Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 127

Change proposal with regard to common names
The current entry about capital letters of Animals, plants, and other organisms contains the following statement: Despite many many discussions, the rules for capitalization of birds have never been changed. So, I think it is time we clarify this in the MOS. I therefore propose to change the above sentence to: Too add, MOS is a guideline. This is what the official policy page about polices and guidelines has to say about guidelines: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Obviously, Capitalization of Bird names within WP:BIRD, based on normal practices within the field of ornithology is such an exception based on common sense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Request withdrawn. Looks like the controversial changes were made in the past days despite that the ongoing discussion here has not been resolved. I reverted those per WP:BRD.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
 * "Common names generally do not have each word capitalized, except were proper names appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse). WP:WikiProject Birds proposes an exception to this general rule, with the official common names of birds capitalized (Bald Eagle); consensus on this idea remains uncertain."
 * "Common names generally do not have each word capitalized, except were proper names appear (maple tree, zebra, but Przewalski's horse), or when the names within a group have been formally standardized and should be regarded proper nouns, such as the names of birds."
 * Oppose for multiple reasons articulated above and elsewhere in detail. The summary: The "rules for bird capitalization" have never been established by WP-wide consensus, only tightly controlled by a small cadre of editors at one project despite continual objection by editors from everywhere else on the system, in a blatant violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and in conflict with virtually all other usage, site-wide (except inasmuch as noobs have gone on a recent, disturbing trend to capitalize all animal names using birds as a model). A number of strong arguments exist against the idea of basing stylistic practice in a general purpose, general readership encyclopedia on conventions used (not even consistently) within certain specialist publications. The above rancorous debate, and the incontrovertible evidence gathered (so far - there's a more not catalogued yet) at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names of widespread and continual objection to WP:BIRDS's preference, is clear proof there is no consensus for such a change to the MOS. Frankly, the idea that capitalization of common names of birds isn't controversial on Wikipedia is totally absurd. And there is an obvious consensus, on and off Wikiepdia, against the notion that common names are proper nouns. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be a good idea to have a better example than Bald Eagle, and add a footnote or parenthetical with an explanation such as, "Because it distinguishes a taxonomic species from a general description of a bird. Several species of sparrows could be described as "white-throated sparrows," but a "White-throated Sparrow" is a particular taxonomic species." Otherwise, this will just keep coming up perennially. Selery (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's instruction creep, though, for no real gain. Virtually no one but most ornithologists (and maybe some botanists?) would recognize such capitalization as an attempt to disambiguate (i.e., it does not actually distinguish anything from anything else, other than for the tiny fraction of a percentage point of readers/editors who would already know what was meant anyway.) The proper way to distinguish in a case like that is with simple, clear prose, the same way we make any other kind of potentially confusig construction sensible without resorting to throwing grammar rules out the window.  E.g. "The white-throated sparrow species is not to be confused with other sparrows with white throats." No grammar-defying, confusing, inconsistent, illiterate-looking, editwar-generating, strife-perpetuating capitalization scheme needed.  I'm hardly the first to point this out (I think that was in 2004. Logic, the core of the English language, and the fact that our readership is general have not changed since then.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep works both ways. For those who believe there are good reasons to capitalize common names, there's no reason for Wikipedia to forbid it and it's instruction creep to do so.
 * It's utterly unhelpful to use language like grammar-defying, confusing, inconsistent, illiterate-looking, editwar-generating, strife-perpetuating ; it certainly doesn't help to build a consensus in favour of your position. Both "sides" need to accept the logic of each other's positions; there are rational arguments both ways.
 * "Grammar-defying" is factually wrong. As Noetica has made clear, capitalization rules are logically independent of the grammatical function of the word or phrase being capitalized. Capitalization styles have changed over time; American English has on the whole gone further than, say, British English in removing capitals from words which once had them, although British Engish is fast catching up. No change in grammar has accompanied the change in capitalization. This argument should not be used either way. "Confusing" works both ways; although very careful wording can reduce confusion, there are situations in which e.g. "green woodpecker" is ambiguous. "Inconsistency" should be an issue we can all agree on; at the very least an article should be internally consistent. "Illiterate-looking" is a subjective judgement. Because all the half-dozen or so UK Floras and handbooks I regularly use capitalize the common names of flowers, it looks wrong to me to see such names not in capitals and I instinctively want to correct them. If I add them uncapitalized to an article to ensure consistency, it jars on me. However, this seems to me to be no different than ENGVAR issues: some American spellings look very wrong to me but I always respect them to ensure consistency within an article. "Editwar-generating" and "strife-perpetuating" seem to me, as a relative newcomer to this issue, to be faults largely on the side of those who want to enforce a common style for all organisms and all articles. The current round wasn't started by those who prefer capitals and your language above is hardly designed to contribute to a rational debate.
 * I really don't understand why this can't be treated in the same way as ENGVAR. Articles should be self-consistent as regards the capitalization of common names. It will annoy some people to see variations between articles in such capitalization, just as variations between articles in spelling annoy some people, but this is a price to be paid for an international collaborative encyclopaedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR is important because it's infeasible and undesirable (for numerous reasons) to write Wikipedia in one English variety.
 * Many other forms of inter-article consistency are feasible and desirable. Otherwise, we'd deem most of the MoS "instruction creep" and replace it with the advice "just use whatever widespread conventions seem best to you and make articles internally consistent".  —David Levy 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On this I agree with you completely. Wherever there is consensus, consistency between articles is highly desirable and should be pursued. However, there are many areas of style and layout where Wikipedia is highly inconsistent when a tightly edited encyclopaedia wouldn't be (references/citations are a good example, as are sections in articles on very similar topics). I'm simply arguing that as there isn't consensus on the capitalization of common names at present (although this may change), we should treat the issue in the same way as ENGVAR, which means accepting the inevitable variation between articles but always ensuring consistency within articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You acknowledged above that "the default in Wikipedia is that common names of organisms are not capitalized" (with deviations constituting "exceptions").
 * And I've seen no evidence that a substantial degree of disagreement exists outside a handful of WikiProjects that favor a different approach or whose opinions are divided.
 * If we were to poll a random group of editors, I suspect that far more would express disagreement on such matters as sentence case vs. title case for headings and logical quotation vs. typesetters' quotation. General-interest publications actually vary in those respects, but we've nonetheless selected a single style in each case.  Conversely, general-interest publications overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms.  —David Levy 13:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the fact that "there are many areas of style and layout where Wikipedia is highly inconsistent" isn't a reason to create or tolerate more of them. That would be a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. And, no, both sides do no need to accept that the other side has a logical argument when one of them clearly doesn't except maybe within specialist journals (and even specialists do not all concur). A very large number of editors over 7+ years have demonstrated that the logical underpinnings of capitalization of common names are shaky at best, and inconsistently applied. Proponents claim it should be done because they're proper nouns, but no one agrees, not even the organizations promoting the style in their journals, so they then say it's just an arbitrary convention, to which opponents reply WP doesn't obey narrow-field arbitrary conventions pushed against general usage, to which proponents reply that, well, really it's because they're proper nouns, and the entire debate cycle reboots.  Peter, I'm sorry you're offended by my being honest that the WP:BIRDS style is strife-perpetuating, inconsistent, editwar-generating, etc., etc.  I've already gathered evidence that backs up every single one of those descriptions with more than half a decade of archived evidence (i.e. multiple other editors independently raising principled and well-defended objections to the practice, in multiple forums, for every one of those reasons). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, see here for an example of the claim of proper nouns: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-caps.html Furthermore, this was also exactly how our science editor explained it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Ornithologist Jon S. Greenlaw thinks that common names should be considered proper nouns and he explains his position in this way: "we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species."
 * Is there any reason why I couldn't apply that same argument to specific types of furniture? To distinguish a ballpoint pen from any pen with a ball and a point?
 * Let's use Greenlaw's definition that a proper noun denotes a particular person, place or thing. Bird species names do not themselves denote particular bald eagles or particular starlings.  In contrast, "the Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes.  We could replace one bald eagle with another, and the term "bald eagle" would still apply, but we could not replace Lake Huron with Loch Ness and still get to call those six lakes "the Great Lakes."
 * Jon S. Greenlaw's area of expertise is animal ecology, not writing. General-audience style guides do not treat common names as proper nouns.  The preponderance of sources still supports not treating common names as proper nouns.  Do you have anything else that we could look at? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes. The "Bald Eagle" denotes a particular set of birds, or to be more precise, eagles. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the species that includes the circumscription of which individuals are and which are not included in the species. This is exactly the same as The Great Lakes. We are not talking about individuals, but about species, which is a particular entity. When we talk about the Bald Eagle, we talk about the species, while when we talk about a bald eagle, we talk about an eagle with a bald head (the Bald Eagl] has a feathered head), of unknwon species designation, but could be a Harpy Eagle of a Madagascar Fish Eagle. So, yes, species are particular entities with a well defined circumscription. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's the rub. No one (at least here) has contended that capitalization of binomial species names should be other than that specified in the respective codes of nomenclature: Sophophora melanogaster is neither sophophora melanogaster nor Sophophora Melanogaster. Organizations of ornithologists in the US and evidently in some other English-speaking countries have created English-language equivalents for every bird species they consider. So the American Ornithological Union specifies that Mimus polyglottis and "Northern Mockingbird" refer to the same species. These bird names are emphatically not common names, no matter what their proponents say; they are English equivalents (note: not usually translations) of the Latin binomials. I personally think this is totally unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive, but it's not my call. They are names of species, arguably proper nouns, and even if not, their orthography warrants the same respect as that of binomials.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But "bald eagles/Bald Eagles" does not denote a specific set of eagles. It denotes a type of eagle.  We could switch one bald eagle for another, and it would make no difference to whether or not the word should be capitalized.  The Great Lakes are six specific lakes.  Switch out one individual and they are not the Great Lakes any more.
 * The difference here is that with binomial nomenclature, specialist and generalist guides say the same thing. The Journal of Biological Chemistry capitalizes genus and uses lowercase for species, and Chicago and the rest of the general-audience style guides agree.  Here, in ornithology, there is a disagreement between specialist and generalist guidance.  And Wikipedia is a generalist publication, so why should it use specialist style? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Proponents of the WP:BIRD-endorsed style are using "reliable sources" to mean "specialist sources".  Wikipedia isn't a specialist publication, so where specialist usage differs from general usage, we usually look to the latter.  Where no consistent general usage exists (e.g. "sulfur"/"sulphur" or "paracetamol"/"acetaminophen"), we might look to specialist usage as a tie-breaker of sorts.  (All else being equal, it's as good a way as any to prevent pointless bickering.)  This is very different from overruling consistent general usage.  —David Levy 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Great Lakes" denotes a particular set of lakes. The "Bald Eagle" denotes a particular set of birds, or to be more precise, eagles. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the species that includes the circumscription of which individuals are and which are not included in the species.
 * "Plumber" denotes a particular set of people, or to be more precise, tradespeople. Which individuals are included is precisely defined based on the description of the vocation that includes the circumscription of which skills are and which are not included in it.
 * When we talk about the Bald Eagle, we talk about the species, while when we talk about a bald eagle, we talk about an eagle with a bald head (the Bald Eagl] has a feathered head), of unknwon species designation, but could be a Harpy Eagle of a Madagascar Fish Eagle.
 * When we talk about the Sink Wrench, we talk about the specific type of wrench, while when we talk about a sink wrench, we talk about a wrench of unknown type, which happens to be used on sinks. That's why "Sink Wrench" is a proper noun, right?  —David Levy 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of original research that we are supposed to avoid by relying on reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And reliable sources, apart from some specialist publications, overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms.
 * The above "original research" illustrates the absurdity of defining English grammar rules solely on the word of specialists in areas other than English, be they ornithology specialists or hypothetical plumbing specialists. (Of course, almost no ornithologists actually assert that common names of birds are proper nouns, nor is this the explanation provided at WikiProject Birds.)
 * As a non-specialist encyclopedia, on matters of style, we should (and almost always do) look to reliable non-specialist sources and the style guides to which they adhere. —David Levy 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ornithological reliable sources say that uppercase should be used. Now, if you want to write about a field you want to use the best sources available (i.e. the specialists sources) not generalist sources. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia with a single editor, and it can choose to follow field-specific guidelines in order to reflect better the best sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The best sources for facts might not also be the best sources for expression and language. I work as a proofreader of life science journal articles, and the fact that they come to me full of misplaced commas and miscapitalized words does not make their conclusions any more or less accurate.  If I were writing an article on E. coli, I'd want to use microbiology journals and newspaper articles and style guides. Then I would know both what to say and how best to say it for a general audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeating myself, Enric, I ask that you please read my earlier reply to you, timestamped "17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)". —David Levy 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing the claim that "only ornithologists" follow the convention of capitalizing bird names. As an editor of an American Birding Association publication, I can tell you that the tens if not hundreds of thousands of birders in North America would disagree. The ABA's convention, as is the convention of every field guide I've ever seen, is to capitalize bird names. The ABA is not an organization of ornithologists: it is an organization of amateur birders and birdwatchers. Furthermore, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun#Capitonym_or_specific_designator.3F for an explanation of why bird names are correctly capitalized. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is drawing the distinction to which you refer. It's self-evident that many (if not most) amateur birders prefer the uppercase convention (hence the recommendation by WikiProject Birds).
 * But Wikipedia isn't a bird publication; it's an encyclopedia written for a general audience. Generalist publications (i.e. those not written by/for bird enthusiasts) overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds.
 * You're responding to a thread in which someone asserted that common names of birds are proper nouns because "organizations of ornithologists" have so declared. In fact, few ornithologists make any such claim (and even if they did, they aren't grammarians).  That persons knowledgeable on the subject of birds use the convention to distinguish between names of species and general descriptions is undisputed, but that doesn't transform a common noun into a proper one.  —David Levy 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Natureguy—why do you link to the section on capitonyms? Can you elaborate? But please be careful that you don't unwittingly make a case for capitalizing, for example, the second instance of the word starling in the sentence "The Common Starling is a kind of starling." unless of course that is your intention. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Erik. Here is the definition: "A capitonym is a word that changes its meaning (and sometimes pronunciation) when it is capitalized." Bird names are a prime example of this. Blue Jay and blue [jay] mean different things. The former is a specific species. The latter is not. Something else to mention: the editors I know in the bird periodcial business, and who have high-education English language backgrounds, do indeed consider species names as proper nouns, just as Great Lakes is a proper noun. We've had this discussion amongst ourselves previously. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the IOC, which is Wikipedia's avian English-language name authority, has included on its webpage: "the strongest argument for capitalizing the English names of birds is that we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species. These names must be regarded as proper nouns (thus receive capitals in all English publications), rather than as common nouns (vernacular names). My unabridged dictionary defines a "proper noun" as (1) a word that is not necessarily preceded by an article (e.g., "the," "a") and (2) denotes a particular person, place, or thing." At http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-caps.html Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As discussed above and at Talk:Proper noun, you're quoting a single ornithologist's opinion of what should occur. The concept of English names of birds "[receiving] capitals in all English publications" in no way reflects reality.  —David Levy 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah; I thought you were trying to make an argument for why it was correct, since you said "for an explanation of why bird names are correctly capitalized"—I misunderstood. You were simply explaining one of the style's benefits. Got it! With respect to the Greenlaw quote, again, for such a stunning notion of what constitutes a proper name it would be best to have a more authoritative source—someone with relevant credentials, hopefully. Greenlaw even messes up simple things here like calling them proper nouns. I get where he's coming from, but this simply isn't credible evidence for this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A completely different way of handling some-time capitalization (not a competing proposal)
Since it hasn't been mentioned at all, I thought I'd bring up the idea that where something (needn't be an organism) is not generally regarded as a proper noun, but some field/authority chooses to capitalize it in their own publications, e.g. a dance move or a comic book grading term or a trick shot in pool or a skateboarding move or an type of cat, there's a really, really obvious and actually encyclopedically useful way to handle this: Use a parenthetical or appended note in the lead that specifies who capitalizes it. (Note: if its something that is a redlink and likely to remain one, that's a good sign that it shouldn't be mentioned and nor should the capitalized version). Example:

The frumious bandersnatch (Banderesnatium frumiosus) is a bandersnatch of the Jabberwocky family, native to the forests of Serendip. In cryptozoological literature, especially of the International Society of Cryptozoology, it is often capitalized Frumious Bandersnatch.

I've used this technique may times in and out of animal articles. A real animal one is domestic short-haired cat, interesting because the capitalized form, the pseudo-breed "Domestic Shorthair", is spelled differently (no hyphen, no -ed) as well as capitalized.

I'm not suggesting someone go change all the bird articles to read this way using a link to the IOC as the capitalization authority, so no one need launch a bird-related debate. However, this a good solution for cases where general style eschews capitalization, e.g. of plant common names, but an international organization devoted to the study of that family (order, whatever) prefers capitalization, especially if it recommends a specific common name among multiple recorded vernacular names. Knowing that the name is sometimes capitalized, by whom and in what contexts is actually non-trivial information, as at the cat article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no problem in writing articles this way. I especially like the using encyclopedic style while acknowledging other styles.  However, I don't believe that it solves our current problem of how to phrase the synch-template guideline on capitalization and WP:Birds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct; it wasn't intended to, it's just a side comment on something useful in some cases. I didn't want to either cloud the bigger debate with it or have it be lost in the debate, ergo the separate thread and "(not a competing proposal)". — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As you might be aware from reading the plant discussions that you've linked, the broader controversy there was over which common names to use. Some editors (the most insistent of whom is no longer editing) believed that only the "official" common names of the native land (usually Britain, sometimes Australia) should be used; others (including me) held that all common names documented in reliable sources should be included. IMO, capitalization was a secondary issue. At one point, I either proposed or intended to propose a tabular format that would include the common name, the geographic or linguistic source, and the reference; the assumption was that the name would preserve the orthography of the source. The treatment of the domestic short-haired cat fits this model well, by not calling out the orthography as a peculiarity.


 * If it were up to me, the article would be Mimus polyglottos and the lede would mention Northern Mockingbird as its AOU name. It would also mention other attested vernacular names, although the prevalence of standardized bird names has had the effect of suppressing many of the truly common names of many birds. Alas, the bird folks would probably reject that as well, and there's an undercurrent among many non-biology editors to avoid binomials as article names altogether, if any English name can be scraped up.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye. I'm well aware of all that, including that "native official name" business, and the years of controversy about why it might be better to have plant articles at their scientific names. I wasn't meaning to imply that capitalization was the main issue for plant projects/editors/articles, just that to the extent it comes up, there are ways to address it without having confusing, wishy-washy verbiage in the MOS. Because redirects work, I've never personally been all that concerned about what name the article "lives" at, and more concerned about the prose. Your table idea strikes me as interesting. I think the undercurrent you refer to is simply WP:COMMONNAME being applied, though perhaps you are indicating that it's being violated in spirit by some trying to adhere to it in letter, just to avoid scientific names. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to be a rather more useful discussion than some of the more fraught ones above. I think that there would be less resistance to adopting a lower-case style for all common names as a default for all articles if it was accepted that the style of the sources should always be explicitly acknowledged (e.g. in the kind of approach that Curtis Clark suggested, where the table would "preserve the orthography of the source"). Whether you need to say each time that the source capitalizes isn't clear to me; I incline to the view that you don't. This also avoids the POV issue which arises for me when all the reliable sources I've used for a plant article capitalize the common name but I would be expected to ignore this on top of using a style I personally find unpleasing. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Two vs. one space characters after terminal punctuation
I put two spaces after ends of sentences in Wiki source code, expand one to two, and collapse three or more to two, because two spaces is what style guides that actually comment on the matter recommend for fixed-width, word processed (or, in ye olden tymes, typewritten) manuscripts, wikicode is our electronic, fixed-width (unless you use WP settings to use a proportional font) equivalent of a manuscript, and MediaWiki software automatically collapses the two spaces to one when the rendered content is presented to the reader. It simply makes the source code easier to read, an increasingly needed feature as template and citation code becomes more common and more complex in the wikicode of article prose. It helps editors, and has no effect on readers. While I don't think the MOS should "force" people to put two periods after a sentence in wikimarkup, it should deprecate the "correction" of articles to only use one space after sentences. I raise this here because I was recently contacted by an editor who does exactly this, on a large scale, have encountered other editors who also do this, and I find it notably problematic. NB: More than two spaces should of course be collapsed to two. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I use two between sentences, and people who go around undoing that just make the source less clear.  They should stop.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I place two spaces after each sentence, and I agree that doing so makes the source code easier to read.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you were all brought up in the typewriter era. I totally disagree: no problem here if someone goes around compressing two (or much worse, THREE, into one space). It's very old-fashioned to thumb twice after a period. Try to lose this nervous twitch and move into the 21st century, you guys. Tony   (talk)  06:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was brought up after the typewriter era and I use two spaces too. It's not a nervous twitch; it's training.  And, as SmC has pointed out, it has a practical application on Wikipedia.  I don't think we need a rule about it, but there's no need to insult people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 21st century it makes no difference how many spaces are typed. The Mediawiki software does not care whether one or two spaces are present, the output is the same (and HTML also has this property, and so does TeX). Therefore it makes no difference from the point of view of the MOS how many spaces are after a period in wikicode. In general, editors should not go around changing such things en masse to suit their own nervousness about spaces that will be ignored by the software anyway. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tony: Yes, there is a problem: it clutters revision histories/watchlists/etc. ― A. di M.​  15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only time I add or remove extra spaces after a sentence is when I need to perform a dummy edit. (OTOH, if I see, like, five consecutive spaces in the middle of a sentence with no particular reason and I'm already editing that piece of text for some other reason, while I'm at it I do remove the extra spaces.) ― A. di M.​  15:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish: More generally, I'd like to discourage edits which have no effect on the rendered page unless there's a damn good reason for them. ― A. di M.​  16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, fixed width is more readable with one space after commas, two after stops. But certainly not worth changing anything except where there are zero spaces or too many, or worrying if someone else does. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC).


 * First comment: Yes, two spaces is better in monospace fonts, and even in proportional fonts it's better to have extra space between sentences, although not two full spaces &mdash; TeX does this very nicely and really ought to be copied by other software; it's really the gold standard for aesthetically pleasing typesetting.
 * Second comment: This is not a style issue.  The HTML rendering software does what it does; I think it's suboptimal but we aren't going to fix it in the MoS.  Editors who go around fiddling with spaces that don't affect the rendering need a good trout-slap, but again, it's not part of the remit of the manual of style; it's more a user-conduct issue.
 * Bottom line: I agree with Dick's motivations, but the instruction doesn't belong here. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I concede, now that I've been made to think about it, that it's not really a MOS issue. Maybe I should put up a mini essay about it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stanton, and have a happy new year !

I have seen all your boxes about style and grammar, and that is nice. :-) Except that I see you put two spaces after a period !? These times I find often these bloody two — or even three or four ! — spaces after a period. I remove them, of course. But in some places these “errors” appear after every period or so. What a pain ! I often edit Wikipedia with a rather wide fixed-width font, and these errors make really big gaps, I hate that. And now I discover that some people do that on purpose !? It's just plain wrong.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * HNY to you, too. :-) I do this for a reason, that doesn't even have anything to do with "style", but practicality. I put two spaces after ends of sentences in Wiki source code, expand one to two, and collapse three or more to two, because two spaces is what almost all style guides that comment on the matter recommend for fixed-width, word processed (or, in ye olden tymes, typewritten) manuscripts, wikicode is our electronic, fixed-width (unless you use WP settings to use a proportional font) equivalent of a manuscript, and MediaWiki software automatically collapses the two spaces to one when the rendered content is presented to the reader.  It simply makes the source code easier to read, an increasingly needed feature as template and citation code becomes more common and more complex in the wikicode of article prose.  It helps editors, and has no effect on readers.  I hope you'll reconsider and not compress double (only triple+) spacing to single. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm raising this at WT:Manual of Style, as it deserves wider community input. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording on snippet and abstract links in citations
Help talk:Citation Style 1 is discussing something – guidance about linking to snippet views and abstracts – that would eventually need to be integrated into WP:MOS if acted upon, and probably also be mentioned at WP:V and/or WP:RS, as well as WP:CITE. The parent thread above it provides some background, but may be "TLDR" for some. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Should italics be added to a book title in a quote?
Under MOS:QUOTE, the guideline states, "a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions", but also, "generally preserve bold and italics". Does that include preserving the lack of bold or italics? Specifically, if quoted text refers to a book, should the book title be italicised per MOS:ITALICS or left as is? For context, I'm trying to decide how to respond to this edit request. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, when it occurred, used italics in those circumstances. I think it falls under those "allowable typographical changes", in the same class as e.g. use of the proper dashes for ranges. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The MOS bit about preserving "bold and italics" should be changed to preserving "emphasis".  We often in fact change the actual style of the emphasis (e.g. emphasis in a manuscript is almost always done with underlining, or at least was before the rise of computerized wordprocessing, since typewriters and handwriting don't really do italics or bold, and we generally don't use underlining in Wikipedia at all). MOS is conflating all uses of italics and bold with emphasis in this case, and that's not correct. Even HTML has recognized this for over a decade and half, with a distinction between  and  vs.  and .  NB: Many don't know this yet, but we have, and should use,  and  for emphasis vs. purely typographical uses of italics and boldfacing, which should still be done with   and  . — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally would indeed prefer to use semantic tags such as </em> or <var ></var> or <cite ></cite> or whatever rather than apostrophe-apostrophe or <i ></i> (unless none of the former is appropriate), but last time I mentioned that (IIRC – that was years ago) there was strongish consensus that that wouldn't be worth the trouble of making Wikitext more complicated. (BTW, look at Type of contour line: if I were writing that outside Wikipedia, I'd like to emphasize the word rate by a means other than italics or boldface, both of which are used in the same section for other purposes. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which uses italics, boldface and quotation marks for pretty much the same purposes as that section, resorts to using small caps for emphasis, but that looks awful to me; I'd probably end up using underlining. Of course I'd use <dfn ></dfn> and <em ></em> with stylesheets to make them display as boldface and underlining respectively, rather than <b ></b> and <u ></u>.) And thanks for making me find out about Template:Tag| :-) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there is wiki markup now for all of the semantic HTML elements and they've been well-accepted. That includes  (which isn't for boldface, it's for definitions or things like definitions),, etc. See Category:Semantic markup templates.  Great example of WP:CCC, I guess.  I did most of that templating.  The  page was already taken for something more complicated. I'm not sure that's been resolved yet.  Guess I should look into it.  Anyway, at some point I want to work these into MOS itself.  While we don't need to "force" content editors to use  instead of foo when they mean actual emphasis instead of purely typographical italics (like book titles), it needs to be clear in MOS that the distintion is meaningful and should not be reverted when it is correctly made, and is something suitable for AWB and other rapid but human-mediated cleanup. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with SMcCandlish. Before long we'll be railroaded into using the original font. Tony   (talk)  23:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually seen this attempted more than once! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some tweaks to the section that I think will adequately address these issues. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A related issue is style in the titles of books or journal papers when reproduced in citations. For example, some biology books and papers correctly use italics for Latin species names in the text, but don't use italics for this purpose in the title, for whatever reason (perhaps because graphic designers don't seem to like bold italics). Some journals set titles in all caps, which I'm certainly not going to reproduce (but I have seen done), but you then need to decide between title case and sentence case in the citation. It is useful to be clear that there's no need to reproduce the original style in this context either. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda thought I already captured that with the recent tweaks. I was trying to avoid a ot of WP:CREEP while also making the point that there's nothing magically special about italicization as italicization (or its absence) in sources and quotations as long as genuine emphasis is not added or removed. Have a I failed in this effort? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the comments, and SMcCandlish for clarifying the guideline. I was pretty sure adding italics would be ok, but figured it would be worthwhile checking here if that led to the guideline being made clearer for everyone. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"the drop in temperature was from 5° to −13°"
OK, so it isn't the point of what's being said, but it does seem to be advocating the use of ° by itself as a temperature symbol. While it seems to be not uncommon in American recipes, and is used clothing care labels (even here in Britain, where it seems to be to save space), I'm made to wonder whether it's actually standard anywhere in the world.

In any case, I hold that this is setting a bad example, and the use of an unqualified ° to denote degrees of temperature should be discouraged. As such, I plan to change it to "the drop in temperature was from 5°C to −13°C".

While I'm on it, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether, for a range of values, the units should be given for each value or just once at the end. But I guess that the former is better in cases where a word rather than a symbol separates them. — Smjg (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that approximately half of the readers are from the US (very few of whom understand Celsius degrees) and approximately half of the readers are from outside the US (very few of whom understand Fahrenheit degrees), I would never use “degrees” for temperatures without stating which degrees they are and giving a conversion. Even in a direct quotation I would add a parenthetical clarification and conversion in square brackets (e.g. "The drop in temperature was from 5° to −13° [Celsius, i.e. from 41 °F to 9 °F]"). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this better? (I don't like the lack of a unit symbol after the first figure, but I can't be bothered to go over to Template talk:Convert and complain right now.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the example has to have the first figure smaller than the first (i.e. both negative, if we want the second one to be negative). Regardless of whether the numbers are negative, I don't think we would want to use an en dash for "to" in rises or falls (would we?); safer to stick to ranges.--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors will remember that all of the guidelines at WP:DASH were developed through wide consultation under ArbCom supervision in 2011. Please do not treat that section (indeed, any section) as a sandbox for your proposed improvements. Of course something better might be done; but why not present it here on the talkpage? Far better to show everyone what you think here, rather than making everyone load the page to check the appearance of each variation as it is put in place. It's easy. Like this:
 * the drop in temperature was from 5° to &minus;13°, not the drop in temperature was 5°–&minus;13°

(Or what you will.)

On the substance, note that it is useful, as Kotniski suggests, to have the smaller figure first. But there is no reason for it to be negative also, is there? There is an advantage in showing something more inscrutable in the red example, rather than using another negative first that assists in parsing the whole. We want to show how bad the proscribed usage is. And drop is good, because a range would be given with the lower value first; but in fact change might be even better, because it does not signal that the move was from high to low, leaving the aberrant use of en dash looking even worse: It is not unnatural to structure a sentence this way (with either drop or change), despite what A di M says in an edit summary about "sane" usage. We might be talking about several changes (in pressure, in volume, in turbulence, in humidity, in viscosity) and prefer a noun rather than a verb for consistency in the context.
 * the change in temperature was from 5° to &minus;13°, not the change in temperature was 5°–&minus;13°

As for C versus F, that's a minor but a valid incidental point. Please present alternatives for everyone to look at in one place.

N oetica Tea? 22:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or "The temperature dropped from 5 to −13 ºC." Note that MOSNUM (and the ISO) insist on the space before the degree symbol for temperatures. Tony   (talk)  02:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But if it said that, then we wouldn't use a dash anyway (it already says we don't use a dash after "from"), so the example would be spurious and misleading. I suggest that we wouldn't use a dash even in the example given; we are supposed to use a dash for "to" in ranges, not for changes. Are we suggesting that it's OK to write the change in temperature was 15°–3°? If so, we should give such an example, since it's not a "range"; though to me that example looks wrong and we should be recommending that we write "to" in such a situation, as we would after "from". And in that case, the example is again spurious and misleading (since the wrong sentence would still be wrong even without the negative sign, while it's the wrongness of use with a negative sign that we're supposed to be illustrating. --Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * º is the masculine ordinal sign (e.g. 2º is Spanish/Italian for ‘2nd’); the degree sign is °. (I can tell them apart because in my font the former is underlined, even though in many other fonts they are nearly identical.) For the rest, I agree with Kotniski: that particular sentence would suck balls even if both temperatures were above 0 °C. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  11:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the original problem about the lack of C or F after the degree sign remains. I've removed the example until we can find something that we would actually be happy with; Noetica: instability is a lesser evil than being plain wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And in fact I would suggest simply leaving this example out for good; we've already got the statement of the rule and the -10 to 10 example, and people reading this are hardly going to think they can use a dash in a situation that clearly looks even worse than the example that's already described as wrong. We should rather aim for a bit more in the way of brevity rather than giving multiple and redundant examples for every tiny point.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair points; and I certainly wouldn't want an example that was wrong in detail, even if it did illustrate the point. I accept scrapping that example entirely. And yes: brevity is valuable. If we did want one somewhat wordier example to replace the snippet that remains now, perhaps this would do (avoiding also the problem of gaps before units which the "corrected" temperature example also suffered from, and the consequent need for a spaced en dash):
 * the range of their scores was from &minus;20 to &minus;13, not the range of their scores was &minus;20–&minus;13
 * N oetica Tea? 12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better, though still I'm not sure we wouldn't recommend the same rephrasing if we were dealing with positive numbers, or that we wouldn't actually recommend the rephrasing "their scores ranged from...". Put it in if you really think it helps, but I'd still favour the simpler solution of omitting this example altogether.--Kotniski (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Teams with scores in the range &minus;20–&minus;13 will be [something]? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It can never be right to use a dash in s of temperature, as doing so makes the sense of the sentence unclear, as does also using the word "change" instead of a specified direction, as does also in my view not using the degree symbol after every ordinal number involved. "The change in temperature was from 6 to 8 °C" could be stating that the temperature rose by 2 degrees, or it could be interpreted as stating (in a colloquial way) that the temperature changed by between 6 and 8 degrees. Similarly with "the change in temperature was 6 - 8 °C", or even "the change in temperature was 6 °C - 8 °C" Using a dash obfuscates the sentence meaning even if a verb states a particular direction, as it makes the ordinals numbers involved become specifiers of a range, instead of a starting value and a destination value: "the rise in temperature was 3 - 5 °C" be inferring that the  of the rise was between 3 and 5 degrees, rather than that 3 was the start temperature and 5 the finish. This lack of clarity even persists if the temperature is dropping: "the drop in temperature was 5 - 3 °C" could still be misinterpreted. Changes in temperature have to specify the direction, they have to use "from" and "to", and in my view they have to use the degree symbol and the relevant scale of measurement after every number: "the drop in temperature was from 5 °C to 3 °C". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there is general agreement that this pair of examples was flawed in several ways, I have taken the next step and removed it (even as a commented suggestion). Certainly there would be real-life examples to avoid; but it may be difficult to find any that would not be objectionable on independent grounds. If something turns up later, let it be shown on this talkpage and discussed. Meanwhile, the particular guideline (thoroughly scrutinised and endorsed in 2011) remains in place, with its snippet pair of examples.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSNUM#Units in specialist topics
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSNUM. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  12:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mammals help needed
Many mammal stubs were created by User:Polbot back when the idea was that common species names were to be capitalized; and they're mostly untouched since. The bot the made them in no longer in use (see my brief conversation with its owner at User talk:Quadell). Since the current consensus is to lower-case species common names, could someone come up with a semi-automatic way to both move and edit them to fix? Note the comment string "This article was auto-generated by User:Polbot" in articles such as Altiplano Chinchilla Mouse; scan categories such as Category:Mammals of Peru to find others. Or look at  Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been slowly slogging through moving species articles. Any kind of automation that anyone knows about would be hugely appreciated, but it is sort of hard to imagine. I can move a lot of articles real fast, but we also need to:
 * Update the text of the article (including defaultsort/etc)
 * Fix double redirects
 * Make sure any archives get moved
 * Check the edit history of the target to see if a history merge is needed
 * Make sure any image fair use descriptions are updated with the new article
 * I suppose I could do the moves a lot faster if others were committed to helping with the article text stuff, that takes the most time. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

British style for abbreviations formed by compression not truncation
I don't think that the statements in the Abbreviations section are quite correct regarding British usage: British and some other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally. The most common British usage in my experience is to drop the full stop from compressed abbreviations, thus Dr, Mrs , Ltd but not from truncated abbreviations, thus Hon. , op. cit. . See, e.g., the advice here (search for "British usage"). This is certainly the style that I would automatically use. The rationale is that the full stop replaces omitted material. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As currently written, the guideline (AFAICT) forbids to use Dr and Hon. in the same article, which (AFAICT) is by far the most common convention in BrE. IIRC some people even use St for Saint but St. for Street. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Oxford Guide to Style has: "'Traditionally, abbreviations were supposed to end in full points while contractions did not . . . Handy though this rule is, common usage does not bear it out: both ed. (for editor or edited by) and edn. (for edition) end in a point. Street is St. with a point to avoid confusion wit St for Saint. . . . Specific rulings may be found in the individual entries in the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors . . .. '" So it is not just individuals, but at least (presumably) all followers of Oxford style. --Boson (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It warms my heart to see such things discussed, especially when major sources are quoted.
 * The quotation from OGS (2002; an update of the classic Hart's Rules) either is very slightly inaccurate or shows a difference from the version in The Oxford Style Manual (OSM; 2003), which purports merely to reprint OGS unchanged as the first of its two parts (the second part being a reprint of the most recent ODWE, 2000). Here is the corresponding excerpt from OSM, with variations and material omitted above underlined, and with bold for comparison with a later version that I will cite further down:
 * "Traditionally, abbreviations were supposed to end in full points while contractions did not, giving both Jun. and Jr for Junior, and Rev. and Revd for Reverend. Handy though this rule is, common usage increasingly does not bear it out: both ed. (for editor or edited by) and edn. (for edition) end in a poin t; Street is St. with a point to avoid confusion with St for Saint. Further, US English tends to use punctuation more than British English (U.S.A. rather than USA), and non-technical English in either country uses more punctuation than technical English (ml. rather than ml). This means it is difficult to predict with confidence the punctuation following abbreviations, though acronyms and symbols tend to be subject to greater standardization across borders and disciplines. Specific rulings may be found in the individual entries in the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors; [...] (OSM, 2003, pp. 63–64)"
 * Note the qualification "increasingly"; and note the context provided by the material earlier left out. Beyond that, let's check entries in the included version of ODWE (2003) relevant to the excerpt, along with the current edition of ODWE (2005). I summarise:
 * "2003: Jr., jun.; not jnr., jr., junr. 2005: Jr. 'chiefly N. Amer. junior (no point usual in British style)' [/ ...] Jun., Jnr"
 * "2003: Revd, pl. Revds; not Rev. (US) 2005: Rev. or Brit. Revd"
 * "2003: [editor] ed.; pl. eds. (preferred) or edd.; [edition] edn. pl. edns. 2005: [editor] ed.; pl. eds or eds.; [edition] ed. or edn"
 * "[St and St., consistently as distinguished in the excerpt]"
 * There are interesting inconsistencies and changes for use of the period. (Note other variations too, including in capitalisation.)
 * Now, OGS (2002) was in fact frankly updated as New Hart's Rules (NHR; 2005; same year as the current ODWE). This is the core of the Oxford suite of style resources; it simplifies and shortens some provisions, though OGS (along with ODWE which includes it) is valuable for expansions where NHR is a little too brisk. Still, sometimes the wording in NHR represents a genuine alteration of intent. Note the underlined departures from the wording cited from ODWE above, and bold for comparison on two key points:
 * "Traditionally, abbreviations end in full points while contractions do not, so that we have both Jun. and Jr for Junior, and Rev. and Revd for Reverend. This rule is handy and in general is borne out, although there are some exceptions: for example St. (= Street) is often written with a point to avoid confusion with St for Saint. (NHR, 2005, p. 169)"
 * Well! And that continues with more subtle alteration of the line established in 2002, just three years earlier. Anyway, the Oxford resources generally do support the distinction that Peter Coxhead notes at the head of this section.
 * The similarly weighty Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) is more catholic, and as usual does not recommend any one of the four basic policies for punctuation of abbreviations that it very competently surveys (pp. 3–5). It does, however, speak favourably at some length of a fifth option, not much used in print but much used in "digital style on the internet": the omission of periods altogether, with all sorts of abbreviations. The text:
 * "A fifth option, to use no stops in any kind of abbreviation, is not commonly seen on the printed page, but appears increasingly in digital style on the internet. It is easiest of all to implement, and would resolve the anomalies created by distinguishing contractions from abbreviations (options b, c (ii)). It would also break down the invisible barrier between abbreviations and symbols (section 1 above). Leaving all abbreviations unstopped is sometimes said to be a recipe for confusion between lower case abbreviations and ordinary words. Yet there are very few which could be mistaken. Those which are identical, such as am, fig and no are normally accompanied by numbers: 10 am, fig 13, no 2, and there's no doubt as to what they are. The idea of leaving abbreviations totally without stops may seem too radical for the moment, but it would streamline the anomalies and divergences outlined in this entry. (CGEU, 2004, p. 4)"
 * (Even the major American guide CMOS16, remember, is now against "U.S." and in favour of the simpler "US".)
 * The current wording on our page includes this: "British and some other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally (XYZ Corp; ABC Ltd), a practice favored in science writing." True, and a step toward the bold Cambridge suggestion that makes a great deal of sense for Wikipedia, whose Manual of Style follows reliable style resources through careful surveys and analysis (and general best practice in publishing), but must also adapt to the unique condition of international collaborative editing by volunteers.
 * I suggest that there be no change to the present wording for abbreviations on the page. The guidance is stable and sound; it can be adjusted later if there is consensus to do that; but just now several other issues take priority in discussion on this talkpage.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My original point was not about whether the "guidance" is stable and sound, but whether the statement made is correct. "British and some other authorities" is simply not factually correct; it implies that (virtually) all British sources have the stated preference, and they do not. "Some British and other authorities" is factually correct (as shown by the sources quoted here). Such a change does not alter the guidance given. Peter coxhead (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dammit. You know what this means? I have to spend another $50+ on nearly identical books to round out my style guide collection. I took them at their word that the text was identical between the stand-alone and combined Oxford editions. Grrr...  Re:CMOS and "U.S." – can we finally stop recommending that awful 19th-centuryism? Every time I see "U.S.", especially in articles with "UK", I picture US Civil War era woodcuts with big muttonchops and top hats. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can relax about one point. Although current NHR and current ODWE are different from the content of OSM, I have checked and OSM does appear to represent the older OGS faithfully. The word increasingly is revealed as left out by mistake, in Boson's quote from it above. (Heh. I do that too.) NHR is essential for our work here though. (Not everyone needs to collect dictionaries style guides zealously like me; but I guess it's useful that some of us do.)
 * As for "US" supplanting "U.S.", I'm ready when you and a quorum of other interested editors are.
 * N oetica Tea? 09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have NHR (2005), ODWE (2005) and OGS (2002) in their latest individual incarnations, it's safe to ditch OSM (2003), then? Or is the OGS included in ODWE (2005) the same as the last separate OGS (2002) and the version in OSM (2003), meaning one only needs current copies of NHR (2005) and ODWE (2005)? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY and NPOV
MOS:IDENTITY provides that:
 * "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."

This has been the subject of several threads, most of which are linked to here. They highlight several problems with this rule, but I am not sure that these have been discussed reasonably recently. I suggest that we discuss whether the rule should not be changed to something similar to the following:
 * "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect the gender used by most reliable sources to refer to that person at any phase of that person's life."

This means that pronouns may shift within an article ("He was born..." then "She died"), but it avoids the "He gave birth" problem mentioned by the current guideline. I think this would be preferable to the current rule for the following reasons: Regards,  Sandstein   22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The current rule violates WP:NPOV by allowing the subject's personal preference to dictate how we describe them. A core principle of NPOV and other basic policies is that we follow the preponderance of reliable sources, not any one person's opinion, even if it's the subject's own opinion about their gender. (We certainly don't blindly follow the subject's opinion about themselves in any other matter, such as e.g. in describing their personal merits or achievements.)
 * The current rule assumes that the person has one reasonably precise gender self-identification that we are able to discern. That may not always be so, especially for people on whom sources are sparse, but even for some modern persons. E.g., David Burgess was a lawyer who for some years lived as a man in public but as a woman in private. How do we decide which of these two self-identifications applies? It's always a matter of guesswork.


 * It's my understanding that transgendered people don't decide to change from female to male, etc. but rather discover that they always were male. Referring to a FtM as male or a MtF as female is both more accurate and more polite.  It is also less confusing than switching back and forth within one article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, even if it were that simple, we would have a situation where we were being inaccurate about all the females who failed to discover that they were female and carried on living as males. And what about male and female animals... Or people who died young, "She had one son (or possibly daughter) who predeceased him." I have always been uneasy about the self-identification rule, though it is convenient, it does not seem suitable for our "follow the sources" approach.  (Note that governments have got into difficulties trying to use "self identification" on race issues.)  You are, however, unquestionably correct that it is more polite - and "polite" is good.  But not or raison d'etre. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I don't follow your first few examples. What about male and female animals?  In the cases of animals checking under the hood for the genitals is sufficient.  Because animals can be said to lack identity entirely, their gender identity is a non-issue.
 * As for following the sources, I believe you're referring to, say, a source from 1996 that refers to Chaz/Chastity Bono as "she." Well let's say that there was a country music singer who always thought she was born in Nashville, and for years newspaper articles and books have referred to her as a Nashville native. But one day she digs up her birth certificate (needs to get a passport for a big show overseas) and finds out that she was actually born in Memphis.  This doesn't mean that we should follow the earlier sources and continue saying that she is from Nashville; those sources have turned out, through no fault of their own, to be wrong on that particular point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really comparable. I know it's "p.-c." and polite for everyone to go along with this "discovery" meme, but it's a subjective, personal, internal sense that conflicts with objective, measurable chromosomal reality. Finding out you were really born in Memphis is an objective, measurable reality, with no subjective component. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well look at it this way. A person's genitals may be this or that but the thing that really determines sex/gender in humans is the brain.  The study of the role of brain structure in gender identity is still in its early stages.  So can we prove that someone always was male?  No.  Can we prove that someone was male and changed to female?  No.  Can we prove that someone really is female and is only playing dress-up in men's clothes?  Also no.  So we might as well go with the way that is both more polite and easier to read: the most recent preferred pronoun, kept the same throughout the article.
 * Call it P.C. if you want, but "Chaz Bono is male," "Chastity Bono is female" and "Chastity Bono used to be female and transformed into the man Chaz Bono" are all political statements.  This time, there's no way to talk around it; we have to pick one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is not Wikipedia's role to decide whether we want to be polite and politically correct; or whether we want to be incorrect and use the pronouns corresponding to the person's set of chromosomes. In order not to have to decide (and engage in original research), we must simply follow the sources: if e.g. a majority of Chaz Bono's biographers refer to the person with male or female pronouns, as the case may be, then so should we.  Sandstein   14:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this issue, there is a question of which sources are reliable on which points. If, for example, a book or article was printed before the person publicly announced that he or she was transgender (and therefore did not have access to accurate information, like with the Nashville/Memphis example above), then the pronouns in that source should not be counted.  If we only look at sources that discuss Chaz Bono after his announcement, then the preponderence of them will say "he" anyway.  In using the most recent preferred pronoun, Wikipedia is already following general English practice.  Here's an article in the Washington Post, which is not the most liberal of newspapers: Chaz Bono: "he." and anotherDarkfrog24 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We should also consider that chromosomes are not the sole determinants of gender in humans, even the physical aspects of gender. A woman goes to the doctor for infertility treatments.  She has breasts and hips, female bone structure and a vagina, and the rest of her genitals look female.  She wore dresses and played with dolls growing up and didn't feel off about it.  She tells the doctor that she never did start menstruating and that sex with her husband is a bit painful.  The doctor does some blood tests and finds that the woman's uterus never really developed and that her blood chemistry is off.  This is because she has the complete form of androgen insensitivity syndrome: her DNA is XY, not XX.  Do we have to refer to that person as "he"?  Do we have to count up each little physical characteristic and run it through some algorithm (5 points for D-cups, 3 points for an Adam's apple)? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When that arises at an article, we should deal with it at that article. It's a WP:BEANS/WP:CREEP issue. Absent chromosomal disorder facts in reliable sources, we have no reason to presume some issue like that is going on in any given case. I don't know why people get worked up about this one, especially the usage of the sensible pronouns pre and post the  gender identification change.  Why is this different from anything else?  "Robert was 6 when his family moved to Kentucky. At age 16, Robert began to identify as female and switched to the name Roberta.  At 25, Roberta won her first Academy Award..."  How is this any different from accurately describing a change of profession, or whatever?  I mean objectively and encyclopedically; of course for the subject, a change in gender identity is likely to be more intense and profound that a career change.  If we have a source, e.g. an interview, that says "Robert" identified as female from early childhood, wanted to be called Roberta, and always resented being treated as male, I wouldn't have any problem with "she" throughout the entire article, as long as this fact was established immediately in the prose, so "Robert" and "she" in the same sentence isn't cognitively jarring. Most of the the TG/TS articles I've looked at, however, are not like this, and indicate a later (usually teen to early adult) conscious decision/realization followed by an eventual public gender switch. I.e. a distinct if uncomfortable period clearly as one gender, then a distinct and happier one as the other. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing gender pronouns inherently suggests that we're talking about a different person and changing professional references does not. Besides, how do you know that Robert/a was a "he" at age six?  If don't need Jennifer Lopez's karyotype or fMRI results to say that she's a chick, we shouldn't require Roberta's either.  My point about chromosomes is that the "objective evidence" can be conflicting.
 * It sounds like you're using "gender" to mean "gender role." I'm not. I'm using it to mean "state of being male or female." The pronoun should refer to what the person is not what people thought the person was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument cuts both ways. Non-cosmopolitans in the actually completely reject the notion.  I don't have to agree with them, but it's true.  The average Western person (I don't know enough about Asian, African, etc. cultural beliefs and gestalts to comment) does not actually believe that someone identifying as a woman (for example) but born with male organs or mostly male organs  female. Advancing the idea that professed gender identity is demonstrably equivalent to actual gender is a very POV position.  Anyway, the idea that a change of gender pronouns, even in prose that makes it clear that a gender identification switch took place, will automatically confuse people has not been demonstrated to be true, and there's plenty of evidence against this. For example, it is routine to refer to a celebrity in bio articles here by their birth name when discussing their early life before they chose their stage name.  Nothing could be construed more as talking about a different person than using a different name.  It's certainly much more suggestive of multiple parties than a pronoun switch. Yet no one ever seems to be confused by this. At all. In a roundabout way, you're advancing essentially the same lopsided argument as WP:BIRDS is for capitalizing bird names: An exaggerated supposition that users could become confused if the advocated style isn't used, when not only is there no evidence this actually happens, simply writing sensible prose makes it extremely unlikely that it ever would happen.  My friend John Perry Barlow called this "optimizing for the possible rather than the probable" (which does not make sense because there is no limit to how terrible things can be imagined to be, yet people will nevertheless guard against extremely unlikely bad results at unreasonable cost because they fear them).  Cf. Benjamin Franklin's famous quotation about choosing temporary safety over essential liberty. More generally, the concept has been popularized as "terriblizing". If the objective evidence is conflicting then that's an issue for discussion at that specific article. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I can't prove that they will get confused, you can't prove that they won't get confused, and the scientific, objective study of the matter is still too preliminary to give us a clear answer. We might as well be polite and consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I once read a WP article about an early female-to-male-transsexual pianist with used she when talking about the childhood and he when talking about the career. I wouldn't have noticed anything weird with that if that hadn't been pointed out – probably the fact that there was a section break between the she text and the he text made the trick. (Also, I disagree with “The pronoun should refer to what the person is not what people thought the person was.” She means what native English speakers mean by she, as with any other word in any natural language. If Bill Clinton turned out to be a philosophical zombie (a body whose external appearance and behaviour are indistinguishable from those of a human, but doesn't actually have any conscious experience) you still wouldn't refer to Clinton as it, would you? After all, grammatically gendered pronouns are routinely used in English to refer to at least some non-human animals that most likely have no gender in your [Darkfrog24's] sense of the word.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the concept of a philosophical zombie, but if it's something like a droid or robot, don't we refer to C-3PO and R2-D2 as "he"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with using a word that has five correct definitions (gender). I just said that I mean "gender" in the sense of "state of being male or female." Both human and non-human animals do indeed have gender in that sense.  My point in bringing up androgen insensitivity syndrome is that the things that we would consider obvious determinants of gender in humans, the presence of a Y chromosome or the presence of functional female or male genitalia, can sometimes send opposite messages, even within an individual.
 * Now that the terminology's established, here's another example. In the 1800s in the U.S., many women dressed up as men so that they could enlist in armies and fight in the American Civil War.  Because the times (and the clothes!) were very restrictive for women, a few of them continued dressing and referring to themselves as men for several years after the war.  This was not (in most cases) because they believed themselves to really be men on the inside but because they wanted to hold jobs and run their own lives.  We refer to these women as "she" because that's what they really were, even though many people in their lives mistakenly believed them to be men.  For the same reason, we should refer to transmen as "he" because that's what they really are, even if, for certain stretches of years, they were mistaken for women. (Just to prevent more terminology confusion, Chaz Bono, raised Chastity Bono, is a transman.  A person raised male who later identifies as female is not.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been making what I consider a principled and rational argument, with more consideration than I usually offer to the conservative-leaning mainstream rather than to progressive, urban, unusually sexually open-minded individuals like myself, because my anthropological training says that this is the right thing to do. But I've come to the personal conclusion that I really don't care much, so long as MOS makes it clear that the prose should not be written in a confusing manner, mixing male names with female pronouns or vice versa. It's trivially easy to write around stupid phrasing like "Jane Smith earned his first degree in 1988." MOS just needs to explicitly say that we, and then let the "p.-c." style roam free.  If enough people prefer it, it will stick, and if not, then not. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (While I'm talking about zombies, IIRC the supporters of the current guideline want it to apply to fictional people, too; I'm curious to know how they would write the article about "—All You Zombies—". :-) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  11:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I wouldn't say no to a link to a study on how transgender people feel about this, but in the meantime, assuming that you mean "trivial" in the sense of "easy," then I agree. This is a non-issue or near-non-issue in even most articles about transgender subjects. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant "trivially easy" and changed my wording to be clearer. Sorry for the confusion. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dash use in year articles
This is being discussed at WT:WikiProject Years - anyone like to make any suggestions?--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia do what general or specialist publications recommend?
I want to stress that while I have a clear, on-my-sleeve preference with regard to eventually changing the guidelines to capitalization of common names (because it looks illiterate and childish; in the words of ornithologist Anselm Atkins in The Auk 100:103–104, October 1983, "[I]s it not an embarrassment...to follow rules that contradict the usage in the world at large?" Yes, a bird scientist in one of the top bird journals), that's not the goal with the proposals above. That will need to be one of the biggest Centralized Discussion RFCs ever. The point here is to stop having our guidelines conflict, stop implying that a "we're so special" exception for one project isn't contentious, and especially stop baldfacedly encouraging LOCALCONSENSUS policy violations. It's a ridiculously disruptive mess. BTW, I can quote project talk page evidence that at least one project has been using this confusion intentionally, working the naming conventions subpages to get what they want while blatantly ignoring MOS, which they label "shit" to "keep an eye on" (direct quotes), on the basis that as long as they have one guideline on their side they're safe. It's blatant WP:GAMING of the system, and it's been going on since at least 2004. I've raised similar issues about a few sports projects ignoring the naming conventions and tendentiously trying to change them. And I'm mostly a sports and biology editor. I have no bone to pick with individuals or topics, just certain long-term disruptive behaviors. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't really pin the blame on WikiProject Birds for this. The capitalization of bird names is an established stylistic guideline. Wikipedia can not dictate real world usage. While Atkins criticized this position, as long as it remains a standard guideline for both the American and British Ornithological Unions (among others), we have no choice but follow it. The issue, to put it simply, is bigger than Wikipedia. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This view has been challenged every time it has been raised. And when it comes to ignoring consensus policy, gaming the system and years of concerted tendentious editing, yes we  "blame" those responsible, but that's a side issue.  And it was actually WP:CETACEANS who introduced the practice to Wikipedia as a "WikiProject preference", got WP:BIRDS to adopt it, then later recanted.  discussion should not be a history lesson.  For an (incomplete) history lesson on this topic, see User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point remains even if the "blame" is on the ornithological unions rather than the related Wikiproject(s). As long as not capitalizing the name remains a standard guidelines in general style guides, we have no choice by to follow them in this general encyclopedia. If a sister project WikiOrnithologipedia were started, of course it would follow the non-general style guides. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since wikipedia is based on sources, it should follow the usage in sources. This proposal applies simplistic rules across all specialists fields that have their own naming conventions, disregarding any and all reliable sources and authorities in the relevant field. That's bound to a) piss off many specialists that follow the sources when writing articles and b) make wikipedia look amateurish and unreliable by making clear that we will depart from what reliable sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP is based on sources. We would never downcase something that is consistently capitalized in sources, according to our MOS.  But a lot of wikipedians go way beyond that, and capitalize things where the sources make it clear that capitalization is not necessary.  See this n-gram for example; plug in your favorite species common names.  Do sources consistently capitalize it?  I'm not saying we need to overturn the bird consensus, but to allow more such isolated special eye-poking (as Tony puts it) styles to develop seems like what will make WP look amateurish.  Let's stick to our style that respects sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [after ec] Agreed on following sources. Apparently disagreed [with Enric Naval, but agreeing with Dicklyon] on the need to restrict those sources to specialist journals. We will not depart from what reliable sources say, if all the reliable sources are in agreement. If reliable sources themselves disagree, then either we'll need a technical fix to allow multiple titles (not redirects, but actual titles) for one article, or we will have to depart from some of the sources in order to follow the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "follow the sources" is an old PMAnderson styling concept that was pretty well rejected by consensus. I'd say "respect the sources" is a better way to say what we do; we have our own style, but sources determine things like whether a term is proper or not (we make substantive decisions by looking at sources, but we try to have a style that's more consistent than the variety of styles in sources).  Once we decide that, things are easy.  And this idea of two titles seems too radical to contemplate.  The trouble is just that some editors (esp. Enric Naval and JCScaliger in many recent RMs) seem to ignore the provisions of MOS:CAPS in deciding what's a proper noun or proper name (based on sources, it says!) and therefore on what to capitalize.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, you choose to forget those RMs where consensus went towards following the best sources in the subject, like Talk:Halley's_Comet. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or one might remember that it went with the usage in general reliable sources too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you both remember wrong. I withdrew the RM because sources and editors were both split about 50/50, and it was clear that no consensus was in sight.  If I had left it going and it had closed "no consensus to move", it would still not be an endorsement of a "follow the sources" approach, unless you let Greg say which sources are best to follow.  The majority of books downcase Halley's comet, as the evidence linked there makes plain.   To the extent that there was support for capitalizing Comet there, it was a case of doing what "specialist publications recommend", which is what SMcCandlish is asking about; some like it, some don't.  I've repeatedly pointed it out as a problem, since specialists usually like to capitalize their own stuff, in conflict with general usage.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I prefer sentence case myself and use it in all taxonomic articles I create (I've yet to create one for birds though), but this is a classic case of WP:CREEP - attempting to legislate a one-size-fits-all rule.


 * In case you didn't know already, plant articles follow ICN/ICBN rules and animal articles follow ICZN rules. Both of them are extremely complicated rules (not guidelines), and though similar, in certain key areas they are radically different. Are they also doing a "we're so special" exception by following different conventions? Or do they need to stop being wusses and create a single general naming guideline for all organisms or else Wikipedia MOS will do it for them?


