Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 44

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Sabine's Sunbird in topic External link naming
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Proposal on moving bird names to IOC listing

Latest comment: 15 years ago50 comments14 people in discussion

Righto folks, now I am unhappy with some IOC combinations but I do recognise that it should be the default position, and that in the cases of no consensus, the name should be at IOC name (that is, for a species to remain at a non-IOC name, there has to be a clear consensus). Thus for all above where consensus is not clear, the name should be moved. Those names for whome folks want to continue arguing can still do so but the name will be at the IOC name for the interim. At which point normal rules for gaining consensus will once again apply. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support (IOC listing)

  1. much as I hate this I recognise this is the right thing to do for logistical purposes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Yep - very strong support; no point in adopting IOC unless we do exactly what you suggest. Maias (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Thank you Cas. I hate some of the changes as much as anyone. But if we don't adopt them then we are headed for confusion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Count me in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Definately! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. We should go by the IOC names, as they are the main, and central, authority on this. If it goes against WP's naming conventions then those conventions are wrong. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. This is what I thought people voted for. That is, when we decided to adopt the WBL as the standard, we established the required consensus to move every single bird name to the WBL name (if it wasn't there already). We can have a few exceptions—I've already supported an exception for the African Grey Parrot—but one point of having a standard is to avoid arguments. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Me too — again... MeegsC | Talk 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support. AshLin (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Seeing this degrade into WP:FLORA style Google popularity contests. Will not mind full adherence to IOC - with redirects for alternate names. Shyamal (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (IOC listing)

  1. It is probably better to have no exceptions (including for compound names), but this proposal does not seem to fit in with basic wiki guidelines on moving pages. The wiki rules on page moves should be followed. A page can not be moved when there is no consensus to move a page. For a controversial page move the page is listed and after a while an independent editor closes the discussion. How will it be instigated. What about pages that are also listed under one or more other WP projects? Snowman (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    A page can not be moved when there is no consensus to move a page. At the time of counting the consensus for moving all pages is 5 to one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    But there is a restricted ordinance here, and as far as I am aware the proposal has not been listed elsewhere. I suggest independent adjudication prior to any pursuant page moves. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    What about taxonomy? IOC WBL appears to include species splits that are not featured on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    We are talking about that each page has the proper IOC name, that does not immediately imply we have to split pages etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. We have a saying in Australia, "like turkeys voting for an early Christmas". I wonder if people will assume that Fregata andrewsi is a traditional festive dish of the region. Pretending these newly coined english names, divorced from actual common usage, can replace their universal referents creates a battle-ground. The basis for this hopeless oppose are the same reasons that any comprehensive website uses verifiable and unique referents for the titles, this is a philosophically bankrupt solution that creates further exposure to internal discord and external ridicule. We are telling the reader that their perfectly legitimate common name, perhaps meaningful in an ethnobiological context, is deprecated, wrong, based on the arbitration of single committee created a couple years ago. Applying this to higher ranks is ludricous, changing sytematics is already a drag, but to also attempt to redefine their ambiguous english names will be a waste of time. The IOC cites this project as evidence of acceptance, this mutual reinforcement is highly problematic in itself. The apparent need for each to refactor the others faux-taxonomy of English names suggests that we are not reporting facts, we are helping to create them; with our web dominance, our Google ranking, and as a embryonic nomenclators proxy. cygnis insignis 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree that the wiki should not support new IOC WBL names, which gives the impression that these new names are in widespread use when they are not. I wonder if the committee will be sidelined, because they have made too many changes. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    (Try not to interject at any opportunity, Snowmanradio, you will alienate those who might agree and exhaust the patience of those who don't - like me.) My position should not been seen as an endorsement of the former system, which is just as likely to inspire tendentious editing. Forming a localised consensus and presenting a fait accompli is no better than the status quo, just a different obstruction to realising the goal. IOC is a different answer to highly dubious question: how do we avoid using the viable alternative. December still rolls by for the turkey, no matter how he votes. The project should grab the opportunity to present a neutral title for the content, including all the other names, if it able to make this domestic turkey fly. Thanks to all for the excellent content, I've read and enjoyed lots of it, cygnis insignis 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    I am sorry if my quick reply and poor English looks bad after your well thought out first comment. I am not quite sure if I understand your second piece, because it speaks in generalities and metaphors. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (IOC listing)

