Black crowned crane – The result of the move request was: Moot. Deferred pending wider RfC on bird names. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(note this also includes Grey crowned crane and Red-crowned crane) Closing admin closed page as consensus to move despite 6 supports and 10 opposes. Cited Wikipedia:NCCAPS as consensus for lower case, however seemed to overlook fact that Birds are mentioned as an exception at Wikipedia:NCCAPS#Organisms i.e. the same page. I agree this has been in dispute for a number of years...which means there is no consensus (either on numerical or guideline grounds)...and the usual procedure for no consensus is that the move doesn't proceed. Hence request to overturn close - no consensus to move. Capitalisation now puts these 3 pages at odds with the other approx. 8997 bird species pages - proper venue is a holistic RfC not isolated pages. (Note that the consensus was different for the crowned crane page and that is not covered by this discussion) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse and kudos to BHG for cutting this Gordian knot. She has correctly determined that core guidelines like WP:NCCAPS override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (note especially there, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope"). Cas Liber appeals to the #Organisms section of NCCAPS, but that is quite correctly marked as disputed. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
errr, "disputed" means there's no consensus BDD...just sayin' Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, these three page moves are a case of the tail wagging the dog. Snowman (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Cas, I simply think no consensus for a nonstandard practice means we abandon that practice, not embrace it. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that greatly oversimplifies this situation. Both sides have guidelines to cite. Both sides can claim historical consensus (my own term) for their recommended practice. This RM was a legitimate attempt to establish a new consensus, in a few cases only, for exactly what you are suggesting. It failed to do that, but consensus was wrongly assessed as having been achieved, hence this move review. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides to not have guidelines to cite. MOS:LIFE is a guideline. WP:BIRDS#Naming is just some wikiproject page. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong and critically important, both to this MR and to the wider discussion. What you have said about WP:BIRDS is of course correct, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Common names is also a guideline. That's the whole point... (which is also made by a disputed tag on that guideline)... the guidelines are not consistent among themselves. And we need to fix this, rather than just ignoring the bits we don't like. The RM was a good idea, to test the waters and attempt to establish a new consensus, although it was a mistake IMO to make it a multi-move mixing the move of the DAB (which is possibly uncontroversial) with three content pages, and especially unfortunate to then have the discussion on the DAB's talk page. But it failed to establish this consensus anyway, which is interesting in itself. Unfortunately, it was then closed as consensus to move and the three content pages also moved as well as the DAB, which was in error, made things more complicated still, and is what we are discussing here. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critically important part is that WP:MOS supersedes its sub-guidelines. It says this very clearly. That's what's relevant in this discussion, since it affects the "was the close correct" analysis. The attempts, over the last several years, to keep massaging MOS:CAPS to seem more favorable to bird (and now even "two kinds of insects") capitalization is a waste of time. There's been absolutely no traction in favor of that idea at MOS proper, even with me, Noetica and several other MOS regulars being dead silent on the matter for about a year. We "usual suspects" had nothing to do with this RM, either. (So much for the frequent claim by WP:BIRDS regulars that no one disagrees with them except a handful of WP:MOS regulars; in point of fact, it's different random editors from all interests and walks of wikilife who keep disagreeing the them, year after year). The fact that "the guidelines are not consistent among themselves", and that anyone could WP:GAME the system by making changes to a subguideline no one pays attention to without getting consensus for conforming changes at the main guideline, then claim that there's somehow now a guideline conflict and thus no real rule, is precisely why MOS very explicitly trumps its subpages (and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy backs it up). I.e., you're taking evidence of failure of the pro-caps view to gain consensus at MOS, and that idea's relegation to pages hardly anyone watchlists, then trying to present that as evidence of lack of consensus at MOS, even consensus against MOS. If we were talking about articles instead of internal documents, WP:FRINGE is what would be applied here. You don't change consensus in the real world by putting out your own contrary theory in minor publications, ignoring the mainstream ones, and then claiming that you've somehow overturned the conventional views in your field. You'd be laughed at. This is no different. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 17:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC) PS: There is no "failure to establish consensus" here. MOS established consensus against capitalizing common names of species some 6 years ago. What has not happened is WP:BIRDS editors who care so much about capitalizing that they keep pushing the matter (a small but very outspoken minority of participants at that project) establishing that consensus has changed. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 06:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that WP:MOS supersedes its sub-guidelines, specifically it reads In case of discrepancy, this page has precedence over its subpages. But there is no discrepancy. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Riiight. I guess that's why there's a thread about resolving those discrepancies at WT:MOS. And you're blatantly contradicting yourself. You just posted "The guidelines are not at this stage consistent, on this and several more minor but related points." Remember? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 04:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I wish all my alleged blunders were so easily answered! The MOS refers to discrepancy between this page and its subpages, and that's the discrepancy (or lack of) to which I was referring. There is however a discrepancy between the MOS and (other) guidelines, and that's what I was referring to in the earlier post you quote, and which I hope the discussion at WT:MOS will address. If that were the most blatantly I ever contradicted myself (it's not) I would be very pleased indeed! Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move discussion was only for page associated with discussion - crowned crane- Majority was for lower case usage for the title of the dab page (and not dealing with specific species) and clearly there was no consensus for any of the species pages which would mean leaving status quo following existing standards (even if it remains disputed) for species pages. The move discussion at that talk page is inappropriate for application (and inappropriate as a venue for wider discussion) except for the associated article. Shyamal (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Shyamal, but this is demonstrably false. The move discussion covered four articles. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For which there were a number of opposes not to mention the fact that the talk page is the wrong venue for policy discussions. Shyamal (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's the wrong venue to reach any conclusion on policy, see Talk:Crowned crane#A second set of examples (this link for others, as Shyamal is already contributing there, thank you!), but the article talk pages are the obvious place for such discussions to start, and most do start there. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partially overturn - as Shyamal points out, the page under discussion was the crowned crane page, for which the lowercase can be reasonably argued to be appropriate. However retitling species pages with lowercase, vs. dab pages, flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to birds. Yes, that's different from all other types of plants and animals, but that's the way it is and Wikipedia needs to reflect that instead of imposing its own standard that differs from real-world common useage. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are have a fundamental disagreement with the closing consensus and moving the three species to the lower case. It is confusing having the "crowed crane" a dab mixed in with the three species. I would not worry about the crowed crane article too much as that is not controversial and should not have been listed as a controversial move. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This raises an important point that many below on both sides have ignored... the move was a multi-move for three content pages and one DAB, which was unfortunate in itself, but more unfortunate still it was raised on the talk page of the DAB. This MR is specifically about those three content pages. I think that it makes far more sense to back out the whole multi move and have a fresh RM for the DAB alone (which I think would succeed but it would be good to test this, and this is not the place for that), but I also think that moving the DAB was quite harmless and possibly even uncontroversial. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close ( was Endorse, but given the RfC this should be procedurally closed ) per reasons given by BDD. PaleAqua (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the comments are straying from a move review into a rehash or attempt to charge or clearly the larger picture. That is slightly off-topic for this forum.If a RFC on the policy, guidelines and projects involved is needed, it should probably been handled on those pages or an RfC subpage. I do feel that is was disingenuous for some of the guidelines referenced in this discussion to be changed without discussion and no dot feel like that gaming WP like that need to be rewarded. Note that many of the !votes below did not realize the policies and guidelines were thusly altered and should be considered in that light. I would also light to remind participants that parties and thus involved in the move request are expected to self-identify. I am now learning towards Speedy Close ( Wrong Venue ) to allow a larger scope RfC and hold off doing anything further with the move until that is settled. PaleAqua (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In particular note the following from the Move Review process: Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.. PaleAqua (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment move review is about the procedure followed and not about the specific reasoning. The closing user/admin commented - "per WP:RM discussion at Talk:Crowned crane#Requested_move" - this was certainly not what the discussions resulted in. For a continued debate, the option would be to relist. Shyamal (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn' 10/6 is not a clear consensus to move (note:"consensus" does not mean "majority"), usual practice in absence of a consensus is the status quo. We now have a couple of crane pages at lower case, and 10,000 bird pages capitalised. Despite the attempts to muddy the waters, this was not a request to move all the bird species pages. The entirely negative move request was by people who have no interest in doing anything constructive on bird pages. (I don't know why this has come out all caps)Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as interim solution. The way forward is an RfC on the guideline covering the naming of birds. It is unfortunate that a WikiProject develops conventions disconnected to Projectspace guideline pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as properly closed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closer. In addition to a long closing statement, I have responded on my talk page to queries from interested editors: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Quoting_of_a_guideline (permalink). That discussion was initiated by Cas Liber who initiated this review, it is very poor practice not to link to those discussions when making a request for review.
I have set out my reasons at length, and don't think there is anything I can usefully add here other than to stress that WP:NOTAVOTE. Per WP:RMCI, I weighed the arguments against existing policies and guidelines and found that those supporting the move had arguments well-founded in current policy and guidelines, while the opposers didn't. In evaluating this move review, I hope editors will try to uphold the long-established policy that closers should weigh arguments against policy rather than simply count heads.
I have no dog in this race. WP:BIRDS makes a good prima facie case for following IOC conventions, but as a closer I have to work with the fact that this approach conflicts with established policies and guidelines, and has not been accepted by wide consensus as an exception. I strongly urge all editors to have an RFC on the principle of the WP:BIRDS#Naming guidelines, and settle the underlying question. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIRDS#Naming is not a guideline, it's a section at a wikiproject page that's in direct conflict with a real, site-wide guideline, and being maintained as a basis from which to force article titles and prose to be the way a few editors at one project want them to be, in contravention of policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation has been happily accepted by everyone that actually edits bird articles....or does that count for nothing? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that capitalisation has been forced upon everyone who actually edits bird articles, and those who are unhappy with it have been largely shouted down.... -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, as I noted in my closing statement: "WikiProjects have an important role as custodians of topics within the scope, but they are not walled gardens with a licence to ignore a wider community consensus. Their own internal guidelines do not override community-wide policies and guidelines" --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you've said. And I have pointed out that there has not been a consensus on this point, and that each time the topic has come up it has been debated openly - hardly a "walled garden" - the points for capitalisation are based on what it observed elsewhere and primarily we reflect how words/titles etc. are used, not make up our own rules. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, my [citation needed] quip above was at the previous comment and relates to any perception of bullying, rather than giving you licence to reiterate your perception as fact. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, I was not commenting on JHunterJ's remarks; I was replying to your comment that "capitalisation has been happily accepted by everyone that actually edits bird articles". The editors working on any given do not get a veto on the community's style guides. Their knowledge and expertise may persuade the community to make exceptions, but to happen they need to win the argument rather than assume that their view must prevail.
As I have repeatedly noted, I agree that "there has not been a consensus on this point". It is central to why I closed the discussion as I did: that in the absence of a consensus to make an exception to the community-wide guidelines, the guidelines stand. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: - okay then, see here which is where the MOS changed to unequivocal lower case and please count up for me how many editors took part in the discussion that led to it - and tell me that's the "voice of the community". Please. You assumed "consensus" by "the community" where neither really holds true. Even then, the guidelines themselves speak of exceptions, which made a unilateral move against numbers problematic. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an excellent example of the danger of assuming that community consensus automatically overrides local consensus. There's no shame in falling into that trap, and many have. We should IMO avoid those terms, as they almost always lead to trouble. Consensus is consensus.
And we should all bear in mind that this review is not about BHG's behaviour. Nobody is alleging misconduct, and this would not be the place for it anyway. This is a request to review a particular decision, no more.
If there is anything broader to be learned from this review, it's that the guidelines on assessing consensus need some tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 8#Other questions (even bird editors have questioned whether there really is a standard; "[there] is an increasingly common convention to do so [capitalize] outside WP (but by no means universal)"; bird editor amazingly says "we don't want non-standard typography to distract people from the content" in support of capitalization, despite this being one of the most frequent arguments against it, albeit admits "though the other position could be defended"; )
And of course, I edit bird articles and object to the capitalization as does everyone else who's edited a bird article and objected to the caps, which is a lot of editors over a long time. Cas Liber's claim of consensus is patently false. The truth here is that some vocal minority of participants at a wikiproject, which is just a page at which individual editors agree to collaborate on a topic, not an autonomous entity of any kind, refuse to acknowledge that WP-wide consensus on style is against them. You don't get counted by them as an editor of bird articles unless you're one of their inner circle. I'm even a member of WP:BIRDS, and have been for years, but get counted as an "enemy" of the project because I disagree with a few of its more tendentious other participants who keep trying to speak for all 100+ members of the project when really they don't represent anyone but themselves, about a dozen of them or probably even fewer by this point. Refusing to stop beating the dead horse doesn't mean you're winning. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting perspective as part of the wider discussion, although again not directly relevant to this MR. Can you give me some diffs or other links to some of these unsatisfactory discussions? Either here or (better) some more relevant place with a heads-up either here or on my talk page? (And please, far better a few well chosen and relevant links than a long list that includes duds, and please don't take offence that I say that, I should say emphatically that I have absolutely no reason to fear that you would do that other than the example above set by another editor making a similar point and unfortunately quoting you.) Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for it. No one is quoting me; they're pointing to a list at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names that I put together to track the debate and behaviors associated with it, because I've long expected the matter to end up at WP:RFARB; it's not a "dirt list", and so naturally not everything on it is evidentiary of baaadness by a certain project. It's an attempt to capture the entire scope of the debate (it also has my own notes from my side of that debate, and they're representative of that side, not neutral – it's in my userspace for a reason). It is evidenciary that some members of one project are adamantly in favor of capitalization where others are not, even in the same project, that opposition to this style is general not coming from any particular direction (e.g. me or some other MOS regular) and that the issue is not going away. It's precisely as much of an issue now as it was 8 years ago. If you just want to see "unsatisfactory discussions", see the very long one at WT:MOS in early 2012, I think, with its canvassing and poll disruption and so on. I don't think that stuff's really relevant here, though. We have a clear guideline, and it trumps lesser guidelines (quite explicitly). It's being ignored, for reasons that people generally do not agree with the vocal members of WP:BIRDS are valid ones. This RM demonstrated clearly that there isn't actually a consensus in favor of this capitalization; it is perpetually objected to, on the same bases, by completely different people. There is no conspiracy against WP:BIRDS. The RM was closed properly. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 17:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledge that you dispute my saying quoting when all they did was copy a list of links from one of your user pages and link to it with the phrase taken from.... I don't see the distinction, but I'm happy to withdraw the word quoting. The rest of this seems to be pointless repetition of what you have said elsewhere, and which has been answered elsewhere. [citation needed]Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paste a link to a diff of my [or rather any pro-lower-case] arguments on this being answered (i.e. refuted convincingly). Ever. In point of fact, the pro-caps crowd raise their view, get it dismantled down by everyone else on the system who ever comments on the matter, then they just re-raise the same argument somewhere else in hopes that no one will notice they've already lost the debate. It's called WP:asking the other parent and WP:forum shopping and refusal to listen. It's being going on consistently for nine years straight. Enough is enough. The pro-lower-case argument is based in policy, the pro-caps one is WP:ILIKEIT and a bad, bad misconstrual of WP:RS to mean that only the sources they like are reliable. It's time to put this nonsense to bed. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an impressive looking list in quantity, but perhaps only in that, and perhaps not even in that.
A quick look just at the first link you gave shows no support at all for the claim that dissent has been shouted down, just the opposite. The diff quoted [1] is respectful and constructive, if anything it is the editor removing the capitals who is doing the shouting, but even that is a stretch. The conversation as you note continues on the user's talk page... you do not link to the relevant archive but it's User talk:Bidgee/Archive 23#IOC Bird names, is it not? There's no shouting, just respectful disagreement.
And as the links you quote cover a period of some years, the quantity is not surprising either. Consensus does not mean total and unanimous agreement. The quantity at most suggests that there has been some vigorous debate, but I think we already knew that and all accept it. That's a very different proposition to the claim that those who are unhappy with it have been largely shouted down.
