Talk:Australian boobook

(Redirected from Talk:Southern boobook)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Ivanvector in topic Redundancy in intro
Featured articleAustralian boobook is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 21, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 28, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 31, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the southern boobook (pictured) is so named for its two-toned call?
Current status: Featured article


Redundancy in intro

edit

The intro currently says: The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has assessed the southern boobook as being of least concern. The important information here is that there is very little risk of extinction. Maybe it is reasonable to specify who it is that says this. But it is not reasonable to refer twice to this organization with different names, especially not in the intro, that is to be short. Neither is it reasonable tho hold that the abbreviation adds clarity to the fully spelled out name. And evene if it may do this for a small minority of the readers, it is more reasonable to let this minority click on the link to know more, than to present dual names to all readers. --Ettrig (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I said in the edit summary, the test is not whether it helps you. The IUCN acronym helps our worldwide readership. It provides useful context. In the spirit and interest of compromise, we can move it to later in the article if that will defuse this tempest in a teapot. Otherwise, I am more than willing to defer to consensu here. 7&6=thirteen () 14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Later is OK with me, although not good. Tempest, I do not understand in this context. The full name is explanatory. The abbreviation is very close to uninterpretable in itself. Therefore I find your argument that the acronym adds clarity completely void. --Ettrig (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
This is a small digression in Wikipedia land. Not to dismiss your viewpoint. But other than you and me, probably nobody else cares. Let's resolve it and build an encyclopaedia together. Happy New Year! 7&6=thirteen () 15:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Made change. Are we good to go? 7&6=thirteen () 15:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have reverted the change. As discussed elsewhere, the relevant style guide suggests that initialisms of this sort should be defined on their first usage in the article, in the form "name of organization (initialism)". There is no guidance to make lead sections "short". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

no guidance to make lead sections "short". This is a clear untruth. WP:LEDE says both concise and in a nutshell. It also says that the intro should contain only the most important information. IUCN is not even information about the bird. So it cannot be among the most important information. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ettrig: "concise" doesn't necessarily mean "short", and it definitely does not mean "break accessibility for the sake of brevity". Consensus is to define initialisms like this on their first use in the article, with some editors suggesting it should be defined a second time if used both within and outside the lead section. If you'd like to present a different viewpoint to that discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Define IUCN initialism in bird articles? Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
You are going far beyond reasonable here. One of the meanings given by Webster's ... Dictionary for concise is employing as few words as possible. But you are repeating your falsehood. Obviously it is not possible to discuss meaningfully with someone who acts in this way. --Ettrig (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
When in doubt go with the WP:MOS. It should be used as a parenthetical in its first usage in the article. The relevancy and concise argument is erroneous, IMO. 7&6=thirteen () 17:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) The personal attacks are really unnecessary. All I'm really trying to say to you here is why don't you participate in the central discussion if you have a differing opinion? Repeating this argument on every bird article's talk page is, well, not very concise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply