Talk:Chatham Island merganser

Creation of article
WikiProject New Zealand/Requested_articles noted the List of birds of New Zealand page as a page with red links that should have articles created for them. As of Jan 2017 there was only one red link left, for this bird. As such I have created this page to finish off that part of the project.

I have worked mainly from an excellent paper by NZ Birds Online, but I have only sought to make a stub at this stage. This is the first article I have created and I have erred on the side of caution when it comes to copyright, choosing to only pull out a few points. There is much more detail on the species in that article (and presumably in its references), but I feel I should leave it to a more experienced editor to ensure we take only what we are allowed to.

Requested move 29 May 2022

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Chatham Island merganser. Rough consensus to revert back to the status quo. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: There is not really any kind of consensus from the discussion. As such, the title should revert to the previous stable name Chatham Island merganser. I have struck through the above closing comment that found consensus, but the outcome remains the same. Vpab15 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Mergus milleneri → Chatham merganser – The name of this page has been unstable in the past month. It has been called "Chatham Island merganser," "Chatham merganser," and now "Mergus milleneri". All of these moves happened without discussion. I figured that the best way to help this page settle on a stable name is to open a discussion.

My preferred name is "Chatham merganser". If you disagree with me, please clarify if your name of choice is "Chatham Island merganser" or "Mergus milleneri". In case you're wondering, I'm pretty sure no one alive today remembers the Moriori name for the Chatham merganser because this species disappeared after Moriori settlement but before European contact.

I'll attempt a rebuttal to expected counterclaims right now. Thanks so much for your time and participation, and I really do respect your opinions.

"Chatham Island merganser" is also a good and commonly used name. However, anyone who strongly prefers the inclusion of the word "island" should be aware that excluding "island" from the names of New Zealand birds is typical on Wikipedia, except for "North Island" and "South Island". For example, see Chatham duck, Auckland teal, Campbell teal, Chatham pigeon, Auckland rail, Chatham rail, Chatham coot, Chatham oystercatcher, Chatham snipe, Snares snipe, Snares penguin, Chatham petrel, Chatham shag, Auckland shag, Campbell shag, Chatham kākā, Antipodes parakeet, Chatham parakeet, Chatham bellbird, Chatham gerygone, Chatham raven, and Chatham fernbird. An honorable mention goes to Macquarie shag, Macquarie parakeet, and Norfolk kākā. Macquarie Island and Norfolk Island are part of Australia despite their proximity to New Zealand.

No argument about a preponderance of sources applies to these species that doesn't apply to the Chatham merganser. In other words, if you strongly prefer the inclusion of the word "island," I highly recommend that you make a mass move request for all of the aforementioned pages rather than opposing me on the Chatham merganser page alone.

Regarding the current title "Mergus milleneri", I love scientific names because they are so systematic and organized. However, scientific names are intimidating and difficult to pronounce for most native English speakers. They almost never appear in vernacular use. Thus, in my opinion, the current title "Mergus milleneri" doesn't honor the word or at least the spirit of WP:UCRN. Based on Naming conventions (fauna), scientific names for the title are most appropriate when a unique common name for the species simply doesn't exist. This does not apply in the case of the Chatham merganser.

I'm aware that the Chatham merganser is only known from paleontology. However, many New Zealand birds that became extinct after Polynesian settlement and before European settlement have Wikipedia articles titled with the common name. For example, see North Island giant moa, South Island giant moa, bush moa, eastern moa, broad-billed moa, heavy-footed moa, Mantell's moa, crested moa, upland moa, New Zealand goose, New Zealand swan, Finsch's duck, Chatham duck, Scarlett's duck, New Zealand musk duck, New Zealand stiff-tailed duck, adzebill, snipe-rail, Hodgens' waterhen, New Zealand coot, New Zealand owlet-nightjar, Scarlett's shearwater, Waitaha penguin, Eyles's harrier, Haast's eagle, Chatham kākā, North Island stout-legged wren, South Island stout-legged wren, long-billed wren (New Zealand), New Zealand raven, and Chatham raven. An honorable mention goes to Chatham coot and Imber's petrel, which survived into historic times, although there are no known historic records. I should also mention Hawkins's rail and North Island takahē, which are known from historic observations, but the only physical specimens come from paleontology.

'''In other words, if you strongly prefer the scientific name for species known only from paleontology, I highly recommend that you make a mass move request for all of the aforementioned pages rather than opposing me on the Chatham merganser page alone. However, I expect that you'll encounter opposition due to WP:UCRN.'''