  • The reason I have done this is that this makes the onus once again on the proposer as to why a bird shouldn't be at the IOC name. As it stands, normal rules of moving pages are geared toward maintaining status quo in the case of no consensus. Thus non-IOC names remain where they are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There are certainly a few IOC names I do not personally like, but I would much prefer to argue against them once adopted, and I am sure that there will be several such cases. But, please, let us adopt the standard first so we do not have to go through what potentially could be months or even years of endless lawyering, fillibustering and googlecounting. Then maybe we can get back to writing and collaborating on articles. Maias (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are wiki guidelines on moving pages that override what is suggested, so I believe that the suggestion is unworkable. A page can only be moved if there is a clear consensus to move it. An independent editor closes the discussion. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if there is a clear consensus building to move all the relevant pages to IOC. Assuming that consensus remains when voting is complete, surely it's better to accept that your view has not prevailed than to resort to legalism to get the result you want? Projects don't have to stick rigidly to the "rules". WP:BIRDS capitalises species' names contra MoS, and insects and plants are usually under the binomial, not the MoS-favoured English name.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If this is a reply to my comment, I am being pragmatic. Theme expanded below: Snowman (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to change the rules on moving pages, then this is the wrong forum. An independent editor closes the discussion and a page can only be moved if there is a clear consensus to move it. There are very basic and essential rules on page moves that need to be respected. I guess that people could be banned for doing several page moves that are expected to be controversial without a consensus. To avoid people running into trouble, to respect wiki guidelines, and to minimise the impact of contra-actions I suggest that it is better to ask one or more independent reviewers who are used to closing difficult discussions to decide what the conclusion is and to adjudicate on the proposed actions to move many pages. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really like the 'no consensus = default to move' suggestion either. I'm not particularly comfortable with decisions made by a small number of users in project space overriding WP policy. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this proposal supersedes User Sabine's Sunbird's earlier proposal on which many people voted. If his proposal and the voting has now closed, can that discussions have a closing box around them? Snowman (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I state for the record that calling me SS makes me sound like some kind of Nazi and no matter who calls me that it kind of bothers me. If you must shorten my pseudonym please use Sabine. With regard to Snowman's point, there is no need to close a discussion with boxes if I have already closed it with words. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternative interpretations of an abbreviation were not foreseen. Name amended. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I also referred to Sabine as 'SS' further up the page. I wasn't trying to imply anything with that, just to make it clear. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't implying that either of you did, I just don't like the shortening. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • IOC appear to have names for birds that have not been been more widely accepted as a separate species. I guess that this is a "catch all" strategy. This could make a mess of wiki taxonomy, which is more cautious. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we need to clarify this. Are we deciding to adopt the IOC's taxonomy, or just their English names once we (or some of you, not me) have decided on species limits and the like? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No one ever proposed we use the IOC taxonomy, and as seen above, the issues raised by looking at the IOC list are quickly resolved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The differences between IOC taxonomy and wiki taxonomy are not that easy to sort out without up-to-date and cutting edge taxonomy information. The above listing of parrots is not an example of how easy it is, but an example of how difficult it is. The first problem was that all parrot pages were originally listed mealy because the IOC WBL name and the wiki article name were different. The next problem was identifying taxonomy issues, and the third problem was forming a consensus about the taxonomy issues, and it seems that knowledgeable editors still differ about what to do about a few page moves. I note that an erudite anonymous editor significantly helped out. I think that there should be an organised approach to sorting out what pages are moved, so that IOC WBL implications on taxonomy are not copied to wiki when all uncontested pages are moved perhaps including some pages with unnoticed taxonomy issues. The example above was for an order of about 350 parrot species - about 3.5% of the 10,000 or more total bird species. I hope that the anonymous editor can help with the other 96.5%, but I suspect that he or she might might have an alternative busy schedule. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still deciding on how I'm going to vote here (I can see both sides of the argument) but to clarify - if Casliber's proposal carries, what exactly is to be done with the African Grey Parrot article? The consensus here at present seems to be that at least that particular article gets to keep its 'classic' name. Will that also be automatically moved along with all the rest? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we have to make a standard summary line that makes clear what is happening when the species are moved, and with a link so people can read the rational. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So, did no-one else think much of my 'advertise the list of potential moves outside of WP:BIRDS, wait a few days to allow the wider community to raise any objections - then move the uncontested ones and send the rest through WP:RM' proposal, then? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I am in favour of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, see which are coming up as a problem once they are moved. If you want to toss out standardization and make the naming dependent on who accidentally has a specific page on his/her watchlist and logged in at the appropriate time, your idea is a good one. if I had my way, each and every tree of life article would be at its scientific name. As a non-native English speaker, I do not know all common names, and quite frankly, I rather do not as I have already a bunch of Dutch one to maintain. So, I vote for the scientific names, but if that is not possible, can we at least have a sensible standardized name? Petty please? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, using the scientific names as article titles would pretty much kill the entire naming debate stone dead. If that was put forward as a serious proposal, I'd be highly likely to lend my support to it... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
if you think discussions about what common name to choose are tense, try proposing scientific names for birds and other fluffy stuff... WP:PLANT naming discussions will be tame compared to that. I pass. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be neutral myself. The idea has merist and drawbacks. Although I should quote Pizzey and Knight on the importance of common names "The interested public needs a feeling of comfortable first name familiarity with the nation's wildlife. Passed down the generations, that familiarity has become an essential part of Australian cultural heritage for some" - underscoring both the importance of the common name and the difficulties in reconciling differences between countries in a global Wikipedia. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please - no more special pleading for particular names; just move the lot and then argue for exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Maias (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
AMEN. Let's get on with it already. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thus to answer KSB, I think everything moves and we then vote for individual ones to gain a consensus on moving back. I too think the abbreviated Grey Parrot is a bit of a stinker - we here in oz also have the Blue Bonnet now as Bluebonnet (???) - which is never written like that here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that having to wait for everything to be moved to the IOC WBL name could mean a long delay before being permitted to nominate or vote for the reverse manoeuvre. Surely, voting on the reverse manoeuvre can start as soon as a page is moved to its IOC WBL name. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Objected moves to IOC name

