Talk:Hammond's rice rat

Capitalization

I capitalized the common names because that is the way they appear in the source and changing it would misrepresent the sources. I also mentioned this point in the discussion at WT:RODENT on capitalization. Ucucha 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The rules on upper and lower case apply primarily to text. The examples you refer to were not within text, so in my view they are irrelevant. In this example, IUCN uses title case for "White-tailed Deer" as part of a non-text list, but then uses sentence case in the "Population" section. So, in my view, the use of title case in the text actually misrepresents at least one of the sources, and cannot be construed as misrepresenting the other source based on the example given. Regards WolfmanSF (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In this one, the IUCN uses both, so they are not even consistent there. Moreover, the only sources we have for the particular names listed here are in title case and have never appeared in sentence case in a reliable source; it is not up to us to decide that the authors intended sentence case to be used in prose.

I think in essence we disagree on whether capitalization here is a style or a spelling decision: if the former, Wikipedia can choose its own style, and if the latter, we have to respect what our sources decide. I favor the second option, mostly because the main reason the rodent project decided to go for sentence case in article titles was that that is what is used in reliable sources; in this case, the reliable sources use title case, so that is what we should use.

Also, I'm going to put this up for FAC fairly soon (this minor disagreement shouldn't have much of a bearing on that); if you have any comments or suggestions for improvement, that would be great. Ucucha 03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IUCN lion article was sloppily written, probably by multiple individuals, and used both styles. But not equally, or even close; here is my count for usage (in text only, and that of course does not include usage in titles like "African Lion Working Group"):

when used in general - 75 sentence case, 9 title case

when used for a specific type (African, etc.) - 20 sentence case, 3 title case

The trend is clear.

Now, regarding your contention that choice of capitalization is "a spelling decision"; please think about the implications of that for a minute. If that was correct, differences in capitalization alone could be used to refer to different species. Of course that isn't true.

Regarding your argument that "it is not up to us to decide that the authors intended sentence case to be used in prose", I actually agree. But the corollary argument, it is not up to us to decide that the authors intended title case to be used in prose, is equally valid. We have no clue regarding the authors' preferences for usage in prose, one way or the other.

However, if we have a policy on capitalization of our own that we think is correct, I would argue that the authors' preferences are irrelevant anyway. We ought to apply it consistently. If we feel constrained to follow the precedents set for each individual common name, we don't actually have a policy.

Sorry for my long-winded reply. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Of course that isn't true": Some people use a capitalization difference to distinguish between species and higher-level groups (for example, Thylacoleo carnifex = Marsupial Lion, Thylacoleonidae = marsupial lion). It's a rather confusing practice, in my view.

Across Wikipedia, we do not apply a consistent capitalization policy—birds are at uppercase, fish are at lowercase, for example. I think our policy is, and should be, to follow usage in reliable sources for the taxon we are discussing.

We have only one clue regarding the authors' preferences, which is that they capitalized the vernacular names in their lists. Sure, that is not the best indication for usage in prose, but it is the only one we have in this particular case.

Perhaps we should ask for some more opinions at WT:RODENT? Ucucha 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

A picture of a live rice rat would be a great addition, if it can be found under an acceptable license. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Rarity

The extreme sparsity of recorded sightings of this animal, as described in the "Distribution and ecology" section, and the fact that "the species was last recorded in 1980", deserve some kind of mention in the lead section, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:2805:293D:C6EB:7CFD (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)