Again, thanks so much for your time and participation, and I respect your opinions. Columbianmammoth (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think that binomials are generally used, especially for extinct species, because they are scientifically published, indisputable (at least until the next paper is published), and very few extinct species are generally referred to in vernacular use anyway. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi! Thanks for your participation. I definitely understand your point of view, and I have a lot of respect for scientific names personally. However, please clarify what you mean by "binomials are generally used, especially for extinct species". I listed dozens of examples of New Zealand birds that became extinct after Polynesian settlement and before European settlement that have Wikipedia articles titled with the common name. Columbianmammoth (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some extinct species that are firmly enough engrained in the popular psyche to be known by a common name, such as the Dodo or the Wooly Mammoth. In fact the New Zealand example that comes to mind is Haast's eagle. In these cases they are in kid's books about extinct animals, and find their way regularly into news stories and such. Honestly, does the Chatham merganser tick that box? I'm not sure any of the others you list meet that bar. The extant species, fair enough, as someone is likely to point at one a go "oh look, there's a Campbell Island shag" or whatever (actually I think they'd just call it a shag on Campbell Island, and maybe use for full name for a vagrant bird).
 * If people are going to argue about whether or not to put 'Island' in, it just seems more sensible to use the binomial and reference the multiple common names as secondary page titles.
 * However, I must say I don't really feel strongly enough to oppose it, and maybe if extinct New Zealand fauna are going this way maybe it should just be done. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be a nice gesture if you don't feel strongly enough to oppose. Wikipedia articles are generally titled with the expert-approved vernacular names, including for recently extinct species, even though non-experts may or may not use these names. Columbianmammoth (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note. The stable title if this ends without a consensus appears to be Chatham Island merganser. My understanding is that use of binomial nomenclature is preferred when there is more than one vernacular name. I am not sure whether the presence or absence of "island" really indicates that there are multiple vernacular names. Dekimasu よ! 04:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the title of this page was "Chatham Island merganser" for quite some time. However, so far, there hasn't been opposition to the move to "Chatham merganser".
 * "Chatham merganser" is just a shortened form of the name that excludes the word "island," consistent with the IOC's 9th principle of English names. See Principles – IOC World Bird List (worldbirdnames.org). Also, the pattern of excluding the word "island" (except when the resulting name would be misleading) is followed by dozens of Wikipedia pages about New Zealand birds listed above. Columbianmammoth (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposed title is less commonly used than the scientific name or "Chatham Island merganser". The article doesn't have any source that calls it "Chatham merganser". It is not Wikipedia's place to promote rarely used vernacular names over more widely used ones. IOC does omit "Island" from the species it covers, but it doesn't cover this species (for several of the other Chatham species that became extinct between Maori settlement and European colonization, more sources use "Chatham Island" vernacular names than ones that omit "Island"). New Zealand birds are one area where Wikipedia has seen some movement away from IOC names anyway (e.g. Talk:Kererū, Talk:New_Zealand_dotterel, and Talk:Kākā). Plantdrew (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please specify if your name of choice is "Chatham Island merganser" or "Mergus milleneri". Note that "Chatham Island merganser" is the stable title if this discussion ends without a consensus. It is also the name used by New Zealand Birds Online. This is also my 2nd favorite name after "Chatham merganser".
 * I am aware that the IOC excludes pre-European late Holocene extinctions. This is very unfortunate; I wish their list included all late Holocene species. In the case of the Chatham merganser, I cited their principles rather than their list itself.
 * I generally prefer the IOC names. I particularly frown upon the recent moves of the Wikipedia pages "New Zealand kaka" and "South Island takahe" because the shortened names create ambiguity with recently extinct species. I almost feel like this adds insult to injury by disrespecting species that we eradicated. Also, the IOC's 2nd principle is "UNIQUE NAME: The name of each taxon must be different from the names of all other (Bird) taxa." Of course, I have no power to revert these moves. I don't have a strong opinion about the New Zealand pigeon, although I will point out that the IOC's 5th principle is, "LOCAL NAMES: Local vernacular names would not prevail over established formal names." Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the scientific name, which is consistent with how at least 95% of articles on taxa are titled (and that number is higher for organisms described from fossils and subfossils). Redirects from common names should exist, and there isn't any evidence that readers are having trouble finding articles that use scientific names as titles. Nor are people necessarily put off by scientific names; dinosaurs are popular with children, who know them by their scientific names. Using common names as titles, when there isn't an authority that regulates and standardizes them (such as IOC) just leads to arguments about which common name should be used as title (most organisms either have no common names, or multiple common names). Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You state that "at least 95% of articles on taxa are titled" with the scientific name. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a literal figure or a hyperbole. Either way, it doesn't ring true to me. In my experience, articles about living and recently extinct birds and mammals are almost always titled with the English name. The situation is mixed for living and recently extinct non-avian reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates, meaning that articles are frequently titled either way. It makes sense that articles about species that vanished before the late Holocene are typically titled with the scientific name. A few notable exceptions are famous species of Pleistocene megafauna, such as the American lion and my personal favorite the Columbian mammoth.
 * At this point we should just agree to disagree and revert back to the sable name of "Chatham Island merganser". Columbianmammoth (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant that literally. It is less than 95% but probably closer to 95% than 90%. There are ~12,000 articles on bird taxa and ~8,000 on mammals, out of 440,000 articles on taxa. Bird and mammal taxa above species frequently use scientific name titles. A substantial majority of fish, reptile and amphibian articles use scientific name titles. Hardly any non-vertebrates use vernacular name titles. Vernacular name titles are appropriate for well known organisms, but Wikipedia has a lot of articles on poorly known organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both "Chatham merganser" and "Mergus milleneri" are new and controversial titles. For the person who closes the discussion, I recommend restoring the stable title of "Chatham Island merganser". This is also the name for the species used by New Zealand Birds Online. Columbianmammoth (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.