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion
I had a feeling that one was going to be problematic. Given the distribution of the species I really think it would have been smarter for the IOC to just leave it at Common Loon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup. I dropped the IOC people an e-mail about our initiative, and maybe we can have a small influence there with some of the more logical exceptions that they should make like the African Grey.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I also dropped them an email. Mostly it was trying to get them to use Red-crowned Parakeet for the New Zealand species (almost the only named used for the species here except for the more generic kakariki), but I certainly amd finding a few more cases that didn't warrant their choice. Hopefully they are not losing heart, their comment on Roughleg back to Rough-legged Buzzard seemed almost bitter (English name of Buteo lagopus from "Roughleg", suggested as a fair compromise, to Rough-legged Buzzard)! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
They've written back to me about some of the New Zealand birds. I'll repeat whet Kim and others have said, they are very receptive of feedback, particularly if you can back up your ideas with evidence (spent some time in our library comparing common usages of some names versus others). If you are unhappy with a name then let them know, they will listen (even if they don't change). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Same for me, and I followed up on the African Grey with some data. Just imagine, there are more than 10,000 bird species, and a few people cannot know everything themselves, so if you can help them out, they appreciate it. I am also sure that they will post it that we have adopted this as a standard. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not wanting to come across as crowing here but I seem to remember saying (I *really* don't want re-read the morass of textage above at this hour - but I'm pretty sure that I said it...) that non-WP:BIRDS people were going to see the page moves on their watchlists and be all like "WTF?" and start moving them back (or ask a friendly admin to do so for them). I'm expecting that this will be the first of many... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew we would get some cases, and quite frankly, I am surprised that it has been so few yet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to crow then don't. I seem to recall things differently - you would have added tonnes of red tape to the dozens of unremarkable drab LBJs I've spent the last four days moving without comment, the vast majority of which none of us have ever heard of. Beyond all the wretched cagebirds there are probably less than ten changes that many people outside TOL projects will even notice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. I somewhat walked into that one. All I can really say is that we'll see what happens over the next few days, when people have had the time to log on, check their watchlists and take notice. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is an alternative philosophy; "They can stew in their own juice". Why do they not ask prior to changing the name of a bird that has a very popular common name? Snowman (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sun Parakeet --> Sun Conure

