Talk:Australian boobook


 * useful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy in intro
The intro currently says: The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has assessed the southern boobook as being of least concern. The important information here is that there is very little risk of extinction. Maybe it is reasonable to specify who it is that says this. But it is not reasonable to refer twice to this organization with different names, especially not in the intro, that is to be short. Neither is it reasonable tho hold that the abbreviation adds clarity to the fully spelled out name. And evene if it may do this for a small minority of the readers, it is more reasonable to let this minority click on the link to know more, than to present dual names to all readers. --Ettrig (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, the test is not whether it helps you. The IUCN acronym helps our worldwide readership.  It provides useful context.  In the spirit and interest of compromise, we can move it to later in the article if that will defuse this tempest in a teapot.  Otherwise, I am more than willing to defer to consensu here.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Later is OK with me, although not good. Tempest, I do not understand in this context. The full name is explanatory. The abbreviation is very close to uninterpretable in itself. Therefore I find your argument that the acronym adds clarity completely void. --Ettrig (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a small digression in Wikipedia land. Not to dismiss your viewpoint.  But other than you and me, probably nobody else cares.  Let's resolve it and build an encyclopaedia together.  Happy New Year!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Made change. Are we good to go?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change. As discussed elsewhere, the relevant style guide suggests that initialisms of this sort should be defined on their first usage in the article, in the form "name of organization (initialism)". There is no guidance to make lead sections "short". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

no guidance to make lead sections "short". This is a clear untruth. WP:LEDE says both concise and in a nutshell. It also says that the intro should contain only the most important information. IUCN is not even information about the bird. So it cannot be among the most important information. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "concise" doesn't necessarily mean "short", and it definitely does not mean "break accessibility for the sake of brevity". Consensus is to define initialisms like this on their first use in the article, with some editors suggesting it should be defined a second time if used both within and outside the lead section. If you'd like to present a different viewpoint to that discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are going far beyond reasonable here. One of the meanings given by Webster's ... Dictionary for concise is employing as few words as possible. But you are repeating your falsehood. Obviously it is not possible to discuss meaningfully with someone who acts in this way. --Ettrig (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When in doubt go with the WP:MOS. It should be used as a parenthetical in its first usage in the article. The relevancy and concise argument is erroneous, IMO. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The personal attacks are really unnecessary. All I'm really trying to say to you here is why don't you participate in the central discussion if you have a differing opinion? Repeating this argument on every bird article's talk page is, well, not very concise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)