So if that's the best you can do for evidence, I think you should withdraw that claim. Alternatively, whittle that long list down to those that actually support the claim, so that it's reasonable to check them. But of course that will make the quantity even less impressive. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a reply, we have two choices. Either we can do JHunterJ's homework for them and check further down the list, or we can simply regard the whole list as highly suspicious, and disregard it all. The latter seems logical to me, but I must admit to some bias here! Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. The third choice: regard the list. And those choices only follow if you move the goalposts from my claim, as you did with aspersions on the length of time covered or notes about consensus and unanimity (irrelevant to the claim), so I saw no need to reply. Logically. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you think I have moved the goalposts. I did not intend to, and I don't think I did, and I don't see why I would have as it doesn't seem to be necessary. But it's a rather vague claim, so I can't say a lot more than that. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Triple-plus-relevant to the wider discussion of which this MR is part. That's a second example of article titles that are not proper names in the strictest sense, but are regularly capitalised in English to distinguish from the common usage (common in the technical sense as in common noun). I wonder what others there are? Andrewa (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/:Archive_13#capitalization_of_word_following_hyphen_in_bird_names a WO:BIRDS member says there is nothing to discuss... because it's already being discussed elsewhere. So, the list has yet another item that is irrelevant to this RM. JHunter has not updated the list to remove the irrelevant discussions. So, the list is highly suspicious and outdated. I imagine that we could make a similar list with MOS regulars being derisive towards WP:BIRDS members.
As far as I know, the situation is this: the MOS regulars try to standardize every single field to their standards, while WP:BIRDS members want to follow the IOC rules. They are clashing because some of their naming rules are incompatible. And some MOS regulars refuse to make add exceptions for specific fields (maybe they think the MOS is cleaner without exceptions?). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's also an undercurrent of feeling that any use of capitalisation beyond a strict (perhaps one could even say legalistic) understanding of proper names is in some way incorrect. And in the 19th century, this might have been accepted as a good argument. But it is quite out of step with current linguistics. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely an overcurrent of feeling that any use of capitalization other than a strict, even legalistic, application of the IOC guidelines is in some way incorrect. And for ornithological encyclopedias, this might be accepted as a good argument. But it is quite out of step with current general usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
quite out of step with current general usage... Interesting and relevant claim... evidence? The evidence against it is the prevailing standards for bird species and dog breeds, of course. And please, if you post another long list, can I suggest that this time they should be accurate and relevant? Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the same evidence used in the RM discussion.[3] And please, can I suggest that you stop pretending that yours is the only possible well-considered opinion? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretending nothing, and certainly not that. A cheap shot that does not help the discussion.
You, on the other hand, seem to have pretended to have evidence when you posted a long list of links some at least of which are patently irrelevant. That was the substance of my jibe. Please take it aboard, and do not waste our time like that again.
It is ironical that these links were supposedly in support of your claim that dissent has been shouted down... which I take to mean, suppressed by vigorous and persistent but unsound argument. Isn't that exactly what you were doing in posting these links?
The link you have now provided to your earlier post at Talk:Crowned crane is helpful, however. So by current general usage, you mean popular publications such as National Geographic and Chicago Tribune. But are there other popular publications that capitalise? And do scholarly sources use capitalisation? General usage seems an overstatement on the evidence so far. But agree that this is relevant evidence. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is ironical: calling those who disagree with the legalistic application of IOC guidelines "legalistic", or ignoring your own cheap shots when finding others. By current general usage, I mean current usage generally, that is, not in ornithological journals and birder sources. Are there other popular publications that capitalize? Am I to do your research too now? We can discuss rates if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you think I have also indulged in cheap shots. I try not to! So, you think we should ignore the usage ornithological journals and birder sources? Surely these are reliable sources, and part (not all) of general usage?
Before commissioning you to do research I would need to be shown that you can perform it to a reasonable standard. For example, when posting a list of links, it's in my view essential to use Show preview and follow each to check that each of them leads somewhere sensible. Note also that there are some recent discussions on the Meta about paid editing. (;->
Disagree that there's anything legalistic about wishing to follow the IOC guidelines. The point is not just that these guidelines exist, but rather that they are widely followed in reliable sources. But you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by ironical, anyway. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. You seem to have a problem stating things for clear communication with those who don't already agree with you. I'm sorry you think I have posted lists that aren't accurate or relevant, and that you think using consistent guidelines you disagree with is legalism, and that you think I have pretended to have evidence, and that you think I have wasted our time, but mostly that you think that "I'm sorry that you think" statements do more than waste our time like that again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Very thoughtful closure and the only one possible in my eyes given current guidelines. The way forward is clear, too, I guess: as suggested by BHG in her closure, an RFC should be opened at WP:BIRDS#Naming to see whether the community wants to give its support to having names for birds being an exception to WP:FAUNA#Capitalisation_and_italicisation. Until such consensus exists, I think that articles for birds should follow the same rules as articles about mice or the manifold other species having common names. --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at that page. The discussion belong at and seems to be ongoing at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed "way forward" has been tried before. There have been many discussions of this issue, at WP:BIRDS, at WP:AT, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), and elsewhere. Just search the archives for these pages for "bird naming" or similar. Every such discussion has ended in the consensus not to change the existing practice. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please post a link to the RFC on this issue ... if there has been one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, there has never, ever been a "consensus not to change the existing practice". MOS arrived at a consensus to do precisely that, across all organism articles, in 2008 2012 (mostly, earlier in 2008). Some members of WP:BIRDS have ignored it, and various attempts have been made to promote "birdcaps" in a few other places, like MOS:CAPS. Whenever the issue comes up for resolution, the same dozen or so pro-caps people hold out, recycling the same already-dispelled arguments again and again, and third-party observers tend to come to the incorrect conclusion that there's no consensus. But there's been one for 6 years now, and it's certainly not in favor of what you call the "existing practice"; to everyone but bird capitalization proponents, the existing practice, across almost all biological articles, is no caps. Tendentious resistance doesn't force consensus to change. I don't know why the pro-caps camp can't seem to understand that everyone but them objects. Not just the active anti-caps people like me. The vast majority of objections from day one to this very RM have been raised by people with no history in this issue at all. It looks illiterate and ridiculous to everyone but the handful of people who demand it as some kind of "standard" which it isn't (it's one academic organization's preferences for academic publications). Yes, we all know that it's based on what the IOC says. That doesn't make it right for a general purpose encyclopedia. I prefer to quote a different but similar and much broader organization: "[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). This is stunningly obvious to everyone else. This conflict is never going to stop arising as long as you keep capitalizing birds and a few insects, because it's ungrammatical to 99.99$ of readers and editors, inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia to 100% of us, meanwhile nearly 0% of us fail to actually understand that in-house typographical conventions from one academic white tower don't apply outside that circle. Even real ornithologists regularly write dry academic ornithology papers without the capitalization, because most journals won't allow it. Every single anti-caps editor here could drop dead, and a week or a month later, the same "WTF is this ungrammatical crap?" reaction by everyone but you is going to re-re-re-re-re-re-raise this dispute. When everyone and their dog on WP keep disputing the same insular practice by one project, year after year, this is an undeniable sign that it is long past time to just concede the matter. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear as to how formal in terms of an RfC some of the discussions have been – my impression is that opponents of the present consensus kept testing the waters to see if they had enough support and then backed off a formal RfC. However, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)/Archive_3; this seems to have arisen from the much, much longer discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)/Archive_2#Proposal:_bird_names. I can only repeat that if you search the archives, you'll see that this subject has been discussed over and over and over again, always with the same outcome: leave the status quo intact. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there has never been a consensus on the Wiki to change the ubiquitous use of capitalized bird names to lower case. I think that this should have been mirrored in the closing consensus leading to the outcome that capitalized species names for cranes is kept. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except there has. MOS:LIFE came to this conclusion in 2008, reaffirmed and made clearer in 2012, with regard to all organisms, and hasn't changed other than to continue to note that there's an ongoing controversy with regard to birds. That controversy exists because of tendentiousness, pure and simple, since no underlying facts of any kind of have changed. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't closed independently, and was your interpretation of events including conjuring up a schism among bird editors WRT capitalisation (i.e. there was difference of opinion, but it wasn't over capitalisation, and at least one other were unhappy about the lower case use of other organisms.) It was a huge wall of text without structure that was framed poorly and and folks backtracking and reinterpreting and arguing. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn This action should not have been taken unless as the result of a consensus to change the current guidelines on the titles of bird articles. Changing a few articles so they are inconsistent with the great majority of bird articles is just wrong. As it happens the general issue has been discussed repeatedly in different places, discussions which have always resulted in the status quo being upheld. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Two reasons: first, all participants in the discussion as well as the closing admin knew that this was not an isolated case but an example of a much wider issue affecting thousands of bird articles and an entrenched conflict between two equally determined camps of editors, with the status quo across this large field of articles currently having the uppercase version. Under these circumstances, cutting out only these few articles through an isolated move request is not a legitimate strategy and ought to have been discouraged, both in the interest of consistency across articles and in the interest of rational process. The closer said that those in favour of the uppercase titles ought to seek consensus through a wider RfC first – but just the reverse is at least equally true. Only a project-wide RfC, not a local move debate attended by a dozen people, could legitimately overturn the status quo here. Second, the closer recognized that there was no consensus by strength of numbers, but based her decision entirely on the assumption that the lowercase version represents a wider, project-wide consensus that must override "local" consensus. While that would be a valid argument in principle, I have doubts that its premise is factually true. In my experience, writing and maintaining the MOS is an activity that has been largely in the hands of small, encapsulated groups of people and very much remote from the concerns of the huge majority of editors. Just because a rule got enshrined in a page that has a "MOS" title and carries a "guideline" tag at its top is not, therefore, evidence that the rule is endorsed (or even known) by a true majority project-wide. Most people simply don't care about the MOS. I find no evidence that the number of people who actually care about this particular set of application of the MOS and actively wish to have it upheld is in any way larger or more representative of the totality of our contributors than those who favour the opposite. The very history of this issue rather casts doubt on it too: if the local preference of the bird folks has been able to hold out against the vociferous voices of the animals folk and MOS folk for so many years, the "project-wide consensus" for the MOS can't really have been that strong in the first place. I therefore see no reason to overturn the outcome of local consensus in the name of an alleged project-wide consensus whose existence is assumed only insofar as "the MOS says so". Fut.Perf.☼ 14:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree. And this is just another example of the use of the phrases local consesnsus and community consensus getting us into trouble and leading to dead-end discussions. See user:andrewa/consensus is consensus for some thought on this. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I am sure that the person who closed the move discussion did so in good faith, but I think that she applied a bias towards guidelines she thought were overriding and so I think that her conclusion is individualistic and subjective. I think that the popular vote has the most wisdom and I would put the result as no consensus and not moved the three species pages. Another reason why I think the conclusion should be overturned is that the move of the dab is different to moving the three species pages and putting the four pages together is confusing and probably not in line with the guidelines about grouping move requests. Snowman (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closing admin mistated or misrepresented WP:FAUNA#Capitalisation_and_italicisation, and WP:NCCAPS#organisms, which say that birds are treated contrary to the close. Thus, the close appears to be a supervote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC) insertion made Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Adding to my overturn rationale, in response to some below, the closing admin also erred in not following WP:Consensus when they disregarded the fact that according to that policy, the many bird articles conforming to the capitalization convention evidence a general editing consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Disclosure: I am convinced that we currently make too little use of capitals generally in article names, and have suggested elsewhere that if greater consistency is desired (and that desire does seem to be strong in some quarters), the better way is that the approach of WP:BIRDS#Bird names and article titles should be more widely applied, see Talk:Crowned crane#Another way forward. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale (which I should have included in the first place): The closer was in error in assessing that policy and/or guidelines strongly favoured one side. The guidelines are not consistent, and so different guidelines could be and were correctly cited by both sides. See my most recent comment below for an elaboration of this. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal to change the naming system that broadly belongs at WT:AT, and has nothing to do with whether a routine rename under currently extant policies and guidelines, not your imagined new way, should be overturned. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally. Thank you for clarifying that, I thought my view on that was clear but evidently not. Clear now? Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Why do we bother discussing these topics in forums if the closing admin can just cite whatever page they feel agrees with their POV and close the discussion. The vote was clearly in favor of CAPS, the arguments were well-founded and also properly elucidated. Should the closing Admin not take this vote/discussion as an agreement to change all of the bird pages to lower case? I better not joke, it might happen. speednat (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is not a joke, rather it is exactly the intended consequence of this particular RM, see [4]There is no reason not to enforce the guidelines of Wikipedia regarding animal species name and capitalisation (bolded in the original, my italics), which seems to be by the requestor although it wasn't originally in the rationale, [5], but seems to have been added sometime after a comment regarding the local convention at WP:BIRDS was first noted in this RM. [6] It's a bit tangled. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily overturn. There was a distinction made in the discussion itself between the names of particular species, and the generic term, Crowned crane. However, it seems to me that there is consistency in practice for bird names, and a large number of these have been capitalized for a long time without complaint. I would apply the no consensus determination as maintaining the previous status quo pending a broader discussion of the topic. Absent such a discussion yielding a broad-based community support for the proposed capitalization scheme, revert to the standard lowercase naming. bd2412T 18:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn What part of "debated for years" and "10,000 articles" do people not understand? Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one's debating that this issue affects many articles or has been debated for years. But why should we default in such a situation to non-standard practices rather than established guidelines? --BDD (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point to a time when the 9000 bird articles were uncapped then. Ever. It is only claimed to be a nonstandard practice by a bunch of people who are misrepresented as "the community" who don't even edit the articles.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closure was premature and based on misunderstanding of a confused and mistakenly conflated discussion. Maias (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The dab page should be at [[crowned crane], but that perhaps gave distorted perception. It seems a stretch to see that there was any consensus regarding the non-dab pages. If a wider discussion shows consensus for lower-casing bird names, it should be done uniformly, not piecemeal. older ≠ wiser 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. per Bkonrad's (older ≠ wiser) comment above mine. Plantdrew (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per SmokeyJoe. The broader issues here require a broader discussion than any single RM, and merit a topic-level RfC concerning birds. In this particular case, the closer weighed arguments according to a reasonable reading of policy. It may be that the ultimate outcome of the RfC will resolve the question according to a different, reasonable reading of policy. However, the closer cannot be said to have erred or abused discretion, and reopening the discussion concerning these four articles alone serves no useful purpose. Xoloz (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Completely concur with that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope and believe that nobody is suggesting that BHG abused discretion, that's a behavioural issue and here is not the place to even raise it. But there seems to me to be a rough consensus above that an error was made, and even if not there's enough dissent from the decision to warrant a move review. Strongly agree that a topic-level RfC concerning birds is warranted. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with that. However, I think that the titles at issue should be returned to their longstanding state pending such an RFC. bd2412T 20:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that titles should be returned to their longstanding state pending a building of consensus out of contention, in favour of the first non-stub version. "Longstanding stable" is a surprisingly difficult measure to agree to. Does it mean "there has been no move-warring" for six months"? Or no RMs. Or no complaints. Or the opponents formally acquiesced? Using "Longstanding stable" as a measure encourages games directed at impacting, it encourages move-warring and shows of agitation. Better to use measures that reward article writers over non-writer agitators, as per WP:RETAIN. In this case, where the exact first version is not one of the two choices, the opinion of Jimfbleak (talk·contribs) should be sought and respected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and User:Jimfbleak has commented above and the I am sure he will point out that editors have in the past worked without guidelines (and independently without a WikiProject for a long time) and that consensus evolved (which can change) and de facto standards did emerge ever since the article was created in 2003. And that is the story not just on Wikipedia but elsewhere as well. This is precisely why the capitalized form has been stable for a while. Capitals are not the only cause of instability, we have species boundaries, genus placements, hyphenation apart from regional name variants. It is not for nothing that standards exist in so many fields and these have to be generated by people with subject knowledge and the whole range of rules cannot be derived by original research on Wikipedia. Shyamal (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree of course that the moves should be reverted, that's what our overturn votes mean, isn't it? The assessment of consensus to move was in error. That's the topic of this discussion. The closer said since those supporting the change are supported by Wikipedia guidelines, while those opposing it are not, I give significantly more weight to those whose arguments are upheld by policy... so I weigh this discussion as a consensus to move (my emphasis). This is incorrect. The correct assessment was no consensus. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There is a consensus (not unanimity) at the WP:BIRDS project to use IOC names including capitals. There is probably a consensus (not unanimity) among the regular contributors to MOS discussions that capitals should not be used. The community as a whole doesn't care or contribute to these discussions. Overall there is no consensus, so the status quo should be left in place. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes... but more important, there were guidelines (the MOS has the status of a guideline) correctly cited by both sides. The guidelines are not at this stage consistent, on this and several more minor but related points. At the very least some tidying up is needed, and it should be noted that the relevant guidelines have had recent edit activity. It seems to be assumed by the closer and most if not all Endorse votes above that the only discrepancy is between the guidelines on one side and the WikiProject on the other, but that's not the case; There are also guidelines that support the WikiProject, and which were quite correctly cited by those who opposed the move. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse strongly. As explained in the initial discussion and as detailed above, there is no consensus (and almost no reason) not to respect the general conventions (WP:TITLE, WP:FAUNA, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NCCAPS). Mama meta modal (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