I've proposed a move back, per everything that I've been saying on here recently - see Talk:Sun Parakeet#Requested move 3. Consider this as something of a test case for any other future IOC vs. aviculture/common name discussions. I thought that I'd start off with one of the really controversial ones, to test the lay of the land. Okay, you lot can go jump in with your $0.02 and oppose votes now, heheheh... ;)

Kim - I hope you don't mind that I've borrowed a sentence from your post over at the Loon discussion in order to explain the background to the recent move (I can remove it and rewrite, if you wish). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE. This name is used by neither the IOC nor the regional authority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Kurt, I have no problem here. If we as a community would come to the conclusion that Conure would be the best name for the WHOLE group, I would be fine with it, but now we are going to get a mix of official and aviculture names, and that is not what I think should be done. I think that is one of the reasons Wikipedia is considered such a bad reference source, as popularity rules what is in the articles, not scholarship. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC
Some scholarly works use conure. It is not ambiguous. If fact, I think conure is clearer than parakeet. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The latter is a matter of perspective. I disagree. What it does for me is just proof that WP is a popularity contest where popular opinion rules. It also takes some of the fun away for me. That some scholary work uses it, I agree, but that does not negate that there is a serious effort to come up with official names, using a clear set of standards. But mob rule rules I guess... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong by following a wiki guideline of using common names for article titles, as long as they are not ambiguous. I think it would be appropriate for some more technical Wikiprojects to use "official names" to prevent misunderstandings, but this does not apply to the common name of a parrot. I do not see any element of "mob rule" about this. Some editors have independently gave there opinions about the names of a parrot. Snowman (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The wiki guideline is a mob rule. So, yes, you seem to agree with that popularity contests should prevail. Mob rule. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I really think that there are good reasons for many wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Road map and other page moves

In line with the road map in the latter proposal, I have requested page name moves of the following parrots. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a breakdown of where the actual discussions are? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone has indicated this with indents. It would be helpful of you signed. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Association of European Rarities Committees nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Association of European Rarities Committees has been nominated for deletion. WP:BIRD editors may wish to join the discussion. SP-KP (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

IOC list article

Latest comment: 15 years ago60 comments7 people in discussion

Is there a IOC list to check for red links ? Wonder if we will have another of those copyright debates as with the ABA North American list if it is started. Shyamal (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if simply copied, the wiki version would be so similar to the original copyrighted version that any person (including a judge) looking at the two side-by-side would notice a likeness. I do not know if it would be reasonable to use specially constructed alternative versions; this could include an alphabetical version of the entire list, if the IOC WBL has not published an alphabetical version. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I make a full list in excell and port it to WP. EAsy enough... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Done, List is here User:KimvdLinde/IOC Names -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, feel free to chop up the page for easier use..... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it ever occurred to me how big a job this is going to be until now. Oh well, Nanowrimo isn't for another two months. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would ask a bot owner to deal with the red links. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you know we have to check all the blue links to see whether they're redirects (unless there's an automatic way to do that.
Just so people know, I'm making New Guinea Hawk-Eagle, Legge's Hawk-Eagle, Javan Hawk-Eagle, Sulawesi Hawk-Eagle, and Philippine Hawk-Eagle into redirects to "X Hawk-eagle". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I knew you knew that—that's why I said "you know". (Yeah, I know "you know" doesn't really mean "you know".)
Speaking of things that go without saying, we all know to check the article for references to the name that need to be changed. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hoping on some code that could be written to check for redirects. Otherwise, it has to be a off-wiki script that does the job. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Found a solution using customized CSS. Go to "My preferences", click on the tab "Appearance", and click the "Custom CSS" link behind the skin you use. It opens a page, and you can add there the following code:

.mw-redirect {
color: #006633;
}
.mw-redirect:visited {
color: #009900;
}
.mw-redirect:hover {
color: #990000;
}
.mw-redirect:active {
color: #990000;
}

Change the color codes if you want. Save the page, and reload with the instructions at the page so to force the new CSS to be included. It will show redirects as green links. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Splendid! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So if it is on the list can a page be moved by anyone? Is there anything else to check, apart from the names on the list? I am wondering if I can do parts of it with AWB, or at least parts of the task. I might start testing on some small runs. It might need more than one run to do different tasks. It there a list of just the pages that are to be changed? Snowman (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Each move needs to be checked for taxonomy. Not all IOC names are accepted here, as we saw with the parrots. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion made above is to move them all and move the questionable ones back. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The new names give rise to two genera or birds called Racket-tail, the parrots and a hummingbird called Booted Racket-tail. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrator assistance requested to move Red-billed Hanging-parrot to its IOC name. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Y
Done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrator assistance requested to move Painted Tiger-parrot to its IOC name. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Y
I see that it has been moved. Thank you. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrator assistance requested to move Variegated Fairy-wren, White-shouldered Fairy-wren, and Superb Fairy-wren to IOC names. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)  Y
I handled the request since Snowman had already moved some in the series. Whatever rule we follow, it would be good that we are consistent which would presumably means all or none of a bunch of similar names. Would not mind any moves back as long as there is some consistency. Shyamal (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Erudite assistance requested on Campbell's Fairywren and Broad-billed Fairywren, which are both listed on IOC WBL, but share one wiki article. I think "Campbell's Fairywren" should be moved to "Broad-billed Fairywren". Snowman (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Y
I see that some some pages have been moved where the name was First-last to Firstlast or First Last. I was under the impression that amendment one meant we'd leave those pages as is - but perhaps we need to have it spelt out more implicitly. Do we need to do this (make it really clear)? This is what we wanted, right? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The proposal is quite clear; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Proposal on moving bird names to IOC listing and had overwhelming support to change all names to IOC WBL name. 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There was also overwhelming support to amendment 1, which said the proposal didn't apply to changes such as First-last to First Last, and that such changes should reflect consensus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Amendment 1 said "Changes of this type should reflect consensus.", and in the absence of such a consensus, then the IOC WBL applies as in the later proposal; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Proposal on moving bird names to IOC listing. The later proposal supersedes amendment 1. Amendment 1 does not say "the proposal didn't apply to changes such as First-last to First Last". Reading the latter resolution and the comments with the votes I believe that the later resolution does have a consensus in favour of changing all names to IOC WBL name unless there has been a prior consensus to prevent this. There is a mechanism to change the names back to the original wiki name by starting a discussion on the names that have been changed in the process of the full implementation of IOC WBL names. Anyone can start such a discussion. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Snowman, as far as I can tell there is no consensus to move from a First-last to a Firstlast or First Last or First-Last. That is what people wanted - not to change - even if the amendment didn't reflect that without ambiguity. We are not as a rule interested in semantics, or arguing about them. As such I am suggesting that we clarify this before moving any more pages in such a fashion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is not an option for further clarification in the latter proposal, and I think that the latter proposal implies that their should not be any more delays. Amendment 1 are the words someone chose and this amendment has a consensus. Words in amendment 1, that have a consensus, include "Changes of this type should reflect consensus", and this is acceptable. In-the-round I see consensus to implement IOC WBL in full including IOC WBL hyphenated names (or as completely possible taking into consideration popular bird names and taxonomy issues) because of the consensus to the latter proposal, the comments with the voting to the latter proposal, and the lack of opposition to changing hyphenated parrot names (see the proposal above with a specific note saying that uncontested names will be changed after one week). Snowman (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There is always the option of review, we all make these rules together and we all interpret them together and if need be we can all unmake them together. The second round vote did not to my mind scrap all the amendments - it stated that the unified conclusion of the whole process of moving should be implemented forthwith. I disagree with your interpretation of what has happened. I want to see what everyone else thinks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
When I voted for Cas's second-round proposal, I certainly never thought it would supersede the consensus on compound names. As for the hyphenated parrot names, I didn't pay any attention to any precedents that might have been set because I'm happy to leave parrots to the people who know something about them. I too would like to hear what others think. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This recent vote on parrots made by User JerryFriedman on 21 August 2009 appears to indicate an opinion on the names of several parrots. How is this consistent with being "happy to leave parrots to the people who know something about them"? Can it be assumed that certain votes on parrot page names are now retracted? Snowman (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Make that "usually happy". I don't know what other votes you had in mind, but mine isn't retracted. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with those who oppose changing capitalization and hyphenation of main pages to match IOC when it deals with a species that is treated by a regional authority (like the Splendid Fairy-wren, Western Scrub-Jay, European Storm-petrel, and Least Storm-Petrel. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"Amendment 6" (now some time ago) was also about using regional names. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