 * The ironic thing about it is that ICZN and ICN/ICBN actually do not control common name conventions. The sentence case "rule" is in reality a loose scientific consensus borne out of a majority preferring to use it. In fact, that's the only reason why we can choose what stylistic convention we want at all. Ornithological (also lepidopterist?) organizations, however, do standardize common names in an effort to minimize confusion. And they do have conventions that explicitly say that common names should be in title case. I personally dislike the practice, but it is a convention, and Wikipedia consensus does not trump prevailing conventions in reliable sources.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that International Code thing were actually the case, it might be [well, actually it still probably wouldn't be] an interesting argument, but in point of fact, animal and plant articles demonstrably follow no rules at all, and are a hodgepodge of confusing styles, subject to frequent editwarring and movewarring, precisely because the guidelines are not consistent and appeared to (did not actually) permit random subsets of editors to make up their own rules on the fly. I've reported here before (see archive before last) that there's been a clear trend, due to "bleed-through" of bird capitalization, to rampantly capitalize everything to do with animals, from types to breeds to genera to species to clades to phyla, by largely non-specialist editors who think it's simply a Wikipedia style to do caps in such cases. It's a massive, massive problem, affecting tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles, and worsening every single day.  The International Code stuff has a lot to say about what the names are and how they are taxonomically classified. It has  to say about how WP, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc., follows normal practice of 99.9% of the world and doesn't capitalize animal names. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the attempt to legislate myriad-sizes-to-fit-myriad-projects would be the classic case of WP:CREEP. Yes, plants and animal articles are covered by this proposal as well. Wikipedia consensus might not trump Wikipedia reliable sources (I have no idea), but reliable sources are not restricted to specialist publications. If the New York Times or London Times or Reader's Digest treats flora/fauna names as common nouns, that's also reliably sourced. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of academic journals in the field, perhaps. The majority of general English-language sources do not capitalize common names.  Because Wikipedia is a general-English publication, it should use general-English rules rather than rules specific to a scientific field, even if that field matches the topic of the article.  We're an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make sure to tell the guys at WP:MEDRES that we put generalists sources over the best sources on the topic. New York Times might be reliable, but not more reliable than Nature for topics like physics, Wall Street Journal for economics, etc. You are also putting it above the relevant naming authorities in each field, like the IUPAC for chemistry, IAU for astronomy, etc. A sure way to piss off the specialists editing wikipedia and make it clear that we don't follow the best reliable sources when writing articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Specialist publications often are the most reliable sources regarding factual matters. This is not such a matter; this is a style issue.  Neither "Common Blackbird" nor "common blackbird" carries a higher degree of factual accuracy, but only the latter reflects the style typically used in non-specialist publications.
 * If an academic journal and a newspaper publish conflicting factual information (e.g. pertaining to a bird's migratory behavior), it makes sense to defer to the former. But when it comes to style decisions, we're no more bound by a specialist publication's naming conventions than we are by its other style conventions.  (Suppose that the most respected journal in a particular field uses title case headings.  Does that mean that we should do the same for topics within its scope?)
 * It's important to note that specialist publications' style decisions often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships. For example, Variety contains numerous conventions that seem downright bizarre to someone expecting normal English.  I'm fairly confident that you wouldn't advocate emulating its house style in Wikipedia articles about the entertainment industry.
 * According to WikiProject Birds, the WikiProject's capitalization preference reflects a desire to convey a distinction to which a vast majority of Wikipedia's readers likely are entirely oblivious (i.e. upon seeing a bird name, they probably won't realize why it's written that way). I can understand the utility in a specialist publication, but not here.  —David Levy 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't think that's really why they do it. They do it because they think that's the appropriate way to write the names, by convention. To me, this is a purely stylistic matter. I've seen some publications consistently capitalize only the first word, some capitalize none, some all, etc. It's not like any of those is strictly wrong. A publication should just pick one and go with it. I think our methodology should be to pick the convention most commonly in use, which is overwhelmingly to lowercase each word except for proper nouns. But whatever we do, picking more than one style makes us look unprofessional and damages legitimacy. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though some at WT:BIRDS have actually advanced the "it's a disambiguator" argument. And been shot down. Nothing ever happens to really do anything about the WP:BIRDS entrenchment because the matter is usually discussed on their turf, where they simply dismiss the concerns. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the other participants in WP:BIRDS, but of course I distinguish between "Mexican jay" and "Mexican Jay" for clarity, and I'm glad the convention supports this practice. I have not seen this idea shot down. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it as a slight advantage of using caps, but irrelevant in terms of answering the question "what should Wikipedia's style guide be". We don't make up conventions or language features based on what we decide is better. We follow sources, not lead. If I understand correctly, the ornithologist convention is at least in part motivated by this issue, so BIRDS might be doing this indirectly because of it, but it would be quite odd for us to use that rationale directly in this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will a typical Wikipedia reader (i.e. one not familiar with the ornithological community's prevailing style conventions and the underlying logic thereof) recognize and appreciate the distinction ("Oh, it says 'Mexican Jay', so it must refer to the species Aphelocoma wollweberi, not to Mexican jays in general.")? Of course not.  Most readers will simply wonder why the heck we're randomly treating bird names as proper nouns.  I certainly did.  —David Levy 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think some readers will, especially those who are familiar with the literature on birds, who I'll bet are overrepresented among readers of bird articles. Even those who aren't may figure out the distinction.  (Probably somewhat fewer would realize that "Mexican jay" doesn't refer specifically to Aphelocoma wollweberi, but still some would.)
 * And this advantage in clarity is gained at no cost, in my opinion, though some people use intemperate language in describing the cost they see. I've argued at WP:BIRDS, when people suggest standardizing the order of topics or the headings in taxon articles, that standardization of this sort of thing isn't an improvement.  I like Wikipedia to look like what it is.  This works with different varieties of English.  It works with other things that house styles often apply to, such as using or not using "false titles", and treating sentences in parentheses as separate sentences or as part of the previous sentence.  (I just discussed this with another editor.)  So I think we lose nothing in appearance or legitimacy by having species names capitalized one way in bird articles and another way in mammal articles. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, our adherence to this convention probably reduces overall clarity by encouraging editors' reliance upon it to draw the intended distinction. In a non-specialist publication (whose readers are unlikely to pick up on such a visual cue), it's far more helpful to simply avoid referring to "Mexican jays" in the generic sense.  (Phrases along the lines of "jays native to Mexico" and "jay species native to Mexico" are much clearer.)
 * In my view, this is a classic example of a specialist group of editors — undoubtedly with the best of intentions — focusing on what makes sense to them instead of what best serves Wikipedia's readers. —David Levy 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I've also addressed this issue here in replying to MeegsC; it not only doesn't generally help disambiguate (and  on it to do so is downright foolish outside ornithology journals that accept the practice, it leads demonstrably to continual editwarring and other strife, and encourages sloppy writing, while also making the encyclopedia look amateurish to 99.9% of readers, and causing editorial confusion about how to treat common names of animals. That some small fraction of readers might grok the species/group capitalization distinction, in the limited number of cases where such a distinction needs to be made, is a very tiny step forward for a several huge steps backward. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * David Levy, it's kind of you to mention the best of intentions. I think this convention is fairly widely known&mdash;it's used in field guides of various kinds as well as in ornithological journals.  If someone actually suggests a style change that applies to bird articles, there would be more to say about this. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean I'd have more to say. Maybe that's not others' criterion for whether they'd have more to say. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * David Levy, it's kind of you to mention the best of intentions.
 * I want to be clear in expressing my certainty that the WikiProject's members sincerely seek the betterment of Wikipedia. I disagree with this particular decision, but it unquestionably was made in good faith.
 * I think this convention is fairly widely known&mdash;it's used in field guides of various kinds as well as in ornithological journals.
 * Respectfully, you're still analyzing the situation from the perspective of a bird enthusiast. Most of Wikipedia's readers, many of whom will encounter bird-related articles from time to time, have never read an ornithological journal or field guide.  —David Levy 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't want this to turn into a debate about WP:BIRDS again, but oh well, here we go. This fallacy of forcing Wikipedia to be wildly inconsistent from article to article by trying to impose external style criteria from specialist publications [inconsistent themselves! even ornithology journals are not universal on this] that defy all other professional publishing criteria and which even some specialists in those fields consider "embarrassing", meanwhile no other encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication in the world does this, is a very perennial topic.  The idea has been shredded to pieces every time it has been thorough discussed, but it unfortunately usually always gets discussed on individual article talk pages or at WT:BIRDS instead of here, where the discussion belongs.  I'm not even done compiling examples yet at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names (e.g. I have not even looked in WT:BIRDS archive 20&ndash56; which is  of material), and the logic against using some weird style imported from some but not all bird journals is already overwhelming. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that SMcCandlish quotes a 30-year-old letter published in The Auk to support his contention that title case is not widely accepted in the scientific ornithology community, given that this page of author guidelines for that publication clearly says that "English names of birds should be capitalized." Perhaps that opinion piece was written by a minority dissenter?  *Sigh*  If only more people here at Wikipedia worried half as much about improving content as they do about these endless inane battles over capitalization!  :P  MeegsC | Talk 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you would resort to a blatant straw man. I never made any such claim that title case is not widely accepted in the scientific ornithological community. I've said here and elsewhere that while it is widespread in that very narrow field, it is not universally accepted within it today, never has been (thus the historical quotation), isn't consistent within it ("Red-Billed" vs. "Red-billed', etc.), and is uniformly rejected outside of it, e.g. even when ornithologists publish papers in broader journals.  So, please try again.  And for your information, I spent the vast majority of my "top 400 most active editor" time working on content improvement, thanks, so you can keep your ad hominem fallacies, too. (Never mind the fact that making the encyclopedia not look like it was written by children who can't capitalize properly has been considered a serious content improvement issue by a large number of editors for most of Wikipedia's existence.) Did you have anything actually substantive to add? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't expect to unleash such a heated reply!  SMcCandlish, I wasn't referring to your editing history; my complaint—if it is indeed that, rather than a general moan—is that we're all getting in each others' faces (and we are, as evidenced by the increasingly snarky comments above) rather than working together to improve content, which I see as being our most important function.  Personally, I have no problem with title case in some articles, probably because I'm an ornithologist by trade and familiar (after 20 years in the field) with things being written this way.  I'm always slightly mystified by how much vitriol it garners here on Wikipedia.   But hey, I'll just go my way, and let you MOS boffins bash this out.  I'm glad to hear you're involved in many areas of the encyclopedia and hope to run into you again in less fraught circumstances.  Peace.  MeegsC | Talk 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I reacted so strongly. You appeared to be mischaracterizing my argument, and nothing raises my hackles more. :-)  I understand that ornithologists are very used to bird name capitalization.  It is such a frequent, rancourous topic of debate here because virtually no one else in the world is familiar with it, and it looks illiterate to most readers, which is why no other types of publications do it either, not even non-ornithology journals publishing ornithological papers.  The distinction afforded between "the Mexican Jay species" and "jays of Mexico" by simple capitalization, as Mexican Jay vs. Mexican jay, is a) one that only ornithologists recognize, so it serves no actual purpose in Wikipedia, b) is confusing and automatically leads to conflict, because 99.9% of editors will parse capitalization as a typo and try to fix it, which amounts to the style serving an perennial  effective purpose in Wikipedia, and c) is more broadly and consistently handled simply by writing clear prose, as in "the Mexican Jay species" and "jays of Mexico".  That's what this really all comes down to, and always has for the 7+ years the debate has continued. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish - Thanks for answering my question (at the beginning of this section). My interest in this issue has nothing to do with articles about specific species, but rather in trying to find a sensible way to write about places that are lucky enough to host a variety of interesting taxa. Some little while ago I even wrote a wry little essay to myself to try and get my head around the absurdity of it all. I even managed to get a few changes to MOS that stood the test of time until your recent "synch". The essay also contains one of my favourite quotes on this whole subject and not much seems to have changed since 2008. We have an manual of style that anyone can edit. Perhaps this is necessary, perhaps not -  but I can't see this kind of chaos being credibly resolved while we do.  Ben   Mac  Dui  20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please raise above, at the proposal thread, what changes you feel are being lost. Aside from removing stuff that directly conflicts with Wikipedia policy, like the suggestion that wikiprojects can just randomly make up their own rules, and making the text reflect reality (the WP:BIRDS exception is contentious) the intent isn't to change but to unify. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet made up my mind about where I stand on this whole issue, though I probably occupy similar territory to Obsidi ♠ n. However I presently feel uncomfortable with the emotional and at times aggressive language being used by SMcCandlish. Referring to a discussion as a "long-winded wishy-washy ramble" and using phrases such as "it pisses off MOS geeks like me", "it's a frakkin' free-for-all" and "blah blah blah. No one cares" are in my view akin to trying to bully other contributors into shutting up. In the face of such an approach, I am not really surprised that this "always gets discussed on individual article talk pages or at WT:BIRDS instead of here". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Straw man again: I didn't refer to any discussion as a "long-winded wishy-washy ramble"; I used that phrase and "blah blah blah, no one cares" to refer to palimpsestuous wording at one of the guideline pages which directly conflicted with WP policy, and I actually have to stand by the characterization (1. the page in question is tumid, 2. it is equivocal, and 3. it is unfocused, meanwhile 4. it does include a lot of verbiage that is inapplicable, and 5. which is thus moot – to address 1. "long-winded", 2. "wishy-washy", 3. "ramble", 4. "blah blah blah" and 5. "no one cares", in respective order). I'm sorry you are interpreting me as "hostile". It's not my intent. I'm frankly very surprised that the phrase about MOS geeks is not recognized for the obvious self-deprecating humor is, nor that my use of a fake swear-word from a cheesy science fiction TV show wouldn't be recognized for the same thing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the common names of plants use capitals. The most authoritative flora for the British Isles is Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition, 2010). The English common names in this work are capitalized. This Excel file contains the list of common English names produced by the Botanical Society of the British Isles. The names are capitalized. These two sources are the definitive guide to the common names of plants of the British Isles. There are reliable sources which do not capitalize in this way. There simply is no consensus and it's pointless and time-wasting to attempt to impose one. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to Enric Naval, in which I address the difference between relying on authoritative publications for factual information and emulating their style conventions.
 * Your statement that "there simply is no consensus and it's pointless and time-wasting to attempt to impose one" again relies on the erroneous belief that consensus (or the lack thereof) within a WikiProject (or among experts in its subject area) overrides consensus within the Wikipedia community at large. That simply isn't so.  WikiProject Plants is a valued source of guidance on botanical matters, but it possesses no special authority to determine Wikipedia guidelines or exceptions thereto.  —David Levy 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My reference to "consensus" above was to the reliable sources, not to Wikipedia editors. The facts relating to the capitalization of the common names of plants are:
 * There is no consensus among reliable sources.
 * There is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles.
 * Because of (1) and (2), I do not believe that there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors either, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean numerical voting (as was demonstrated recently by the long discussion on "Verifiability, not truth"). A substantial number of editors have sound reasons to object to an attempt to impose guidelines/policies not supported by reliable sources. So long as this is the case, there is no consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My reference to "consensus" above was to the reliable sources, not to Wikipedia editors.
 * And I referred to "consensus (or the lack thereof) within a WikiProject (or among experts in its subject area)" [emphasis added].
 * There is no consensus among reliable sources.
 * 1. The consensus among non-specialist publications (of which Wikipedia is one) is clear.
 * 2. "There is no consensus among reliable sources" as to whether headings should be written in title case or sentence case. That doesn't prevent us from having a house style.
 * There is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles.
 * Wikipedia has general style conventions, which apply to all subjects in the absence of consensus to the contrary (i.e. agreement that an exception should be made). In other words, if there isn't consensus that articles about plants (or birds, or Slavic monarchs, etc.) should follow different conventions, our normal ones apply.  —David Levy 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You (and others) keep implying that there is a consensus within Wikipedia on a particular style for the capitalization of common names. I (and others) keep telling you that there is not, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean counting heads. I am now only repeating myself but you don't seem to respond to this point: a significant number of editors (e.g. within WP:BIRDS and WP:PLANTS, but there are others) disagree, with reasons. Thus there is not a consensus. If you don't agree – you believe there is a consensus – then issue a formal RfC and we can all waste time demonstrating that there isn't. It's a waste of time because it's been demonstrated repeatedly (e.g. at WT:TOL) that there isn't a consensus. If that discussion were repeated elsewhere there still wouldn't be a consensus (again remembering that this does not mean counting heads). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You (and others) keep implying that there is a consensus within Wikipedia on a particular style for the capitalization of common names.
 * No, we're stating it outright.
 * I (and others) keep telling you that there is not, bearing in mind that consensus does not mean counting heads.
 * No one has claimed that consensus is determined via a head count.
 * I am now only repeating myself but you don't seem to respond to this point: a significant number of editors (e.g. within WP:BIRDS and WP:PLANTS, but there are others) disagree, with reasons. Thus there is not a consensus.
 * Consensus ≠ unanimity.
 * Furthermore, most disagreement seems to stem from assertions by WikiProjects not that the convention itself doesn't exist, but that "their" articles should be exempt. Again, please see Ownership of articles and Consensus.
 * If you don't agree – you believe there is a consensus – then issue a formal RfC and we can all waste time demonstrating that there isn't.
 * If you wish to challenge the longstanding guideline and policy (i.e. to argue that we shouldn't advise editors to style most common names in lowercase), you're welcome to initiate an RfC.
 * It's a waste of time because it's been demonstrated repeatedly (e.g. at WT:TOL) that there isn't a consensus.
 * I'll go ahead and link to Consensus again. —David Levy 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "that 'their' articles should be exempt" point is a crucial one. WP:BIRDS cannot argue for an exemption or special case without it being an exception, namely a clear and longstanding WP:MOS consensus that the default is lower case. This is just very basic logic. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not the one trying to change policies or guidelines under the smokescreen confusing title of "synching". The full set of such policies/guidelines are clear that there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus. E.g. Manual of Style/Capital letters has Common names of species have different rules depending on the particular group of organisms. Common names of fauna are decided by individual wikiprojects, see Naming conventions (fauna). For example, the common names of birds are always capitalized. Common names of flora have currently no consensus on how to capitalize them, see Naming conventions (flora). So it's not for me to initiate an RfC; I accept the guidelines as they are. It would be very useful for all the relevant pages to be made consistent, provided this does not attempt to change the guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, it's perfectly reasonable to want to synch the guideline with each other and with policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on the one hand, including retaining the fact that WP:BIRDS has long argued for a perennially contentious exception, and to also and severably have an opinion on what the eventual outcome of that contention should be. If you think I'm being about my intentions in some way, feel free to raise the issue on my talk page. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not intend "smokescreen" to imply an intention to be dishonest, but I can see that it can be read in this way. I apologize, and have amended the term above. I do continue to think that "synching" was an unfortunate word to have used, because to me (and to other editors judging from the comments here) it did not imply that guidelines on one page would be used to over-write those on another. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Statements that WikiProjects govern "their" articles (and possess the authority to "decide" the style conventions applied thereto) are flagrantly false, as the community has affirmed (hence Consensus). WikiProjects certainly can propose guidelines, but they cannot enact them.  Such decisions are made by the Wikipedia community at large.
 * The pages simply cannot be made consistent without eliminating text directly contradicting consensus-backed policies and guidelines. —David Levy 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We are, as before, arguing past one another, I think. I've never said that WikiProjects own their articles or can decide style conventions on their own. The three WP sections/pages I referred to (Manual of Style/Capital letters, Naming conventions (fauna) and Naming conventions (flora)) are not owned by or part of any WikiProject. Changing them requires consensus, which certainly hasn't been established by discussion on their talk pages, whether or not it would exist if such a discussion took place.
 * Belonging to a WikiProject gives a group of editors no fewer rights than any other group of editors. There are enough editors who have objected to standardization of the style of common names in other places than this for it to be clear (to me at least) that there wouldn't be consensus wherever it was discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaking a finding of consensus for a default of no-caps (which happened at MOS long ago) with a consensus that WP:BIRDS (and WP:PLANTS, whatever) must comply with that default, which remains an open and entirely different issue. NB: See the edit summaries of whoever was reverting me at WP:Naming conventions (flora). He/she was quite emphatically making a WP:OWN-type claim that this WP-wide general guideline was controlled by WP:WikiProject Plants, and revertwarring on the basis that it's more important for some WikiProject's indecision and equivocation to be reflected in the guideline that general WP consensus as established at MOS.  Myself, David Levy and (in many other iterations of this debate) raising WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problems isn't some kind of ad hominem attack or paranoia, it's based on repeated observations of actual editorial behavior.
 * On another note, "there is no consensus among reliable [plant] sources [and t]here is no consensus among editors who work on plant articles" is precisely why we have a Manual of Style, which already does have a consensus on what the default is. WP:WikiProject Cue sports has not developed any kind of project-specific consensus on how to format units of measurement or what are and are not appropriate uses of quotation marks. That doesn't give the project blanket license to ignore the MOS, or to get special wording added to any guideline that the project should be noted for having no consensus about such things.  What on earth would make WP:PLANTS so magically special that our guidelines should spam the brains of everyone reading them with trivia about what that project has and hasn't formulated an opinion about? .— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never said that WikiProjects own their articles or can decide style conventions on their own.
 * You've quoted a page indicating the latter (and objected to an attempt to eliminate the statement).
 * The three WP sections/pages I referred to (Manual of Style/Capital letters, Naming conventions (fauna) and Naming conventions (flora)) are not owned by or part of any WikiProject. Changing them requires consensus, which certainly hasn't been established by discussion on their talk pages, whether or not it would exist if such a discussion took place.
 * Wikipedia community discussions have occurred, resulting in consensus-backed policies and guidelines directly contradicted by the text in question. If a page somewhere explains that "original research is encouraged at Wikipedia", we needn't "establish by discussion on its talk page" that this should be changed.  (To be clear, I'm not equating the disputed text with that hypothetical statement.)
 * Belonging to a WikiProject gives a group of editors no fewer rights than any other group of editors. There are enough editors who have objected to standardization of the style of common names in other places than this for it to be clear (to me at least) that there wouldn't be consensus wherever it was discussed.
 * Again, those editors advocate exceptions to a default convention whose existence they acknowledge. No one has asserted that such exceptions cannot be made, but WikiProjects themselves lack the authority to institute them.  —David Levy 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept (and throughout have accepted) that WikiProjects don't have such authority. I had thought that this was clear from what I'd written, but obviously not. It seems that we agree that: We seem to disagree, I think, that: The exceptions for some groups of organisms have been at Manual of Style/Capital letters since 25 May 2010, when the material was moved from the main MOS page. I haven't checked exactly when the exceptions were added to WP:MOS, but they were there (with wording which seems to me even more supportive of exceptions) on 7 January 2009. So the exceptions have been present in the MOS or its subpage for at least three years. To me, this establishes a consensus supporting exceptions. My point about WikiProject editors having the same rights as other editors is only in relation to the following point. To change Manual of Style/Capital letters requires consensus. A discussion could be initiated to achieve consensus. I predict that it will fail to achieve a consensus, because those editors who have objected to not using capitals at places like WT:TOL will repeat those objections in any new discussion, and although they may be in a minority, they will be able to demonstrate that there is a lack of consensus to make the change. So such a discussion would just be a waste of time. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The default in Wikipedia is that common names of organisms are not capitalized.
 * Exceptions can be made.
 * Exceptions have been supported in the MOS.
 * This support cannot be removed without consensus.


 * I accept (and throughout have accepted) that WikiProjects don't have such authority.
 * You've quoted (and oppose efforts to change) a page explicitly stating that "common names of fauna are decided by individual wikiprojects."
 * It seems that we agree that:
 * *The default in Wikipedia is that common names of organisms are not capitalized.
 * Okay, it wasn't clear that you acknowledge this.
 * *Exceptions can be made.
 * Yes, it's possible to make exceptions to almost any Wikipedia policy or guideline. But WikiProjects lack the authority to enact such rules on their own.
 * We seem to disagree, I think, that:
 * *Exceptions have been supported in the MOS.
 * *This support cannot be removed without consensus.
 * At the present time, no one is attempting to remove the statement that an exception exists for bird names. Some of us disagree with the rule and question the process through which it arrived in the MoS, but we don't deny its existence.
 * This is very different from a situation in which a WikiProject is torn on whether an exception should be made. Even if WikiProjects did possess the authority to make such a decision on their own, these are cases in which they haven't.  As you've acknowledged above, "the default in Wikipedia is that common names of organisms are not capitalized."  So when a group of editors (whether it's a WikiProject or a cross section of the entire Wikipedia community) discusses the possibility of making an exception and fails to reach consensus, the default applies.  As SMcCandlish notes, there's no reason to mention the fact that there isn't consensus to make an exception.  —David Levy 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this sort of thing be articulated briefly as bullets at, above? The proposal has been lost amid the arguments. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(To SMcCandlish) Sorry I haven't read all of this but I'm concerned because on one hand you said you were syncing various guides with regard to common name capitalization (which on the surface that sounds like a good idea), but on the other hand you're arguing passionately for changing the guidelines at some level (e.g. of birds). These two things should NOT be done at the same time. If you're syncing the documents, then please don't do it with the agenda of making capitalization guidelines reflect how you think they should be. Please only do it to clarify, document and point to the ways in which Wikipedia currently operates. If there's debate still to be had, it should be done afterwards. Sorry if I've misread your intentions, as I haven't read through everything here, but that is my concern. e.g. if you just wish to sync the documents, then you'd make sure that anything that mentions capitalization also mentions that birds have their own rules. TL;DR: If you're still arguing for changing any guideline anywhere then you shouldn't be "synchronizing" the documents, as that seems like code for "changing the guidelines." —Pengo 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (I don't think anyone's read all of it!) I forked this into separate threads under separate headings to divide the two issues. Someone other than me re-opened this as a "get WP:BIRDS to stop capitalizing" debate, despite my disclaimer that this wasn't the purpose of my initial post, and it's been drowning out the proposal. I have an opinion on both the birds topic and on my original proposal of synching the guidelines, in which I've made it plain that I'm not trying to change behavior with regard to birds, only fix guideline (and, in fact, policy) conflicts. By way of analogy, I could be strongly in favor of making sure that federal, state and local health department regulations were all  on the matter of sushi restaurants, and most importantly not in conflict with other law, while also being in favor of banning certain kinds of sushi (poisonous, endangered, whatever), without inserting any banning language into the effort to clean up the regulatory mess. The language synching the guideline on capitalizatoin does point only to current practice and facts.  Everything that does mention capitalization of species names would/does mention birds, and also mentions that the fork in practice is controversial, which is a clear and important fact.  I needn't be beaten up for putting my position, in another thread, on whether or not such a variance should be tolerated. Would you rather that I had pretended to be neutral on that topic, and sneakily tried to manipulate the guideline language, like removing mention of birds from several of the documents? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's what sync means: identifying where things disagree and changing them to bring them into agreement (into sync). "Sync" is not "summarize" or "document the current state". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But agreement on what? The existing pages demonstrate a lack of consensus and this is what the synched pages should say. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If all the pages listed what was agreed upon in what circumstances then they would be "synchronized". That's a reasonable thing to do. Asking for consensus on a single naming scheme across all kingdoms isn't going to work and just rehashes old debates, as we can see from the comments already. —Pengo 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreement on, of course. I have no illusions that the birds and plants flamewar will come to any agreement or resolution at this time.  It's a distraction, really. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because a source is reliable in one capacity does not mean that it is reliable in other capacities. I'd go with specialist sources for facts, but I would go to general sources to learn common usage and to style guides to learn what is correct. I see no problem with an article on birds that quotes facts from ornithology journals but is otherwise composed according to general-English rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I um, ... Darkfrog, I agree with you. Partially. (There, I said it.)
 * Editors, note the section below: . The issue is not just proper names; it also concerns the perennial but needless tensions between so-called reliable sources and our Wikipedian guidelines. I think people will find that the theme touched on here is set for a really good systematic treatment there also. We have to sort this matter out generally. MOSCAPS is as good a place as any to get serious.
 * N oetica Tea? 12:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (To Noetica) Given your normal extremely careful use of language, you might want to reconsider the "so-called" above. If the sources are not actually reliable (i.e. are only "so-called") then there isn't a tension.  The tension is between Wikipedia guidelines and sources such as those for the common names of birds or the common names of British plants, which are agreed to be reliable for content, but which some editors regard as not reliable for capitalization style. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they're not reliable for capitalization style; they aren't style guides. And style guides aren't reliable sources for the taxonomic classification of organisms. Why are we even discussing this? (PS: Agreed on the "so-called"; no one is questioning whether biology journals are reliable sources for biology facts.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Style guides, like grammar guides, etc., ultimately reflect good style rather than making it. We long since abandoned the notion that language usage can be legislated (although it can be influenced). So studying the styles used by reliable sources is a perfectly valid way of gathering evidence in a discussion about what style to adopt. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And reliable sources (apart from some specialist publications, which Wikipedia is not) overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of organisms.
 * There's no dispute that specialist publications generally are the most reliable sources of factual information within their respective fields. This doesn't mean that their style decisions carry more weight than those of other reliable sources.  As noted above, these often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships (which can vary greatly from those of a general audience).
 * Style guides, apart from those utilized by specialist publications, reflect general usage. So does Wikipedia...for the most part.  —David Levy 02:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. KimL's argument seems to be that we should consult the experts, and we should.  Ornithologists are experts on birds and the composers of style guides are experts on what should and shouldn't be considered a proper noun.  We're not asking style guides about taxonomic classification.  We're asking them about how to write for a general audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr

What, I'm off for freakin' day and I find such a wall of text? I guess it is about the capitalization of bird names, but can anyone summarize it? (BTW, I think the scene starting at 08:57 of this is relevant. :-)) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Better off ignoring it and just going to . The birds debate is rehash and won't be resolved here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIRD
Congratulations, another generic editor who thinks that his absent of knowledge is a reason to force lower caps to WP:BIRDS. Sorry if this is perceived as an insult, but observing that someone does not know where they talk about despite that this topics has been discussed over and over again is an observation, not an insult. So, what are the issues? Proper Nouns are capitalized, common nouns are not. The question is what constitutes a Proper Noun. Wikipedia has an entry about Proper Nouns: So, the key is to determine whether plant and animal species are Unique Entities. Well, they obviously are, as we talk about the Long-leaf Pine as a unique entity in the form of a described species with a proper scientific name, and not about the long-leaf pineS as an group of individuals that have been grouped into a cluster for convenience. So, the question becomes why most plant and animal species are NOT capitalized. The reason is that many names have not been standardized across groups of species. When you have multiple names available for a species, neither of those names have not (yet) become the unique identifier for the unique entity. So, the key is whether names have been standardized and hence have become unique identifiers of a unique entity. With birds, this has happened: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ World Bird Names. Ultimately, wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us. But what constitute reliable sources for the capitalization of bird names? We cannot expect that generic sources are familiar with all the details of specific subfields. To then turn around and use those as a stick to beat subfields into submission is therefore grossly inappropriate. What you have to do is to see whether you see a consistent change when you go from the generic to the specific, in this case, towards bird specific literature. And if you do that, what you observe is that almost all ornithological literature uses capitalized names. See here for a list. Sure, you can probably find a few, especially older references that suggest the opposite. But we are living now, not decades ago, and current sources are far more reliable for current practices than ancient literature. As for the consistence fallacy, the MOS is riddled with perceived inconsistencies. I would say that the allowing the random first choice of American vs British English to dictate which language form dominates. This is a far bigger inconsistency than the consistent application of capitalized names for birds. Based on sheer number, American editors could easily force American English as the norm for the American Wikipedia project. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proper Nouns vs common nouns
 * "A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing a unique entity (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota), as distinguished from a common noun, which represents a class of entities (or non-unique instance[s] of that class)—for example, city, planet, person or corporation. "
 * If you read the above, I think you'll see that nobody is actually trying to force lower caps on BIRDS this time; I'm not sure who your "generic editor"(?) tirade is directed against. You've made this argument before about standardization conferring "proper name" status before; it seems quite novel—can you point me to any references or style guides that support this? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring what I wrote and asking for a GENERIC source again does not change the argument I made. Do you have a generic style source that explicitly discusses why bird names should be lower case despite general in the field? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Haugen's point is the same one everyone has been making about this "proper name" argument for ~7 years: "". The idea isn't support by, well, anything anywhere.  I have a large number of style guides (general, legal, academic, journalist, even governmental) and  of them treats the common names of any species, including birds as proper nouns, nor recommends capitalization of them for other reasons. Look, the fact that non-ornithological refereed journals do not upper-case bird common names even when publishing ornithological papers is pretty much the end of the line for this entire argument. It's simply a quirk of most (not all) ornithology publications, and nothing else. WP:NOT an ornithology publication. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim—no, I don't have any style guides, I'm not sure why you're asking this? I'm not trying to "change the argument (you) made"—what do you mean? I don't think I ignored anything you wrote, what are you talking about? I'm curious about this "standardization confers proper name status" argument that you keep using, though; can you point me to anything to read more about it? Did you make it up? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would that be a "key" to anything? Cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) are unique species according to taxonomic authorities (yes, there's some suggestion they should be merged with the African wildcat and the grey wolf, respectively, but then the result of that merger would still be cats and dogs, per taxonomic precedence, and still be unique species, with identified subspecies). Yet we would never capitalize such animal names: "Smith had two Dogs and 1 Cat."  The idea that the common names of birds or pines are proper nouns has been discussed and dismissed many, many times. The idea that Wikipedia editors and readers are so stupid and illiterate that they are incapable of distinguishing between a species and a similarly-named group of species by simple appropriate use of prose, as well as the idea that anyone but a taxonomic specialist steeped in the would even recognize capitalization in one place and lower-casing in another as a special attempt at such disambiguation, have also been repeatedly derided, debate after debate, year after year. The fact that this debate reappears 20+ times per year, usually initiated by completely different parties, in every forum in which it could reasonably arise is solid proof that the idea of capitalizing species common names does not have consensus on Wikipedia. The only places it ever has the appearance of even a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which isn't valid anyway, is at WT:BIRDS where the issue is unfortunately most frequently raised. As noted by other above, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to ascertain facts, not to dictate style, and the capitalization style under discussion is not used by anyone anywhere in generalist publication, only in a very, very narrow subset of specialist works. It is not used in newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journals outside ornithology (and apparently a few other specialties like certain insect and plant genera), encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc., etc., etc.  The source evidence is overwhelmingly against such practice, so the extent that MOS cares. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dogs and cats are mammal names, and there is no list of official mammal names, hence lower case. The proper noun argument has never been dismissed properly, as has been discussed many, many times and contrary to your assertion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That defies the facts, sorry. The recognized common name of the cat is cat or domestic cat (depending on source; there are multiple lists of mammal names produced by multiple authorities); neither is ever capitalized as such.  I invite others to |read the catalogue I've been amassing of previous iterations of these arguments, in which you'll find frequent baldfaced assertions like this that common names of species are proper nouns, and essentially no evidence ever to back that up. In reading all of that, I have yet to see  make such a claim. Even in ornithology, the publications which prefer title case for common names do so because they feel it aids in clarity (the oft-cited and silly "the Mexican Jay" vs. "Mexican jays" distinction that it better handled with simple clear writing), not because of any notion that "Mexican Jay" is a proper name like "George Washington" or "Madagascar". Some WP:BIRD people have advanced the argument that it is one, but their own journals do not support this view, and this has been pointed out to them more than once. Simply changing the venue of the argument isn't going to change these facts. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please point me to the list of standardized mammal names that is the key in determining whether names of mammal species have become proper nouns? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're begging the question. As SMcCandlish has noted, even ornithological journals don't claim that the names of bird species are proper nouns.  —David Levy 20:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Support for capitalizing common names is far too dependent upon logical fallacies like that one. Ten thousand lists of animal names wouldn't have any bearing on the proper name issue one way or another, because biological taxonomy organizations and their lists have nothing to do with grammar. It's like asking for the list of standardized grammar rules that is the key in determining whether the cat is properly classified as F. catus or F. silvestris catus.  Kim, you're confusing two different types of authority. It really doesn't matter whether a bird-related organization has declared their list "official" or not. It's immaterial. Compare the fact that "aluminium" is the official IUPAC name of the element often spelled aluminum; neither are capitalized. If IUPAC started capitalizing "Iron" and "Hydrogen" in its geology and materials-science journals that wouldn't mean Wikipedia (or anyone else) should start doing so, and it certainly wouldn't magically, as if by the hand of God, transmogrify iron from a common to a proper noun, no matter how "official" IUPAC considered the matter and or how little IUPAC had in the way of competition for recognition as authoritative. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (To Kim van der Linde) Although I don't favour changing the existing support in the MOS for exceptions to the default non-capitalization of common names, I do agree with SMcCandlish that the proper name argument is a poor one, and I urge you to abandon it. In the current understanding of English grammar, common names of species are not proper nouns or noun phrases (although they do share some of their properties). Noetica has clearly explained here that capitalization "conventions are independent of status as a proper name." The issue we should all focus on is what the convention should be for the capitalization of the common names of organisms in Wikipedia: whether there should be a Wikipedia-wide guideline that all common names should not be capitalized or whether there should be exceptions where reliable sources use capitals. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we please focus on, above? I've already conceded that the bird-caps-or-no-bird caps isn't going to suddenly be resolved here, and the wording tweaks I have proposed do not eliminate the birds exception, only mention that it is controversial (which is obvious, but not obvious enough because editors of horse and cat and fish articles have been emulating WP:BIRDS practice). It is normal for MOS to mention when something is controversial. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to deal with lists within articles? I am fairly indifferent as to whether species names are capitalised within species articles provided they have internal consistency. What, to me, does look absurdly amateurish is a phrase such as "on Foo island there are populations of grey seals, European Herring Gulls, brown trout, and Cancer pagurus" or similar. MOSCAPS suggests "Use a consistent style of capitalization for species names in articles covering two or more taxonomic groups" and provides suggestions suitable for different kinds of article. I am not in favour of anything that is going to recreate silly edit skirmishes involving Wikiproject members trying to scent mark parts of lists regardless of consistency - and it seems to me your proposal does just that in its current form.  Ben   Mac  Dui  11:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even WP:BIRDS acknowledges repeatedly that their would-be standard is only to be applied to ornithology articles, e.g. here ("we [WP:BIRDS] only really insist on capitalisation on ornithological articles") in a case of (interestingly enough) conflict between birds capitalization and plants lower-casing. So, in your Foo Island case, it would have to be lower case, per basic logic, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, per MOS having a lower-case default for years now, and per WP:BIRDS's own admission that the extent of the authority they're trying to exert is bird-specific articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm.. How about a middle ground then? Title case for bird common names in bird articles. Sentence case everywhere else? They would be wikilinked anyways. That would satisfy both internal consistency and external convention.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it has been repeated here several times, it's not the case that the capitalization issue only applies to the common names of birds. It also applies to the common names of plants; the difference is that plant editors are more divided, so both styles are found, whereas (almost) all bird articles use capitals. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And as others have pointed out here, that's totally moot. The MOS default has been, since at least 2008, to use sentence case. WP:PLANTS had an opportunity to come to a consensus to side with WP:BIRDS on this and fortunately didn't, and there's nothing more to the story. It's of no consequence that some botany publications use upper case for plants. Some books about mammals do that too, just like some books about skateboarding capitalize the names of all skating tricks and moves. It's no germane to what MOS advises, which is to follow 99.9% of usage in the real world. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully its uncontroversial that a single capitalization scheme should be used in a given article. If anything seems to contradict that then let's fix it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Each article should use consistent capitalization or not for all common names, regardless of organism. Unless and until there is Wikipedia-wide agreement, this issue should surely be treated as spelling is under WP:ENGVAR: always consistent within an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why this is nothing like ENGVAR has already been covered. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an existing "Wikipedia-wide agreement". MOSCAPS states:
 * Use a consistent style of capitalization for species names in articles covering two or more taxonomic groups. This could involve the use of:
 * scientific names throughout (often appropriate for specialist articles);
 * title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS); or
 * lower-case initial letters for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that refer to different taxonomic groups.
 * My concern is that the proposal above will eliminate the common ground. Please bear in mind that for some articles, birds and plants will form the backbone of any description of the flora and fauna. If the second option above or some variant is not available, then there are potential problems. In my experience the only thing that works is either a blanket ban on caps for anything other than proper nouns, or the option to use title case for all species if needed. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued for eliminating the advice in MOSCAPS to use a consistent style throughout an article. The only reason any such advice would ever be needed, however, is because of the WP:BIRDS issue. The second point from MOSCAPS above, that it's okay to use title case for species, generally, directly conflicts with MOS.  MOSCAPS is a subordinate guideline to MOS, a drill-down into details, not a place to make up wild exceptions that also violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  And it elevates birds and the exception some want for them to the level of canonical MOS example, which is simply not acceptable. I don't understand why you are proposing such a sharp false dichotomy, as if no middle ground could exist between having no rules at all, or just forbidding upper-casing of common names (fine by me!). The clear path for the short term is to always use lower case, except for birds until the conflict about that usage is resolved one way or another. It's less productive to get into edit wars with WP:BIRDS editors that to simply work around them and use normal English grammar in all other articles.  WP:PLANTS has already said they can't make up their minds on the issue, so they now have a simple default to fall back on and can stop arguing and go back to writing articles.  The issue's been settled by site-wide consensus for them at MOS since at least 2008. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the conflict with MOS? What do you mean by "The clear path for the short term is to always use lower case, except for birds"? If by this you are implying everything in a list should be lowercase except birds, then you are failing to understand the nature of the issue. What "dichotomy" do you think is proposed? The only thing I am proposing is that the existing wording of MOSCAPs be retained, or that a credible alternative is agreed on. If you have such a proposal, please explain what it is. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said "The clear path for the short term is to always use lower case, except in ornithology articles". This was already discussed, but this page is so long, it's hard to find. MOS's general principle everywhere is to always use consistent style in a single article, which would be (and presently is) explicitly restated in the section on animal common names. This would require such a list as you mention to use all-lower-case names, unless it was in an ornithology article, then the opposite. Same goes for running prose.  An article on the "flat-headed mouse" that said it was especially predated by the "Texas hootenanny owl" would read like that there, and in the article on the owl it would mention the "Texas Hootenanny Owl" using the "Flat-headed Mouse" as a staple of its diet. In-article consistency trumps between-articles consistency.  Though the lack of between-articles consistency is the #1 reason the WP:BIRDS practice is broadly controversial and has been a massive flamewar for 7+ years; it really does rub a lot of people the wrong way. (The other questions: The conflict with MOS is that MOS says to use lower case, noting that WP:BIRDS is demanding a controversial exception the debate over which is far from over. So, saying any random project should just go make up its own pro-caps standard if they feel like it, as the other guideline has been effectively saying, obviously conflicts with that and thus with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy.. The false dichotomy I was referring to was that between banning caps entirely, or allowing this "random projects option to use title case" free-for-all. The obvious answer, for January 2012, is to recommend lower case – MOS doesn't really "ban" anything – and make note of the birds dispute, without encouraging "our pet project wants a random exemption from MOS too!" copy-cats, and move on, letting the birds debate settle itself, hopefully, eventually. It's all about stopping the rampant and worsening caps/no-caps chaos all throughout biological and even other articles, and really doesn't have jack to do with "forcing" WP:BIRDS to stop title casing, though I would love to see them stop doing that.  We're trying to  their "convention" because it is has clearly been spreading like an epidemic, largely due to conflicting and wishy-washy guideline wording.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Going back to what the guideline should say, yes we should say "but this remains controversial." 1. It's true; I cite this set of conversations as evidence. 2. It will tip off editors that the prevailing style in bird-based Wikipedia articles should not necessarily be copied on articles about other species, which is the main practical problem that's been brought up over the past few days.
 * We should not say "bird guys are doing it wrong" because that's mean and we don't need to give people more reasons to be annoyed at each other. We also should not say "bird species should be regarded as proper nouns" because they shouldn't, or at least there is no consensus that they should. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. PS: Trying to recognize bird names as proper nouns would have massive fallout. Aside from general revolt on the part of all editors with better grammatical sense, it would leading to chaos among those lacking such sense, as all of them editing equines or arachnids or epiphyllums or whatever articles would naturally decide their favored organisms were also proper nouns. Meanwhile (and I've already seen this proposed several times), some would advance the view that bird names are proper names among all species because some organization declared them "official", meaning Wikipedia would be giving blatant favoritism to that organization, as if God or UN international law had given them a higher level of authority than nomenclature organizations in other fields, and this would open a huge WP:NPOV can of worms. Oh, and of course the rest of the world would laugh even more than usual at how untrustworthy and controlled Wikipedia is by weird special interests with agendas to push. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I've never heard anyone say they thought Wikipedia was "amateurish and untrustworthy" because people used title case while naming birds. I have, however, heard many say that about the fact that we allow vandalism to happen (through our "anyone can edit" policy), about stubby, unreferenced articles, articles with strong POVs, obviously biased biographies, April Fool's front pages, the strong emphasis on cartoon characters and video games, etc.  Let's not overemphasize what is, for many readers anyway, a relatively minor issue compared to what they see as the real problems of Wikipedia! MeegsC | Talk 02:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines and local consensus
Policies and guidelines states about guidelines: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline. MOS is NOT a policy, and hence cannot be enforced as in what editors SHOULD follow. Consensus within WP:BIRD with some support outside of that is that Bird Names are Capitalized. This is an exception that is allowable under the guideline rules. So, if you want to change this exception, you have to convince the people at the bird pages and you cannot just try to force the topic from above as if MOS is a policy. This continued trying to force a guideline as a policy has to stop. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes, 0.5% of the articles does definitely constitute an occasional exception. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline." Um, that's true of every guideline on the system, all the time. We do not need to add wording to any guideline saying so. The extant and proposed wording already notes that an exception is claimed for birds. To the extent that plant and butterfly editors here and there disagree with one another about capitalization within their field, that's not germane at the site-wide consensus level, and we cannot specifically enumerate every possible would-be exception, because someone somewhere thinks thing should be capitalized. The only reason that WP:BIRDS's tenuous exception is mentioned, aside from the project's years of blatant tendentiousness on the issue, is that it predates the codification of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as a policy against local consensuses of the kind you believe are broadly permissible. So, arguably that one case deserves a fair hearing-out. I actually disagree with that view but enough others entertain the WP:BIRDS arguments that I'm outvoted on the matter. No one's trying to "force" anyone to do anything, and no one's trying to change policy. Well, actually that's not true. You and a cadre of WP:BIRDS editors  trying to force all 99.5% (by your own count) of other editors on the system to engage in stylistic practices they know are grammatically wrong every time they edit in an article about birds, and to pretend that your wikiproject's preferences on the matter constitute something like a policy. PS: The fact that you actually just wrote "Bird Names are Capitalized", misusing capitalization as a form of emphasis, does not bode well for your understanding of what this debate has always really been about.  PPS: I have no idea why people perpetually arrive at WT:MOS to talk about MoS "enforcement", as if renegade wikicops showed up at their doors and threatened their families. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are not trying to change POLICY, but guidelines. And those allow exceptions. WP:BIRD editors only cover ornothology articles, not the rest and the number of non-bird editors at those pages is far lower than the bird editors, so your misguided claim of forcing things to 99.5% of the editors is as incorrect as your understanding of proper nouns. It is style purists that will suggest that deliberate and premeditated usage of style elements is equivalent to misunderstanding a discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting circular. You've already made the point (unnecessarily - everyone here understood it already) that there can be exceptions to guidelines, which is why they're guidelines not policies. I've already agreed with you.  I've already pointed out that the MOS already makes the exception you want.  Yet you are still unhappy.  At this point, the most obvious solution to me is to simply remove any mention of birds and ornithology from the guidelines. As you say yourself, WP:POLICY already makes it clear that there can always be exceptions. Ergo, we obviously needn't mention any one particular project at all.
 * My understanding of proper nouns is the same as that of the vast majority of other editors including those who have commented on this topic, this time and the previous many years worth of times, and reliable sources on English grammar. I urge you listen to your colleague Peter Coxhead, who has already suggested you are advancing a "proper name" argument that no one believes in.
 * "Misguided claim"? Are you telling me that the "95%" (more like 99.9+%) of editors on the system who aren't ornithologists are perfectly free to stop capitalizing bird names in bird articles, then? The fact that non-WP:BIRDS editors rarely edit bird articles is kind of sad, and probably reflects the blatant hostility your project displays toward people who question its ungrammatical naming scheme. You'd think after  that your project would take the hint.  And why do you think that frequency of editing equates to style control? If I really hop to it and become the most active editor of, say, Islam and other key pages about that religion, does this mean I get to dictate style on pages about Islam and Muslims? Perhaps most important of all, why do feel that participants in WP:BIRDS are a different class of people from everyone else, with a different collective opinion about anything?  Recognizing many names on that list and nothing their absence from this debate over the years, suggests that the capitalization things is not at all on the majority of "birds editor" agendas. I can go join that project right now. All being a "member" of the project means is that you are expressing an interest in improving bird-related articles.  With over 100 participants listed, it is very interesting that only around 5 of them ever seem to care about this perennial debate.
 * I don't have to a be "style purist" (are you a "style rebel"?) to note that your intentional misuse of capitalization as emphasis calls into question the credibility of your arguments with regard to the topic at hand, much as if e.e. cummings had decided to comment on the matter, too. If you were just kidding, the joke did not go over well, and gave the impression that you are simply "sport debating" about capitalization because you like capitalizing things. Please tell me that's not the case. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. I am definatly not a style rebel as I actually use reliable sources for determining that Bird Names Are Generally Capitalized in Bird Literature, and articles have to be based on the available reliable sources. And no, I am not sport debating, but I do defend what I think is the right way to do it, which includes attempts to use the salami slicing technique to slowly but surely change the wording towards the preferred outcome. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am definatly not a style rebel as I actually use reliable sources for determining that Bird Names Are Generally Capitalized in Bird Literature, and articles have to be based on the available reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia isn't bird literature; it's a non-specialist encyclopedia. Non-specialist reliable sources style common names of birds in lowercase.  —David Levy 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The allowance of exceptions basically means that NOT every page has to conform to this guideline.
 * No one disputes the fact that guidelines can have exceptions. But such exceptions must reflect consensus within the Wikipedia community, not merely among WikiProject members or other editor subgroups (whether organized under a banner or not).
 * Consensus within WP:BIRD with some support outside of that is that Bird Names are Capitalized.
 * WikiProject Birds possesses no special editorial authority over ornithological articles. You refer to "some support outside of that", the extent of which is key.  —David Levy 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus works both ways: there has to be a consensus to impose a guideline, as well as to depart from it. It's constantly repeated here by those favouring lower case for the common names of species in all articles that there is a clear consensus favouring this. But there isn't; not just bird editors but also at least three plant editors (it's hard to count in all this verbiage) have opposed enforcing an article-wide ban on capitalizing common names. Whether to capitalize or not is controversial; there's no clear consensus. Hence the reality is that we have to go on tolerating variety (as WP:PLANTS does: editors use both styles but we don't argue or edit-war about it, just try to keep articles internally consistent). Peter coxhead (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "the common names of species in all articles" seems to imply that we're attempting to alter the bird articles. While many of us would favor that outcome, no one has proposed that such a change be made (at this juncture, at least).
 * It's reasonable to argue that there isn't clear consensus for that. There is, however, clear consensus that the default style for common names (of species and other things) is lowercase.  Editors advocating exceptions have acknowledged this.
 * Even setting aside WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (i.e. permitting a WikiProject to make such decisions on its own), there still isn't consensus that plants warrant an exception. You're arguing that a WikiProject's failure to agree on whether a guideline should apply to articles in its scope (i.e. whether an exception should be made) establishes a lack of consensus for the guideline.  —David Levy 05:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus (or the lack of) can be measured in different ways. One is via the number and strength of arguments on pages such as this. Another is to look at what people do. If you count the FA articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS, there are 38, but not all of them are on individual species, and not all of them mention common names (at least in the lead). I worked my way down the list until I got bored, and counted 8 with capitalized common names in the lead, 7 with un-capitalized common names. It's not a random sample of plant articles because the largest group are on Banksia.  But it is wrong to ignore the fact that somewhere around half of FA articles on plant species which give common names use capitals.  These are articles which have been worked on very carefully by experienced editors and then approved by the community. To me this establishes a better sense of the consensus on Wikipedia than the discussion here. The demonstrated consensus is that either style may be used but articles should be consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus ≠ unanimity. Even if there were overwhelming agreement among members of WikiProject Plants to capitalize the common names of plants (which obviously isn't so), that wouldn't mean that the guideline lacked consensus.  And even there were overwhelming agreement within the Wikipedia community at large to capitalize the common names of plants (which even more obviously isn't so), that wouldn't mean that the guideline lacked consensus.  (It would merely necessitate an exception.)
 * In various discussions, it's been pointed out that featured articles contain/contained all sorts of non-MoS-compliant formatting (e.g. typesetters' quotation, curly punctuation marks, misused hyphens/dashes, inconsistent English varieties, et cetera). With so many chance aberrations slipping through, it's hardly surprising that a style advocated by some members of a WikiProject would be present as well.  —David Levy 09:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of those are aberrations. American-style punctuation, for example, which you call typesetters' quotation, is in Wikipedia because Wikieditors are following general-English guidance from their educations and experience rather than the specialist guidance that has made it into the MoS in the form of WP:LQ.  I wouldn't be surprised if most of them don't know that Wikipedia requires British style on all articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I certainly didn't when I began editing Wikipedia.  (I'm American.)  As you might or might not recall from this recent discussion, I agree with you that the rule shouldn't exist (but should be followed as long as it does).
 * Likewise, I'm sure that many instances of capitalized common species names arise when editors unfamiliar with the MoS follow the examples set by the specialist publications to which they're accustomed (or, as SMcCandlish points out, those set by WikiProject Birds).
 * My point is that even featured articles frequently contain styles non-compliant with the MoS. (Peter seemed to imply that such inconsistencies are weeded out through rigorous examination, with all remaining content reflecting consensus.)  —David Levy 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say above, but I draw different conclusions. Consensus is certainly not unanimity, but neither is it majority voting. It requires reasoned discussion, honest attempts to reach a compromise which is acceptable to as many people as possible, and sometimes an acceptance that the only agreement possible is an agreement to tolerate variation, as the Wikipedia community does on a range of issues. You still seem not willing to accept the fact that the use of capitalized common names is widespread and not restricted to birds and some plants. WikiProject Lepidoptera doesn't have enough FA or GA articles to be statistically useful, so I looked at this list of B class articles. I checked 20 chosen more-or-less randomly from species articles on the first page. Not a single article used lower-case letters for common names (this surprised me). I guess that most editors who create articles don't bother much with the MOS and even less with its talk page so it may be that if they showed up here, many more than I expected would support capitalization. Anyway, I've made my point; if you don't agree, you are free to differ. However trying to impose a single style through changes to the MOS is clearly not going to work – at least not without much more careful groundwork to build a genuine consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, many Wikipedia articles (including featured articles) contain non-MoS-compliant elements. By your logic, each and every widespread inconsistency — whether arising randomly, via a WikiProject, or through a single user's edits — is evidence of consensus (or a lack thereof).
 * Were that the case, the MoS would cease to serve a purpose. —David Levy 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at what I said in the whole of this thread. I said "Consensus (or the lack of) can be measured in different ways. One is via the number and strength of arguments on pages such as this. Another is to look at what people do." Who would be so silly as to put forward what you say is "my logic"? Certainly not me! It's not helpful if those with different views on this issue misrepresent one another. I'll say it one last time: (1) There are reasons why some species articles use capitals for common names. These reasons are rational, and should be treated as such by those who disagree (just as the reverse is true). (2) This is not an abstract argument because a large number of good bird, moth and plant articles (there may be more kinds as well, I haven't checked) employ this style, showing that it's not a random error or a choice made by a few eccentrics. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful if those with different views on this issue misrepresent one another.
 * That certainly isn't my intention.
 * There are reasons why some species articles use capitals for common names. These reasons are rational, and should be treated as such by those who disagree (just as the reverse is true).
 * Agreed. I don't dispute that the practice has a logical basis or there are reasonable arguments for its adoption at Wikipedia.
 * This is not an abstract argument because a large number of good bird, moth and plant articles (there may be more kinds as well, I haven't checked) employ this style, showing that it's not a random error or a choice made by a few eccentrics.
 * I assert neither (and didn't intend to imply otherwise). My point is that even random anomalies are widespread within featured articles, so it's to be expected that a deliberate deviation would be (and this isn't evidence of consensus in its favor, just as it isn't evidence of consensus for the random errors).  —David Levy 13:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with SMcCandlish and David Levy on this one. It is indeed an unhappy situation when local editors try to force their views on the whole project, or even part of it. There will always be tension between a publisher's in-house style rules and those that pertain among some writers on any particular topic. Most publishers, for the sake of internal cohesion, usually don't bend much at all towards the whims of sources when they conflict with this internal rules (something has to give). I'm not at all convinced of the desirability of going along with the writers outside who do use caps for birds. Many don't. And this may have an undesirable spin-off if we next have to deal with dog-breeders who insist that terrier has to be Terrier. It's a slippery slope. Tony   (talk)  13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia were the product of a single publisher with clear set of agreed in-house style rules and professional editors to correct errors in the use of the rules, then you would have my support. But it isn't. All kinds of variation are permitted: variations in spelling (which usually don't bother me personally), variations in grammar (which sometimes do), variations in sectioning in otherwise very similar articles, huge variations in referencing styles (which really bug me – I've edited academic books and wouldn't dream of accepting such variations), etc. People here quote WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but Citing sources and the following sections explicitly allow "nearly any consistent style" to be used, as decided by the first major contributor. When I once tried to add to an article wikilinks between Harvard style references in the References section and full citations in the Bibliography section (without changing anything else), I was quickly told that there was a consensus not to use this method in the article as editors didn't like the blue links and WP:CITEVAR forbade me making such changes (which indeed it does). So what I think many of us simply don't accept is that capitalization of common names should be one area where a single common style is enforced, contrary to the reasoned views of a significant proportion of active editors and contrary to the freedom that exists elsewhere. It's a slippery slope: the slippery slope argument is always a bad one; the issue should be to agree on the location of the stop line on the slope, not to try to force everyone to stay at the top of the hill against their will, while accepting that such stop lines are almost always arbitrary and change over time ("if we allow women to vote, whatever next?"). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All kinds of variation are permitted
 * Some kinds of variation are permitted. In general, this occurs when there is no consensus that a particular style provides a clear advantage over others.
 * This is not such an instance. There is consensus within the Wikipedia community at large that it makes sense to use the style overwhelmingly prevalent in the non-specialist publications with which most of Wikipedia's readers are familiar.
 * Pockets of disagreement arise within WikiProjects whose members are accustomed to the styles used in specialist publications (which unquestionably are the most reliable sources of factual information in their subject areas). But Wikipedia isn't a specialist publication and doesn't exist primarily for the benefit of editors.  It's a general-knowledge encyclopedia written for readers.  —David Levy 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Cquote in mainspace
The semi-perennial topic of the abuse of Template:Cquote to "prettify" block quotations, against MOS:QUOTE, MOS:ICONS and the template's own documentation, has popped up again at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (I make no pretense that this is a neutral notice/pointer; the practice blatantly violates the guidelines and that should be made clear). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not be hard to have cquote just use &lt;blockquote> in the main namespace, without any of the pretty formatting, to prevent this problem before it occurs. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. J IM ptalk·cont 03:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC) ... It's actually already been brought up. J IM ptalk·cont 04:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's been some resistance to this idea, because the talk page there is mostly populated by fans of the template and of its use in articles to decorate things. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted before, this really needs to go to RFC that focuses on whether decorative quotes should be used in normal quotations. In my opinion, pull quotes are not at issue as the majority of the editors using quote marks don't know what a pull quote is. Before starting this, I suggest perusing the last TfD on Cquote. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It need an RfC, though. We already have a fully developed guideline against decorative widgets like this, called MOS:ICON. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote marks don't meet the listed definition of an icon. They are actual punctuation, styled for size and color. The applicable guideline is here: "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes)." ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Spaces within citations
Spaces in various places within citations are not rendered, but make the source code easier to read. Where there are multiple citations, a space before the closing tag makes it easier for the human eye to see the end of one citation and the start of the next one. However, WP:GENFIXES currently removes it. Worse, some bots also remove spaces adjacent to pipes within citation templates such as cite web. Is this the place to discuss a change in GENFIXES (or other rules) with the goal of retaining such spaces? (A bot author suggested that I start here.) – Fayenatic (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This guideline does not address style within citations; it just refers to WP:Citing sources. This is because "Citing sources" allows an article to follow any citation style, so any guideline that tried to cover citations would have to be as large as all the English-language style manuals combined. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I'll take it to WT:Citing sources then. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Record charts
WP:MOSNUM at one time said to use No. 24 (for example) when discussing records on charts (music articles)-- now it's silent. Please see Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song); it needs fixin', and I have no idea how since MOSNUM is now silent. See the "Chart performance" section: the article has Support at FAC to be promoted FA, but the numbers are all over the place-- guidance needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does Manual of Style/Record charts cover your issue? If not, should the discussion occur there? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No-- as far as I can tell, that page discusses how to handle charts (as in tables) and track listings-- not how to handle mention of chart rankings in text. This article now has things like "number eighty-four".  We used to say "No. 84" (I think).  MOSNUM used to speak to this-- it no longer seems to, or at least, I can't find it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind-- I finally found it: MOS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you meant MOS:NUMBERSIGN.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How to write citations
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council (permanent link here), regarding how to write citations. —Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC workaround for MOS:SCROLL in big articles.
The International Space Station now has a scrolling section that has a crude but workable "no java" option, to address MOS:SCROLL. The transclusion article has a note in it's history as suggested by ZxxZxxZ on my talkpage, to address concerns over copyright indicated by Sparthorse. Z also helped improve my original code. Yes it is crude, but lacking the skills to program wiki to detect Java support in browsers, I thought this was one of many temporary fixes. The ISS article is rather long, and the Ref's section is 'slightly boring' to read on it's own, but I didn't want to make the article difficult to read for Java free users. So I'm wondering was today's effort a good idea ? More importantly I propose mentioning it as a workaround for mos:scroll, to help editors overcome these twin problems. Penyulap  talk 14:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can have scrolling boxes without Java, with style sheets alone, but IIRC the MOS discourages that for some reason. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Responded at Village pump (technical). The links include links to guideline pages and a way to add personal CSS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Mos needs better wording, ideally with links to those resources. I'll have a think about some new wording. Penyulap   talk 01:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Step one would be identifying the platforms where scrolling doesn't work, and what occurs there. Does anyone know what they are ? I have only online tools to show different resolutions and I think down to ipad and it seems cool. If we can't identify the "for some reason" then I'd suggest it's not significant. Or if it can be found, some link to the description would be helpful. Penyulap   talk 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe there are WP:ACCESS issues with scroll boxes. 2) Scroll boxes don't print properly. 3) It is off-putting for a reader who doesn't want or can't handle a scroll box to have to reload such a page, which is invariably large. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I see it, advantages of using scrolling boxes for references:
 * Some people think they look nicer.
 * People who want to ignore the references can more easily scroll past them.
 * Disadvantages:
 * Some people think they look ugly. Very ugly.
 * It makes it more difficult to actually read the references, as they must be read within a tiny box in the page.
 * Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling to the reference when a reference link is clicked.
 * Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling when using the browser's in-page search feature to search for text contained in the references.
 * Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.
 * Printing may uselessly print just the small portion visible in the scrolling box, instead of all the references.
 * For people who use large fonts due to poor eyesight, the usual method of specifying a small pixel height (rather than an em height) means they can see even less of the reference list.
 * The proposed "solution" of requiring people who do not want this to find and click an extra link means extra page loads (bandwidth and time) of typically very large pages.
 * While some of them could be worked around, it seems to me the disadvantages still far outweigh the advantages. Anomie⚔ 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for explaining, now the workaround in question which was sand-boxed first fixes these problems you've mentioned:


 * Tick-green.png It makes it more difficult to actually read the references, as they must be read within a tiny box in the page.
 * Tick-green.png browsers may have issues correctly scrolling to the reference when a reference link is clicked.
 * Tick-green.png Some browsers may have issues correctly scrolling when using the browser's in-page search feature to search for text contained in the references.
 * Tick-green.png Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.
 * Tick-green.png Printing may uselessly print just the small portion visible in the scrolling box, instead of all the references.
 * Tick-green.png For people who use large fonts due to poor eyesight, the usual method of specifying a small pixel height (rather than an em height) means they can see even less of the reference list.
 * Tick-green.png Some people think they look nicer.
 * Tick-green.png Some people think they look ugly. Very ugly. <- They are now given a choice.
 * Tick-green.png People who want to ignore the references can more easily scroll past them.


 * Question mark alternate.svg The proposed "solution" of requiring people who do not want this to find and click an extra link means extra page loads (bandwidth and time) of typically very large pages.

Such a point applies to a few people, it's quite true, and a good reason to remove pretty much everything from wikipedia, especially images, I'm not sure it's a great argument, the point of discussion is about giving readers more than one version as a choice, if one is more popular than the other, of course to save bandwidth the more popular one should load first.


 * Tick-green.pngTick-green.pngTick-green.png Scrolling boxes within the page can be difficult to scroll with mobile browsers. For example, some require use of two fingers rather than just one to scroll the embedded scrolling area, which users may not be familiar with.

