Talk:Black-faced cuckooshrike

Untitled
Hi, not sure but the image in the taxobox looks like a juvenile or otherwise a race I'm not familiar with. I'm from Sydney, the photo I took was from Perth and they have a wholly black face there. cheers Cas Liber 10:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 23:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike → Black-faced Cuckooshrike – To have consistency with IOC English names and consistency with other Wiki pages for species of this genus. WP Birds have a policy of using IOC names unless there is a very good reason not to. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume that your opinion is because of your preference of lower case letters in bird names; however, the Wiki and many authorities use upper case in bird names. see NCCAPS. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move as proposed.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   03:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC
 * Support move as proposed. Pvmoutside (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move as proposed. What's the point of having a naming convention if it is not applied? Maias (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 February 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the unhyphenated title. This RM should actually have been speedily closed. It is a misuse of process to open an RM discussion to revert a decision made at an RM close only 7 hours earlier. In future, if editors disagree with the outcome of an RM discussion, please open a move review rather than just starting a re-run of the previous discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Black-faced Cuckooshrike → Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike – The above reason the the move to Black-faced Cuckooshrike was flawed, no project can control what articles will use, unless there is a strong consensus to do so (this would see it being part of the MOS). WP:COMMONNAME has more weight then a project "policy", meaning that Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike is the correct spelling in the country of origin. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Comment - I closed the last RM, which had no objection, and I want to point out that using IOC names is indeed recommended by several guidelines, it's not just a WikiProject Birds convention. It's part of Naming conventions (fauna), and NCCAPS was specifically brought up in the last discussion. In the last discussion no evidence was presented that "Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike" was the common name; Bidgee, can you supply some evidence supporting that claim?--Cúchullain t/ c 18:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Conventions put in place by self interest groups, that wasn't done via a site wide discussion and consensus. It's quite obvious the naming convention needs a major revamp, section about IOC has no support from the community but is just assumed that it isn't controversial for common names.
 * I did give a Google Search link in my reasoning. How long do you want the list of evidence?
 * Journals
 * Websites
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Websites
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Websites
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * there are more sources out there but I think this is enough to show that the IOC's naming isn't yet WP:COMMONNAME in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We have just had consensus to move this article to where it is now; let it rest. Maias (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – The commoname argument seems compelling here, with over 90% of book hits having the hyphenated cuckoo-shrike. This is the "very good reason not to" that the bird title guideline allows for.  Well, n-grams says not 90%, but a vast majority still.  With caps it's more complicated; but still overwhelmingly hyphenated; "Cuckooshrike" is rising to become a contender eventually, probably.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your search only covers use up to 2008. Using a standard web-search for "Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike" indicated 34,800 hits, and for "Black-faced Cuckooshrike" 179,000 hits (both search terms entered within inverted commas). Using the Ngram Viewer with (Black-faced Cuckooshrike) and (Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike) I found about equal number of hits for the two terms. There results are again only up to 2008, which seems to be a limit of the Ngram. I used both search terms on Ngram within round brackets, which are necessary owing the the hyphen. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To have consistency with IOC English names and consistency with other Wiki pages for species of this genus. WP Birds have a policy of using IOC names unless there is a very good reason not to. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that this rationale is a copy of my previous nomination to move this page to "Black-faced Cuckooshrike", which was closed on 10 February 2014, with the support of three (not including myself as nominator) and no one opposing. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose country of origin is a flawed argument since many birds have different English names in the various countries in which they occur. A long-running Common Loon v Great Northern Diver was resolved when we agreed to accept IOC name as standard. Country of origin could also lead to different members of the same genus having different naming styles because they occur in different countries. There at least 50 species named as cuckooshrikes, it's nonsense to have one named in a different style to all the other simply because it occurs in Australia. Petty parochialism is no substitute for consistency  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Talk:Australian Wood_Duck. Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As the previous poster points out, there are at least 50 species of cuckooshrikes, and to have one of them listed with a dash while the others would be wildly inconsistent....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per Jimfbleak. Standards are not a bad thing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: would be a mess if we did not follow a single standard. Can live with redirects and mentions of alternates in the lead although I personally prefer the hyphenated form. Shyamal (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The recent move to "Black-faced Cuckooshrike" was made following a formal move request which was open to all editors and readers; hence, I see no evidence supporting the allegation that the move to "Black-faced Cuckooshrike" was controlled by WP Birds. Of course, the consensus could have gone either way and clearly the discussion was not controlled by WP Birds nor myself as the nominator. To me, is seems that move to "Black-faced Cuckooshrike" was made because of the consensus to use the most sensible and least confusing name for this en Wiki species page. "Black-faced Cuckooshrike" it is consistent with the naming convention used by WP Birds. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BIRDS' convention is in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, interestingly this was added by a member of WP:BIRDS and most of the supports for the first move and opposes for second move have been from WP:BIRDS members after a Maias posted on WP:BIRD. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a point to that comment? I would have thought that it was obvious that bird project members would be particularly interested in how birds are named, especially when there is a parochial attempt to move one article out of line with all the related species  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME that has more weight then a project's naming convention. You've ignored the fact that the spelling of "cuckooshrike" is currently "cuckoo-shrike" in Australia (even Government sources use it with the hyphen). Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.