And, quite apart from anything else, moving the tyrant flycatchers alone took me the whole of Sunday without moving the Tody-flycatchers to Tody-Flycatcher. If consensus wants those moves then consensus can bloody well do it itself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I personally say - why the hell not wait until more people say what they think? Three people have already disputed your interpretation of Cas's motion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Me too - I'll continue to set names as hyphen-lowercase, and I'm not prepared to sign up to Snowman's one-man campaign, which appears to be against the clear consensus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the decision was to move only where there were outright differences between IOC names and current names - and to keep issues with compound names as a last priority. Cas' suggestion was that in the "absence of consensus" - the default position would be the IOC name. This presumably was intended only for the cases other than those involving compound names, but maybe it needs to be made explicit with a repoll. Shyamal (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone reading in to the latter proposal words that are not there? People have already have supported full changes with comments with the votes: "Will not mind full adherence to IOC", "We should go by the IOC names, as they are the main, and central, authority on this. If it goes against WP's naming conventions then those conventions are wrong.", and 10 votes all supporting "IOC WBL as the default". Any problems are discussed and moved back after a consensus is reached. All parrot names have got the IOC WBL hypenated names and there was no opposition by anyone at all to do this even after the discussion was held open for one week. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I happen to be doing some of the work, but 10 people supported the latter proposal and I am working on behalf of the majority. The proposal was to avoid these sort of discussions. If a minority have objections, the proposal suggests a road map and a consensus is needed to move them back. Do not forget 10 people voted for the latter proposal and 10 people voted in favour of "Those names for whome folks want to continue arguing can still do so but the name will be at the IOC name for the interim."". Snowman (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The African Gray Parrot (apart from moves with taxonomy issues) is the only page discussed so far where there is a clear consensus not to move it to the IOC WBL name. Amendment 1 one said that a consensus should be formed before a non-IOC WBC hyphenated name is kept and no discussions have taken place on hyphenated names expect for parrot names and the parrot pages have now all been moved to the IOC WBL hyphenated and capitalized form as there was no opposition to using IOC WBL names. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted objections to "Bush Lark" (the IOC form) over "Bushlark" (the WP location eg: Jerdon's Bushlark). I am hoping that this will not lead to the line of thinking - "there is an objection => there is no consensus => it should be moved to the IOC name". I suppose consensus or lack of it should also require a quorum. Shyamal (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "there is an objection => is there a consensus? => take action in line with the consensus on the IOC name" is a logical course of action. Each step takes time and I think that we will need need to wait to see what is the outcome of the consensus on the objection prior to moving this page. Similarly I have currently stopped moving compound named pages to the IOC WBL name; however, I really think that the latter proposal is clear in saying that IOC WBL should be the default and the IOC WBL should be perused relentlessly in the interim despite those that wish to oppose. Snowman (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There are no shortage of moves that can be made while we clarify, Snowman. There are a hell of a lot of moved to be made either way. This is a big task. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that it would be worth any further proposals being open to questions for a few days prior to the final draft. I think recent important proposals could have been written better. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for holding off on the compound names, Snowman. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
To me keeping the wiki's compound and hyphenated names puts a spanner in the works, and for me this re-naming project has failed. I am beginning to question that we should use new names that a committee has opted for, when there are popular common bird names for many of these species. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Administrator assistance requested to move Tucumán Amazon to Tucuman Amazon its IOC WBL name. Snowman (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Why was this moved? The motion to use appropriate diacritic marks passed, did it not? If it indeed did, this should be moved back. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The votes were 3 to 2 and one neutral. This is not a consensus - because some people thought one thing and others thought something else. It is not just the totals that count. For a consensus to be reached the votes must be overwhelming to one side that give a better argument. It is often difficult to decide on a consensus. Howerver, to me, it is clear that the discussion on diacritic marks did not have a consensus, so it did not pass. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If a majority isn't consensus, then what is? And besides, according to you, consensus is needed to move ANY article, which can only be moved one at a time. You moved this article in mere hours, without any voting, let alone consensus. Meanwhile, you're opposing wholesale moves to IOC names as consensus AGREED upon. Talk about hypocrisy... Is there no one else who sees this for that is is?! If you're trying to get others to give up on wikipedia, you're doing a pretty good job. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The person that closed the discussion concluded that "7 is rather close and could use more input". I hope that you take part in more discussions and see how they are concluded. I think that it is explained on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and probably other pages. A key point is that the Wikipedia is not a democracy. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that means that things are left as is, not that you enforce your own preferred way of doing things. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Natureguy, I moved the Amazon, not Snowman. I wasn't paying attention - it is the only such move I made. When I saw your objection I thought about moving it back but decided to see what other people thought, anyway, moved it back now. Snowman - since you are a fan of quoting and interpreting rules, I invite you to consider one of the most fundamental policies Wikipedia has, Ignore all rules. While you are at it please consider the supplementary information at the essay Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Time and time again in this ongoing move you have striven to see the rules through the narrow prism of what we have written down, rather than what we have intended - enforcing the letter of the law not the spirit of the law. We are not lawyers, we do not sit and consider every sentence of the main page in depth before deciding upon it and going with it. We do not treat the rules and guidelines we make like a constitution that we read carefully and enforce to the letter, and argue about the precise meanings of what is permissible and what is not. That is not how Wikipedia works. Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (to quote the essay). Please stop treating the rules as gospel as opposed to the imperfect reflection of what we think that they are. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the recent proposals could have been written better, and I think anyone could become confused about what the proposals said. The following does appear to be a very strong statement in the latter proposal; "Those names for whome folks want to continue arguing can still do so but the name will be at the IOC name for the interim". I requested an administrator to move the Tucaman Amazon page, and I have watched the page moves as a spectator. I was trying to explain to User Natureguy1980 why I thought the page had been moved to Tucuman Amazon, but I was not aware it was moved by a user who was not paying attention. I see that the page has been moved back to Tucumán Amazon, and I have become a little puzzled by the page moves. I have looked at the IOC World Bird List and it is listed as "Tucuman Amazon". What does the IOC say about the various ways the name of this parrot can be written down? Snowman (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus in Amendment 7, and a latter consensus (10 to 2 and earlier 10 to 1) which applies to when there is no consensus says; "Those names for whome folks want to continue arguing can still do so but the name will be at the IOC name for the interim". Snowman (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Amendment 7 obviously did not have a clear consensus (3 to 2 and one neutral), and the latter pro-proposal (now 10 to 2 earlier 10 to 1) was about moving all pages to IOC WBL names unless there was a clear consensus to do otherwise. I think that this is clear and I do not think that I should be criticised for implementing what is clearly written. Snowman (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Buteo