This would get three ticks, 1, it gives people the choice to avoid the box if they don't know how to use their fancy phone, 2, it gives people the choice to use the box as a shortcut, so they don't have so very much to scroll past when avoiding the reference section. 3, it gives casual readers who are not technically adept a better chance of getting to the external links and categories section, which, once they scroll down as far as the reference section they may assume the ref section is the end of the article.

People who read references sequentially include reviewers and editors of the article, these are a minority, the article gets 100 or less edits per month if James and I are not messing with it, 400 if I am, even if (over-estimating) 100 unique editors and researchers a month are reading the reference section sequentially, the regular readers are 100,000 per month. The ISS is an entry-point article to wikipedia, it's a 'front door' for new readers. The refs are hardly a riveting read for new readers, but does without a doubt cause a few new readers to think the article ends at the ref section if they have not been to wiki before. Obviously, references are used by readers one at a time to link off into another place on the web, the appropriate ref pops up in the box as we know, leaving the only argument a statistical one, as to how many are unable to use the box OR the workaround, versus how many benefit by seeing the external links and category templates they may well miss. New readers are especially more likely to do that, so the article being an entry point, the box is indicated. Lacking browser statistics either way (which obviously can be researched) looking at the editors who are taking time enough to understand the workaround, edit it, as well as editors who have edited the ISS page, out of those people I'm not seeing anyone who can't read the scrollbox, this would no doubt get a mention from someone sometime, but hasn't come up. I do ask people here, you the reader, to speak up if you are using a browser that does not display the box. It's not a common enough phenomena to suggest the workaround doesn't have merit, because it's not ruling people out of reading the page, it's making ALL of the information, ext links, categories, and refs available to all would be readers, organizing them in order of interest. I can't see that the convenience of 1 tenth of 1% are a good reason to bloat the article and cut external links and category templates off with a section that lacks interest. In it's current state, the references for this article are a complete mess anyway. I use the word convenience because this workaround makes all information available in both formats, in order of priority.

What I'm seeing here is no technical issue that the workaround doesn't address, beyond bandwidth, which is a matter of loading the more desirable page first.

If a machine is not working and has a safety tag placed upon it warning against it's usage, and then a week later a technician comes to fix it, and starts touching the machine, telling at him not to touch the machine is unhelpful. Breaking the machine again and escorting the technician out is not going to fix anything. AGF urges you identify who is touching the machine and why, and how. At some point the 'machine not working' tag has to be removed from the machine.

The article workaround was sandboxed in userspace first, then implemented in article space, then after the deletion, with suggestions that it be sandboxed again, and such was done, there was the second deletion because it was linking to userspace, which is not and never was where it's meant to be. You can't have it both ways. At some point it belongs in one place or the other. If your going to delete it, at least AGF and take the time to understand what you are deleting, and comment on why you have made such a decision in a way that indicates you have examined what it is that you are deleting, this is especially important when it is the combined work of more than one editor.

Now I'm looking for reasons why this workaround does not work, what problem it does not address. You've mentioned general problems with scroll, now please comment on the workaround specifically. Penyulap  talk 15:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All the problems raised above refer to the version of the article International Space Station. I don't see any workaround. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is concurrent discussion at the village pump tech section, but for clarity, I need to echo it here, as it leads to the proposal. If you want to use a collapsible box please do for text above this comment, or enclose the proposal as well, but don't separate the text below from the proposal please.

What might not be clear here where I begin to waffle, is the ISS workaround I wrote with a scrolling box in the reference section took care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, by providing a link to a non-scrolling version of the article, with history attributed to the main article and all but two of the edit links directing to the main article, and an edit template mentioning that those two links didn't lead to the main article and providing links to the main article, the body of the non scrolling article which was transcluded, also had comment directing to the main article, for the two stray links.

Well, now that you know I appreciate your help and respect you, please allow me to bb and speak with candor. That idea is such a load of garbage(not my original word). I'm surprised it came from you. There is nothing new under the Sun ? we know all there is to know ? where have I heard that before. The article isn't finished, the style is not finished, Wikipedia's not finished, (although I can see and describe it's marginalization in great detail) it's all moving and changing. (I could be 'finished' though, if people take too much offense at my candor). I do like great detail to be given to each persons take on the situation, it's the people who delete without a word of explanation, on what IMO turns out to be a misinterpretation, if not downright ignoring a sentence of scroll.

Well, my position is this. The top of the MOS page says it will have occasional exceptions and I say to the bureaucratic thinkers show me an exception you'd tolerate in GF. There is no GF, and there is no exception they'd tolerate. Being on WP a while now, it no longer astounds me to see people stuff so much fuss and drama into such an incredibly small idea. My concern, well, you've brushed on how to deal with large articles, but I suggest this is not so much a large article it's a complex subject. A limit to size will turn the page into an index. The book idea, yes a good solution to be sure, that would address the issue, but who can push that uphill against the mass of status quo ? The MOS has a solution to this problem already, 'When using scrolling lists' and I was using a scrolling list, it clearly allows it. Certainly it shouldn't be used on every article, it would make a mess on many articles, but the strongest wording is not used in the mos, there is not just one exception, there is a whole sentence describing the exceptions. I'm wondering if the mos can link to a few of the exceptions to show you how to implement them with elegance. there are many ways to address the issue, and I'd like to see a few of them.

The mos allows the scrolling in two different ways, in the two quotes directly above, and indeed provides advice for the implementation. Penyulap  talk 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Proposal one change the MOS:SCROLL removing the sentence "When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." and increase the strength of the wording from "should not be used" to "should never be used."

Penyulap  talk 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposal two link an example article or a few example articles where scrolling lists or collapsible content is used, and care has been taken to ensure the content is still accessible..


 * If the above doesn't make it clear, I'm looking for a single case of care being taken that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, because if there is no GF consideration of that sentence, then it's obsolete. If neither I, nor the people doing the deletions can find such examples, they should be pointed to. Penyulap   talk 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would seem the request to provide a single example of 'care being taken that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS' has silenced my critics. Is it this simple, that nobody has seen an example and as a result they deleted the workaround ? Penyulap   talk 19:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow that was quite a read about that references scroll window. I understand that the idea has seen a lot of discussion, but I just thought that I'd vote that we NOT have a scrollpane or other thing for the references. Secondly, if you are requesting feedback on your solutions to the disadvantages raised about the scrollpane, I would suggest that you condense your arguments and points so that they can be more easily read. Otherwise there's a lot of unnecessarily details that I have to sort though. I disagree with adding a scrollpane for the following reasons, in order: 1) There's controversy about the reliability of Wikipedia. To make those references obvious certainly adds credibility to the article, and to Wikipedia as a whole. 2) The scrollpane seems a little clunky. If we were to do anything like that at all, I don't remember what it's called but the reader could click a link and the references appear. That's probably requires Javascript or something, which again points back to MOS as it currently stands. 3) Citation format errors are more easily spotted. The red text indicating a wikitext error is quickly spotted this way, and more often than not I'll make an attempt to fix it, especially if it's my own error. 4) It's not really needed. Most articles don't have a zillion references, so this may not be a huge problem. 5) Let's just not hide things like that. I just don't like unnecessarily categorization and hiding. Sorry. Jessemv (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your request for examples on content that remain accessible on non-Javascript/CSS devices, I think this is unlikely going to generate a lot of responses due to the fact that it's probably pretty rare. As far as I know, the problem doesn't really exist. How about instead we look for browsers that don't support Javascript or CSS? Isn't it standard for browsers to support this, and really common for those to be included in webpages? For example, I'm taking a Web Development class, and we're learning about HTML5 and the instructor wants us to use HTML for only for structure and CSS only for style and looks. Since she is teaching us this way, I can only assume that this is the proper way to do things and by extension that it is fairly common. Thus, popular browsers support Javascript and CSS. I bet there are some rare browsers/devices that don't, but surfing the 'Net on a Nintendo DSi isn't too popular is it? Why? Because more than half the Internet doesn't work right on it. And when was that MOS statement added? The points I raised in this paragraph need to be verified and answered, but if they are correct then I would vote that you remove that sentence because it would be irrelevant and obsolete. Jessemv (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
That the manner of providing a link so that the content is accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, as provided in the one of the examples given in the above section, is used as an example of 'care being taken that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS' that would be the most appropriate thing to do here, and I propose adding a link to one example. Penyulap  talk 22:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we do that, when that proposal has received no support from the community? I have another alternate proposal: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Anomie⚔ 18:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside input wanted
An editor at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder is convinced that the use of the plural in the first sentence at Help:Section, plus the traditional rules that when writing an outline, one avoids having a single bullet item under any heading, means that providing a single ===Level 3=== header in an article section is impermissible. His solution to uniform opposition seems to be edit warring to get the "correct" number of headings into the article.

Could we please get some help from MOS-savvy people with this silly dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Daggers of the mind
Most wiki articles I edit and read today use the simple ndash character "–" instead of the &ndash or –  nomenclature. That's fine and dandy since it sure uses less space in tennis articles and it follows our own policy at entering special characters. Plus our own wiki text editor has a "special character" tab that simply puts in the needed character. In fact we have been systematically removing all &ndashes as we find them. But now I have an editor telling me that to reach FLC we MUST use the brackets on such things, specifically daggers, or it will not pass FLC. I know ndashes don't need brackets to pass FLC because there are plenty of examples, so must daggers "†" be represented as † to pass muster? It seems to go against written policy if this is true. Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time). Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask for the reference. Cause I don't recall anything on the use of typographic characters like this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a lot of searching myself and I found something here at Accessibility. It looks to be saying that all symbols not part of "Latin 1" should use the brackets. En dashes are also missing from "Latin 1" so that would mean that all uses of "–" would need to be changed to –  to meet wiki protocol as far as using with screen readers. I have never seen this before but the question is would this preclude an article from passing FLC muster? That I'm not so sure about. Whom would I ask? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see one good reason for – (namely, that the en dash character itself might be hard to tell from the hyphen in the monospaced font of the edit box), but that doesn't apply to the dagger. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also did a little research and conversed with Freedom Scientific, the maker of JAWS screen reader (by far the most popular). I asked about non-Latin 1 special characters turning into "?" I asked if there's a fix in the works. Specifically daggers "†" and endashes "–". The reply was "Not sure what version of JAWS you are using, but in our current version 13, these characters read as expected." So Jaws has no trouble reading daggers at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That en dash template is a bad, bad idea. En dashes are either spaced or unspaced, and the template gives a thin space either side. This leads to its use in situations where a space en dash is required – such as here. Tony   (talk)  07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of research was done before dagger was created. No matter what you think Freedom Scientific said, we have a blind editor User:Graham87 who is very familiar with several screen editors. Here's his reply to Bamse when asked about how the dagger symbol sounded as used as a 'key' in a table in List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) prior to its FLC:
 * "Hi Bamse, those symbols are spoken correctly when I navigate by character with the left and right arrow keys, but they are not spoken when I'm reading the text, unless I set the punctuation level to all, which isn't a default setting. In other words, there's no indication that the symbols are in the text unless a JAWS user reads the text very carefully. Therefore, those symbols are not suitable for that table. This surprises me a bit, because JAWS reads most non-ASCII characters, no matter the punctuation setting. The symbol "*" reads consistently, and so do "^", "°", "#", and just about any other symbol I can think of, besides the daggers!" - Graham 87
 * The purpose of those templates is so that they can be used in a table to supplement the use of colour to convey a key or legend. I don't think I can make it any clearer to Fyunck than I did here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility "I don't think anyone would see any benefit in replacing ndash with a template in normal running prose". If somebody has been requesting the use of the template, then we really need to see a diff for the context. It is also a bad, bad idea to confuse the necessity of using dagger for accessibility with the use of an ndash template, for which I can see no conceivable use. --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But...
Could someone advise on whether it is advised to begin sentences with the word "But", as illustrated by this recent change: Is this covered by the Manual of Style, or is it considered a matter of personal preference? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's generally frowned on in formal writing, though it is sometimes useful. This doesn't strike me as such a case, however. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, try a semicolon before the but, if the two sentences are sufficiently linked. Or However,. And sometimes but is used where its contrastive meaning is not appropriate. These suggestions can avoid the problem in some cases. Tony   (talk)  06:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article had in fact previously used However, but the talk page of the other editor (who made the change to But) revealed a certain confidence on their part concerning grammar, so I wasn't sure. On a wider point, is there a section of the MoS which deals with this kind of question (I had tried List of commonly misused English words and Words to watch)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably more profitable to Google for sits that give information on English grammar. The word "but" is classified as a 'part of speech' called a conjunction which joins together two words, phrases or sentences. From that, you can see that a conjunction is not well-suited to be the first word in a sentence. Nevertheless, you may want to read this article which suggests that common English usage allows sentences to begin with "But" (as well as "And"). The Manual of Style can only describe what is commonly used on Wikipedia, so it's probably best not to look for an authoritative statement on this issue. I'd advise further discussion with an open mind to see if you and the other editor can come to an agreement about what's best for the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone, though I've been told that I tend to overuse the semicolon; take that into account when weighing my agreement with Tony. Sometimes I just can't make up my mind on whether two clauses should be in separate sentences, so I chicken out of deciding and resort to using a semicolon as a compromise. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the input; the Common English usage misconceptions article is interesting. This discussion has reminded me of a poem by Wendy Cope about the poet Emily Dickinson (who had her own way of joining clauses and sentences together): Higgledy-piggledy Emily Dickinson Liked to use dashes Instead of full stops.

Nowadays, faced with such Idiosyncrasy, Critics and editors Send for the cops.
 * (Cope, W., Making Cocoa for Kingsley Amis, Faber and Faber Ltd, 1986, p23)

This tickles me somewhat, seeing as I myself use dashes rather a lot... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(But not in Wikipedia articles of course, haha....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Input requested at WP:AT on common names
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. I'd appreciate opinions about making the policy fit for purpose so we can resolve problems like this more easily. -- Klein zach  01:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking hard, but I'm not seeing anything all that relevant over there. The ongoing noteworthy debates at WT:AT are about "common names" in the sense of "heroin" vs. "diacetylmorphine", and how much "familiarity" is required and how broadly for a name to be considered "common". There is no debate ongoing  about article title/naming conventions issues, like whether the common names of organisms (what a lot of us have been talking about lately)  their common names, nor whether organism articles should categorically be at the common names vs. the scientific binominals (another perennial fight in some quarters, with reasons that aren't always obvious to the uninitiated, especially in botany). This is about  the common names of organisms, and it is a style matter, not an AT/NC matter.  I can't find anything recent at WP:AT about this. Is there something in particular you think is MOS-related that we need to see at WT:AT? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONALITY question
When discussing an alternate universe as utilized in an American tv show, the term I just used is the most commonly used. However, COMMONALITY would seem to nix that, suggesting 'alternative' in its place. I've never heard that term applied to universes (and I tend to read a lot of scifi). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't either, but probably it's just that I don't read enough fiction. On the other hand, alternate isn't vanishingly rare in BrE (at least in the singular; I have no idea what's going on with the plural), so that part of WP:COMMONALITY doesn't seem to apply to this particular sub-meaning of alternate. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, you should try to squeeze in some more fiction; it's good for the soul. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of new classical music naming criteria?
In the same spirit that this question about the 'Common names policy' was publicized, I would like to request informed opinions on the appropriateness of WP:MUSICSERIES on the music naming conventions page. Thank you, MistyMorn  MistyMorn (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how "informed" I am, but I'm very definitely a "consumer" of information concerning classical music. I'm not a musician; I'm simply trying to catalog a large collection of recordings, and I keep looking here in Wikipedia for assistance. I have often been frustrated in trying to find articles, and without doubt, the way WP:MUSICSERIES is presently written greatly simplifies my work. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Identical response to identical OP struck per Kleinzach's warning. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

MistyMorn: You have made a identical posting here at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. This is forum shopping ("Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards . . . may be construed as "forumshopping." " . -- Klein zach  02:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a routine notice, pointing to a relevant discussion in another forum. It's not forum shopping, and this isn't a noticeboard anyway. The discussion is centralized at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music), to which MistyMorn pointed, so the intent clearly wasn't to independently raise the same issue in multiple forums.  While the notice was not very neutral (WP:CANVAS generally frowns on "activistic" pointers), and it was good of Milkunderwood to strike the redundant comment and direct people back to the original discussion so that it  turn into a forked debate on multiple pages, it's unnecessarily hostile to make forum shopping accusations, especially at a page that is routinely used to notify people of discussions. I think I've posted at least 5 notices like this here in the last few months. While there are those who like to pretend that MOS has nothing to do with naming conventions, I think we all know better, so the pointer was even on-topic. Even the non-neutrality of it is forgivable, because it raises and issue of process and concern about lack of community attention, not a disagreement over the content of the proposal or an urge to support or oppose.  In short, I don't see what your issue is, Kleinzach. I would not like to see people discouraged from posting pointers to MOS-relevant debates here, since it is already difficult enough to keep track of them. Pointers are helpful, and we are not children who can't make up our own minds about how to respond to pointers that could have been worded more neutrally. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I've doubtless encountered the phrase "forum shopping" several times, I've only now registered its meaning and significance. I followed advice to post at "WT:MOS or WT:AT or another appropriate 'core' guideline talk page" (having explained my reluctance to make the step myself, given that I am relatively unfamiliar with WP practices). Unfortunately, I interpreted the "or" as an "and" because both pages seemed relevant, and although WT:AT is clearly pertinent I felt there was a rationale for eliciting at WP:MOS as well. Since the discussion on the music naming convention page is hard to navigate, I summarized some of the concerns that had led me to request further input. I now realise this was inappropriate and have revised the wording of the request accordingly. Better late than never... But I'm not sure what can be done now about the dual posting. Sorry, MistyMorn (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish to add that I really don't see that my original wording was any less neutral than this request by Kleinzach to classical music project members. MistyMorn (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone even more "newbie" than you, my guess would be that strikethrough is usually preferable to deletion once replies have been posted, so the responses can be seen in context. Your original post was much longer. But this is just my own guess. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. For the record, the original wording was: In the same spirit that this question about the 'Common names policy' was publicized, I would like to request informed opinions on the appropriateness or otherwise of WP:MUSICSERIES? I feel that this new classical music titling guideline, which strongly prioritizes 'consistency and (more arguably) 'precision', was pushed through on the basis of local consensus without allowing time and space for consensus in the broader Wikipedia community. I have raised my concerns on the music naming conventions page, and really would be more than happy to withdraw from the fray if the discussion there is expanded to take in a wider range of informed 'consumer' feedback. Thank you That's all. MistyMorn (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original is still arguably not canvassing at all, because it is asking for people's input on a guideline draft (i.e. on content) without asking them to take side or do anything. That it also happens to mention that the poster feels strongly about a process issue relevant to said content is not inappropriate, but a disclaimer. More, not less, information is almost always preferable. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Division sign?
A recent edit brought this to my attention: "Prefer the division operator (÷) to (/) when representing elementary arithmetic in general prose: 10 ÷ 2 = 5." Seriously? Even in non-technical text, the slash seems to me a lot more common than the obelus. (The only place where I see the latter with non-negligible frequency is on pocket calculators.) Note that WP:MOSMATH doesn't even mention ÷, and WP:MOSNUM only lists it in a table to show how to input it without saying anything on when to use it.) Plus, ÷ can be confused with + with small font sizes, and it is harder to input (not that I think this is such a strong argument, but people here oppose the curly quotation marks on this very grounds). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In higher math, you're right. When I Googled websites that teach arithmetic, I found ÷, /, and this about equally often. Art LaPella (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking on this I wonder how useful searching the web is as for most of its existence, and still today for many users, entering ÷ was somewhere between difficult and impossible. And even if you could enter it you run the risk of it not displaying for some people because they view the page with some other encoding (decreasingly so but I still come across pages that display fine except for curly quotes and other non-ASCII characters as their encoding does not match what my browser thinks it is). ÷ is what's used in elementary arithmetic, at least here in the UK, so is at that level much more appropriate, and as such will also be widely understood by everyone with a more advanced education.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. en.wiki isn't mainly intended for elementary/grade school pupils (there's simple.wiki for that), and even in the cookbook Aunt Tillie uses I would be less surprised by (say) 1/2 lb. flour than by 1÷2 lb. flour. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first half of that, but the second half is a red herring, since ÷ isn't used for fractions, only to indicate an actual arithmetic, i.e. "divide by", to generally be followed by "=" and an answer. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait... What's the difference? 1/2 means “1 divided by 2” i.e. 0.5, doesn't it? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you mean integer division specifically? But I can't think of many articles which need that outside computer science or number theory, where I'd use ⌊a/b⌋. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Maybe ÷ for integer division could be used e.g. in the article explaining how to convert numbers from decimal to binary... but then, do we need a MoS recommendation for an issue that'll only occur in a handful of articles?) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about that at all actually. The difference is semantic. Yes, the "1/4" in "add 1/4 cup of sugar"  means "1 divided by 4", or in math-geek speak "1 over 4", but it is not linguistically or cognitively parsed that way by humans, outside the context of a mathematical formula with a "=" in it, like "1 / 3 = 0.25". Anyway, I guess this is just a side note and not really relevant to the issue raised in the topic, so I should zip it. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem a bit redundant: there are many stylistic variations between maths articles, depending not only on audience but also convention for that particular topic. This is an odd one to highlight as it will apply to relatively few articles. (I would quibble though with it being more appropriate for the simple WP, as the difference between that and this is mostly the level of English; in theory at least articles on advanced topics can appear there, if someone takes the time to write them).-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Single quotation marks plant exception
is the first addition I found of an exception to the quotation marks rule, allowing for the use of single quotation marks in certain, unspecified, circumstances. The current text says that there are "some conventional codified exceptions" and refers to WP:FLORA, however there are not any clearly codified exceptions listed there. The only thing FLORA says about single quotation marks is that "selling names" should never be in single quotes. What are the specific circumstances in which single quotation marks are to be used, and what is the reasoning behind it? This information needs to be clearly articulated in the MOS along with a rationale. —danhash (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cultivar names must be placed in single quote marks as required by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. It's not well-explained at FLORA, I agree. I guess whoever wrote it assumed that those writing flora articles would be familiar with this convention. I've added a bit there which may be useful in expanding the explanation here, if this is thought necessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Do you know the rationale behind this being only exception to the rule? —danhash (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure I quite understand your question. This is an exception to the rule because of the reason I gave (i.e. it's the requirement of the body which governs the naming of cultivars); I don't know why it's the only exception, if that's what you meant. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Either WP:FLORA should be updated to explain the usage, and justify it with references, or this should be removed from WP:MOS. PS: It's not the only exception. It's also conventional for glosses: casa ('house') — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the usage is now reasonably well explained at FLORA; however I'm very familiar with how cultivated plants are named and so probably am not best placed to tell whether the explanation is sufficient. As for references, these could be copied over from the wikilinked article International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants; is this necessary? A Wikipedia article shouldn't be a reference for another main space article, but I would have thought it's ok for a guideline page. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, that should be fine. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think the usage for glosses is not well known; I certainly didn't know about it and have used double-quotes for glosses following examples I'd seen elsewhere. It needs to be more prominent in the MOS, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to get around to it, but because of all the other fighting about both quotation marks and capitalization I haven't wanted to introduced another typographic debate for a while. I'm not sure there'd be a big one, but by own blood pressure couldn't take another right now. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it only single quotation marks for glosses? —danhash (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably to distinguish them from other uses of quotation marks, especially actual quotations. One might use both in the same passage, giving a "quotation" in the original language and a 'gloss' after it.  There could be other reasons.  Bears some looking into.  I've used the style without controversy in articles, and others have obviously used double quotes since MOS never mentioned single quotes for this purpose, and that hasn't been controversial either, even from linguists, who certainly haven't risen up in verbal arms to fight about the matter or suggested an editing strike. :-)  — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't repeat words, versus parallel structure
I find a lot of emphasis here at Wiki on not repeating words. More so than I am used to in writing in the normal world (and I'm no professional writer, but I took the normal English classes and wrote papers in academia and business world). It also seems that we don't discuss the benefits of parallel structure much. And I do remember reading in how to write books about some of the benefits of parallel structure.

Saw a recent comment in an FAR that said to take away a star because the article had too many sentences starting with "the" or "in".

1. My reaction is like "huh?". I mean sure try to improve all writing and make it pleasant. But I'm just not used to that level of emphasis on musicality in the prose. I think much more normal to strongly work on STRUCTURE (or content/logic). Lots of writing books say that a strong structure (and I don't just mean the auto headers, I mean how the content is organized, how paras are structured, do you have a logical order from most important to least or from first to last, are the paras unified [we are miserable at that often squashing concepts together arbitrarily] etc.) is key for the reader. That he has enough issues with learning the content and dealing with the thicket of words...that leading him by a very clear path is soooo helpful to making him want to actually read stuff versus set it aside.

2. I really doubt that the reader minds a lot of sentences starting with "the". I think the person criticizing that is just sort of looking at the text too hard and not stepping back. It almost reminds me of the pulp fiction era "how to write" guides which would emphasize finding a gazillion alternatives for "said" when modern advice is that the reader passes over "said" without a problem and reads the quote. That actually having all those different verbs ("interjected", "gasped", "rebutted", etc.) is a little annoying to the reader.

"In" I might see more of a case for concern, but even here I can see places where a para might work better with repetition THAN with alternation. For instance if we are describing a chronology, in some format like:


 * Topic sentence
 * In the 50s, blabla
 * In the 60s, blabla
 * In the 70s, blabla

Anyhoo. What chew guyz think?

TCO (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is exactly the sort of thing that the Manual of Style and would-be stylesetters should avoid. Good usage is great, and there are many ways to approach it. Henry James and William Faulkner would have terrible style according to some standards (and I find them nearly impossible to read myself) while other standards would condemn George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway. With nearly 4 million articles in the English Wikipedia, anything that's clear, accurate, unambiguous and not offensive without reason is good, and anything that's the reverse is bad. What's perfectly comprehensible idiom to millions of people can be opaque to millions of others in other countries; other than that, the Manual should stay away, apart perhaps from condemning edit wars and style patrols of articles you otherwise wouldn't visit. Tweaking style should be left to those who are doing the grunt work of editing articles, and perhaps to those who read articles for their substance. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not asking for some nitpicker dashwar proscription. I just thought this talk page made sense for discussion of the topic.  After all, it is "style".  And if you look at Strunk and White, there is discussion not only of nits but also of unified paragraphs and the like (i.e. some style guides are not only about having uniformity of US versus U.S.).  ;-)


 * In any case, what is YOUR view on the teed-up talk page topic? Should we vary more or have parallel structure more?  TCO (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I've periodically thought myself about having some other non-prescriptive, non-directive page, or maybe a monthly or quarterly Wikipedia newsletter (like WP:Wikipedia Signpost or The Bugle), where we can discuss these things. Just because I'm a minimalist on the Manual doesn't mean I don't find it very valuable (and often interesting) to discuss style and see why different people have different opinions about all the different points. I'm sure I use a dozen different styles myself without thinking too much about it, trying to fit the words to the purpose. (And I've just used "I" more times than The Present Author normally cares for.) This Talk Page, as I have to remind myself, is for discussion of changes to the Manual or its offshoots. But it would be nice to have something else. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well since that does not exist, I'll use this place as the closest. If a better place comes around for discussion, can go there then.  No reason to shush me up.  We can (probably should) be a little free-er in talk than in article.  It's not like I'm debating Giants versus Patriots.  It's at least somehow related to "style" in a broader sense.  This talk page can be more than a place for debating what dash style we should use (and thereby write into our "rules").  ;-) –, 07:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the guideline that Wikipedia prefers good grammar is implicit somewhere, but we don't need to try to teach grammar as a part of style. I personally go overboard in making things explicitly parallel within sentences, on the theory that it will help readers, but I have no actual evidence for that.  At the level of bullet points, less so.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grammar, understood, agreed. It kinda annoys me when someone on Wiki thinks that the MOS should define appositive commas or the like (or that it is new to the world if defined here).  I kinda see this more as an issue of higher level style (the musicality advocates) or at least construction.  It seems like somewhere we should have some discussion (even just chat, if not advice).  Like I've heard someone else advocate omitting transitions.  And perhaps sometimes this is best, other times not.  But it was said pretty prescriptively and with a "duh, you should know this, there is no other way" tone.  I just worry that on stuff like this it is not like some obvious grammar thing and I worry about Wiki starting to advocate some type of writing that is not optimum.  We have a tendancy to not be as grounded in the outside world as we should be sometimes, to just kinda converge on a Wiki way.TCO (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with this general direction. We're not here to teach people how to write. Up top it was said "some style guides are not only about having uniformity". MOS isn't one of them. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)  I kinda seem to contradict myself, below, where I suggest that maybe we should advise that parallel construction be abandoned after the stub stage. What I'm saying there's a specific case, here a generality. MOS isn't a writing class, but it's okay for us to suggest that certain styles of article construction should or shouldn't be used.  I mean, really, we have an entire category of guidelines about exactly that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to see more parallel construction in business writing, where clarity is needed, and more variation in other types of prose, where relief and engagement are preferred. It seems to me that Wikipedia should be the latter sort. However, I don't think we need a rule about this. If nothing else, it's too vague. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed, though I think that parallel construction is often helpful at the stub stage, because it suggests an outline for further article development (the "in the 1970s" example above clearly shows this). At the "start" stage and later it should definitely be abandoned in my view, because it is tedious and numbing. WP:NOT#POWERPOINT? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) Parallel repetitions are part of the first of the four fundamental cohesive devices in language (reference, ellipsis, substitution, and conjunction) that Halliday identifies and describes. Just as long as they ride easily with the reader; often it's a case-by-case call.
 * 2) Some words are more repetition-sensitive than others (both grammatical and lexical words): for example, this is much more repetition-sensitive than the, which is why it's usually better to use the latter than the former when it's a toss-up between them.
 * 3) This is not something for the MoS. Tony   (talk)  07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But Anaphoric reference does not at all require or even imply structures like this; it's more about pronoun substitution instead of repeating the name or other more specific noun identifier of the referent ("my cat is fluffy; he is very cute." versus "my cat is fluffy; my cat is very cute.").
 * True, but I think what's being got at here is boring structural repetition throughout an article, which remains boring however you do it. While the effect would be  annoying the more stand-out and less cognitively transparent the repeated lead-in word or phrase is, it can still be annoying (i.e. reader-distracting, i.e. antithetical to the purposes of the encyclopedia) even when very simple and basic, such as repetition of "in year " or " Surname  verb ", paragraph after contiguous paragraph.  I regularly fix this problem in biographical articles, and cannot ever recall being reverted on it back to a repetitious format, which is almost always a hold-over from stub-stage, outline-style writing (often from bullet lists in very early versions). The lack of reversion suggests, albeit anecdotally, that other editors are recognizing it as a natural progression away from "business summary" style writing to more palatable prose.
 * Why wouldn't it be? It sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to cover at Manual of Style/Layout. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original post, since MoS say anything about this, and it's not a matter of any other guideline or policy or even well-accepted essay, then the WP:GAN and WP:FAC processes really have no business demanding such a change in an article and denying recognition to it on that basis. Particular Good/Feature article reviewer's personal peeves aren't something editors can be expected to cater to. Anyway, if something like that comes up, I guess you just have to appease them if they won't retract the demand for the change, then change it back after the Good/Featured process is over, since WP:IAR is policy, and GAN/FAC whims aren't even real rules. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Letter case for surnames with de
Please see Reference desk/Humanities (permanent link here), regarding letter case for surnames with de. —Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fielded that one. The gist was that, given a name like Foo de Bar, definitely with a lower-case "de", some articles had "In 1992, de Bar was...", while others were using "In 1992, De Bar was...", and the latter is clearly erroneous. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the name, and the original language. There are different customs for De Thou (one syllable) and de Tocqueville (several). JCScaliger (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that I was understood correctly (or really need to respond to a sockpuppet). As expected, Jacques Auguste de Thou (the redir target of De Thou) uses "de Thou" in mid-sentence, not "De Thou", which is someone else's name, presumably an American whose family has been capitalizing the "De" for a generation or two or six. WP really doesn't care that someone somewhere in some work probably does capitalize it mid-sentence as "De Thou" in reference to Jacques Auguste; we need to set some kind of standard, and any such prescription inevitably makes someone somewhere frown because it's not the way they'd prefer to do it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I think the MoS can say about this (maybe does already; I haven't checked) is that such names should be capitalized at the start of a sentence, and that the lowercase and wrongtitle templates should not be used to lowercase article titles such as de Rham cohomology. (Some people are so troubled by the first issue that they go out of their way to avoid starting sentences with such names, which personally I think is fairly silly, but I don't think the MoS needs to address that point.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would we really need to? In the animal capitalization noise up above, we eventually removed the "except at the beginning of a sentence" bit as too obvious to mention. Isn't it here? I wouldn't cry if did, but it seems kind of unnecessary. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and dispute templates
The MOS needs a consensus on tags. Tags, especially those that place their message at the top of the article, are a style issue. I recently came across the Templates for discussion, and it would seem as though the trend is that any deviation from the MOS is cause for huge ugly tags at the head of the article, so matter how minor. Should any MOS issue be cause for such a tag? How many article's do not have minor issues? Should they have one tag per? The problem is really with what constitutes a minor issue and what should get a tag if someone thinks it meets the criteria IMO. What is the consensus on this? Have there been previous discussions? Int21h (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already Template:Multiple issues for ensuring that articles have only one cleanup/dispute template each. If a particular template like Template:Lead too short seems trivial to you, take it to WP:TFD. It's not a MOS matter. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. My main issue was not that of "a particular" template, as would be discussed in WP:TFD. The organizational structure of WP:TFD is clear: listing a template. The operative grammatical construction being the singular "a", which leads me to understand WP:TFD is mainly for individual templates, not the use of all or any templates. The general issue of template use, in the context of style, is clearly within the subject area of a "Manual of Style" discussion, and not that of WP:TFD. Int21h (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing then, if you feel that Multiple issues insufficiently addresses the problem (especially given that it was created with the express purpose of doing so)? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the above as saying that only major problems should be tagged. My own opinion is that most tags should go on the edit page, because they are for editors, not readers, and because they arguably disrupt the article more than the issue that motivated the tag. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking for a long time about some kind of button, with JS and CSS behind it. If you are an IP (99+% of whom are probably just readers, not editors), or a logged in user with your default set to "off", all cleanup/dispute tags would be invisible, unless you click the toggle button. If you are a logged in user (99+% of whom are probably editors at least some of the time, not just readers) and have set no preference or have set the preference to "on", then you see all those tags unless you click the toggle button to get rid of them. It would actually not be very difficult to accomplish, though a feature request filed for this at the MediaWiki Bugzilla might take quite some time to implement. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Art LaPella (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This would need to be at WP:VPT with an RFC pointing at it, that showed a strong consensus in favor of this change, or the MediaWiki developers wouldn't implement it. I'm too worn out right now to go set that up, but if you do, I'll support it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's well beyond my bureaucratic and technical (CSS?!) experience. Art LaPella (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that backwards? The point of those templates is to encourage readers to become editors; they are less useful for people who already edit, and experienced editors would be able to tell that e.g. a lead is too short by themselves. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that's the point. I never thought of templates encouraging readers to become editors. If so, I would think a standard ad ("You too can write Wikipedia articles! Click here [link to the tutorial]) on each page would accomplish that better than asking a first-time editor to somehow make a too-American article more international, for instance. There are easier projects like spell-checking, for first-time editors who know little enough about ex-dividend dates in the U.S., without asking them to write about ex-dividend dates in China. Nor would experienced editors recognize most problems at a glance, other than a short lead. And WP:GOCE, for instance, uses the template categories to find articles to edit. Art LaPella (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I lean toward Art's view on this (and am a WP:GOCE participant). Cleanup/dispute tags, in my view, primarily serve as when it come to the readership, and as cleanup encouragement/categorization when it comes to the editorship.  But I admit to not having spent a lot of cycles thinking about the matter (just to the technical part), and can see both views. PS: Which way to set the defaults, doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to have the technical ability to hide the tags, as I suggested. Even I'd use it frequently when I came to Pickyweedia just to read up on something with no intent to get sucked into 3 hours of editing. ;-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Square brackets, round parentheses and curly braces
Making fun of the phrase square brackets is lame. In British and some derived dialects, what North Americans call "parentheses",, are called "brackets", and what N. Ams. call "brackets",, are called "square brackets" |(or "braces", I think). Computer science has used the term "square brackets" for something like 40+ years now because it is mutually intelligible. It also disambiguates from, variously termed curly , curly braces, squiggly brackets, wiggly brackets, etc. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the comment above in the postscript is aimed at my putting the word "square" into italic script, then I should explain that I certainly was not "Making fun of the phrase square brackets", but merely referring to the fact that the bracket (parentheses) is not a square.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad! I think I need to change my edit window font. Your     looked like     scare-quoting in the wikitext!  D'oh. Sorry! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. The font I'm using now is spaced better, so that shouldn't happen again. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've only ever heard braces to refer to the curly ones. (And I also use round parentheses, square brackets and curly braces so that I'm understood by people from both sides of the Atlantic.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I may adopt that practice myself! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. You have just led me to discover Scare quotes Irony punctuation and now I fully understand your reply to me.  For the record, I am Welsh, newish to computers and the world of Wikipedia.  Oh, and I will be 70 in April, so need all the help offered.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, welcome! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS disagreement with WP:MOS
The issue has come up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters that the some editors at that page feel that it is a wholly separate guideline which can make its own consensus to ignore MOS's current wording. I've tried to synchronize that page with this one's current wording (the sub-guideline is about out of date, and says many things MOS does not sanction), but been reverted, even after ensuring that anything subject to the capitalization controversy debate on this page was commented out. I posted a full justification, change by change, for every proposed alteration but also self-reverted for discussion. So the text there is currently as it was before I attempted any changes. More input there would be useful, and the discussion raises some interesting issues about "sub-guideline sovereignty" on WP:CONSENSUS matters. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's too compilcated to follow. When I look at your numbered list at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, and start checking, it seems that you have gotten the first couple of items done.  Where are things sticking?  Let's slow down, take them one at a time, and maybe others will be able to afford enough attention to chime in.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not intending to generate a new discussion here about the details of what's happening there, just drawing attention to the discussion there because hardly anyone pays any attention to that sub-guideline's talk page. That said, none of the items I enumerated there has been done. I provided diffs for each, so you can see that the changes made are not in the extant wording of the page.  I was blanket-reverted on every single change, even typo fixes.  Actually, the wider issue of whether this guideline's sub-pages are in a position to go their own way is worth discussion more generally. Maybe I'll start a thread on that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Xt and related, and their use in MOS
Some question has arisen about the use of and related templates. I recall when the template was created, specifically for MOS, and specifically for MOS to green-light the examples that illustrated its consensus advice, with the corresponding to red-flag examples of usage that do not. Since then there's also to grey-out deprecated, not-endorsed, questionable, disputed, obsolete or other examples that are against MOS consensus advice but not the absolute, full opposite. There's now, for total neutrality which uses the serif font styling of all these templates, but plain black text; it still applies the "example" CSS class as metadata and for user styling.

It's been suggested that is simply example markup, that does not convey any sense that it indicates MOS endorsement of or preference for the green-marked version. I strongly challenge this notion, because I remember why it was created in the first place, and observe how it is actually used. If this were the case, wouldn't exist. But it should be up to consensus on the talk page, not my personal perception. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good if xt had been used strictly for the intended purpose. However, it seems to me that it has "escaped" and is now significantly often used just as a style for longish inline quotations. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Xt shows that it's widely used on talk pages for this purpose. So I think that editors who don't usually come here are not likely to interpret it as it was originally intended, which is a pity. Perhaps some kind of key is needed at the start of the MOS? Any manual of style needs some way of indicating what is preferred and what is not. And if green doesn't have the original meaning, how can we argue about what should be in green? :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least they have a namespace test that prevents the from being used in articles. I think the xtn template I created recently to fill a void may help reduce the number of weird green quotations running around, but then again maybe people are using them in talk because they're green, I dunno. I agree with the idea of a key/legend at the top. I'm surprised there's not one already. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)  PS: The usage up above in the birds/caps debate actually seems to be , though I'm sure people have used  in talk, too. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the colour of xt was originally chosen (Template talk:Xt/Archive 1, but IIRC there was some discussion also on WT:MOS, WT:MOSNUM and a few user talk pages; I went by User:Army1987 back then) because it was easy enough to distinguish from both normal black text and blue links on a variety of possible display gammas, and I didn't have the idea of !xt until later. (Anyway, that's irrelevant to how the templates should be used now, and the fact that xt is green and !xt is red is strongly reminiscent of traffic lights makes me kind-of agree with SMC. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I came in later than I thought, then. One day I went to check something at MOS and saw green vs. red style and noted that it had been talked about on the talk page with some favor, and the templates were documented as to their good example/bad example usage. Apologies if I've gotten the timeline wrong. And as you say, that's not really what's relevant now. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that even A. di M., a regular here, used xt above purely for quotation ("1/2 lb. flour than by 1÷2 lb. flour"). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for forking off a tq ("talk quote") template for this purpose (Done!), not for endorsing use of the xt family of template in ways not recommended by their documentation and which could cause other issues; e.g., the new Template:Tq uses a separate CSS class so that quoted text isn't marked up with an  class that people may be styling a certain way for a certain reason. People so frequently misused fact in talk pages that we created talkfact; we didn't change Template:Fact/doc to suggest broader uses than those for which it is actually intended. PS: I don't agree with your characterization of A. di M. use; he used  for example markup twice inside a quotation; that's not using it for quotation. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Response to PS) Point taken, but he wasn't endorsing both forms, so they shouldn't both have been green. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. citation template
For your citation ease and pleasure, I present Chicago 16th, which makes it much easier to cite the current edition of CMoS in the Manual of Style, or in articles like Op. cit. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an obvious exception for "#" in comics
As someone pointed out above, the "#" sign, not "number" or "No.", is universally used in reference to comic book issue numbers (except in indicia, where Volume, if any, is also specified and written out or abbreviated along with "Number" or "No."). I proposed changing this:
 * Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings.
 * [example stuff]


 * [next point]

to this:
 * Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings.
 * [example stuff]
 * An exception is issue numbers of comic books, which unlike for other periodicals are always given in the form #1, unless a volume is also given, Volume 2, Number 7 or Vol. 2, No. 7.


 * [next point]

(See, that wasn't so hard. WP:COMICS could engage in 7 years of editwarring over the matter, and go on WP:POINTy fait accompli editwarring rampages, and try to WP:GAME the system by mucking with language in one guideline to make it agree with them and pretend the other doesn't exist, and threaten to quit or go on editorial strike if they don't get their way, and canvass, and stack polls with meatpuppets, and so on. But it makes a lot more sense to just ask people if they agree and seek consensus. doesn't it?) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This guideline covers usage in most of the article, but defers to WP:Citing sources for citations, and that guideline defers to the manual of style used for the article (for example, Chicago Manual of Style) or failing that, to the citation style established in the article. So which part of the article are you proposing to use "#"? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about citations, but general prose, e.g. at Incredible Hulk: "The Hulk first appeared in The Incredible Hulk #1 (May 1962), written by writer-editor Stan Lee...". Citations would continue to use which has volume and issue parameters. Hardly anyone ever writes "The Incredible Hulk No. 1 (May 1962)". I.e., there are no specialist and few reliable generalist sources that use such a style for comics. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you would only edit the guideline to state "#" is usually used in discussing comic books in general prose; this isn't the appropriate guideline to say what happens in citations. Although not a matter for this guideline, citations in articles which use templates from articles that use citation templates beginning with the word "Cite", but not insisting upon the subset known as Citation Style 1, would continue to use . Jc3s5h (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I just said, in way fewer words. :-) MOS itself wouldn't ever say anything about specific citation templates since that's out-of-scope. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just Googling around for stuff like "most valuable comic book", first 20 pages of results, and ignoring bloggy and wiki-ish matches (unreliable), or comics-specific sources (which use "#" almost universally), I'm finding:
 * Professionally edited offline (and also-online, of course) sources in favor of "#":
 * CNBC
 * The Orange County Register
 * Art Daily
 * Fine Books & Collections
 * Roadside America
 * Online-only websites with actual editorial staffs that use "#":
 * Amazon.com
 * io9
 * WorthPoint
 * ScienceFiction.com
 * UGO
 * CraveOnline
 * CelebrityNetWorth.com
 * Auction News Network
 * Heritage Auctions
 * Neatorama
 * PerezHilton.com (does he have a staff, or is it just him?)
 * Popular Fidelity
 * Professionally edited sources in favor of "No." (but we're not sure why – see below):
 * The Telegraph
 * Christian Science Monitor
 * KTLA.com (but they're really a TV station, so who knows how much they think about print matters?)
 * Some sites are wildly inconsistent or duck the question:
 * SciFiNow.co.uk veers, on same page, between "Action Comics number 1" and "Action Comics 1", using neither "No." nor "#"; there are a lot of cases like this, because most people DGAF about style details; I've ignored all other sites like this as useless to this question.
 * The style started changing in the late 1970s and was nearly universally "#"-style by the mid 1980s. Early comic book covers read, e.g., "Action Comics No. 1", and this badly skews the search results; any magazine/newspaper reporting on the record-breaking auction values of various comics from this era (about the only reason specific issues of comics are ever mentioned in the news) will be at least as likely to call it "Action Comics No. 1" rather than "#1" because that's what it says on the cover, than to do so out of notions of style convention. Clear evidence of this is here at a Washington Post article, which italicizes the issue number as part of the title: "an issue of Action Comics No.-1". ABCNews.Go.com did the exact same thing, but with quotation marks: 'It is the first Superman comic, titled "Action Comics No. 1," worth about $1 million.'  More evidence of this is that the New York Daily News uses "#" or "No." depending on the age of the comic. I would suggest that this is too haphazard a "standard" for Wikipedia usage, especially since we generally don't have images of the covers to go on, per WP:COPYRIGHT.  The preponderance of the evidence seems to be that current, professionally-edited and presumptively reliable sources use "#" for comics, following the overwhelming convention in comics-specific works, and that traditional publishers like newspapers and general art/collectibles magazines are also picking it up, while some stick with the more traditionalist "No.", presumably because none of the style guides address the issue specifically. As no one interprets this as a core grammar matter rather than a trivial convention, I propose we go with "#" in this case, as I suggested above. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Space before ellipsis
I have noticed that the Manual of Style suggests spacing ellipses, not just when one opens or closes a quotation, but also on both sides within quotations, even where an ellipsis indicates not omission of material but a mere pause. I am perplexed and confused by this guidance, for the following reasons:


 * 1) It makes no sense semantically: although an ellipsis flanked by spaces would suggest an equal distance from the sentences it separates, it is actually more closely associated with the preceding sentence; after all, it represents a trailing of the voice.
 * 2) The Manual recommends the use of a plain ellipsis for representing a missing part of a quotation, rather than the version enclosed in brackets. Flanking an ordinary ellipsis with spaces can cause confusion about its function: does it represent a sentence left deliberately unfinished, or a later edit of the original text? The Manual does allow for brackets if there are both kinds of ellipsis in a quotation, but this doesn't change the fact that a sole ellipsis without brackets can still be misinterpreted.

I therefore recommend that instead of "I am not sure ... I think I'll go tomorrow", the Manual ought to recommend "I am not sure... I think I'll go tomorrow" in those cases where there exists what it refers to as "pause or suspension of speech", while continuing to recommend the former variant for omissions. I am referring only to quotations because I am aware that ellipses are generally unsuitable for article prose. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: This seems to have been bugging me for a while; I've searched the archives for any relevant discussions, and the closest thing I've come up with was my own complaint here. I used similar arguments at the time (almost two years ago), but no-one actually responded. Waltham


 * Begging His Grace's pardon (it is again an honour to be in His presence), I'd like first to appeal to the notion of ease of reading, before going into what the major style guides recommend. Spaces on both sides are easier to read, and at the other extreme, square brackets are lumpy and disruptive to the flow. The "relative closeness to previous text" argument might be rebutted by pointing out that the space between value and unit (we believe that 79 ºC is too cold for that process to occur) is well accepted (indeed, mandated) even thought the unit is more closely connected to the value than to the subsequent text. On the matter of opening and closing ellipsis points in direct quotations: I sometimes wonder why we do it, unless there's a particular reason to show the reader that the quotation starts and/or finishes mid-sentence; this is almost always obvious from the grammar, or simply doesn't matter in the context. Why worry the quotation in such a way? Tony   (talk)  11:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with Waltham. An ellipsis is unclear (and clumsy in the sentence) if a space is put ahead of it.  Of course, a space must always follow.
 * Regarding the use of "square" brackets, my opinion is that they have a role only if they are used to encompass two, or more, bracketed phrases. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Without yet venturing (or forming) an opinion, my guess is that the reasons against (depending your viewpoint) jamming or closing ellipses into adjoining text might be two:
 * a general typographical problem, that in some typefaces and formats, it can sometimes be hard for the eye and mind to distinguish a word (or number) from what surrounds it [this is why I disagree with the prescription against spaces before footnotes, and agree with the direction to put them after punctuation rather than immediately after what's been punctuated, even where the latter would be more logical],
 * to make it clear when a word or number hasn't been shortened, but in fact has been preceded or followed by a space, in contrast to cases such as Llanfairpwll..., Llanfairpwllgwyngyll...gogogoch, 3.1415926..., or 0.3333... (The case where the front of the word, rather than the end, has been truncated is usually handled by a preceding apostrophe, as in 'copter or 'bot). —— Shakescene (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tony: Remember that what is easier for you to read is not necessarily easier for everybody else to read. (See this on how not all human minds are alike.) And in general, people are more likely to find easy to read what they are used to reading, which is the whole point of style guides.
 * As for me, I like them better closed up to the previous sentence, since (in the function being discussed here) they have a similar purpose as the question mark or the exclamation mark, which (unlike in French) are closed up to the previous sentence in English. (But given that we're talking about direct quotations, I'd just copy what the source does and not worry excessively about that.) Nitpick: º is the Spanish/Italian masculine ordinal sign; you want the degree sign ° (or just yielding 79 C, which as a bonus is also understandable by Americans, who make up nearly half the readers of en.wiki). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) and 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is semi-perennial here, and I don't recall registering an opinion on it before (though it may be been among the spate of things I tried to change my first day at WT:MOS. Remember that afternoon, Tony1? Heh.) I think that Waltham is onto something. I have honestly never paid any attention to this section of MOS (not out of animosity toward it, but sheer WP:DGAF and satisfaction that my own practice is correct, or at least correct enough for rock-'n'-roll and government work.
 * Given the text:
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
 * This is how I use use an ellipsis for the two main kinds of elision (spanning sentences vs. within a sentence):
 * Lorem ... consequat.
 * Lorem... aliquaa. Ut... consequat.
 * If it were a quoted passage:
 * "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."
 * "Lorem [...] consequat."
 * "Lorem[...] aliquaa. Ut[...] consequat."
 * I do not believe the square brackets are optional, because MOS says that changes to quoted text should be marked up that way.
 * I would not do anything different from the sentence usage if the elision spanned a paragraph break.
 * I haven't checked to see if any style guides recommend this or against it. It's simply how I've done it for 30+ years and no one's ever "corrected" me.
 * <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked to see if any style guides recommend this or against it. It's simply how I've done it for 30+ years and no one's ever "corrected" me.
 * <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 December 6, with this message from me.
 * "See also Ellipsis. A space before the ellipsis indicates that the third 'blah' is a complete word, whereas an ellipsis following immediately, without a space, indicates that the third 'blah' is the beginning of a word, perhaps *'blahsko”."
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Every single source cited at Ellipsis is American, and the entire section is flagged as a WP:SYSTEMIC issue. I'm likely to rethink my practice, especially on the idea of "blah..." indicting a truncated word, but I think MOS should still recommend the use of square brackets when eliding quoted text, because it agrees with the other advice about changing quoted text, and it disambiguates between changes to quoted text vs. ellipses imported from the quoted material. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not acknowledging the response to my question earlier, but my on-line presence has diminished considerably of late. I suppose I ought to have warned in advance about this.

Shakescene's explanation that the lack of a space indicates "a word or number" which "hasn't been shortened" is something I hadn't considered, and among the various arguments is the only one which seems to justify the practice in my mind (this is, after all, an encyclopaedia). That is not to say I am satisfied with the current guideline, however. Tony finds the brackets disruptive, but then again it could be argued that readers ought to pay attention to missing parts of quotations, and that such elisions ought to be made sparingly... (In any case, I find it hard to believe that an ellipsis without a space can cause misunderstandings in terms of the preceding letter or number. I'm sure there is a way to achieve this result, but it sounds unlikely with the usual web fonts and designs; I'd need to see an example to comment further.) Waltham, The Duke of 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As an MOS project that has created or influenced title style conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Species capitalization points
In an effort to standardize and synchronize:
 * WP:Manual of Style
 * WP:Naming conventions (capitalization)
 * WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters
 * WP:Naming conventions (fauna)
 * and WP:Naming conventions (flora)
 * as well as derivative, non-guideline instructions like WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, etc.

It is proposed that the following points be integrated (in whatever prose form) at all of these documents:


 * 1) The default is to begin each word in common (vernacular) names with lower case
 * 2) except were proper names appear in them (or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions).
 * 3) This applies to all common names (families, orders, subspecies, etc.) not just species: "vertebrates", "the snakes", "European wildcat", etc.
 * 4) Some editors prefer / WP:WikiProject Birds prefers / It is common practice at WP:WikiProject Birds to capitalize all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen, in ornithology articles;
 * 5) this remains controversial ( a.k.a. there is no site-wide consensus that this is an acceptable practice, a.k.a. this is not consistently regarded as correct ) and should not be used / is not recommended outside such articles.
 * 6) Only one capitalization style should be used in an y given article.


 * Amended per discussion below so far, with markup like this comment. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe this represents actual Wikipedia-wide consensus. In order: Point #1 has been MOS consensus since at least 2008, and stably so. WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes at subordinate guidelines and at WikiProjects does not trump this. Point #2 is just obvious. Point #3 is just obvious. Point #4 gives bird editors some breathing room, and correctly puts this in the context that WP:BIRDS have themselves advanced, as being a project-defined [would-be] standard for articles only.&#91;1&#93;. Identifying these "some editors" as WP:WikiProject Birds by name in the guideline may seem "blamey", and the project (or WP:TOL, etc.) should not be cited as a guideline authority if mentioned, because it isn't one. No other active project has a written "guideline" that conflicts with the default, so no exception will be mentioned other than birds. Point #5 is incontrovertible; title case for species is consistently one of the most controversial and broadly opposed ideas on the entire wiki for 7 years running. Saying so explicitly is de rigeur for "hot button" issues in MOS, and most importantly defuses the notion that we have a "well, plants and sloths and bacteria and whales can be capitalized too because a couple of editors like it" free-for-all, a problem that has been caused by vague and wishy-washy wording at some of the subguidelines which have been citing WP:BIRDS and WP:TOL pages and if they were guidelines, and dwelling upon projects that have a lack of local consensus, rather than applying the site-wide guidelines at MOS. The MOS has flatly rejected the "there is no consensus, projects can do whatever they want" idea in its explicit wording for over three years and in its talk archives every time the issue has come up since at least 2007.&#91;2&#93; &#91;3&#93; Point #6 is dictated by our general principle of consistent style within single articles, was first articulated with regard to this issue in particular in 2006,&#91;4&#93; and it of course defaults to lower case (by the nature of what "default" means, and by WP:BIRDS's own statements that they're only concerned about usage in the context of ornithology). 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The MOS is for Style conventions, not to highlight conflicts. The idea that only SOME WP:BIRD editors are using Capitalized Bird Names is incorrect and is inserted just to weaken the strong case for Capitalization of Proper Nouns such as Standardized Bird Names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then how about we replace "some editors" with something more neutral, like "The capitalization of common names is the prevailing practice in WP: Birds, but this remains controversial"? Because 1. it is and 2. it does.  I would not give "this remains controversial" as a fifth point.  It should be combined with point four and point six should become point five.
 * Also, I would replace "an article" with "any given article." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with the change to WP:BIRDS, but the controversial remains a non-style statement, and has no place in the MOS. It would incidently be the only statement about something be controversial in the MOS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "controversial" is the part that must remain. It's the most benign way of saying "these guys are doing something that is not consistently regarded as correct; don't use these articles as a model for others." It is a style statement in that we are telling people what they should and should not do, stylistically, on Wikipedia.  EDIT: Come to think of it, I could live with "but this is not consistently regarded as correct and not recommended for articles outside WP:Birds." That makes it a bit clearer that the MoS is providing instructions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. However its worded, the controversial/not agreed bit is completely crucial. The two main reasons to do all this at all have nothing to do with birds, but with stopping the proliferation of rampant capitalization of every mention of animals, and to get rid of the conflicting subguideline language that encourages projects to go off into left field and make up more exceptions. It's also normal in guidelines to use such "controversy" disclaimers, despite KvdL's unhappiness with it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24: Actually I have an issue with "and not recommended for articles outside" the scope of the project, as it implies that the practice recommended by MOS not just by WP:BIRDS for bird articles, with has actually been disputed for 7 years running. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exception by itself says already that WP:BIRD is doing something different. There is no need to highlight that it is controversial/incorrect/etc. as a kick in the ass towards WP:BIRD as if they do something wrong. Because despite how often generic style purists want to make us believe that it is wrong, we are following the general convention for ornithology based publications. Why not state: "It is common practice at WP:WikiProject Birds to capitalize all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen, in ornithology articles consistent with the consensus in the ornithology literature." This covers that it is an exception, and that it is based on what reliable literature in that field says about the usage, so it is up to other groups to show common usage of that field as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT an "ornithology based publication", QED. And it's not a consensus in ornithology lit, it's just a "growing trend" according to WP:BIRDS itself the last time this came up.  And, frankly, WP:BIRDS is doing something wrong, in violating WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy to force all editors in a general encyclopedia for a general audience to use, against years of concerted protest, an ungrammatical style that was designed as a specialist convention by a specialist organization for use by specialists in specialist publications. There really is no away around these problems, no rug to sweep them under. The fact that MOS is entertaining mentioning, instead of ignoring, WP:BIRDS at all is a tremendous show of good faith that you've been spurning. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The points above don't say "exception" and I don't feel they should. That would imply that everyone got together and agreed that WP: Birds should use capitals in contrast to the rest of Wikipedia, when the truth of the matter is that it's a dispute that's never been settled.  That's why terms like "controversial" or "not consistently regarded as correct" would be best.
 * Considering that the overwhelming majority of English-language style guides state or imply that capitalizing common names is incorrect, then stating "but this is not consistently regarded as correct" is actually treating your position very favorably. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources dealing with any of the 10,000 plus bird species uses capitalization as the preferred style, this is not controversial. It is controversial to force lower caps on bird names contrary normal usage. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA handbook, various Oxford and Cambridge style publications, etc. are unreliable, then no, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources does not support capitalization. A source does not have to be specific to ornithology to be suitable for use within WP:Birds.  If I'm writing an article about E. coli, then I will use sources such as microbiology journals and newspaper articles and style guides.  For a general-audience publication like Wikipedia, lowercase for common names is "normal usage." If writing a guideline that stipulates something that isn't normal usage is controversial, then it is appropriate to use the term "this is controversial" in point five above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Kim, it it says "some editors", i.e. WP:BIRDS.  Please re-think what you've said above. (Aside: As a matter of fact, I've already found several cases, in my gathering index of relevant archives, of WP:BIRDS members not agreeing with the capitalization, but that's really not important to the question at hand.)  Also, the MOS has quite frequently contained "it's controversial" or "it doesn't have consensus" statements when they were pertinent, and various guidelines still (and always) do at any given time. E.g. Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece", as just one example. It's quite routine, really.— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)  Here's more: Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...."  Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes."  And so on. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, than you can have your exception added to the subpage called Manual of Style/Animals, plants, and other organisms. I do not find any exceptions in the main MOS, or do you intent to add all those other exceptions as well to the main MOS article under the guise of synching? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to have the main MOS simply mention the default and never mention birds at all. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad you agree that you do not want your controversy exception mentioned at MOS. I think it bis a wise decision to keep mentiones of what is controversial to subpages and describe the current usage at the MOS, which includes that WP:BIRD articles are all using capitalized names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not read me correctly. I said I'd be happy with not mentioning birds at all on MOS proper, since what WP:BIRDS wants with regard to them is controversial; it would be fine by me to relegate all of that to a subpage, including that it is controversial. (I think you mean Manual of Style/Capital letters.) The fact that it's controversial must appear where ever any of the guidelines mention the birds "rule", because it is causing massive confusion and chaos all over Wikipedia as everyone capitalizes just about anything that ever mentions animals, following the birds example.  I.e., no, you do not have agreement to pretend that WP:BIRDS's capitalization isn't controversial. We don't have to use the world "controversial"; there a whole thread below about what wording to use.  PS: The fact that most bird articles use capitalized names is a fait accompli pulled off by your project's editwarring on the matter over seven years of frequent objections. That fact that you weren't collectively subject to a WP:ARBCOM case about it is actually pretty surprising, given that the ArbCom has previously condemned fait accompli attempts to force controversial consistencies across large number of articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between "controversial" and "doesn't have consensus". "Controversy" is generally a "boo word"; the implication of saying that it's "controversial" is that it shouldn't be. "Doesn't have consensus" is a neutral statement. Further, in the cases you refer to where there isn't consensus, the result is that different editors can freely continue to use different wordings. This doesn't seem to be what you are trying to achieve. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an inference, not an implication. I think "doesn't have consensus" sounds (on Wikipedia) worse.  I'm happy to use that language, if it satisfies you, though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * “Proper nouns” ? What proper nouns ? In emperor penguin or whatever blue-hearted tweeter bird name, there is not the slightest shadow of a proper noun !
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with minor changes: I would replace "Some editors ... controversial" with "It is common practice in WP:Birds to capitalize the common names of bird species, but this is controversial OR not consistently regarded as correct and should not be used outside WP:Birds." I would repace "an" with "any given." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hardly OR, and no more than one of "controversial" and "not consistently regarded as correct" is needed, if either is. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh—I assumed darkfrog meant the conjunction or, not WP:OR. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. That IS amusing&mdash;at my expense. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "You know you've been editing Wikipedia too long when..." FWIW, I initially parsed that as "original research" too. Heh. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I meant. As long as people are tipped off that the capitalization of common names is controversial/not to be copied elsewhere in some reasonable way, then the guideline will serve.  Also, let's note that if "this is controversial" appears as its own bullet point, it might look like it's referring to the entire list rather than just WP:BIRDS. 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See clarification point below: These are meant as talking about, not actual guideline text. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's important to maintain the distinction that even WP:BIRDS only says to apply their "standard" to ornithology articles. Also, while I don't feel all that strongly about it, the point of the "some editors" language is that we regularly use phrasing like that in guidelines as a way of saying "the WikiProject on this topic" without a) appearing to "blame" or cast aspersions on the project by name or its participants or b) appearing to elevate the project by name as some entity empowered to create guidelines. Both of these are valid concerns, though I don't necessarily assert they're so important they  be accomodated. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support—I don't feel strongly either way about the "this remains controversial" part. It's probably fine to include it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: These 6 points aren't meant to be the exact wording (which might need to differ a bit between the various guidelines, e.g. being more explanatory at WP:CAPS than the conciser version at WP:MOS), but rather key points that must be made one way or another regardless of the prose. I.e. the wording as of my last edit to the actual MOS page is an attempt to work all 6 points into clear language without resorting to either super-choppy bullets or buckets of prose. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I've updated the wording with <ins ></ins> markup to reflect so wording alternatives. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Partly oppose My objection is that the MOS wording here is inaccurate and hence POV-pushing. It falsely implies that only within WP:BIRDS is there any use of or support for capitalized common names. Plant editors have agreed to differ, and create and edit articles using either style. Moth articles seem largely to use capitals, which appears to be the norm within lepidopterists (see as just one example the list at Geometer moth – I've linked to the current version as it may get changed by those opposed to capitals in common names now I've pointed it out). If what is currently written in the MOS had appeared in an article it would not be acceptable as WP:NPOV; it would be clear that it had omitted a significant (albeit minority) alternative point of view. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "there is also some support for this in WP:Plants, etc."? As long as we don't have common name capitalization introduced to other articles under the assumption that it is required or supported everywhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, this has already been addressed several times. WP:PLANTS never came to a consensus.  We cannot possibly include any kind of list of "projects that do not have a consensus on this" because that would be a list of almost every project on the system. The  of MOS is that it sets site-wide defaults. And the entire point of the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy is to put a stop to the notion of random WikiProjects making up their own micro-consensuses on every topic under the sun because this leads to an unmanageable and embarrassing level of inconsistency. And the entire point of this synchronization effort is to provide actual guidance that matches the usage of almost every publication in the world: sentence case for common names. "Omitting significant minority points of view" on style matters from the actual practice of writing Wikipedia is . — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, one way or another, this needs to be settled. It's pointless to have a wishy-washy "some editors prefer this, some prefer that" as the only existing standard. The guidance should say clearly which common names are capitalized and which are not; otherwise it's failing to do its job. I support the proposal, except that we should sepcify all the categories (including "birds", "moths", whatever) for which the established practice is to use all-caps. Then any proposal to add or subtract any category to that list will require consensus. Style guidance shouldn't concern itself with describing mixtures of editors' points of view. If there's some area where established practice is not clear, then we need to establish one, one way or another (by a run-off vote, if necessary). Surely we can all see that having a consistent (or at least, a fully defined) approach is better than having the issue permanently up in the air.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for insects, either. Again, we cannot go around making random exceptions. The majority of editors that have ever commented on the matter oppose even making an exception for birds. Adding more exceptions on the basis that misc. editors here and there have their own capitalization preferences based on what a few journals do is an invitation to disaster, since it would set a precedent for allow any and all exceptions to the MOS based on what a handful of sources do as long as they are reliable sources for  and have nothing to do with grammar.  Having a "fully-defined" approach that permits a scattershot of miscellaneous exceptions for which there is not even consensus in the relevant projects would actually be worse than having no guidance, because it would effectively enshrine the idea that there isn't really a guideline, and everyone can do what they want. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to work out how having full guidance would enshrine the idea that there is no guidance, more so than actually having no guidance would do... Look, it's a perfectly simple question - do we capitalize bird species names or not? RfC, discussion to identify the arguments on both sides, followed by poll. Result. Implement. Stop arguing about it. Same (in parallel) for moths, plants or any other category for which there is some genuine dispute about what the established practice is. --Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer: It's not a perfectly simple question, but a complex question and answer chain: Do we capitalize species names? No. Are there any exceptions: No, not according to general consensus; however one wikiproject insists on one and will argue everyone straight to the grave about it, and we're all tired of the fight, but site-wide consensus does not recommend the exception they demand, and all evidence says most editors and readers utterly hate it. Meanwhile a few other projects note various trends in their professional literature but hardly anyone thinks that has a thing to do with what Wikipedia should recommend in MOS, and they do not demand recognition of some kind of codified rule they've borrowed from a taxonomy organization, which the birds projects does. The longer answer: If MOS sets a default and notes that a controversy about that default's application in bird articles is still ongoing, that's not a big deal. We make note of such controversies and move on around them all the time. If MOS instead mentions an alleged default but then says not only do we do something different for birds (implies consensus that doesn't exist), misc. editors, some in projects some not, are uncertain about this and that and the other, and we just leave it up to editorial discretion, or project discretion or whatever, based on whatever random reasons people come up with... then we are not in fact setting any kind of default at all, not to mention we'd be effectively saying "ignore WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy".


