Talk:International Ornithologists' Union

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: merge to International Ornithological Congress. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

International Ornithological Committee → International Ornithological Union – This is the new name of the association formerly know as "International Ornithological Committee". --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Liouasd (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge: Should really merge to International Ornithological Congress (or that should move to International Ornithological Union and merge with the nearly-zero content here). Regardless, we don't need a micro-stub about the committee/union that forms the congress. It's directly comparable to starting a separate article about the committee that edits a journal, in addition to having an article on the journal itself. Generally not done here. The IOCommittee and IOUnion aren't technically the same thing; the IOUnion organizes and publishes the work of the IOCongress (the annual meetings), which are made up of the IOCommittee. They're all the same people wearing slightly different hats. We only need one article on this, not two and definitely not three. The most notable of these Intl. Orn. hats is the IOCongress. (See Billiard Congress of America for how to handle the same organization operating in different modes - see its separate section for its expo, its leagues, its United States Billiard Media Association working group, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisted again, and notifying WT:BIRDS in the hope of getting more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Support the requested move. Coreyemotela (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
• Merge to International Ornithological Congress, rationale as per  SMcCandlish ☺ above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to International Ornithological Congress --Melly42 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to International ornithological congress as per WT:MOS. Okay, just kidding, that was a bad joke. Red Slash 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to International Ornithological Congress. Maias (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (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.

IOC and IOC

@SMcCandlish: Hi. Are you able to assist me in puzzling this out, you seem to be across this merger of names and I hope to expand on some facts. The IOC might stand for Committee or Congress, two separate bodies, correct? If so, then read on …

The Congress became/merged/subsumed-by the Union, sometime, these facts are irrelevant to my query if my first statement is correct. 25 years ago the working committee[?] began the BOW list. This list was published in 2006, on behalf of authorising body (Union or Congress) as Birds of the World: Recommended English Names; Princeton University Press, 2006. The website adopting the work as a first draft is linked from the IOU, with a potted history and current status, "although it draws on the English names published in 2006, is not under the Union's authority.",

• IOC World Bird List (F. Gill & D. Donsker). doi: 10.14344/IOC.ML.7.2 - http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ - internet only

presumably because of their statement, "The IOU does not grant imprimatur or take a position in supporting any specific list. Users are urged to consult all to find out which answers their needs." (internationalornithology.org/birdlist). This is my current understanding, which seems to disagree with a redirect here International Ornithological Committee, although it accords with the redirect International Ornithological Congress. — cygnis insignis 07:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Back around 2014, I had a much clearer idea of how this stuff was organized, and when, but it's all dissipated in my mind now. I remember one salient thing not mentioned here: the publishers of one of the major bird reference works were who had commissioned or funded IOC to produce their list, and in the end this backer didn't like the results (nor how long it took, and the fact that various national bodies refused to go along with it, and that others complained about made-up names that no one uses) and so the publisher ended up not adopting the list they'd urged to be developed. I don't really recall all the details of that, though. I'm not sure this stub article is correct, that it started as IOC (the committee) and got renamed IOU. The IOU may have been the organization proper, and then the IOC formed within it, or perhaps from its members but separately, to do the work in response the publisher's proposed project to produce such a list. If so, then IOC would be (or might have at one time been) a sub-organization or maybe a split-off. It would be aberrant for something to be named the "[Something] Committee" without being a committee formed within or to the side of an existing body; it's implicit in the name. The other IOC is the conference, the event, at which the organization does its voting and stuff; that's the congress. People at WT:BIRDS may have more detail on this, but it should be "figure-out-able" with reliable sources; there are surely some documents and articles around that make this stuff clear. I have no idea what's going on with the online fork of the list, "not under the Union's authority" (whose is it under then, and what makes them an authority?), nor am I certain about who the exact copyright holders are of the original book-published version, nor whether anyone still consults it. The last time I looked on the website of the online version, the list of organizations and publishers who had adopted that list was very piecemeal and not very encouraging. But a lot can happen in four years, I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Immensely helpful, thank you for fleshing that out, I should be able to get this straightened out with sources. Authority? Not so bothered by it now, but was perplexed when I noticed one claim to authority was its use at wikipedia as an authority that wikipedia must use, because it is an authority that is widely used, at wikipedia. This kind of circularity is a comfort to me these days :-) cygnis insignis 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, jeebus. Count yourself truly fortunate that you were not around for the eight long years of WP:DRAMA. Where'd you see this circular claim?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

About eight years ago, at that site, and here when I first looked at it. Since removed I think, maybe they were desperate at the time, but I suppose it is archived somewhere. I still see the impact of wars in article space, wrangling over names and not a word about the topic in the lead. I notice we don't follow their lead on Title Case for organisms, well that is just wrong!! [ducks head, scurries away to be useful] cygnis insignis 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)