As with most but not quite all of the Endorse votes, this seems to misunderstand the purpose of Move Review. The question to be answered here is simply Was the close correct?; If there was no consensus to move, then the moves should not have taken place, as the close (which stated that such a consensus did exist) was in error, and should be overturned, and the three articles under discussion here (at least) moved back. If the closure is overturned but there's further evidence that should be considered, then the question Should the articles be moved? remains open, but it's for another place or time (which it seems will not be long in coming, in particular if the DAB is moved back too it should be nominated for a separate move as the issues are significantly different, and there have been several suggestions for RfCs etc). Andrewa (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the purpose of this page. The aim of my message was to say that the closure was correct. There is no consensus not to respect the general rules so they should be enforced. The administrator saw this and said this clearly. The closure was correct. Mama meta modal (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, the closing individual's opinion was contrary to the the wisdom of the majority. Many of the people who expressed an opinion in the move request would have been aware of previous discussions on this topic and out of 16 voters 10 wanted to keep capitalized of the three crane species names. The closing individual has effectively said that these 10 voters were not thinking correctly, so I think that the closing conclusion is bizarre. Snowman (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closures are perfectly with the rights to consider wider consensus and guidelines. Also remember !voting is not voting, and it is the strength of the arguments that matter. The existence of guidelines and policies on the capitalization of names is a very strong argument. PaleAqua (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of that. Guidelines were correctly quoted in support of the moves. The problem is, there were also other guidelines correctly quoted by those of us who opposed the moves, and these seem to have been overlooked by the closer. That seems to have been the cause of the (claimed) error. Andrewa (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the bird project guidance like capitals, but the administrator correctly saw that there is actually no consensus not to respect the general guidelines of the community, as explained above. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The same individual who closed this move discussion also closed the move discussion for the Common Gull on 21 February 2014 and persevered capitalization there without making any comments about using lower case or upper case (see Talk:Common_Gull). The individual has accepted that upper case is the standard on the Wiki on 21 March 2014 in one move review, but changed three crane species to lower case on the 24 March 2014. Does this sound like consistency or inconsistency? Snowman (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but no need to go there. The question here is just, was their assessment of consensus correct? Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we also know that some editors don't like capitals, and that this dislike seems to be based on 19th century concepts of prescriptive grammar that Wikipedia has generally abandoned in favour of the descriptive approach that was adopted in the 20th century and is current in linguistics. But again, that doesn't affect the question this MR seeks to answer. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, whether there is consensus not to respect the general guidelines of the community is not the issue here. The question is, was there a valid consensus to move the articles? (We could argue that the phrasing is weasly too, but there's no need. It fails to address the issue, just as your unwanted restringing may make it difficult to follow the overturn arguments, see Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2014 March#Restringing, but it doesn't affect their validity as originally posted). Andrewa (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that weight of the concept to preserve long-standing page titles (see WP:Preserve) is significant, but it was not mentioned in the closing remarks which is one factor that makes the conclusion of the move discussion unsatisfactory. There are about 10,000 bird species articles all with capitalized common bird names as article titles, so surely this strongly implies a broad consensus for capitalization of bird names. There are also over 2000 genus pages and over 500 bird list pages that are set up with capitalized bird names in the text of the articles. In addition there are probably about 4,000 to 5,000 related bird articles that contain capitalized bird names and probably many thousands of redirects set up in favour of capitalized bird names. As far as I am aware, capitalization of bird names is widely accepted all over the world and has been the standard on the Wiki for at least the last 10 years. Snowman (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with dog breeds, and this raises the broader questions of what other examples we have and what this tells us about English grammar. That's all relevant but I don't think we need to go there. There was no consensus to move the three articles that are the subject of this MR, and that's all we need to establish here. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that the closing individual's conclusion can be doubted based on the lack of a consensus in the move discussion alone. I am going beyond that and doubting the reasoning outlined in the closing individual's closing statement, which can be questioned on a number of its facets. Snowman (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on of the arguments put forward for this RM was the wording of the naming convention WP:FAUNA. In the section Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Bird species name, I have raised the issue that a relevant paragraph in WP:FAUNA was reworded by an editor less than ah hour after that editor had expressed an opinion on whether this move ought to have been made. The issues are whether the change of wording was substantial and if it was (1) is it ethical to make such a change to a naming convention in the middle of a RM and (2) ought the change be allowed to stand until such time as consensus is show to exist for the change? If this is of interest to other editors then please comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Bird species name rather than here so that the conversation is not duplicated. -- PBS (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The move discussion was closed correctly, which is the only issue before us here. The desire to overturn is based on extraneous squabbles between one wikiproject and the rest of The Project at MOS. Let's cover that briefly: WP:NOT an ornithology database. A capitalization "convention" that not even all bird-related organizations and journals insist on or do consistently, and which virtually all other scientific journals do not permit even when publishing ornithology articles, makes no sense on Wikipedia. This WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense has gone on long enough. There is no consensus on Wikipedia to capitalize bird names. There is a very long-standing consensus at MOS:LIFE (since at least 2008, clarified in 2012) to not capitalize common names of organisms (hint: birds are organisms). The preference of some vociferous members of one wikiproject doesn't trump site-wide consensus on this. The fact that people (different people) are always, always trying to move bird articles to normal article names and clean up the style in them, while small and static handful of topical editors from that project fight them all off, year after year, is proof that this is never, ever going to stop unless the bird articles are brought into consistency with the rest of the biological articles (actually, there are a few flying insect holdouts, too). If it's not resolve here, it needs to go to RFARB, which I'm pretty sure will conclude that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't magically "unapply" to bird articles. Meanwhile, there are precisely zero bird specialists, professional or avocational, who cannot understand bird names without the capitalization; in point of fact, almost every single ornithologist professionally writes mostly without this capitalization, because the bulk of journals that might publish their work will not permit it. Birders (birdwatchers, bird keepers, etc., as opposed to academic ornithologists) don't even prefer the capitalization for the same reason some-but-not-all of the academics do; they're trying to use the capitalization behavior of field guides as a "reliable source" that the capitalization is somehow "required". This is nonsense; all field guides on everything from climbing routes to rocks and minerals, use one or more forms of such emphasis (capitalization, boldfacing, italics, etc.) on entries to make them stand out for easier scanning in the field. All of this emphasis for its own sake has been strongly deprecated by MOS for over a decade. This move should be endorsed or it's going to send a signal that every single similar move discussion, when it naturally follows MOS and other site-wide guidelines and policies, should be dragged here to be disputed on some "our wikiproject has its own rules" basis. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 23:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very long-standing consensus at MOS:LIFE (since at least 2008) that bird organisms are an exception to the general rule. You have tried to weaken that consensus before[7], remember? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're linking to a long-rejected version of MOS that was actually citing a wikiproject page as if it were a policy. That version was scrapped in 2012, after a very long discussion, not affirmed! Are you paying any attention at all? The present MOS ( in wording that's been stable since since then) indicates only that there's a disputatious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue with birds that has been generated by some editors. MOS expressly does not endorse that as any kind of "birds exception"; it's a warning that "here be editwarring", nothing more. Sorry, but you're badly, badly misunderstanding both the history of the debate and MOS's own present wording. PS: Of course I remember my own edits; what's you're point, other than to mischaracterize them? I didn't "try to weaken that consensus"; that's a nonsensical phrase – I don't have magical powers to make consensus evaporate where it's found or spring into being where it was not. I made a bold first try at] changing this nonsense version of MOS you linked to, to better reflect the then-present state of affairs (and with an eye to being fair to WP:BIRDS, going out of my way to name the project explicitly). After a month of debate, including a poll disrupted by blatant canvassing by a WP:BIRDS member[8], what we ended up with, despite strenuous, non-stop campaigning by some pro-capitalization people, is the present language (on 15 April 2012[9]) which is even less favorable to WP:BIRDS! SO, eh, please re-read and think again. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you tried to remove the exception again, and you were reverted because you didn't discuss it first[10]. Then you attempted to introduce a guideline that would potentially allow you to steamroll the objections of other editors[11]. After being reverted[12] you edit-warred with 3 other editors to keep it[13][14][15] In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) I went back to the wording used before your changes and Shyamal's changes. Personally, you seem to be crying "I have consensus!" and edit-warring your preferred version of guidelines.
First you made a radical edit, and then you opened a discussion about making it. I understand you might be pissed off by Shyamal's changes (which were also undiscussed), but this is getting a bit annoying. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well put & thoughtful summary. (I didn't realize we were supposed to clap when someone else agreed with us, or I would have replied sooner and more often.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and apply across all bird articles as per basically all of our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (well, concise and precise are a draw). Red Slash 05:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apply across all bird articles (and some others too) will in my view be the result if the result of this MR is to endorse the closure, and may be the eventual result in any case. But I don't think this is the correct process to achieve such a result. Do you really think there was consensus to move those three articles? That is the question here. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Red Slash. Wikipedia is not an ornithological database. There is no consensus not to respect the general conventions, so they should be enforced. It make everything clear and consistent for all animal species, which is good. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Agree that consistency is good. That is not the issue here. Note the double negative in no consensus not to respect the general conventions. If that is accepted as a valid argument, it's a dangerous precedent indeed. We work by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually seems more like the reverse is dangerous to me. If something is truly established by consensus, it should require a new consensus to revoke or change it. See again LOCALCONSENSUS. PaleAqua (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. Both are dangerous. But the situation coming into this RM was that the guidelines were inconsistent. That represents historical consensus both ways. Which do we ignore? Isn't the answer... neither? Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think this is the correct process to achieve such a result." The result was already achieved by consensus in 2008 when MOS settled on do not capitalize the common names of species. What this venue is incorrect for is one project winning a years-long WP:FAITACCOMPLI war, getting what will look like an administrative stamp of approval to throw WP:CONSENSUS out the window, and a green light for all wikiprojects to make up their own rules against site-wide consensus. The only issue before Move Review is whether the move discussion was closed correctly. It was clearly closed correctly. The end. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that The only issue before Move Review is whether the move discussion was closed correctly. I've been saying that a lot, see above.
And so disagree that overturning this RM close would represent one project winning a years-long WP:FAITACCOMPLI war, getting what will look like an administrative stamp of approval to throw WP:CONSENSUS out the window, and a green light for all wikiprojects to make up their own rules against site-wide consensus. That's way over the top, but it explains a lot. The discussion will continue if the close is overturned, and should. I'm not so sure that it will continue if the close is endorsed... that would seem to me to give a green light to much, much more.
The problem with this other green light is that there's a valid basis for the WikiProject's local standard, both in Wikipedia guidelines (not just the WikiProject page) and in linguistics. To ignore that risks hypercorrection. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are strongly entrenched views on both sides of the issue of whether the common names of birds should be capitalized (and indeed other groups – birds are not the only group where capitalization is common; see most articles about lepidoptera). We have been discussing this for years, as User:SMcCandlish – a very committed anti-capitalization contributor – correctly notes. These discussions have never reached what neutral participants considered to be a consensus, hence the status quo of allowing while not quite approving of the use of IOC names including their capitals. We can have this discussion all over again, but its result should not have been anticipated based on a discussion of a few articles.
There's an interesting "irregular noun" usage here. When a group of editors at a WikiProject reach a consensus on a matter on which they are knowledgeable, this is deemed to be an undesirable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When a group of editors who regularly work on the MOS and its subpages reach a consensus, this is deemed to be a project-wide, community WP:CONSENSUS. Actually both are local; the vast majority of editors do not participate in MOS-related discussions. I see no reason to privilege MOS editors over bird editors. If the two groups can't agree – and it seems that they can't – then let the status quo continue. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, (1) why do you say (e.g. 00:27, 29 March 2014) that bird species name are "regularly capitalised in English", while even the International Ornithological Committee agrees that their internal rules are "contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters)"?
Andrewa, (2) why do you say (e.g. 00:27, 1 April 2014) that there are "other guidelines correctly quoted by those of us who opposed the moves" without citing them? Simply because they are actually local discussions and not official guidelines of Wikipedia?
Andrewa, (3) why do you say (e.g. 11:36, 1 April 2014) that the only question is to know if the move discussion was closed correctly and at the same time scatter the discussion in so many directions?
Andrewa, (4) why do you say (e.g. 01:33, 3 April 2014) that WP:Birds and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters are "both guidelines" while only the latter is an official guideline of Wikipedia?
Andrewa, (5) why do you say (e.g. 09:01, 3 April 2014) that consistency "is not the issue here"? Didn't you realise that the general rules for the title of article about animal species are unfortunately not yet applied in most bird articles?
Andrewa, (6) why do you say (e.g. 09:01, 3 April 2014) that "consistency is good" and at the same time fight against it?
Andrewa, (7) why do you emphasise (17:05, 3 April 2014) on consensus to promote a Fait accompli that is contradicted by the general rules as well as by Wikipedia official and consensual polices and conventions?
Andrewa, (8) why do you say (e.g. 17:05, 3 April 201) that "there's a valid basis for the WikiProject's local standard" while you know that it is not the case here due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS?
Thanks in advance for your answers (citing the eight numbers in your answer will allow everybody to understand more clearly to which question each answer refer). Mama meta modal (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'd chime in for the (2) and (8), as Bird capitalisation follows an official guideline laid out outside wikipedia and noncapitalisation does not, for starters....and we are supposed to reflect use not cherrypick some use which is not explicitly sanctioned. the whole issue smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOR. This has been driven by a handful of editors who oppose capitalisation rather than "the community". Count up the total number of participants. As far as the move discussion, yes there is a process to follow and that is the process here - discussing the move. However (obviously) there is a lot to discuss that is beyond the confines of it, including countering the inaccurate statements of others. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, as many others, you seem to think that the ideas of the International Ornithological Committee should be a cornerstone for us... But they are not establishing rules for Wikipedia and even emphasise that their internal consensus is "contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters)" and that it should only be used in "an ornithological context". Wikipedia is not a specialised database for ornithologists. The articles here should target the general public, respect common practice in the society and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Mama meta modal (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
So do the caps confuse you that much and make you unable to parse the text? I don't think so. We are an encyclopedia and our job is to reflect usage not come up with our own. The "ornithological context" is a concocted comment to derail this debate and has no validity. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, everything you're saying here has been addressed, in full, at WP:SSF for years. WP derives facts from reliable sources, not style. It derives style from a) what is most useful for the largest number of readers here, first and foremost, and all secondarily b) what mainstream sources on grammar and style suggest with regard to general English usage, then c) what mainstream sources in general (newspapers, magazines, otehr encyclopedias, dictionaries, novels, etc.) do, as this is where WP:ASTONISH is based on, basically, least of all, if ever (only when they do not conflict with the above, d) what specialist sources do. That organization is a specialist source. It is not issuing anything "official" in any way, for anything other than its own journals. Even if it was, WP still would not care, because WP is not an ornithology journal. Your insinuation that WP is making up its own standard is the rankest nonsense ever; WP is doing what virtually all sources do and advise, other than (most, not even all) ornithology specialty publications. Just get it through your head: Wikipedia is not a birder publication. PS: Anyone who would write "...as Bird capitalisation follows an official guideline laid out outside wikipedia and noncapitalisation does not...", capitalizing the word "Bird", has absolutely no footing in an argument like this; even 7-year-old kids know better style than that. I'm not trying to be mean or "personal" here; this is not an ad hominem fallacy. You actually clearly demonstrate (and this is not the first time, BTW) that you do not actually understand how capitalization works in English, and this fact totally undermines your arguments on their face, even aside from all of their other faults, which are legion. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: find me an authoritative source that decrees that bird names should be in lower case. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every style guide on English says not to do this, just more generally. Your request is like saying "find me an authoritative source that decrees that killing people specifically by stuffing purple bubblegum up their noses at midnight while singing Wagner is a crime". The rule is more general. And you know this, since we've been over this many, many times. Oh, but just for you, here's a few choice excerpts from User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names:
Grammar guides standardize on lower case for species names, and (when they mention them) upper case for breeds and cultivars. Some even specifically eschew capitalization of bird names, e.g. DailyWritingTips.com: "[A]s in the case of plant names, animal names are not capitalized ('I spotted a red-tailed hawk,' not 'I spotted a Red-Tailed Hawk'), except when an element of the name is a proper noun, as in 'Steller's jay' and 'Siberian tiger.'"[16]
Not all ornithology journals, not even all the major ones, require capitalization (contradicting frequent claims of unanimity by the pro-caps camp): Journal of Ornithology. Yes, really.