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Aargh, given the bulldozering of other unusual names like Great Northern Loon, I can't believe the IOC sat on the fence with the genus Buteo and left some at x-buzzard and some at x-hawk. Oh well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They never claimed they were going to regularise within all genera. Seems to be a clear case of leaving NA ones with Hawk and old world species with buzzard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
...which is bizarre as that has what has been done elsewhere with Loon, Fairywren and many others. I always had a problem with the generic 'hawk', and had grand ideas of managing t oconvince americans to call it the Red-tailed Buzzard, but oh well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why not start with some Australian species before annoying Americans, huh? After all, your magpies, robins, treecreepers, larks, flycatchers and such are pretty generic and innaccurate. :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not bizarre at all. The 5 loons are all found in both Britain and North America. Only one Buteo overlaps. I'm not sure how fairywren enters the discussion. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
To natureguy - we call all the fairywrens fairy-wrens here in Australia - my beef with Buteo was the use of 'hawk' in the US and 'buzzard' in England - hence I wish they had said they should all be buzzards (or hawks) but not leave half as one and half as the other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if we're going to have a section on worst. name change. ever. I nominate changing Giant Forest Honeyeater to Yodelling Honeyeater. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yo-del-ay-eeh-hooo I know...tacky...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Add some fizzy drinks to that. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~remsen/SACCprop339.html Shyamal (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that bird survived the IOC - sounds like it could be a fun DYK. Maybe for April 1st to go with the one I am going to propose - Did you know that... flycatchers are sad, wrens are happy but greenbuls are both joyful and sombre? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago64 comments14 people in discussion

