Talk:Australian plainhead
(Redirected from Talk:Australian Plainhead)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 27 September 2017
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Requested move 27 September 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move. A few things seem clear here: while many articles on pigeon breeds are capitalized, other types of birds have been consistently decapitalized per MOS:CAPS. It appears that it may be time for a wider discussion on this. Cúchullain t/c 21:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
– WP:CONSISTENCY with all other WP articles on standardized breeds of domesticated animals (over 1,000 of them). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – It looks like you're making up proper names for consistency. I can't see "Australian plainhead" in any sources, and the red factor canary shows up in books lowercase mostly. The capped version is "Red-factor Canary", which I also don't favor, but maybe "Red-factor canary"? I'd like to see more source-based evidence before saying OK on any of these. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not canary expert; it's actually possible these are not breeds but "fancy varieties", as with cockatiels, rats, ferrets, and various other things for which there aren't any varieties that are so genetically distinct they are standardized and distinguishable breeds. If so, this would not be the first time one of our articles on domesticates were mislabeling something a "breed". This isn't one I looked into; I just noticed the casing was inconsistent with the other breed articles, and that the parent article claimed they're breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - it's probably time we downcased all the entries at Category:Pigeon breeds etc., just as we downcased all the other bird names (Ruwenzori turaco etc.) some years ago. Sources are mixed in both cases, and I don't see a great reason to treat breeds differently from species. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Well, that's a very different matter. This is just a WP:CONSISTENCY RM, not a decapitalization RfC (though we need to have one soon; the question remaining open is holding up the deployment of MOS:ORGANISMS). Caps on standardized breed names are the de facto standard here (for better or worse); we shouldn't have two articles, alone out of thousands on breeds, that use all-LC, even if we someday might decide they all should. These are the only ones I could find that are doing this, and the only reason they escaped detection this long is lack of categorization (there is no Category:Canary_breeds; I found them by looking at List of domesticated animals and digging around from there). PS: There are reasons to treat breeds differently from species; I've created a pro and con list of arguments at WP:BREEDCASE, and have been neutral on the matter for years. Some arguments on each side are strong, some are weak. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.