Non-ornithology journals virtually never permit such capitalization: Proceedings of the Royal Society, Part B: Biology (Proc. Biol. Sci.)[17][18]; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA[19][20]; Respiration Physiology[21]; Animal Behavior[22]; Acta Crystallographica, Section D: Biological Crystallography[23], Molecular Biology and Evolution[24]; Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology[25]; Journal of Thermal Biology[26]
This "ornithology always capitalizes bird common names" idea is a blatant, proven falsehood. Anyone following this debate for any length of time already knows this. Way more important for WP purposes, there is no reliable source anywhere on general English-language writing that recommends capitalizing bird common names, or the common names of any other species of organisms. I'll eventually cite all of them on my page about this topic. I have copies of nearly every notable English style guide, going back to the 1800s. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 06:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Be careful what you wish for. Not only does DailyWritingTips.com specifically oppose capitalizing common names, including birds in particular, so does the The Chicago Manual of Style (both 15th [2003], and 16th [2010 and current] editions, which I have on hand). The 16th, at "8.127 Plants and animals—additional resources", says that it "recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary...", and gives various cases of common names of species, including birds, all lower-case except where they contain a proper name, e.g. "Cooper’s hawk" specifically. That's two. How many more would you like? I have 16 more style guides on my hard drive, before I even find the hardcopy stuff in my moving boxes. I bet zero recommend bird caps. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - I suspect that websters and EB would contain entries on less than 100 bird species each, and hence are not too interested in the intricacies of bird names - we on the other hand list all bird species, so have much more in common with the majority of field guides, government websites and the IOC pages which all deal with numbers of species in detail. And are all secondary not tertiary sources - which are what we are supposed to be preferring. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Classic WP:specialist style fallacy, of the "these sources aren't specialist sources ergo they are not reliable" variety. Substitute any other topic for birds: "I bet dictionary or whatever doesn't have entries on more than irrelevant, arbitrary number examples of my focus, e.g. styles of hat, or skateboard tricks, or martial arts stances, so it isn't reliable on not capitalizing this stuff because it doesn't get into the intricacies that my millinery textbooks, or skater magazines, or karate and kung fu books do, and they capitalize". They often capitalize because the majority of specialist publications use emphasis (not always capitalization, or capitalization alone - boldfacing, italics and smallcaps are also common) to "big-note" what is important to them, a practice, and topical guides and magazines do it just to make scanning easier; it's a practice covered, and deprecated, at WP:MOS and MOS:CAPS: Do not capitalize for emphasis). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 19:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - never said they weren't reliable per se, just that they are a bit "lowest-common-denominatorish" when you've covered all the species....so I'll take the secondary source thankyouverymuch. I wouldn't lump them with the other examples you cite - I somehow doubt there is an International Union of Matial Artists stating "thou shalt use smallcaps when listing all martial arts by their names" or whatever...spurious. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: plus EB is grossly outdated - it (incorrectly) assumes Australian Magpies are still called bell-magpies, a name that hasn't been current for decades, and neither has the classification of three species. It's just wrong and should not be used as a guide or source. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NB: WP:SSF is an essay, not a guideline, (that you wrote) so using it to support your arguments is circular. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:JUSTANESSAY, then let us know if you still want to make this lame argument. We've been over this many, many times, too. No one paying attention at all to this extended debate is going to magically forget previous versions of it, so I hardly need to repeat why your "it's just your essay" dismissal is fallacious (again), but I'll do so one more time just for the record: Of course it's an essay. It says so right at the top. Like most essays contains logic (reasoning, rationales). Neither you nor anyone else has ever come close to refuting a single point of it, after years. Others cite it, because the logic in it is directly and consistently applicable to this and innumerable other cases of attempting to wrongheadedly impose stylistic quirks from specialist publications onto this encyclopedia. No amount of hand-wringing about it being written in essay form instead of being some other form of document is going to change the fact that the reasoning in it bowls over the arguments of pushers of specialist-publication typography. Objecting to it on the basis that I wrote it is just a really silly ad hominem fallacy. It had to be written by someone, and how you personally feel about that someone has no bearing on the validity of the arguments it presents. There is nothing at all circular about directing you to my pre-prepared material written about this sort of debate; it's called efficiency. You may need to read circular reasoning closely, since you seem confused about what the concept actually is. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 06:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. Nothing wrong with writing an essay and I don't object that you wrote it. But I have an issue with you presenting it as some fait accompli which you seem to be doing. It's an opinion and not fact. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're just not reading what I'm writing. I haven't presented SSF as anything but an essay containing logic you can't refute, which bowls over pro-caps arguments here. It's impossible for anyone to sanely present it any other way, since it says "Essay" real big right at the top of it, and even explicitly spells out that it is, and only is, a collection of logical arguments against such style practices. If you're coming away with some sense that someone's presenting it differently, that's on you. There is no conspiracy here. I direct you to WP:SSF because it's a formally written debunking of the position you're advancing, and I'm tired of re-re-debunking it separately in these recurrent debates. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 07:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with SMcCandlish. Casliber, you should realise that most general authoritative sources do not capitalise bird species name. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that this whole thing is a "convention" and one that is decided by the publisher with little really to deal with being "correct". I doubt very much if either the EB or OED has an entry on "obscure honeyeater" or "zitting cisticola"? Shyamal (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC) (PS: Although Wikipedia has generally respected traditions followed in all other fields - e.g. Halley's Comet, abelian group, Miniature Schnauzer)[reply]
I have both in boxes due to moving recently, so I for one can't contradict you on those particular species, but I guarantee you that Webster's New International (3rd ed. unabridged) definitely does include many birds by species common name, and does not capitalize them (except inasmuch as they contain proper names). Same goes for any encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 07:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] And same goes for Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. I can check others, but I guarantee you none of them will capitalize common names of species (I've done this research before in older editions of this debate). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiSpecies and Wiki Commons use upper case bird names in the text; although, the pages/categories have the binomial names at page/category titles. See the example of the White Tailed Eagle on Commons at Haliaeetus_albicilla and on WikiSpecies at Haliaeetus_albicilla. It is good to have consistent upper-case capitalization across sister Wiki Projects. Snowman (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this debate. This is not WikiSpecies and it's not Commons, and they have nothing to do with this MR/RM case, nor with en.wiki's MOS. Commons doesn't have articles at all, it so it's doubly irrelevant. WikiSpeies is not an encyclopedia, so the concerns of encyclopedic writing here are not going to mirror the concerns of that project, which are more attuned to recording raw taxonomic data. It's very, very much like comparing an encyclopedia and a field guide or journal article and failing to see the difference, which is precisely how this debate arose. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's not directly relevant to the endorse/overturn question, little of this discussion has been. But it does provide more attestation (the linguist's technical term for examples) of this use of capitalisation in English, which is one of the key underlying issues. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Except it's not evidentiary of that at all, because wiki (reader-edited) sources are not reliable, and most of the editors of that partiuclar material are the same people as make up the bulk of WP:BIRDS; you're enaging in patently circular reasoning. Even if it weren't, these trivial, near-meaningless examples are easy to counter with crucial, damning ones, e.g. with WP:BIRDS's own admission that IOC is not actually a taxonomic authorityauthority, and that the capitalization is not a universal standard in ornithological practice[27], or even ornithological organizations[28], or even ornithological journals[29]. Not even some of the most preeminent ones: Journal of Ornithology. Yes, really. And broader biology and science journals, even when printing ornithological articles do not allow the capitalization: Proceedings of the Royal Society, Part B: Biology (Proc. Biol. Sci.)[30][31]; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA[32][33]; Respiration Physiology[34]; Animal Behavior[35]; Acta Crystallographica, Section D: Biological Crystallography[36], Molecular Biology and Evolution[37]; Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology[38]; Journal of Thermal Biology[39], etc. Mainstream style guides don't recognize it as valid either (yes, I have more citations). The entire WP:BIRDS house of capitalism cards is based on blatant falsehoods. Is is NOT a standard. Even if it were, it's not one considered valid even in academia outside a very narrow subfield, much less in mainstream writing. So, yes, let's indeed have an RFC. I come with facts, years of them, from on and off Wikipedia, and more coming in all the time. Most of my style & grammar guides and biological publications are in boxes right now. I just put in two bookshelves, so guess which boxes I'll unpack first. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some good evidence here that needs to be considered, thank you, but yet again you overstate your case, in too many places to list. The style guides and practices of other wikis are being offered here as primary sources, not reliable sources. As data indicating other people's usage, and no more, they are relevant, just as ghit counts are relevant, and that relevance needs to be evaluated in each case but it's non-zero. As does the relevance of other style guides, which address the needs of other publications, as your own essay points out, see my comment above. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key point for me was made by Shyamal: Wikipedia has generally respected traditions followed in all other fields - e.g. Halley's Comet, abelian group, Miniature Schnauzer). The word to focus on here is "respect". I never write about birds; I'm not a member of WP:BIRDS. But if I want guidance on how to write about birds, I would look first to a WikiProject with bird expertise, not MOS enthusiasts however many style manuals they have. Should it be agreed that the style manuals over-ride the bird experts, still their views should command respect, and not the outright comtempt and hostility too often seen here. Readers want content, not style; driving away content editors by incessant insistence on conformity is not helpful to Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, presenting your essay as fact - you should be saying "I claim ...x" rather than "X is fallacious" You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting though that this essay currently [40] says in its nutshell Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community. (my emphasis). Do we have consensus here on that point?
Other style guides do offer concise evidence as to how English is used elsewhere, but they need to be considered (by the community) alongside other such evidence and the particular and unique needs of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is too simplistic. "Style" has to be unpacked. (1) Some styles are purely visual with no impact on meaning (e.g. which font is used, whether double or single quotes are the starting 'outer' quote marks for a quotation). (2) Some styles do have a limited impact on meaning (e.g. whether to distinguish between outer double quote marks for a quotation and outer single quote marks for "scare quotes"). (3) Some styles are preferred in particular subject areas or ENGVARs. (4) Changing some styles from the source can in principle require an element of OR (a hypothetical example I've used before is that if there were a plant with the English name "Brewer's Pine" in the source, it is necessary to find out whether it was named after an individual called "Brewer" or because brewers use it to decide on the correct de-capitalization). (5) Some styles are required by authoritative rule making bodies (e.g. the ICNCP requires cultivar names to be in title case and have single quotes around them). There are more distinctions which could be made, but these will do for now. There's obviously a consensus that Wikipedia can freely decide in relation to (1); I assume there's a consensus that it cannot in relation to (5). In between there are disputes. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think simplistic already means too simplistic. But I like your analysis and hypothetical example. Let us pursue it... would there be any harm at all in capitalising Brewer's Pine? It would save the trouble of tracing the term's history, which might be controversial or even unknown. The only downside I can see is that if there were an individual tree, an historical monument perhaps, known as Brewer's Pine, then we'd then need to disambiguate it in some other way.
The more I think about this hypothetical example, the more I like it. Suppose further that having tried at length we can't tell how it was named. So far as the principles of WP:AT go, the history (whatever it was) doesn't then seem to affect the suitability of the capitalised title one little bit. Our readers don't know how it was named any more than we do. So, why are we then making this esoteric distinction the criterion for choosing the name style? In this scenario, the history of the name has nill impact on reader experience, complete and utter zilch, which makes the rule you describe just plain silly. Doesn't it? Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Individual oak trees. Almost all of these are capitalized (being proper names for individual trees). I could see confusing some of them for vernacular names for species if plant articles were titled using vernacular names capitalized following BIRDS (e.g., Major Oak suggests Quercus major). And every time I've noticed Baikushev's pine in Category:Pinus, I've thought the article would be about something called Pinus baikushevii, rather than an individual tree. Probably would be better to move that article to a title where "Pine" is capitalized. Plantdrew (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Nothing against the birders, but the consensus that came out here, as recognized by closer, is that things would be better all around if they would go along with the rest of wikipedia instead of needing their own styling rules for their subset of pages. We can do a broader RFC if we need to, but the broader it is the more clear it will be that the birders should not have uniquely special guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems to me the closers views are not consistent with the majority of opinions expressed in the page move discussion. I would guess that it is highly likely that other closers would have closed it as "no consensus" and kept the capitalized from of names for the three stork species. Capitalized bird names is the preferred style of many authorities all over the world. Capitalization of English names is used in WikiSpecies and Wiki Commons. In ornithology consider distinguishing the following; "blue bunting" (a bunting that is blue), "Blue Bunting" (a species), Australian King Parrot (a species), king parrot (a genus), Australian king parrot (a king parrot from Australia), Thick-billed Parrot (a species), thick-billed parrot (a genus). Snowman (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the WikiProject has made a good decision, one that improves the reader experience and therefore improves Wikipedia. If the guidelines can be so easily quoted (misquoted in my opinion, but obviously there are other opinions, see above!!!) as disallowing that decision, then we need to tweak the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that capitalization of bird species can be used to enhance the clarity of the text. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for four reasons: (1) the closing admin said that WP:BIRDS#Naming contradicts WP:FAUNA, but unless I've misunderstood it seems not to; the latter says that there is an exception for birds; (2) at the RM, I see eight supports (plus one support for one of the moves), and nine opposes (plus one oppose for all but one move), so that's not a consensus to move; (3) it should probably be black-crowned crane with a hyphen unless it's a capitalized name, Black Crowned Crane; and (4) it has left three articles out of sync with thousands of others. SlimVirgin(talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) well covered above; (2) WP:NOTVOTE; (3) the variety of crowned crane is black, not the variety of crane is black-crowned; (4) note that the Bird project local consensus has left thousands of articles out of sync with millions of others, so that's no reason to overturn the correction of three of the thousands. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is the important one. Agree with SlimVirgin, whom I'd assume has had a look at the discussion above. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User SlimVirgin, mainly on (2) and (4). On (3), I note the discussion on the difference between a crane and a crowned crane and how this affects the species names of cranes and crowned cranes. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JHunterJ and Snowman, thanks for the correction re: (3), which I've struck. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: What JHunterJ said. In particular, on #1, the controlling guideline on style is WP:MOS, specifically MOS:LIFE. WP:NCFAUNA has scope that is limited to article titles only, and defers emphatically to MOS on style anyway, with hatnotes to it all over the place; even WP:AT policy does so. NCFAUNA presently contains some language that gives undue style weight to one wikiproject's preferences because they've progressively editwarred it to do so over several years. They even announced an intent to ensure that NCFAUNA agreed with them, so that they could (in their view) ignore MOS with impunity. The archives don't lie. It's shameless WP:GAMING and WP:PARENT (that's a WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE fact not an assumption of bad faith; you don't even have to think there's bad faith involved at all, just poor judgement, especially a failure to think about what's best for readers as a general class vs. what's most comfortable for bird-specialist editors). NB: The same archive also reveals precisely where WP:BIRDS got the idea they could make up their own rules against MOS: An early version of NCFAUNA (largely authored by that project's own members and some pro-capitalizers from other bio projects) explicitly said so! This WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and the abject chaos it had led to (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines!) was, in no uncertain terms, overruled by the early 2008 changes to MOS which set a standard, and reaffirmed in 2012 when MOS reaffirmed it and clarified that there is no birds or other exception, just a one-project WP:LOCALCONSENSUS conflict. The months-long discussion that led up to that renewed consensus, which was explicitly intended to supersede the conflict messes at all guidlines and essays, including NCFAUNA, NCFLORA, NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, WP:TOL, WP:ANIMALS, etc., etc., was dominated by WP:BIRDS members. They cannot now complain that it somehow wasn't a real consensus or that their views were not represented; it can't only be a consensus when they (and you) happen to like it. See User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names for these and other related diffs and archives. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three relevant guidelines that I can see.
