Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)

message: :This RfC is already over.
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: The "normally" weasel-wording in the "Common (vernacular) names" section, which directly contradicts MOS:LIFE, is proposed to be removed.  This is under discussion along with the conforming change to NCCAPS (which has "generally" instead of "normally"), at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Over-specificity and redundancy correction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Normally" weasel-wording 

message: Please see Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, a mass request of a large number of moves, consisting of the commingling of about 7 different (even contradictory) types of renaming proposal.  While it raises no issues with regard to species and subspecies, it could precedencially affect many (most?) breed articles and possibly also landrace articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass RM of animal breed articles 

message: Someone's opened an RfC on using lower case for animal breeds except where they contain proper names, and this is followed by an alternative proposal based on breed standards.  Both proposals would be a naming convention as well as style rule, so regulars here are liable to be interested in commenting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See MOS RfC - Animal breeds in lower case 

message: There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies.  The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama.  Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed style noticeboard 

message: The proposed style noticeboard has fallen through.  There is now a conversation under way at WT:MoS about endorsing and centralizing its longstanding Q&A function.  This would include encouraging users to ask questions about style and copyediting either at WT:MoS or a subpage and not at other talk pages.  The discussion is still very preliminary and participants from other pages that would be affected are very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A.  This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages.  Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversation at WT:MoS about making that talk page the official site for style questions 

message: Join talk at Talk:Frill-necked_lizard#RFC:_article_title. Has implications as consensus looking not good. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on common name of [[Frill-necked lizard]] 

message: See Talk:Yellow rattlesnake, Talk:Crotalus lutosus and Talk:Crotalus molossus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of those three, two of them are articles and one is a disambiguation page. Neither one of the two articles has the scientific name in boldface in the lead. The disambiguation page has three candidate targets. Out of those three targets, only one of them has the scientific name in boldface in the lead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Echo of the above comment that a lot of articles about snakes don't seem to have the scientific name in boldface in the lead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edited) It used to be the case that many snake articles (which usually had scientific name titles) had common names presented as a pseudo-hatnote, with the scientific name in bold at the beginning of the article body. This was an idiosyncratic style of retired User:Jwinius. I'm not sure if other editors working on snake articles ever really followed their example. Various editors removed Jwinius's hatnotes; e.g. Black-tailed rattlesnake, Great Basin rattlesnake, Crotalus cerastes. Black-tailed and Great Basin rattlesnakes were moved to common name titles in 2020, after which Casliber debolded and parenthesized the scientific name. Crotalus cerastes remains at a scientific name title, but the scientific name was bolded de-bolded and parenthesized by the editor removing Jwinius's hatnote. I don't think the hatnote was good practice, but at least Jwinius was consistent in keeping the scientific name in bold. Plantdrew (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Crotalus cerastes was not bolded in that edit; it was parenthesized but de-bolded. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I meant to say de-bolded there. Edited. Plantdrew (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Jwinius had his own style which differed from just about every other biology editor on wikipedia. Many snake articles are at scientific names due to his strong preference for same and often a lack of consensus will lead to change down the track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  For editors with an interest in fauna naming.... 

message: Hello all- In the third paragraph of the above-linked section, two of the example names given appear to be in contradiction to the guidance provided in that sentence. I do not believe that bottlenose or slime would be considered proper nouns. Eric talk 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is just about article titles, not for use in other contexts. Perhaps should be more clear. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the sentence to which I refer above does address body text, and seems to contradict itself. Maybe we should nix that part? My post was kind of a drive-by; I found this page while looking for discussions or guidance to supplement what I posted here: User_talk:169.234.220.45#May_2023. Eric talk 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The main answer to the question is MOS:LIFE. It is a constant battle to keep species common names lower case except for proper nouns. Many enthusiasts read publications with different styles and think we are wrong. I've read books about butterflies where they capitalize the names of butterflies but use lower case for birds, and visa versa. That's their privilege, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia about everything, has its own manual of style and MOS:LIFE is plenty clear. I've not critically read Naming conventions (fauna) in a while and it may need rewriting. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I linked to in the discussion on the IP talkpage. But I now see that I misread the sentence in question anyway: For some reason I read "beyond the first word" as "beyond the first instance". Don't know why. Taking brain back to manufacturer for a refund. Eric talk 12:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is a relic of the time when Wikipedia was capitalizing common names of species. There's no need to describe a capitalization practice for groups of species that is (now) the same as the capitalization practice for species. Plantdrew (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent errors in "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Common_(vernacular)_names|Common (vernacular) names]]" section