Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have started blue-linking birds that were listed at Requested Pages. I've brought them all here: User:Marskell/birds (note the initial pages done the last couple of days). It's basically the IUCN plus what I can find on google to create a stub.

I'd like a second gnomish editor to a) double-check the taxa info; b) find pics (where do you folks go for those?); and c) to expand, of course, as much as possible. Let me know; there's only ten thousand-odd of these so we can get an article on all of the :). Marskell 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you like, I'll do the two Petrochelidon articles, as long as there is no rush - doing a few SAm snipes at present, jimfbleak 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go for images? Take them ourselves (mine are the blurry ones), use those that other wikipedians have taken (I've found several images on Commons that weren't being used), find them on public-domain sites like the USFWS, find them on Flickr or Google Images with a free license or get permission (that doesn't work too often), get them from friends, request pictures. That can be the "we" that includes "you", by the way :-) —JerryFriedman 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I offer to do sketches of birds that are tough to get images for. I can take up limited request over weekends, and they will typically be in a certain simplified artistic style like the samples here. Shyamal 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent the bird article to peer review. If you'd like to make some comments then please go do so here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi I joined today, and I made this today. Do you like it? LINK: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/AnimalFans/250px-Aves_diversity.png You could add it to the main Bird article. --Mitternacht90 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are the images from a copyrighted source? They look like it. Because then Wikipedia can't post it. Dysmorodrepanis 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the images are from Wikipedia. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they're from here. ^_^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scarlet-headed_Blackbird.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:American-Bittern-01-web.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baltimore_oriole_male.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crestedtreeswift.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anas_platyrhynchos_male.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Detail_of_Indian_Peacock_tail_feather.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carduelis-tristis-002.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Halsband-Wehrvogel_Chanua_torquata_0505273_Ausschnitt.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scarlettanager99.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PaintedBunting23.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circaetus_gallicus_01.JPG, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Milvus_migrans_primary.jpg

--HoopoeBaijiKite 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've written start articles for Tree Martin and Fairy Martin as requested pages. I would have thought that someone in Oz might have images of these common swallows that they could add? Jimfbleak 10:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently nominated a category merger from Category:Strigiformes into Category:Owls. I did this because it seems they are the same thing, and I have also seen categorization under the common name in other animal categories. In fact, this is policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categories. This policy makes sense, since those who know the common name might not know the scientific name, but not the other way around.

Now I've noticed that there are many duplicates like this among the bird categories, for example Category:Toucans & Category:Ramphastidae, Category:Old World vultures & Category:Aegypiinae, or Category:Woodpeckers & Category:Picinae, to name just a few. It seems this segregated categorization may be the work of User:Dysmorodrepanis. Is there a purpose to this duplicate categorization? The policy I linked above seems pretty clear that the common name should be used to avoid confusion... --Eliyak T·C 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is helpful have a "tree" of categories according to scientific classification. The ToL policy is ludicrous and needs to be changed, seriously - whoever instated it was ignorant of the fact that most lifeforms simply do not have a common name. Such a policy would have been OK in the early 18th century, but not anymore with the 1st edition of Systema Naturae. Scientific terminology is precise and unequivocal. Vernacular names cannot replace it. As regards birds, why not have both? It does not hurt, and WP:NOTPAPER. The idea that scientific-name categories be abandoned is IMHO disgraceful. WP already has a problem with scientific credibility, and switching to vernacular names will make a bad thing worse.

And there is no single globally accepted system of vernacular names for higher-level bird taxa. What is preferable: Parulidae, or a debate about whether the category would be "wood warblers", "wood-warblers", "New World warblers", "American warblers", ...? Dysmorodrepanis 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW Old World vultures is NOT synonymous with Aegypinae. I don't think it's up already, but they're paraphyletic. A tree of scientific-name categories also allows assignment to multiple places in this tree for taxa incertae sedis.