 * It would be a major step backward. The default has been a default here in MOS without controversy since at least 2008, and all discussions here about animal caps have been increasingly not decreasingly in favor of lower case. The default isn't new.  The other aspect of this is that uncertainty about what actual established practice is in science journals in a few areas besides birds (aside from being arguably irrelevant because WP does what generalist publications do, and cannot possibly account for every geeky practice in every field-specific specialist journal without utter chaos) has been unresolved for over 7 years, so we've simply moved on. It's entirely reasonable and normal to say "the MOS default applies there, too". Why would it not? I cannot think of any other area within MOS's scope where we decline to apply a general rule, like capitalizing place names, in one narrow field, like place names in Madagascar, just because some passel of editors on a talk page at a relevant project can't make up their minds locally whether the rule should apply there. Active, organized opposition by one project is dissimilar to noncommittal failure by another to decide whether something matters and what to do about it if anything.
 * — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of what this proposal is, it is not meaningfully different from the previous one. It firmly establishes that sentence case is default (that title case is only for birds?), I assume under the assumption that there is a preexisting consensus . Then it flags WikiProject Birds as controversial, if not wrong. The rest is uncontroversial. Title case is (practically) never used for groups of organisms—for taxa above species rank. &mdash;innotata 16:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Scott McCandlish's broad principles make sense. But let's not make an exception for the birds. There may be a de facto exception in place presently — and things can change —, but let's not write in the guidelines an exception to the standard English rules.
 * And certainly no exception-in-exception in case of hyphen ! Instead of yellow-eyed penguin, I tolerate Yellow-Eyed Penguin , because I like animals. But Yellow-eyed Penguin is ugly, it is asymmetrical, inconsistent, it just shows a quite frequent illiterate habit in English.
 * Ah, those birdwatchers !
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, those birdwatchers !
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am new to this debate, and I hope I have absorbed enough of it to contribute here. As a copyeditor I certainly agree with WP's usage of sentence case in general, but I also think WikiProject Birds's special reasons for capitalising the common (species) names of birds, as explained in their guideline, make good sense. As they point out "in Australia there are many common starlings" does not mean the same thing as "in Australia there are many Common Starlings". This kind of ambiguity is resolved by using capitalisation in many other areas of Wikipedia, e.g. 'Great Britain has a Conservative Party' or 'Vaughn-Williams wrote A Sea Symphony' which would be confusing in lower case. If WP is to develop a good MoS we need more intelligent rules that allow for reasonable exceptions. -- Klein zach  00:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But those examples, like A Sea Symphony, are proper names, right? Question—if you agree with lowercase in general, what is different about birds? The starling/ambiguity thing is an issue for mammals, too, right? "There's a brown bear up ahead."—It might make a big difference if it is a brown U. americanus or a U. arctos! IOW, I don't see how this particular issue would support uppercase for birds and lowercase for other species. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The common starling (type) versus common starling (adjectival starling) is kind of a weak argument. For one thing it's rare that the issue really exists (that context does not make it clear).  In the few cases, that confusion exists, one can just be clear by extra wording.  For that matter, if you really believe in this argument, you need to start capitalizing Chef's Knife or Virginia Ham or all manner of two word classes (not just birds).  And no one does that.TCO (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The practice of WP:BIRDS, whether controversial outside the Wikiproject or not, is the current style used on Wikipedia and there is certainly no consensus to change that. If there is to be a MOS on common names of species ,it needs to acknowledge that bird common names are capitalized.  It also needs to recognize any other areas where there is no consensus and carve those out until a consensus is reached for those specific items. Otherwise, there should not be a MOS for species common names. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached for species common names, with a differing and controversial local consensus within WP:BIRDS. The WP:BIRDS style is not the current style on Wikipedia: if an article outside the WP:BIRDS project mentions the blue jay or the bald eagle, those names are rightly lowercased. It sounds like you agree with the proposal, although you disagree with the proposer on the WP:BIRDS style. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's find an inoffensive way to state that capitalized common names are controversial
The points in the main section outline the status quo: Lowercase common names for most of Wikipedia and capitalized common names for WP:Birds and those few other projects for which it has become the main practice. The purpose of these points is not to change the guideline but rather to make sure that all pages that discuss this matter say the same thing. The main block seems to be that the MoS regulars feel that the guideline should include some text stating that the consensus for capitalized common names exists on the Wikiproject level and not on the Wikipedia level. The purpose of such text would be to discourage other editors from using capitalized common names in projects for which that is not the status quo. The ornithologists feel that the guideline should not include anything insulting, "a kick in the face," as KimvdLinde put it. I'm confident that if we put our heads together, we can find a way of saying what we need to say without making anyone feel wronged. Please add to the list of suggestions below and place all comments at the bottom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is common/prevailing practice in WP:Birds (and WP:X, WP:Y...) to capitalize common names, but...


 * ...this is controversial.
 * ...this is not consistently regarded as correct.
 * ...this is perennially disputed.
 * ...this does not have Wikipedia- wide level consensus.
 * ...this contradicts the advice of general-English style guides.
 * ...the propriety of this practice on Wikipedia is questioned.
 * ...this practice is not fully endorsed by the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

What about: This says it what the exception is and why. It also makes clear that it is based on prevailing usage within the literature and not just a random choice made by the editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also among our options: "and is not recommended for Wikiprojects for which it is not already the status quo."
 * Also among our options: "The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species is tolerated in WP:Birds but not recommended."
 * WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds.
 * It's not my favorite, but I could live with it so long as we added something to the effect of "but the use of this practice on Wikipedia is controversial/disputed/questioned/etc." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, basically, just add to the MOS that the bird editors are stupid/whatever for following the prevailing usage in the relevant literature for birds? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should not say that bird editors are stupid. That is the point of this thread.  We need to find a way to say "capitalizing common names is disputed" without saying or implying that anyone involved in the debate is stupid.  How would you say "this is controversial" if you didn't mean to imply "X is stupid"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not controversial at all in bird literature. And article need to be based on the relevant literature. And that there are generic style guides who do not discuss the the situation about birds, then they are not a reliable source for birds, because the common names for the majority of species has never been standardized unlike birds. So yes, of course general style guides will discuss the general rule. In many cases, I am pretty sdure they have not even bothered to actually check some resources about birds to see there is a exception going on. So no, general style guides are NOT a reliable source to deal with smaller groups like birds especially when this is a very consistent usage within that group. Instead of trying to force a controversial statement into the MOS, lets think about the reality of the situation, and that is that Birds Are Capitalized, and find a way to mention this in nthe MOS in a way that is not going to give ammunition to editors of groups that do not have such a general established practice. If you look at the platypus caps discussion, you can see that I voted for LOWERCASE there exactly because there is no established official name list. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is not controversial at all in bird literature.
 * Again, Wikipedia is not bird literature. Do you deny that the practice is controversial here?
 * And article need to be based on the relevant literature.
 * Again, this conflates two very different concepts.
 * For factual information (e.g. a bird's migratory behavior), it's sensible to place greater trust in a specialist publication than in a non-specialist publication (such as a newspaper). But style is a separate matter.  Reliable non-specialist sources overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds.  That persons knowledgeable on birds themselves use a different convention doesn't render this incorrect.
 * Please consider the ramifications of the argument that we must adhere to the style conventions used in specialist literature. Such publications' style decisions often reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships (and not those of a general audience).  For example, Variety's prose seems downright bizarre to someone expecting normal English.  I'm fairly confident that you wouldn't advocate emulating its house style in Wikipedia articles about the entertainment industry.  —David Levy 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, wikipedia is NOT bird literature. It is an encyclopedia that reports the information of topics as represented in the relevant literature. Even the Chicago Manual of Style realizes that. The problem is not the CMoS, but the editors of Wikipedia who want to enforce rules as ste in stone where style guides are actually more flexible. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, wikipedia is NOT bird literature.
 * So why did you attempt to refute a claim that something is controversial at Wikipedia by noting that it's "not controversial at all in bird literature"?
 * It is an encyclopedia that reports the information of topics as represented in the relevant literature.
 * The factual information. That Variety routinely refers to comedic films and television series as "laffers" doesn't mean that we must do so when covering subjects in its scope (apart from direct quotations, of course).
 * Even the Chicago Manual of Style realizes that. The problem is not the CMoS, but the editors of Wikipedia who want to enforce rules as ste in stone where style guides are actually more flexible.
 * Please see my reply in the relevant section (where I note that the "set in stone" arguments are emanating from WikiProject Birds). —David Levy 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a universal convention in ornithology literature, as even WP:BIRDS has admitted several times, it's a "growing trend" to quote from one of their own debates on this topic. We cannot mis-state the facts just to appease fans of title-casing. That would be blatant bias, against policy. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, because WP:BIRDS uses the official capitalized names as the norm for their articles, consistent with most of the relevant literature (yes, you can find a few exceptions within the bird relevant literature), this has to be mentioned as controversial in the MOS? It is just going to be a hook for repeated discussions that are not going to change the fact that bird literature does use caps. It only serves as a reminder that apparently WP:BIRD editors are stupid for following the conversion in their field and it does not serve the purpose of clarifying how species are named. What is needed is a descriptive of the practise at wikipedia, if necessary complemented with an explanation for the exception. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's controversial because it has generated 7 years of constant conflict. It is arguably the single most controversial would-be rule on the entire system. There is no controversy that the AUP prefers capitalization. There is great controversy over whether their preference has any relevance for Wikipedia and what we do in the best interests of the world's most general readership, and about what merits the rationales for that organization's preference may have. It is not the purpose of the MOS to be descriptive, but to be prescriptive. It is as descriptive as it can reasonably be within its mandate to provide a consistent, workable set of style rules for the entire system. But it isn't going to distort the truth to make you feel better, or hide the fact that there is controversy simply because you are on an uncomfortable side of one such controversy. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is controversial because people who have no knowledge about the bird conventions try to push a general rule on a group that has a very explicit and clear different way of Capitalizing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a completely vapid pseudo-argument, as well as incivil and an ad hominem attack. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant (generally or of your field). The vast majority of editors, who have commented at any length against bird name capitalization over the last many years on Wikipedia are perfectly well aware that IOC and most (not all) ornithological publications capitalize bird common names, and what the espoused reasons are for this. There's no way to miss those facts, since they are basically the only ones at WP:BIRDS's disposal, and you and everyone else there who gets involved in this debate (a small handful, actually) do little but repeat them over and over like a mantra, as if saying them again will make it mean more.  It's not that people  or  about bird name capitalization. It's that, or more likely pretend not to, that other editors, including other biology editors with very few exceptions, do not find IOC's rationales compelling in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Me, I have a deep herpetology background (though my degree is in anthropology), so if you think I'm not aware of nomenclatural issues like this, and used to specialist publications capitalizing things like Pacific Giant Salamander, you are sadly mistaken. I just know better than to try to apply a rule from a very narrow specialist context to a vastly broader, general one.  PS: I repeat that your habit of misusing capitalization a "Form of Emphasis" strongly suggests that you do not fully understand the nature of this debate and why it is important to so many people, nor that you are undermining your own "cause". Capitalization is not for randomly making things stand out and seem important, the only purpose that is served by capitalizing animal names here. We have boldfaced subjects (Pacific giant salamander) in article leads and bright blue link text (Pacific giant salamander) for doing that. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the definition of controversy: "dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press." We are having a dispute/argument/debate about this matter right now, so yes, it is literally controversial. The suggestion "controversial" should not be rejected on grounds of untruth. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is controversial is the need of some editors to force generic rules on all pages. So, why not word it as


 * "WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds. Despite this well established convension, generic editors keep ignoring the facts and try to enforce generic lowecase to the articles"
 * That is what I see is the controversy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget we have almost the same situation in MOS:CAPS. In Halley's Comet and Andromeda Galaxy, the generic parts are capitalized due to the recommendations of an insider organization, not due to common usage. In usage the capitalization in more common in astronomy pubs than in general pubs, but still not close to consistent. In general pubs, lowercase dominates. Same thing again in dog breeds, like Labrador Retriever and Basset Hound in spite of very mixed usage & in sources. Also the subway in New York City: New York City Subway. All by local consensus. All controversial. Maybe if we mention them all together instead of singling out birds it will be less offensive; or maybe it will attract four times as many people to argue with your approach. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that's a serious misinterpretation. Halley's Comet is capitalized according to the usual conventions of the English language, because it's a proper name.  It doesn't have a "generic part"; the entire name is Halley's Comet, not Halley's by itself. --Trovatore (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would distinguish all of these cases as being part of the general convention that identifiable places are proper names by default. Even the small ravine near where I live is universally capitalized as Bear Canyon or, in Spanish, Arroyo del Oso, despite being basically just a drainage ditch. There wouldn't seem to be a rationale for not capitalizing a place just because it's in outer space (cf. Jupiter and Pluto, not jupiter and pluto).  Subway systems are capitalized more perhaps because they're systems, I don't know, but they seem to be universally capitalized: Paris Métro, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), etc. It seems far less controversial. PS: No one is singling out birds; WP:BIRDS itself has long demanded recognition for its own "standard". The breeds/cultivars issue is another matter, with different rationales than species lower-casing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I think you're just making stuff up. It's a stretch to call celestial bodies "places"; I've never seen that approach before.  And "systems" are not generally capitalized; the BART and MARTA and Underground and Metro are because they have official proper names; the New York subway doesn't have such a name (see usage); neither does the Stockholm metro.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just offering what I think is a completely reasonable hypothesis for why we capitalize things like planets, comets, asteroids, etc. Given sufficient tech, you could literally go to them and walk on them. If that doesn't constitute a clear conception of "place", I'm not sure what does. Our moon, for example, has certainly been conceived of as a place people would go to in vehicles since at least as early as H. G. Wells's time, and now that we've actually been there and increasing number of people capitalize it as the Moon (no idea what CMOS, Harts's, etc. say about that). If the NYC subway system really has no name (which seems near-incredible to me), then I would definitely that the article be moved to New York City subway. I meant the examples I used are systems in the official, proper name sense (like Albuquerque Public Schools is the local school system vs. "the public school system of Albuquerque"), so we're actually in agreement on that one, just talking past one another. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In English, in place names we capitalize the generic noun : Isle of Man, Mount Everest, the Pacific Ocean. It seems bizarre to me at first sight, but at least it is consistent. In French, the rule is consistently the opposite : l'île de Man, le mont Blanc, le lac Baïkal, l'océan Pacifique.
 * Paris Métro is awkward, but I tolerate it. We should choose. If we use the English word, then Paris Metro. If we use the French word, then Paris métro. Let's admit that, in Paris Métro, Métro is the French word used in the English way.
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * --Nnemo (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, there other WikiProject than WP:BIRDS that has arrived at a consensus against the default. The notion that we need to mention insects or plants or whatever is a red herring that distracts from progress being made. WP:BIRDS's own case is that that "birds are special" basically: There is one unifying, "official" common name in English for every bird species. This is a unique situation that does not apply to plants or bugs or whatever. Detractors of title casing feel that this "officialness" is an irrelevancy, for clear reasons that don't need to be reiterated here; but make no mistake that it is the sole basis for WP:BIRDS seeking an exception to the sentence-casing default. The birds issue is not going to be settled here and now, and that's okay. But there is no basis for muddying the waters with the non-issue that sources about plants and whatnot do not have a consistent standard. The very fact that they don't is party of why MOS does have one. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we keep it to suggestions for wording in this thread? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to; people keep wanting to add exceptions for imaginary consensuses on bugs and plants. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what's going on here. Those of us who are not in favor of using capitalized common names want to say "disputed/questioned/controversial" to make it clear that the practice on WP: Birds is not fully endorsed by the MoS. That's what we want to get across. The "Capitals are common practice on WP:Birds" protects existing articles from overzealous de-capitalization and "but this is controversial/whatever" makes it clear that the practice is nonetheless not fully endorsed. How do we get that idea across? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "fully endorsed"? If the MoS says it's done for birds, then it's saying it's done for birds. As long as it also says it's done differently for non-birds, it's clearly not recommending the bird solution for anything other than birds (or moths or whatever other specific exceptions it ends up making). It is hardly the job of the MoS to start trying to describe degrees of controversy (which is often hard to judge, given how a small percentage of total editors can make a huge amount of noise about something). The point of having an MoS is largely to settle disputes like this one way or the other (even if the solution is not to everyone's preference) so that encyclopedia-building can continue without the distraction of such controversies.--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this above, but it got lost in the shuffle: We needn't describe degree of controversy to note that it exists. It's completely normal for MOS to do this: Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece". Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...."  Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes."  And so on. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that, strictly speaking, the common names of bird species should not be capitalized but we're settling for status quo because we can't stop the bird editors from doing what they think is right. So we're prepping a guideline that would read "This is done, but don't do it anywhere else." That's what I mean by "not fully endorsed." It's tolerated, not supported or recommended.
 * We need some kind of "controversial" or "not fully endorsed" to make it clear that this practice is only for birds. "We do this for birds," unaccompanied, begs the question "so why not for monkeys/chairs/etc?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we can say it's because bird editors have so decided and explain why they have so decided (usage in the orni-literature). And we can say it's only for birds. That should cover all the bases. It is supported and recommended for birds (since it's the current consensus, just like all the other things on MoS which are not universally liked, like dashes and non-curly quotes and so on), so no problem with implying that much.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it supported and recommended for birds. That's the whole crux.  Very few issues on Wikipedia have ever aroused so much consistent "Stop doing that! It's wrong" outcry all over Wikipedia as what WP:BIRDS insists on. What has happened is that everyone's simply worn out from debating it, and it is more expedient at this time to say that the birds project, or "some editors" or whatever phrasing, prefer that style for birds, in ornithology articles only, but that it's not a consensus position (i.e., it is controversial), and go about our business of making the rest of the encyclopedia consistent with normal English, maybe revisiting the still and always highly controversial birds issues some other time. By no means is this about declaring that there is a Wikipedia consensus in favor of bird capitalization. There's a general consensus against species capitalization, and a general consensus that fighting with the birds project is an impasse again, and a general consensus (an outright policy) that wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules. That policy, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS obviates the "because [insert project name] editors have so decided" rationale. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's too much for me to follow here. What would "declaring victory" entail, particularly in terms of wording? &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 6 points proposed above, in some form. The hard to follow mess has basically been a one-party effort against ever mentioning that what WP:BIRDS is doing is controversial in any way, and instead lobbying for MOS to essentially promote what WP:BIRDS is doing, rather than observe and report that it's happening and controversial. I think it's clear that there's no consensus to take such an extreme position. That would mean the next task is deciding what wording works best for the "controversial"/"no consensus" issue. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it would be silly and POINT-y and BATTLEFIELD-y for MoS to recommend (or suggest) doing something that we know goes against the established practice for birds. If someone were going to create an article about the cross-eyed booby, then we want them to use the title Cross-eyed Booby, to be consistent with all the other bird articles. It would serve no purpose to tell them that there are (some number of) editors who vociferously disagree with this practice (the same is true of many of the points in the MoS); and it would certainly be counter-productive to encourage them to title their article using lower case. If you want to change the practice (which I kind of agree would be a good thing) then start an RfC specifically about doing so, and see if a sufficient degree of consensus can be gained for diong so.--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from Summary)
 * Darkfrog, I think this is an excellent summary. Here's a bit to add to it. I think the resistance being encountered is due to the phrase "but this is controversial". That can be misleading, as it is not controversial in bird-related publications. How about something like "but this is controversial outside bird-related literature" or "but this is controversial outside biological literature"? (Aside: this is also standard practice in mammal and butterfly ID guides. As much as some don't like it, the trend is spreading to other disciplines.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Thank you. I worked hard on it.
 * 2. "Bird-related publications" could too easily be interpreted to include the articles in WP:BIRDS, and the use of capital letters in WP:BIRDS is the subject of the current controversy. I also find that many forms of biological literature use lowercase species names, so it would not be appropriate to state or imply that it isn't controversial within biological literature.
 * How about "but this is controversial on Wikipedia"? I thought that was implied by the fact that it's a WP guideline, but I have zero problem saying it straight out.  I've supported adding the words "on Wikipedia" before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, I disagree that "bird-related publications" could possibly refer to Wikipedia, as it is not a publication. As a compromise, how about something like "but this is controversial outside specifically bird-related literature, of which Wikipedia is not a member"? Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been referring to Wikipedia as a publication throughout this conversation.
 * Why say "of which Wikipedia is not a member" when one could just say "this is controversial on Wikipedia"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what's getting me about mentioning ornithology journals is that we don't want people copying specialists left and right. If we say "WP:BIRDS does this because ornithology journals and bird watching guides do this" then what's to stop other editors from randomly copying specialist sources?  No, we should not say anything that could be interpreted to mean that a specialist consensus outside Wikipedia automatically trumps WP:MoS.  Bird editors had to fight for years to get their status quo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just think it's important to tell the whole story. The truth is, this is not controversial among Wikipedians who edit bird articles. That's why I don't like the statement as you've written it. After all, that's why WP:BIRDS has adopted the position it has: it is not controversial among "bird people". I'm not sure how to convey that in a way that will satisfy both sides. You've apparently been trying for a long time, no? How about, "this convention, while adopted by WP:BIRDS (and other bird-related literature), is controversial on Wikipedia"? Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OTOH, the recurring nature of the discussion, even among editors who edit bird articles and members of WP:BIRDS (which are different but overlapping sets of people) indicates that it is controversial even among Wikipedians who edit bird articles, not all of whom are B&Os. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think we're making progress. That's what the term "Wikipedia-level consensus" is supposed to mean; that there may be some consensus, a local consensus, but that it isn't a Wikipedia-level consensus.
 * "The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species, while the prevailing practice on WP:BIRDS (following the practice of ornithology journal articles), is controversial on Wikipedia." Hm, we don't want people to interpret that as permission to go in and change capitals to lowercase... "The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species has local consensus within WP:BIRDS (following the practice of ornithology journal articles), but this is controversial on Wikipedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking good, Darkfrog. May I offer this slight tweak? "The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species has local consensus within WP:BIRDS (following the practice of both professional and nonprofessional bird-reated publications), but this is controversial on Wikipedia." As written, the last version could be read as meaning that only ornithological journals use this convention, but it is present in both professional and nonprofessional works, including books--not just journal articles. Sorry for being picky, just want to be as clear as possible to help reduce potential future drama! Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shorten "the practice of both professional and non-professional bird-related publications" → "the practice of bird-related publications"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. "Bird-related publications" could be interpreted as including Wikipedia articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I don't wish to fight about this. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! That's the whole reason that MoS regulars are okay with even implying that WP:BIRDS has an exception to the capitalization rules.  We know we can't stop you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Nope. If "bird-related publications" can be interpreted as including Wikipedia articles, then so can "both professional and non-professional bird-related publications", unless you feel that Wikipedia is a third class outside "professional" and "non-professional". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that phrase last night, actually, largely because the MoS has a lot of length-snippers. "Ornithology books and journal articles" would cover most of the publications that are intended by "professional and non-professional ornithology publications." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue there is "ornithology", which apparently does not encompass birders and their pubs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ornithology journals and birdwatching books." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do like the "de facto" that was just mentioned. "Although the de facto capitalization of the common names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "the practice of some bird-related publications". There are exceptions, like this nice book and this one and this one.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be cool with "some," but I've been getting the impression that "most" would be more accurate. Also, how to people feel about a Wikilink to local consensus? "Although the de facto capitalization of the common names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of most academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Most" is without a doubt accurate. "The vast majority" would also be accurate in my experience. Of the many hundreds of sources I pore over every year, only one or two will not follow this convention. "Some" is not appropriate in my opinion, as it suggests the topic is controversial in the sphere of birding and ornithology--it is not. Darkfrog, I have only one small concern with what you suggested above. Namely, the usage of the phrase "common name", which is itself controversial among ornithologists because it implies there is no accepted standard. "English name" or "English-language name" is, however, not controversial to my knowledge. I propose the following: "Although the de facto capitalization of the English-language names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of most academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia." I thank everyone involved in this thread for their civility. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether "common name" is controversial among ornithologists, it isn't controversial among Wikipedia readers. However, I don't see why English-language name would be controversial to anyone, so *thumbs-up.* Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! What's the next step? Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Most" might be true, but "the vast majority" is not, I think, based on how easy it is to find counter-examples with gbs. Like this search where 6 or 10 recent bird books say "the Canada goose"; or this one where 7 or 10 have "the green-winged teal". Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, in your second example (I confess to not looking at the first), the sources that don't capitalize are 1) about painting duck decoys, 2) part of a naturalist library, 3) about wildlife and resource management, 4) part of a general wildlife encyclopedia, and 5) part of a general wildlife book. Of those, I contend that only 2 is an "ornithology publication". It's also slightly unfair to use the phrase "the green-winged teal", because when bird names are capitalized, the definite article is not always used, as with many proper nouns. I couldn't find an example right away with "Green-winged Teal", but here's one with [|Virginia's Virginia's Warbler]. Usage of the definite article even varies within the same source! Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I can stipulate that these aren't representative of the hundreds of books that you pore over every year; but they are "bird related" publications. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which still doesn't matter. and like all other encyclopedias, as well as virtually all dictionaries, newspapers, non-birder books, magazines, and general (i.e. not exclusively ornithological) zoological and other scientific journals, it should not adopt an ungrammatical convention that makes Wikipedia look like it's edited by children who can't spell properly. It boggles the mind that this concept is so hard to get across to certain people.  Look folks, I like pool (in the billiards sense) a whole lot. A real boatload of pool books, probably a majority of them  to capitalize the crap out of everything pool players think of as important and distinct. "The Game of 9-Ball", "a Snooker Cue", "a Billiard Table".  That doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do this in cue sports articles. It makes us look unprofessional and collectively stupid. I have no problem at all with bird field guides and some but not all bird journals capitalizing common names of birds. I don't write nasty letters to Billiards Digest about their abuse of the English language either. I chalk it up to the fact that specialists, from doctors to lawyers to footballers to herpetologists just can't seem to stop capitalizing stuff they care a lot about.  In their specialist, insider publications that no one but them care about or see. And ever time I see them do it in a Wikipedia article I correct them, regardless of the topic. I don't know why bird fanciers are willing to fight with the most un-damned-believable level of mendacious, tendentious tenacity for over seven years to have some magical exception, like God herself came down and granted them a right to make up their own grammar rules.  Enough is enough.  This is not Birdipedia. If a handful of members of WP:BIRDS is going to continue to fight to the death over this, and MOS is going to mention the exception they demand, against broader consensus, this has to be noted as controversial.  Anything else would be a blatant damned lie.  I appreciate Dicklyon's work to dispel the idea that all birder/ornithologist publications capitalize – it should be dispelled, and I've already linked many times to WT:BIRDS discussions admitting that the practice is not universal in those circles – but it's really a red herring to think that we actually need to dispel that idea in the first place. It's simply not relevant. Wikipedia should do what encyclopedias do, because it's an encyclopedia, not a bird field guide and not The Auk. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Chicago manual of Style
So, what does the often mentioned Chicago manual of style actually have to say about this: What do we have here. First of all, CMoS yields to dictionaries and the ICBN and ICZN. The ICZN does not regulate common names, so it is weird for the CMoS to refer to them for common names. But, what is important is that they recognize that there are external sources that have something to say about this contentious topic. That leads to the next section: So, what we have here is that the CMoS explicit states that their rules are not set in stone and that you should follow conventions as they are within specific fields. They themselves explicitly yield to external sources for the proper spelling of names. So, if anything, the CMoS does not dictate that all names should be lowercase, but indicates that it is appropriate to be flexible when the convention within a field differs from their rules. Ergo, what WP:BIRS is doing by following the authoritative guide to bird names is what the CMoS suggests us to do. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative                 guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.118. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform                  to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary".
 * Q. At one time, the location of a publisher could be used to get a phone number via directory assistance. This is no longer  how anyone would do it, and publishers have frequently moved, been acquired, and so forth, so the location is often highly   ambiguous. Authors spend tens of thousands of hours annually looking up or making up publisher locations. I’m   staring now at a copy editor’s request that I identify the location of Cambridge University Press—and   the editor says it is because you insist on it. Can you give me any sane reason for this collective expenditure of effort   and print in 2012? It would make me feel better, as it feels like an empty ritual of no contemporary value, engaged in by   a field that is unaware of the digital era. Insistence on archaic rules brings to mind the replicant lament in Blade Runner, “Then we’re stupid and we’ll die.”
 * A. We are so misunderstood! CMOS is not in the business of insisting on this or that. From our very first edition in 1906 we have stated very clearly that  “rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of   rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.”   As for place of publication, in scholarly research it can be useful in tracking the development of the literature within a   discipline (especially in instances where publishers are old and obscure). In fact, it’s not unusual   for an academic to write a bibliography that includes only the place of publication for each work cited, without the publisher.   When that happens, the editor or publisher must decide whether to require more information.


 * Okay, so CMoS says "refer to dictionaries." Dictionary.com uses lowercase for "starling," "harpy eagle" and "white-throated sparrow."
 * Yes, Chicago allows for exceptions, but WP:Birds hasn't proven in a concrete way that an exception is merited. For example, in American English, periods and commas are supposed to go inside adjacent closing punctuation marks ("like this.") A clear and overwhelming majority of American English style guides state this; it's what's taught in schools; it's what 99% of American English documents actually do. However, many American literary criticism and computer programming journals prefer the British style, in which periods and commas are placed according to sense.  This is because they discuss punctuation and strings literal, respectively, in such a way that correctly tucked closing punctuation might cause confusion.  So, in these two branches of academia, you'll see an exception to prevailing American English rules.  WP:Birds has cited no such practical basis for its capitalization practices.
 * That's why we talk about style guides plural. We're looking at all the reliable sources rather than just a narrow subset.  If the overwhelming majority of English language style guides and publications either recommend or use lowercase, then Wikipedia should too.
 * We've been talking in circles for days here. What SmC's points actually do is describe the status quo.  They take bird editors' preference for capital letters and they state it in the guideline.  That will protect articles in WP:birds from being converted to lowercase by overzealous editors.  By stating that this practice is controversial/questioned/not universally regarded as correct, it protects articles outside of WP:Birds from capitalization by those same overzealous editors.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cherry picking is an art. CMoS states also: "or the authoritative guides to nomenclature". Anyway, could you pealse direct me to those many other style guides. I would like to poick them apart as well just like what I did with the CMoS that actually supports the WP:BIRD position. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But what we've been talking about this whole time is which guides should be considered authoritative and in what context.
 * Chicago is the big one. Some of the others, in no particular order, are the MLA Style Guide, the Style Guide of the American Psychological Association, Style Guide of the American Medical Association, Style Guide of the American Chemical Society, Fowler's Guide to English Usage, and New Hart's Rules.  There is a longer list here at Style guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one asserts that style guides' rules are set in stone. Their recommendations are intended to reflect common usage (just as those of the MoS are), frequently are updated in accordance with real-word changes (e.g. when the AP Stylebook switched from "Web site" to "website"), and may be followed or ignored as each individual publication deems fit.
 * "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives," but it recognizes that no convention is applicable to all contexts and defers to specialist authorities when appropriate. "When appropriate" = "when writing for a specialist publication/audience or in a context in which its conventions are relevant".
 * We aren't citing style guides because they make the rules. We're citing them because they expertly compile the rules most widely followed in professional publications (general ones in the case of general style guides).  The situation isn't "x is true because y says so"; it's "y says x because it's true".  Reliable non-specialist sources overwhelmingly favor the use of lowercase styling for common names of birds.
 * Frankly, the "set in stone" arguments are emanating from WikiProject Birds. —David Levy 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I am glad we can agree that style guides are not set in stone. So, now that we have solved that issue, we can remove the strawman argument that the style guide dictate lower case for bird names. And as I have shown here, the CMoS even refers to authoritative guides, which is exactly what WP:BIRD is doing. What is controversial is that WP editors do not like that. And that is the controversy, not that WP:BIRDS follows the rules of the game. As such, the continued insistence to kick the WP:BIRD editors in the ass because they are not willing to bow to the dictate of the generic editors has to stop. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we can agree, then, since style guides are not set in stone, that everyone is free to disregard IOC's and WP:BIRDS's and write proper English again in bird articles. (Sarcastic and haughtily dismissive pseudo-logic works both ways.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh, no. You seem to confuse Style Guide with Authoritative Guide for names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Missing the point entirely. You're trying desperately to cite IOC as a style guide as well as fact guide. If you hold that style guides can be ignored, then IOC can be ignored as a style guide (even if it has be considered reliable for nomenclatural facts, like the fact that the common name "Mexican jay", styled with title case or not, is and only is equivalent to Aphelocoma wollweberi and no other species binomial and vice versa.) QED, checkmate, please drive through. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not missing the point, and thus not checkmate. Authoritative guide does not imply lack of authority over style. CMOS refers to them under the Capitalization of Animals and Plant Names! They yield. Not the other way round. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Defiantly putting your king back on the board doesn't mean the game didn't end. Everyone else on this page understands that you've contradicted yourself into a corner, even if you won't face it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can proclaim what you want. That is your choice. It works with some people. They will feel intimidated. I see its a sign of weakness. And as for you edit summary, glad you bailing out, Maybe the more sensible people can finish this discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That you put this in terms of combat instead of game play says much more than you think. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I see this as a discussion based on merrits. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one here trying to insult you or other WP:Birds editors in any way. We just don't agree with you that a set of rules meant for specialist publications is appropriate or necessary in a general publication.  Just because CMoS admits that common English rules don't apply to all situations doesn't mean that they don't apply to this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself? I do happen to dislike excessive capitalization, but the overwhelming majority of English language style guides agree that non-proper nouns should not be capitalized in ordinary prose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I am glad we can agree that style guides are not set in stone. So, now that we have solved that issue, we can remove the strawman argument that the style guide dictate lower case for bird names.
 * You're conflating two separate concepts and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
 * Style guides don't "dictate" anything. As noted above, we aren't citing them in that context; we're citing them as authorities on the subject of common usage.
 * And as I have shown here, the CMoS even refers to authoritative guides, which is exactly what WP:BIRD is doing.
 * Again, you're ignoring context. The distinction between specialist and non-specialist publications is very real.  I'm not aware of any style guide that recommends the use of specialist style conventions (where they differ from non-specialist usage) in non-specialist contexts.
 * What is controversial is that WP editors do not like that.
 * One could say the same about members of WikiProject Birds and their opinion of the convention overwhelmingly favored outside of their circle. But whom to blame (if anyone) for the disagreement is irrelevant to the question of whether the matter is controversial.
 * And that is the controversy, not that WP:BIRDS follows the rules of the game.
 * Wikipedia is in the "general-interest encyclopedia" game. WikiProject Birds follows the rules of a different game.  (If you disagree, please cite some reliable non-specialist sources that routinely capitalize common names of birds.)
 * This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that WikiProject Birds is wrong. But even if we assume that it's sensible for Wikipedia to follow its preferred convention, this remains an unambiguous exception to our normal style rules (as members of the WikiProject have acknowledged).
 * As such, the continued insistence to kick the WP:BIRD editors in the ass because they are not willing to bow to the dictate of the generic editors has to stop.
 * I'm sorry that you perceive good-faith disagreement in such a light. —David Levy 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Very cogent analysis, David. Another thing is that CMOS doesn't make sense on this one in more than one way when it says: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN." It's not just that they've suggested organizations not relevant to the matter, the entire thing is confused.  No dictionary can tell you what the common name of Notophthalmus viridescens is, only how to spell "eastern" and "newt" and whether they are proper names by themselves. I don't think any dictionary in the world has "eastern newt" in it, capitalized or not. Webster's Third New International, which I think is the second-largest print dictionary of English after the OED, does not (notably, it does have "eastern kingbird" and "eastern larch", lower case).  Meanwhile, taxonomic organizations theoretically (maybe CMOS can be forgiven for picking ones that don't deal with common names much) are a proper source for what those names are and for the spelling of scientific names, but are not authoritative on grammar rules like proper nouns and capitalization.  CMOS basically just brainfarted really badly on the entire thing.  The guide's guidance on this particular topic basically cannot be parsed as meaningful.  I've looked through several others at my disposal, and they simply don't address the issue, probably because common usage is so overwhelmingly anti-caps that they didn't feel they needed to. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, so we have the CMoS, which was touted as THE authoritative guide, brainfarting. Interesting how it first is used against a whole group of editors and when it turns out that it does not support the assertion made all along, it is brainfarting. I call that special pleading based on I don't like it!!!!!. And as cherry on the cake, "they simply don't address the issue". So much for being a reliable source. NOT. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, no one has cited The Chicago Manual of Style in the manner that you claim. That's the straw man.  —David Levy 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I certainly never did. All I've ever heard anyone reasonably say about it on this issue is that it defers to dictionaries. The ICZN bit is just "noise". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the feeling we're just feeding something here and should stop responding, declare victory per the "Wikipedia is not a filibuster' principle, and move on, because all the arguments rapidly turn circular (at best) with this party. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting to just strong handle this discussion? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means. What I am suggesting is that you are intentionally filibustering instead of working toward consensus, and that a consensus clearly exists that capitalizing common names of animals is controversial (a.k.a. is something that a majority of sources and editors believe is incorrect a.k.a. does not have site-wide consensus a.k.a. however else it can be phrased). I'm further suggesting that something to this effect should clearly be added to the guidelines over your objection, because your objection has yet to demonstrate or try to demonstrate that the controversy does not exist; rather it is motivated by strengthening the apparent position of WP:BIRDS in the guidelines, at all costs, and you clearly will not be satisfied by any wording that does not blatantly promote WP:BIRDS and its idea as a good and well-accepted one, which simply cannot happen because it isn't true. Ironically, the effect all this is having is making the WP:BIRDS position look increasingly irrational and indefensible, when it wasn't really under attack in this guideline synching endeavour to begin with. We were going out of our way to accommodate the project and its quirks. I think a number of editors are now much less inclined to do so. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus and "declare victory" are not compatible. So, what is it going to be? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am still a person, not a something. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a thing. I'm referring to what seems to be a monstrous maw of circular reasoning, ever hungry, that eats everything in its path, that you are using to waste everyone's time. Every argument you have raised has been repeatedly addressed by multiple parties, but you continue to say the same things over and over again. It's pointless.  A lone editor being tendentious cannot, per WP:CONSENSUS, stop everyone else from coming to a consensus and proceeding. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Than please explain where the thing in this sentence was referring to: "we're just feeding something here".-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeat: "I'm referring to what seems to be a monstrous maw of circular reasoning, ever hungry, that eats everything in its path, that you are using to waste everyone's time." I honestly don't believe you are trolling, but the effect is very similar. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody asks you to stay in the discussion. You can leave anytime you want. But you seem to be so set on codifying the controversy into the MOS. The simple way out is to drop that and just document practice and underlying arguments and leave it to that. Really, if your purpose was to sync things, the fastest way would have been to just do that. And that would have been exactly the same as what printed style guides do. I cannot change that you chose differently. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure that you would like to see MOS enshrine what WP:BIRDS is doing as something with system-wide consensus, but that would be nearly the furthest thing from the truth. Leave the discussion? I'm trying to steer it somewhere useful. You don't jump out of a car you're trying to get somewhere in. This is the second time you've suggested I just go away. That's not a very convincing rhetorical position. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rant
Rant follows:

The more I read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to "rein in" the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS. In effect turning this into a personal battle of WikiProjects against WikiProjects when nothing could be further from the truth. As already pointed out repeatedly, the conventions exist outside of Wikipedia. The members of the affected WikiProjects are following the respective conventions of their respective fields. None of them are doing it just to thumb their noses at the more "mainstream" Wikipedia editors and continually implying it is so is extremely insulting. In particular the accusations of entire WikiProjects exhibiting WP:OWN is ridiculous. That's like saying the ornithologists or botanists or lepidopterists who are painstakingly standardizing common names are doing it for shits and giggles.

This isn't a "me layman, you specialist" type of argument, so drop the indignated act at how dare these WikiProjects subordinate already. We are all Wikipedians, none of us are acting as specialists here.

And a very prevalent false assumption here is that various specialist fields are somehow answerable to a higher power of generalists who dictate what should be. You couldn't be more wrong. A consensus within a specialist field is far more binding than a consensus within the general scientific community.

Again, the default in biological sciences is not to legislate any conventions whatsoever when it comes to common names. In short, there is no rule that says common names should be in sentence case, as far as I know. I challenge anyone to go dig something up from the nomenclatural governing bodies of the different fields. And please, not something completely unconnected to biological sciences like CMoS. That's like going to an Ichthyologist to get your tooth pulled out.

On the other hand, there are certain specialist groups that do impose conventions on common names for perfectly valid reasons - to avoid the inevitable confusion that follows when a name is unregulated. This must be respected. The fact that there are naming codes for binomina stems from the very same reason - to avoid confusion over which biologist is referring to what species.

Furthermore, yes this is a general encyclopedia. Does that make it okay to sacrifice scientific accuracy simply so the pages look prettier? Ugh. Priorities indeed. The academia already looks down on us for this very same reason, now we're actually legislating the dumbing down of Wikipedia. You may not notice it if you misspelled a scientific name or failed to italicize it (both of which someone here was guilty of in this very discussion), but those that do notice it immediately know that this person should not be talking about anything related to biology.

Think of it like Fox News, putting Egypt in the middle of Iran and Syria. Those who don't know their geography (which will be the majority) will just continue nodding their heads as the newscaster increasingly makes an idiot of him/herself. Does that mean the channel was justified in not putting extra care with their geography just because someone personally believes some people out there don't have maps?

And lastly, in addition to WP:MEDRS, the oft-quoted WP:RS is WP:NEWSORG, which explain quite clearly how the argument that New York Times is just as reliable as say The Auk is complete nonsense. I quote:

"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name."

--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to "rein in" the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS.
 * Meanwhile, others feel as though certain WikiProjects wish to "rein in" the ignorant peons who dare to defy the all-knowledgeable specialists' sacrosanct proclamations.
 * Personally, I think that it would be very helpful if editors on both sides were to set aside such attitudes and assume that all of us sincerely seek Wikipedia's betterment (and merely disagree on how to achieve it).
 * As already pointed out repeatedly, the conventions exist outside of Wikipedia. The members of the affected WikiProjects are following the respective conventions of their respective fields.
 * Agreed. There should be no doubt that the capitalization convention is real and legitimate.  The question is whether it belongs in Wikipedia.
 * Many specialist publications employ specialist style conventions. These reflect the needs and expectations of their specialist readerships, which aren't necessarily the same as those of a general audience.
 * Editors of entertainment-related articles might feel comfortable adopting the style conventions of Variety, a highly reputable authority (and likely source of factual information) widely imitated by industry writers. I suspect that the results would horrify you.
 * None of them are doing it just to thumb their noses at the more "mainstream" Wikipedia editors and continually implying it is so is extremely insulting.
 * You began your "rant" with the statement that "the more [you] read the discussion the more it seems to be that this is some sort of vendetta to 'rein in' the belligerent know-it-alls who dare to go against the all-powerful MOS." I realize that you're frustrated and genuinely perceive such an attack, but this is exactly the same attitude that you (rightly) condemn.
 * As noted above, such comments (from both sides) are unhelpful. I see no evidence that anyone is acting out of malice or spite.  This is an honest disagreement among editors seeking to improve Wikipedia.
 * In particular the accusations of entire WikiProjects exhibiting WP:OWN is ridiculous. That's like saying the ornithologists or botanists or lepidopterists who are painstakingly standardizing common names are doing it for shits and giggles.
 * On the contrary, most WP:OWN violations occur among passionate editors/editor groups who take their efforts to improve Wikipedia very seriously. It has nothing to do with frivolity.
 * This isn't a "me layman, you specialist" type of argument, so drop the indignated act at how dare these WikiProjects subordinate already. We are all Wikipedians, none of us are acting as specialists here.
 * Certainly, it would be incorrect to claim that every member of the WikiProjects in question has attempted to exercise special editorial authority. Some have straightforwardly acknowledged that they advocate exceptions and appealed to the Wikipedia community for support.
 * Others have conveyed (both here and at the WikiProjects themselves) a belief that WikiProjects are entitled to create special guidelines for "their" articles, overruling those of the wider community.
 * Again, however, this doesn't stem from sinister motives. It merely reflects the editors' sincere desire to ensure that articles about which they're passionate are written in what they believe to be the optimal manner.
 * Likewise, other editors are passionate about Wikipedia as a whole and merely want to ensure that it's written in what we believe to be the optimal manner. (And to be clear, I don't mean to imply that WikiProject members don't also care about Wikipedia as a whole.)
 * And a very prevalent false assumption here is that various specialist fields are somehow answerable to a higher power of generalists who dictate what should be.
 * I don't think that anyone is suggesting that. Specialists clearly are entitled to set standards for their own writing, including conventions deviating from general usage.
 * Our point is that on matters of grammatical style, general writers aren't somehow answerable to a higher power of non-grammarian specialists who dictate what should be (i.e. they aren't wrong to refer to a species as "common blackbird" instead of "Common Blackbird").
 * Both styles are valid in their respective contexts. Specialists are correct to write specialist literature in their styles, while non-specialists are correct to write non-specialist literature in theirs.
 * A consensus within a specialist field is far more binding than a consensus within the general scientific community.
 * Agreed. But these specialists aren't experts in the field of English grammar.
 * Again, the default in biological sciences is not to legislate any conventions whatsoever when it comes to common names. In short, there is no rule that says common names should be in sentence case, as far as I know.
 * They probably also lack rules against writing in ALL-UPPERCASE or uʍop-ǝpısdn. As you note, it isn't a biologist's place to legislate English conventions.
 * Furthermore, yes this is a general encyclopedia. Does that make it okay to sacrifice scientific accuracy simply so the pages look prettier?
 * You're begging the question. There is no consensus — here or among reliable sources in general — that failure to adhere to the convention in question "sacrifices scientific accuracy".
 * And I've seen no one cite "so the pages look prettier" as an argument against the convention's use at Wikipedia.
 * Think of it like Fox News, putting Egypt in the middle of Iran and Syria. Those who don't know their geography (which will be the majority) will just continue nodding their heads as the newscaster increasingly makes an idiot of him/herself.
 * Non-adherence to a style convention ≠ factual incorrectness.
 * "Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic."
 * No one disputes that. Ornithological publications typically are the most valuable sources of ornithological facts.  Likewise, botanical publications typically are the most valuable sources of botanical facts.  Neither ornithological publications nor botanical publications are the most valuable sources in the area of English grammar, a topic topic with which they deal only tangentially.  —David Levy 09:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Others have conveyed (both here and at the WikiProjects themselves) a belief that WikiProjects are entitled to create special guidelines for "their" articles, overruling those of the wider community."


 * ^That is exactly what I meant. The motives for superseding scientific convention is grounded within Wikipedia alone, including the accusation that it's the fault of the WikiProjects themselves. Since when did Wikipedia have the authority to supersede scientific convention? Forgive me but that smacks of arrogance.


 * Comparing scientific conventions to editorial conventions and relegating it to mere English grammar is horrific to me. Did you know that plants and animals have two very different styles of indicating authorship? Consider Nauclea orientalis (L.) L.  and Hylarana aurantiaca (Boulenger, 1904) .


 * N. orientalis indicates that it was first described by Linnaeus under a different genus and then transferred to another genus, again by Linnaeus. H. aurantiaca indicates that it was first described by George Albert Boulenger under a different genus in 1904 and has since been transferred. It's not necessary in the plant author citation to indicate when, conversely, the animal author citation does not indicate who transferred what.


 * These are not mere editorial differences. Neither can you force botanists to adopt the zoological convention and vice versa. In the same vein, you can not force common practice on a specialist convention unless they themselves accept it. Avoiding confusion when it comes to names may seem trivial to you but it's not. Taxonomy itself deals mostly with clarifying synonymies, and that's the same reason why some fields have adopted common name conventions. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. as for all-caps and upside down. WP:COMMONSENSE please. There is no rule in English grammar saying we're forbidden to do both either.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Translation:  But we're right!   —David Levy 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a fair translation for most of the messages in this page, including your own comments above. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't cite my belief that I'm right as justification for dismissing fellow editors' arguments as arrogant, bad-faith attempts to exert control over others (while simultaneously condemning this attitude on their part). —David Levy 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh lordy. Is that really all you can say? In case you didn't notice, dear sir, I work mostly on plants and animals which do not impose the title case convention, and since I myself prefer the sentence case, I use the sentence case. But by all means, if you don't have any rebuttals other than "it's English grammar!" and "Wikipedia makes its own rules, it should be so because Wikipedia says so!"1 feel free to continue asserting them until you've driven these upstart WikiProjects back down on their knees and stay there, aye? You've already driven one editor to retirement.


 * 1And no, no one needs to say those explicitly either, learn to read between the lines before making the tired accusation of "you're making a straw man argument!" as if that invalidates anything anyway.


 * Meanwhile I leave you all to this glorious tribunal of the almighty Wikipedian manual-of-stylists for great justice, while I go back to more productive work. You know... writing articles. Good day.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoa... Bit of a misconception there.  No one here has said that Wikipedia should make up its own rules.  People on both sides of this debate have only talked about following rules from the outside.  It is only that the general and specialist style guides have different rules on this point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Really doesn't seem that way to me. At least for the early parts of the er.. "discussion".--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed my point, which is that regarding oneself as right — including when one is right — isn't a license to dismiss fellow editors' arguments as arrogant, bad-faith attempts to exert control (while simultaneously condemning this attitude on their part).
 * We all need to work together, even when we feel that we're right and others are wrong (not that either necessarily is the case). Believe it or not, those "wrong" people are trying to write an encyclopedia too.  —David Levy 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny, because it wasn't I who just dismissed an argument. Anyway enough drama, I've far better things to do.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not dismissing your argument. I'm criticising it (while assuming that it reflects the honest views of someone who sincerely wishes to improve Wikipedia).
 * You wrote this:
 * I've expressed agreement that such comments are unhelpful (which is hardly dismissive on my part). However, you also wrote this:
 * The above, of course, is the exact attitude that you condemned in the very same paragraph (a belief that those on the other side of the debate are acting out of spite). When I noted this, your response was nothing more than an explanation of why you believe that you're right (which apparently transforms such remarks from "extremely insulting" to perfectly fine.)
 * We don't have a page titled "Assume good faith unless you believe that you're right and they're wrong". —David Levy 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above, of course, is the exact attitude that you condemned in the very same paragraph (a belief that those on the other side of the debate are acting out of spite). When I noted this, your response was nothing more than an explanation of why you believe that you're right (which apparently transforms such remarks from "extremely insulting" to perfectly fine.)
 * We don't have a page titled "Assume good faith unless you believe that you're right and they're wrong". —David Levy 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't it though? Even a very quick scan of the "discussion" reveals that the pro-legislate-the-common-names side's arguments basically amounted to accusations ad nauseam of WP:OWN, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:TE, WP:Gaming the system, "straw man", "begging the question", "ignoring consensus", [insert name of logical fallacy here] etc. Including your own comments. I mean, jeez this isn't a philosophical debate! What's more, all of it undeniably indicates that you somehow view the failure of some WikiProjects to conform to the majority of related (but not necessarily overarching) articles a deliberate act of bad faith. It's the most classic case of WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Policy shopping that I've ever seen, and sharply contrasts with the arguments of the "specialist" editors. With that disparity, how exactly can this "discussion" be AGFed? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   10:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While criticising some of the arguments made on this page, I've continually stressed that I don't question the birders' motives. Example:
 * Indeed, I've cited WP:OWN. As that policy reminds us, most violations occur among users acting in good faith.
 * You've deemed it "extremely insulting" when editors accuse the birders of exerting editorial control out of spite (and I agree), but you find it reasonable to lodge exactly the same accusation against those with whom you disagree (in the same paragraph!). This is unhelpful.  —David Levy 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's also not forget that there's more than just "good faith" and "bad faith". That's a childish, "I really believe in Star Wars" approach. No one has to be Emperor Palpatine to exercise poor judgment with regard to what is best for a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia because they are so steeped to their insider, specialist conventions from ornithology journals and bird field guides that they come across as unable to even contemplate writing for a different audience with different standards.  This kind of crap happens all the time.  I cannot tell you how many pool players I know who insist on capitalizing "9-Ball" (even though every single grammar book in the known universe says you never capitalize the part after the hyphen unless it's independently a proper name, and we don't capitalize non-trademarked game names at all anyway), or how many chess player cannot stand to write "pawn" or "king" because they feel they "must" be capitalized, to the expectant nods of all chess players and the outrage of everyone else who gives a damn about grammar and not looking like a moron who can't spell. Every other specialist on the planet wants to capitalize stuff from their field that they feel is important and special.  They're welcome to do that in chess magazines and pool books and whatever. In an encyclopedia is just the worst idea ever, because pretty soon every damned noun is going to end up capitalized like we're speaking German.  Enough, enough, enough.   T H I S  I S   N O T   B I R D I P E D I A.   Learn this. Know it. Feel it.  And it's not some kind of incivil attack behavior to question the motives of certain birders who reappear in these perennial debates regurgitating the same arguments, when the suspicion is one of misprioritization not of malice.  Science geeks rarely make good novelists or journalists.  They often don't make good encyclopedists, either, missing the forest for the trees.  (I say that as a science geek, who has done a whole lot of other kinds of writing; learning to separate them and use the right style for the right audience is a skill that has to be learned). I don't think a single person in this debate is acting in bad faith. But some have their faces press up against trees they think are more important than the larger environment they're operating in. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's also not forget that there's more than just "good faith" and "bad faith". That's a childish, "I really believe in Star Wars" approach. No one has to be Emperor Palpatine to exercise poor judgment with regard to what is best for a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia because they are so steeped to their insider, specialist conventions from ornithology journals and bird field guides that they come across as unable to even contemplate writing for a different audience with different standards.  This kind of crap happens all the time.  I cannot tell you how many pool players I know who insist on capitalizing "9-Ball" (even though every single grammar book in the known universe says you never capitalize the part after the hyphen unless it's independently a proper name, and we don't capitalize non-trademarked game names at all anyway), or how many chess player cannot stand to write "pawn" or "king" because they feel they "must" be capitalized, to the expectant nods of all chess players and the outrage of everyone else who gives a damn about grammar and not looking like a moron who can't spell. Every other specialist on the planet wants to capitalize stuff from their field that they feel is important and special.  They're welcome to do that in chess magazines and pool books and whatever. In an encyclopedia is just the worst idea ever, because pretty soon every damned noun is going to end up capitalized like we're speaking German.  Enough, enough, enough.   T H I S  I S   N O T   B I R D I P E D I A.   Learn this. Know it. Feel it.  And it's not some kind of incivil attack behavior to question the motives of certain birders who reappear in these perennial debates regurgitating the same arguments, when the suspicion is one of misprioritization not of malice.  Science geeks rarely make good novelists or journalists.  They often don't make good encyclopedists, either, missing the forest for the trees.  (I say that as a science geek, who has done a whole lot of other kinds of writing; learning to separate them and use the right style for the right audience is a skill that has to be learned). I don't think a single person in this debate is acting in bad faith. But some have their faces press up against trees they think are more important than the larger environment they're operating in. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR break (for people summoned here by outreach)
Sorry, have not read all the above, but impression I got is that we will just formalize what exists already. Looks like all are pretty calm. I personally prefer the usage in newspapers and Britannica of old school lowercasing. (Do you say "Chef's Knife" or "chef's knife" when indicating the compound noun versus the possessed item?) That said, I know the birders have been going a different direction for 50 years. And will point to field guide usage and the tendancies of their journals. And it would never do to try to reign them in. I think some common sense trench is what makes sense.

