Wikipedia talk:Fait accompli

Making this a guideline from the get go is a little bold. Usually these things are discussed first. How's that for fait accompli? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I turned it into an essay. As guideline it is redundant to the editing policy Yoenit (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate document needed?

Still watching this because of the attribution. Seeing the recent addition of the "proposed" tag I wanted to ask if there is any reason not to propose including this into an appropriate existing policy or guideline, such as Wikipedia:Consensus. I think it's generally better to keep the number of policy/guideline pages compact, at least insofar as possible. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This page isn't even an essay, it's just a basic idea. It should be moved to user space. When it's expanded enough (to a decent number of sections and paragraphs), when it clearly establishes a specific idea that no other page mentions in a direct manner, then we shall consider again if promoting it or not MBelgrano (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We have WP:MEATBOT which is related. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Common name of species are nor capitalised

It was a fait accompli that bird common names were capitalised in Wikipedia. Following discussions on Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move, on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane and especially on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation, it is now clear that the consensus is not to capitalise the common (vernacular) name of all species.

The guidelines are detailed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms.

Coreyemotela (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Once the cleanup is over and tempers have cooled, it would actually be a very good example to add here, as a case of early adoption of something before a rule was settled upon, turning into activism to impose and enforce a "rule" preferred by a wikiproject against a wider consensus. It's one of the cases where "actual practice on Wikipedia" was not a reliable guide to what our guidelines and policies should say, for a long time, because advocates of the bird capitalization were so adamant about it that they campaigned to change all common names of all species of everything to be capitalized, back when consensus wasn't so clear against the matter, and even after that was reversed in 2008, and consensus for lower case reaffirmed in 2012, fought on another 2 years to maintain capitalization of the bird articles alone. It's a pretty remarkable 9-year story. I think some people might take it personally if it were added right now (and it's actually noteworthy that the specific individuals involved has largely changed over the course of those years; even in just the last two years the names of most of the proponents of the capitalization have changed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)