To sum it up, I did what I did because it works. The vernacular-name system doesn't, except for some taxa. Look at the horror of Category:Moths for the ugliness it cases. Dysmorodrepanis 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Dysmorodrepanis, that maintaining scientific named categories is important. Since Wikispecies doesn't seem accepted, credible, or used, categories are the next best option for a unified phylogenetically-accurate taxonomy. More dangerous than duplication is the proposed (existing?) hybrid classification system with common-name categories for taxa that have them, and scientific-name categories everywhere else. That guarantees a discontinuous, paraphyletic mess, with many gaps requiring bridges of sci-named subcategories, or inventing many new (and inevitably confusing) English names. How would you negotiate through Category:Seabirds to keep the various species and families in the right higher-order taxa? And would someone looking up Great Crested Flycatchers be less confused by a classification scheme that includes old world flycatchers, than they would negotiating Category:Tyrannidae? Dumbing down wp's taxonomy, and creating erroneous, disjointed categorization schemes just because it fits a layman's vernacular, doesn't sound desirable.

Here's a proposal: Include one-sentence descriptors on each sci-named cat page with common names of member taxa (see: Category:Buteoninae. Fredwerner 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is my fault. I have had to create so many of them that I just couldn't follow up with it. I shall correct that whenever I come across it. Dysmorodrepanis 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I created the original tree, but did not create cat blurb for every single cat. I'm also partly responsible for leaving as many existing English names in places. I couldn't even get category:Sphenisciformes renamed properly, and after also failing to get Category:Owls merged, I gave up and used the exdisting categories as much as possible. Circeus 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem. For the Common-name cats, see Category:Birds by common name; check out for example Seabirds. There is a nice tree of categories already, and it can be linked to Aquatic Ecology cat, for which common ecology (reflected in the common name) is the important qualifier rather than common phylogeny. Dysmorodrepanis 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding to this to extend the article beyond the US, and in particular I've added the other subspecies. I'd like to have a sentence of description, but apart from costaricensis, where I have the book, I can find nothing on the web, even for the nominate race jamaicensis. I would have thought that someone, esp in the US, would have a field guide for Mexico or the West Indies at least, and could add a bit. Jimfbleak 10:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look in the HBW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can one of the admins move Asities to Asity per the manual of style's ruled for plurals in titles? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Circeus 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I've found some info on the family and I'll do some expanding this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks! I've put an article I (mostly) wrote, Daspletosaurus, up for peer review here. Most of the WP:DINO editors have already had a look at it, but I wouldn't mind suggestions from a wider array of editors. So I invite anyone reading this to look the article over and comment on the peer review page. Thank you! Sheep81 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pish is currently up for deletion, might be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pish. Thanks/wangi 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This may have been discussed in the past. But I see some contributors in an unfortunate conflict which could have been easily resolved. In bird articles, the lead sentence usually has the common name followed by the binomial. While some of us prefer bracketing the binomial, others place it after a comma. While there is no strong reason for either, I think the current de facto standard is that the comma is used with unbracketed scientific name. If this is indeed the de facto standard, it would be good to move it to the article guidelines and save needless troubles for some. Shyamal 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference, but it would be good to pick one and stick with it. I say go with the commas. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it has already been discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Standardised_Opening_Line. But it looks like this has to go to the project page as there seems to have been a really unfortunate clash here at User_talk:Stavenn. Shyamal 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you Shyamal for your time and concern. It is unfortunate, but hopefully because of this it will be less problem in the future. My preference would be comma. I think its useless to put brackets in already italicized scientific name. It makes the page looks ugly, also most of bird books reference/encyclopedia don't use brackets. --Stavenn 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas are my preference too. Jimfbleak 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's go with the commas. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer parenthesis. Often times there is a need for a parenthetical remark set off by commas (plural, not one comma...). Having the scientific name in parenthesis before the parenthetical remark prevents having multiple parenthetical remarks stacked up against each other:

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, also known as the Big-eyed Wren, is a large wren.

The Bight-eyed Wren (Brightus eyus), also known as the Big-eyed Wren, is a large wren.

