Talk:Eyles's harrier

Charles Douglas's observations

This article contains: "Still, Douglas' observations on wildlife are generally trustworthy;" The Haast's Eagle article contains this: "Still, Douglas' observations on wildlife generally are not trustworthy;"

I think this article is wrong but I'm not sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.74.7 (talk • contribs)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand Fairy Tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand fairy tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eyles's harrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012154544/http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/1997/8.pdf to http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/1997/8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Image?

I think that this article of a extinct bird needed a image. I maybe make a drawing of it. But it would be challenge for me. Especially since i have made drawings. ArtisticHokioi (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep current titles per MOS:POSS. This can be revisited in the future if the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:'S misguided? results in the MOS being updated. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Eyles's harrier → Eyles' harrier
• Forbes's snipe → Forbes' snipe
• Hawkins's rail → Hawkins' rail

– I'm a native English speaker, albeit not from New Zealand. In my view, "s apostrophe" is better than "s apostrophe s". According to Grammarly, style guides are divided on the issue. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/apostrophe/. However, the names used by the resource https://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/ are the ones I recommend: Eyles' harrier, Forbes' snipe, and Hawkins' rail. Columbianmammoth (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support correct spelling per the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Most books disagree with you on all 3 of these. Dicklyon (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Isn't this proposal directly contrary to MOS:'S: the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy? If we basically disagree with what the MoS says, we should change the MoS, not just decide not to follow it for a few bird names. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Descartes's" in particular makes me feel a little queasy. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support, what's good for the goose if good for the gander, and s's is a travesty. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have highlighted the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:'S misguided?. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support In most cases, the articles were created without the extraneous sibilant and that's the usage of the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - leaving off the final "s" just looks like a typo. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  And, unless you manage to change MOS:POSS, it is against our standing style. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - You may like to take into account how it is pronounced: Eylz or Eylziz. Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound is helpful. Davidships (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per a straightforward reading of MOS:'S. In my off-wiki life I'm Team S' for everything, but I prefer to follow the guidelines here unless there's good reason for an exception. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think the good reason here, having read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:'S misguided?, might be wanting to use {{Use New Zealand English}}. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do we have any real evidence that the use of apostrophes in New Zealand English is significantly different from that in other varieties of English? If I understand correctly, different style guides differ on this matter, but I am not aware of it being a nation-specific phenomenon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Beyond the fact that nzbirdsonline does it that way, nope. For me "s'" just feels right for these three. Sometimes "s's" feels right. I would advocate for the scrapping of the MOS rule, but at least it gives a standard to follow and probably prevents an amount of edit warring. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – the final "s" makes for a sensible pronunciation, looks right, and accords with our MOS (MOS:POSS) and most modern style guides. And it's what most books use (see book search links in response to Hemiauchenia above). Dicklyon (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:POSS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:POSS and evidence provided by Dicklyon. In all three cases, the evidence indicates mixed usage and the provision for official names does not apply. Consequently, the "s's" form should be used. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.