Only thing is that what makes sense is ALL the species in a birder article should be handled the way they want. And the converse. So "Painted Turtle" in their article. But in the Painted turtle article itself, normal capitalization "painted turtle" is used...and similarly it is "bald eagle" within that article.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's disagreed with that point. Consistency within the article is one of MOS's key functions. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR indeed. I intend to follow usage in reliable sources. When it comes to Australian plants, reliable sources overwhelmingly favour capitalisation of common names. Is there a single argument in this wall of text that trumps my desire to follow the nomenclature and orthography of my field by doing what my colleagues do in real publications in real reliable sources in the real world? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia always works best with a single rule to refer to, and I would support the orginal points. I personally don't agree with capitalising bird names, it seems like an affectation, but we wither need to agree to enforce lower case on birds, or include the point in the MOS that all animals are lower case except birds. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A crucial point lost in the mess here is that the birds exception is, and for over seven years has been, highly controversial. How to express that in a non-inflammatory way is where we're at. There's no resolution to the birds debate in sight, so MOS simply needs to observe that the controversy exists and that the WP:BIRDS hold-out position should not (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy) be emulated in any sort of "If WP:BIRDS gets one, our project now demands an exception for [insert random style issue here], too!" free-for-all. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As before, you choose to ignore the fact (and it is a fact) that it is not only in bird articles that capitalization is used (and will continue to be used whatever the MOS says). I can only repeat what Hesperian says above for Austrialian sources, "When it comes to [British] plants, reliable sources overwhelmingly favour capitalisation of common names. Is there a single argument in this wall of text that trumps my desire to follow the nomenclature and orthography of my field by doing what my colleagues do in real publications in real reliable sources in the real world? No, I didn't think so." Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The flaw in that argument is that "reliable sources" ≠ "specialist sources". Wikipedia is a non-specialist publication, so it usually reflects the style conventions of reliable non-specialist sources.  —David Levy 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a flaw in my argument. Reliable sources in my field capitalise common names. This statement holds across the board, from wildflower books pitched at the average Joe, through to taxonomic treatises written for working botanists. Hesperian 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...both of which are specialist publications. Again, those aren't the only "reliable sources".  What do non-specialist publications (i.e. those not dedicated to coverage of plants/nature, such as general-audience books, newspapers, magazines and websites) do?  —David Levy 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? Publications not dedicated to coverage of plants don't bother to talk about plant species. They aren't exactly pop culture you know. Hesperian 01:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You assert, if I understand correctly, that common names of plant species don't appear (or rarely appear) outside botanical publications. Is that what you mean?  —David Levy 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow I might be in the mood to expand our article on Banksia pulchella, the Teasel Banksia. I assert that I won't find any information on that plant worth including in the article, other than in reliable sources that you would deem "specialist". I furthermore assert that the vast majority of reliable sources on that plant will give the common name in title case. Hesperian 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the vast majority of reliable sources on capitalization will tell you not to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...which reduces this discussion to the pointless bickering of ideologues. I have to make a choice between being consistent with my sources, and being consistent across Wikipedia. Some of us value consistency with sources. Others value consistency across Wikipedia. These are ideological positions. There is no rational basis for arguing for one over the other... except for the ad hominem observation that the people who value consistency with sources are generally the people who come to Wikipedia to edit articles, whereas the people who value consistency across Wikipedia are generally the people who come to Wikipedia to impose rules on other editors. Hesperian 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, guides and sources are better than guesses. Check out the lowercase 5 of first 9 (skipping the wp copy) Teasel Banksia book hits.  This indicates that capitalization is not necessarily; there's no need to override the MOS style to be consistent with good sources.  Same way with birds, dog breeds, comets, etc.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A highly illustrative example. Note that the ones that use lower case are precisely those that have zero value as reliable sources when it comes to writing the article: a book on ecofriendly design that makes a passing reference to the species; a book on growing Australian plants from seed that doesn't treat this species at all other than to include it in a table of names; a travelog; a coffee table book about Australian landscapes. Now look at the ones that do: Sweedman (2006), an excellent source which our stub already cites; several solid taxonomic monographs on the genus, the renowned Banksia Atlas. Of course you would also want to cite solid online sources like this and this and this and this. Hesperian 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is intended to serve readers first and foremost. Most of Wikipedia's readers are unacquainted with botanical literature and the specialist conventions thereof.
 * Editors of entertainment-related articles might feel comfortable adopting the style conventions of Variety, a highly reputable authority (and likely source of factual information) widely imitated by industry writers. I suspect that the outcome would horrify you.
 * Consistency across Wikipedia isn't the primary goal; consistency with reliable sources is. And while specialist publications are reliable sources on matters of fact, they don't trump general publications on matters of style.
 * I agree that assertions of inherent "rightness" and "wrongness" (from both sides) are ideological and unhelpful. Clearly, each of the two styles is appropriate within its respective context (specialist and non-specialist literature).  But it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Wikipedia is a non-specialist publication and argue that it should be written accordingly (which it is in almost every subject area).  —David Levy 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated that "publications not dedicated to coverage of plants don't bother to talk about plant species." This is patently false.  I don't expect editors of Wikipedia's plant articles to derive factual information (e.g. ecology and life cycle) from many non-specialist sources, but that doesn't negate their relevance on matters of style.  —David Levy 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. I have no interest whatsoever in what a crappy coffee table travelog calls a plant. I care what people who know and write about the plant call it. Hesperian 11:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we were to apply that principle to my industry, our film/television articles would contain such terms as "aud", "ayem", "boff", "chopsocky", "competish", "crix", "distribbery", "floppola", "hotsy", "kudocast", "laffer", "meller", "mitting", "nabe", "nitery", "oater", "ozoner", "percentery", "perf", "praisery", "preem", "prexy", "sked", "spesh", "sudser" and "terper".
 * How would you feel about that? —David Levy 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If these are the preferred terminology of the reliable sources that you use to write your articles, then you have my full support. But I expect they are just slang terms, never used in reliable sources, and therefore not relevant to this discussion. Hesperian 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As he stated, these are the terms used in the reliable sources of his industry, terms spearheaded by Variety, and just as relevant as B&O source usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are the preferred terminology, as in reliable sources generally use these terms in preference to others when they need to express a concept, then, as I stated, their use on Wikipedia has my full support. But I don't believe this is the case; I've plugged several of these into Google Scholar and Google Books, and I see no evidence that these are in common use in reliable sources on filmmaking. Hesperian 13:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As JHunterJ noted, these terms were coined by Variety (arguably the industry's most respected and influential print publication). They appear (in preference to other terms with the same meaning) in Variety and other reliable sources of television/film industry news (notably the Chicago Tribune).
 * And no, I won't be using them in our articles (apart from direct quotations and explanations of the terminology itself). Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for specialists in the individual subject areas covered.  —David Levy 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Reliable sources do not favor capitalisation of common names. Reliable sources overwhelmingly favor not capitalising common names, except for the first word of a sentence. Specialist sources represent a small subset of reliable sources, and within that subset the favor shifts, but Wikipedia does not restrict RS to that subset. If this were "Wikibotanypedia", we might so restrict RS, but this is a general encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Hesperian, there is. The argument is that because Wikipedia is not limited to your field but rather an encyclopedia (meaning that it covers as many fields as possible), it must not limit itself to one field when seeking reliable sources.  For the question of "should X or Y be capitalized," it can and should consult general style guides as well as specialist style guides. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The real world also "is not limited to your field", yet somehow, miraculously, it continues to turn, even while mammalologists and ornithologists dare to use different capitalisation conventions. Hesperian 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is a policy that states that an article should be based on the available WP:reliable sources, and that includes both general and specialist sources. And if that happens to be a bird article, that include capitalization. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You lead with "No" there, but you're agreeing with Darkfrog24 -- reliable sources include both specialist and general sources. And looking at both specialist and general sources for birds, the majority of them use sentence casing. It's only when you exclude general sources that you can find a case for using Title Casing, but as we've just agreed, we don't exclude general sources, we include both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. How many reliable sources have discussed that the common practice of bird editors to Capitalize Bird Names is incorrect? ZERO. What I have seen is claims of "This is how it is done, see all these generic style manuals" But neither actually says anything specific about birds. If I use that same methods, I could force creationism oin each and every biology article under the argument that "This is what people belief, see all these generic creationist books". Just using power of the numbers is not a valid way to determine what is correct, and definably not a reliable source. So, show me the reliable sources that discuss why the common practise of capitalizing bird names is incorrect and should not be done. We have shown the sources that argue it should be done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I have at my fingertips: Bedford Handbook, fifth edition, page 240, refers to "toucans" and "macaws," both lowercase, as part of an example of good writing. On page 242, it's "chickens" and "peacocks." I doubt it specifically addresses bird names specifically, but it does address the difference between common and proper nouns and, as we can see, it does use lowercase for bird names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an example of what the birders are talking about. As I understand it, they write robin, but American Robin.  This has the function of avoiding the confusion that an American robin might be any robin that's American, rather than the particular species called American Robin. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Darkfrog none of those are species. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would any of them talk about something so specific as bird names? I don't see how your request is reasonable or anyone's failure to answer it is a problem. Look—I don't think anyone is saying it is flat out wrong to capitalize them. Maybe a bit odd, but not totally wrong. The main point is that it is suboptimal to mix styles for different groups of species. Someone wants to capitalize plants names from Australia. Before it was African carnivorans. How many ways can we slice it? Since it seems pretty clear that in scholarly writing species names are capitalized a solid majority of the time, and this is supported by various style guides, it is reasonable for Wikipedia as a whole to capitalize species names. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources have discussed that the common practice of bird editors to Capitalize Bird Names is incorrect? ZERO.
 * No one asserts that it's incorrect for specialist editors to adopt specialist style conventions for specialist publications.
 * Wikipedia isn't a specialist publication, nor does it usually emulate specialist publications' style conventions inconsistent with those in general usage.
 * What I have seen is claims of "This is how it is done, see all these generic style manuals" But neither actually says anything specific about birds. If I use that same methods, I could force creationism oin each and every biology article under the argument that "This is what people belief, see all these generic creationist books".
 * Yet again, you're conflating the concepts of "fact" and "style".
 * No one disputes that ornithological publications typically are the most reliable sources of factual information about birds (e.g. their biology and breeding behavior). This doesn't make them authorities on English grammar (whose conventions negate the legitimacy of those in general usage).  —David Levy 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And to really establish capitalization, you'd probably need to exclude even journal articles about birds that are not in ornithology journals. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be based in the best sources. Generalist sources don't know the field in depth and can make all sort of mistakes and misinterpretations. Scholar books and articles in specialized journals are preferred to newspaper articles. WP:MEDRS makes this distinction very clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Specialist sources such as academic jounrals are the best at relaying facts and general-English style guides are the best at advising writers how to present thier information intelligibly. We should give each type of source precedence depending on what we're trying to do.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Generalist sources can spell the names incorrectly or misuse them because they are not written by experts in the field that are familiar with the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they usually don't. Conversely, I'm a proofreader of scientific journal articles, and "the experts" misspell things all the time.  This isn't a case of generalist sources getting it wrong; this is a case of a split between generalist and specialist guidance.
 * Let's look at your example, WP:MEDRS. It actually supports the idea that sources should be considered reliable or not depending on how they're to be used.  Here's it's take on general news articles (contrasted with academic journal articles, bold and italics mine):
 * The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles.
 * A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.
 * Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article.
 * In other words, WP:MEDRS says to prefer academic journals over newspaper articles et al. for scientific facts while maintaining that news articles are indeed reliable for other types of information. WP:MEDRS supports the ideas of combining academic sources with other sources on Wikipedia and of using sources based on the source's subject matter, audience and area of expertise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Options for making the point that it's controversial
Here's a bullet-point analysis of the phrases offered as alternatives to choose from so far, to describe the MOS stance on the controversial exception that WP:BIRDS has been operating under, to always capitalize common names of birds. Three seem viable and interchangeable, and two more could be useful add-ons in wordier guidelines. The rest are problematic.

These three seem equivalent to me, more or less: Just so the five guidelines don't all simply have the same text copy-pasted between them, I'd suggest they all be used on different pages. But someone may feel that one or another of them is inflammatory or something. All three of these variants are provably true, but the intent is to simply be factual, neither appeasing nor antagonizing, and it is difficult to predict who'll react how to what. I was very surprised, example, that someone found "controversial" to be more troublesome than "doesn't have consensus".
 * "is controversial"
 * "is perennially disputed",
 * "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus".

This pair are both true, but hinge the issue on externally-derived prescriptive grammar: There are actually multiple more important objections to upper-casing animal names. The two biggest are public perception of WP as low-credibility and incompetently edited, and lack of consistency leading to editorial confusion and chaos, both very real, interrelated and definitely tied to this issue. (The credibility one, i.e. "it makes us look like illiterates", is also incidentally the one most often raised in journals and other scientific fora by capitalization-opposing specialists in fields where capitalization is being pushed; it is far from a trivial or idle concern someone just made up on a wikiproject talk page.) I do like both of those bulleted phrases, and they are good as reasons in the more detailed sub-guidelines, but I think MOS mainpage should stick to the "controversial"/"disputed"/"no consensus" point up top. As someone else suggested, detailing the exact nature of the dispute isn't germane to MOS's scope, and could be controversial itself.
 * "is not consistently regarded as correct"
 * "contradicts the advice of general-English style guides"

This next one is too loaded, as "propriety" implies a moral/ethical issue to many people:
 * "the propriety of this practice on Wikipedia is questioned".

The next two lend the MOS consensus imprimatur to something that is very, very contentious: They imply that the WP:BIRDS practice does have partial endorsement from MOS or is recommended by MOS for birds and is a status quo acceptable to community at large, none of which is true (common names of animals are not capitalized, est. ca. 2008).
 * "is not fully endorsed by MOS"
 * "is not recommended for WikiProjects for which it is not already the status quo"

This one implies MOS is a policy that can demand, tolerate, or ban something: It also again lends an imprimatur of acceptance that isn't real.
 * The use of capital letters for the common names of bird species is tolerated in WP:BIRDS but not recommended"

This one misstates the facts: As noted elsewhere in the longer debate, there is no such consensus, just what WP:BIRDS has twice called called "an increasingly common" or "growing ornithological convention", "by no means universal" "amongst bird authorities, but widespread", to synthesize the two,&#91;1&#93; &#91;2&#93; and it is based on a list provided by the IOC who are ;&#91;3&#93; meanwhile, someone even observed use of title case in U.S.-based bird publications.(forgot where, but ran across it 3x earlier; it'll turn up again.) More importantly, it wrongly implies that MOS actually defers to project "guidelines" when they conflict with MOS, and implies that any project is free to use any convention it can find somewhere in specialist literature for anything, against whatever the real guidelines say. That would be a Pandora's box clearly forbidden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in 2012's Wikipedia.
 * "WP:BIRDS follows the consensus in the ornithology literature to capitalize common names of birds"

The core message is: "MOS has a lower-case standard for this, like the rest of the writing, editing and publishing world for general-audiences and very nearly all specialist audiences. One group of editors controversially does the opposite of what the MOS recommends. MOS isn't going to fight with them about it, since that's not is job, just acknowledge that the dispute exists and call for consistency everywhere else."

[Note: Yes, some editors of certain kinds of plants and insects and whales and whatever articles prefer the WP:PLANTS style, but did not collectively at other projects arrive at any project-level consensuses to go there, or, like WP:CETACEANS, did for a while, but abandoned it in the face of the same criticism that made WP:PLANTS become entrenched instead. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would not permit other projects to do so today anyway, making the matter moot. We don't need to account for outliers. Plenty of editors think that Capital Letters Can Be Used for Emphasis, that quotations like to be or not to be should be italicized instead of quoted (or worse "both"), or that it's fine, ain't it, to use contractions, and gobsmacking, ornery colloquialisms, and a bunch of FUBAR jargon, and their' own quirky misuse's of apostrophes. We do not make exceptions for them, and there's no need to make exceptions for those who would prefer to write "Blue Whale" or "Death-Cap Mushroom". To then extent it is deemed important at an article to note an "authoritative" names being given in upper case, there's a simple solution that has nothing to do with MOS. The purpose of mentioning WP:BIRDS here, by name or otherwise, is only to note the dispute, both to prevent spread of the style beyond birds and to prevent "overzealous editors" from going on a fight-starting decapitalizing spree in bird articles while there is still active debate about bird name style. It's not to lend imprimatur to the project's preferences or advertise that other projects should line up to get their own custom MOS exemptions while they're hot.]

— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the section post-TLDR is now TLDR. If there is an answer to my query (my last post above), could you direct me to it please? Thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  09:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The variant "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus" seems to me by far the best: it's factually true and avoids judging whether consensus exists in sub-communities or whether the controversy will continue (it may not!) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many things don't have demonstrable Wikipedia-wide consensus, but they are still the established practice in their areas, and we should be telling people about them without fuss. Instead of trying to force badges of shame into what is already a long page of complex guidance, I suggest (again) that those who want to change the practice should make a clear proposal for doing so, and await consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "Wikipedia-level consensus" or "MoS-level consensus"? We need to establish that it does have Wikiproject-level consensus while acknowledging that this is technically not enough.Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus" if that is seen as sufficient. I don't know why anyone would object to "controversial" (which just means "people argue about it").  But whatever.  This has nothing to do with making WP:BIRDS look bad; the louder members of that project, probably to the quiet embarrassment of the majority, do that just fine all by themselves with their hostility, tendentiousness and "everyone who disagrees with us is just ignorant" arrogance.  All this is really about is stopping random pockets of editors from making up their own "rules" to capitalize everything under the sun, or seek other special exemptions from encyclopedic style to suit their whims. We don't need to go into any explicit detail about whether WP:BIRDS internally has consensus or not. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS obviates any need to do that, because it's moot.  Established practices in narrow topic areas are trumped by site-wide guidelines when the two conflict, period.  There simply is no debate about that any longer.  ArbCom has repeatedly said the same thing.  Pockets of editors do not get to make up their own rules against wider-spread consensus. WP:BIRDS should count its blessings that their doing so has largely been tolerated, and look for ways to make people happier with what they are doing, instead of treating it like a religious crusade to convert the unbirdly heathens every the issue comes up. I think they collectively really have no idea how much the project looks like a farm for zealotry with no concern for anything but their own constituency, instead of for encyclopedia readers. But science types are rarely any good at PR.  Anyway, just by virtue of the fact that MOS mentions it all as a controversial exception (of sorts), it's clear that the practice is at least said to have consensus inside the project. (I've actually seen bird editors disagree with it, but they do not appear to be numerous). 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2. You've misconstrued others' claims about style guides, thereby setting up a straw man that you've continued attacking even after our positions were clarified. 3. Other members of WikiProject Birds have acknowledged that they advocate an exception to Wikipedia's usual style conventions. You're the only one arguing not only that it isn't an exception, but that those who disagree are blatantly and outrageously disregarding policy. —David Levy 21:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The MOS is for style, not a place to kick a bunch of editors for being consistent with WP:COMMONNAME based on reliable sources. Until now, I have seen the generic claim that Style manuals say that bird names are not capitalized, although none of them actually discusses the common practice in the field to capitalize them. The sole exception is the CMoS that refers to authoritative guides. Maybe the lowercap proponents can find a reliable source stating that the common practice to capitalize within birds is incorrect for birds beyond sources that actually do not discuss it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Your continued insistence that "reliable source" = "specialist source" is inexplicable.


 * Oppose As a non-birder, I don't think WP:BIRDS usage can reasonably be described as 'controversial'. A special case perhaps, but unless the project (and the bird world itself) is divided on the issue then we shouldn't use this word. It is not for WP to tell the scientific/academic community how to copyedit their books. -- Klein zach  01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about the expression "controversial on Wikipedia"? That is provably the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose singling out birds is not needed - numerous areas of difference of opinion. Birds have official names like planets, countries, languages, continents etc. I don't see folks jumping up and down for europe, saturn etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Cas. We've created thousands of articles, including more than a hundred FAs and GAs, while some people sit around, sniping, wikilawyering, and getting upset over hyphens (or should that be endashes?). <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is becoming a personal vendetta for the proposers. Unconstructive and disruptive when you consider the simple fact that the laymen readers these are supposed to serve do not care whichever is the case anyway; in contrast, the capitalization of bird names is very important among specialist readers and sources themselves. The "benefit" at this point seems to be simply the peace of mind of the grammar nazis at the expense of scientific accuracy. Pointless.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  03:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Credibility
I found the comment that capitalized English-language bird names contribute to "public perception of WP as low-credibility" as (I'm sure unintentionally) quite funny, as the opposite is true for most birdwatchers, birders, and ornithologists. And those are the people who most access those articles! I agree that "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus" is not inflammatory. Natureguy1980 (talk)
 * I would not understand why the opposite should be true for B&Os, unless B&Os also view the New York Times and other general publication as having low credibility. It seems like B&Os would also expect a general online encyclopedia to follow general style guidelines as a matter of course. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When they don't capitalize bird names, yes, it does lower their credibility in the eyes of many B&Os; it doesn't help that these instances of lowercase bird names are usually accompanied by blatant factual inaccuracies. I've twice been quoted in the NYT, and both times in pieces that were not properly researched. The lack of capitalization only makes it look more amateurish to those familiar with the typographic customs of the discipline. In other words, using capitalized bird names lends immediate credibility in the eyes on B&Os. And I think that is why there is so much resistance to eliminating them. Personally speaking, I can't think of any authoritative/respected source in the United States, lay or professional, which does not capitalize. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where "write for your audience" comes in. We're not writing only for ornithologists and non-professional bird enthusiasts.  We're writing for those people and the biologists who needs background and the fourth grader doing a report and the Colombian who's reading Wikipedia to learn English and the schoolteacher doublechecking facts; we're writing for anyone who can read in English.  Working with most of the people most of the time, in this case, means using lowercase. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, because I'm incredulous: You are claiming that B&Os have a low view of the credibility of every source outside B&O journals. The New York Times coverage of the stock market or obituaries or diplomatic events is in question because the NYT doesn't follow a particular group's branch from usual English style? In any event, I'd rather have credibility with everyone except B&Os over B&Os, if they are directly at odds. The greater good and all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that B&Os have have a low view of the credibility of any article that writes about birds without capitalizing the English-language names. You needn't look into it any further than that. We simply disagree on a fundamental level, Darkfrog. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people accessing the bird-related pages are, believe it or not, people who are interested in birds, and who are familiar with the capitalization convention. I also happen to believe that the people who best know a subject should be listened to in matters such as this. If the convention in physics were to never use capital letters, then I'd have no problem with the physics pages doing so. It would look very odd to me, but I'm not a physicist. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The people who know best about the subject, the capitalization of nouns, are the composers of style guides, not the composers of ornithology articles.
 * The fact that this disagreement between WP:Birds and WP:MoS exists is what this whole mess is about. If you look at SmC's original points, you'll see that he's not trying to to rework all the WP:Birds articles so that they have to use lowercase.  Those points acknowledge that you guys use capital letters and that this is contested.  If that text went into the guideline, it would protect bird articles from overzealous decapitalization. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the section isn't something to "oppose" or "support" on (the fact that WP:BIRDS practice is controversial is proven, as is the fact that the MOS notes when there are controversies that get in the way of its consistent application). There simply isn't a debate on that. The issue is how it should be phrased, not whether it gets mentioned, which is a foregone conclusion. Well, actually the other option is to simply not mention birds at all, and simply state that we don't capitalize common names, period. Perfectl yfine by me. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Natureguy1980: This cannot possibly be true: "B&Os have a low view of the credibility of any article that writes about birds without capitalizing the English-language names." As far as I can determine (and I and plenty of others have looked extensively) very close to zero, possibly only, non-ornithological, peer-reviewed general science journal that does publish ornithological articles, permits upper-casing of bird common names. Please show me one case, anywhere in the world, at any time, in any forum, of one or more ornithologists or even hobbyist birders disputing the credibility of any peer-reviewed ornithology article published in Nature, Science or any of the myriad other journals out there, on the basis of lack of capitalization.  Take your time, look hard. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TLDR. Could someone summarise this enormous set of threads? My inclination is to downcase unless there's ambiguity. Please remember that some professionals and organisations love to upcase (dog breeders, give me a break) to bignote what they do. We should not necessarily go along with this. Tony   (talk)  07:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually a different set of rationales offered for capitalizing breed/cultivar names, too. Completely different issue that we shouldn't mix in here. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary seems to be that the people who come to Wikipedia to write articles want to be free to capitalise or not according to what their sources do; whereas the people who come to Wikipedia to impose their views on others want to make an across-the-board capitalisation rule that makes Wikipedia nice and neat and consistent, and they don't much care that this would require editors to ignore the conventions of their field. It all comes down to what mode of consistency you value more: consistency with sources, or consistency within Wikipedia. Hesperian 12:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go re-read David Levy's excellent post above about assuming good faith. Or you could just as easily write "Summary seems to be that the people who come to Wikipedia to write articles for a general encyclopedia for the general readers' benefit want to use accepted general style guidelines; whereas the people who come to Wikipedia to impose their views on others want to make unnecessary exceptions for the general capitalization rules and don't much care that this would require general readers to understand and appreciate the conventions of their field. It all comes down to what mode of consistency you value more: consistency with reliable sources in general, or consistency only with the specialist subset of reliable sources." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it missed the point; we're trying to force WP:BIRDS to use the general convention, because the debate about that is not settled. We  trying to stop the growing chaos that has spread from WP:BIRDS into all organism articles, with every other editor capitalizing or not capitalizing as they randomly see fit. This enormous mess, which is very notably worsened in the last two years or so, is due to inconsistent and wishy-washy guideline language and blatant ignoring of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy in some of these conflicting guidelines, all of which are actually subordinate to MOS on matters like this. A few WP:BIRDS editors think that any time animal capitalization comes up it is a direct personal attack against them and launch into defensive, repetitious, incivil tirades, but this is a red herring and cannot continue to distract us from dealing with the real issues. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of the current WP:BIRDS capitalization discussion
BACKGROUND: For many years, there has been a split between WP:Birds (and a few other places) and WP:MoS. There is a long-standing consensus (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own style rules. However, at WP:Birds, the prevailing style is to capitalize the common names of bird species (White-throated Sparrow, etc.) even though the MoS says not to. The main arguments in favor of capital letters is that almost all of the ornithology journals and bird books use capitals. The main arguments in favor of lowercase letters is that almost all of the rest of the English language, including almost all of the style guides, use lowercase. There is also a question of whether capital letters prevent people from confusing the specific species "white-throated sparrow" with any sparrow that has a white throat.

THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION: User SMcCandish noticed that not all of the guidelines (WP:MoS, WP:Naming Conventions, etc.), which are supposed to be identical, say the same thing, so SmC wrote up a list of points and suggested using them as a temporary template so that we could synch those guidelines. These points reflect the status quo: Capital letters on WP:BIRDS (and possibly a few other places) and lowercase letters everywhere else. '''These points are not about converting all of the WP:BIRDS articles to standard English. They are about getting all the guidelines to say the same thing.''' The attitude that most MoS regulars seem to have is, "The WP:BIRDS editors are doing it wrong, but we know we can't stop them, so let's acknowledge what they're doing while advising other editors not to do the same on other projects."

The main disputed point is "It is common practice on WP:BIRDS to use capital letters for common names, but this is controversial." Its purpose is to 1. prevent overzealous editors from changing capitals to lowercase on WP:BIRDS articles (This is desirable, even from a capitals-are-wrong perspective, because it would prevent edit wars.) and 2. advise editors not to use capitals outside WP:BIRDS. However, some WP:BIRDS editors seem to feel that the "this is controversial/disputed/questioned/etc." is insulting. The MoS regulars feel that the fact that capital letters do not have full consensus must be acknowledged in some way.

THIS PARTICULAR MESS: This led to a renewed debate about whether or not Wikipedia should use capital letters for the names of bird species: "But ornithology journals are more reliable than style guides! Shouldn't we use the best sources?" "Wikipedia is a general-audience publication, so we should use general-English rules!" Everyone seems to agree that ornithology journals are the best sources for facts about birds. This disagreement is whether or not this also makes them the best sources for style. We should follow the experts, but do the bird experts or the writing experts take precedence?

Please don't add any comments to this subthread that are not specifically about summarizing the situation for newcomers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great summary. The only point I would quibble with is that at the project level only WP:BIRDS has come to any controversial "alocal consensus" against lower case. A few projects on plants and insects and such have debated and dropped the issue from time to time. We shouldn't imply that multiple projects are against lower-casing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion
Okay, I'll start a new subthread. Personally, I have no objection to saying that the capitalization on bird articles is controversial at Wikipedia, or is often debated here, or doesn't have a consensus among Wikipedia editors, or things like that. Though a member of WP:BIRDS who has always capitalized names of bird species in bird articles, I don't feel insulted by such comments. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hooray! I think the consensus is pretty clear, on the reality, and on the two sides of the argument, though I would throw in two points before I suggest a wording:
 * There are not unique common names for birds, as I found out recently, though there may be unique names approved by certain bodies.
 * We are not out to impress any group of people, either academia in general or ornithologists in particular. (And to think we will impress them by our citation style or capitalisation style shows that we hold them in low regard, for they will recognise that we are a an encyclopedia, and not, as some of our beloved contributors would like to believe, "scholarly" in that sense.)
 * Having said that, the proposed wording....
 * "... although official common bird names are de facto capitalised by members of WP:BIRDS."
 * This states the situation without implying consensus.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC).
 * This states the situation without implying consensus.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC).


 * A great many birds, but not all, have unique "official" English names. I wouldn't care to estimate the numbers.  The trend has been toward standardization between lists (with some exceptions).
 * No one has said we're out to impress academics or ornithologists, though people on both sides of the argument are concerned with how we look to readers. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly.
 * Pretty much
 * "You may not notice it if you misspelled a scientific name or failed to italicize it (both of which someone here was guilty of in this very discussion), but those that do notice it immediately know that this person should not be talking about anything related to biology."


 * I find this attitude to spelling and minutiae shallow and verging on detestable. Firstly it's outsidering.  Secondly it's against the spirit of collaboration - if someone can write a good article with poor spelling, a good speller can fix it.  I care about our readers and making the pages readable, having a good interface and putting the relevant information in the right place.  I care about looking professional. But if someone stomps off in a huff because a proof doesn't end in a Halmos square, or we use the "other" sort of referencing, or spell "aluminium" the way they don't like, then at that point it becomes their problem, not ours. Rich Farmbrough, 08:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC).


 * LOL. Do you find these pages upon pages of accusations that WP:BIRDS is willfully turning up their noses at Wikipedia any better? This proposal started out with an extremely hostile attitude towards the WikiProject in question. The "spirit of collaboration" you're blubbering about was already destroyed with the very first proposal. Read up. Most of the rationale for doing this is about "reining in" a rogue WikiProject that somehow escaped the clutches of the MOS people. And all for what? Capitalization. Don't kid yourself about claiming it's for making the "pages readable" and all that nonsense. It is readable. Not once have I ever heard one reader complain that the common names of birds were in title case.


 * And don't take my words out of context. I fix these errors all the time. I was pointing out the simple fact that the proposer does not even have the faintest idea of how and why nomenclature functions within biology. Just because you're an expert in common conventions, it does not give you an expert's overview of all the conventions. The very least the proposer could have done is familiarize himself with how names are treated in biology before fostering his own preferences on a widely held scientific convention. It's as if these conventions aren't even worth respecting because they're not familiar to him nor common. I quote this from your high and mighty caps champion: "Enough, enough, enough. T H I S  I S   N O T   B I R D I P E D I A." That's "outsidering".


 * The common readers do not give a hoot, the specialists do. Is it a worthy trade-off when it's completely obvious that the only one who cares about this are the Wikipedia MOS people and not the readers? I find that shallow and detestable.


 * Read your last sentence again. Now apply it to the other party, and it fits to a T.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obsidian, this proposal started with SmC suggesting that we take all the capitalization guidelines and synch them so that they say the same thing. His original points specifically preserve the status quo, protecting articles in WikiProject Birds from overzealous de-capitalization.  What he was trying to rein in was people copying WP:Birds style onto other articles.  That's not hostility toward WP:Birds.  That's acceptance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish's synching would not have preserved the status quo. The status quo was that Manual of Style/Capital letters provided more detailed guidance than the main MOS; guidance which many editors accepted, although it did not entirely agree with the main MOS. Some editors, including SMcCandlish, believed that it was appropriate for him to over-ride Manual of Style/Capital letters; many of us do not. His edits may or may not have protected bird articles from overzealous de-capitalization, but they would have done nothing for other articles where the arguments in favour of capitalizing English names are just as good, or just as bad, depending on your position. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog24, really? I was made aware of this page recently. That's not acceptance and that's not AGFing.


 * The sentence Rich Farmbrough quoted was from the original discussion. And yes, there's also Peter coxhead's point above. I'm really at a loss here, since when did Wikipedia guidelines become law? I missed the election of legislators apparently.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  16:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary. The section on the style page itself is not comprehensive in that the naming convention does not cover all other "organisms" - for example viruses. It should be beyond the scope of MoS to define areas of specific knowledge. If it is cell biology it has to be "HeLa" not "Hela" because of style requirements. If it is a virus that virus specialists call as "Beet western yellows ST9-associated RNA virus" - then so be it. I completely agree that most things would become "controversial at Wikipedia" if some Wikipedia editors preferred their own conventions. Shyamal (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested text for the contested point five
Dicklyon, Natureguy and I got together and we came up with this:

"Although the de facto capitalization of the English-language names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of most academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia."

It acknowledges current practice, acknowledges that the controversy occurs here and not in ornithology journals, and gives the main reason why bird editors capitalize in a way that does not imply that this practice should be extended to the rest of Wikipedia. It has a link to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so it also acknowledges that WP:BIRDS technically isn't allowed to do this while still protecting the status quo from overzealous lowercasing. If most of us find this text livable, then we can move on to synching the guidelines. Darkfrog24 (talk)


 * Oppose any and all proposed changes unless and until my query about lists receives a satisfactory answer (or you can direct me to the proposed answer buried somewhere above). . Ben   Mac  Dui  08:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Answered at . Short version: Nothing proposed here can trump MOS's general principle of consistent style being applied within a single article, and the proposed and extant wording already reiterates that principle explicitly: "Use a consistent style for common names within an article." Until the bird names perennial dispute hopefully some day resolves itself, all common names of all animals/plants would be capitalized in ornithological articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that what you are trying to achieve, but I think you are somewhat missing the main point I am making, which is that there are many articles that, when it comes to species, mostly focus on birds, but which mention other species (some of which have non-lower case names in use). Below where you suggest: "This does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus, and should not be applied to other organisms or in other categories of articles." does address this issue as this proposal is clear - you can only use caps if it is only about birds. Whether you can get support for that is another matter. I am interested in an outcome that provides:
 * A stable MOS - meaning that it changes only very occassionally (not more than once a month in any of its manifestations and ideally a lot less than that) after due discussion and process;
 * A consistent MOS in which articles look and feel similar across the wiki and which is easy to learn - especially for newcomers;
 * A MOS that is broadly reflective of styles used elsewhere, as and when that is appropriate.
 * These are listed in decreasing order of priority. The current discussion is an attempt to provide (as you see it) more of the third, largely at the expense of the first. I am therefore, at best, indifferent to it. My suggestion is that you take out an RfC. Let's not pretend most editors care much what MOS says, it is only really of interest to those concerned with style issues and those wishing to provide recognised content and both are a small minority. Ben   Mac  Dui  10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal: Danger Will Robinson! It would ultimately be disastrous to even faintly suggest that "following the practice of most [insert topic here] publications" is a sound basis for such a departure from the MOS, because specialist publications in a tremendous number of fields, from caudate herpetology to chess to juggling to stamp collecting to cooking to aeronautics to law, have a strong tendency to capitalize "Important Stuff in That Field" as an insider term-of-art style. Aside from that, it is not MOS's place to provide what we think WP:BIRDS's justification might be (members of the project actually raise more than one, and not all members are necessarily in agreement on any of them); it's completely out-of-scope. On a minor note, this also wouldn't flow from the preceding sentence in the guideline, which will probably be something like "Common (vernacular) names do not have each word capitalized, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, but Przewalski's horse)". The "although" construction doesn't work well here, bordering on a non sequitur.  We also don't want to imply that local consensus  something that projects can just come up with and push against wider consensus; that's the opposite of what the policy says and what ArbCom has said (and why the WP:BIRDS debate exists and is controversial). And we've also lost the fact that even WP:BIRDS says it's only for ornithology articles. Also, WT:BIRDS discussions I've run across several times do not favor capitalization of regional, un-"official" names, so it's not all "English-language names".  In the opposite direction, we should not refer to IOC naming conventions as "official", since Wikipedia has no position on whether that organization is more or less authoritative than any other in the field, and I've seen, again at WT:BIRDS, disagreement about whether IOC even really is the best taxonomic authority for birds; out-of-scope again, as it's not a style matter.


 * How about:
 * WikiProject Birds prefers to capitalize the common names of bird species (Bald Eagle) in ornithological articles. This does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus, and should not be applied to other organisms or in other categories of articles.


 * I used the "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus" wording someone else suggested. I think it's weird that anyone finds "controversial" to be a "boo word", but I'd rather just say something equivalent and move on than argue about that, even if I'm equally happy with "This is controversial on Wikipedia," instead.  In MOS:CAPS and/or WP:FNAME we can make more extended points, such as not just "common names" but "International Ornithological Congress-published common names", which is the geeky, detailed version of what WP:BIRDS really does, as well as not capitalizing the parts after hyphens. Let's keep the wording lean in WP:MOS proper.  — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is someone to make of "WikiProject X prefers..." Does it mean that if editor X prefers differently, then he should feel free to act according to his own preference? Let's not mask the fact that bird articles are written like that, so anyone who cares about conforming to existing standards (i.e. someone reading the MoS) ought to write their bird article like that as well. Just say (as we do now) that common names of bird species are capitalized in ornithology articles, and add the bit about other organisms/categories (no need for MoS to go into the philosophy of different levels of consensus, either). --Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; it is a category error to say that a wikiproject "prefers" something. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Days ago, I tried to replace "WikiProject Birds" with "some editors", the language we have previously used for disputed cases like this several times, but someone or other didn't like it and wanted to name the project. Whatever the wording, MOS should not itself recommend capitalization of birds as an exception, or note that it "is" the way it "is" done, which is another way of saying the same thing, or we've turned this on its ear.  It's an exception demanded, against years of vociferous rejection, by a certain small number of editors in an insular group, who have generated a massive controversy in the process of pushing this preference in articlespace.  MOS's position is already (since at least 2008) that we have a clear default; our task here and now is to clarify that the MOS observes the fact that the birds project refuses to apply this default to birds, in bird articles, only, and that a notable controversy/lack of consensus exists about that across the project.  That's the truth, and the truth is genuinely important here. Alternative wording to "WikiProject Birds prefers to capitalize..." could be "Some editors capitalize..." or "WikiProject Birds capitalizes..."  How about:
 * WikiProject Birds capitalizes the common names of bird species (Bald Eagle) in ornithological articles. This does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus, and should not be applied to other organisms or in other categories of articles.
 * Would that resolve the issue? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good compromise that seems to serve the major interests involved without harming any of them. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that you don't need that comma before "and" because what follows is not an independent clause. I'd also say "articles on other organisms or in other categories" to make it clear that if a pen-tailed treeshrew is mentioned within WP:BIRDS, it should be written "Pen-tailed Treeshrew."
 * I'm good with it, SMC, but the ones you need to convince are the contributors to WP:BIRDS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If they have no further comment here, or only raise objections that have already been dealt with, for a reasonable amount of time, WP:CONSENSUS will be satisfied. Revised text:
 * WikiProject Birds capitalizes the common names of bird species (Bald Eagle) in ornithological articles. This does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus and should not be applied to articles on other organisms or in other categories.
 * — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't bothered to comment here recently, because it seems to me that we aren't communicating usefully any longer. I can only repeat what I and Hesperian have told you: it's not only bird articles which use capitals, and there is no consensus here for "should not be applied to articles on other organisms or in other categories". Peter coxhead (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since making the comment above, I've discovered that lepidoptera articles even more overwhelmingly use capitalized common names. Actually I've not yet found one in this list that doesn't capitalize, though I'm not saying there aren't some. The level of consensus in lepidoptera articles seems higher than any other group. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that many editors, surely meaning well, have gone around capitalized every other animal name on the system following the birds example. That's actually how this debate got re-started. Thousands and thousands of common names animals in articles on everything from salamaders to horses have been forcibly capitalized by hundreds of editors because they've seen it here and there and thought that was what Wikipedia wanted. But even if there's evidence that insect journals prefer capitalization, it's the same argument the birds project is making, that everyone else is shooting down and has been shooting down for 7 years: It doesn't matter what stylistic conventions are used in specialist zoological journals. WP is not a specialist zoological journal. The only difference is that WP:BIRDS has collectively taken a public "give us capitalization or give us death" stance, and no other project has done that (and, really, it actually appears to be about 10 or so editors in that project, not the whole project).  The fact that a bunch of bug articles have capitalization too doesn't really mean or change anything. The insects project like some of the plant projects have discussed the matter a few times and never come to a consensus, so we're just moving past that because the majority of the other projects - primates, mammals, even fish - have abandoned their experiments with capitalizing common names, in the face of seven years of constant criticism from everyone else on the system. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Specific and non-specific common names
Maybe the basic problem here is the lack of clarity in WP:COMMONNAME? WP:BIRDS are capitalising English species names to avoid ambiguity. Other projects routinely capitalize proper names in similar circumstances (A Sea Symphony, Republican Party etc.).

Naming conventions (fauna) distinguishes between specific and non-specific names: Capitalisation of common names of species says "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific proposed rules of capitalisation based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." while Capitalisation of common names of groups says "The common name of a group of species, or an individual creature of indeterminate species, is not capitalised — mouse, owl, kingfisher, surfperch, rove beetle." I think that makes the distinction clear. ''Disclaimer: Please excuse me if the point I want to make has already been covered. I've spent over an hour reading this discussion, but obviously I haven't absorbed everything, let alone the past history of this issue. -- Klein zach '' 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interpolated later side-comment: WP:BIRDS is capitalizing to avoid ambiguity, though they raise that as a weak excuse sometimes, and people tear it apart because it's nonsense. No one in their right mind would write "The Mexican jay is one of many Mexican jays"; they'd write "The Mexican jay is one of many jays native to Mexico." I've made this point (with these exact words) several times already in this debate, but people still keep missing it. The "capitalize for clarity and disambiguation" argument is utterly bankrupt. It's been demonstrated fallacious for seven years running.  WP:BIRDS capitalizes bird names . By that reasoning, I could go on a AWB spree and change every instance of spacing between numbers and units of measurement to not have spacing simply because I'm more used to "3px" than "3 px".  Or whatever other rampage of chaos you can think of based on WP:ILIKEIT, which is precisely what this is. What WP:BIRDS has done is such a rampage. They've forced, through almost a decade of editwarring, capitalization is literally tens of thousands of articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't. It amounts to "do whatever you want with species names, no need for consistency". It's blanket license to pretend that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy doesn't exist, and have every biology-related project come up with its own conflicting "guideline", something that was abandoned several years ago (except by WP:BIRDS, who are entrenched in a pro-caps position, unlike any other project on the system). The wording at WP:FNAME is a holdover from years ago, before that policy and before MOS said "use lower case", which it has since at least 2008.  (It's actually worse than a holdover, but an attempt to game the system: there's a strong indication from their own talk page posts that WP:BIRDS has tried to overtly control the wording in the naming conventions with the specific intent that it conflict with MOS, on the basis that they'll then feel free to ignore MOS; it makes much more sense to have the pages in synch, and acknowledge that WP:BIRDS is doing its own thing, at least for now, than to continue playing games like this). The entire genesis of this thread is that WP:FAUNA and some other pages have been out of step with MOS, resulting in massive confusion and mess, with editors just completely randomly capitalizing or not capitalizing common names of animals and fighting over it in every available forum for 7 years straight. Anyway, no one here, on any side of the debate, has suggested that any issue had arisen due to confusion between species and generic names, though it may be hard to notice that, given the length of the discussion. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that you feel strongly about this. As a neutral, non-birder who came to this discussion by accident, I am basically, if not enthusiastically, pro sentence style capitalisation which is line with my training as a (print) editor. Limiting the overuse of capitals is indeed good. However we must recognise that the birding community (off and on Wikipedia) made their rules for a reason — to avoid ambiguity, which means it's an accuracy issue. (Other branches of the natural sciences don't have this problem to the same extent, either because English names don't exist or because multiple variations of (English) species name by colour, size, markings etc don't exist.)


 * If you are sincere about resolving this issue — and I'm sure you are — can you can step back from the idea that WP:BIRDS are out to subvert WP is some way? I'd suggest first improving the MoS itself, in particular the poorly drafted WP:COMMONNAME. If we have an MoS that editors respect, it will be much easier to resolve these differences.


 * Regarding the confusion between species and generic names, my contribution may be original but User:KimvdLinde's previous comments here approach the same problem, albeit from a different direction. (BTW, I understand that she has retired from WP as a result of this discussion, which seems a great shame. Have you considered asking her back? Or is WP:AGF completely dead here?) -- Klein zach  03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no belief in the idea that WP:BIRDS are out to subvert Wikipedia. I do feel that several controlling editors in that project are badly misprioritizing. It's exactly like editors who want to write all kinds of in-universe stuff in articles on fiction franchises, or editors of cat articles who put in all kinds of suppositional overgeneralized nonsense from Cat Fancy magazine like "Manx cats are intelligent, active and fun-loving". People write about what they care about in a style familiar to them.  That doesn't mean it's always appropriate. The issue to me is that it has to stop spreading from the birds project. Capitalization of animal names is  on Wikipedia. I've been periodically reporting on it here for several years, and it's worsening by the day. The only way I can see to fix this, without more bickering, is to list birds as an exception but make it clear that the default is lower case otherwise, and make sure the guidelines all agree on this. If the birds project wants to spend another 7 years fending off criticism from everyone else about their ungrammatical quirks, so be it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a shame if Kim has left, but it seems to me that there is no desire to "kick the birders", just an honest request for wording to clarify the existing practice in the MoS to avoid conflict, without adding a guideline for which there is no consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 08:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC).


 * It is a shame, especially since much of the point has been to find some way to allow WP:BIRDS to actually their exception at least provisionally, but bolster the guidelines to simply stop the capitalization from further spreading into other articles. I'm not sure what to say to help someone feel better if they've decided to quit the entire project,, just because their rationales and justifications are argued with on a guideline talk page. It's rather mystifying. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it that you are the one that insists of kicking whole groups of editors with codifying your discontent in the MOS. Maybe what you should do is actually make a tally of those who participated in the discussion and see if you actually do have a consensus here instead of declaring it unilaterally. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This side discussion has died off. I want to make the point that the we are here with a mile-long debate is that Naming conventions (fauna) makes confusing "distinctions" and advises, in blatant contravention of official Wikipedia policy, that WikiProjects can just go do whatever they want (and various other guidelines also offer conflicting advice, none of them in synch with WP:MOS, which is naturally the controlling guideline on a style matter like this). So starting a subthread the basis of which is "Well, Naming conventions (fauna) makes the following distinctions, so maybe we should try that" is completely missing the point. It's like responding to "Help, my house is on fire!" with "Hey, I just lit your house on fire. Is there anything I can do to help?" — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Another way of looking at this is that WP:FAUNA's statement that "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific proposed rules of capitalisation based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." is quite true, and we don't care. Wikipedia has no interest in those arcane debates, only in writing for a general encyclopedia audience, who do not expect and will not tolerate complete bollocks like "Johnson had a Rock Pigeon but it was eaten by his Domestic Cat, who choked to death on it, so he instead got a Dog and two Goldfish". If I had 1,000 years I don't think I'd come up with any way to make this clearer., we all understand that specialist publications in certain fields like to capitalize common names of species. If you read tabletop gaming materials, they capitalize all kinds of crap too, like "Game" and "Army". My pool magazines routinely capitalize things like Nine-ball and Straight Pool. It simply isn't germane to anything we're doing here to build an encyclopedia. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may, I'd like to return to Kleinzach's posts of 03:45, 16 January 2012:
 * "Maybe the basic problem here is the lack of clarity in WP:COMMONNAME? WP:BIRDS are capitalising English species names to avoid ambiguity. ... Naming conventions (fauna) distinguishes between specific and non-specific names:
 * Capitalisation of common names of species says "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific proposed rules of capitalisation based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms ." while
 * Capitalisation of common names of groups says "The common name of a group of species, or an individual creature of indeterminate species , is not capitalised — mouse, owl, kingfisher, surfperch, rove beetle." I think that makes the distinction clear."
 * And of 03:15, 17 January 2012:
 * "Limiting the overuse of capitals is indeed good. However we must recognise that the birding community (off and on Wikipedia) made their rules for a reason — to avoid ambiguity, which means it's an accuracy issue . (Other branches of the natural sciences don't have this problem to the same extent, either because English names don't exist or because multiple variations of (English) species name by colour, size, markings etc don't exist.) ... I'd suggest first improving the MoS itself, in particular the poorly drafted WP:COMMONNAME. If we have an MoS that editors respect, it will be much easier to resolve these differences."
 * It's my impression that many of the posts following Kleinzach's are not only excessively argumentative, but are essentially irrelevant to this Specific and non-specific common names section. This has nothing to do with "specialist publications". Milkunderwood (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrapping this up: We clearly have a consensus to move forward
Enough time has passed and the discussion has slowed enough that we can take stock of what's emerged and move forward. There is a clear consensus to do so.

encapsulates what this debate is about; ornithology is a red herring. This is not a facetious example; those are in fact the "official" or most widely recognized common names of all four of those species. It's crucial that we understand what kind of a "Wikipedia is written by blithering morons" Pandora's box is. If you think this is silly or exaggerated, go spend a few hours reading animal articles and come back and report how many you find with exactly that kind of capitalization (I used Przewalski's horse as an example in the MOS text because it was one of the many I have rescued from this nonsense). See the history of lion for people editwarring for the capitalization of "Lions". Yes, really. See the similar fight at bottlenose dolphin and (importantly) the squabble over whether or not to make bottlenose dolphin be about the species, since renamed common bottlenose dolphin, and Bottlenose Dolphin about the genus! I couldn't make this stuff up. People were actually going to disambiguate by capitalization (notably in exactly the opposite direction as the birds project - they were going to capitalize the group, not the specific species)! Enough is way more than enough at this point.

WP:Manual of Style exists for three main reasons:
 * 1) To provide guidance on style issues, i.e. to answer editor questions on style
 * 2) To set a baseline set of rules that everyone agrees to abide by so that every article doesn't erupt into constant flamewars about style issues
 * 3) To ensure that Wikipedia's output looks professional, trustworthy and consistent (especially within an article, but also between articles as much as possible).

MOS has dismally failed at all three of these goals on this matter, despite having a clear consensus against capitalization of animal common names since at least 2008 (language saying so has been semi-stable since then; versions that did so predated this stability, several times, and debate at WP:VPP in 2007 strongly suggested that virtually everyone was on board but birds.) There appears to be no further question or debate that this failure has occurred, that MOS needs to address the points raised, that all of them are valid, and that the solution need to be consistently applied across all the relevant guidelines (in compatible, not identical wording).

MOS has no WP:ARBCOM-like role to play as arbiter of the birds-related dispute.


 * Current, temporary wording in MOS:

I intend to replace this with one of the following two alternatives, based on a review of all of the above, and returning to the...


 * 1) The default is to begin each word in common (vernacular) names with lower case
 * 2) except were proper names appear in them [or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions not worth mentioning].
 * 3) This applies to all common names, not just species [families, orders, subspecies, etc. – too much detail here; save it for WP:FNAME.
 * 4) Some editors [a.k.a. WP:WikiProject Birds prefer to capitalize bird common names [all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen – too much detail here; save it for WP:FAUNA], in ornithology articles (only);
 * 5) this remains controversial (a.k.a. there is no site-wide consensus that this is an acceptable practice, a.k.a. this is not consistently regarded as correct)
 * 6) and should not be used outside such articles, even for birds.
 * 7) Only one capitalization style should be used in any given article.

Consensus was arrived at on every one of these points, if not their exact wording. All of these are addressed in both versions of the proposed wording, to the extent that they need to be in WP:MOS itself (we can drill down into details in sub-guidelines). E.g., the zebras example covers the fact that we mean this applies to larger groups as well as species, without us having to say it explicitly.

I've underlined the difference between the versions:


 * Version 1:


 * Version 2:

(I got rid of the awkward "do not have each word capitalized" wording, and changed it to refer to "lower case" instead of "capitalization" or "upper case" because we should advise a positive not against a negative when possible, just as a matter of good writing. There is no link to WP:BIRDS, because we do not want to seem blamey or attacking, nor, conversely, do we want to give the impression that WikiProjects can barge in and demand exceptions all over the place. This is about avoiding conflict, not elevating project "authority" or assigning "blame". Also, "species" is an important distinction with regard to the the birds thing, and cannot be lost, or the passage will misrepresent WP:BIRDS's actual position.)

These each cover all of the points that were identified as needed coverage and on which there is a clear consensus (yes, there is a clear consensus that the WP:BIRDS preference is, just not on whether to use that specific word.

Poll
I ask that interested editors indicate a clear preference for one alternative or the other if possible, and try to refrain from launching into another protracted debate about this word or that, much less whether we should proceed, which is a foregone conclusion. I've based the wording on the entire debate above and tried to factor in everyone's concerns as much as possible, including those of WP:BIRDS. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first version ("controversial" vs. "no Wikipedia-wide consensus"), because it actually represents the truth that in seven years of the debate virtually everyone but one WikiProject have agreed that "Johnson had a Rock Pigeon" is not how we write an encyclopedia. Saying there "isn't a Wikipedia-wide consensus" about what WP:BIRDS is doing is wishy-washy spindoctoring. Worse yet, it not-so-subtly suggests other projects should rise up and demand exceptions for whatever pet peeve they have. The evidence I've compiled strongly suggests that the WP:BIRDS exception is in fact one of the controversial ideas on the entire system for years. Meanwhile, the editor who labeled "controversial" a "boo-word" and objected to it has simply abandoned the discussion, without ever explaining why they felt that way about it; I don't feel a strong need to concede to arguments that are undefended by their proponents. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither. The word "exception" means that the MoS endorses the common practice on WP:Birds.  It doesn't.  We should say that the practice has become common or has local consensus, etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with "local consensus" including the link to the policy saying local consensuses can't trump site-wide guidelines, as long as we don't lose "controversial" or "no Wikipedia-wide consensus". Did you have a preference for either of those? The most important matter is to discourage the spread of stuff like "Ground Hog" and "Guinea Pig", not deprecate WP:BIRDS practice in particular wording. That it's controversial needs to remain. PS: If we mentioned local consensus we'd have to include WP:BIRDS by name again (that being the locus). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like:
 * Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, but Przewalski's horse). Some editors (WP:WikiProject Birds) prefer a local consensus to capitalize the official common names of bird species in ornithological articles. This remains controversial on Wikipedia, the Manual of Style does not endorse the practice, and the style should not be applied to other categories of articles. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create redirects from alternative capitalization forms of article titles.}}
 * — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Some of what I've done with WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters (if it hasn't been reverted) may be useful here. The text is less compressed there. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * NONE of the options. MOS is not to codify the discontent of some editors. It should describe the reality and nothing more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what it's doing. We're not telling WP:BIRDS to stop capitalizing, and I can't understand why you won't see that. We're bending over backwards to try to keep your project happy, while (far more importantly) saying that people cannot willy-nilly capitalize all over the place just because your project won't stop doing it. This has been a general Wikipedia-wide consensus recorded here for over . We're simply improving the language, to stop this rampant capitalization. There is no debate that all of the points in the section are valid, only how to express them. Please stop misinterpreting everything said here as some kind of personal attack on you and your friends. It's getting disruptive. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are codifying that they are WRONG! And that EVERYBODY else at WIKIPEDIA is disagreeing with it, except those 'stupid' bird editors who have no fucking clue about how to write proper English. They must be so incredibly stupid not to know how to write the names of their own species. Incredible. And because of that, it should be highlighted in the all mighty "Manual of Style" (Please bow everybody) that these people do not wish to bow for the almighty "Manual of Style". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard not to interpret constant sniping and attacks as attacks. I get that you aren't happy with us (God knows we're sick of you trying to impose conformity where it isn't wanted), but it is hard for you to paint yourself as the arbitrator between two warring partties when you are one of the warring factions. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to be an arbiter. I have an agenda. It's stopping the massive fallout all over Wikipedia of a) what your project is doing, and b) inconsistent wording at misc. guideline pages that conflicts with what has been a solid MOS consensus for 4+ years. Look, I've on your project. Your [that's the collective you, not you personally] years of browbeating have worn me and most everyone else down.  issue is not about your project, it's about the rest of the encyclopedia. People have been capitalizing things like "Lion", I kid you not, following your example (remember, your project is quite proud of the fact that its made your capitalization preference nearly 100% uniform across over ten thousand articles; that's very, very visible), and the confusing guidelines.  You yourself say, multiple times (I can provide you diffs if you like) that you and WP:BIRDS do not intend for your capitalization practice to extend beyond ornithology articles. Please stop getting in the way of others trying to ensure that actually becomes the case and stays that way. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)  PS: Nice WP:OWNism there; bird articles aren't, and aren't a "where" you can build a wall around and tell the wider to community to go soak its collective head. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither option 1 or 2 - the capitalization of bird names is not controversial. It is how it is done in the scientific press, and in the common press, and as WP:COMMONNAME - it's only an issue because some Wikipedia editors insist that they shouldn't be capitalized in the same fashion as they are capitalized everywhere but on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's controversial . This has been proven beyond all doubt. And that's what matters here. The capitalization is  done in the common press at all, anywhere, ever, other than in specialty bird books. This too has been shown conclusively in previous debates on your own project's talk page. It's not "everywhere but on Wikipedia", it's  except bird books and orn. journals. Not encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, non-bird magazines, not even non-ornithological zoology journals that publish ornithology articles obey your capitalization scheme in such articles, another fact that's been repeatedly demonstrated in these debates over the years. I have swept together a partial record of them, but have several more years' worth to pore over. Even what I have so far proves what I've said here conclusively, more than once even. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/question The statement, "Use a consistent style for common names within an article", suggests that despite the forgoing guidelines, it is still okay to capitalize common nouns as long as it's done consistently, but this sentence is only intended to apply in Wikiproject Birds. Can we say: "Use a consistent style for common names within each Wikiproject Birds article." or something to that effect? Joja  lozzo  02:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be seen as directly legitimizing the WP:BIRDS practice, which is and has for seven years been hotly disputed generally and which MOS does not sanction (it simply notes the existence of it and the dispute about it). It's not MOS's job to say what the resolution of that dispute it, any more than it's ArbCom's job to come in and say how to format quotations. The implication is clear that only in an ornithology article would a common name be capitalized, and in which all of them would be (e.g. including of prey animals as well as birds) so that the article doesn't veer back and forth between UC and lc, just as WP:ENGVAR prevents veering back and for between US and UK English in the same article. The default being to not capitalize common names of animals at all short-circuits the "loophole" you're preceiving of "Ah HA, it's okay to write some random article where I capitalize everything", so the clarification wouldn't seem to actually clarify anything. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It means that if the article is about the snort-breasted hawk, say "The Snort-breasted Hawk likes to eat Pen-tailed Shrews." If the article is about pen-tailed shrews, say "The snort-breasted hawk likes to eat pen-tailed shrews." It means that, within any given article, either capitalize common names or don't.  We're trying to prevent people from thinking that they're supposed to capitalize bird names everywhere and lowercase all other names everywhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got it. Put me down for #1 since it appears that there is consensus against capitalization of common names except for some editors who work on bird articles. Joja  lozzo  16:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both are fine—To answer darkfrog I don't think either implies that the specialist-style capitalization is anything other than local consensus? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what? Support. I'm sick to death of this fight, I really am. I dispute the contention that species names are common nouns, or that we in WP:BIRD think you should capitalise common nouns, but beyond that if this provides the MOS crowd with what they want and lets us get on with writing about our subject, well then fine. If, on the other hand, it's just the thin end of the wedge to provide a wikilawayerish (is that a word? It is now!) way to impose conformism at a later date, well, then the fight continues. But I am mighty sick of fighting. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was more of a "what language is better" question, than "yes or no". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would much prefer a slightly less inflammatory/redundant but equivalent version that simply stops after "ornithological articles": "[...] As an exception to this general rule, some editors prefer to capitalize the official common names of bird species (Bald Eagle) in ornithological articles. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. [...]" I believe the specific language "ornithological articles" already makes it quite clear that this is strongly discouraged outside bird articles, and that the language "some editors" makes it clear that there is not necessarily wide consensus on capitalising names of birds species. Dcoetzee 12:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's essentially what the language used to look like, and (in combination with conflicting sub-guideline language at MOS:CAPS and elsewhere) it led directly to people capitalizing things like Bottlenose Dolphin and Lion, because the wording was so weak that it strongly implied that any group of "some editors" (or, some versions said "WikiProject", which means "group of some editors") could decide, willy-nilly, to go capitalize things in any category of articles they wanted, from jellyfish to horses, as long as they did it consistently. I.e.,  is how to  word the section like what you suggest, since that's how we go into this mess in the first place. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither. Delete all after "ornithological articles". There is no need to comment further. The capitalisation of species names is not limited to birds either. It is common practice for all animals. And the example above is spurious and misleading because Rock Pigeon and Ball Python are species names which are commonly capitalised whereas dog and goldfish are generic names which are not.--Bermicourt (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. There is in fact an explicit convention caps for mammals; see various research on the topic from previous versions of this debate [leopard#Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization|here]. See also Dog and Goldfish, a subspecies and a species, and these are their common names ("common dog" is also a common name of the dog in some authoritative sources). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both are OK, but I'd choose version 1 if a choice is needed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I've already explained my position on this several times, above and in previous debate cycles. Here, I will instead just summarize a few of key points that have arisen in the course of the debate, especially the "Well, WP:FAUNA says..." non-argument, as well as the "Well, some insect and plant editors capitalize too..." point and the slippery slope that it does actually lead to. A third point is the notion that MOS can just go screw itself and the naming conventions can do whatever they want, because WP:AT is a policy now. It's a sore misunderstanding of how policy and guidelines work here.

You can safely skip this unless you want a compressed recap of previous arguments, which might actually be helpful for some, but would be tedious for others.

I do realize that some sub-guidelines here, especially Naming conventions (fauna), have proposed a much less proscriptive approach. : It led directly to chaos and a profusion of animal name capitalization. WP:FAUNA is unquestionably and necessarily subordinate to MOS when it comes to style matters like capitalization. There's also the issue that there's strong evidence that, effectively, WP:BIRDS has tried to control wording to favor their preference at WP:FAUNA (starting back when it was still just a section of WP:Naming conventions, which is now WP:AT), and intentionally ignore WP:MOS, which the project (or, rather, its self-appointed editwarrior elite) sees as an antagonist to their interests. Aside from violating WP:NOT, this is blatant gaming the system, wikilawyering, and asking the other parent. It means that WP:FAUNA's wording on the matter would be effectively moot, if not for the more important fact that it is a large part of the problem we're trying to address in the first place and is thus grist for the mill.