This is how it is done elsewhere. Either way, it would be incorrect to not parenthesize and the leave off the comma after the scientific name, as User:Stavenn has been doing:

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus also known as the Big-eyed Wren, is a large wren.

When I find such a malformed opening, I fix it to my preferred correct style. When other users point out to me someone making an improper edit, I fix it and attempt to engage the misdirected editor. When my attempt to correct the editor is met with blatant incivility as Stavenn has shown, I am both emboldened to maintain the fix as I see fit, and to warn the user about civility and give him a block warning, and follow it up with a block if the user persists in either the incorrect editing or the incivility, both of which Stavenn has done. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

UtherSRG, you changed the scientific name to brackets "Without" comma. The Huon Astrapia (Astrapia rothschildi) is a bird. Isn't that "wrong" too ? according to your "preferred correct style" it should be The Huon Astrapia (Astrapia rothschildi)comma is a bird ? Please check your edits. Also we're talking about opening lead sentences in bird articles here, bring your other issues to appropriate page. --Stavenn 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because there is not parenthetical remark. The comma indicates the beginning or ending of a parenthetical remark. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What about edits you did in Tooth-billed Catbird, Eastern Parotia, Timor Sparrow, etc (that do have parenthetical remarks as sample above). You didn't put any commas before parenthetical remark, just brackets. Any comments --Stavenn 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the italicized text without parantheses - it looks less messy. Parantheses put me in mind of the child who has to put every single digression in parantheses. And I wonder why you refer to those who use italicized text without parantheses as "misdirected." I frankly find that rather... condescending and superior. And I must say I think it a little extreme to categorize the removal of parantheses in an area where we haven't reached consensus as vandalism. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If the editor is editing improperly, how is that not a "misdirected editor"? How can I more easily distinguish the two in my description above? Regardless, I didn't say there was vandalism. On Stavenn's talk page I said I would consider his actions as vandalism if he continued the incorrect editing as well as the incivility of his tone. It was that continuance that was the vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that when there's been no consensus reached, the edits can't be improper. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They can when the editor in question is using an incorrect number of commas. My third example above is incorrect no matter whether you prefer parentheses or not. It was that form that Stavenn was using, which no matter how you look at things, is incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Point conceded. I do want to point out that the user in question has a userbox on his userpage that states that "This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English." Given that this was the case, I would have approached the matter differently than you did. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Those stucked-up comma caused by parenthetical remark in the opening lead can be solved by creating a new sentence and avoid to use one in the opening sentence (if I'm not mistaken). Looks more encyclopedic also.

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, also known as the Big-eyed Wren, is a large wren.

to

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus is a large wren. It is also known as the Big-eyed Wren.

UtherSRG, what about the opening lead sentence on Green Broadbill, Huon Astrapia, Western Crowned Pigeon, Twelve-wired Bird of Paradise, etc (that don't have parenthetical remarks), any reason you reverted/changed it ? --Stavenn 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Your second example is missing a comma. It should be

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, is a large wren. It is also known as the Big-eyed Wren.

Personally I have a mild preference for parenthesis, because they seem stronger (i.e. they imply more forcefully that their contents can be skipped) and this will be useful to most readers. [I see Djlayton4 gives a similar argument below.] They also help avoid strings of comma-enclosed clauses, although I agree that these can also be avoided by rewording things. -- Avenue 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is more than I've ever thought I'd know about birds. Anyways, is there not a scientific Manual of Style for this--for example, how are articles written in the Journal of Birds (I'm too lazy to look up a real name) when describing a new species? Orangemarlin 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer parentheses because (a) many of my books use them if some organism has a common name and (b) there are gernerally so many commas flying about I like to reduce the numbers of them. I'll ask around so we can get an idea across the board and lets see who prefers which:

For those who are anti-poll, I am placing this as this argument could get very very very long and it is really a matter of preference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs).