WP:MOSLIFE: "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."
WP:MOS (WP:STYLEVAR): "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 ... If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." The first contributor in 2003 made the hyphen mistake that I did above and called it "Black-crowned Crane." [41] This was fixed in 2006 when it became the Black Crowned Crane. [42] It stayed like that until 26 March 2014.
So according to these three guidelines, and according to the headcount at the RM (eight support, nine oppose, two a mixture), the article should not have been moved from Black Crowned Crane to Black crowned crane. SlimVirgin(talk) 15:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Except bear in mind that the two a mixture both opposed the three moves that this MR is seeking to overturn. Nobody cares much about the fourth page, which is a DAB. It's just unfortunate that the RM was raised on the DAB's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That "local consensus" link has always struck me as bitterly ironic, since WP:LOCALCONSENSUS quite explicitly states "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," even though that's exactly what has happened with bird titles. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BDD, I think the local consensus link ought to be removed, because editors do decide to overlook certain guidelines all the time (e.g. the GA criteria not requiring compliance with the MoS), so it's a bit misleading. As for the head count, it seems it was 10 oppose and only six support for the three moves being discussed here. SlimVirgin(talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeal the law because everyone breaks it anyway? Personally, I'm not comfortable with such a precedent. NOTAVOTE gets thrown around a lot, but there really are cases where a minority has the stronger arguments, and BHG has correctly identified this as one of them. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone breaks it then it clearly no longer has consensus supporting it. Would you really be comfortable setting a precedent of keeping such a law? Strongly agree that there really are cases where a minority has the stronger arguments, I think that's uncontroversial, but they're not all that common as any admin will tell you (which is just as well considering the backlogs we have anyway). But admins also get it wrong sometimes (as I hope any admin will readily admit), which is why we have such things as move review, and the whole reason for this whole discussion. Officially at least. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per SV and others; no consensus to move. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Reading through this discussion is, quite frankly, tiring, and yes, I have looked at the problematic clauses over at WP:BIRDS. My conclusion is that there’s no reason for birds articles to be granted immunity to the longstanding consensus over at MOS:CAPS and other places. Let’s break it down, shall we?
“In general, use the formal common name for article titles.” No argument there.
“Sometimes exceptions need to be made…” I see no reason to quarrel with that one either.
“The common name of a species is always capitalised…” alright, here we are. The example involving the common starling is faulty because if necessary one can wikilink the phrase to make it clear; we not only have an article on it but it’s FEATURED. To clear up the ambiguity presented in the second example, it would be more appropriate to say, “In Australia, there are many common types of starlings” or something to that effect (obviously without the emphasis). When in doubt, grammar it out. Something as small as one absent comma can change the entire meaning of a sentence:
“Come watch the elephant eat Debbie.”
“Come watch the elephant eat, Debbie.”
If multiple meanings can be extracted from a sentence and any of them are patently incorrect, find another way to write it to avoid that issue. Leave no room for alternate interpretation; Wikipedia is not a work of postmodern art. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
Here’s where the page itself admits it is in conflict with the standard established elsewhere on Wikipedia: “Note that the convention for capitalisation of names applies primarily to articles about birds, not to articles on [other taxa] or to the encyclopaedia as a whole.” (Emphasis added, obviously.) Edit 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC): Why wouldn't this apply to other taxa? The exact same line of reasoning could be presented at other such WikiProjects yet for the most part they have not done so. Clearly more people are comfortable conforming to MOS:CAPS than are willing to try to go around it. The examples of other kinds of organisms whose articles DO do this are irrelevant because they're still in the minority and it's just this same old song & dance all over again.
“The consensus style to write the combination of common name plus scientific name…” Aside from the caps thing, this doesn’t seem wrong to me either.
The summary just reiterates the problematic clauses I’ve been through and it should be sufficiently obvious from here how this simply does not hold water and should not be permitted. LazyBastardGuy 21:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. A very reasonable close, well within closer discretion. As per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RMCI etc views backed by policy or guidelines are given more weight so BHG was quite reasonable in concluding there was a consensus as it appears the wikiproject birds "guidelines" are neither policy or guideline and no other policies or guidelines were mentioned by those opposing. I also note that it is long standing Wikipedia practice (which is documented somewhere but I can't remember where) that the amount of work a decision will result in is no reason not to make the correct decision and this weakens those oppose arguments based on the amount of articles that may, theoretically, eventually have to be moved. The argument that there should be a wider RfC and so this move shouldn't take place is also, in my opinion, a weak one as policies and guidelines often end up being changed as a result of many small changes (such as this one) showing their is consensus for the policy change. This has long been accepted as a means of updating policy. Now obviously someone can now hold a wider RfC and this move may need to be reverted but that's no reason to revert it before the RfC is complete. For these reasons I find the close quite reasonable. Dpmuk (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The sequence of events is fascinating. WikiProject Birds established a local consensus to capitalize common names of bird species. There was no consensus for this style exception within the Wikipedia community at large, so a protracted dispute arose. To mitigate the drama and disruption, the parties involved devised what amounted to a ceasefire. The WikiProject agreed not to use the capitalization outside articles within its scope (bird articles), and a notation acknowledging the WikiProject's preference was added to the Manual of Style. Now see the above discussion, wherein proponents of the capitalization are actually citing this MoS notation — something inserted specifically because the practice is disputed and has never been backed by Wikipedia consensus — as evidence that it's been codified as part of Wikipedia's guidelines. This is the sort of thing that keeps happening. Birders dominate discussions, resulting in "no consensus", which they then cite as justification to continue ignoring the MoS. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As the closer wrote, "in the absence of a consensus to make an exception to the community-wide guidelines, the guidelines stand." Instead, the birders have continually spun "no consensus to make an exception" into "no consensus to not make an exception". They currently seek to establish that there was "no consensus" for the moves, thereby continuing this line of reasoning. Well,that simply isn't so. Instead of counting votes, the closer thoughtfully weighed the arguments and recognized that opposition to the moves — while numerically predominant (due to the usual influx of WikiProject Birds members) — was based on arguments with no valid basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 01:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People appear to be interesting in advancing the discussion on the MoS talk page. As that discussion gathers momentum, I expect that it will eventually supersede this discussion and also the original move discussion of the three crane species. To me, the obvious thing to do here would be to close this discussion and return the crane species to the capitalized format and consistent with the other 10,000 (approx) bird species, and then await the outcome of the community discussion being held at the more suitable venue on a MoS talk page. Most contributors will be aware that MoS discussions have never reached a consensus to overturn the long-standing use of capitalized bird names. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more obvious choice would be to close this discussion, leave the crane species in the uncapitalized format consistent with the other 4,500,000 (approx) Wikipedia articles that don't capitalize common nouns, and then await the outcome of subsequent discussions. Most contributors will be aware that there has never been a MoS consensus to except birds from the long-standing style of not capitalizing common nouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 April 2014
I'm also happy to see this closed and let the outcome depend on that of the MOS discussion. But unless a closer finds consensus to overturn the result of the RM that brought us all here, it should not be reversed. If the MOS discussion ends in no consensus, this one can be decided accordingly. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, to me, the obvious action would be to maintain the original upper-case capitalisation prior to the page moves, and this seems even more obvious now that the discussion on the MoS talk page gaining more and more momentum. I think that changing page names based on the closers subjective MoS interpretation would be like the tail wagging the dog. Surely, the correct venue to decide on capitalisation on a set of about 10,000 bird names is on a MoS talk page. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, that's not how move reviews work. We don't overturn move closures without consensus to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was not a consensus to move the three stork species pages in the original page move request. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion regarding the very matter currently contested here. Arguing that the closure should be overturned because it was incorrect is very different from arguing that it should be overturned because another discussion might eventually lead to a consensus superseding all of this (and you want your preference to prevail in the meantime). —David Levy 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse—It's reasonable for move closers to consider how local consensus—votes in an RM, for example—weighs against the broader consensus as encoded in guidelines. RMs are simply not votes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the broader consensus as encoded in guidelines" was that bird names are capitalized in bird articles. The closer of the RM didn't take this into account. Even the first statement of this discussion makes this point. No one has provided any evidence against this point. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The birders' consensus is broader than everyone else's? Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Enric. The MoS contains a mention of the fact that "some editors" (link present in original) prefer to apply a non-MoS style in ornithological articles, along with advice against spreading the practice to other subject areas. Astonishingly, this statement has been misconstrued as an endorsement of the style deviation. I addressed this point above. —David Levy 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that:
it doesn't say that you can't capitalize bird names
it's in contradiction with naming conventions (already cited here by other editors).
The MOS used to have the same wording as the naming conventions, until SMcCandish managed to edit-warred a version that dismisses the position of other editors [43]. Note the dismissal of several wikiprojects as "Some editors". And the removal of an additional exception for insects.
And the removal of any indication that the "broader consensus" is not so broad and has more exceptions apart from birds[44]
it doesn't say that you can't capitalize bird names
Now you're going by what our guidelines don't say we can't do? So if no guideline explicitly advises against capitalizing the names of ice cream flavors (e.g. "Mint Chocolate Chip"), this implies that the practice is formally sanctioned? Or does that apply only if the International Frozen Dessert Congress recommends it?
We have an MoS standard for common names of species, which reflects the overwhelmingly predominant usage across non-specialist literature (such as general encyclopedias like Wikipedia). WikiProject Birds has imposed its contradictory local consensus. Noting the existence of such a situation does not validate it. On the contrary, the intent is to minimize its extent.
it's in contradiction with naming conventions (already cited here by other editors).
WP:NCFAUNA, while worded differently, conveys the same information about capitalizing the common names of bird species (that a WikiProject arrived at a local consensus to override the MoS). Regardless, as noted above, the MoS takes precedence.
The MOS used to have the same wording as the naming conventions, until SMcCandish managed to edit-warred a version that dismisses the position of other editors [45]. Note the dismissal of several wikiprojects as "Some editors".
How is that a "dismissal"? A WikiProject, by definition, comprises "some editors" from Wikipedia. Since when is that a slight? Is your objection that the wording fails to elevate WikiProjects to positions of higher authority? That it's insulting to refer to their members as mere "editors" (like the rest of us)?
And the removal of an additional exception for insects.
This isn't directly relevant to the move review, but I'll address it anyway.
Like WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Insects discussed creating an exception to capitalize the common names of insect species. Unlike WikiProject Birds, it was unable to arrive at a local consensus. Astoundingly, this was construed as justification to permit both styles.
In other words, not only can a WikiProject opt to override an MoS style with a consistent style of its own, but if its members can't agree on whether this is advisable, the MoS style still is nullified (in favor of no consistent style).
So if WikiProject Business were to debate whether to capitalize common names of executive job titles (e.g. "The company has three Vice Presidents.") and fail to come to any sort of agreement, MOS:JOBTITLES would cease to apply to articles within the WikiProject's scope, wherein both styles would be deemed acceptable.
That goes beyond contravening WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It's based on the premise that a WikiProject's failure to reach a local consensus supersedes consensus within the Wikipedia community at large.
And the removal of any indication that the "broader consensus" is not so broad and has more exceptions apart from birds[46]
At the root of your objections is the apparent belief that WikiProjects are in charge of relevant articles and entitled to impose style exceptions therein. Wikipedia's policies indicate otherwise (see the two linked in the preceding sentence). —David Levy 19:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects usually contain some of the most active and knowledgeable editors on its field. Referring to them as "some editors" looks very dismissive to me.
And some editors talk like "birders" were the only ones that favour capitalization (several examples in this very same discussion). Bonus points for "forgetting" the lack of consensus among editors of insect articles. Bonus points for removing said lack of consensus from all relevant guidelines/naming conventions. Bonus points for removing the capitalization of cultivars and formal breeds from all guidelines (maybe in fear that it shows a lack of consensus for lowercasing everything related to organisms?). This looks like dismissals of anything that could remotely weaken with the position of lowercasing every single organism ever. And then they wonder why people complain. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects usually contain some of the most active and knowledgeable editors on its field. Referring to them as "some editors" looks very dismissive to me.
So your objection is that the wording fails to elevate WikiProjects to positions of higher authority.
And some editors talk like "birders" were the only ones that favour capitalization (several examples in this very same discussion).
I don't recall anyone claiming that no one else has ever expressed that preference. But WikiProject Birds is, to my knowledge, the only WikiProject with a local consensus for such an exception.
Bonus points for "forgetting" the lack of consensus among editors of insect articles. Bonus points for removing said lack of consensus from all relevant guidelines/naming conventions.
Why, in your view, should Wikipedia's guidelines acknowledge that a WikiProject did not agree that an exception was called for?
(maybe in fear that it shows a lack of consensus for lowercasing everything related to organisms?).
That's an interesting straw man. —David Levy 21:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this same discussion you isolate birders as the sole responsibles of the problem: "Birders dominate discussions, resulting in "no consensus", which they then cite as justification to continue ignoring the MoS. (...) Instead, the birders have continually spun".
The exceptions for insects, cultivars and breeds have been discussed several times in MOS and in a few naming conventions. They are some mentions in this very same discussion. This is a current consensus that keeps being removed from MOS and naming conventions. I can only think that it's considered the "wrong" consensus, and it could weaken the "correct" consensus. I have been given other reasons, of course, but I find them very unconvincing.
As I say, wikiprojects are usually composed by the best / most active editors on a field. I don't see the problem with paying more attention to what those editors are already applying in the relevant field. "Giving positions of higher authority to wikiprojects" sounds really petulant. It implies that the MOS is already in a position of "higher authority" and that editors that don't agree with the MOS are somehow out of line. This is at odds with the MOS being "only" a guideline where all editors, including members of wikiprojects, can put their grain of sand. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this same discussion you isolate birders as the sole responsibles of the problem: "Birders dominate discussions, resulting in "no consensus", which they then cite as justification to continue ignoring the MoS. (...) Instead, the birders have continually spun".
If you interpreted those statements as claims that no one else has argued in favor of capitalization exceptions, you were mistaken. I was addressing the matter at hand, which pertains to articles about birds.
The exceptions for insects, cultivars and breeds have been discussed several times in MOS and in a few naming conventions. They are some mentions in this very same discussion. This is a current consensus that keeps being removed from MOS and naming conventions. I can only think that it's considered the "wrong" consensus, and it could weaken the "correct" consensus.
I haven't followed the cultivar and breed discussions closely, so I'm unaware of the extent to which local consensus exists in those subject areas. I do know that WikiProject Insects failed to reach one, so even if the relevant policy were set aside (as you obviously advocate), I remain baffled as to the purported exception's basis.
As I say, wikiprojects are usually composed by the best / most active editors on a field.
"Giving positions of higher authority to wikiprojects" sounds really petulant.
But that's exactly what you seek. You believe that a WikiProject is entitled to override the MoS in articles within its scope. You believe that lumping one's members together with Wikipedia's other editors is downright insulting.
It implies that the MOS is already in a position of "higher authority" and that editors that don't agree with the MOS are somehow out of line.
WikiProject members have as much right as anyone to help shape the MoS. This is accomplished through collaboration with the rest of the community, not by overruling it.
This is at odds with the MOS being "only" a guideline where all editors, including members of wikiprojects, can put their grain of sand.
WikiProject Birds (a segment of its members, to be precise) has chosen to construct its own sandcastle on a private beach. —David Levy 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing Enric Naval's comments. I recognize that members of WikiProject Birds possess a great deal of ornithological expertise and contribute an immense amount of knowledge (and yes, stewardship) to the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that referring to you as "some editors" is "dismissive". This describes all of us. I'm an editor, you're an editor, Enric is an editor, and Jimbo Wales is an editor. —David Levy 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But are you, David? Can you count up how many of your past 500 (or any number really) edits have been about substantively editing and improving content, and how many have been about correcting or interpreting/dictating rules to others? I like to believe that this place is a level playing field and we're all in it together, and it's conversations like these that unfortunately lead me to feel otherwise at times. Do you ever edit and have your work submitted for scrutiny - or is that your job to scrutinise everyone else? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is. Editors does not just mean "people engaged in edits I deem more valuable". (Skipping rest of the straw man.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like to believe that this place is a level playing field and we're all in it together,
Then why are you belittling my good-faith participation in the project?
