Talk:Northern New Zealand dotterel

Requested move 13 June 2020

 * 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 section. 

– This is in conjunction with my other proposal to change the article name of the species which these two subspecies fall under. I believe a name change is warranted under WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of the English name, Northern/southern red-breasted plover is not in common usage, whereas Northern/Southern New Zealand dotterel is used in various news articles and scientific literature. – including the paper that first described the northern subspecies. To my knowledge, the IOC does not currently list any particular names for the two subspecies, in which case the common names would certainly take priority here. -Air55- (Talk) 06:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 04:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Northern red-breasted plover → Northern New Zealand dotterel
 * Southern red-breasted plover → Southern New Zealand dotterel
 * To add to this – a Google Scholar search returns 126 results for "Northern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 2 results for "Northern red-breasted plover"), and 34 results for "Southern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 3 results for "Southern red-breasted plover"). -Air55-  (Talk)


 * IUCN seems to use "Northern red-breasted plover". Does Wikipedia have a convention about whether to ordinarily follow IUCN or IOC? Have you considered using the scientific names? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To my understanding: WP:NCFAUNA is the relevant Wikipedia guideline here (which follows WP:COMMONNAME). According to that guideline, the article name should "usually consist of the name that is most common in English". In regards to international nomenclature authorities (in this case, the IOC), WP:Birds states that "bird article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." WP:NCFAUNA also mentions that the names used by authorities such as IOC is to be preferred when "what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained." Overall, there is no requirement for the names stated by IOC/IUCN/etc to take priority over common names (except where the 'most' common name cannot be ascertained) – hope that makes sense. As for the scientific names - I think it would make more sense to name the articles by the common name, as most literature do not refer to these subspecies solely by their scientific names. Though I would be happy to accept it as a compromise if a consensus cannot otherwise be reached. -Air55- (Talk) 05:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the scientific name the most common name in reliable sources. (See Talk:Daboia palaestinae.) —BarrelProof (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)