I do also realize that some editors of plant and butterfly articles prefer to capitalize common names in those areas, because, as with birds, their field-specific literature has a tendency tendency in this direction, sometimes strong. But. Wikipedia does what a preponderance of reliable sources does, and does not kowtow to special interest's typographic quirks when they conflict with general practice. If it were WP:STARWARS or WP:CRICKET insisting on capitalization "conventions" that defy all non-specialist publications, this debate would have been over seven years ago in favor of lower case, and we all know that. The reason that birds are even mentioned here as a  exception is that one WikiProject is so tendentiously entrenched on the matter that it's  better to appease them for now than to engender any further strife. I think most of us know this will eventually go to ArbCom, and that ArbCom will say "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is policy for a reason, namely WikiProjects trying to make up and enforce their own rules; the end." So I can tolerate the "birds exception" in the sharply limited form delineated here and let it go for now, even though I think it sets a very bad precedent, and is a recipe for future "our random project wants a random exception too!" headaches. Like, "WP:GAMES likes to capitalize Dice and Cards and Ball! Change MOS!" (I'm one of that project's most active editors, so I'm being a bit facetious, but only a little; re-read the sentence above about Johnson and his pets. And you would not the number of times I've had to de-capitalize things in game articles). Arguments along the line of "But, all the articles about [insert some organism type here] art capitalized already" are meaningless, since all they indicate is that someone capitalized a lot, and other people followed suit thinking there was a convention to follow here; there is and has been for over 4 years now, and it is to not capitalize. The "it would take too much effort to undo" argument is a combination of two classic arguments to avoid here: WP:MERCY and WP:EFFORT. More importantly, it is precisely this "well, maybe we can make an exception for this special interest or that" attitude that WP:BIRDS editors and a few others have editwarred into the naming conventions, against MOS, that has led to mass confusion on animal name capitalization all over Wikipedia, like a wildfire burning a swath across the whole system.

What we let go any longer, even if willing to compromise for now on this birds business, is rampant capitalization of animal names in other articles, and that is precisely what is happening at an alarming rate, because WP:MOS has not been clear enough and the other guidelines, especially the "projects can do whatever they like" nonsense at WP:FAUNA that blatantly contradicts policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, have not been synched with MOS (and yes, MOS does trump AT/NC on this; slapping a policy tag on WP:AT doesn't magically mean it can make up its own  rules on things like capitalization, it simply means that the "it's just a guideline" argument no longer applies to article naming rules people don't want to follow; AT policy and NC guidelines still derive their  rules from MOS, or we'd have utter chaos).

I've been reporting here for several years (see archives, or more conveniently, my index of the debates) that this animal capitalization problem is getting palpably and progressively worse, yet we've done nothing to improve the situation since 2008, when "don't capitalize" became a loose default, but wasn't clear enough. Four years is too long to not clarify MOS, and synchronize the guidelines, to halt the spread of this nonsense. The time to act is now. . How (not whether) to play verbal brown-nose with WP:BIRDS has been the only real sticking point, and even the member of that project who was insistent that "controversial is a 'boo word has left, without ever explaining why they felt that way about it. I want to be clear that I see no reason to genuflect before a small group of editors calling themselves a WikiProject to begin with, but I'm willing to see that there's a rough consensus that we will do so for now.

Just for the record:


 * Version X

Now, while everyone mulls this over, I'm going to go eat a Tuna sandwich and feed my Cat before he goes outside to chase some Rock Doves. Hopefully he will not catch a New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse, since they may be endangered.— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Except that it should be "...I'm going to eat a tuna sandwich and feed my cat before he goes outside to chase some Rock Doves."  Because tuna is not a full species name, and neither is cat!  :) MeegsC | Talk 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot that there are several kinds of tuna. But "cat" or "domestic cat", depending upon the authority consulted, are both recognized common names of the domestic cat. Maybe I should have said "Dog"; I don't know of any sources that use "Domestic Dog" as an "official" common name of the dog. Heh. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if he's chasing "Rock Pigeons" (the common name as indicated by the International Ornithological Congress), do you mean Rock Pigeons or rock pigeons? See the problem?  :) MeegsC | Talk 00:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right; I meant rock pigeon; I wasn't aware that the carrier pigeon was just a variety. Changed it in the example text. I know you're joking, but for the genus, we'd write something like "the rock pigeon genus". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf anyway...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not according to many if not most taxonomic authorities, who classify it as its own species, just as they classify the cat as F. catus instead of F. silvestris catus even though we know from genetic studies that it should be classified as the latter. Look, I can dig up a different animal if you want. The domestic ferret or something. That's not the point. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)  I correct myself. I hadn't read up on dogs in years and years, and according to the article here, they have finally decided to call it a subspecies instead of C. familiarus.  But, it's still an okay example, since the common name of the subspecies is still "dog" (or "Dog" as capitalizers would have it) or in some sources "common dog". No big deal either way. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another version to ponder:

''Generally, common (vernacular) names do not have each word capitalized on Wikipedia, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, gray wolf, but Przewalski's horse). Some specialist publications in certain fields of zoology and botany capitalize common names of species, but this practice is discouraged in a general purpose encyclopedia. It is more important for Wikipedia to be consistent from article to article, and to reflect the usage in mainstream publications and style guides, as the majority of our readers expect, than to attempt to reflect changing and conflicting patterns of usage in narrowly topical field guides or journals. Note that although the de facto capitalization of the English-language names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of most academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia and is strongly discouraged both there and elsewhere. When ambiguity or confusion could result, rewrite to avoid:
 * Bad writing: The American elm is one of many American elms.
 * Good writing: The American elm is one of many elms native to the Americas.'' Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like this one, actually. It is not important for Wikipedia to be consistent from article to article.  ENGVAR celebrates that there are different ways of doing things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for conceding that it is not important for Wikipedia to be consistent from article to article. Can we now stop the assault on the bird editors for not being consistent with other articles?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Intra-article consistency is a long-standing principle on Wikipedia. Also, no part of this has been an assault.  SmC's original suggested wording would have protected articles on WP:Birds from overzealous de-capitalization.  This is about establishing that the practice should not be spread to articles outside WP:Birds.  Technically, you guys are violating the MoS; we're conceding that we can't stop you, but we don't want it to look like the MoS endorses capitalization, because then editors will do it in articles in which it is not appropriate by even specialist reasoning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one else concedes that. Now, why do you keep trying to make this about birds and using violent language? has been to carve out a niche for the birds project (not because what it does makes sense in a generalist encyclopedia, but because it is so tendentious on the issue that hell will freeze over before it stops capitalizing, and the strife isn't worth it) to firewall it, so that a) the bickering at least settles down some and b) every other editor on the system stops going around capitalizing things like Lion and Bottlenose Dolphin. Please stop trying to cloud and derail the debate. You indicated that this debate burned you so much you almost quit Wikipedia over it. So why throw more gasoline/petrol on the fire? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can express myself as I feel the situation. There is NO need for the inflamatory language tyou propose to be added to the MOS, and you keep insisting. And you yourself have stated repeatedly that this is just the first stage in your long-term battle plan to rid WP of Capitalized Bird Names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing; please stop intentionally miscasting my statements and making up statements I never made. I said I oppose the WP:BIRDS practice and am making no promises not to do so in the future ("I will vote my conscience any time the matter comes up" I said), even if attempting to broker a compromise now to reduce the strife level and stop everyone and their Dog from emulating what WP:BIRDS is doing. Having an opinion about one side of a controversy has nothing to do with whether or not one believes MOS must acknowledge that the controversy exists in the first place instead of try to falsely arbitrate that the controversy is over.  I've also stated a belief that regardless of my position – "If I were hit by a bus tomorrow" – that the encyclopedia will eventually settle on lower case consistently, because this is what's best for a general encyclopedia, it's what virtually all non-specialist publications do, and far, far too many editors and (much more importantly) readers find the capitalization practice jarring and objectionable. You're outnumbered more than 1,000:1, ultimately, even if it takes another 7 years of criticism for your project to get the point. Because I feel this way, I no longer really care that the birds project is capitalizing bird common names; what I care about is stopping this "capitalize it because it's an animal!" meme from spreading any further, and it is . Without the "we have an official, global published standard" rationale that your project claims for bird names. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Before you go off on yet another repeated tangent about "we have an official, global published standard", no one in the debate has ever disputed that fact, but rather whether it has jack to do with writing an encyclopedia. Reread the many paragraphs by others, above, in the previous discussions, which you particiated in directly, about why reliable specialist sources about [insert topic] are not more reliable than reliable generalist sources about grammar and style when it comes to matters of grammar and style in a general publication, even about [insert topic]. I'm not going to recycle those arguments. Your constant WP:IDHT gaming is a waste of my and everyone else's time.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, I think that's a serious misinterpretation of MOS. WP:ENGVAR is an exception, not the rule, took many years to arrive at, and fights still break out over its interpretation and applicability; it's a compromise on massively intractable, side-wide problem, which the birds issue is not. The one of the main purposes of MOS  consistency across the system, or we'd simply delete it. Very, very few of its advice sections say or imply anything along the lines of "Just do it consistently within the article and don't worry about consistency with other articles", because they are absolutely intended for consistency across as well as within articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire point of "my version" was that it made no mention of any alleged "exceptions" at all. If someone wants to assert one, let them cite WP:IAR. That was the idea. If we're going to add back in an exception, we might as well return the language higher up that is the subject of the poll. As for the specific suggestion, I'm not sure I understand it: "Note that although the de facto capitalization of the English-language names of bird species has local consensus at WP:BIRDS (following the practice of most academic and non-professional ornithology publications), this is controversial on Wikipedia and is strongly discouraged both there and elsewhere."  This appears to be simply a direct verbal assault against WP:BIRDS, if I'm correctly parsing it: "capitalization of the English-language names of bird species...is strongly discouraged...at WP:BIRDS". So, it seems like you (Natureguy1980) are essentially proposing to add back in mention of WP:BIRDS just so we can bash them. That's not what MOS is for. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe that it is not widely discouraged, then why are we having this discussion in the first place?!?!?! Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the point in that language. The proposal versions get the point across without making it so personal. The difference: A) The proposal versions effectively say "the default is to use lc; some project wants to not do so, and that's controversial; don't do what they're doing and create more controversy, just follow the default".  B) Your version effectively says "the default is to use lc; some project wants to not do so, and not only is this controversial, how dare they even try."  :-)  It's not MOS's job to "strongly discourage" the activities of a specific project, but to encourage certain practices and where necessary discourage others, plus sometimes we have to note where there is no consensus or there's a controversy. As I've said in response to some poll comments, people seem to be mixing in feelings that MOS has some ArbCom-like role to play here, as arbiter of whether or not the birds debate is over and where the pieces allegedly fell; it doesn't. We set a default, note the existence of debate about a possible exception without endorsing it, and discourage others from starting more conflicts by capitalizing elsewhere. The end. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again the example given is misleading because Rock Dove is a species (i.e. proper) name and tuna and cat are not. The latter is straightforward - no capitalisation. As far as species are concerned, the problem is that the sources also vary in their conventions, so we should not be surprised if Wikipedians can't agree which way to go. It might be simpler to try and agree on which international authority/ies to adopt and follow their convention. At least we'd be focussing on sources more than opinions. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would miss the forest for the trees: no one but the geekiest of biological specialists is ever going to know or remember the details of hyper-specialized rulesets like that, or GAF about complying with them at all, or know how. It would just lead to more editwarring, on a massive scale, as snail nerds and fern nerds and whatever got into revert-fests with every editor on the system, including thousands of noobs who'd feel bitten, who didn't edit "their" articles "correctly". The simple solution is to set a default, based on virtually all non-specialist sources, of "don't capitalize the common names of species". That's why MOS did just that in 2008 or so. It's not about preferring opinions over sources, it's about preferring setting a consistent, prescriptive, generalist rule that people can follow (because it's a rule, not because it's "right" for any particular camp) and not verbally kill each other over, instead of every specialist camp declaring their own "standard" for articles they effectively try to control against "warriors" who disagree with their typography, and doing it all based on sources they will internally argue to the death about when it comes to which one is "most reliable" and should be followed, especially when it comes to, say, American vs. European taxonomic authorities.  Playing with matches in a fireworks factory. 05:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)  PS: I already conceded that I'd forgotten there are multiple kinds of tuna. Maybe I should have said turkey.  As for cat, the "official" common name of the cat in some taxonomic sources is in fact "cat" (in others it's "domestic cat"), and most authorities classify it as its own species.  I apologize for constructing a poor example, but I already gave a great one; search this page for "Johnson". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify the process envisioned here. I'm not comfortable moving forward based only on the thin support that's developed in this discussion so far and I think this poll is a poor tool for determining consensus. Are we contemplating an RfC with a single proposal and wider participation as the next step? Joja lozzo  05:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Not sure there's much of an alternative at this point, though I think a "cooling off period" might be a good idea. A lot of tempers have run hot here. Then again, there's that "strike while the iron is hot" canard, too. Maybe it's better to resolve it all at once. I really don't care at this point. It's really a silly matter: What WP:BIRDS is doing has been proven controversial, beyond any shadow of doubt.  It's routine for MOS and its subpages to note when something in it is subject to controversy or lack of consensus (for us to not do so would be for us to take on the role of ArbCom and act as arbiters of an ongoing dispute, and that would be a policy violation).  How there can rationally even be a debate about the we must say that what WP:BIRDS is doing is controversial (or has lack of consensus), or not mention their "exception" at all, is beyond me. Oh, yeah! I forgot. It's not a rational debate, it's an sudden influx of people from one project who were whipped into an angry frenzy by blatant canvassing that used loaded, emotive wording and false information to turn a calm discussion into a battleground with the specific intent of derailing a simple poll about which phrase to use to annotate the simple fact that a dispute actually exists. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative poll
In order to mitigate the heavy-handed approach of SMcCandlish who provided only two equality bad options to choose from, here is an alternative:
 * Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, but Przewalski's horse). As an exception to this general rule, WikiProject Birds capitalizes the official common names of bird species (Bald Eagle) in ornithological articles following the convention in the field. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create redirects from alternative capitalization forms of article titles.

This version says it all WITHOUT the jab at at the wikiproject bird editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This makes it look like the MoS endorses this local consensus when it does not. How about "The MoS acknowledges but does not endorse the local consensus on WikiProject Birds, in which the official common names of bird species are capitalized (Bald Eagle) following the convention of specialist publications.  Within WP:BIRDS, do not convert capital letters to lowercase without first establishing consensus.  Use a consistent style for common names within any article..."Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, MoS should be descriptive, not codify the unhappiness of a few editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * TLDR. I agree that making a style manual specifically mention the case of bird names is beyond its scope. There are exceptions that have been agreed to in a larger measure - as for example in ASTRONOMY (see Delta Scuti variable, Kreutz Sungrazers) and there must surely be a few astronomy publications that follow their own style but that does necessarily make it controversial or suchlike. What could be controversial are, however, species boundaries, but that too is beyond the scope of WP:MOS. Shyamal (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppoose both, and this is pointless. Kim, there is already a clear consensus for every single point enumerated in the "points to cover" box, above. Your obstructive disbelief in this isn't going to change it. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." Everyone knows you want MOS to recognize the WP:BIRDS practice as legitimate, but it's not happening. MOS decided against doing so in 2008, absolutely nothing has changed about that since that, and the community had even earlier decided against doing so, more than once, at WP:VPP among other venues. While consensus can change, the debate above the poll very clearly indicates that it has not. The actual proposal's wording (in both versions) doesn't "jab at" bird editors, it states the truth: Your project insists on an exception, and there is controversy about it. MOS is not going to blatantly lie for you. Now, for the third time, please stop resorting to violence imagery; it's a blatant appeal to emotion fallacy. Your repeated implications that everyone who disagrees with you is violently inclined and attacking you out of malice is getting downright incivil. Back to the tpoic your alternative wording, even if it reflected anything close to MOS and community consensus, would be an unmitigated disaster, since it would signal every single special interest in the world that they should ignore the MOS on any point, great or small, that doesn't perfectly match whatever their own internal, specialist publications do or allegedly do. Think hard on what that means. Darkfrog24: No one one is going around converting bird names to lower case, and if they were, that would be further indication that the practice is controversial; it would be a matter to bring up in an RfC or some other centralized discussion.  When it happens here and there, it's a matter for case-by-case discussion on those articles' talk pages.  If this is happening a lot, it would again suggest controversy and an broader RfC.  MOS is not a form of arbitration or other argument-settling process.  Next, WP:BIRDS isn't a container, so articles aren't "within" it. Projects do not own articles and MOS cannot tell people not to edit articles this way or that way on the basis that they "belong to" or "are within" some project. Remember that the ArbCom has said several times that a WikiProject is not some special authority, it is simply multiple editors agreeing to collaborate on articles, nothing more. No special rights, no walls around content within their scope, no project-specific rules that conflict with general policies and guidelines. Your version would grossly violate several policies. And your version would also directly encourage every special interest in existence to do their own thing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I have not seen that clear consensus to kick the bird editors in the ass. But maybe you can make an actual tally of the people who have chimed in to show you are right. So, until then, I suggest you stop claiming there is a consensus for what you want. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because no one proposed any such thing. If you won't respond to the actual arguments being raised in this debate, instead of these pretend ones you can shadow-box against, why you are you bothering to participate?  There's been a consensus . The wording of this page, and the records of the debates here and at WP:VPP and many other places demonstrate this. As for this debate, see above. Just read it. Not one reasoned argument has been offered against the idea that the caps practice is controversial ; you and various other birders (and some folks interested in butterflies, I think) keep saying "it's not controversial in bird literature", and we all already know that. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  It's like responding to the statement "Rock-n-roll is controversial in Kabul" with "No, it's not! I was just at huge concert in New York City!"  PS: This is your fourth warning. If you do not stop using violence as a metaphor in this argument to cast nasty, dark-motive aspersions on editors who disagree with you here, I will feel compelled to report the matter to WP:ANI as obviously intentional disruptive editing and personal attacks. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative poll discussion
KimV, what part of this do you consider to be an insult to WP:Birds editors? Yes, I gather that you think we're calling you stupid, but which words, specifically? Your own example makes it clear that it's not the mention of WP:Birds that's bothering you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is that it is written such that the position of WP:BIRDS is controversial, while the opposite is true. It is the insistence of the general editors that lower caps should be the norm for bird articles that is controversial.
 * MOS should describe what is de facto norm, not codify the unhappiness of a few editors on how things are done somewhere in a land far far away.
 * -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I see what's going on. Our MoS is not a descriptive document.  It's not a linguistics article or a treatise on the English language.  It just tells people what to do.  Descriptions of the frequency and history of different grammatical practices are, in my opinion, best left to articles (see quotation mark, for example).  If it were descriptive, it would have to allow American-style punctuation in articles written in American English (and I for one wish it did). Taking that a step further, it would have to expressly give permission to write "it's" in place of "its" and other common errors.
 * I am every bit against the addition of whims and pet peeves to this MoS (again, see WP:LQ, a useless peeve if there ever was one). I believe that it should be held to the same standards as regular articles, meaning that there should be a citable, published, reputable source for every rule.  The problem in the case of capitalizing bird names is that the general-audience sources say one thing and the bird-specific sources say something else.
 * You've said that capitalizing common names is not controversial within bird-focused publications and no one here is contesting that. However, it is controversial on Wikipedia. I have zero objection to saying "controversial on Wikipedia" or "controversial within Wikipedia" instead of just "controversial."
 * From my perspective&mdash;which I believe is shared by SmC and the other MoS regulars&mdash;we do need to say that the MoS proper does not endorse the common practice on WP:Birds. That's what we're not walking away from the table without. "This is controversial on Wikipedia" is one way to get that message across. Can you suggest another way of saying this that you and other WP:Birds editors would consider fair and accurate? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It just tells people what to do. So, please explain to me how saying that it is controversial is actually telling people what to do?
 * It is made and kept controversial by general editors who cannot accept that their pet rule is not supported in the relevant literature for bird articles.
 * Say something like: "Some general editors cannot accept (are uncomfortable with) the capitalization standards as used in the ornithological literature." A controversy starts with the group having the problem. Evolution is not controversial in most of the world, except among orthodox religious people of many flavors. That does not make it a scientific controversy. It makes it a religious controversy. You have to start with the group having the problem. The bird editors have no problems with either the general rule nor the standards as used for bird articles. It is a few style purists that have. So, start with them. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kim, neither of the proposed ("controversial" or "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus") wordings suggests that lower case should be the norm for bird articles. It says that it is the norm generally, and that there is a controversy about whether it should be the norm on Wikipedia [as it is in virtually all non-specialist publications] for birds. This is 100% true and accurate. While there's been plenty of noisy argument about birds (an argument, I remind you, that I asked people not to get into, at the beginning of this), what this debate is about is stopping people from capitalizing "Dromedary Camel" and "Ball Python", and basically punting the birds issue for later resolution (it's been fought over for seven years straight, so I don't see it being resolved any time soon). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: This "land far far away" stuff is strongly symptomatic of your project's insularity and belief that it owns and controls bird articles. Your project is  its own sovereign entity, some land with a border guard. It's simply some editors talking on a talk page about how to edit articles on a particular topic. You do not have some magical right to tell everyone else how they can edit an article just because it happens to be about a bird species. If you don't believe me, go informally ask any member of ArbCom. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You trying to punt this issue for later 'resolution' is basically the issue. besides that, you have no consensus for the inclusion of the "it is controversial" statement. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim, I didn't say I was punting it for later resolution; I'm tired of the issue.  What part of this is unclear?:
 * There's a controversy.
 * It's not resolved (by definition, or there wouldn't be a controversy).
 * Time passes, in one direction.
 * If the controversy will be resolved, it will necessarily be resolved later.
 * Ergo, later resolution.
 * That's all there is to it. Again, MOS is not an arbitration body like ArbCom. MOS is a style guideline. It does not  to say that the controversy is over. PS: If you want it resolved, go file an ArbCom case seeking a ruling that WP:BIRDS is free to make up its own rules. Good luck. I'll go buy some popcorn; I love disaster movies. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you all making this personal yet again? If you truly accept the ornithological stylistic convention (which again exists outside of Wikipedia and thus out of the grasping fingers of all the wikilawyers here), why include a snide "this is controversial within Wikipedia", as if your opinion matters to outside convention at all? Can you say "mob mentality"? There is no resolution unless ornithological groups change their conventions. Let it go. You are the ones who are on the offensive here. And quite offensive in the other sense at that.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obsidian, who said they truly accept the orn. stylistic convention? I certainly didn't. No one said Wikipedia MOS position matters outside WP at all. Actually, um, what exactly are you talking about? As has been said about 20 times on this page already, no one, anywhere, ever here said that capitalizing bird names in bird literature is controversial. It is highly, highly controversial on Wikipedia, which is not a specialist bird publication, but a general encyclopedia. Newspapers, magazines, even non-ornithological zoology journals do not follow your convention either.  Please read at least some of the debate before popping off with hostile attacks, like calling people who disagree with you a "mob", which has nasty implications whether you mean "rabble" or "criminals". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is controversial" is another way of saying, "Doing this (or not doing it) can cause fights/don't do this without checking to see if there's consensus for it." It's just saying it in three words instead of twenty.
 * Kim, your #2 maintains that the ornithologists are right and the generalists are wrong, when the actual case is that the ornithologists agree with each other and with specialist style guides and the generalists agree with each other and with general-audience style guides. Neither party is 100% wrong.  We need something neutral, like "this is disputed," or "this is in accordance with specialist but not general guidance."
 * Obsidian, we're actually toning it down a lot to say "this is controversial on Wikipedia." The truth of the matter is "this is in direct contradiction with guidance from general style guides." Considering that Wikipedia is a general-audience publication, we really should be doing what they say, not what specialist guides say.
 * As for who's causing the controversy, generalists have a problem with the capital letters and ornitholigsts have a problem with lowercase letters. SmC and I haven't been disputing this with each other.  We've been disputing with you guys.  If either side gave up and conceded, then there would be no controversy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about "Capitalizing the common names of bird species is established practice within WP:BIRDS. This is in accordance with specialist guidance but has been repeatedly disputed on Wikipedia.  Do not de-capitalize articles within WP:BIRDS without first establishing consensus.  Use lowercase for all articles outside WP:BIRDS" with a wikilink to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? 1. It acknowledges that you guys aren't pulling the caps out of anyone's you-know-what, 2. acknowledges that the practice does not have MoS-level consensus 3. allows people to draw their own conclusions about who's at fault for the dispute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is going a long way to solving the issue. If you want, I am definitlky willing to work on this version. Just let me know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish: "I certainly didn't." - That's obvious. "popping off which hostile attacks" - speaketh the kettle to the pot with added hysterics. "Mob mentality" = argumentum ad populum. No criminal associations intended. At this point, do you truly think that alienating a highly productive WikiProject allegedly "for the glory of the common folk" is still going to help anyone but your own preference for a "neater" Wikipedia? You forget you are not representing the entirety of Wikipedia. The MOS-people (MOSians? MOSetians? MOSoslavians?) are also still technically just another WikiProject. If you can't find a common ground without having to slip in the last word, just please stop.


 * Darkfrog, is there any good reason for including "but has been repeatedly disputed on Wikipedia" or 'this is controversial" other than underlining a divisive debate that you guys started in the first place? Think about it, if this is generating that much hostility, why oh why are you still pushing it single-mindedly?-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already given it several times. MOS is not WP:ARBCOM, and cannot arbitrate disputes. It cannot decide that capitalizing bird names is okay. Because there is a seven-year-long WP-wide debate about it, with the vast majority saying "no it's not". It is not MOS's job to declare that dispute over in favor of WP:BIRDS. That would not represent consensus and would be a blatant lie. Meanwhile, there is a clear consensus arrived at in many discussions at MOS and at VPP among other places, against capitalization of the common names of species generally, and MOS has said so since 2008 without controversy about this. That is proof positive that it has consensus, since this is one of the most-watched guidelines on the whole system. The issue before us is WP:BIRDS wants to have their desired and controversial exception mentioned, it has to be mentioned as controversial (in one wording or another), because that's the truth, and MOS is not in a position to lie about it to make one group of editors feel better. The only alternative is to not mention birds at all. The other reason for saying it's controversial is because we  to, to stop the rampant capitalization of animal names all over the place. That's nothing to do with policy conflicts and role limitations, but with MOS doing what it exists for - giving style advice that keeps the encyclopedia encyclopedic and reader- and-editor friendly. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose - It does not indicate the lack of general consensus for capitalizing common names. Joja  lozzo  04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason to include "this is controversial/disputed/etc." is that it's a warning. It means "THIS CAN CAUSE FIGHTS!!  CAPITAL VS. LOWERCASE MIGHT LOOK LIKE NOTHING, BUT PEOPLE REALLY CARE ABOUT IT, SO DON'T JUST GO IN AND CHANGE IT UNLESS YOU WANT AN EDIT WAR." It just knocks it down to three words. I wouldn't object to saying "This has been the subject of repeated edit wars and talk page disputes" if you guys would find that less offensive than "this is controversial."
 * You've seen that this is generating hostility, Obsidian, so why are you pursuing it so single-mindedly? You and Kim are both saying, "It wouldn't be controversial if you would just give up and do it our way." Well, the same is true of you. How about you suggest some compromise terminology, as SMC and I have done and as KimV has at least attempted? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that's the reason? SMcCandlish's response is less conciliatory than yours seem to be. How much would it affect anything if it was just removed really? The problem with adding those three words is it has the distinct undertones of "you've won this time, but we'll be back later!". It leaves an open festering wound, so to speak. It's not a warning against changing the cases unilaterally, it's more like an open-ended declaration of a future intent to reopen this again and again.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  05:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it cuts both ways: "This is controversial" rather than "the bird guys/grammar guys have caused a controversy" does not favor one side over the other.
 * To go without saying "this is controversial/disputed/etc." makes it look as though the MoS proper or Wikipedia in general endorses the position of WP:Birds, and neither of those is the case.
 * "You've won this time but we reserve the right to revisit later" is pretty much what we're going for. The statement is meant to acknowledge the status quo: WP:BIRDS editors are technically violating the MoS but they've been doing it for so long that while it might be best if the articles used lowercase, we'd prefer articles in uppercase that aren't riddled with edit wars than articles in transition that are.  Capitalized common names do not have general consensus, so the MoS shouldn't say that they do.  What we're trying to do is write something that acknowledges that while preventing overzealous editors from 1. starting fights by removing capital letters from WP:BIRDS or 2. adding them anywhere else.
 * Would you prefer it if the guideline did not mention WP:BIRDS at all but simply said, "Do not capitalize the common names of species except where proper nouns appear"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion tally
Lets make a tally to see if there is a consensus to include "its controversial" in the first place –, 03:49, 6 February 2012‎
 * Or otherwise indicate lack of site-wide consensus, disagreement, etc., with the WP:BIRDS capitalization practice; don't skew the results by picking a term that a project-member called a "boo word". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up, you'll see that Sabine supported both/either of SMC's suggestions. Moving the name now.  Concur that this poll should include other ways of acknowledging that capital letters lack Wikipedia-wide consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd also need to include everyone from the last version of this debate, and the one before that... — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Include

 * 1) User:SMcCandlish
 * 2) User:Darkfrog24
 * 3) User:ErikHaugen
 * 4) User:Jojalozzo
 * 5) User:Sabine's Sunbird
 * 6) User:Peter coxhead [objected to "controversial" but not "does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus"]
 * 7) User:Dicklyon, per his comment below
 * 8) User:JHunterJ

Not include

 * 1) User:KimvdLinde
 * 2) User:Obsidian Soul
 * 3) User:Natureguy1980
 * 4) User:Casliber
 * 5) User:Bermicourt
 * 6) User:Dcoetzee
 * 7) User:The Bushranger
 * 8) User:Kleinzach
 * 9) User:Jimfbleak
 * 10) User:Milkunderwood
 * 11) User:Enric Naval (I added myself)

Discussion

 * I object to this false poll; you are effectively voting for people, based on assumptions and inferences. WP process doesn't work that way. And you're not even going about it accurately. For example, Peter coxhead objected to the word "controversial" but not to "does not have consensus". This is pointless anyway, because the fact that there is a controversy is already proven. There is already an actual poll open, where people can post their own comments. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:AN/I did find in favor of my claim of WP:CANVASSing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Really, that's the same thing that Born2cycle did on WP:TITLE that raised such a ruckus. Let people vote for themselves.  If we have a real poll, I'll vote to include a bit about it being controversial, as I believe I expressed at some point above.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this discussion has been stretched out for weeks now, which continued claims of elusive consensus. Most editors just don't respond anymore. And that is a frequent used tactic to force a opinion through. So, I think it is only fair to consider what people have said earlier. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to your claim of consensus that the "it is controversial" statement should be included. If you make those claims, the proof is in the pudding as they say. So, either we drop the pretense there is a "consensus" for inclusion, or we try to work it out some way. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, to claim "consensus", I would say you have to show a solid majority for inclusion. My guess is that you cannot even find 50% or more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop engaging in WP:IDHT. The consensus has existed for four years. The language proposed here isn't some new thing out of the blue, it's a minor modification that has everything to do with turning down the heat on your project and, more importantly, stopping rampant capitalization of things like "Lion" and "Bottlenose Dolphin". Your behavior, however, is actually making me to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have a consensus to add the controversial already four years ago, you should be able to show it with diff's. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you want to be 'vindictive' by going after the BIRD articles, I am glad that you spelled it out publicly. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the entire post on this point at WT:BIRDS where I said this originally; I was making an ironic point, after which I immediately conceded that I was actually tired of the debate and more interested in compromise than getting my way. Gosh, that's just so terrible of me. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My objections to the wording are not just about the words "consensus" or "controversy". I'm disappointed that however many times I say it, both "sides" seem constantly to assume that capitalization of common names is only about birds, and keep arguing based on this false assumption. I find that lepidoptera articles more consistently use capitals than even bird articles, as I would expect from the sources used. I patrol new plant articles fairly regularly; I haven't counted but there's a fairly even division between the use of lower case and capitals for common names. There's definitely a geographical difference, as I would expect, since this is what the relevant sources do (more lower case use by North American editors, more capitalization by editors from elsewhere, particularly Australia and Europe). It's quite clear to me that both styles will continue to be used, whatever the MOS says and however long people argue here: there is no consensus. We're being distracted from working towards what there is a consensus on, namely that a given article should use a single style. This is what I try to do for new plant articles, respecting the style most used by previous editors, and what I urge others to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, no one is making that assumption, that I know of.
 * The first issue is that, for the good of encyclopedic consistency and not forcing conflicting, changing specialist conventions, the exact applications of which only the specialists understand or care about, on a general editorship and more importantly on a general readership, for whom unusual diversions from grammatical norms can be so jarring and distracting as to make it difficult to even read the article, and even drive them away, MOS recommends lower case for all species names, and has since 2008. (WP:VPP came to the same conclusion in 2007.)
 * MOS does so knowing full well that in a few fields, like lepidoptery and sometimes botany, capitalization of species names is common, even a standard in specialist publications, and that some editors who are specialists in those fields would prefer to do what their specialist publications do rather than what general publications do.
 * Going with the general not specialist practice is the overwhelming norm at Wikipedia. Many, many specialist publications in many, many fields (maybe even  of them), from marketing to law to tabletop gaming to stamp and coin collecting to military to rock-'n'-roll, capitalize things in their field, in specialist publications, that are important to them, in ways that no general style guide would ever sanction. It's an "insider" thing, differing totally from specialty to specialty.  MOS doesn't make exception for any of them, biological or otherwise, because it's not in the interests of Wikipedia as a general audience encyclopedia to do so, for either our readers or our broader editorship (who after all edit bird and butterfly and whatever articles whether they are professional zoologists or members of the relevant projects or not.
 * WP:BIRDS as a group (more accurately, it's most vocal and active members; there are dissenters within their ranks, while the vast majority of the project's participants just DGAF and are just here to write articles) has taken a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stand against MOS, and will not back down. MOS normally would not care, and just ignore them, but they fight about it so much, and so loudly, and have done so for so long as a cohesive unit, that there's a feeling among many participants at WT:MOS that it's more useful to compromise and mollify them to the extent possible within MOS's mandate, and firewall them as an unresolved dispute (which it certainly is) that should not be emulated, than to continue fighting it out with them; the strife isn't worth it (someone[s] surely will anyway, probably at VPP or RfCs or whatever, for years to come).  Lepidopterists and the botanists from subfields that favor capitalization generally fall in the DGAF camp on Wikipedia, and they have not self-politicized the issue as projects and risen up en masse in verbal arms against the "capitalization warriors" and made a WP:BATTLEGROUND out of the issue.  My personal feeling for a long time is that the WP:BIRDS matter is an obvious ArbCom case, and I thought about filing it myself once upon a time, but am so tired of the debate I'd rather eat my own hands.
 * Starting to make a list in MOS of exceptions, for butterflies, if it's a butterfly article, and plants, but only if you're not American, and cetaceans, but only if you subscribe to particular journals, and so on, is effectively saying "there is no rule at all, just go capitalize anything you feel like, and while you're at it ignore the rest of the MOS, too". Saying "there is no consensus at all, and practice simply varies from field to field" is also effectively saying to capitalize anything you feel like and burn the house down.  This is one reason why MOS itself cannot care whether this interest group or that uses capitalization in its field-specific publications, cannot endorse a pro-caps position taken by this project or that (the other being that that the practice is hotly controversial on Wikipedia, MOS is not ArbCom, ergo MOS cannot arbitrate that controversy).  MOS exists to set a standard, that some people necessarily won't like, for each stylistic issue that people editwar about, so that the editwarring stops or is at least minimized, and so that things are consistent so readers have a good encyclopedic experience.  I.e., MOS itself DGAF about your caps. :-)
 * "It's quite clear to me that both styles will continue to be used, whatever the MOS says": Sure. WP:IAR exists for a reason. That people in a few cases or fields of interest or time spans or whatever will ignore a rule does not mean there should be no rule. Even with poorly-written caps rules, we've seen that chaos results where ever it can find a foothold; with no strong, default rule on the matter it would be even worse. WP is organizationally (that is, internally) and as a major world-wide resource, long past the point of free-wheeling anarchy.  Consistency has become more and more important, as eventualism has gone extinct. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've raised an interesting point I'd not thought of, namely that different attitudes to eventualism are relevant to how we think about this issue. Eventualism is certainly not extinct among WP:PLANTS editors (and I suspect not among other ToL projects). The overwhelming majority of plant articles are stubs (see WikiProject_Plants). I once estimated how long it would take to change all these to a higher category at present rates of arrival/departure from this category; it was several hundred years. Our target is at least one article per species; this will take lifetimes, not years. So I don't feel any urgency whatsoever to agree on a style for common names; to me it's simply not of great relevance. What I don't want to do is to alienate editors and drive them away by being over-prescriptive and heavy-handed about their editing styles. Serious new editors are scarce and need to be encouraged. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To everyone but specialist editors who are birders/ornithologists, "driv[ing] [new editors] away by being over-prescriptive and heavy-handed about their editing styles" is precisely what WP:BIRDS is doing. They demand that everyone else on the system obey their peculiar typography, imported from specialist publications. It's the most massive WP:OWN problem in the entire community. I haven't seen any "you edit our way!" pattern like that out of insect or plant projects.  They just go about their merry.
 * Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that all of the viewpoints of eventualism are dead; of course we're all looking to the future not just the present (I hope). But rather that the WikiPhilosophy of eventualism-as-opposed-to-immediatism – the position that what we do and how we do it on Wikipedia right now is of little concern because this is just a rough draft, a laying-the-foundation stage, an alpha test, and we are not really an encyclopedia yet, and thus should not be concerned about reader experience, editorial standards and public perception until much further down the line – is mooted by reality.  As a core philosophy, eventualism hasn't been viable since around 2005ish, and was already on its way out. Where we're at right now is that the bulk of the immediatist philosophy is simply reality, and the important suriviving aspects of eventualism moderate its shortsightedness; that entire wikipolitical axis has collapsed to a point, called "what we do these days".
 * The problem with not agreeing early on a style for common names is that the longer we wait, the harder it is to standardize, because the more articles there are to change, the more entrenched specialists become that their pet style trumps the expectations of a general readership and preferences of a general editorship, and the more specializations demand their own special style. This is what has already been happening.  MOS  have standardized this when the guideline first began to evolve, as among its first orders of business. There would be no "I'm going to quit Wikipedia if I can't capitalize [whatever]" histrionics, because it would just be another in-house style, the same way ornithologists do not tell Nature to go screw itself, and sabotage their own careers by turning down an opportunity to publish an orn. paper in that prestigious journal, just because it doesn't honor the orn. capitalization convention (I checked; it doesn't.).  Just throwing up our hands and saying, "oh well, too late, let chaos reign" is not a useful response by the community or by anyone. I certainly don't give up that easily. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note (if it's not already clear) that my position is that capitalization of common names has to be treated like WP:ENGVAR, simply because there is at present no achievable consensus. If I thought there were such a consensus, I would support it, either way.  But the reality is that there isn't.  Therefore I oppose an editor changing a bird article from lower case style to capitals style just as much as I oppose an editor changing the existing common name style in any article.  I know that you don't agree with this, so we must agree to differ.  Eventualism is relevant here, because there may, eventually, be a genuine consensus.  Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as reasoned. But I have a lot of trepidation about trying to generalize the unusual case of ENGVAR to other topics. ENGVAR exists because of, well, basically American imperialism telling everyone else they had to spell American-like, and that was obviously a major site-wide issue that potentially affected every editor, reader and article on the whole system. Whether to capitalize Mountain Oak or Golden Eagle doesn't rise to that level.  I am surprised that you would oppose capitalizing of an already lower-case bird article; my perception of your view on the matter was off. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to be in a very small minority here (perhaps of only one!). But let me stress, if I haven't made it clear, that I'm very much against the idea that WP:BIRDS should be a special case. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interruption: please split off the capitalization discussion to a new page
It just took me about a quarter of an hour to preview and save a comment about ellipses (at the bottom of this MoS Talk Page), because of edit conflicts combined with the inordinate length of the capitalization discussion (collapsed boxes still have to load in full, and edit conflicts for some reason mean that you have to load whole pages instead of the section you're editing). The talk page's length is presently over 340,000 bytes. Could someone who's confident of what he or she is doing please split off, title and flag the discussion of capitals onto a separate page, as I once did with Talk:The Bronx/Name. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that debate's about to wind itself down anyway. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll insert a ==-level break so that the top half gets archived. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Titles of a few countries
There is an ArbCom ruling on the title of the article for Ireland, the republic that occupies the majority of the island of Ireland. But there is no such thing for other similar countries, such as the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of China (known commonly as Taiwan), the People's Republic of China, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Should the titles of these articles be hardcoded in the Manual of Style (or any other official policy)? 61.18.170.34 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I imagine the ruling is there because there is a legitimate debate about whether "Ireland" should be the title of the country or the island. Good arguments can be made on both sides as to which should get dibs on the term.  No such arguments exist for China or Macedonia, which are both parts of larger landmasses, or for Micronesia, which covers several small land masses. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are actually lots of arguments around China vs PRC, Taiwan vs ROC and Macedonia vs ROM, like Ireland vs ROI. 61.18.170.126 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style is a guideline about article content not about article titles. Article titles are covered by the article title policy. -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Shearer's right that this isn't the place for that discussion, but the implication that the this isn't the right place is some guideline vs. policy thing is wrong. It's not the right place because it's off-topic here, since it's not a style/grammar issue.  AT and its NC subguidelines derive their style matters (article title capitalization, hyphenation, "Jr." vs. "Jnr", etc., etc.) from MOS.  The Policy tag at the top of WP:AT means that WP:IAR should be applied less flippantly to article naming issues than back when it just said Guideline, nothing more. It doesn't mean that AT randomly makes up its own style rules against MOS.  I'm not sure Shearer is making that argument, but I've seen several others do so here and some other pages in the last two weeks. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's relevant to both titles and content. It also about how we name these places in other articles, so it's a matter of style (more specifically, standardised terms or nomenclatures). I will put my questions to Wikipedia talk:Article titles too, and ask people there to come here to comment. 61.18.170.126 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay to color a quote box?
A question has arisen in the article W. E. B. Du Bois regarding adding a faint, tasteful tint to a quotation box in the article (created utilizing the quote box template). An editor says that colors are discouraged, and cites WP:MOS which says "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." I'm wondering if that guidance is meant to apply primarily to the "block quote" markup, where the quote is embedded directly inside the article text (just indented a bit on both sides). Or is it meant to apply to all forms of quotations, such as quotation and quote box which are enclosed in rectangular boxes. The quotation template uses the "toccolours" as its background color (which probably depends on ones style sheet, but looks light grey in mine). The quote box provides for a "bgcolor" parameter, which permits the editor to specify any color. For instance, in Final Destination, there is a quote box with a sky blue background. I know this is not an earth-shaking issue :-) But I am curious:  is the MOS guidance that "colored background are also discouraged" intended to apply only to embedded "block quotes"?  Or is it also intended to apply to  quotation and quote box quotes?  My personal opinion is that colors should be discouraged for embedded "block quotes", but tasteful colors should be permitted for quotes within boxes (as in  quotation and quote box).   If colors are discouraged for all, at least the "toccolours" used by  quotation  must be acceptable, true?  And should the Doc page of  quote box  be changed to discourage the bgcolor parameter  (at least for mainspace articles)? --22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use quote boxes like that at all (an open question of its own), I agree that a faint color or shade is helpful, and the MOS wording isn't intended to prevent that. It intended to prevent garish colorization in such boxes (which would be tempting for some editors of certain articles; I shudder to think what articles on 1980s bands would look like without the MOS point on this!) as well as colorization, as you noted, of inline block quotations. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, color use meet accessibility standards. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about WP:ACCESS. The tinting I'm suggesting would not provide any meaning or significance, so there is no color-coded information that color-impaired readers would miss.  This question is limited to the very narrow situation of a quote box, within a rectangular border:  can that have a tasteful, light-grey background tint, simply to set it off from the white background?  --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to amending the MOS guidance from:
 * "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged."
 * to something like:
 * "Indented block quotations using a colored background are discouraged, but light, tasteful shades are acceptable for quotes contained in a box, such as created by the quote box template."
 * ...Just so future editors don't suffer the same misunderstanding. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Past participles that are becoming obsolete
What is the general opinion of past participles, such as "drug" for to drag, "learnt" for learned, etc. that are becoming obsolete? Should "dragged" or "learned" be used instead?14jbella (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had never heard drug as the participle of drag; as for learnt, it's a rare British alternative, but it's not significantly obsolescent. I'd use learned myself on WP:COMMONALITY grounds, but I couldn't be bothered to replace learnt with learned in an existing article, if it's written in BrE. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In BrE, "learnt" is not "rare". 86.181.205.47 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said “relatively rare”, “rare” or something. It's not vanishingly rare but learned is about 4 times as common. But my point is that it's not that learnt is becoming obsolete – it was already several times less common than learned in 1900. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See List of English irregular verbs.—Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And this answers the OP's question how? That list only mentions that drug and learnt exist, not how commoner or rarer than dragged or learned they are or how much commoner or rarer they are becoming with time, let alone which ones one should use on Wikipedia. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Learned vs learnt User:A. di M.'s statistics aren't quite right; the adjective "learned" as in "the learned professors" isn't being distinguished from the pp in the his ngrams. Comparing "have learned" and "have learnt" suggests that (a) the first form is indeed increasingly used (b) but in this context "learnt" is still not rare. Oddly, "have burned" and "have burnt" remain about equally common; I suspect it's because "earnt" does not occur, so other forms with this ending look a bit wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Drug' is not the pp of 'drag', 'dragged' is. As for pp's becoming obsolete, they're on their way out, but that's true for the entire morphological category, which is being merged with past tense though that is still considered substandard (I have went, have did, have gave, have swam, etc.). In most cases, the direction is toward the past-tense form, though I suppose there are probably a couple exceptions (hypercorrections, perhaps) moving the other way. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So in general, whichever one is already there should be left, and either one can be used? 14jbella (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When there are genuine alternatives, like "(have) learned" and "(have) learnt", yes. But not the informal use of a past tense as a past participle like "(have) drug" (US) or "(have) swam" (all standard dialects); these should be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See also WP:MODLANG, which covers this. Short version: If it's excessively colloquial ("killt", "drug") or something no one younger than about 75 would say ("learnt"? I strongly suspect that this is mostly regional and mostly older writers), avoid it, but if it remains common above the level of a regional dialect ("spelled", "spelt", "dwelled", "dwelt"), it's is a legitimate WP:ENGVAR matter. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS sub-guidelines: Independent and can contradict MOS?
As noted above, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters some editors at that page feel that it is a wholly separate guideline with its own WP:CONSENSUS that isn't a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

More importantly, I believe that the larger issue of because MOS was getting long, is serious and broad enough that it should be discussed here, not at any particular subpage, where it will get archived and forgotten. The fact that no one remembered in four years to update WP:MOSCAPS to agree with WP:MOS is evidence enough that this would happen. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not independent: My view on this is strongly that MoS subpages are not at all separate guidelines, but are sections of MOS that happen to have URLs without "#" in them, nothing more. This was certainly the intent in creating them, not to say "MOS doesn't care about this issue any more, let's create a page for people to create new, competing rules about this to override MOS." It's an invitation to anarchy to suppose otherwise, especially given that we know for a fact that certain projects have been manipulating the less carefully watched sub-guideline pages to favor their positions, in an attempt to evade MOS's more general prescriptions. I believe that every single MOS page needs to be reviewed, probably quarterly, in a programmatic way to ensure that it does not give conflicting, only expanded and more detailed, advice. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Project-specific guidelines should be allowed to make up rules for situations that occur exclusively or almost exclusively within that project. General-writing rules should be in the general Wikipedia MoS.  The issue that I see with this is if something occurs within two or more Wikiprojects but not throughout Wikipedia; the guidelines must be made to match across those Wikiprojects.  Placing that guideline in the MoS proper should be a fallback option in the case of disputes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as we remember they're really -specific, and while often largely written by projects, even hosted at them as subpages of projects, their applicability is never predicated on whether an editor is project member. And we have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which essentially means that if a topical, project-authored "guideline" conflicts with a general, site-wide one, then the wider "rule" wins. I've been the principal author of topical style/naming and notability conventions myself at MOS:CUE and WP:CUENOT, so I don't have anything against the idea generally. What I was really getting at was whether, say, MOS:CAPS, MOS:NUM (both of which I've edited for years) MOS:ICONS (which I'm one of the principal authors of – I'm not singling out any page to be "picked on" here) and other non-project sub-guides of MOS are in a position to . Rather, it seems clear to me that their role is to a) elaborate on and enhance MOS without contradicting it because they're simply sections we've forked off to different URLs for space reasons, as is the case with CAPS and NUM, or b) add guidance to MOS that was missing, again without conflicting with it, in cases where MOS has imported a non-MOS guideline into MOS, as is the case with ICONS and various topical guidelines that don't screw with general guidance, such as MOS:MED, MOS:CUE, and so on.  We have a problem when MOS has changed and four years later various sub-guideline pages still contain wording that was deleted from MOS on purpose, and editors at those sub-guidelines say there is consensus "there" to keep the obsolete wording!  It's a quiet little mutiny/rebellion, basically, by people who know their arguments will not stand up to wider scrutiny here at WT:MOS, which lots of people actually watchlist and pay attention to, unlike the subpages's talk pages which are largely ignored and thus are strong magnets for special interests' nonsense and viewpoint-pushing. This is precisely what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists to prevent. The fact that a sub-guideline isn't a WikiProject per se is irrelevant, since the policy actually speaks of a small group of editors, generally, in a particular time and place bucking wider consensus, e.g. a sub-guideline making up its own rules right now because of fewer editors that it takes one hand to count engaging in revertwars against edits that would do nothing but make it consistent with MOS proper. We can't have "child" pages randomly defying the baseline guidelines/polices. If a change is needed, we need to establish a consensus at the broader page that a change that a sub-guideline has come to local consensus on should in fact propagate upward. It certainly isn't automatic or assumed. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editors on a topic have adopted specific rules because of sources, MOS should reflect it instead of squishing it to impose an artificial consistency. The main MOS page needs to be updated to reflect accurately the state of its specialized sub-guidelines. Otherwise, what is the point of having specialized sub-guidelines? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS shouldn't reflect changes at a sub-page unless a case is made to do so here. Far too many projects have been manipulating the sub-guideline pages with near impunity to suit pet peeves, because virtually no one watchlists them with much attention. MOS shouldn't reflect sub-page changes at all when they conflict with general usage as reliably sourced in works on general usage, and sub-guidelines should not recommend doing so, or they're violating WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You appear to be advocating the WP:Reliable sources style fallacy, in which it is wrongly presumed that reliable sources on facts about some topic are reliable sources on style matters in general-purpose (not specialist publication) prose any time the topic happens to be involved. The of having the sub-guidelines is principally to reduce the size of MOS proper to something readable in one sitting, and also to provide room on the subpages for more examples, less clipped wording and special case handling that doesn't directly contradict MOS proper. It's emphatically not for the sub-guidelines to just go their own way. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A while back, I was supporting a rule against using "#" for "number" (as "We're #1 !!"), when "#" isn't familiar to readers outside North America. But then the editors at WikiProject Comics made a persuasive case that, no matter where they come from, enthusiasts always use "#" to identify different comic books in lists and articles. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They're right (I'm a comic collector among many hobbies, so I can confirm this.) But they should come here, because their in-house preference disagrees with MO,S and get consensus to tweak MOS on this point, which should be very easy. They shouldn't browbeat random editors into obeying their pseudo-guideline, if that's what's happening. Note that this is different from things like capitalizing bird common names, since using the "#" character isn't a basic grammar point, while capitalizing only proper nouns is. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to Eric, if the sources indicate a change in the English language (or an error in the MoS), then the main MoS should be changed to reflect this. We did this a few years ago after a source, Chicago, endorsed leaving the periods out of "U.S."
 * Using single quotation marks within plant species names is a good example of how a project-specific MoS might legitimately differ from the main MoS. Shakescene also makes a good case for why any MoS specific to Wikiproject:Comics might differ from the main MoS&mdash;because the rule in question would only apply to comic book titles.  However, the common names of species occur across many projects.  No one's made the case for the common name of a bird specie being essentially different from the common name of any other specie. Darkfrog24 (talk)
 * Many people have said many times that sources specialized in birds capitalize bird names, while sources specialized in other animals don't. This is dissed all the time as "we don't follow the style at sources". Which makes me wonder about why we bother with WP:COMMONNAME at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See . Reliable sources capitalize bird names. So we should follow WP:COMMONNAME. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the WP:SPECIALSTYLE fallacy. What's common in specialist (ornithologist and birder in this case) sources is virtually unknown in reliable sources written for a general audience (encyclopedias, newspapers, non-bird-specific magazines, non-bird-specific refereed journals, dictionaries, etc.), making it actually less common, simply more familiar to specialists. This is simply a fact, and there's no way around it. Note also that COMMONNAME never once mentions capitalization or other style matters, so it isn't relevant here anyway. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that this so-called "fallacy" is elucidated in an essay very recently written by McCandlish himself. I sharply disagree with that particular essay and do not find any genuine fallacy therein explained. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why it links to articles on the fallacies. I'm not sure what sort of "ah HA!" you're trying to imply here. Of course I recently wrote it. I announced that I did so here and several other places. I wrote it specially to counter the SPECIALSTYLE tactic of re-re-re-raising the same things over and over again so that discussions turn into a wall of text and the debate collapses. I.e., I will not be explaining the fallacies to you, since the essay and the articles it links to already do so. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking to articles that explain what you think are fallacies does not make you correct about the claim that these are instances of these fallacies, or that the alleged fallacies are in fact fallacious. --Trovatore (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, and in the same page we have WP:LOWERCASE, which says to downcase everything except proper nouns, then says "For more guidance, see Naming conventions (capitalization)." MOSCAPS saw a lot of discussion and now says in the lead that most capitalization is for proper names and acronyms. How about we update the policy page to fit the consensus in the page it's defering to? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting. LOWERCASE is part of WP:AT, which refers to WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) (WP:CAPS), not the incorrect  in your post above.  WP:CAPS in turn defers to guidance, and never mentions WP:MOSCAPS a.k.a. MOS:CAPS at all.  So, even the naming conventions pages agree that MOS is authoritative here on capitalization, not its sub-guideline MOS:CAPS.  QED. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly, any sub-page guidance that seeks, for a set of articles, to override for better or worse general MoS guidance, should do this in coordination with the MoS main page. Otherwise, we have to clean up messes later. Tony   (talk)  13:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proper nouns vs. proper names Noetica explained very carefully here that "proper noun" is badly mis-used in the MOS and some of its subpages. A small part of the lead of WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters was changed to correct this. It would be really nice if we could agree to sort out the rest of the MOS and stop mis-using this term, as people are above. This has nothing to do with any of the debates about what should be capitalized; I have different views from Noetica about this. But he's absolutely right about the mis-use of the term "proper noun". In English, proper nouns and proper noun phrases are capitalized, and these probably form the bulk of words which are capitalized. But words and phrases which are capitalized are not all proper nouns or noun phrases. In the sentence She is a Congregationalist minister, Congregationalist is an adjective (or a noun used to form a compound but not a proper noun); in the sentence She is a Muslim, Muslim is a noun, but not a proper noun (as is shown by the use of a which cannot be used with a proper noun in its normal usage). I'm sure that SMcCandlish didn't intend to imply, as he did above, that only proper nouns should be capitalized, but it's easy to make this mistake when the MOS and its subpages are wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Good catch. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Or else what? Ban all the users and WikiProjects who break the MOS rules? You repeated riling against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (as if your own opinions aren't entirely local as well) and now your "essay" (more like a rant), seem to betray a deep-seated belief in a Wikipedia-wide conspiracy against your pet WikiProject (and yes, it is a WikiProject in a sense) — MOS. This subsection's title should be amended to: "MOS sub-guidelines: Independent and can contradict SMcCandlish?"-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about banning anyone? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Which English should be used?
After reading the article S&M (song), which is nominated to be a featured article at Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive6, I noted that the article is written in American English. "S&M" is a single published by Rihanna, a Barbadian singer. I commented at the FAC that the article's English and dates may be written in Barbadian/British English as the subject (Rihanna) is Barbadian, and Barbados is part of the Commonwealth—even the article "Barbados" is written in British English. Auree commented that since the article uses the word "Barbadian" once, and that Rihanna is living now in the US, the article should be written in American English. I know that the usage of the English depends on the subject and secondly on the main writter (if the subject doesn't belongs to an English-speaking region). The question I have is, which is the "correct" use of English here? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that Barbadian English should prevail. In my view, that the song's singer lives in the United States (and partially recorded it there) doesn't rise to the same level as her nationality.
 * Likewise, I would expect all of our articles about John Lennon's songs (including those recorded in the U.S. when he resided there) to be written in British English. It would seem silly to draw a dividing line and switch to American English because of where he happened to live and work at a given time.  —David Levy 02:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of these can be a bit of a judgment call. It maybe depends on how Americanized she is or is perceived to be.  If it's borderline, then maybe there aren't "strong national ties" and the fallback position would be WP:RETAIN.
 * I would expect Maria Sharapova's article to be in American English even though she's not an American citizen, but of course that's not the same case because Russia is not an English-speaking country. --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:RETAIN is the appropriate fallback in the event that consensus isn't reached.
 * I also agree that a person's country of residence is a reasonable determining factor when its English variety is the only one available to consider. —David Levy 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK that helps, thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having listened to the song itself, it sounds American to me (box pronounced as bahx, wanting with a silent T, more with a non-silent R), so that's the dialect I'd use in the article, if I had to choose. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, English recording artists also drop plosives (sounds which cause "banging" into the microphone) as well as many dropped letters. Often it is for the ease of singing and it would be a little dodgy to go on such a premise. Similarly, Barbados is a Carribean country where "bahx" could be considered normal for that region. (see Bajan Creole for some interesting pronunciations) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada, NZ and Australia are part of the Commonwealth of Nations, too, but we don't force "British English" (which is a broad category of dialects anyway, not a dialect) on them. It's a mistake to assume that current and former British territories in the Caribbean use British English. They don't. They have their own dialects. Many of them, like Canadian English, are close to American that British English (though some, like Jamaican English, are closer to Irish English, and others are, of course, French-based).  All that said, Rhianna's a long-time US resident and principally has a US-based market for her work.  I'd go with WP:RETAIN here.  Place of  rather than place of longest adult residence is often a poor choice for a WP:ENGVAR interpretation. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling-wise, formal standard written Australian English, New Zealand English, Jamaican English and Irish English are pretty much the same as formal standard written British English. As long as you avoid colloquialisms (which, outside direct quotations, you should avoid anyway) an article in correct Irish English is extremely likely to be correct Australian English too and vice versa. So, when talking about the formal standard written language, classifying dialects into American English and Commonwealth English is a very good approximation (the only major problem with it being Canadian English). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can buy that. I don't think it means Rihanna articles shouldn't be in American English, though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * She's surely on MySpace; we should just ask her staff what her preference would be. >;-)  — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs.

Original proposal (both versions)
Here's a copy of the original proposal, both versions, so it stays with this thread fork for reference and isn't just archived:

Enough time has passed and the discussion has slowed enough that we can take stock of what's emerged and move forward. There is a clear consensus to do so.

encapsulates what this debate is about; ornithology is a red herring. This is not a facetious example; those are in fact the "official" or most widely recognized common names of all four of those species. It's crucial that we understand what kind of a "Wikipedia is written by blithering morons" Pandora's box is. If you think this is silly or exaggerated, go spend a few hours reading animal articles and come back and report how many you find with exactly that kind of capitalization (I used Przewalski's horse as an example in the MOS text because it was one of the many I have rescued from this nonsense). See the history of lion for people editwarring for the capitalization of "Lions". Yes, really. See the similar fight at bottlenose dolphin and (importantly) the squabble over whether or not to make bottlenose dolphin be about the species, since renamed common bottlenose dolphin, and Bottlenose Dolphin about the genus! I couldn't make this stuff up. People were actually going to disambiguate by capitalization (notably in exactly the opposite direction as the birds project - they were going to capitalize the group, not the specific species)! Enough is way more than enough at this point.

WP:Manual of Style exists for three main reasons:
 * 1) To provide guidance on style issues, i.e. to answer editor questions on style
 * 2) To set a baseline set of rules that everyone agrees to abide by so that every article doesn't erupt into constant flamewars about style issues
 * 3) To ensure that Wikipedia's output looks professional, trustworthy and consistent (especially within an article, but also between articles as much as possible).

MOS has dismally failed at all three of these goals on this matter, despite having a clear consensus against capitalization of animal common names since at least 2008 (language saying so has been semi-stable since then; versions that did so predated this stability, several times, and debate at WP:VPP in 2007 strongly suggested that virtually everyone was on board but birds.) There appears to be no further question or debate that this failure has occurred, that MOS needs to address the points raised, that all of them are valid, and that the solution need to be consistently applied across all the relevant guidelines (in compatible, not identical wording).

MOS has no WP:ARBCOM-like role to play as arbiter of the birds-related dispute.


 * Current, temporary wording in MOS:

I intend to replace this with one of the following two alternatives, based on a review of all of the above, and returning to the...


 * 1) The default is to begin each word in common (vernacular) names with lower case
 * 2) except were proper names appear in them [or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions not worth mentioning].
 * 3) This applies to all common names, not just species [families, orders, subspecies, etc. – too much detail here; save it for WP:FNAME.
 * 4) Some editors [a.k.a. WP:WikiProject Birds prefer to capitalize bird common names [all parts of bird common names, except those immediately after a hyphen – too much detail here; save it for WP:FAUNA], in ornithology articles (only);
 * 5) this remains controversial (a.k.a. there is no site-wide consensus that this is an acceptable practice, a.k.a. this is not consistently regarded as correct)
 * 6) and should not be used outside such articles, even for birds.
 * 7) Only one capitalization style should be used in any given article.

Consensus was arrived at on every one of these points, if not their exact wording. All of these are addressed in both versions of the proposed wording, to the extent that they need to be in WP:MOS itself (we can drill down into details in sub-guidelines). E.g., the zebras example covers the fact that we mean this applies to larger groups as well as species, without us having to say it explicitly.

I've underlined the difference between the versions:


 * Version 1:


 * Version 2:

(I got rid of the awkward "do not have each word capitalized" wording, and changed it to refer to "lower case" instead of "capitalization" or "upper case" because we should advise a positive not against a negative when possible, just as a matter of good writing. There is no link to WP:BIRDS, because we do not want to seem blamey or attacking, nor, conversely, do we want to give the impression that WikiProjects can barge in and demand exceptions all over the place. This is about avoiding conflict, not elevating project "authority" or assigning "blame". Also, "species" is an important distinction with regard to the the birds thing, and cannot be lost, or the passage will misrepresent WP:BIRDS's actual position.)

