User talk:Ben MacDui/Fauna draft

Thanks for the invite to comment. This seems overly complex and is rather confusing. I kind of have a feeling that this is what a bot would be ideal for so that us mortals would have no need to attempt to put all this in their minds. For the article I've just created (which I'd call a stub despite its size), I incorporated information from various different articles and kept the capitalisation as it was before.

The two simple rules you mention at the top are clear enough, but it does get weird later. I think the manual of style may need a bit of a spring-clean? MRM (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments I will try to make it clearer what I intend. MOS is just an absurdity in this respect.

You wouldn't happen to have anything helpful for the nature of Great Bernera, (or indeed anything else)? Its a bit stuck at present. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  10:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all I'd have about anything for Great Bernera at present would fall under original research, so I don't think I could help there.MRM (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking over the draft I disagree with pretty much every single argument made. Amur tiger is the common name, as in not the taxonomic classification. Title case is ridiculous. You don't just start capitalizing words for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a reason - it helps to make it clear whether or not a species is being referred to. My point is that "Amur Tigers" (or "Amur tigers") are not common animals outside of Amur and MOS is just avoiding the issue here. If it chose the example of say California Condor it would have to take a position. It has to be "California", but is it "condor" per common use, or "Condor" per WP:BIRDS? Obversely, European Pine Martens are as common in my neck of the woods as anywhere, but this is not a reason to call them "pine martens" as if they were common everywhere. However, there are two points at issue of which this is for me the least important. Although I think capitalisation is the best option I'd give that up in favour of a consensus to use another style for articles that cross taxonomic boundaries. The present situation would not be tolerated in a junior school essay never mind a serious publication.  Ben   Mac  Dui  17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-summarized from the material at hand at the time, though I concur with DreamGuy. Your overall gist that something has to be done about this morass of inconsistency is why I posted WT:Manual of Style to get the ball rolling. I'm afraid that promoting title case as correct would cause a vitriolic revolt. Capitalizing animal names has already been one of the longest-running and most widespread, zillion-editor flamewars across the whole site for over 7 years, as not even fully documented yet at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names. It isn't necessary for clarity, anyway: "The Mexican Jay should not be confused with Mexican jays generally" is insanely bad writing and would nonsensical to anyone but an ornithologist. The proper way to write something like this is "The Mexican jay species should not be confused with other jay populations in Mexico." While I do "have it in for" bird name capitalization ultimately, it's more important to me right now to clean up with guideline language as I've proposed at the link above, complete with an exception for bird name capitalization still in there. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All fair enough comment, but for my sanity there needs to be clarity as to how consistent usage is to be expected in articles that refer to various species - especially if the majority happen to be birds - per my last post. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)