I've expressed strong disagreement with some of the birders' actions, but can you cite one instance in which I've questioned their contributions' value?
and it's conversations like these that unfortunately lead me to feel otherwise at times.
You wrote the above in response to a message in which I stated that "members of WikiProject Birds possess a great deal of ornithological expertise and contribute an immense amount of knowledge (and yes, stewardship) to the encyclopedia." —David Levy 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: You wrote "WikiProject Birds (a segment of its members, to be precise) has chosen to construct its own sandcastle on a private beach." Language like this is clearly derogatory towards members of that WikiProject (which I'm not, by the way). Factually, too, it's a problem, since, as has been pointed out, it's not just in relation to birds that there is support for at least some degree of capitalization of the English names of species. Wikipedia is supposed to reach decisions by consensus. Consensus does not mean the majority over-ruling the minority and leaving it feeling oppressed. It means seeking to reach a position where almost everyone accepts the final decision, even though it's not what they would have preferred. When genuine consensus cannot be reached, then variation between (but not within) articles is the fall-back position. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "WikiProject Birds (a segment of its members, to be precise) has chosen to construct its own sandcastle on a private beach." Language like this is clearly derogatory towards members of that WikiProject (which I'm not, by the way).
That statement, intended as criticism but not derogation, was a response to Enric Naval's claim that I sought to position the MoS as a "higher authority" that quashes the input of WikiProject members, which he described as "at odds with the MOS being 'only' a guideline where all editors, including members of wikiprojects, can put their grain of sand." Please don't read into my use of the term "sandcastle", which was merely a play on Enric's use of "sand".
As I noted in the same message, "WikiProject members have as much right as anyone to help shape the MoS. This is accomplished through collaboration with the rest of the community, not by overruling it."
Factually, too, it's a problem, since, as has been pointed out, it's not just in relation to birds that there is support for at least some degree of capitalization of the English names of species.
I explicitly acknowledged this above (and even discussed the details of a separate case). Again, I do not assert that this preference has been expressed solely in relation to birds. But WikiProject Birds is, to my knowledge, the only WikiProject with a local consensus for such an MoS exception (irrespective of whether that's a good or bad thing). And this move review pertains specifically to bird articles.
Wikipedia is supposed to reach decisions by consensus.
And the consensus, agreed upon by the Wikipedia community at large and documented in the Manual of Style, is that common names of species (excepting proper names contained therein) are written in lowercase.
This is not to say that exceptions are out of the question. It's entirely appropriate for a WikiProject's members to argue in favor of recognizing one in the relevant subject area. But as stated in policy, "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right", they "cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within [the WikiProject's] scope."
Consensus does not mean the majority over-ruling the minority and leaving it feeling oppressed.
Nor does it mean the minority overruling the majority (though I'm reluctant to use that terminology, as consensus isn't gauged via a simple headcount).
It means seeking to reach a position where almost everyone accepts the final decision, even though it's not what they would have preferred.
I've participated in attempts to formulate a compromise acceptable to most/all involved, wherein parties on both sides have suggested possible solutions differing from their personal preferences in various respects. Unfortunately, no agreement on a particular middle ground has been reached.
At no point have I told the birders to pound sand (whoops, there's that word again). I have, however, encountered the threat that any compromise will result in an exodus of bird experts from Wikipedia. (Fortunately, I don't believe that this accurately reflects the position of most WikiProject Birds members.)
When genuine consensus cannot be reached, then variation between (but not within) articles is the fall-back position.
A genuine consensus was reached. WikiProject Birds lobbied unsuccessfully for an exception, which they then enacted anyway.
But let's set aside that point and assume, for the sake of discussion, that no consensus exists. WikiProject Birds doesn't tolerate variation between articles. Its members seek to impose their preferred capitalization across the board. When ornithological articles have been written with the common names of bird species in lowercase, they've routinely renamed them to the capitalized variants, sometimes without move requests.
The current situation stems from the premise that WikiProject Birds is in charge of ornithological articles and entitled to create and enforce its own rules regarding their content (and over the course of the many relevant discussions, some editors have explicitly endorsed such an arrangement).
I'll stress, once again, that the WikiProject's members have acted in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I don't seek to belittle their contributions or cast aspersions on their motives. I'm expressing disagreement with their methods. —David Levy 10:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus
I urge all of those commenting here to review WP:CONSENSUS, in particular that it involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms and that [w]hen there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
Unfortunately I see little attempt by either "side" to engage in either of these activities. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I've seen such attempts from parties on both sides (and I've personally taken part). Unfortunately, these discussions have been largely unfruitful. —David Levy 10:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of the regular ritual in Northern Ireland from the 1970 until the 2000s, when the various parties to The Troubles would have informal discussions about whether they should have talks about holding talks. These sometimes led to actual talks about talks, and occasionally to substantive talks.
I hope that it won't take as long to get to the point of having an RFC on the simple question of whether the titles of bird-species article should be capitalised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bistër – There is a clear consensus here that the close is endorsed. There is also a clear consensus that Peskovi should be considered the long standing title and so the article should be moved back to Peskovi. – Dpmuk (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Is four years long enough to be "longstanding"? The move request here (Bistër -> Peskovi) was judged by BDD--one of our very best administrators here, if I do say so myself--to be "no consensus". I might disagree with him (seems clear enough to me), but whatever. That's not actually my point. Because the move was "no consensus", the page should not move, right? Except if we go back in time, the move request was filed in response to a WP:BOLD move with no backing in consensus from Peskovi to Bistër.
A la Bradley Manning (round 1), when a move request filed to reverse an undiscussed move results in no consensus, the page should be moved back. Therefore, the action to take after closing as "no consensus" should be to move it back to Peskovi. Period.
... Except. (sigh) The article was actually originally created in September 2008 at Bistër. It was moved to Peskovi, moved back to Bistër and finally cut-n-paste moved to Peskovi in January-February of 2009. Ev then undid the cut-n-paste move by restoring the content at Bistër and then moved the page properly to Peskovi. This move stood completely unchallenged for nearly four years, until User:Bobrayner boldly moved it (back?) to Bistër with the curious edit summary, "Dubious undiscussed move. Try getting a consensus through WP:RM first".
So, which was the longstanding title? The one (Bistër) which the original editor used and which stood for less than six months? Or the one (Peskovi) that was birthed in a revert mini-war but which ended up standing unchallenged for almost four years? Either way we send a message about how discussion prior to moves is less powerful than acting boldly and enjoying letting your move stand due to a lack of consensus to overturn it--there's not really a good option. (Both moves were controversial but eventually the move boldly made ended up standing without having a consensus drawn from discussion.)
I leave that decision up to your estimable opinions. Please make clear by your comments whether you believe Bistër or Peskovi is the title that this page should eventually end up at. (And again, I want to make it clear that I hold nothing in the least against BDD and don't really even have a dog in this fight. But I do want the principle of what the longstanding title is to be clarified.) And please, if you know something about this poor little mountain, write something there please And have a nice day! Red Slash 23:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer, though as you can see my talk page (perma) I don't feel that strong about it either. Red Slash makes good points, but at the end of the day, the article was created at Bistër, and while there was some unilateral move-warring over the title, there's never been consensus to change it. So make of that what you will. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I nominated moving the page back to Peskovi, which, as stated above, was the stable title for five years. Bobrayner moved it as part of a much larger effort to reverse moves of similar articles done without a formal discussion around the same period. Whether this was helpful or in-line with policy, I'm not sure.
I know this process is not intended to rehash the now-closed discussion, but I can't help but point out that not one source has been brought forward that uses Bistër as the name of this mountain. And if someone happens to stumble across my reasoning, I wouldn't mind feedback.
Red Slash, I have tried finding any information on this mountain to add to the article but everything out there seems to be just a simple mention of its name ("Peskovi" usually) and maybe its height, unfortunately. --Local herotalk 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The finding of no consensus was reasonable, but this should have resulted in the stable title, Peskovi, being restored. Four years is sufficient to count as "longstanding". bd2412T 03:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Peskovi Endorsing the no-conensus, but fours years is longstanding especially when compared to the short time that the article was at the other name. The longstanding title is not necessarily the original one. Another questions is does this mountain have enough notability for it's own article, see WP:GEOLAND, based on Local hero's comment I wonder if it doesn't. PaleAqua (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer made a totally reasonable call to close this as "no consensus", considering the RM discussion, the lack of prior consensus one way or the other, the convoluted page history, and the fact that these types of issues involving Eastern European names are always very contentious. I wouldn't object to "Peskovi" being used necessarily as the stable name immediately before Bobrayner's bold change, but this was a tough call and the close was totally in-bounds.--Cúchullaint/c 13:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh!! Cuchullain, that was the point! Sorry if that was unclear. The whole point of this move review is to see what to do in light of the no-consensus close. I emphatically am not contesting the close of no consensus. I am asking whether Peskovi was the long-standing (stable) title, and on that your input would be very useful. I endorse the close (per se), too but we need to then see what we do with the article. Should it be kept here, or moved back to Peskovi? That is what I need your help with! Thank you! Red Slash 01:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Throw a coin and be done with it. There is no consensus among participants, there is no truly compelling factual argument for either side in the debate, and the page history is messy enough that I can't firmly decide on what should count as "longstanding precedent" either. Seriously, people. With a topic of this importance, the best way of decision is this: if the edit I'm about to make right now gets an even diff id, I'll support Bistĕr. If it comes up odd, I'll support Peskovi. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's very cute but, if it's really come to just leaving it up to chance, we may as well go with the title that went unchallenged for the past half-decade, since that's supported by a real policy, WP:NOCONSENSUS. --Local herotalk 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Period 1 element – Withdrawn by nominator. [47] At the time of the withdrawal there was a clear tendency to endorse the closure. – ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Withdrawn by requesting editor. See #Withdrawn below.
I nominated 9 pages for a move on the WikiProject Elements talkpage. On the talkpage of the first page of the list, an RM notice with link was placed: Talk:Period_1_element#Requested move. {{requested move}} containing a linked notice was subst'ed and bot-processed. So a difference with MR standard procedure was, that nomination and notification had swapped pages. Then editors posted contributions below the notification too, thereby opening a second thread.
User:BrownHairedGirl closed the MR with this whole rationale (ref notes like [a] added by DePiep):
The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposal was a procedural disaster,[a] because instead of listing a properly-formatted RM per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves, the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages.[b] The proposal was rejected on both pages,[c] so the outcome is clear.[d][48]RM page2nd thread
After the closing I asked the closer to clarify and correct, in two posts. With their second reply, the closer also closed that talkpage discussion. Below I'll describe the issues from the closing ratio, expanded where needed with pointing to the ensuing talkpage talks. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: DePiep, talk1
BrownHairedGirl, reply1
DePiep, talk2
BrownHairedGirl, reply2+closing.
[a] A hiccup away from the full procedure indeed, but not a disaster. Proposal and notification were simply swapped. No 'formatting' problems seen. Prescribed template {{requested move}} was subst'ed and then processed by the bot, so it listed correctly. A "disaster"? Wikipedia did not break down, and any closer could have easily overseen the situation. Starting a discussion at a project talkpage is not out of order. Now the closer can add a little dramatic wording, but in the light of other statements (more below) this 'disaster' conclusion might be unreasonably strong. It may also have prevented a more appropriate action.
[b] No, it was not the nominator who split the discussion. Someone else started a thread below the notification. This erroneous statement was made while closing, and sustained in subsequent talks. Later the closer may state that "I am not interested in how" [49] but as a fact of error it stands. (Really not interested? For sure they did write it in a small closing reasoning, which proves that it was part of it. And in the replies, BrownHairedGirl shows they still do not see the cause of the split while it is visible at first glance), Then, by seeing it this way the nominator prevented themselves from taking a more appropriate action like procedural correction. I also note that, had the procedure been followed exactly to the letter, the same issue could have arisen (editors contributing below a notification). Anyway, this lack of overview by the closer awarded wrong postings (good faith postings in the wrong place), when writing that a even "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter [50]. That is opening the door to gaming the system. Also, in the nomination and near the end of the discussion, I explicitly pointed to procedural options. The closer did not take heed or respond to these suggestions.
[c] "was rejected on both pages" No. The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move. When one resorts to !vote counting, at least the counting should be correct. This may be an undecisive detail, but the factual error is there. Afterwards BrownHairedGirl motivated one dismissal in [51]: "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". Throwing out an argument because of not formatting as a !vote? By which right? The editor of this dismissed argument responded (feline1: [52]).
Actually, the dismissed argument did contain substance, which cannot be said of a 'me too' rejection post [53]. The 'me too' was kept in all countings without further qualification.
Then BrownHairedGirl wrote "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference" (to reject) [54]. Here too and again, BrownHairedGirl does not count the nominator. The count is: 3:2 (or 3 out of 5) !voted rejection. So, to maintain that on that page the proposal was "rejected", BrownHairedGirl had to eliminate two contributions including the nomination. This is written in the second talk reply after closing, so it is entrenched not a mistake. !vote counting is explicitly disapproved in WP:RMCI. But when one does count, at least the numbers must be added right.
[d] "so the outcome is clear" - Eh no. Apart from the explicitly wrong voting count proven above, the argumentation also does not support rejection of the proposal. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS simply says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Closer did not put any argument to the test.
These points were addressed on the usertalk page, but not convincingly addressed or even clarified. As said, with their second reply BrownHairedGirl declared the talkpage discussion(s) closed [55].
Seeing the failed basic argument reading and counting, I find no solace in BrownHairedGirl's defense that we editors are "complaining to the messenger", and instead should be "learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly" [56]. Recently I read this 2nd take, which still did not enlighten me into the reasoning. Nor did I see any spirit of RMCI reflected by the closer.
Concluding. As demonstrated, the statements about the discussion were wrong. Although in itself such an error may be irrelevant, the fact of the errors says that the conclusion was based on wrong reasoning. No stable argument for non-RMCI !vote counting has been brought forward, while arguments present have not been weighed. This merits overturning the close.
That brings us to the procedural issue: once MR is reopened for MRV review, is there a relisting or other procedural correction needed? To be 100% formal, maybe yes. But in my opinion, the content of the discussion already leads to an outcome. That outcome is present on both pages, both separately and taken together.
In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. Scientific name, 2. WP title policy check, 3. Disambiguation check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear to me', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to Overturn close and move to proposed titles. DePiep (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (minor edit DePiep (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Response from closer. This move request was based on the proposition that scientific usage does not include the word element. The opposition to it was based on a concern that removing the word "element" made the titles less recognisable.
Both those arguments are valid points per WP:AT; recognisability is a central concept of the guideline. It says at the top: This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
Since both arguments were founded in policy, this was a case where editorial judgement would weigh the options. The nominator suggested at one point that since the common name is "period x", any disambiguation should be done by adding a parentheseised disambiguator "period x (element)". That point was specifically contested with the argument that "parenthetical disambiguation is the least preferred", which is also founded in WP:AT's stress on the merits of naturalness.
Since all arguments were well-founded in policy, my job as closer was to count the support for the different options. That task was complicated by the fact that the nominator had not structured the nomination properly. Instead of the conventional process of a discussion raking place on the talk page of the first listed article, the nominator instead used that talk page to direct editors to WT:ELEMENTS. That would have been fine if editors had followed it, but some of them didn't. Presumably there were used to the discussion taking place immediately below the RM notice on the article talk page which is linked to from WP:RM.
The result was that the discussion was split between two sections. This was not the nominator's intention, but it was an unsurprising effect of a malformed nomination. Any such discussion is contaminated, because editors participating in either location cannot be assumed to have seen al the relevant arguments. In closing any such debate as anything other maintaining the status quo, the closer would have to be very sure that the procedural failings had not impeded a clear consensus.
In this case, there was a clear consensus at both locations in favour of the status quo. So no matter which way I looked at this proposal, it had failed. No particularly strong policy-based arguments to favour one side over the other, and at both locations, more editors favoured the status quo.