Commas

1. Stavenn
2. Jimfbleak
3. Sabine's Sunbird
4. Yomangani
5. Corvus coronoides

Parentheses

1. Casliber
2. UtherSRG
3. Figaro
4. Anonymous Dissident
5. Orangemarlin--tentatively.
6. Djlayton4--but only for articles listed under a common name (see comment)
7. Avenue
8. Jude
9. Joelito (talk)
10. Marskell
11. Kla'quot Not a big deal either way though.
12. MeegsC

Either or

1. Spawn Man - I don't really care which way really.

Sorry if you all would prefer to have comments above the poll: if that's the case feel free to move my comment. I was invited to discuss this matter here by Casliber, and although I've never edited bird articles before (at least I don't think I have), I'm quite active with plants and we have similar issues. Anyways, I would like to give my opinon. The plant articles are always under their scientific names, so our problem is with listing common names. In that case I prefer comma usage since common names are a part of common English usage and are well suited to be presented within an actual sentence. In the case of the bird project, however, I think parentheses are better suited to the task as many readers are uninterested in the scientific name. As parentheses tend to suggest extra information that isn't essential to understanding, parentheses seem a good choice for presenting a Latin name. Furthermore, with plants we often have to list many common names, which looks stylistically bad in parentheses. With only one scientific name to deal with, parentheses make more sense to me.

Casliber suggested to me that this could become a overarching policy for all organism articles, but I think that would be a bad idea given that, as above, plants need common names listed (often more than 2, clumsy: bad in parentheses), whereas the bird project only needs one scientific name (clean and concise: good in parentheses). Anyways, I'll go ahead and put my vote in for parentheses, but if any of you want this in the MOS for all Tree of Life articles, please consider the different information that has to be dealt with in different projects. I think parentheses work well for any article under a common name (animals, birds, fish), but when under a scientific name (plants especially due to more common names, but also mushrooms) opening sentences seem to look more professional to me with commas. I hope my rambling is somewhat coherent... Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care - as long as punctuation is formally correct. I.e., as per UtherSRG's examples 1 and 2 and not like example 3. In some cases, commata might be aesthetically more pleasing. In other cases, it might be parentheses. I tend to boil it down to pure aesthetics and use parentheses if the opening sentence for whatever reason (such as doubts about the systematic placement of a taxon or several alternate names or recently moved into another genus...) gets a bit longer and/or contains multiple commata already to avoid a long commata-delimited concatenation of various bits of information into one indifferent whole (the scientific and the "standard" vernacular name are the 2 really important infos in the opening sentence, and as such should stand out not only by boldface but also syntactically... IMHO). I think I use commata significantly more often than parentheses now, but it used to be the other way around in my first articles. Dysmorodrepanis 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is for parentheses. Parentheses are used in most references I've seen. Also, the scientific name is nonessential to most readers, and placing it in parentheses makes that clear. Whichever way is agreed upon, however, I'll be satisfied with.--Jude 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly more in favour of commas as they don't lessen the weight of the scientific name (after all it's not an unneeded explanation like this, but a name that has equal if not greater weight than the common name) and it leaves the option of following parentheses open. Stacked parenthetical remarks separated by commas are common but abutting parentheses look ugly at the very least. If, say, the alternative common name is not widely used you may wish to lessen the weight given to it by placing it in parentheses, which then becomes awkward with:

The Bight-eyed Wren (Brightus eyus) (also known as the Big-eyed Wren) is a large wren.

whereas it is less so with:

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, (also known as the Big-eyed Wren) is a large wren.

Nothing over-complicated with either format of course. Yomangani^talk 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to follow parentheses initially but moved to commas and do not care which is chosen as a suggested guideline. But I agree that the grammar example of UtherSRG is correct and that construct is quite common. IIRC a strict zoological name should be stated with author (full name) and date but in the great tradition of ornithology we could leave it and save ourselves the troubles of author parentheses. Fortunately there is no widespread tradition of putting the subgenus either which could mean more nested parentheses and look more like a math expression. Shyamal 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we get around having to deal with the peculiarities of the full authority by putting it into the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, where to I get to see the Bight-eyed Wren (: ? Jimfbleak 05:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How did I know someone would want to see one?? *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that parentheses simply look more formal and scientific. Otherwise, I dont care either way. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 06:09, 19 June 2007 UTC)

Expanding on what Yomangani has said:

The Bight-eyed Wren (Brightus eyus), also known as the Big-eyed Wren, is a large wren.