These each cover all of the points that were identified as needed coverage and on which there is a clear consensus (yes, there is a clear consensus that the WP:BIRDS preference is, just not on whether to use that specific word.

I prefer the first version ("controversial" vs. "no Wikipedia-wide consensus"), because it actually represents the truth that in seven years of the debate virtually everyone but one WikiProject have agreed that "Johnson had a Rock Pigeon" is not how we write an encyclopedia. Saying there "isn't a Wikipedia-wide consensus" about what WP:BIRDS is doing is wishy-washy spindoctoring. Worse yet, it not-so-subtly suggests other projects should rise up and demand exceptions for whatever pet peeve they have. The evidence I've compiled strongly suggests that the WP:BIRDS exception is in fact one of the controversial ideas on the entire system for years. Meanwhile, the editor who labeled "controversial" a "boo-word" and objected to it has simply abandoned the discussion, without ever explaining why they felt that way about it; I don't feel a strong need to concede to arguments that are undefended by their proponents. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This was followed by a poll, a canvassed false poll, and lots of argumentation, which is archived under WT:Manual of Style/Archive 128. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another compromise text: Mention guidance
Write common (vernacular) names in lowercase except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, but Przewalski's horse). Capitalizing the common names of bird species is established practice within Wikiproject Birds (Harpy Eagle). This is in accordance with specialist guidance but has been repeatedly disputed on Wikipedia, where it conflicts with general-audience guidance. Do not de-capitalize ornithology articles within WP:BIRDS without first establishing consensus. Use lowercase for all other articles outside of WP:BIRDS. All articles should be internally consistent with respect to the capitalization of common names (The Golden Eagle preys on Mountain Hare/The golden eagle preys on mountain hare). Create redirects from alternative capitalization forms of article titles.


 * Reflects changes made after KimVL and SMC responded.


 * So it's a bit long but it establishes that 1. the WP:BIRDS editors aren't following their own whims 2. neither are the opponents of capitalization 3. editors should not de-capitalize WP:BIRDS articles just for the heck of it 4. editors should not copy WP:BIRDS style on articles outside of WP:BIRDS 4. the MoS does not expressly endorse capitalization (implied) and 5. it links to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS without banging it over anyone's head.
 * If need be, we could add "the specialist guidance of ornithological articles and bird books." The only reason I've left it out is length. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * support. I think this is clear. It describes the conflict in neutral terms and it does not point fingers to which group has it wrong. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with fix. I would suggest changing: "All articles should be internally consistent with respect to the capitalization of common names" to All articles should be internally consistent with respect to the capitalization of common bird names". and remove the example. Maountain hare is lowercase, no reason to make that caps.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this modified wording. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with minor tweak: It shouldn't say "within" or "outside" WP:BIRDS, which is not a container, and the project does not control the articles anyway as a matter of policy. It should read "Do not de-capitalize common names in ornithology articles without first establishing consensus. Use lower case for other categories of articles." This also clarifies here what WP:BIRDS has said many times, that it does not expect the convention to be followed for mentions of birds outside ornithology articles. With a tweak like that, I'm all thumbs up and everyone can be happy! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)  Post-tweak: Just support! Yay! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)  Update: I would continue to support, if the language were removed calling for "Mountain Hare" in ornithology articles; Jojalozzo, below, is correct that we capitalize different things for different reasons, and a strong argument can be made that capitalizing birds but not other animals in birds articles is such a case. I remain neutral on that question. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)  See new comment, below.  There's a serious inconsistency problem that would appear to require an obsessive amount of geekiness to remember and apply, and that's not an acceptable imposition on our editors. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is absolutely fine. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - although the "internally consistent" part bugs me a bit; "Mountain Hare" wouldn't be used even in ornithological articles. But if that's what it takes I won't whale the deceased equine with the long straight implement. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bushranger the part that says "All articles should be internally consistent with respect to the capitalization of common names (The Golden Eagle preys on Mountain Hare/The golden eagle preys on mountain hare)." This implication that species other than birds might be capitalized is not intended, is it?  I'll support if this is fixed.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Please replace "All articles should be internally consistent with respect to the capitalization of common names (The Golden Eagle preys on Mountain Hare/The golden eagle preys on mountain hare)" with something like "Capitalize only common names of birds (but not other fauna) in ornithological articles. Do not capitalize common names of birds in non-ornithological articles. (The Golden Eagle preys on the mountain hare/Predators of the mountain hare include the golden eagle.)" [Note: we'll want to repair the Mountain Hare page if we're to use this example.] Joja  lozzo  02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per four years of MOS saying not to capitalize species common names, it should be fixed anyway. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So ornithology journals are concerned that people will confuse the white-throated sparrow with any sparrow that has a white throat but not the mountain hare with any hare that lives on a mountain? I've got my qualms about this.  Intra-article consistency, unlike caps vs. lowercase, is a central principle of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to remember that links work. The first time a prey animal like mountain hare gets mentioned, it would be linked, and unless people's brains liquify between paragraphs, they're not suddenly going to interpret a later unlinked mention as "any hare that lives on a mountain".  In any cases of possible ambiguity, just rewrite to avoid like we always do: "the mountain hare species". I'm a big fan of consistency within the same article, but Jojalozzo has a point. And it's far more important to stop the disease-like spread of total nonsense capitalization practices like "Lion" and "Pallas's Cat" than to demand that editors of birds articles to capitalize prey animals. Even if we absolutely wanted both, I'd happily sacrifice the latter to get the former, because it's a 1000× more in-your-face problem for the readership that lc mouse names in UC eagle articles. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Intra-article consistency should be first principle. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why did MOS long endorse "U.S." even in the same article as "UK" and "PRC"? Sometimes intra-article consistency is less important that editorial peace, and site-wide consistency. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We up-case some terms and down-case others for various reasons. Just because we allow up-casing of bird names in an article doesn't mean it's inconsistent if we don't up-case every other common name in the article. Here we're saying "ornithology articles up-case common names of birds", not "ornithology articles up-case common names of all fauna". Within an ornithology article all common names of birds are consistently up-cased and all common names of other fauna are consistently down-cased.  Joja  lozzo  14:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo, you can make a case for it not being bad, but it is quite literally inconsistent. I'm pretty sure that all of us know that the English language isn't always logical, but this shoots down the idea that bird names are capitalized to prevent confusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo, if you saying that it is the case that "Within an ornithology article all common names of birds are consistently up-cased and all common names of other fauna are consistently down-cased" then you're just wrong. This may be true of some articles but not others.
 * If you are saying that it should be the case then it makes no sense. All arguments in favour of upcasing bird names are equally good arguments for upcasing other kinds of name. Birds are not the only group where there are authoritative lists of capitalized English names; the only thing that is special is that there is a higher degree of internationalization in the case of birds. SMcCandlish would clearly be right to say that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would apply if WP:BIRDS members were claiming that ornithology articles should be treated quite differently from every other kind of article. (Shock, horror! I just agreed with SMcCandlish!) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are my smelling salts? heh. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All arguments in favour of upcasing bird names are equally good arguments for upcasing other kinds of name.—Well, no, the argument that the specialist journals/etc typically have style guides recommending uppercase doesn't seem to apply to other kinds of names, does it? I tried to bring this up at PRIMATES but nobody had much of an answer. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:BIRDS claim is actually far more specific, when its proponents clearly articulate it. It's that the International Ornithological Committee (IOC) has issued a uniform, "official" list of common names of birds, for universal use in English, and apparently just about everyone's buying it. There isn't a comparable global standard like this for any other taxonomic group. As I've said before, I don't think this means WP needs to capitalize bird names, but it's a  argument than, say, lepidopterist editors could make, which would probably be what some lepidoptery journal article submission style guidelines demand, and what they're used to seeing in a bunch of insect field guides. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Thanks to Kim and SMc for moving this on <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is another attempt to make WP:BIRDS special; it ignores all the other areas where capitalization of common names is the norm (e.g. lepidoptera) or widespread (e.g. plants). I do not accept that "it conflicts with general-audience guidance". I do not accept that it would be right at present to de-capitalize articles outside the field of ornithology where there are reasons for capitalizing (e.g. Australian plants). I feel very strongly that this is a highly reprehensible attempt at a "fix" which satisfies two interest groups (those who really want all common names to be in lower case and those members of WP:BIRDS who want all bird names in capitals) at the expense of the wider Wikipedia community. If anything is LOCALCONSENSUS this is. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the idea that MOS itself is becoming a local consensus: Maybe it's just time we set up an RfC here on the species caps issue, and direct WP:CD (via Template:Centralized discussion) and WP:VPP to the RfC when it gets going. That should be more than enough site-wide attention. If not we can even see about adding it for a while to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details and MediaWiki:Sitenotice.  Various RfCs and VPP discussions have happened over the years, piecemeal, but the kind broadly-advertised centralized discussion that needs to take place hasn't happened. On the other bits: Can you cite any general-audience guidance – a style guide, encyclopedia, dictionary, writing textbook, magazine or newspaper stylebook, or other non-specialist (i.e. non-field-specific – not animals- or plants-specific) work – in which it is recommended that bird (or other organism) common names should be capitalized?  If there are not a  of such works (there's not; previous debates about this have spent large amounts of time examining this question), then the practice certainly "conflicts with general-audience guidance", and it's crucial that MOS say so, or it will effectively be taking ArbCom's role and arbitrating in favor of WP:BIRDS and telling all critics of the WP:BIRDS capitalization scheme that the debate is over; not MOS's role.  Is there an international body that has published a standardized list of official, consistent-worldwide names of plants or lepidoptera which includes capitalization as a requirement of adherence to the standard?  That is the "special" argument WP:BIRDS makes. I do not agree, as many do not agree, that this is a strong enough rationale for MOS to endorse the practice, because it's still geeky, specialist typographic weirdness for specialist publications, but it has been a strong enough rationale to generate 7 years of entrenched, WP:BATTLEGROUNDish debate about bird capitalization, a debate which . Thus MOS would note the dispute, albeit in weaker wording than I originally proposed, and advise editors to work around it until it it someday is resolved. This is actually standard operating procedure for MOS and its subpages.  There is no comparable system-wide dispute about moths or ferns. MOS is a prescriptive document like all style guides, which means picking a choice between one option and another (or several others) and applying it for consistency. This also means that those who prefer the option, or one of the options, not chosen aren't going to be entirely happy with the result, but their happiness is secondary to the good of the encyclopedia, including both a consistent reader experience and reduction of raging editwars between editors. This is all true of everything MOS recommends.  MOS isn't saying WP:BIRDS is special, it's saying WP:BIRDS is claiming it is special, there's a debate about that, it's not MOS's job to arbitrate that dispute, but it is MOS's job to set a standard to follow when people fight frequently over a style matter, which is the case with organism caps generally. The MOS standard is "don't capitalize species common names", since virtually zero other general works do so (WP doesn't  if specialist works do), and it MOS has said so since 2008. For four years the "no-caps" default here has been uncontroversial. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat that it's not true that "For four years the 'no-caps' default here has been uncontroversial." It hasn't been argued about here, maybe, but it's been argued about elsewhere, and people just didn't bother with what the MOS said until you tried to change subpages as part of "synchronizing". Before that, it was deliberately ignored by many editors – and that's not what "uncontroversial" means. Uncontroversial guidance in the MOS tends to be followed or else failure to follow uncontroversial guidance quickly gets corrected without edit wars. This is not true of the capitalization of English names. If you don't believe me, try "correcting" the capitalization of common names in an article about an Australian plant, like a Banksia (and, no, I'm not recommending this!). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's switch terms, so this stops being about birds or even animals. Let's say WP:STARWARS notes that (I'm making this up), "Planet", "Starship", "Star", and various other terms are almost always capitalized in Star Wars novels and guidebooks and George Lucas's own manuscripts and official statements by LucasArts, etc., etc., but not in normal English. They decide it should be done in Star Wars articles "because that's what the reliable sources do" and change all the relevant articles to do this. Others don't agree with it and point to MoS.  WP:STARWARS writes up their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS guideline, and deliberately ignores MOS rather than seek consensus that what the project is doing makes sense in a general-purpose encyclopedia. That's what I see happening, if you just change the topic back.  Refusing to participate in consensus-forming process at MOS means neither that MOS hasn't come to a consensus nor that said consensus somehow doesn't represent a WP-wide view. Claiming that something at MOS is controversial but doing nothing to change it indicates an illusory "controversy".  But WP:IAR exists for a reason. The fact that some editors, including groups of them in projects, sometimes ignore MOS and other "rules" doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist or is bad, only that some people feel a need to ignore it.  Policy sanctions this, and life goes on. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with small change I agree with Dickylon and Bushranger. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Comment :  Resolved  There's still a lot of latent inconsistency here.  I noticed on a bird article that its unofficial common name were capitalized, despite the birds project's main rationale for capitalization being that it's because the IOC publishes an "official", consistent, world-wide, universally accepted list of codified bird common names in English, and this makes them "special" (it doesn't, but I'm willing to pretend it does as a matter of compromise).  I just confirmed at WT:BIRDS yesterday that they also want to capitalize the unofficial ones. It doesn't even seem to matter how parochial they might be.  Yet the don't, apparently, want to capitalize prey/predator non-bird common names in the same article.  That's too inconsistent and weird.  Either IOC names get capitalized because they're allegedly special and nothing else does because they're not, or everything gets capitalized in orn. articles for intra-article consistency. It cannot be some unholy mishmash that no one is ever going to remember. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I expect it to make a speck of difference to SMcCandlish, but in the interest of explaining it to anyone else who might be reading, the WP:BIRDS project capitalizes any bird name which was at some point on an official taxonomic list. So Red-throated Loon and Red-throated Diver are capitalized, but "peg-billed loon" and "cape brace" (which were never "official" names) are not.  And before I get any snotty comments, I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong type of quotation marks — which is apparently something else a number of editors are having words about! MeegsC | Talk 22:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the answer you gave at WT:BIRDS, so you needn't be snarky about it: "I believe the project's capitalization rules suggest that all bird names be capitalized in the same way as official IOC names are — i.e. title case. That's certainly how I've interpreted things. MeegsC | Talk 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)". I'm not asking you questions for my own entertainment; it's a legit question that needs a clear answer. I see that since then some other birds project members are starting to chime in with what you're saying here now (which makes more sense to me). I think that would kind of lean things toward "don't capitalize non-bird species", too, rather than "capitalize or lower-case all species consistently in the same article", which seems to be the main sticking point with this proposal (Peter coxhead's more general objection also noted). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point and well made. I wasn't thinking about regional folk names such as "cape brace" and "peg-billed loon" as proper bird names, so hadn't considered them when I answered your initial question at WP:BIRD.  My mistake.  When others raised that point on the WP:BIRDS talk page, I realized that I had overlooked them.  Since none of that discussion's responses (only your synthesis) had been transferred to this page, I thought I would try to explain the "inconsistent and weird" (as you termed it) way some bird articles display names.  Your comment "It doesn't even seem to matter how parochial they are." is certainly not uniformly correct, at least in articles that have been worked on recently by project members. MeegsC | Talk 02:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and thanks for clarifying and sorry if I misinterpreted. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:BIRDS folks appear, in the main, to favor not capitalizing even non-official common names (i.e. well-attested folk names) of birds, nor predator/prey non-bird species mentioned in bird articles. So, that would appear to agree with Jojalozzo's (and, FWIW, the now-absent KimvdLinde's) change suggestion, and disagree with Darkfrog24's and Peter coxhead's position for intra-article consistency being paramount. Not sure that changes anyone's position, but that appears to be the breakdown right now. I'm okay with either result, because my concern is more about the immediately reader-irritating cases that have randomly appeared all over the place like "Mountain Dog" and "Bottlenose Dolphin" and "Lion". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The other other solution
Peter coxhead noticed and seemed to like this, but I think everyone else missed it in the shuffle. An archive page back, I proposed an obvious win-win solution, that works on pages of all kinds, biological and otherwise. See, e.g., heroin, which lists the "official" name diacetylmorphine and its source, as well as the name in British medicine, diamorphine, and a source for that, while keeping the article at. WP:COMMONNAME has barely been mentioned in this entire debate, but is actually important here, since it's already been proven, in many former editions of his debate, that capitalization of common names of species of anything is virtually unknown outside of specialist sources, and thus is not common, by definition. The proposed solution would also solve the lepidoptery and regional botany caps questions, too.


 * The proposal:

Typical (but fictitious) examples (added to avoid any confusion that a "list of alternative capitalizations" is the idea)  :

and

(Note lower case in that last sentence). This exact solution has worked perfectly well in other articles of all kinds, with nearly zero strife.

For birds, it also has the WP:NPOV benefit of not preferring one ornithological organization's capitalization scheme over another's, when they conflict. (Yes, most readers here are probably unaware of it, but the ornithological authorities do not actually even entirely agree on how to capitalize!)

bird example:

— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator: I firmly predict that an RfC will arrive at precisely this solution, since it's completely normal practice to note alternative spellings and their sources instead of fighting over the matter for 7 years straight. (Just or the record, my proposing this as a potential solution does not strike my support of the one immediately above as a possibility if consensus leans in that direction, but proposal is my actual strong preference.) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I'm trying to think outside the us vs. them box. Instead of saying "Dammit, WP:BIRDS, stop this capitalization stuff, it's ungrammatical", we can just use and  the capitalization, including the variations (and there  variations – the issue has come up at WT:BIRDS several times) as alt. names in the lead. No policy needs to change, no guideline needs to change, WP:BIRDS gets to keep and  about the fact that the common names are capitalized in the bird lit. Basically nothing changes other than over-capitalization in the titles and article prose is slowly massaged away as people bother to get around to it.  The "win-win" isn't "WP:BIRDS and 'capitalization warriors, illusory camps that would no longer be relevant. The winners would be, who would get better information and also not have a convention thrown in their faces, sentence after sentence, that will confuse and irritate many of them, and , who will finally have consistent guidance to follow and an end to seven years of telling each other in faintly politer terms to go screw themselves. The more entrenched members of the birds project will still hate this idea, because it means giving up capitalization in titles and most of the prose, but the rationales for going this route are solidly based in policy, and I'd bet if you could get them to speak up on it, many members (there are over 100, and we usually hear from 4-8 of them) a large number would agree this makes sense and, for their project be a great burden of distracting and stressful strife off their shoulders. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both "sides" make comments about what is confusing to readers, but do we have any evidence on this? Not that I've seen. I think that lower-casing English names is sometimes (but far from always) more confusing to readers; SMcCandlish thinks that capitalizing English names is (?always) confusing to readers. (What irritates either of us is irrelevant, although doubtless irritation helps to motivate us both to discuss it!) Does it really confuse readers of this Canadian web page to see "Long-tailed Vole" instead of "long-tailed vole"? I doubt it, but I would certainly be persuaded by solid evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The various threads, at WT:BIRDS and elsewhere, that in one exact wording or another, ask "why on earth are you capitalizing this?" are a strong indication that it's confusing, otherwise the question would never need to be asked. But confusion is only part of the issue. Outright irritation (i.e. distraction of the reader from their use of the encyclopedia) is a major part.  If it weren't either confusing, annoying or both to a large number of readers, it would not have become a seven year protracted debate of nearly everyone who has expressed an opinion on the matter being against the capitalization except one project, even in biology (save a few ichthyologists and botanists, whose projects don't really seem to care).  All the other projects like WP:CETACEANS that experimented with capitalization, because some of their sources used it, abandoned it pretty rapidly, because they saw the ill will that it generated from the readership and less importantly from the broader editorship. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I was new to Wikipedia, I absolutely found the capitalization of common names of bird species confusing. I didn't understand why it had been done or where else it was supposed to be done.  —David Levy 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence of seven years is that a minuscule fraction of Wikipedia readers find the capitalization of bird names so confusing, annoying, or both that they try to get it changed. There is no evidence that it's confusing to large numbers of readers.
 * Oddly enough, somebody recently posted something at alt.usage.english in which he capitalized the names of the bird species I mentioned. I asked people's opinions on the capitalization; nobody was against it, and one person was for it for the usual reason of clarity.  A.u.e. doesn't represent typical readers of the 'pedia, but it is a place where people feel totally free to express their language peeves (and to argue against others' peeves).  I've never seen any irritation expressed there or elsewhere, spontaneously or when I tried to elicit opinions, except here.  Without further evidence, my impression is that most people don't care (unless they see a mention of common sandpipers and realize that they can't tell whether they're Common Sandpipers). I think we should save the claims of how many people dislike capitalization of species names till we have good evidence, if we ever do. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I wasn't confused as to the terms' meanings (and I doubt that anyone is). I was confused as to why the practice (which I hadn't encountered previously) was in use.  It seemed downright strange (and still does), presumably because I'm not a bird enthusiast.
 * 2. Are you aware of how rare it is for users to try to get anything changed? The overwhelmingly common reaction is to assume that things are done a certain way for a good reason and emulate conventions indiscriminately (including where they aren't intended to be applied).  This is why editors frequently insert bold-face titles where they don't belong and create articles with names like "Cornelius Schindleplat (Canadian pianist)" when no other "Cornelius Schindleplat" article exists.  People simply copy what they see (without asking questions).
 * 3. You point to a lack of confusion caused by the capitalization, while simultaneously asserting that it prevents confusion.
 * Let's assume that people would mistake a mention of "common sandpipers" (referring to sandpiper species that are common) with one of "Common Sandpipers". Do you have any evidence that your preferred orthography prevents this confusion from arising among most of Wikipedia's readers, relatively few of whom are bird enthusiasts?  ("Oh, it says C ommon S andpiper, so it must refer to the species Actitis hypoleucos, not to c ommon s andpipers in general.")
 * As I noted previously, if anything, our adherence to this convention probably reduces overall clarity by encouraging editors' reliance upon it to draw the intended distinction. In a non-specialist publication (whose readers are unlikely to pick up on such a visual cue), it's far more helpful to simply avoid referring to "common sandpipers" in the generic sense.  —David Levy 07:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, I understood that and was even going to point it out, but it didn't seem relevant to what I was saying. You don't have to be a bird enthusiast, by the way, but you do have to be a nature enthusiast.  Some field guides, Web sites, and the like on other natural-history subjects capitalize (as people keep reminding us), so wildflower enthusiasts who look at a bird article here are quite likely to know what's going on.
 * 2. I admit I haven't looked at other controversies. On the other hand, we don't know how many people would complain if we didn't capitalize bird names.
 * 3. My only evidence is that I've occasionally been confused when reading things that don't capitalize species names. However, I don't know of any evidence that the use of any punctuation or capitalization conventions helps with clarity. We go by the obvious arguments for such things&mdash;for instance, without the comma or dash after a parenthetical phrase, readers don't know where the phrase stops&mdash;although a great many writers don't follow such rules, which strongly suggests that a great many readers don't notice them.  The same sort of argument holds for capitalization of species names.
 * You say that relative few of our readers are bird enthusiasts. But of course (without evidence) such readers are overrepresented among readers of bird articles.  And it's not that few; people interested in birds are a substantial minority of Americans, even more of Americans literate enough to read Wikipedia.  Also, as I said above, other nature enthusiasts are also likely to understand the convention, and they too will be overrepresented.  We don't have any firm evidence on how many readers find capitalization useful and how many find it confusing or annoying, but I suspect the former outnumber the latter by a sizable factor, since I think the vast majority of people who don't know the convention don't care.
 * Finally, avoiding any phrase that is or might appear to be a species name would be fairly difficult, it seems to me, and it still wouldn't help, because readers wouldn't know we were doing it. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I don't have numbers for countries other than the U.S., which is why I just mentioned America above, but I think there are a good number of people in Britain, at least, who know the capitalization convention. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. The fact that you have to be an enthusiast of anything "to know what's going on" is half of the problem. (The other half being blind emulation of the capitalization all over the place, e.g. Lion and Mountain Dog and anything else alive.) Whether it's possible there are more of these specialists on one side of the pond isn't really important.
 * 2. I firmly predict that near-zero people who are not members of WP:BIRDS would complain and that the majority of the over-100 members of that project would not complain. They're here to write articles and don't care much about nit-picks. They mostly know that insistence on using a specialist style like that in a generalist work like this is an extremist position being pushed by around a dozen or fewer editors at that project. All ornithologists and birders know full well that no one capitalizes outside of such publications – it's all lower case all the time in newspapers, encyclopedias, dictionaries, non-birds-specific magazines, style guides, etc., etc., etc. They're entirely used to it, and the all the histrionics about this are just WP:DRAMA for its own sake.
 * 3. The idea that it's a confusion preventative has never been very well supported. Bird field guides do it because it makes the name stand out (i.e. it is Use of Capitals for Emphasis) when someone's trying to quickly identify something before it flies away. Not applicable here. Ornithology journals do it for political reasons (to push the IOC names vs. the more regional variants) – not applicable here, and then some – and because their prose is excessively dense, clipped and technical (i.e., it's the only kind of writing where someone might not try using plainer language to write around the problem) – not applicable here.  Since day one the fact that it's easy to write around the problem ("the Mexican jay is one of many jays of Mexico" not "the Mexican Jay" is one of many Mexican jays", which would just be recklessly bad writing) has been pointed out by someone, often several someones, virtually every time the debate comes up. Yet proponents of capitalization never address it at all, just pretend it wasn't said, that there are no arguments to address, that only a nut or a hater would disagree with them. This has been going on for seven years now. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The numbers of people in different countries is relevant only because I didn't want to give offense by appearing to consider only one country.
 * If we capitalize, some people (a large number) will understand immediately whether a phrase refers to a species or not. If we don't capitalize, no one will.  I think helping some people is better than helping none.
 * 2. Please be civil. I doubt anyone is engaging in drama for its own sake. I've certainly noticed that non-bird sources don't capitalize (hence this story about how "young Little Blue Heron" got edited in a campus newspaper to "young little blue heron" and then to "young blue heron", which you may have seen from me before), but we should go with the convention that helps some readers, not the one that provides no help to anyone.  Also, I beg leave to doubt your prediction.
 * 3. As I said, you can write so you never use any phrase that readers might mistake for a species name, though I think it would be rather difficult. However, the reader doesn't know you're doing it.  Eventually, very astute readers may realize, "Every time I see something here that could be a species name, it is.  Probably all the many people who write bird articles here are adhering to that, so I'll count on it from now on."  It takes much less time and much less astuteness for a non-enthusiast to notice that species names are being capitalized, starting with the first sentence of every bird article.
 * As I also said, we have no less evidence that capitalization helps than that other style conventions help. Common sense says it will help some people, though probably the majority DGAF, and that strikes me as a good-enough argument for both capitalizing bird names and hyphenating compound modifiers.
 * Do you have any basis for your claims about people's reasons for capitalizing? Audubon, for instance, capitalized species names in Birds of North America; it wasn't a field guide and he wrote the non-technical parts in a leisurely, not clipped, style.  As far as I know, the regional authorities capitalized before the IOC project started (in 1990).  If you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory about the IOC, feel free to just say you do, without specifying it, if it's confidential. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Re: "If we capitalize, some people (a large number) will understand immediately whether a phrase refers to a species or not"... You and other project members have been asked by at least 3 different parties to the current debate to support this assertion, and asserters of it have been asked to do so for seven years. No one outside your project seems to be buying this. Quite a number of us are of the opinion that it causes more confusion than it solves, because it the idea that the capitalization will be immediately recognized by readers as a form of disambiguation, when there is nothing at all to suggest this is true. As for the of disambiguation allegedly caused by not capitalization, this too has been covered again and again and again (though recycling the debate seems to be the point. If all you can come up with is the "young little blue heron" story, you're not convincing anyone, since that was simply an obvious case of bad writing and careless editing of bad writing.

2. One project member was certainly engaging in drama for its own sake; see above for links demonstrating that any time she doesn't get her way she engages in a fit of public psychodramatics, and histrionically "quits Wikipedia" for a few days or a month or whatever, with various flaming insults on the way out. I'd be half surprised if she wasn't the direct inspiration of the page at WP:DIVA, since it describes her behavior with exacting accuracy. That was incivil and I retract it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC) See also the "we should go on an editing strike!" WP:POINTy pulpit pounding at WT:WikiProject Birds. Would you like more examples? Civlility does not require pretense that negative behaviors aren't happening. Civility != lovey-dovey mollycoddling. Anyway, the notion that "the convention helps some readers" seems to exist in your head divorced entirely from the concept that it not only fails to help others, it un-helps them. You would not be seeing more than half a decade of strife about this if it wasn't controversial. Controvery means people disagree. People don't disagree because they are insane or stupid, they do so because they find problems with something, and the problems affect them. Please stop dismissing everyone who disagees with you on this as if they "just don't understand". It's getting unbelievably tiresome. We really, really, really do understand, and we don't agree with you.

3. "As I said, you can write so you never use any phrase that readers might mistake for a species name" - Huh? That's never been anyone's goal. It's the opposite; you write so you never use a species name in a way that is likely to be confused with a general description. The most common ways to do this are to prefix "the" in front of such a name, follow it with a binomial, link it, and/or follow it with a clarification (cf. the usual example of "The Mexican jay is only one of many jays native to Mexico"); once this has been done once in the article, it generally needn't be done again (no one is going to suddenly forget while reading Mexican jay that that phrase means the species not "random jay bird that happens to be in Mexico"; our readers are not utter imbeciles). "The reader doesn't know you're doing it" - which is also true of capitalization. To all readers who aren't birdwatchers, it simply looks like ungrammatical writing, a widespread problem on Wikipedia. Our readers expect to see Bad Capitalization and mislplelled worrds and ungood grammarses because WP has a huge load of such errors. Our readers emphatically do not expect to see weird style rules that no one would ever encounter outside an ornithology journal or bird field guide, and when they do run into it, it simply looks like more clean up work needs to be done. (And many of us think they're right...). Your blind faith that people notice bird capitalization other than a momentary annoyance, astutely perceive that it is used in a predictable pattern and psychically zoom in on your intentions for doing it is unreasonable. It's a combination of tunnel vision and dangerously blind optimism.

See many, many previous debates about this. People with may more patience than I possess have spent oodles of time, on both sides, digging up sources. I'm not going to repeat that herculean effort (I've been catalog[u]ing these debates at the page I just linked so specially so this would be unnecessary). John James Audubon (1785–1851) was writing in a time period when capitalization of common nouns for emphasis (or even simply because they were nouns, by comparison with/influence of German practice) was still common in English. It didn't start massively dying out until the late 1800s to early 1900s, after Fowler & Fowler's The King's English and the elder Folwer's Modern English Usage, followed fairly shortly by Strunk & White in The Elements of Style dumping on the practice, on both sides of the Atlantic. No one cares what "regional authorities" on anything are doing. Wikipedia is not a regional birds book, or beholden to them. Your own project has been sharply critical of the regional "authorities" and the nomenclatural chaos they caused, so it doesn't seem appropriate to try to cite them as authoritative here.

I don't know what conspiracy theory you refer to. It doesn't take believe in a conspiracy to note that a project has gone off the rails and can't see past its own incredibly narrow interests. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In keeping with MeegsC's and your suggestion, which I fully sympathize with, I'm not going to answer most of that. However, I should say something about my accusation of incivility, which referred to this: "All ornithologists and birders know full well that no one capitalizes outside of such publications – it's all lower case all the time in newspapers, encyclopedias, dictionaries, non-birds-specific magazines, style guides, etc., etc., etc.  They're entirely used to it, and the all the histrionics about this are just WP:DRAMA for its own sake."  I thought, but didn't say I thought, that you were referring to all support of capitalization by ornithologists and birders as "histrionics" that was "drama for its own sake".  This would apply to those of use who aren't histrionic about it, and would have been uncivil.  Judging by your response to me, though, I now think you meant, "All ornithologists and birders are used to it, and when some of those who support capitalization are histrionic, they're engaging in drama for its own sake."  This is still a bit insulting, since they may be engaging in drama for what they believe is a good reason rather than for the sake of drama, but it's nowhere near as bad as what I thought you meant.  So I think I misinterpreted what you wrote, and I apologize for accusing you on that basis.

Incidentally, I too wish one person wouldn't quit so often and I too think a strike would be a bad idea, but I don't see either of them as "drama for its own sake". People get upset on both sides. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and having stepped back and worked on other things for a while and come back, I concede that my temper got a bit heated and I should have been more civil. I'm a firm believer that reasonable people can disagree. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE For all the above mentioned reasons. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as? Several archives of text is WP:TLDR to know what specific objections you may be raising. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. You are not new to the discussion and you know the arguments. It is a win-LOOSE solution!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm playing no games. You raise a large number of invalid arguments at every turn. I'm asking you to provide one or two clear, reasoned ones that have not already been addressed as fallacious. Your "oppose" doesn't really mean anything if you don't. Let's make it easy: On what basis do you object to the idea that it is typical Wikipedia practice to name articles according to WP:COMMONNAME? On what basis do you object to the idea that it is normal Wikipedia practice to list sourced alternative names in the WP:LEAD of the article? On what basis do you object to the idea that it is normal WP practice to cite reliable sources for facts, such as alt. names? On what basis do you object to the idea that it is normal WP practice to represent conflicting views found in reliable sources instead of favoring one, such as favoring a particular capitalization scheme by one taxonomic authority that is disputed by another?  I'm really interested what your rationales could be. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * &lt;sigh> Kim claims to have left Wikipedia again, as she did before on 13 October 2011 (click redlink for deletion history) and again on 17 January 2012. Sad if true, and I hope she comes back; I don't have to agree with someone or their debate tactics to appreciate the good article work they do. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From my (and I suspect her) point of view, this new "compromise" is a power grab, and goes back on a faithful compromise, so I'm not surprised that she's very upset. I would be, too, if I felt I'd been had. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I failed to see where you said, "Just or the record, my proposing this as a potential solution does not strike my support of the one immediately above as a possibility if consensus leans in that direction, but this proposal is my actual strong preference." Please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as it conforms to the policy of practical consensus - it's what we do everywhere else. I think this one has the best chance in an RfC. I'd like to see proposed wording. Joja  lozzo  21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like: "Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, gray wolf, but Przewalski's horse). Reliably sourced, alternative capitalization forms should be mentioned in the introduction lead section."
 * ? Joja  lozzo  15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'd probably go with "in the lead section", though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Provisional support. For article content, I think it is the best balance of full use of reliable sources and adherence to generalist styles, and I have long been a proponent of a more general solution to providing and referencing multiple common names. My concern is with the article title. If we are maintaining the capitalization of the reliable sources, that capitalization should also be preserved in the article title. And since most bird articles are titled with names that are capitalized in authoritative sources, it seems to me that we should preserve that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the lead, but is good to clarify what is called what in taxonomy/naming sections. The version above looks really really user unfriendly. We sometimes distinguish if a common name diverges from an official name, however in all bird cases, an abbreviated common name is ambiguous, so I suspect there is no situation where there is an unambiguous and hence exact common name which diverges from the official name - actually my mistake, there is precisely one species - Great Northern Loon, whose official name is an unholy amalgam of British and US preferences....so there is one species this is a good option for but not the other 9000 +. It also goes contra to pages such as Myocardial infarction Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For one reason, I don't see any reason to list variant capitalizations.  Readers may need to know that their "turkey buzzard" is our "Turkey Vulture", or even that their (and my) "Gunnison Sage-Grouse" is our "Gunnison Grouse", and we should give sources for such things, but readers don't need to be told that "marsh warbler" is the same as "Marsh Warbler" (when the former refers to a distinct species). The other reason(s) will have to wait till I'm awake tomorrow. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really a matter of creating a "list" of variant capitalizations (just mentioning both variants in the rare cases this is needed) – I've clarified to the wording of the example text – but rather informing the reader encyclopedically that while we don't capitalize nouns like this in general English writing, some organizations do so in some contexts, in which it should not be interpreted as "wrong". This is what the reason for the wording was at the revised domestic short-haired cat, where it gives the "Domestic Shorthair" pseudo-breed name that some of the cat fancier organizations use exclusively, and this forestalls any further edit-warring and article-title-warring. Successfully.  We have to remember that even though you edit a lot of bird articles and I edit a lot of cat articles, the average user may come and read one of them, and will never know there is even an organization much less one with a convention, and so on, unless the article tells them this. Links are cheap. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be unclear. I meant that I see no reason ever to mention that any word is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, because if readers see the same word with a case choice they're not used to, they'll have no trouble figuring out that it refers to the same thing.
 * My other reason for opposing this suggestion is that I favor capitalization for clarity and because the IOC and other authorities recommend it and use it. Mentioning the capitalization and then using lower case doesn't help with those.  As Kim said, it's win-lose.
 * If there really are a large number of people who will think the capitalization is wrong, a way around it would be something like this violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BIRDS policy:
 * &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but Wikipedia isn't about winning. Please see my "Clarification" post immediately under my "support as nominator". The win-win is editors and readers generally, not "caps warriors" and "an entrenched stubborn project", to factions that need not even exist any longer under this proposal.  I understand that you won't be happy with an proposal that doesn't call for capitalization of common names of bird species in both titles and running prose, but this proposal isn't quite what you think it is, because its predicated ensuring that readers understand that specialist literature does capitalization, even if WP, as a generalist encyclopedia, wouldn't. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Factual nitpick (is this where these go?): The IOC and the AOU both capitalize as Red-faced Warbler. There may be some names in which they capitalize the second element of a hyphenated compound differently, but I don't know what. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are, and I don't know what either. It's geeky detailia that's been the subject of plenty of discussion, multiple times, at WT:BIRDS. I wasn't intending to imply that every single example of "foo-bar baz" is written "Foo-bar Baz" by one org, but "Foo-Bar Baz" by another, just that there are cases where this is true, following some nerdy rule that evidently even the project members have a hard time following. It's also evidentiary that the notion that the "there's one birds standard and everyone in the world follows it exactly, and Wikipedians who oppose using it here are ignorant, meddling assholes" message continually projected by certain members of the WP:BIRDS project is fallacious and they know it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody was unclear about this, but I think we've said that we picked one of the possible standards (after considerable discussion). &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's part of why I'm proposing that variants be sourced instead of hidden. It's a disservice to readers for WP:BIRDS to essentially hide a reliably sourced off-WP nomenclature clash, just to make their own front look more united and uniform than it really is. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. No such thought has ever crossed my mind, and I doubt it's crossed anyone else's. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Provisional support. Firstly I applaud all genuine attempts to reach a compromise on this issue, which this is. I agree with Curtis Clark's position. All common names should be sourced; where there are reliable sources of common names which capitalize this should be reported, regardless of the kind of organism. If a consensus could be reached on this proposal, I would then be willing to support lower-case in the text. However, the article title should be based on a very reliable source (to ensure it is as stable as possible). The capitalization of this source should be preserved in the title – redirects will take care of alternatives. Unfortunately it looks as though we shall reach the same conclusion as before: there simply is no consensus at present for a single agreed style on the capitalization of common names, either in titles or in text, nor for any compromise between these styles. I regret this, but there's no point in pretending otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's gaining enough complete and partial support from both random passers-by and previous debate participants, despite the canvassing that brought a pile of WP:BIRDS editors to this page to stack the polls, that I have little doubt it would find broad consensus in a site-wide RfC promoted via WP:CD and the Pump. Someone else should file that one; I've been attacked so many times on a personal level over this issue that noise-makers would simply use the fact that I started the RfC as a distraction point. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Acknowledging specialist practice in the lead while using general English in the title and text would be best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * support Oppose —This is too much. Putting different names in the lede is one thing, but lists of capitalization variants is excessive. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the point at all; there would only be one (and only where the term is capitalized by some major reliable source, like a taxonomic authority), except in the apparently rare case where the major authorities disagree on the details. There would never be a "list". I updated the example text to demonstrate. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; those examples don't look so bad—I support. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a truly sane compromise that would improve articles by making them more informative. It should satisfy anyone whose attitude isn't "my way or nothing".  —David Levy 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strongly The initial compromise created by the two at-odds users was fine, but needed a tweak in my opinion. This is not a compromise at all. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuller proposal

 * The reason why I have only given partial support is that SMcCandlish's proposal is not the full proposal which Curtis Clark made and which he has explained again here. This proposal is (my comments in parentheses):
 * The orthography of reliable sources would be used in lists and article titles. (For birds, this would at present indicate mostly the use of capitalized versions in these contexts; for other organisms, it would depend on the sources, which in turn is likely to depend on the countries involved. Re-directs with alternative capitalizations would always be used, so there would never be a difficult in finding an article for this reason.)
 * All English names would be sourced and presented in the orthography used in the source. (Clearly no sensible editor is going to repeat a name just because one source capitalizes it and one doesn't.)
 * In running text, the lower case style would always be used.
 * I personally would like to see an RfC on this proposal in full; SMcCandlish's version is rather one-sided because it omits the first point. If there is little support for the full proposal – because it's too much of a compromise for either "side" – then the right conclusion is that there is no reachable consensus at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been away from this debate for a while. I'm pleased to see that you're willing to support a compromise, but I must stress yet again that "reliable source" ≠ "specialist source".  Most reliable sources use the lowercase convention for common names of bird species.
 * General sources unquestionably are less useful than specialist sources on matters of fact (e.g. breeding and migratory behaviors), but this is purely a matter of style. I see no reason to treat the title differently than we treat the main text.
 * As SMcCandlish noted, you're seeing a mixed reaction in a discussion whose participants are heavily skewed.  In a full-scale RfC (hopefully drawing something resembling a cross-section of the Wikipedia community), I suspect that the use of lowercase titles would be widely preferred.  —David Levy 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, an RfC would need to present several proposals, not further polarize debate with a false "support this proposal or nothing" dichotomy. I can sound entrenched, as can, for example, WP:BIRDS, but their most outspoken pro-caps member and I were happy to compromise on one of the solutions proposed above (it just didn't get much support from others). The point being, there's no hurry, and it's better to have a flexible RfC.  Controversial stuff often takes multiple RfCs or poll, narrowing options down from a broad original range.  As for Peter coxhead's proposal, it would be better than the current situation of chaos and bickering, but I can't think of anywhere else that we use a different capitalization convention for the title that we do for the prose, so I expect this would meet a lot of resistance. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The assertion that, "Most reliable sources use the lowercase convention for common names of bird species" may be true on the whole, but the information they provide on birds, for the most part, is not reliable. Why should an encyclopedia based on facts, then, care what they have to say? The following is certainly true: "Most reliable sources on birds use the uppercase convention for common names of bird species." Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why we must listen to specialist sources for reliable facts about birds and to generalist sources for reliable guidance on how to write. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it should present information the way an encyclopedia does.  I agree with David L on this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)That is almost certainly not true; I must not be understanding you because I can't see how this is supposed to make any sense. By "reliable sources" I meant sources reliable about birds. eg, this article from Science or any of countless other results that lowercase "bald eagle" in a search for that term on Google Scholar. Would you claim that this is not a reliable source of information about birds? Of course not; its reliability is on par with any bird journal that capitalizes. Now, even if your assertion were true instead of being, as I suspect, demonstrably false, the answer to your question "Why should an encyclopedia based on facts, then, care what they have to say?" is that we should probably give more weight to style guides (I'm including them in "they") than to ornithology journals when it comes to style. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're totally right. I only have about 16 years of experience with reliable bird sources. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Good point. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a lot more experience with birds than most of us have, and if I had a feather to identify I would be sure to ask you. Of course it might (or might not, I'm not taking sides) make sense to have one style convention for an ornithology journal, another for other journals, another for an encyclopedia, and another for children's books (Look at the birdie!) When you said "Most reliable sources on birds use the uppercase convention ...", is the Science article linked above an example of what you meant? Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The article linked to above is, in my experience, in the minority (which does not capitalize). I did not say they don't exist; I said they were not in the majority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that Science, which appears to write all species vernacular names in lowercase, ought to make an exception for birds and only uppercase bird names? Or ought it uppercase all vernacular names? Or do you think it is fine for Science to do what it does? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Matters of fact and matters of style are two different things. Neither of the two styles under discussion is wrong, irrespective of which happens to accompany a majority of our sources.  One style is used more commonly by specialist publications, while the other is used more commonly by general publications.  Wikipedia is a general publication.
 * We routinely draw facts from various sources without copying their styles. For example, we might obtain factual information about an American automobile from a British motoring magazine.  That doesn't mean that we use British English in our article (apart from direct quotations).  And in a hypothetical scenario in which every English-language specialist publication covering automobiles were British, we still wouldn't do that.
 * There simply is no meaningful link between factual information and the style in which it's presented. A fact about the Tufted Titmouse is equally true of the tufted titmouse.  —David Levy 06:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that '"reliable source" ≠ "specialist source"' is, as a general statement independent of this controversy, insane. And I think if ornithologists were content to use scientific names, this wouldn't be an issue (not even generalist sources want to lowercase mimus polyglottos). And I also wonder about the opinion that the orthography of reliable sources is always mutable, although I suppose I shouldn't, since there was a bit of a kerfuffle about insisting on capitalizing the name of a living person who prefers her name to be lowercase. If Northern Mockingbird were a trademark, could it keep its orthography in the same way that iPhone has?

I've already stated my opinions in response to Kim on my talk page. I'll say again that the issue is bigger than birds, since even plant names are capitalized in some national and regional lists. I hope we all agree that, independent of orthography, it's a Good ThingTM to reference names in reliable sources. I see the issue boiling down to two questions: Should Wikipedia specify capitalization for organism names in running text? and, Should Wikipedia always change the capitalization of organism names taken from reliable sources in order to meet the MoS?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that '"reliable source" ≠ "specialist source"' is, as a general statement independent of this controversy, insane.
 * So only specialist sources are reliable? Such organizations as the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News, the Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and Time aren't reliable sources?  —David Levy 06:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're using "≠" differently. I took it to mean "never equal to" rather than "are intersecting sets".--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're using it to mean "not equal to", which is how it's most often used. I've never heard this symbol defined as either "never equal to" (a concept I don't think even arises in math) or "are intersecting sets". It's the same thing as "!=" in computer science.  If these symbols are confusing people it might be better to use plain English: "Reliable sources" and "specialist sources" are not equivalent, because specialist sources are not reliable about everything (depending on the field, e.g. aromatherapy and ghost hunting, they may not be reliable in any way about much of anything), and in particular are not style guides for writing for a general audience; meanwhile many reliable sources are not specialized, including those that MOS most relies upon for grammar/style issues. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When does != mean "sometimes equal to"? Lacking an example, I'd have to say that "not" in this circumstance = "never". At any rate, "reliable source" != "specialist source" is insane, because it states that there will be no reliable source which is also a specialist source.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As SMcCandlish noted, I meant "is not equal to", and I was referring to the terminology (hence the quotation marks).
 * Some editors have continually used the phrase "reliable sources" to mean "specialist sources (and no others)". My point is that the two terms aren't synonymous; general sources can be reliable too.  I wasn't suggesting that specialist sources can't be reliable (which would be downright silly).
 * My apologies for the confusion. —David Levy 03:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we need to drop the "!=" a.k.a. "≠" thing. I guess if you are not a math geek, a programmer or a philosophy major, it is an anti-intuitive way to approach it. It literally never occurred to me that someone might interpret "is not equal to" as "is never equal to", but stepping back I can see how that might happen.  And it did happen and the debate got confused instead of clearer. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If Northern Mockingbird were a trademark, could it keep its orthography in the same way that iPhone has?
 * If it were a proper noun (as "iPhone" is), absolutely. —David Levy 06:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many have claimed that bird names, being names of species rather than individual birds, are proper nouns. This of course makes capitalization in running text even more confusing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that very few people have actually advanced that extreme view, and even WP:BIRDS members with a good understanding of grammar disagree with the notion (see for example one of them doing so in the most immediate archive of this page). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The failure of ornithologists to argue this is IMO the weakest part of their argument, since it then becomes merely an affectation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely an affectation. It's no different from a doctor saying "myocardial infarction" instead of "heart attack", outside of a medical discussion, just because he can and likes to sound smart and doctorish. Ornithologists' jargonistic style has no place in a general work. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the issue boiling down to two questions: Should Wikipedia specify capitalization for organism names in running text? and, Should Wikipedia always change the capitalization of organism names taken from reliable sources in order to meet the MoS?
 * Most reliable sources use the lowercase convention for common names of bird species. —David Levy 06:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. It's always hard to count, but reliable secondary sources of facts about birds, i.e. what SMcCandlish calls "specialist" sources, other than scientific journals, largely use the titlecase convention, just as reliable secondary sources of facts about British and Australian plants also largely use the titlecase convention. The issue is different (and importantly so): should Wikipedia editors always change the typography of English names to match a Wikipedia standard or should they follow their sources? The proposal here is a compromise between these two: namely that when first reporting a sourced common name or when using it as an article title they should use the orthography of the source; otherwise in running text they should use a lowercase Wikipedia standard. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't refer to "reliable secondary sources of facts about birds". I simply wrote "reliable sources".
 * As noted above, matters of fact and matters of style are two different things. A reliable source of facts about a particular subject is not necessarily a reliable source of style advice suitable for a general publication (such as Wikipedia) and vice versa.  —David Levy 03:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In a debate as polarized as this one, it's important for all participants, I think, to try to be very precise. If you meant "reliable sources for style", then you should have written this not just "reliable sources" which is ambiguous. This difference goes to the heart of the debate and should not be obscured. The facts are that for some countries and groups of species, reliable sources of information about those species capitalize English names, whereas many reliable sources of style guidance for general writing advise not capitalizing English names. Which reliable sources should be followed is a large part of the disagreement. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean "reliable sources for style". I meant "reliable sources" (encompassing both general and specialist publications).  Among reliable sources that mention common names of bird species, most use the lowercase convention.
 * My point, as noted previously, is that "reliable source" doesn't mean "specialist source". (Both specialist sources and general sources can be reliable.)  I was responding to your statement that "the orthography of reliable sources would be used in lists and article titles."
 * If you meant "reliable sources for bird facts", you should have written this, not just "reliable sources", which is ambiguous. This difference goes to the heart of the debate and should not be obscured.  —David Levy 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support a different version of the proposed compromise. As SMcCandlish wrote, "I can't think of anywhere else that we use a different capitalization convention for the title than we do for the prose", and I don't understand how this makes sense.  Conversely, it makes perfect sense to state in the lead that a certain styling of the subject's name is used by a particular notable organization.  That's factual and informative.  —David Levy 03:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Backing off the title issue (which is often a contentious subject even independent of orthography), what is the downside to reproducing (in the lede, say) the capitalization of a reliable source for a name, if the reliable source makes a point of capitalizing? We have learned from a number of editors in the UK and Australia that plants there also have "official" names, which are capitalized. One could make the point that saying Mimus polyglottos is the "northern mockingbird", and referencing the AOU, which actually calls it "Northern Mockingbird", would be at best original research and at worst misrepresentation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One could make that point, Curtis, but one would be wrong. Changing the capitalization style isn't quite as bland as changing, say, the font, but it is something that even non-language-nerd readers will understand to be a matter of style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that "Hela" instead of "HeLa" and "homo sapiens" instead of "Homo sapiens" are stylistic matters?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that "Harpy Eagle" vs "harpy eagle" is stylistic. Writing "homo sapiens" without the capital H is just wrong. With "Harpy Eagle"/"harpy eagle" we have two sets of style guides that are in conflict with each other.  Are there any reputable style guides that require "Hela" or "homo sapiens"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Backing off the title issue (which is often a contentious subject even independent of orthography), what is the downside to reproducing (in the lede, say) the capitalization of a reliable source for a name, if the reliable source makes a point of capitalizing?
 * I see no downside and strongly support the idea. As stated above, I believe that it makes perfect sense to include such information in the lead.  —David Levy 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the suggestion, but I don't think capitalization should be discussed in the lead in most cases. Maybe in a footnote to the lead, or in a paragraph at the end that readers can find with the ToC.  The lead is for the most important information, and I doubt that capitalization is important for many readers.
 * If it were in a footnote, would it look something like this?
 * "The Red-faced Warbler1 (Cardellina rubifrons) is...'"
 * "1[IOC ref. here.] The IOC capitalizes its English names for bird species to avoid confusion."
 * Or this, when there's a difference?
 * "The American Golden Plover1 or American Golden-Plover2 (Pluvialis dominica) is..."
 * "1[IOC ref. here.] The IOC capitalizes its English names for bird species to avoid confusion."
 * "2[AOU ref. here.]"
 * This would be a very big job, though maybe a bot could do some of it. Sourcing names in the lead is something I haven't seen much of here. If it should be adopted at all, maybe it should be adopted throughout Wikipedia. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We routinely mention alternative names/spellings/styling in articles' leads.
 * The basic idea behind the proposal is to style the bird's common name in lowercase throughout most of the article while clearly acknowledging (and attributing) the capitalized variant:
 * The above, of course, is merely an example. We wouldn't necessarily use that exact format.  —David Levy 07:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to make the point, which it seems has to be made over and over again, that the "fuller proposal" is not just about birds as some people seem to think. Whenever there are 'official' lists of common names which capitalize (e.g. British plants, British lepidoptera, British fungi, Australian plants, birds, etc.) these forms would be used in the places specified in the proposal in the orthography of the source (and referenced). The "fuller proposal" is clear that only in running text would the Wikipedia lowercase style be used regardless of the orthography of the source. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David, that helps. I'm afraid I still have all my objections, including that the running text is exactly where you need the capitals. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 19:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I (and others) have commented, most readers are unaware of the fact that "Mexian Jay" means something different from "Mexian jay" in our articles. (You've acknowledged that "you do have to be a nature enthusiast ... to know what's going on.")
 * If anything, our adherence to this convention probably reduces overall clarity by encouraging editors' reliance upon it to draw the intended distinction. In a non-specialist publication (whose readers are unlikely to pick up on such a visual cue), it's far more helpful to simply avoid referring to "Mexican jays" in the generic sense.  —David Levy 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, our adherence to this convention probably reduces overall clarity by encouraging editors' reliance upon it to draw the intended distinction. In a non-specialist publication (whose readers are unlikely to pick up on such a visual cue), it's far more helpful to simply avoid referring to "Mexican jays" in the generic sense.  —David Levy 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is a compromise? The "fuller proposal" is deliberately a compromise. It will only work (i.e. stand a good chance of acceptance by both "sides") if it contains elements disliked by both. That's the nature of a compromise. Relegating capitalized English names to footnotes isn't a compromise. Never using capitalized English names in titles isn't a compromise. The question is whether both "sides" are or are not willing to accept a compromise that would produce a uniform style at the cost of not getting everything they want. The fuller proposal is not what I would want (I favour treating capitalization of English names like ENGVAR and allowing articles to differ, but be internally consistent). But I'm willing to support the fuller proposal and implement it in articles for the sake of Wikipedia as a whole. What I'm not willing to do is to accept a so-called compromise which isn't; if it doesn't hurt a bit, it's not a compromise. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise for me; I strongly favor accurate referencing, and oppose capitalization of common names in running text. So maybe you should oppose it. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reject the premise that our goal is to equally satisfy/dissatisfy both "sides". Wikipedia isn't about us; it's written for the benefit of readers.
 * I oppose the "fuller proposal" on the basis that titling an article in a manner inconsistent with the running prose would be peculiar and inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. It seems like a random anomaly devised for no reason other than to make the solution "hurt a bit" for editors outside WikiProject Birds (with no consideration of what makes sense to readers).  —David Levy 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's quite as inconsistent as you suggest. For example, titles that need disambiguating, like Herreria (plant), are different from those used in the text. Although Wikipedia restricts capitalization to the first word of a title, capitalizing all significant words in a title is very common elsewhere, so readers are quite used to it. I don't suggest it in order to make the solution hurt a bit; that would be silly. I suggest it in the compromise because there is a good reason to make the title of a page as definitive as is possible. I would personally prefer Latin names (as WP:PLANTS does), but if English names are to be used, they should where possible be taken from authoritative sources, and should then use the orthography of that source. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's quite as inconsistent as you suggest. For example, titles that need disambiguating, like Herreria (plant), are different from those used in the text.
 * That isn't comparable; the parenthetical "plant" isn't presented as part of the subject's name.
 * Obviously, we don't always use an article's exact title in running prose, but I know of no subject area in which the portion of the title comprising the subject's name appears in running prose with different orthography (apart from the title's mandatory uppercase first letter).
 * Although Wikipedia restricts capitalization to the first word of a title, capitalizing all significant words in a title is very common elsewhere, so readers are quite used to it.
 * But that isn't our convention. Readers likely will either find the internal inconsistency strange and unprofessional or mistakenly emulate the title-case usage in other articles' titles.  (This error already is common among inexperienced editors, even without the confusing examples that you advocate).
 * I don't suggest it in order to make the solution hurt a bit; that would be silly.
 * It was you who stated that "if it doesn't hurt a bit, it's not a compromise" (in explaining why you object to the version of the proposal not including title-case titles).
 * I see absolutely no material distinction between the title and the running prose, so this comes across as an attempt to enable each "side" to "win" one of them (thereby treating the articles as our personal battlegrounds instead of collaborations created for the benefit of readers).
 * I suggest it in the compromise because there is a good reason to make the title of a page as definitive as is possible.
 * If the style in question were "definitive", there would be no need for any compromise.
 * Specialist publications favor one convention, while general publications favor another. As has been discussed, there's no dispute that the former usually are the best sources on matters of fact (e.g. birds' breeding and migratory behaviors), but that doesn't make them more reliable on matters of style.  (Likewise, if a reliable source happens to be written in particular English variety, we don't necessarily copy that style when utilizing the factual information contained therein.)
 * Setting aside that argument, what material distinction exists between an article's title and its running prose? Why, in your view, is it important for the former to be "definitive" while the latter isn't?  This seems entirely arbitrary.
 * I would personally prefer Latin names (as WP:PLANTS does), but if English names are to be used, they should where possible be taken from authoritative sources, and should then use the orthography of that source.
 * Where specialist and general style conventions directly conflict, specialist sources aren't authoritative on matters of general style. —David Levy 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So how do others, especially Peter, feel about not including title in the proposal, but leaving the rest?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've answered David Levy above, I think there are good reasons to use precisely the form used in an authoritative source as the title of the page; any number of orthographic variants can be used as redirects. Another reason for keeping the source orthography is that it's not always easy to alter it without provoking disputes. I'm not a birder, so bird names don't spring to mind, but there are examples among the BSBI English names for plants, and I'm sure there must be comparable bird examples. Helleborus × hyridus is called by the BSBI "Hybrid Lenten-rose"; as a title would this be "Hybrid Lenten-rose" or "Hybrid lenten-rose"? Clematis cirrhosa is called "Early Virgin's-bower"; I think as a title this would be "Early Virgin's-bower", because the Virgin Mary is meant, but this is perhaps arguable. What about "Ragged-Robin"? I guess it would remain the same as a title; the BSBI's use of a capital after the hyphen shows that a name is intended. (But in running text "ragged-Robin" looks very silly to me.) Would "Scarce Londonpride" stay the same? I'm not sure about "Perfoliate Alexanders"; the plural suggests that the name isn't meant, but the etymology disagrees. And so on. (All of which shows why using Latin names is far, far better!) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've answered David Levy above, I think there are good reasons to use precisely the form used in an authoritative source as the title of the page;
 * As I've responded above, where specialist and general style conventions directly conflict, specialist sources aren't authoritative on matters of general style.
 * I also see absolutely no material distinction between the title and the running prose.
 * any number of orthographic variants can be used as redirects.
 * That's a given (regardless of which is used in the actual title).
 * Another reason for keeping the source orthography is that it's not always easy to alter it without provoking disputes.
 * If such difficulties exist, we'll need to address them within the running prose anyway, so no disputes will be prevented. Again, I'm simply not seeing a material distinction.  —David Levy 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I believe that plant articles (and bird articles, for that matter) should almost always be at the scientific name, the examples that Peter gave are unimportant to me. We could have saved a lot ot trouble by insisting that bird articles be at the scientific name. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Though non-optimal, that would be preferable to continuing to capitalize common names all over the place. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd obviously support this suggestion, which in my view is optimal. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't track all the history of this dispute and I apologize for asking for a review of what is clearly very old ground. Under what standard practice guideline would a scientific name title be an improvement over "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"? Joja  lozzo  00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside of a small number of really common species, most species have either multiple common names (especially if they are widespread) or no common name at all (some of these may have invented English names that are in no more common use than the scientific names). For birds, scientific names and "official" "common" names are ordinarily in a 1:1 correspondence, but are sadly not interchangeable in practice, because the scientific names are deprecated even by many ornithologists. My suggestion to use scientific names for bird articles was somewhat in jest, because I suspect it would be opposed by most of the bird editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @David Levy: there is a material distinction between changing the content of an article and changing its title. Titles need to be as stable as possible since they have links to them (not just inside Wikipedia). Redirects are not the full answer because of the need to fix double redirects which are caused by some name changes. Content doesn't have such links and is therefore entirely "private" to an article. Further, although in my view it's irrational, the bitterest disputes are often about article titles. I would like to ensure that titles change as little as possible and are disputed as little as possible. Using precisely the orthography of an authoritative source is one way to achieve this. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that nearly zero authoritative sources on English usage for a general audience support the capitalization of common names of species, and only specialist publications capitalize them (sometimes, and not even all that consistently in detail), I think we'd have to settle on lower case. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, suppose there were to be a consensus on "lower case". How would we decide on mapping the orthography of the "official" bird names to "lower case"? It really isn't as straightforward as it seems, because English names of species, birds or otherwise, contain many words ultimately derived from proper names. Sometimes these are still clearly proper names, but sometimes they seem no longer to be felt to be proper names (e.g. "jackdaw" but ?"Jack snipe"; "robin", etymologically from "Robin Redbreast" itself from "redbreast", etc.). My point is that if there is an "official" list complete with orthography then there's no problem; once there is the need to transform these names then disputes arise. Of course, as the discussion with David Levy makes clear, this problem also arises in running text, but I continue to believe that it's not as serious there because article contents are "private" whereas article titles are "public". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be decided in the same way as capitalizing non-biological words like "antiquity", "yo-yo" and "baroque", after consulting dictionaries, Google Books etc.? Art LaPella (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem is that the English names of species aren't usually in dictionaries, and many are too rare in books to be statistically significant. And what happens if a Google search shows that the majority of uses are the fully capitalized form? Why rely on searches to decide how to convert an official title case form to a lower case form but not to keep as title case? For a birds example, look at this Google ngram result: compare "Jack Snipe" and "jack snipe". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I simply don't understand this argument. —David Levy 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Titles need to be as stable as possible since they have links to them (not just inside Wikipedia). Redirects are not the full answer because of the need to fix double redirects which are caused by some name changes.
 * You're citing a problem that arises strictly through carelessness. When the task of renaming a page is carried out properly, double redirects are repaired almost immediately.  (Otherwise, a bot takes care of them shortly thereafter.)
 * Your argument, if valid, would preclude all renaming (a normal part of Wikipedia).
 * Further, although in my view it's irrational, the bitterest disputes are often about article titles. I would like to ensure that titles change as little as possible and are disputed as little as possible.
 * Most such disputes also affect mentions of the subjects in running prose. I find it extremely unlikely that changing those while retaining the existing article titles (thereby creating a strange mishmash seen nowhere else in the encyclopedia) would result in fewer disputes.
 * Using precisely the orthography of an authoritative source is one way to achieve this.
 * See SMcCandlish's response above. —David Levy 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for being behind the curve in this discussion. Are we willing to live with the frequent title changes and RMs by new editors for articles where the orthography in the title doesn't match the running text? Joja lozzo  00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well there are title changes and disputes now; I'm not sure that they would increase. If this proposal had consensus (which it clearly doesn't at present), then the MOS and its subpages would explain the policy and I can't see that things would be worse, although they wouldn't be better.
 * Here's my summary of the discussion as I see it. There are two self-consistent positions:
 * Adopt a Wikipedia-wide style for the orthography of English names of species; the balance of style guide sources at present is clearly in favour of this being the lower-case style.
 * Use the style for the orthography of English names of species found in the reliable sources of facts about those species.
 * (One other position is put forward, namely to treat bird names as a special case, but I find the case for this wholly unconvincing, and sometimes supported by people for what seem to me to be bad reasons. Thus some of those who really support (1) sometimes appear to me to be willing to accept this position for the present because in the long run it will be easier to overturn, e.g. because it is fairly obviously WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)
 * Looking at all the discussions here and elsewhere convinces me that there is no consensus as to which of these positions to adopt, although supporters of (1) disagree.
 * I think it was worth floating a genuine compromise between (1) and (2), but I suspect that it won't find any more consensus than (1) or (2). So the status quo will continue: the great majority of articles about some groups (e.g. birds, lepidoptera) will continue to use title case; articles about some other groups (e.g. plants, fungi) will use both styles; most articles about the rest will use lower case. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's my summary of the discussion as I see it. There are two self-consistent positions:
 * 1. Adopt a Wikipedia-wide style for the orthography of English names of species; the balance of style guide sources at present is clearly in favour of this being the lower-case style.
 * 2. Use the style for the orthography of English names of species found in the reliable sources of facts about those species.
 * That's an accurate summary. (I'll note that among those who favor option 1, there appears to be little or no objection to the idea of documenting option 2's orthography in the lead.)
 * I agree that both positions are self-consistent. However, option 2 is inconsistent with Wikipedia's general conventions.  I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that SMcCandlish cited examples of other terminology capitalized by specialist sources (a convention to which we usually don't adhere when it conflicts with general usage).
 * (One other position is put forward, namely to treat bird names as a special case, but I find the case for this wholly unconvincing, and sometimes supported by people for what seem to me to be bad reasons. Thus some of those who really support (1) sometimes appear to me to be willing to accept this position for the present because in the long run it will be easier to overturn, e.g. because it is fairly obviously WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)
 * Another reason is that a few editors from WikiProject Birds go out of their way to ensure that mere discussion of change is a harrowing experience (e.g. by repeating the same straw man arguments ad nauseam, hurling accusations of bad faith motives, and threatening to leave Wikipedia). Bowing to their demands (by excluding bird articles from the equation, at least for the time being) often seems like the only feasible means of circumventing the stonewalling.
 * Looking at all the discussions here and elsewhere convinces me that there is no consensus as to which of these positions to adopt, although supporters of (1) disagree.
 * The matter has yet to be addressed by anything close to cross-section of Wikipedians; WikiProject Birds has been greatly overrepresented. (I mean this purely from a statistical standpoint, not as an insult.)
 * Of course, it makes sense to attempt to devise a mutually acceptable compromise before initiating an RfC. It's unfortunate that some editors regard any compromise as unacceptable (to the extent that one claims to have retired in disgust).
 * I think it was worth floating a genuine compromise between (1) and (2), but I suspect that it won't find any more consensus than (1) or (2).
 * If two persons were to disagree on whether to paint a house red or blue, painting the left half red and the right half blue would be an even compromise. In my view, that's analogous to this proposal.
 * So the status quo will continue
 * ...until such time as an RfC leads to a different determination. As noted above, it's in everyone's best interests to pursue progress beforehand.  —David Levy 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, RfC then? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
Many parties believe this is going to have to be the subject of an RfC to see any further resolution. None of the major competing proposals gained consensus. I'm told at least 1 person is already working on an RfC. A broader one, on general vs. specialist sources as reliable for encyclopedic style matters, has also been suggested (at a discussion about dog breed names at WT:MOSCAPS). I would propose that any such RfC be held here at WT:MOS because it's the top-level style guideline, from which are derived the sub-guidelines and (where they touch on style matters) also the naming conventions. This page is also widely watched; over 1400 editors have the main MOS page individually watchlisted (this is more than WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AT [I mean the real pages, not these shortcuts], and many other crucial policies and guidelines, about equal that of WP:Verifiability, and not much less than WP:Notability, the chief source of debate on the entire system. Subpages like WP:MOSCAPS (154 watchers) are places where few ever tread.


