convention which has some pros and cons. The difference is the weight attached to these. (There's an unfortunate side issue – "how dare these editors question the MOS community" versus "How dare MOS editors dictate to article specialists" – which has not contributed to the clarity of the debate, but I'm sure any competent closer will be able to ignore this.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it extremely relevant. The question here is still should bird species names be capitalised, and the most common arguments against capitalisation are still that it is somehow wrong to do so (the argument from outside of Wikipedia), and that some policy prevents it (the argument from inside Wikipedia). Perhaps here is not the place to repeat the arguments in favour, but isn't your essay relevant to the first argument against? Andrewa (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right, I see your point. It was originally written against the view that English species names should be capitalized because they are proper names (which I think is now broadly accepted), but it equally argues against that the view that English species names should not be capitalized because they aren't proper names. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It does clearly [I like the revisions!] address the "proper names question", but I think most of us realize that it was a red herring, so it's not central to the debate at all. Certainly no reason to not close this one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I highly recommend reading the essay (thanks for writing it!) but I don't think there's anything going on there or anywhere else that needs to happen before closing this; I'm not aware of any "far more constructive conversations" that you need to worry about derailing. Thanks DGG! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

my profit on't is...

This entire page is shocking (it certainly shocked me). I have spent over an hour responding to the RFC and I have not gained anything like a coherent, let alone cogent view of what caused this appalling flow of words on... what? You must be joking...

I refuse to waste yet more time that I could spend constructively on useful content, so I limit myself to the following. Those that don't like it might as well ignore it; I won't care; I won't be here. Those who point out that so-and-so already said it all, save your breath or keystrokes; I won't be here anyway.

  • Capitalisation is like punctuation; there are limits to how far it is possible (and more importantly, how far it is profitable) to legislate or impose arbitrary general standards to particular cases by rwar.
  • The first question concerning capitalisation and punctuation is: does it affect the meaning? If it does, then choose the option that means what is intended, and never mind styles, sources, and guides. You might elect to re-write the whole passage to avoid a dilemma through periphrasis or the like, but that is irrelevant to the question.
  • The second question is: does it affect ease and effectiveness (and possibly pleasure) of reading and understanding the text? If so then choose the clearest and most efficient format, requiring the least explicit attention, rereading, confusion and loss of concentration on the topic.
  • Thirdly: does it risk causing offence? This one is difficult, because too many of the editors and authors are unaware of, or insensitive to, the fact that many of the WP community are neither WASPs nor semi-literate, nor monoglots; in fact, commonly such editors simply are insensitive or unaware. Bad luck.

If anyone in groping after the appropriate (correct) notation has mentally dealt truly with the foregoing points (it might take all of four seconds) and still doesn't know which notation is appropriate, then he should jack it in; manuals of style are not for such. JonRichfield (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points all. Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Quickly:
  • Your first point applies more against than for capitalization. The standard the WP:BIRDS camp want to impose is one that is not even fully accepted in their own field (not entirely in general, and not all that broadly as to its details).
  • Your second point ("first question") raises an idea that is debatable. Up-casers swear the capitalization conveys a meaning distinction, down-casers point out that this is only true for people already steeped in the "tradition" – to everyone else it's just an annoying typo – and that linking and writing well obviate any need for artificially depending upon an up-casing convention some people will not understand. By all of the yardsticks you propose, lower-case and clear writing are the preferred solution.
  • Your third point ("second question"): Yes, and the negative effect of capitalizing here affects orders of magnitude more editors, the general readers annoyed, confused and distracted (even into editing to "correct" it), than the percentage who are birders and who also insist doggedly on the capitalization and would be perturbed by its absence, which is maybe no one since they're all used to lack of caps in newspapers and other non-field-guides and non-ornithology-journals.
  • Your fourth point ("thirdly"): Yes, and we have 9 years of continuous dispute on this because the number of editors offended by what they see as abuse of capitalization is not going to decrease, only increase, barring a sudden reversal in a centuries-long trend in English away from capitalization of nouns and for emphasis. Meanwhile, only a handful of birders fail to understand that their ornithological peeve doesn't work too well in an general-audience encyclopedia. It's the same rare attitude as that which would lead someone to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about their "failure" to capitalize bird common names in a recent article about a city park.
  • I don't know what your bits about WASPs and such have to do with it.
  • I agree with your closing comment; this is basically a no-brainer. There is no reason that birds should be specially capitalized here. What next? Should we capitalize motorcycle parts just because they're motorcycle parts, and some motorcycle parts manufacturing association "officially" decides to capitalize them as a "standard"?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
  1. ^ Atkins, Anselm (October 1983). "The Capitalization of Birds' Names" (PDF). Auk. 100: 1003–1004. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
  2. ^ Cracraft, Joel (1989). "Species as Entities of Biological Theory". In Ruse, Michael (ed.). What the Philosophy of Biology Is. Nijhoff International Philosophy Series Volume 32. Springer. pp. 31–52.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_156&oldid=1255335497#Bird_common_name_decapitalisation"