Talk:Grey-bellied dunnart

Naming
Can I suggest that this page be moved to Grey-bellied Dunnart per strong national ties to the subject, as it is found only in Australia? Australian English uses "grey" instead of "gray". Frickeg 05:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hay mate, I'm a skip too and I learnt gray at school in Melbourne, so I dont know about the Aussie English stuff. Enlil Ninlil 07:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, MSW3 lists it as "Gray" not "Grey", and that section of MSW3 was written by Colin Groves, a Brit living in Oz. If you think he's wrong, go ahead. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You were really taught "gray"? I was always told that that was American English, as shown by spelling differences. Thanks, I'll get it moved. Frickeg 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved this page before I saw this. I disagree with the "grey" naming because the names are meant to be consistent, and switching back and forth between grey/gray among the various species makes it harder to catalog. MSW3 uses "gray" consistently throughout which makes it much easier when identifying species to keep the spellings consistent, regardless of continental spelling diffs. I realize this conversation is over a year old, but that's why I moved the page back. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MSW3 is an American publication (even though I'm aware that this particular section was written by an Australian scientist), and thus uses American spelling. The Manual of Style has this to say: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." I think it is fairly obvious that an animal found only in Australia should use the Australian variety of the spelling, which is "grey". Note Grey Heron, African Grey Parrot, Grey Wagtail, Grey Partridge, Grey-headed Flying Fox. Therefore I very strongly feel that this page belongs at "Grey-bellied Dunnart". Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Frickeg on this one, the spelling of the country should be the one used. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect that this species is Australian and would therefore expect to use the Australian spellings, but the scientific classification (including the common name) usually attempts to be consistent across the board. I have been going through all of the mammal articles (haven't gotten to the aforementioned flying fox yet) and moving them in accordance with MSW3, including grey/gray moves (birds are a different taxonomic beast altogether so I would prefer not to use them as comparison in this situation). Therefore, in the article name, I highly prefer using the MSW3 common name, and then using any local names or alternate spellings in the lede.  Please note, I did add the alternate spelling "Grey...." to the lede sentence. My point is, that the MOS is regarding a specific topic, but species articles are not individual articles, per se, as they are all part of a series of articles within the genus/family/order/etc., and articles within said series should remain consistent. Hmmm.... Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I in no way question your good faith here, and I acknowledge that the move was made without discussion accidentally, but I think that a unilateral decision to implement a certain spelling is premature. As I said before, it is important to remember that MSW3 is an American publication. As this species is found only in Australia, it is surely as illogical to use the American spelling as it would be to use Australian/British spelling in an article on the American Bison or, indeed, George W. Bush. I personally can see no problem with Grey-headed Flying Fox and Eastern Gray Squirrel using different spellings. The alternate spellings do redirect, after all. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

←Well...the GWB comparison is poor as it is non sequitur, but the American Bison is a good comparison. Let's say, just for the sake of this conversation, that the predominant source used a common variation of English that commonly spelled it "Amurican", and the article was at "Amurican Bison". I would bet that, if the scientific source was always mentioned when discussing the reason for the article at that name, few Americans who are educated in biology would mind. Now, this is hypothetical and just my opinion, mind you. I am not saying that the entire article be based in AmEng or BrEng because of the article name (but that gets confusing). So I will concede this argument for this article to you for 2 reasons: 1) the has been no broader discussion at length anywhere previously on common name spellings as far as I know; and 2) this is the first article I have run into that there has been an objection and the species lives isolated in a single country — so I will accept the MoS argument. I do, however, want to reserve the right to revisit this if a broader discussion is ever initiated somewhere down the road. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Note that I can imagine that you'd run into a fair bit of difficulty if you'd reached, say, Eastern Grey Kangaroo first. If you're standardising common names for MSW3, just be aware that in some cases - Mahogany Glider and Common Planigale spring to mind - there have been detailed discussions that have resulted in a deviation from MSW3. Good luck with the rest of the standardisations. I think most of the marsupials are done. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)