 * Some clear consensus did emerge:
 * Many, including supporters of capitalization, have strongly objected to wording using the term "exception", e.g. "As a general exception to this rule...", because it implies that there is something uniquely special about WP:WikiProject Birds, and/or that it wrongly implies that WikiProjects get to make up whatever rules they like about anything and that MOS is bound to honor any such divergence.
 * No one has, that I recall, seriously proposed that WP:CONSENSUS should not be mentioned, as long as the guideline's wording looks anything like what it does now, and many have insisted on it.
 * Opinion has been sharply divided, even among WP:BIRDS members, on whether or not the project as such should be mentioned in the passage, as long as the guideline's wording still mentions birds explicitly. The language mostly stable for the last near-month has not done so, and no one's head asplode.
 * The suggestion that further exceptions should be included (lepidoptery was mentioned) never reached any consensus, and looking at WP:FAUNA, WP:MOSCAPS and other pages that have tried to address the "common name caps" issue, it becomes immediately clear that projects on butterflies, and on plants and so forth never reached internal consensus on it, while most others (cetaceans, primates, fish, etc.) that got into the debate independently concluded to use lower case, before MOS proper said so.
 * This strongly suggests that MOS should not list further WP:IAR exceptions, and as has been clear throughout the entire debate has only done so with birds because it's been a 7-year long WP:BATTLEGROUND issue (i.e. peace is more useful here than "winning", for either "side", and there are actually at least 3 "sides", maybe as many as 5 depending on how you view various proposals and suggestions).
 * No one has seriously challenged the fact that MOS has had a "don't capitalize" default since 2008, and that this has been stable. The criticism that MOS is just a local consensus itself and everyone ignores it is contradicted by how much people debate even minor changes here, and how massively watchlisted it is. Four years of stability is clear demonstration of consensus, so if MOS critics want to press this point, they'll have to do so in the upcoming RfC. They have no consensus to radically alter the MOS section on organism names.

I've updated (as of this writing; no idea if it will be reverted or not) the text of the MOS section to read "Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, gray wolf, but Przewalski's horse). Some editors prefer to capitalize the official common names of birds (Golden Eagle) in ornithological articles; the style should not be applied to other categories. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create redirects from alternative capitalization forms of article titles." It includes a link to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
 * MOS updated to reflect this:

I believe these changes represent the clear consensus points that have been reached, and not misrepresent anything.

This appears to (sometimes marginally) address all seven of the points that were identified as being essential to cover: Point #4 is the marginally-addressed one, and is only covered by a link to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; this is much weaker than a majority of non-WP:BIRDS editors want, but should be good enough to keep the peace for a while.
 * The "essential points to cover" were addressed by the discussion and the above update:
 * 1) The default is to begin each word in common (vernacular) names with lower case
 * 2) except were proper names appear in them.
 * 3) This applies to all common names, not just species (families, types, etc.)
 * 4) Some editors prefer to capitalize bird common names in ornithology articles (only).
 * 5) That remains controversial (a.k.a. there is no site-wide consensus that this is an acceptable practice, a.k.a. this is not consistently regarded as correct a.k.a. this is not endorsed by MOS, etc.)
 * 6) and should not be used outside such articles, even for birds.
 * 7) Only one capitalization style should be used in any given article.

Over the last couple of days, I've also made "gentle" changes to MOS:CAPS and WP:FAUNA to make them more consistent with each other and MOS proper, my original goal. I don't know if they'll stick for now, but I've gone to much greater lengths than usual to explain and justify these tweaks, step by step, so hopefully they will not be controversial. A major part of this cleanup has been to ensure that they remain based in guidelines and policies and site-wide consensus, instead of wildly deferring to misc. wikiproject postings as if they were authoritative, and to be more descriptive instead of exhortatory with regard to what projects are doing, as well as removing irrelevant non sequiturs about which projects "haven't come to a consensus" on it (no one cares; MOS has had a clear consensus on LC as a default for years).
 * Steps toward synching the guidelines:

Hopefully these observations are not controversial and some of the heat can dissipate. I honestly hope that the RfC is broader than "should species common names be capitalized", since the exact same "we must do what specialist sources do, even on grammar and style matters" meme comes up in many other places.

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  04:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've taken a stab at improving WP:WikiProject Birds in a sandboxed draft at WikiProject Birds/naming sandbox. The nature of the changes are explained at WT:WikiProject Birds. Any input would be welcome. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dash/hyphen
I am aware that this has been the topic of debate in the past, but could anyone offer an exaplantion of why we have such complicated hyphen-endash-emdash style rules in a general-use encyclopedia, which has thousands of amateur editors? Many publishers, including most newspapers, survive with a simple distinction betwen a hyphen – used for ALL prefixes/suffixes, compounds etc – and a dash, whether en or em, used for parentheticals or "hypercommas" and as breaks in prose text. We follow the more specialised trend of also using dashes in some cases for compounds and prefixes, eg see esp. points 2 and 3 at WP:ENDASH. All this seems to do is: The benefits of clarity seem marginal to me – do most readers even notice the distinction on the page between "Smith-Jones theorem" and "Smith–Jones theorem"? Even if they do, and understand that difference, does it even matter whether it is immediately obvious whether it was a theorem put forward by Mr Smith-Jones on his own or by Mr Smith and Mrs Jones working together? All we seem to have here is complexity for the sake of it.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * entail a lengthy and confusing style guide entry;
 * mean any casual editor will almost certainly, unwittingly, add non-MOS compliant text;
 * make it harder for those with standard keyboards to add MOS-compliant text via the WP editing window, even if they want to try to;
 * lead to huge fights over trivia (eg Mexican-American War vs an endashed join); and
 * means people obsessed with getting the "right" punctuation spend hours amending WP text and initiating page moves


 * This is a commonsense approach, not a style guide approach. One of the main purposes of a style guide is to enable those editors who contribute to it, and so are familiar with it, to feel superior to those who are not; adopting your suggestion would undermine this, so it's clearly unacceptable (unfortunately). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can see a list of links to previous discussions at Manual of Style/Register.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've skimmed through a couple of those, but can't quite work out when and how we ended up with what we have now (to the extent that one can isolate on such point), and whether it has - or even ever had - wide consensus. If anything, some of those discussions seem to merely provide evidence of quite how many disputes have been generated when it comes to interpretation and application, especially in respect of compounds and hypen vs endash.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Real consensus, I would argue, requires that the style rules are as clear and simple as possible. A good example is deprecating the use of single quotes in favour of double-quotes. It's an easy rule to understand; easy to implement; and avoids a lot of arguments over what kind of quote marks to use. Naturally there have to be a few exceptions, but these are also easy to understand. The hyphen rules are unclear to most editors, hopelessly complex, and also allow WP:ENGVAR exceptions (so that if I come across both the US style emdash without spaces and the British style endash with spaces in the same article, I have to work out which is correct and which should be changed based on who started or mainly edited the article). It's hard not to be cynical as I was above; I don't want to say that those who created the style rules deliberately favoured complexity, but lack of clarity and excessive complexity does seem to be the end-product of some long discussions of style rules. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Our existing dash rules are the result of a big discussion. One might think that the consensus among most Wikipedians would be that few readers or editors know or care about the difference between - – — −, and that no guideline can change that situation. However, almost nobody expressed that opinion at that well-advertised discussion, so the result was even more complicated than what we had before. Maybe it means that everybody agrees, after studying the subject, that dashes are important. More likely it means that nobody wants to look stupid. The problem is built into the consensus nature of Wikipedia with no easy solution. So in the interest of peace in Wikipedia, not so much because it really matters, I will continue to change hyphens to dashes according to our rules, even though nobody, not even Manual of Style regulars, are able to keep track of 1.4 megabytes of style guidelines including subpages. Art LaPella (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, a common sense alternative to venting about re-re-re-re-rehashed topics like this is to pretend the rule you don't like doesn't exist, write how you want to write, and let grammar gnomes who actually memorize complicated dash rules in MOS clean them up later. This is why 99.99% of editors do, so why not you? :-)  The fact that, in any given system, some rules are complex, won't be remembered in every detail by anyone, and won't be implemented or obeyed by some doesn't mean they serve no purpose.  They do provide useful guidance for those who actually GaF.  In this respect, it's precisely like reference citation formatting nitpicks.  If they were just pointless noise that  cared about, the MLA Handbook and similar works would go out of print, and we could just delete the citation templates and WP:CITE as a bunch of complicated, confusing crap.  In reality, some people do care. Those who do clean up citation formatting practically on auto-pilot, and those who don't care about these rules simply ignore or work around them. Life goes on. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't quite that simple, as the WP:MOS cabal requires dashes to be used in places that the majority of our sources use hyphens. This is particularly noticeable when it impacts WP:TITLE.  I think it's the insistence that WP:MOS must always trump majority usage in WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME that is so irritating to many.  To some degree this is also a complaint with the requirement to use logical quotation as well, although I don't share that particular concern.  I think many people who aren't crazy about some MOS prescriptions would be happier if we aimed for consistency from the bottom up (agreement with high quality sources first, then consistency within the article, followed by style established within the project or subject area) rather than having everything enforced top down.  WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATE are examples where this is practiced.  One aspect of the dash rules that follows this is em dash vs. spaced en dash, since both are allowed and neither is favored.  A true style guide for a particular publication should pick one.  Even with this permissiveness we can still disallow hideousness such as spaced em dashes and em dashes used to form date and numeric ranges.  Quale (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself,
 * I have a hyphen key on my keyboard;
 * I have no knowledge of, nor little interest in learning, HTML;
 * when I need a diacritic I go to http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/codealt.html, and nearly always just copy-and-paste, although I do occasionally use the alt-code; and
 * in any case, nearly all of my posts here at Wikipedia have been on talkpages - I don't think I've ever needed a dash in an article or title.
 * Milkunderwood (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I suspect that User:Quale, above, means editors rather than sources, but I'm not sure. The use of dashes in original sources is usually impossible to decipher.) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it totally depends on an imtimate knowledge of the typeface, much of the time, and even that's out the window these days since typography is all digital now, and for every font there are 50 very, very similar knockoffs that are not at all guaranteed to be consistent with regard to the sizes of various forms of dash. Anyway, the problem here is the notion of "high quality sources" being equivalent to "reliable sources for facts about some specialized topic" rather than "reliable sources about general-purpose English style and grammar, such as the Chicago Manual of Style and Hart's Rules.  Our dash/hyphen rules are coming from those, which are the highest quality sources.  Are they anal?  Yes.  Even I ignore them when I'm not 100% sure an en dash should be used, I put a hyphen, move on, and don't give it a second's further thought.  If WP:FAC wants to impose a hyphen here and an en dash there based on what MOS says, before issuing a stamp of Featured Article approval, let them, and do it, and why sweat about it? I'm unaware of any style guide of any kind anywhere that makes zero distinctions between various dash types. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting everyone to know and implement MOS style has never been a goal at MOS, and hyphen/dash issues are no different. It's perfectly OK for editors to use hyphens where en dashes would be better, in running text or in titles, just as it's OK to write with bad grammar and poor spelling.  Other editors who care about such things will likely fix it up better eventually.  What's not OK is to fight the editors that are making improvements to improve the spelling, grammar, and style – that's what has caused some problems in the past.  Editors like Peter coxhead who assert bad faith on the part of editors who care about style would do WP a favor by staying out of such issues.  Also any editor who asserts that "the benefits of clarity seem marginal to me" should probably just not bother with such issues, rather than stirring up trouble.  Some of us value clarity, and see it as an important principle in the style of a general encyclopedia.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be very clear, I do not assert bad faith on the part of editors who care about style. I care very greatly about style myself (one of my activities in the university departments in which I worked was teaching referencing and I still maintain a website on it that gets 1000+ hits a week). I include myself as well: there is a real danger that those of us who enjoy understanding and constructing style rules get to love the subtlety of the issues involved, and forget that sometimes these are completely lost on other people. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So "One of the main purposes of a style guide is to enable those editors who contribute to it, and so are familiar with it, to feel superior to those who are not" was just sarcasm? Sorry if I missed the relevant cue.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on N-HH's whole sentence, I think he or she meant "the benefits for clarity", that is, he or she doubts that the dash rules improve clarity. (I'm a confirmed hyphenater, en-dasher, and em-dasher, but I don't know of any evidence on this point.) &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's possible. I apologize if I misinterpreted.  Clarity would indeed have been a benefit there.  I can agree that the "benefits to clarity" of the distinction between "Smith-Jones theorem" and "Smith–Jones theorem" is limited, especially since some readers use fonts that won't even show the difference.  But to readers who are familiar with English typography, even subconsciously, the en dash will often carry the clue they need to quickly interpret the text correctly.  Not everyone will benefit, but nobody will be harmed or otherwise inconvienced, by that clue.  For some readers, like you and me who know what it's about, knowing whether a theorem is named for one person or for two often is of some interest, as are the other meaningful differences signaled by correct punctuation and typography.  In other situations, like whether to use spaces around en dashes in various complicated compounds, there's not much affect on meaning, but there is still a desire for stylistic consistency, so readers won't start to wonder what the differences mean.  Trying to specify a style based on best practice, guides, and house-style desire for consistency is not easy without some complicated cases and lots of examples.  Sure, it would be much simpler to say "always use a hyphen wherever English style guides suggest an en dash or em dash"; but that's not what the consensus came up with.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the WP approach to hyphenation is that most people simply don't (or in my case can't) see the visual difference between a hyphen and an en-dash on the screen. Commonly used computer font faces are not consistent as to the relative lengths of these. I've spent quite a bit of time making usage consistent at List of botanists by author abbreviation, but I can only do this by using search-and-change in an editor; maybe it's an age thing, but I simply can't see the difference between "a-b" and "a–b" in many fonts.
 * That has nothing to do with WP's approach. Just fix your font. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The question I have is why the important distinction many writers make between the scare quotes in She's a 'real' woman and the quotation marks in He said she was a "real" woman is dismissed, whereas the difference between Smith-Jones and Smith–Jones is considered important. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's quite a different topic. Do we criticize hyphen/dash guidelines because we don't like the quote guidelines now? Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of points: no one forces anyone to write in a certain way. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors routinely add to articles in the wrong variety of English; they frequently make grammatical glitches (me included), and they frequently use whatever typography they know. That's fine. The essence of a wiki is housekeeping: we have gnomes who choose to spend part of their time copy-editing and otherwise tweaking articles so they're of professional standard. This process is the same for all good publishers (it's just that our text goes public at early stages in the process). This should be a relaxed, collegial process. I get the feeling some people think it's a blame-game rather than a fixing process (for which site-wide guidelines are important); blaming is very much against the pillars and policies, and should be deprecated wherever it's evident in an editor's behaviour. I actually don't see this at all on WP. Tony   (talk)  10:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tony1: it's not quite true that "no one forces anyone to write in a certain way". When I started editing on Wikipedia, I used single quotes as "scare quotes", since this was normal in serious writing. My usage was changed – correctly according to the MOS – but this means that I cannot show the difference between scare quotes and quotation. So I am forced to write in a certain way. I don't want to make a big thing out of the guidance on quote marks; I can see the argument that single quotes get lost on computer screens. But then so does the hyphen/en dash difference. So it seems odd that different decisions were made in these two cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any style guide that draws this 'scare quote' distinction you're making (if there is one, I'd like to read it), and we're telling editors they shouldn't be using scare quotes anyway, for WP:NPOV reasons, because they're most often interpreted as a stand-in for phrases like "supposed" or "so-called" that call into question the accuracy of what's being scare quoted (that's why they're called that - the scare the reader away from acceptance). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chicago Manual of Style mentions that the use of scare quotes is not uncommon in "works of philosophy". But overall it discourages their use, like any other guide I can recall. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to a dig/query further up the page my statement that "The benefits of clarity seem marginal" rather obviously should be read as "The benefits [in terms] of clarity ..". It's a talk page, so I'm not quite sure of the need to get quite so excited and sarcastic about it, let alone to suggest that I or anyone else should "stay out of such issues". In return, I promise not to raise the point that you can't spell "effect". Anyway, the implication in some responses that this is about a disagreement between those who care about proper or "professional" punctuation and those who do not, or that it is equivalent to tolerating mis-spelling or poor grammar, misses the point. I am in favour of consistency (and do not buy the "let's just follow sources" argument, since that too just sets up endless debate and pointless hard work, given the inevitable variation between them and the need to evaluate and weigh them all when coming to a hyphen vs endash decision). As I noted, plenty of publishers - I'd go so far as to say most non-specialist ones - do use only hyphens for compounds and prefixes. That option is no less "correct" than the rules we have here. It's just a choice - that's the point, and we seem to have made an odd one. Nor have I seen where the consensus for this complicated rule came in. Can someone point me to it, and can I assume it was agreed among a pretty small group of people?  N-HH   talk / edits  12:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I started the sarcasm/irony. A British habit; I should have learnt by now that it seems to be interpreted differently elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am a big fan of sarcasm; sometimes it has value, especially as a last resort. I was more bothered by that fact that I was hit by a direct and unprovoked personal attack and advised I was not fit to comment on such topics - which was then followed by a belated apology leavened with a hilarious "joke" about clarity when it was explained to them - because one editor didn't understand the rather obvious meaning of what I had said in one sentence. I don't see how you can be held responsible for that. (And let's not get into what actually constitutes irony, technically speaking).
 * More on point, and when it comes to clarity, I'd also query how much benefit there is with the enforced distinction. Eg, what is clarified by insisting on pre–World War 2 rather than pre-World War 2? Sure Smith–Jones theorem, to those who notice, is different from Smith-Jones theorem, but if you meet the phrase in passing, surely the main point you would wish to know is what the theorem says, not whether it was drawn up by one or by two people; and if you were on the actual page about the theorem itself, wouldn't that anyway be specified within the first couple of sentences in the lead? What actual benefit accrues from knowing a secondary issue immediately on sight of the phrase itself? Especially when compared to the effort expended to get to that point?  N-HH   talk / edits  13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are two connected substantive issues.
 * It's not clear to me, from reviewing the archives (but I can't claim to have read all of them) that there were sound reasons from reaching a different kind of conclusion in the case of dashes/hyphens than, purely as an example, in the case of double/single quote marks. The benefits of the distinction seem to be very small; even supporters agree that many readers can't distinguish hyphens and en dashes. The costs are quite substantial; as I noted above, I did edit the whole of List of botanists by author abbreviation to ensure consistency. It's hard to divide up the time involved, because enforcing alphabetic ordering took most of my time, but sorting out the "-" marks correctly in the two places they occur in each entry was not a trivial task (and new entries are frequently "wrong").
 * Although there were clearly debates about the hyphen issue, the number of editors involved was fairly small. It's not clear to me that there is sufficient community involvement in MOS debates. As a relatively new editor, I initially assumed that the MOS was the result of very widespread consensus in the past, but I'm not now so sure; some of the issues seem to me to involve WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This doesn't automatically make the decisions wrong, but it does mean that I'd like to see a bit more willingness on the part of editors who contribute here to consider whether past decisions really had consensus or not.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Much of WP:MOS is in fact local consensus, as the manual is pretty much controlled by a fairly small group that tends to "vote" en bloc. Most editors aren't interested enough in these issues to devote the great amount of time and effort needed to try to influence decisions on major issues (or rather what passes for major issues at WP:MOS) such as quotation style or the dash guideline, and for minor issues they rarely appear at all.  I think the controlling bloc is extremely knowledgeable about these issues and I also think there can be a benefit to follow the guidance of those most experienced in a particular area and who are willing to do the hard work of maintaining and improving the MOS.  Unfortunately I think this bloc is not particularly representative of the majority of editors.  One example of this can be seen in the repeated attempts to abolish the year-month-day date format from the encyclopedia.  This has strong approval among WP:MOS regulars but has been rejected decisively by editors on the whole.  Quale (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quale, the now-banned user Pmanderson and at least one of his socks were pumping out the "MoS bullies" meme apace for some time. I don't see the "fairly small [controlling] group" that votes as a block. Could you name them? And correct me if I'm wrong: voting is not the accepted way of discussing matters, even when there's contention. On the dash matter, I see this: "The voting page attracted contributions from 60 editors. In almost all cases, the existing content of WP:DASH was endorsed by a clear majority. Where there was doubt (occasioning very useful discussion), there was an opportunity to amend the guidelines to reflect the wishes of the community more accurately; ..." The consultation was advertised very widely and lasted more than two full months. I think I speak for all editors who've contributed to this page in saying that they long for this sort of community involvement in the style-guideline discussions, and take every opportunity to welcome new voices. BTW, I had a quick look at your contribs. Nice work. Tony   (talk)  12:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You are definitely one of the leaders of that bloc.  As for the dash guideline, the primary drafter stated that the wikipedia guideline is more comprehensive than that in any other style manual.  I don't claim any expertise in this area, but that seems quite possible.  It doesn't seem to me to be a point of pride as much as an admission that it is inappropriate for wikipedia.  If other style manuals don't see the need to examine the issue of dash usage with that level of subtlety and detail, why is it essential that wikipedia do so?  Except for particular issues that arise uniquely in an international collaborative environment like wikipedia, I don't think it's appropriate for the MOS to innovate in this fashion.  Perhaps you or someone else could explain why wikipedia needs more in depth coverage of dash usage than any other style manual?  I also find annoying the repeated claim that most readers don't notice the dashes so it's fine that the MOS has a large dash section that most editors don't understand.  The claim is that since the dash guideline supposedly doesn't matter much, anyone who doesn't think it belongs in the MOS should go away.  If it really is as unimportant as is claimed then the time and resources used in developing it were not well spent.  Quale (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

←Well, this seems to be the main recent detailed page I was looking for (finally found with some help from Tony's link above). I guess it shows there was fairly wide input on each point (a lot more at least than is often the case on MOS topics as far as I can tell), and mostly fairly supportive both of the principle of using endashes for some compound constructions and in respect of each of the sub-points detailing when that might be necessary. I don't want to kick this all up again or formally propose a simplification - I didn't realise either it had gone to ArbCom - but I'm still left scratching my head as to why we need such a lengthy and complex rulebook; per my original points, and per the point that using only hyphens is not "wrong" or "inaccurate" but is just an alternative system, commonly used by many, if not most, non-specialist publishers. I find it odd not least because a) it would have spared everyone all that debate and voting over drafting of the rulebook for when to prefer endashes over hyphens (even those who agreed with the principle disagreed over individual examples of when to apply it); and b) would save many of those same people all the time they now spend changing hyphens to endashes and debating or even arguing over such changes. Hyphenation causes enough headaches in terms of when to do it at all; adding the extra complication of what sort of hyphen/dash to use seems nuts. But hey, maybe I'm the crazy one ..  N-HH   talk / edits  16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it keeps some grammar hounds happy, and doesn't really cause anyone grief. Loads of editors ignore the entire section with impunity because it's too complicated for them (and this is perfectly fine per WP:IAR – you don't have to learn complicated "rules" to edit here as long as you follow basic policies like NPOV, V, NOR, NPA, N and NOT), and other gnomish editors who really care about dashes clean up after them. I've been around long enough I've slowly absorbed all the dash rules and fix them while editing pretty much reflexively, the same way I fix typos, or Briticisms in an American-English articles or linked dates, or whatever, as if on auto-pilot. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, it seems to be a waste of time even for those who favour the complexity (however much "correction" is done on auto-pilot), and I'm not sure keeping grammar hounds happy should be a basis for determining WP policy. And, while I wouldn't describe myself as a grammar hound as such, I do know and care about grammar, and it doesn't particularly make me happy (in any event, isn't it more technically about punctuation style rather than substantive grammar?). I don't think either it's correct to say it doesn't cause grief. Just see Mexican-American war and other fights over page moves; which don't simply come about because people don't agree with the rule, but because people can't agree how to apply it. That is, the very existence of the rule creates conflict, even among those who might support it in theory, that simply would not arise if we went for the simpler option.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that clarifying the rule has helped save time and drama caused by people disagreeing how to apply the rule at places like RMs on articles about the Mexican–American War. Isn't it preferable to hash it out here, one time, rather than having the same argument over and over at dozens or hundreds of RMs/etc? This seems like a good approach when there is significant disagreement about something like this, no matter how trivial. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe. That assumes that someone in such a repetitive argument (who is unlikely to be a Manual of Style regular) has somehow found the relevant guideline, and interpreted it correctly. If not, then such an obscure guideline's main function is to help prevent people from finding other guidelines, and to discourage compliance with guidelines in general. Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that generally in such a discussion the MOS will be consulted. Whether it will be considered prescriptive or not by the different sides in the debate is another interesting question, but I don't see it being ignored. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The MOS wasn't mentioned at all here, but after some Googling I concluded that is unusual. I suppose it's more common to be unaware of dashes at all. Art LaPella (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As with some other aspects of style, like capitalization, it's really about making the encyclopedia as easy to understand as possible. Fundamentally, the en dash is used when it conveys an important distinction from what a hyphen would suggest – since the dash separates more, and the hyphen joins more, their traditional roles have been based on how closely you want things joined, or how much separated.  A reader doesn't need to know anything about the rules or the glyphs or their names to pick up on the signals, but writers need some rules to help them make a good choice without too much arguing.  It's not that complicated, except for some particular choices that tend to expand the list into corner cases and such.  Most of us writers who understand en dashes use them instinctively; having the option-hyphen key on the Mac keyboard since 1984, and "--" in TeX since before that, has given many writers and editors long experience with this, even if they're not into typography, especially those of us who have worked with professional editors.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I counted, about half the dashes found in random articles were added using AWB, and about half the places that should be dashes were hyphens instead. So when you use words like "instinctively", remember you're a minority. Art LaPella (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's ok; before I trained myself to use option-hyphen, I would just write a hyphen and hope AWB or someone came along to fix it. I didn't worry about it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get the assertion that it saves arguments by centralising them. If the rule said simply, in six-odd words, "always join compounds/prefixes with a simple hyphen" - rather than consisting of the awkward and lengthy list of various situations and examples when an endash is preferred that we have currently - there would be no arguments at all as to how to follow the MOS in individual cases. Arguments that do arise are as much, as I say, about how to apply the rule among those who in principle accept the concept of variation - eg "this is one of those endash situations/no it isn't". Also, as noted, the clarity or "making the encyclopedia easy to understand" arguments are pretty thin, surely - the benefit is marginal even for those who do get the difference when reading text; and it's not a free bonus, without other consequences. Finally, as I also keep saying, plenty of people who have "worked with professional editors" would not have seen insistence on making the distinction - the "it's more professional" suggestion really is bunkum.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with N-HH. This is part of a more general issue, namely, who is the style guidance in the MOS for? Given the nature of Wikipedia editing, particularly the large number of edits by inexperienced editors, style guidance needs to be as simple and as limited as possible. Sometimes this approach has been followed, as with single vs. double quote marks. In the case of hyphens the reverse approach has been followed; the guidance is extremely complex and promotes arguments even among style guide enthusiasts. No-one has convincingly justified the difference between these two cases. (Indeed I would argue that the quote marks guidance is much less "professional".) Unnecessarily complex guidance just leads to disrespect for the MOS as a whole. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys
I tend to read things literally, sometimes missing clues to sarcasm, or contextual cues that would help me see through a simple mistake in typing. As for N-HH claiming that I made an unprovoked personal attack, no that's not what I did. When I said "any editor who asserts that 'the benefits of clarity seem marginal to me' should probably just not bother with such issues, rather than stirring up trouble," I meant exactly and only that. If N-HH is not such an editor, because he didn't really assert that, then it doesn't apply to him. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Boy definition
Look at Bibiana Fernández at the phrase "She was born a boy". We need to discuss good terminology for statements describing trans women this way. Georgia guy (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of links to archived discussions about the use of pronouns for transsexuals.
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 74
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 127
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 122
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 125 (with a list of links to previous discussions)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (sexuality) [sic]
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this time the situation is not about pronouns; it's about terms; specifically the word "boy" under the definition "A trans woman before her period of being changed with surgery". Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of links. Specifically and succinctly, what is wrong with "She was born a boy" and what should be used instead? Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We know that a boy is a stage in the life of a man, not a trans woman. For the "What should be used instead??" question, this section is intended to discuss a better phrase, so that's the question that I would like for someone to think of a good answer to. Georgia guy (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am no expert in this but I think we want something that implies nothing about internal state, neither mental, emotional, spiritual, physical (internal organs, genetics). Along the lines of "She was born with male genitalia" though that is perhaps too clinical.  Joja  lozzo  01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * She was born anatomically male, and was named (not "called") Manuel. The whole article needs help. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jojalozzo on this. "She was born with male external genitalia." "She was raised male." "She was raised as a boy." "She was born anatomically male" (we can forgive this one for not addressing the issue of brain anatomy). The whole idea is that everyone assumes that she was really a boy (for the understandable reason of the presence of a visible penis) and then later found out they were wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thus it's important not to use terminology implying that she actually was a boy before her surgery period, a statement that we know is wrong if you understand that the brain alone defines one's gender. Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an over-simplification to say the brain alone defines one's gender. It's fine as a matter of courtesy to refer to a person according to the person's preferred gender. That does not change a spectrum of biological and medical facts; the correlation of gender preference to brain structures is a mysterious area at present. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clear up the second and third sentences of your paragraph?? I especially want you to emphasize whether you think it's okay to use the word "boy" to mean a transsexual woman before her period of surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it must be taken on a case by case basis. Georgia guy's comments imply a binary state of the brain (and any spiritual aspects of a person, if such exist). But our ignorance of brain anatomy and souls does not allow us to know that a person's concept of himself/herself must be fully male or fully female. I don't believe we are in a position to rule out the possibility of a person who's self-concept is slightly more female than male. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Anatomically male" makes no claims about genetics but implies there are no female sexual organs. As far as I know medical personnel look solely at the exterior genitalia to determine a newborn's gender. I don't think we should use terminology that implies more than that unless we have specific information that other criteria were used. A less clinical version of my proposal is "She was born with a penis." Joja  lozzo  20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions:
 * How does "She was born anatomically male" not address the issue of brain anatomy?
 * How does "born with a penis" exclude the possibility of Ambiguous genitalia (which no one here knows may or may not have been the case)?
 * Milkunderwood (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is we shouldn't be making statements that imply anything about internal anatomy (either presence or absence) unless we have sources. "She was born anatomically male" is not supported by "male" on a birth certificate. To be more accurate we could say "She was classified as male at birth." Joja  lozzo  22:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When we say "She was born a boy" do we mean she was classified as a boy at birth or that she was in fact anatomically a boy at birth (based on sources that attest to that state both internally and externally, whether this was determined at the time of birth or much later). Which of these options we use depends on our sources. (And remember I'm not an expert &mdash; just winging this as we go along.) Joja  lozzo  22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm totally winging it, too - and I've never heard of this person before. I like your "She was classified as male at birth" as simplest and safest. Thus She was classified as male at birth, and was named Manuel. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my belief that brain anatomy is the main determinant of gender in humans, but this has not been entirely proven. We cannot be certain that social, experiential, epigenetic and other factors play no role.  Even if it had been proven, we don't have brain scans of any of our subjects to reference.  We must say something that means, "Everyone thought X was a boy, but X now identifies as female."
 * I greatly prefer "classified as a boy" or "assumed to be a boy" to the overly socio-centric "assigned." However, perhaps it would be more natural to say, "She was given the male name Manuel at birth and raised as a boy." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because everyone thought a statement doesn't mean it was true. What does "socio-centric" mean?? Does its definition parallel the definition of "US-centric" that means "told from a point of view that the United States is the main country"?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * “Just because everyone thought a statement doesn't mean it was true.” Dunno; I'd think that the community of native English speakers do get to decide what an English word (namely boy) means. Especially in such a context: I'd treat born a boy as a quasi-idiom that doesn't have to have exactly the sum of the meanings of its parts. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you think a boy means?? Is a boy a stage in the life of a man or of a trans woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context of fetuses and newborn babies, I take it's a boy to mean more or less ‘it's got a penis’. Whether it'll grow into a man, a woman, a hijra, or die at the age of one month we cannot know in advance. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it's not like brain anatomy cannot change after birth. (But I'm no expert in this kind of things, so I don't know how relevant is that.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "socio-centric," I mean, "centered on society." Its opposite in this case would be "bio-centric."


 * I mean that saying "we are assigned our gender at birth," as some social scientists do, supports the idea that society and culture are the sole determinants of gender (The fact that "gender" has more than one definition muddies the waters here). I believe that "assigns" implies that brain anatomy, genitalia, body chemistry, etc. play no significant role in gender; that trans men choose to become male rather than discover that they always were male.  I believe that we should choose a term is neither socio-centric (assumes society determines gender) nor bio-centric (assumes that one or more solely biological factors determine gender).
 * One way to do this is to describe what people did rather than what they are. We should say, "She was raised as a boy"&mdash;because that can be verified as certainly true&mdash;rather than "she was a boy." We should say, "at age 26, X identified as male and began the legal gender transition process" rather than "at age 26, X became male."
 * I concur with A di M. Because this issue is scientifically unresolved, we must keep to neutral language in articles about specific trans people. (We can put longer explanations of different hypotheses in the articles about gender and transgenders in general.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What would the bio-centric POV be for trans women?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A bio-centric POV for a trans person would be any phrase that takes the assumption that biological factors (brain anatomy, genitalia, body chemistry, DNA, etc. or any combination of these) are the sole causes of gender in humans and that society, non-biiological experience, culture, and individual choice play no significant role. (Example of "biological experience": diet, disease, injury.)
 * I'm biased because I believe gender to be a primarily biological phenomenon (to which society has reacted) but I figure an NPOV article might read something like, "X's brain anatomy was always female" or "X's parents raised him as the wrong gender" when these statements could not be proven. (It would be okay to say "X was given an fMRI at age three and it showed that X's brain anatomy more closely resembled average female than average male" if the article cited actual medical records.)
 * It's hard to come up with examples of bio-centric NPOV, probably because they're rarer than socio-centric ones. The short answer is that the academic field of gender studies grew out of sociology, not biology.  Neuroscience has been a more recent introduction to gender studies.  If you want to talk more about that, message me on my talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * People can be wrong in saying that someone was raised as the "wrong gender".
 * Zach Avery, 5, living life as a girl after trapped in wrong gender | Metro.co.uk
 * Sex Change Regret
 * (My Google search for sex change regrets reported about 1,430,000 results, and I propose an article called "Sex change regret".)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you put quotation marks around that, there are under 10,000 results (and only 3 in Google Books, and none in Google Scholar). Anyway, I can't see the direct relevance of that to this discussion (which is about the meaning of the phrase born as a boy – my take is that interpreting it to mean born with a brain structure matching that of neurotypical straight men rather than something like born with a penis is disingenuous). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A. di M., I remark that the original post mentioned the expression (actually a sentence or a clause, and not a phrase) "She was born a boy", and expressed a need to discuss good terminology. Darkfrog said, at 15:48, 23 February 2012, that "an NPOV article might read … 'X's parents raised him as the wrong gender'."  In my post at 21:37, 23 February 2012, I made the statement "People can be wrong in saying that someone was raised as the 'wrong gender'."  That statement and the two accompanying external links to support it are directly relevant to the discussion.
 * (My parenthetical comment about search results and a proposed article were and are only indirectly relevant. By the way, the term "neurotypical" refers to people who are not on the autism spectrum, and is irrelevant to gender identity.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording that describes the social/familial actions such as "She was given the male name Manuel at birth and raised as a boy" avoids biological assumptions but it also raises the possibility that the actions may have been contrary to the medical gender classification. When we have sources for the subject's medical birth-gender determination then we should not be ambiguous about it. Perhaps: "She medically classified as male at birth, given the male name Manuel, and raised as a boy." Joja lozzo  16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than She was classified as male at birth, and was named Manuel. A baby was delivered; someone, presumably the birth attendant, marked the SEX box on the birth certificate "M" rather than "F"; and the baby's parents named the baby "Manuel", surely after looking at the baby. It's doubtful anyone gave the baby a brain scan; and there's no need to go into a clinical discussion of the baby's sex organs. "Medically" classified, and "raised as a boy" both seem to suggest the possibility (which we don't know) that she may have been born with indeterminate sex organs. It also seems unnecessarily redundant to specify that "Manuel" is a male or boy's name. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your proposal: 'She was classified as male at birth and named Manuel.' I can see that "medically classified", while technically neutral, is easily interpreted to mean there was an anotomical anomaly. Joja  lozzo  01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) I'm glad you like it - I stole it from your 22 Feb post, of course.
 * If there's general agreement that "classified" is the best word to indicate "M" or "F" being written in the SEX box on a birth certificate - and I'm not entirely sure that it is - then perhaps this phrasing "She/He was classified as male/female at birth" could be formalized in the MoS for general use. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am slightly ashamed to say I just looked around and found Sex assignment which discusses the assignment of gender at birth and reassignment later. The word "classified" is not used there. To be consistent with that practice we could say "She was assigned male gender at birth..." with that link to Sex assignment. It's not as cogent but it works okay for me. (Also see Gender of rearing)  Joja  lozzo  04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like a lot of the proposed wordings, particularly the "classified" or "medically classified" one, but feel like they kind of dance around the issue that she had male genitalia at birth, which is of course why that assignment was made. To avoid stating this directly is to imply (confusingly) that the hospital made some kind of bizarre unexpected error in their assignment - although they erred, it was an error based on the usual standard medical practice in which sexual assignment is based on the baby's visible genitalia, a practice that we don't possess the technology to surpass. I'd go for something more like, "She was born with male genitalia, given the name Manuel, and raised as a boy." Dcoetzee 04:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sex" is different from the confusingly politically correct term "gender", which has a different meaning. I'm not aware of any birth certificate that designates male or female as a newborn's "gender", but would be glad to know if anyone can find and link to one. Also, we have no idea, or basis for supposing, what genital formation anyone was born with - see Intersex, Sexual differentiation, etc. "Classification", if that term is acceptable, does not imply professional obstetric examination, whereas adding "medical" does. "Raised as a boy" implies that the baby's parents made a deliberate choice to raise the child as a boy rather than as a girl. "Manuel" does not need to be disambiguated as being a boy's or male name. All of this is why, with the possible exception of the word "classified" as opposed to "assigned" or some other word, She was classified as male at birth, and was named Manuel is a far simpler and straightforward formulation. Also, her name was "Manuel"; we have no idea what she was called. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Milkunderwood, if you look up "gender" in a dictionary, you will see that "sex, state of being male or female" is one of its definitions. It does mean the same thing as "sex," and it quite handily comes without all the sexual connotations.  The confusion comes from the fact that "gender" has more than one correct definition; many social scientists use it as shorthand for "gender role" or "gender identity."
 * JojoL, the word "assigned" is common in the social sciences, but I find that it implies that society determines whether someone's male or female, which is arguably not true. A more neutral word would be better, even if a link to the article on sex "assignment" were also provided. (The lead of that article makes it clear that "sex assignment" is primarily act of recognition and acknowledgement rather than a choice or judgment, but the word "assignment" alone does not.)
 * Because "raised as a boy" literally describes what the parents did, I have a hard time believing that it implies anything inappropriate. (Was Chaz Bono raised as a girl? Yes he was.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most words in English do have more than one dictionary definition; both "gender" and "sex" certainly do. As you say, one definition of "gender" is "sex", and vice versa. I'd appreciate your finding me a sample birth certificate that asks for the "gender" of a newborn to be specified. One "sexes" chicks or pups, kittens, etc; it's the same procedure to determine the sex of a human baby. For better or worse, this is a "classification". The primary connotation of "gender" has more to do with self-identification than with the external physical equipment one was born with. "Raised as a boy" need not imply anything "inappropriate"; it's unnecessary, and its inclusion does imply that the parents made a deliberate choice. Why try to make it more complicated than necessary? Milkunderwood (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your dictionary link,
 * Word Origin & History: "As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be used for "sex of a human being," often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963."
 * Milkunderwood (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the primary understanding of "gender" is just "state of being male or female" without any sociological or biological implications, and its use in this capacity can be dated back to the 1300s. Many people are actually surprised to find that sociologists have a specialized definition of the word.  When I took my first anthro class and my professor said "Gender is a social construct," I though she'd lost her mind. (Getting that woman to define her terms was like pulling teeth.) Because Wikipedia is a general-audience publication, we should use "gender" to mean "state of being male or female" in general.  This is how most readers will understand it.
 * In my own experience with academic journal articles within the life sciences, it's not rare to find articles that refer to the "gender" of fruit flies and test rats, etc., though there are also many articles that say "sex." An extremely brief search of Science turned up these:
 * If we're describing what happened during someone's childhood, then "raised as a boy," fits in very nicely. It's clear and it is consistent with the idea that the parents believed their child was a boy, regardless of whether they were right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While the general case may be hard to find wording for, with a relatively unambiguous name such as Manuel the phrase "Bibiana Fernández, (born Manuel Fernández, date) follows the fairly normal practice for people who change names. This would seem to cover the case, since there are no sourced (or otherwise) statements in the article that establish any facts about gender except the use of names, pronouns and the word "boy".  More concerning from a BLP point of view are the category assignations without sourced statements to back them up. Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Capitalization of breed names, landrace names
Peeps here are likely to be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. I strongly recommend a WP:RFC on the matter, as it is a complex, perennially angsty debate, and actually raises some different issues than the similar question of capitalization of species common names. I think that the RfC should be held here at WT:MOS proper, because this page is widely watchlisted, and WT:MOSCAPS is ignored by almost everyone, which ensures that an RfC held there will not be representative of a broad view. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That ...does not necessarily ensure that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to beg to differ. That page is clearly borderline WP:OWNED by pro-caps projects, and virtually no one watchlists that thing. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's proof (of the latter point): Manual of Style/Capital letters has only 153 watchlisters, on the entire system. This includes watchers of the talk page, inactive editors, etc. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Van cat. Even cat/dog/horse/whatever breed fanciers know not to capitalize the sames of non-official-breed or landraces, yet most articles on them are capitalized wrongly here because of the spillover effect of people seeing caps in one place, like Norwegian Forest Cat (a real breed), and assuming they should go around applying such style with impunity to articles on everything that is alive. I've de-capped St. John's water dog, Mountain dog, domestic short-haired cat, and various other cases, without much trouble. Regardless of your stance on capitalization of the names of human-engineered domestic animal breeds as recognized by international fancier and agricultural breed registries (a still-open issue that is sure to be interesting), the idea of treating broad, naturally-occurring, regional of dog, cat, whatever, as if they were proper names is clearly not the same. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of song titles
(Note: this question has no encyclopedical value, so avoid it if you don't want to spend your time with it (though it shouldn't take long)) I'm really not good at grammar, and I'd just like to know the capitalisation of the following song titles (which are capitalised as work titles) That's just all I want to know. Btw, if I missed another word that should be de-capitalised, let me know. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Love, I Think I Had Never Felt It Before, So I Cannot Say That I Have Felt It This Time, But You Were My Everything" (I know "but" is sometimes decapitalized when used as preposition (e.g. Nothing but the Beat), but is it one here?)
 * "I Wish I Never Wrote This Song Almost As Much I Wish I Never Met You" ("as", I think, is only capitalized when used as preposition (as in "Come as You Are), but not as an adverb, right?)


 * I am changing the heading of this section from "Out of curiosity" to "Capitalization of song titles", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "but" is supposed to be in lowercase in title-case situations. It's a coordinating conjunction: "I Love You but Your Breath Stinks." Here's a neat, brief article that covers the variations in title case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You might wish to read these pages, and then post your question at one of the corresponding talk pages.
 * WikiProject Grammar
 * Manual of Style/Music
 * Manual of Style/Capital letters
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My intuition says but should be capitalized because there's a comma before it, but probably my intuition is full of s***. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  23:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why WP's "sentence case where possible" method is such a great solution. Rich Farmbrough, 11:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC).


 * I'm unaware of any WP advice to convert title case to sentence case for song titles. There certainly shouldn't be. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Product existence: form of the verb when a product no longer exists
I am fairly confident that when a product is discontinued by its manufacturer, the product still is considered to exist physically. So if, for example, Ford stopped making the Mustang today, the Mustang article shouldn't say: The Ford Mustang WAS a car made by the Ford..... It shouldn't say this because there would still be Ford Mustangs on the road. Then if it was a Mustang, then what it it now? This is similar to how we refer to Television shows that have been canceled. They still are considered to exist, so we refer to them as "is" instead of "was", per MOS:TV.

Now is there an MOS on this? I could search all day, but some of the MOS guidelines are so long and drawn out that I thought a simple question would be faster.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In your hypothetical example, the article could say: "The Ford Mustang is a car that was made by the Ford Motor Company."
 * If later all the Mustangs disappear, it could say: "The Ford Mustang was a car that was made by the Ford Motor Company."
 * This is my answer from my own reasoning. I am unaware of the existence of a relevant guideline in the Manual of Style.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'll continue to search for one. If none is found then perhaps a paragraph could be written. But Where and in which MOS would this go?-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of style; it's basic English grammar. And spelled existence. Wavelength is correct on all points. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes spelling is my "disebilitty". Sorry if I offendad anywons eyes. Spell check failed me.
 * So then where is the MOS. Where would it go, if it doesn't EXIST? (See, I learneded. Arf Arf Arf Arf.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the point. If it is not a question of style, then it does not belong in MOS at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But MOS:TV is an MOS and deals with the very issue of "Was" vs "Is". Is that not too a style issue? If not, then which guideline would this go under, because there is a discrepancy on formatting across some articles. The Nintendo Entertainment System is no longer manufactured, but its article correctly refers to it as "IS", while a few articles like the Commodore 64 Games System, use the "WAS". Seems like a style issue to me, but if not style, then what is it? Guideline? Policy?-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  00:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a style issue, broadly interpreted. I concur with Wavelength. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS-TV is simply wrong on this point. As Milkunderwood says, this is a straightforward English-grammar question, not a style question. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I.e. "it's a style issue, broadly interpreted." MOS addresses all sorts of grammar issues. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might wish to read these pages, and then post your question at one of the corresponding talk pages.
 * WikiProject Grammar
 * WikiProject Automobiles
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with your first point. In natural speech, if I'm talking about a product no longer made, I almost always use past tense: Betamax was a video format, Zima was an alcoholic beverage, the Ford Pinto was a vehicle. Maybe that's just me. —Designate (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking physical form, not manufactured goods. If I was currently using any one of those products you mentioned, for instance, if I was driving a Ford Pinto, if it "Was" a Ford Pinto, what is it now? Zima may be an exception, since its a consumable, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few bottles in the world some where. So if I'm holding a bottle of Zima, it still would be a bottle of Zima, despite the fact that it is no longer manufactured. (Damn it!)-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the trademarks still exist. I couldn't (without getting sued into the poorhouse) launch my own new beverage called Zima just because the original isn't being produced right now. It could come back at any time (to JOJ's happiness :-). Cf.  the Ford Thunderbird, which was not produced from 1998 to 2001. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The past tense sounds more natural to me, too (though I'm not a native speaker). I think it's related to the choice of tenses in Copernicus said that the Earth revolve[s/d] around the Sun: of course it still does, but Copernicus' point was that it did then, not that it would in 2012. (According to Huddleston & Pullum, both tenses are OK in such sentences.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  23:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, in that sentence, the past tense sounds much better than the present tense. Individual instances of the Ford Model T still exist, but as a product the Model T line no longer exists.  An individual car still "is" a Model T, but "the Model T" is a Platonic abstraction away from the individual instances, and is in the past. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the articles are not about the production of a product, but are about the physical product. About products and physical material goods that can still be used, touched, held, and in some cases bought and sold, despite its production status. Like when a book is no longer being printed, its still known to exist. Or when a TV show is no longer being produced, its still known to exist. In fact MOS:TV says exactly this. MOS:TV is an MOS and has a section dealing with this very issue. How is this not too an MOS issue? (More of a question for Milkunderwood)-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  01:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * it's not related to the choice of tenses in Copernicus said that the Earth revolve[s/d] around the Sun: it's a question of grammatical constructions with indirect speech. It's always in past tense, so the correct transformation into indirect speech of 'Copernicus said: "the Earth revolvs around the Sun"' is 'Copernicus said that the Earth revolved around the Sun'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have to disagree with the sweeping statement "it's a question of grammatical constructions with indirect speech. It's always in past tense". In this example you're correct that "Copernicus said". But I can easily see, for instance, "Confucius says", in the sense that his words live on. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, it's not a question of logic. It's a question of grammar.  MOS:TV is simply wrong on the grammar.  It needs to be changed. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (In response to Trovatore): Exactly so. And this is a grammar issue of sentence construction, not an issue of "style". Milkunderwood (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * “But the articles are not about the production of a product, but are about the physical product.” So, how comes it starts with “ The Ford Mustang is” and not “Ford Mustang s  are”? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See "Sequence of tenses".—Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Mustang example, it's not just about existence of the car, its about the making. The car(s) still exist, the making though has stopped. So "The Ford Mustang is a car that was made by Ford". Similarly, "Lost is a show that was made by ABC";  "Great Expectations is a book that was written by Dickens". Barsoomian (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, most people would agree with some form of that, but where is it written in the MOS? Perhaps a trip to the Village Pump would produce more results, as there appears to be no real guideline or MOS that addresses this issue.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, most people would not agree with that. It's completely tin-eared English; it's just flat completely wrong.  "Was" is correct here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now here I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Trovatore. The Ford Mustang/Lost/Great Expectations etc is/was a car/show/book, can both be correct - they simply mean subtly different things. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Great Expectations is a book that you can buy ..."; "When he wrote it, Great Expectations was a book that ..." - etc. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And we're addressing the former context.  —David Levy 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A book doesn't cease to exist when it's no longer published, a film doesn't cease to exist when it's no longer screened in cinemas, a television program doesn't cease to exist when it's no longer produced/broadcast, and an automobile doesn't cease to exist when it's no longer manufactured.
 * I own a Pontiac Vibe (a model discontinued in 2009). I'm no mechanic, but I'm fairly certain that it is a car.  (I don't know how else to explain my ability to insert gasoline and drive it from place to place.)  —David Levy 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there's a difference between a Pontiac Vibe (an individual instance), and the Pontiac Vibe (a Platonic abstraction). Your individual Pontiac Vibe is green or whatever, but the Pontiac Vibe was such and such. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the distinction, but I disagree that it's relevant. When a product/line is no longer marketed, that doesn't mean that it ceases to exist; it means that it is a product/line that was marketed.  —David Levy 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And on what do you base the assertion that MOS:TV is "simply wrong"?
 * I Love Lucy ended production in 1957, but I can view it today. If it isn't a television series, what is it?  —David Levy 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, that's the same argument that was used at Whitechapel murders to defend the nonsensical formulation [t]he Whitechapel murders are... in the opening sentence &mdash; as though these women were being eternally murdered in real time. (This wording has been changed.)  I hope you don't defend that, on the abstract basis that there is no answer to what the murders are now?  From the standpoint of logic you might possibly have a case, but it's simply not the way the English language works.  It sounds absolutely terrible.
 * I will grant you that my intuitions on this do seem to be sensitive to context. I can accept "I Love Lucy is my favorite show" well, I can accept it from an English-usage POV anyway but have a harder time with "I Love Lucy is a sitcom that was produced in (fill in years)". --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, that's the same argument that was used at Whitechapel murders to defend the nonsensical formulation "[t]he Whitechapel murders are..." in the opening sentence &mdash; as though these women were being eternally murdered in real time. (This wording has been changed.)  I hope you don't defend that, on the abstract basis that there is no answer to what the murders are now?
 * The two subjects aren't comparable. A murder is an event.  It's analogous to a car's/television program's production, not to the resultant product.
 * Why are you comparing something that occurred in the past with something that exists today? Are you seriously suggesting that it's "wrong" to state that "I Love Lucy is a television series"?  It's an extant entity, but you appear to believe that it's incorrect to claim that it "is" anything.
 * From the standpoint of logic you might possibly have a case, but it's simply not the way the English language works. It sounds absolutely terrible.
 * I couldn't disagree more. To me, it sounds "absolutely terrible" to treat extant entities as though they no longer exist.  I don't understand why you want to do this.  Why, in your view, is I Love Lucy no longer a television series?  What caused this change?  How, when it clearly continues to exist, is this the case?  What sets it apart from literature published in 1956 and films released in 1956 (or do you believe that they no longer exist)?
 * I will grant you that my intuitions on this do seem to be sensitive to context. I can accept "I Love Lucy is my favorite show" well, I can accept it from an English-usage POV anyway but have a harder time with "I Love Lucy is a sitcom that was produced in (fill in years)".
 * "The Ten Commandments is a film that was produced in 1956."
 * "Aniara is a poem that was written in 1956."
 * What's the difference? Are those statements "wrong" too?  —David Levy 23:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am reporting my intuitions on what is natural in the English language. I really don't believe that (assuming you're a native speaker) you don't get these same intuitions.
 * To go further -- The Ten Commandments absolutely was a film produced in 1956. Is is completely wrong here.  For the poem, it seems different; I don't know exactly why. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am reporting my intuitions on what is natural in the English language. I really don't believe that (assuming you're a native speaker) you don't get these same intuitions.
 * I am a native English speaker, and you're quite mistaken in that belief. Your assertions baffle me.
 * To go further -- The Ten Commandments absolutely was a film produced in 1956. Is is completely wrong here.
 * It's wrong to state that "The Ten Commandments is a film"? Why?  Does it currently exist?  If so, what is it?
 * What about The Artist? Is that a film?  If so, when will it cease to be one?
 * For the poem, it seems different; I don't know exactly why.
 * Neither do I. You're drawing arbitrary distinctions, citing no explanation beyond uncorroborated gut feelings.
 * Conversely, I'm applying the basic linguistic principle that if an entity currently exists, it is something. —David Levy 05:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * <font color="#f08f10">And on what do you base the assertion that MOS:TV is "simply wrong"?
 * I didn't. I haven't even looked at it. This example is in the OP; Trovatore remarked, "MOS:TV is simply wrong on the grammar. It needs to be changed." Milkunderwood (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Trovatore (hence the indentation). —David Levy 23:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a sentence should be added to the Manual of Style to the effect of "This MOS does not attempt to teach editors basic English grammar such as the appropriate use of verb tenses". Milkunderwood (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend the addition of a link to "WikiProject Grammar" to the list under the heading "See also".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. I was being facetious, but only partly so. Then there's apparently still the MOS:TV that's confused and ought to be fixed by someone. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:TV is not broken and does not require fixing. -- JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I still think it's useful to point out that this discussion is about grammar and not "style". It has no place in the Manual of Style. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Style guides often cover elements of grammar. When multiple grammatical choices are commonly considered valid, determining which to use is a style matter.  Helpful guidance shouldn't be omitted from the MoS on some sort of technicality.  —David Levy 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that I think we are wandering off into semantics - which still has nothing to do with style. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. —David Levy 23:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that. My post "wandering off into semantics" was actually an edit conflict, meant to supplement my "In any event ... [etc]", rather than being a response to your "Style guides often ... [etc]". When I was able to post I formatted it badly. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the confusion. —David Levy 05:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And my apologies to you for not having been clear. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With regard to "When multiple grammatical (or semantic) choices are commonly considered valid, determining which to use is a style matter", you may be right. I would not have thought so, but I have no means of defending my position. But I do wonder just how far into grammar or semantics you might think it appropriate for a "style" manual to go. I take it you think my mostly but not entirely facetious suggestion "This MOS does not attempt to teach editors basic English grammar such as the appropriate use of verb tenses" is not a good idea. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with the crux of that. I believe that it's sensible for the MoS to address grammatical issues that arise because more than one approach is commonly regarded as valid.  (This is such an issue.)  —David Levy 05:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine; it isn't worth pursuing. (You might want to help with the actual wording, to see that it doesn't get scrambled or go too far afield.) Milkunderwood (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (Has anyone else had access problems recently? On two different computers, trying each with both Chrome and IE8, it was taking me 10+ minutes to bring up a Wikipedia page, but other websites came up immediately. Finally working again now.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I experienced such difficulties earlier (and an editor reported a similar issue at Talk:Main Page). —David Levy 05:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Image header in navbox
This discussion may be of interest: image banner for nav header. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's the worst WP:GAMING I've ever seen I think. It's really a MOS:ICONS issue; I reposted about it there. (Short version: Someone's trying to evade MOS:ICONS prohibition of festooning things with decorative icons by putting the icons and fancy text in a big 1996-website-style graphical banner and claiming it's exempt from MOS. I couldn't make this up.) It's being used in quite large number of article, too. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Italicization of English as if it were a foreign language
Template talk:Lang-en may be of interest, for its connection to MOS:ITALICS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations in MLA format
Please see Village pump (proposals) (permanent link here). —Wavelength (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)