Unfortunately, the nominator appears unwilling to accept two simple facts about this discussion: a) that the nom's procedural error impeded the discussion; b) that whichever way it is weighed, more editors opposed the proposal than supported it. The nom's approach to me on my talk page was verbose, wikilawyering, and somewhat silly -- because De Piep asked me to actually "do move" the pages despite the extent of opposition.
This review request is yet more wikilawyering. I won't waste time replying to all of it, but I will take two points.
Falsehood #1. DePiep claims that I stated that even a "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter [57]. That is opening the door to gaming the system.'
This is not just distortion of what I wrote; it is a blatant inversion of my point that any procedural flaw, whether in good faith or bad, impedes consensus-formation. What I wrote
WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms. I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view. What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.
Falsehood #2. DePiep asserts above that "The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move". Again, that is simply untrue. At Talk:Period 1 element#Requested_move, the move was opposed by User:SmokeyJoe and User:Xoloz, and supported by nobody except the nominator.
Any editor has the right to request a move review. But in this case, I really do wonder why DePiep bothers to make such a blatantly dishonest request for review. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"dishonest" is an aspersion that does not belong on this page. I request withdrawal by BrownHairedGirl. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You made a series of demonstrably false claims. That is blatant dishonesty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Statements could be wrong, but you have not proven bad intention. Withdraw please. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have written the accusation of "dishonesty", it is up to you to prove or withdraw. After that, whether statements are correct or not can be discussed. To be clear: at this moment, you still have made an unproven accusation of bad intention. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. All procedural matters aside, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus favoring the proposed move, and the discussion was therefore closed correctly. bd2412T 17:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl, I find you behaviour here completely ahine. We are simply trying to tidy up a longstanding ungainlyness in the naming of certain chemistry articles (which, to the best of my memory, arose from some endearing Englrish from an overenthusiastic 14 year Hong Kong high school student in about 2004), and for some reason which quite eludes me, you have chosen to obfuscate the process with a bizarre mixture of bloodyminded bureaucracy and personal attacks against editors. Will you please just go away and take a nap and let some other admin who isn't a complete mentalist handle things? And please don't start babbling wikipedia mantras at me like we're in some kind of unsane Maoist commune. As for User:BD2412, I cannot see the value of consensus if several of the parties involved didn't know what they were talking about.--feline1 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feline1, you should learn to distinguish between criticising conduct and making personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again! It's like talking to some kind of cult-member who can only parrot cult-speak phrases! I don't need to learn to distinguish anything. What YOU need to do is stop attacking DePiep, stop attacking me, and indeed just stop, generally.--feline1 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@feline1, there are hundreds of Wikipedians who work on chemistry topics; of those, only two expressed the opinion that the current naming scheme was a problem needing to be changed. The fact that the proposed target, "Period 1", is by itself ambiguous is a sound reason to oppose the proposed move. Furthermore, this usage may be uncommon, but it is not unheard of, nor is period 2 element. If there was consensus for a move, these concerns would not be sufficient to counter it, but here there was no consensus, nor much involvement from the community with respect to the question at all. bd2412T 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@bd2412 "only two expressed the opinion" - so you're calling User:BrownHairedGirl a liar then, when she insists there was only one? Careful, she'll lambast you for being dishonest :) As you say, HUNDREDS of Wikipedia editors work on chemistry articles, and less than half a dozen commented on this proposed move, so I do not see how we can claim there was consensus amongst the chemistry community! The discussion clearly got nobbled by some bureaucratic quirks, and I therefore support User:DePiep's request that we have it again, calmly and sensibly, without deranged admin's attacking everyone. This page here is not the place to have that discussion itself, although for what it's worth, I can't see how you are correct to claim that Period 1 is ambiguous - if it were, there would already be an article for some other, non-chemistry usage of that name. Which there isn't. And in any case, the proposed redirects would prevent any ambiguity, as anyone using the oddly phrased "Period 1 Element" would still be taken straight to the article. What you must get your head around is that this whole thing only arose because 14-year-old Derek had a homework question "What is a Period 2 Element?" and decided to make a Wikipedia article called "Period 2 element" when he wrote "A period 2 element is an element that is in Period 2 of the periodic table" or some similar tautological silliness.--feline1 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had enough of the relentless personal attacks from these two editors, who consistently misrepresent my explanations of the closure, and will ask for admin intervention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a little rich, considering you started the personal attacks in the first place, and both recipients of them have already requested admin intervention regarding them!--feline1 (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Feline1, the personal attacks come from you. The first interaction I had with you was on my talk page, where your first post accused me of "obtuse daftness". When I tried in good faith to explain Wikipedia procedure and the role of a closer and how I reached a decision by trying to implement long-standing principles about consensus-formation, your subsequent posts on my talk page called me "a cult member" and asked "With admins like these, who needs vandals".
re BrownHairedGirl. You counted the votes wrong in two occasions. Pointing that out is not a "relentless personal attack", it is a citation of your own writing. Under [c]: "The proposal was rejected on both pages", under [d]: "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference". A third quote I did not stress but is there [c]: "That lone supporter" for the proposal (feline1; leaves out nom's support). Calling this a personal attack is polluting this discussion. You also discarded a serious contribution for reasons not to be found in RMCI (or in XfD area for that matter), namely !vote formatting requirements. That was pointed out too with a citation. If you read or feel to be "misrepresented" by this, then address the issue rationally not personally. Don't start throwing around accusations as an argument instead. I request that you withdraw this accusation here too. Earlier in the process, there were these accusations (unspecified, blanket, closed for follow up). That was part of the process too, and show behaviour not fitting. In your earlier contribution, above, you wrote "falsehood" and "dishonest" smears, unproven and still not withdrawn. It is worrying that I need to explain this to an admin, on the third (fourth...) page of the discussion. To be clear: discussion can not proceed useful based on such accusations. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: What on earth do you hope to achieve by repeating a stream of falsehoods?
I did not "count the votes wrong". What has happened is that per WP:ADMINACCT, I had the took the time to explain my reasoning to you, and you are now playing disruptive wikilawyering games by taking words out of context, and repeatedly misrepresenting me in a series of deliberate falsehoods. In 8 yeras as an editor, and nearly 8 as an admin, I have never seen such a prolonged exercise in misrepresentation as yours.
Lie #1. You cite my reference to "that lone supporter" as evidence that I counted the votes wrong. I didn't. Only one editor supported the proposal. You made a proposal. One editor supported it. That's 2 people in favour: one proposer, one lone supporter.
Lie #2 You complain about my comment about 3 out of 4". What I wrote was "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference rejected the nom's arguments". Your blatantly dishonest partial quote strips out the rest of the sentence, in order to misrepresent me as having omitted the nominator from my count.
Lie #3. You claim that I "discarded a serious contribution". Yet again, a blatant lie. What I wrote was that I attached "a little less weight to it". If it was "discarded", it would have had zero weight.
The situation is quite simple. You made a proposal. One editor supported it. 3 editors opposed it. All arguments were well-founded in policy.
That adds up to 3 editors opposed, and 2 in favour, one of whom chose not to express their preference in the conventional way, by bolding it. With 3 opposed, and a little less than 2 in favour, I count that as a consensus against.
You have repeatedly tried to misrepresent me by quoting my words out-of-context, and you have repeatedly attributed to them a meaning which is not supported when they are read in context. That is dishonest, timewasting, and disruptive.
The effect of your misconduct is deeply corrosive of editorial collaboration. It is important that admins are accountable for their actions, and take time to explain them. I have done so, at some length, but instead of finding myself in an honest discussion with someone who seeks to understand, I have found that my explanations have been used repeatedly abused by you in a prolonged exercise of deliberate misrepresentation.
If that is how admins are treated when they explain their actions, then the effect will be that admins are much less open in explaining their actions. The time wasted in repeatedly rebutting your series of malicious lies and misrepresentations is wholly disproportionate to the issues at stake, which are simply: a procedurally-flawed discussion with 3 against and 2 in favour, which you demand should be closed as if there was a consensus in favour of it. Enough. drama. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk? I've scarcely seen such a ranting stream of personal attacks and calumny. What do you seriously hope to achieve by abusing editors in this manner. You already admitted you have no knowledge of or interest in chemistry in any case, you seem to just be here to obstruct and troll.--feline1 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feline1, you still don't understand the role of a closer. It is utterly irrelevant whether I have any knowledge of chemistry. Any knowledge which a closing admin has of the topic should not be applied in closing the discussion. The closer's role is to weigh the contributions of those who participated in the discussion, not to draw conclusions based on any knowledge they may have of the topic. If the closer wants to impart their own knowledge, they should contribute to the discussion rather than closing it.
You are quite entitled to regard the consensus as right or as wrong, but the closer's job is to note that consensus. That's how Wikipedia works, and if you dislike the fact that consensus decision-making is how Wikipedia works, don't blame me. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am blaming you, first for your persistent personal attacks and pronouncements of bad faith on all and sundry, and secondly because you are clearly more interested in nit-picking bureaucracy rather than helping to make a administrative process work so that the content of the Wikipedia is improved. You've forgotten what we're all meant to be here for, and install are just indulging in a hobby of using this site as a battleground for your snarky nonsense. Unpleasant jobsworth behavior. What are you in real life, a traffic warden? --feline1 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was an absence of community support for the initial proposition, and it is now abundantly clear that there is a lack of community support for revisiting the issue through this process. I really don't see anything to be gained by further participation in this discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) re BrowhHairedGirl. You wrote: "the proposal was rejected on both pages". That error was supported by your later writings, quoted. And again, here you are mixing up "wrong conclusions" with "lies", which turns whatever you write into a personal attack. If you want to discuss facts & findings, withdraw your personal attacks first. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, there are 5 points above where I demonstrate how you are misrepresenting me. If you choose not to withdraw those misrepresentations, I will continue to regard them as deliberate lies, intended to mislead and disrupt the move review. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
feline1 - you need to stop it with the personal attacks, comments like "complete mentalist", "Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk?" and "What are you in real life, a traffic warden?" are unacceptable.
DePiep - you need to accept the BHG has a very different view to you and the whole point of this move review is to get outside views on that difference of opinion. Repeatedly making the same point, such as BHG counting votes wrong, is not helping this discussion one bit. You've made your point, now let it be.
BrownHairedGirl - I suggest you stop replying to every post made by DePiep. As I say to them you've made your point now and continuing this discussion is not helpful. I'm not sure I'd interpret your original comments as an accusation of deliberate dishonesty, rather than a comment on that being the end result, but can also see how they came across that way (bolding and calling it a falsehood didn't help) - especially to someone that hasn't seen your style before. I'd suggest you be a little more careful with your wording in future.
All three of you - continuing this threaded discussion will serve no purpose. You've all made your point and you should now all sit back, let others comments and let a neutral admin close. Continuing this threaded conversation could well be seen as disruptive. Dpmuk (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dpmuk, the extent of your bias in favour of another admin is farcical. You're like a police superintendent who, on finding his officers have beaten the crap out of some prisoners, berates the prisoners for having collided with the officers' truncheons, whilst giving the officers a mild ticking off for having gotten blood on their nice clean uniforms.--feline1 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Dpmuk. Your intervention is appreciated and was needed. I have some remarks though. Clearly my ANI post and your 12:30 post crossed. For the general line and diffs I refer to ANI. I'll respond here to your post. Re Re DePiep: "You've made your point, now let it be". That was not my point! After my OP here, I have only made this point: BHG writing bad faith accusations in two subthreads (that's two points). That and only that is what I am saying. I have not entered a content discussion (for that reason), and it is not about "different view". I do not know why you did not even find that below the first BHG thread (what else is there to be read?). Re Re BrownHairedGirl: "stop replying"? Is that what was asked for? No, BHG is invited to reply, by changing their earlier edits or withdraw smears. Strangely you did not find any personal attack from this editor ("I'm not sure ... " -- what is that sentence supposed to say? BHG writes: "a blatantly dishonest request" and you don't know if you should read "dishonest"? You write "... especially to someone that hasn't seen your style before." -- what "style" are we supposed to see & understand? Any "style" privileges we should know about?) Your general advice (to three) is to sit back. Since you misunderstood the posts, and since I am accused of bad faith, I cannot follow that. What really does hot help the discussion is BHG adding bad faith accusations without being checked or questioned. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're both accusing the other of making bad faith accusations. It seems to me that the root cause of those issues is a difference of opinion on vote counts etc and things have got a little out of hand since then - by both parties. However it appears to me that because both of your comments track back to that original disagreement that neither of you are going to back down so it's easiest just to let it be - either of you continuing to push these accusations of "bad faith" is going to end badly. You probably both have valid points so it seems fairest just to leave things as they are - especially here where it has no impact on this move review. Dpmuk (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we both agree on vote counts. Total of 2 in favour, 3 against. There is disagreement over whether it was correct for me to attach a little less weight to the unbolded !vote in favour, but on the 3:2 we agree. The rest is hot air. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure The choices made by BrownHairedGirl were entirely within appropriate administrative discretion. In fact, the request(s) could have been closed without comment based on precedural errors alone, irrespective of who and how the errors were introduced. As BHG says, dismissal for malformatting is not a mere technicality: improperly formatted discussions impede consensus formation, since they introduce barriers making comments by contributors more difficult. Proper consensus formation requires due and appropriate notice to the community. Arguments over !vote-counting are mere wiki-lawyering, given that the fundamental basis for closure was sound. Since the proposal's basic problem was its format, I don't believe the closure is with prejudice: another discussion, properly opened at WP:RM, would be fine with me. However, I share with BrownHairedGirl a dislike for the wiki-lawyering present in this movie review request. Xoloz (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There's no consensus for the move request at either WP:ELEMENTS talk page or on the period 1 element talk page. Both discussions were open 10 days, and had sufficient enough participation to determine consensus. In short, there's nothing wrong with the close made by BrownHairGirl. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow a new request with proper formatting. Poor formatting alone is a bad reason to close a move, but this bifurcated request wasn't doing anyone any favors. There wasn't a clear consensus at either one for a move, so I can't help but view this MRV as quixotic. However, I see no reason this can't be brought up again in a less confusing format. For DePiep and anyone else, make an RM, (optionally) inform WikiProjects, and let the process run. WP:NOTBURO aside, trying to build consensus for page moves outside of RM is like trying to build consensus to delete an article outside of AfD. Maybe it can be done, but it's just not a good idea. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When there's no consensus for pagemoves, the pages don't get moved. Anything else ventures into WP:SUPERVOTE territory. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this Review request.
I raised my point of personal attacks (bad faith accusations) at WP:ANI[58]. I asked to have the editor remove these accusations and change behaviour. In the outcome, the admins did not see any trespassing and did not take any action into removing them, and no correctional words were addressed to the editor. So wordings like "Falsehood" (bold in originals, 2), "Lie" (bold in originals, 3), "dishonest", "relentless personal attacks from these two editors" stay part of this discussion.
Now I am supposed to 'discuss' these personal attacks (instead of discussing arguments). I will not do that. Personal attacks do not belong in a discussion in the first place, I am not even supposed to take the bait, and I do not see how or why I am supposed to prove that I am not "dishonest". If there are arguments hidden in these accusations, the posting editor (not someone else) could and should have unwrapped them as argument for discussion.
Another consequence from ANI is that the personal attacks are available at closing time, to be used by the closing admin. As the admins did not see or act upon these personal attacks, I do not have confidence that a closing admin will throw out these accusations before concluding. As indeed they are explicitly accepted by the admins, they will be (must be) used and weighed.