How does that look? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 06:14, 19 June 2007 UTC)

It is my preferred style: parenthesis around the scientific name, and the parenthetical "also known as" set off with commas. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What I do in practice (and I've started quite a few bird articles) is

The Bight-eyed Wren or Big-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, is a large wren.

or, if there is a regional factor:

The Bight-eyed Wren, Brightus eyus, known in Ireland as the Shamrock Wren, is a large wren.

to me at least,both are less clunky than parentheses. Jimfbleak 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's only you bird folks that have started doing that. All other species writers put the also knowns after the scientific name, probably because when there are multiple common names, there are insufferable numbers of them. *grins* And your second example is a bit garden path-ish... the comma after the scientific name should indicate the resumption of the main sentence, but is in fact the beginning of a second parenthetical remark.

The Bight-eyed Wren (Brightus eyus), known in Ireland as the Shamrock Wren, is a large wren.

Now the parenthetical is begun and ended properly, and the scientific name's introduction doesn't interfere. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't care any more. And I've changed my mind. Just let people do whatever the hell they want so long as it is grammatically correct. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And also try not to let them turn into edit wars. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no question that, grammatically, both are correct. There's also no question that both can be readily found both here on WP and in the literature. For some of the stylistic reasons mentioned above, however, I feel it's important that we preserve the possibility of using either commas or parentheses, as the editor sees fit. Some of the examples of how multiple parenthetical statements within one sentence may necessitate "changing things up" by using both struck home for me. It's also clear to me that User:Stavenn was in error to use only one comma. In the end, though, I'm not sure whether this error was ever actually pointed out to him prior to his being blocked but, then again, this may not be the appropriate venue for that discussion. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Other questions

I haven't read the whole debate, so apologies if I'm repeating anything that others have said before. There are two other issues:

1. Do we have a standard on capitalisation of common names of species? Even article name capitalisation varies, so I have a feeling that there is no standard as yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2. If we choose parentheses over commata, we need to decide whether the parentheses should also be in italic font. I see this is a purely aesthetic question, so this would be the time for people to provide screenshots from their browsers for any variant that they feel looks poor.

Thanks for reading. Spamsara 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The convention in ornithology and bird guides is to capitalize all official common names of species. I think we usually follow that. When I see an exception, I change it (if I'm not feeling too lazy).

There's disagreement about the second elements of the hyphenated words that are so common in bird names, but I think it is agreed not to capitalize past participles as second elements, so Red-tailed Hawk, not Red-Tailed Hawk.

2. As far as I know, the standard font for parentheses is that of the sentence as a whole, so it should be roman in our case. By the way, I missed the great parenthesis-comma debate, but put me down as believing that both are correct and the decision can be individual—as long as the number of commas is correct, as explained by people above. —JerryFriedman 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Point 1, above is very often repeated here but it is clearly and demonstrably false. It's true that many ornithological texts and field guides use this practice but many don't. There does not, in my view, appear to be a consensus here, there or anywhere on this issue. A five minute Google search will reveal everything from the University of Michigan's Animal Diversity Web to the Illinois Raptor Centre to the Minnesota DNR that uses simple sentence case for the term "red-tailed hawk" for example. There are many, many others, as well. Now, I'm not saying that WP:BIRD can not or should not insist on caps as part of their project. That, in my opinion, is well within the scope of WP policy, etc. But, in my view, using this sort of descriptivist argument that says "everyone else outside of WP" or, even, "lots of important people outside of WP" is just wrong because there are, as I said, plenty of easily found counter-examples that show no such consensus at all. To me, the only truly valid consensus argument would be to say "WP:BIRD has reached a consensus on this so we do it this way." It appears to me that this is not said or done because of some desire to construct an argumentum ad verecundiam, a simple logical fallacy. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, it is an increasingly common convention to do so outside WP (but by no means universal) and, as you suggest, WP:BIRD has reached a consensus on this so we do it this way. *Sigh*. I'm so bored of having this discussion though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll want to skip this, then.

The Illinois Raptor Center's page is not ornithology; the center "provides environmental education" and "participates in habitat restoration". After searching the Minnesota DNR page, I did find some ornithology: four master's theses and a Ph. D. thesis. To my surprise, three of them didn't capitalize species names. I immediately decided to change my hypothesis and looked at the eight journals archived at SORA. After looking at 20 or so articles (mostly ones whose abstracts show up in search results), I found that only one journal, the Wilson Bulletin, had articles with non-capitalized bird names, and that had it in only two of the articles I looked at. In my recent glancings at family monographs, I've only seen capitalization. So I exaggerated, and I'm going to make a slightly different statement: The large majority of edited ornithological text, as well as all bird guides and other serious birding literature I know of, follows the convention of capitalizing etc.

I'll add that citing standards is not necessarily an argument from authority; we don't want non-standard typography to distract people from the content. Here we have a choice of two standards, capitalization in most scientific and birding literature, and lower-case in most journalism and other popular writing, and it's reasonable to prefer the scientific standard for what we're doing (though the other position could be defended).

Finally, I appreciate your pointing out my error, though I think it was a minor one. However, there's no need for you to speculate on the cause of it. If I took what you said literally, I could think you said I deliberately constructed a fallacy. I don't think that—nor do I think the reasons for this minor error need discussion. —JerryFriedman 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there would indeed be a consensus on the capitalization bit if we really had a vote. I suspect however that we may have troubles with hyphenization ! Now there is this site http://www.worldbirdnames.org

Fifteen years ! Check out Partridge - Should it be Chinese Bamboo Partridge, Chinese Bamboo-partridge or Chinese Bamboo-Partridge. I think we should just choose some work that has put in significant effort and not re-invent. And the Real ornithologists can just use Latin trinomials :) Shyamal 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. American Golden Plover - good
2. American Golden-plover - yuk
3. American Golden-plover - double yuk

Apart from sheer prejudice against these made-up variants on the tradition names, they are inconsistent. If the nasty hyphenated second part is supposed to show membership of Pluvialis, than Pluvialis squatarola should be Grey Golden-Plover - now that really makes my flesh crawl. Jimfbleak 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood we have Diving petrel and Storm-petrel. BTW Jim, WORLDBIRDNAMES.ORG has it as American Golden Plover, hyphens are only used in names like Light-mantled Albatross. You know, I actually quite like this new list - it's pretty much HBW anyway. Taxonomy is a tad conservative (like HBW) but otherwise....Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should see if there is sufficient support to stick to this and then add it to the policy page. The mammals folks have similarly decided that they would follow a single source (MSW). Shyamal 08:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that list, even though there are a few nasties and inconsistencies - why Tit-Tyrant, but Quail-thrush? Jimfbleak 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of that, maybe we should find a list that's really consistent, or decide on our own rule.

By the way, Jim, your 2 and 3 above are identical. I imagine you meant one to be "Golden-Plover", and I'd guess it was 2 (only a single yuk).

Speaking of guessing, I'd guess the nice hyphenated second part is intended to show membership in the superspecies (if that's what it is) of golden-plovers, not the whole genus. Of course "Grey Golden-Plover" and "Black-bellied Golden-Plover" are right out. And though an American, I could easily live without this hyphen when the first element is an adjective. I strongly prefer the hyphen when the first element is a bird name, though, and I'd prefer to capitalize both: Quail-Thrush, Tit-Tyrant.

Next: Northern Anteater(-)Chat. —JerryFriedman 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)