It is therefor that I withdraw this review request. The procedural close will imply a null outcome then. I am disappointed that wikipedia, admins especially, were unable to keep personal attacks out of a discussion and even allowing them into a closure. -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Common Gull – Closure endorsed. Amongst those commenting on the close (rather than re-arguing the move discussion) it is clear that the consensus is that this close was reasonable. – Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC nomenclature as its naming convention. The IOC name for this species is Mew Gull. Personally I do prefer Common Gull, but we are trying to streamline bird names where there are issues. Under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME - one is the common name in America, the other is the common name in Europe, hence both could apply. The IOC gives more weight to one name. Funnily enough, a quip among birders is that the name should be uncommon gull as it is by no means the most abundant species....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, relist move discussion and seek wider consensus. Original proposal didn't point out that Mew Gull is common name in America, which might have confused some readers. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote in this formal move request, but I was aware of it. Perhaps, others refrained from voting like me, because they were indifferent at that time. The formal move request was signposted on the WP Birds talk page to alert people who were likely to be interested. I think that the move discussion was closed appropriately. Actually, I think that the move formal request has been handled in an exemplary way. Mew Gull is also used for the name of the American subspecies as well as being an alternative name for the species, so the term can be confusing. Talk:Australian Wood Duck is an example of a bird name that is not at the IOC name with the Australian name used in preference. Also note that the IOC can change a name and then change it back as has been done recently for two Australian black cockatoos, hence not all of the IOC names are ideal all of the time. Also, note that less than about 10 bird names on the Wiki have a name that is different to the IOC name (not including capitalization, hyphenation, and local language spelling, and names following recent taxonomy ideas), so alternative names are not a big problem on the Wiki like it used to be, as far as I am aware. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in UK English (as far as I am aware), so logically readers would not have been persuaded to favour a page move to Mew Gull (the American name), if the original proposal had pointed out that Mew Gull is the common name in America and Common Gull is the common name in the UK. In fact, a theme in the page move discussion is that the article is written in UK English and hence that the English name "Common Gull" is preferable. Snowman (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't conisdered what it was written in. That is fairly mutable and could be changed in a matter of minutes so I would not hold that as something to be of concern. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to a change of language localisation, see MOS:RETAIN, which says; "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change". The bird is found in USA and the UK, so I see no reason to change the article from UK English. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to conflate the variety of English used with the IOC name. The IOC names are international names, whether or not a particular name is associated with usage in a particular country. With reference to MOS:RETAIN, quoted by Snowman above ("With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change"), the use of “Common” in a common name is ambiguous. No bird is common everywhere (although Common Starling is pushing hard to be so). The usage is highly biased towards birds that may be common in western Europe or North America. Maias (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with part of Maias's argument in that the IOC is our international standard for bird names. We should use that standard when naming common names. We shouldn't use the standard when we like it, then not use it when we don't. In this case COMMONNAME and ENGVAR should not apply since 2 different English names equally apply in two different parts of the world. I agree with Snowman about using the word "Common" in other species where the word is commonly referenced for the species and is recognized as our accepted standard, and there are no conflicts internationally....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just run a script to extract all the birds where the IOC uses "Common" in the English name. "Common" is used 75 times by the IOC, so clearly it is acceptable by them. Clearly, "Common" does not imply that the birds are common all over the world. It seems to me that birds from all over the world are listed. I have not done a regional count, but at first glance, I would reject the idea that the list is highly bias towards birds of the West. See: Snowman (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 Common Ostrich
2 Common Shelduck
3 Common Pochard
4 Common Eider
5 Common Scoter
6 Common Goldeneye
7 Common Merganser
8 Common Quail
9 Common Pheasant
10 Common Diving Petrel
11 Common Black Hawk
12 Common Buzzard
13 Common Moorhen
14 Common Gallinule
15 Common Crane
16 Common Buttonquail
17 Common Ringed Plover
18 Common Snipe
19 Common Redshank
20 Common Greenshank
21 Common Sandpiper
22 Common Tern
23 Common Murre
24 Common Wood Pigeon
25 Common Emerald Dove
26 Common Bronzewing
27 Common Ground Dove
28 Common Hawk-Cuckoo
29 Common Cuckoo
30 Common Potoo
31 Common Nighthawk
32 Common Poorwill
33 Common Swift
34 Common Paradise Kingfisher
35 Common Kingfisher
36 Common Scimitarbill
37 Common Flameback
38 Common Kestrel
39 Common Sunbird-Asity
40 Common Miner
41 Common Scale-backed Antbird
42 Common Tody-Flycatcher
43 Common Smoky Honeyeater
44 Common Woodshrike
45 Common Newtonia
46 Common Iora
47 Common Cicadabird
48 Common Green Magpie
49 Common Bulbul
50 Common House Martin
51 Common Chiffchaff
52 Common Grasshopper Warbler
53 Common Jery
54 Common Tailorbird
55 Common Babbler
56 Common Whitethroat
57 Common Firecrest
58 Common Hill Myna
59 Common Myna
60 Common Starling
61 Common Blackbird
62 Common Nightingale
63 Common Redstart
64 Common Rock Thrush
65 Common Waxbill
66 Common Chaffinch
67 Common Rosefinch
68 Common Linnet
69 Common Redpoll
70 Common Yellowthroat
71 Common Grackle
72 Common Reed Bunting
73 Common Bush Tanager
74 Common Diuca Finch
75 Common Cactus Finch
List written with the aid of a script. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the last Move request, only 5 people in total commented, with 3 supporting, 2 in opposition. I would hardly call that controversial. Given the low number of comments, Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC as it's defacto standard for English names. The IOC names have been used when a species occurs in 2 different areas with both using different names (see Black-necked Grebe, Common Merganser, Horned Grebe, Common Starling, etc). In some of those stated cases (and others), the European name was changed to the North American name after a long period of stability. The Project should stay consistent and follow its rules, the valid reason is to use the IOC name as its rules state. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR have only been used when a local or regional area have an overriding common name other than the IOC standard. In this case, North America and Europe each have different names, and the IOC common name has been used to settle those disputes. This species should not be any different......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think that the move discussion was adequately signposted on WP Birds talk page. The discussion was open for about 20 days. I think that the closure by User BrownHairedGirl was exemplary. I think that the "no consensus" conclusion is valid. I would guess that an immediate re-listing of the move discussions could be as fruitless as re-ploughing a ploughed field; however, I would not exclude the possibility of a second formal move discussion started after an appropriate length of time, perhaps after 6 months or 1 year. Of course, the outcome of a hypothetical second move discussion is irrelevant to this move review. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2014 (U
Overturn. I also think the process was followed with the exception of the original admin reverting back the name from Mew Gull back to Common Gull. In the case of the move from European Starling from 2003 to 2011, someone moved the name to Common Starling in 2011. The move was made to conform to IOC. I'm guessing if I could muster up a few of my friends, we could have made a case to oppose that change move despite the logic of properly changing the page based on a naming standard the Wikiproject adopted to deal with rellatively uncontroversial page moves. In this case, the 2 comments used false logic to keep the birds name as Common Gull. The reason I am leaving is the project is too arbitrary in it's standards for my taste, and I'm sure Wikipedia will do well without me........Pvmoutside (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put you right on the page moves; the move discussion was closed by User BrownHairedGirl as "no consensus", so she did not move the article, then User Jimfbleak moved the page to Mew Gull, and then User BD2412 moved it back to Common Gull. Personally speaking, I think that most people would think that Wiki bird articles are well named now. Only about less than 10 species articles out of about 10,000 bird species are now not at the IOC name, where the taxonomy is stable and widely accepted. Who can say if the Wiki or IOC has the best names for the 10 (approx) names out of synchronization? The work of keeping taxonomy up-to-date on the Wiki is in progress and the content of many many articles is imperfect. To me, the imperfection of thousands of Wiki bird articles is a bigger problem than the 10 (approx) Wiki page names not at the IOC name. Did you know that recently two black cockatoos were re-named by the IOC for a while and then they returned the original well-established names? To me, this appears to show that the IOC listens to feedback. I think that WP Birds can also listen to feedback. I do not fully understand what you mean by "muster up a few friends"; nevertheless, may I remind you that canvassing is not the ideal way to influence a vote on the Wiki and such an influence could jeopardise or degrade the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Snowman for the clarification on the timeline, I stand corrected. I also agree with you most of the names are well named, and that is due to the diligence of everyone in the Wikiproject. I also agree that most of the names are stable and widely accepted. For those 10 (or so) names that differ from the IOC, in most cases valid arguments have been brought up and accepted by the body to keep them distinct (some I agree with, some I don't BTW). I also agree that there are many more articles that require our attention and many are a work in progress. But we shouldn't stop trying to correct those we believe to be flawed. We should do both. We have a standard and we should stick to it. I think 2 people (out of 5 total BTW) against moving the article is not enough of a sample size to ignore our naming rules (when you look at the overall number of Wikiproject or Wikpedia editors). We use the IOC as our defacto standard. We should use those names unless there is an overwhelming response not to. That's why we have a standard. We should strive to get it right every time. I feel so strongly with this I am willing to leave over it in this case. Yes the IOC has named birds one way, and then returned to it after consultation. Since it is our standard, we should follow it. There has been talk over a number of years of the "Mew Gull" and "Common Gull" splitting. It hasn't happened yet and until an accepted reference does, we should follow our standard naming convention. Sorry about being sarcastic about using the phrase "muster up a few friends", but don't we try to do that every time we get into a capitalization battle every few months? Bottom line, I feel so strongly over keeping our rules in place (unless there is strong local consensus not to), that I am willing to leave over it......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. After considering the arguments here, I think this is a case where WP:IAR can be applied to the WP:ENGVAR arguments, as this is, in fact, a case where despite the ENGVAR there is a "standardised" name accepted by authorities in the field, and in this case the name is "Mew Gull". I might note, however, that Maias' argument above is, in this case, not an appropriate one: regardless of how 'ambiguous' "Common" might be, it is, as noted, an (ahem) commonly used official name, and it's not Wikipedia's place to decide otherwise. However, based on the arguments in the RM, I believe the correct action here is renaming. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small clarification Bushranger....both "Common Gull" and "Mew Gull" are accepted names for the full species by authorities in the field depending where you are and who you talk to. My preference (and the history of the Wikiproject) is to use the IOC name for those species occurring in more than one region of the world where names are different and equal in value....What further confuses this particular species is that both regions refer to both "Common Gull" and "Mew Gull" but in different ways. Europe refers to the species as "Common Gull" with the North American "Mew Gull" as a subspecies. North America (and the IOC) refers to the species as the "Mew Gull" with the European "Common Gull" as the subspecies.Pvmoutside (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, basically on the grounds that where there is a low vote and no consensus we should go with an established convention, i.e. the IOC names list. I should add, since my aside about the use of the prefix 'Common' in common names appears to have been an unnecessary distraction, I am not suggesting that, with such names, we should go with non-IOC alternatives. For me the IOC name should generally be preferred, whatever my personal aesthetic stance may be. Maias (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was open for about 20 days and it was signposted on the WP talk page, so I expect the discussion was seen by many viewers who did not vote. Perhaps, some viewers would have been aware that the original page discussion was arriving at "no-consensus", because this would be obvious on a quick look at the progress of the discussions and they might have been happy to leave it alone and not comment thinking that the suggested move will not happen. I wonder if more people would have expresses an opinion if the result was heading one way or another. Likewise, the quality of a horse can not be determined when it is raced with slow horses. Also, consider that the bird was at "Common Gull" here for about 9 or 10 years. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In have not been able to confirm that the Common Gull is sometimes called the uncommon gull by some, as claimed in the nomination. This claim is seen in the Wiki article, and it looks like it is supported by an in-line reference. I have looked at the relevant in-line source in Google books, but I could not see the last part of the entry. The book appears to list old regional names for the bird and I did not see any mention of "uncommon gull". I am not saying that it is not a birders pun, but I would like to see a reference for it. Can anyone find a source for "uncommon gull"? Also, IUCN reports that in 2006 "The global population is estimated to number c.2,500,000-3,700,000 individuals", so the bird is not rare and not-uncommon. I think that innuendos in the introduction may mislead some people into thinking that the bird has low numbers. Also, I think that to say "funnily enough" in the nomination is biased language and unnecessary dismissive of the name "Common Gull" that it is widely known as. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have voted for "Overturn", but I am not sure what practical outcome is anticipated by this. What does overturning a "no-consensus" imply? Does is support the nominator's idea of re-listing the move discussion? How can a decent move discussion be overturned without re-running the move discussion? Snowman (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found something at Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing_reviews. Typically, when the original move discussion is no consensus and the page is not moved, then the outcome here at this move review of "Endorse" and "Overturn" both do not lead to the page being moved. See Wikipedia:Move_review#What_this_process_is_not, which gives a table of possible outcomes. It also says "this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Clearly no-consensus. Note a no-consensus close does not preclude openning a new move discussion. Seems like some of the arguments above might work better in a future move discussion then in a move review. PaleAqua (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I voted in the discussion, and would vote the same way again if nothing was done to show one name being either as common or more common than the other. If any reason was given to think that Mew Gull was the more common name or was trending to become the more common name, I would have supported moving the page. If they want to relist it, that's fine with me, but bring something new to the table if you are justifying a move. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The question in a review is whether the closure was proper. This is not a place to re-argue the question of the move itself. The closure was a reasonable one within admin discretion, and nothing precludes another move request after some time has elapsed. Xoloz (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and change name to Mew Gull, as clearly and unambiguously outlined by the IOC List, which is the stand apobted by WikiProject Birds. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a number of people are using this move review as if it was a move discussion. See information about move reviews at Wikipedia:Move_review#What_this_process_is_not, which says; "this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with User:Snowmanradio that this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. WP:BIRDS is a well-established project and many experienced editors work there. If you reach a firm conclusion about usage of IOC names you can make an RfC or take some other step that will guide move discussions in the future. As User:Pvmoutside stated in his move proposal, "It appears that a lot of informal conversation has already occurred regarding this species." The move closer should not be expected to study the the past two years of WP:BIRDS discussion to make their own summary of the informal conversations. That's what RfCs are for. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because: 1) closer counted supporting and opposing votes incorrectly and 2) closer based the decision on the (incorrect) numbers rather on Wikipedia Titling Policy in closing this requested move prematurely. There was a lack of consensus for the recent unilateral move to a new, irrelevant name by an interested party. Therefore, the closer should have reverted the page title to the longtime title while discussion continues. Thank you for considering this review.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, I confess that I made a mistake in the original vote count. It has been fixed. The majority was actually 4:3 in favor of the move to Anna Pou case, or 3:2 if you discount editors who have no participation outside the move discussion. I closed this as No Consensus. AccuracyObsessed has already discussed the closure with me on my talk page. Due to concerns about WP:BLP I argue that a strong consensus would be needed to rename the article about this case so as to attach it to one person. No national news organization (New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News) calls it the Anna Pou Case in their headlines, though some New Orleans papers do. The Times-Picayune did so at least once. If you go down the reference list at the bottom of Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina you will see that the 'Anna Pou Case' does not appear in any of the titles. The journalist always finds some other way to identify the case. They use phrases like 'Memorial case' or 'post-Katrina deaths.' A grand jury declined to indict Anna Pou and the others. The charges against Anna Pou were eventually expunged from the record and the State of Louisiana agreed to pay her legal expenses. The state Attorney General who brought the case was defeated in the next election. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the article has been attached to Anna Pou, whose famous case is taught at many universities, for eight years, until Schwartzenberg, who has attempted to scrub her name from multiple sites, made a unilateral, undiscussed move a couple of weeks ago to an irrelevant name that is drawing much less traffic. There was no consensus for his unilateral move, and my move request should have been closed by you reverting to Anna Pou case, which properly describes the article according to Wikipedia titling policy.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that AccuracyObsessed created their account on 22 February 2014, the same day AccuracyObsessed requested the move. Schwartzenberg (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, it should be noted that Schwartzenberg made the first unilateral move away from the longtime title of this article after having attempted to delete the page entirely and, the same day, add objectionable POV material to the BLP of an investigative reporter who wrote about the Anna Pou case.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Endorse very reasonable admin discretion by EdJohnston (talk·contribs), a highly respected Wikipedian applying good judgement on a high profile emotive topic.
Endorse a perfectly reasonable closure. The miscount was unfortunate, but does not affect the outcome, so it is of no relevance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a reasonable closure, especially given the valid BLP concerns relating to titling the article after an individual. Xoloz (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close seems like a reasonable close. While usually an article goes back to a long standing name in a no-consensus close, the argument citing BLP seems like very reasonable discretion. PaleAqua (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn 10/6 is not a clear consensus to move (note:"consensus" does not mean "majority", usual practice in absence of a consensus is the status quo. We now have a couple of crane pages at lower case, and 10,000 bird pages capitalised. Despite the attempts to muddy the waters, this was not a request to move all the bird species pages. The entirely negative move request was by people who have no interest in doing anything constructive on bird pages. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