There are a vast number of bird articles with an external link to a "Arthur Grosset's Birds"; while some of them do have nice photos, I wonder if phrasing it that way is not website promotion. I have tried to fix a bunch of them, but it seems to need a bot. Shyamal (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User El Temprano has added 151 links that remain; see contributions. If these are span, then an administrator can delete them all easily. If not, I could delete them all with AWB using a regex. A consensus would help prior to deletion of all these external links. Does anyone else think that they are spam links? Snowman (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I recall Arthur giving us some photos in the past when I asked. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I would not think it is spam. My suggestion is to rename the links as "Photos" or such like, not deletion. Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Shyamal; if we don't have good photos for a species, a link to external photos certainly seems appropriate. What isn't appropriate is naming his website specifically in the link title. MeegsC | Talk 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
But websites have names; see link to homepage Snowman (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant to say that he had edited 151 pages (as of yesterday) in total and some of the the external links on these pages have been removed; I have put strike through my previous link count. I have provided a link to this discussion on User El Temprano's talk page, in case he may like to contribute to this discussion. Snowman (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thats a good idea. Looking at the stats here it seems that he is all set to beat the Encyclopaedia of Life! Shyamal (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

El Temprano (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Hello, I would like to confirm that El Temprano is in fact Arthur Grosset and I have been putting External Links to my site. Apologies if I have been guilty of some apparent misdemeanour. Many of the pages involved are stubs and I thought that the easiest way to improve the content was to add an external link. I don't really have time to maintain my own website and transcribe information to Wikipedia. Other pages are full of information but I judged that some of my photos might be of interest to a reader. I have said to one or two people in the past that I am not happy about the copyright rules were I to put photos on Wikipedia though I have authorised the use of a few. Please note that my website is totally non-commercial and I gain absolutely no benefit from attracting additional traffic apart from a feeling of satisfaction that people are using it. Please advise what you want me to do next. Do you want me to stop entirely? Do you want me to put in a link but not to mention my website? Over to you.

For most species I certainly think they're appropriate as they commonly include good photos and a text which often is more than we have in the wiki article for these non-European/North American species. There are exception when the wiki article has a long detailed text AND good photos (like Black Vulture) where the inclusion of the link would be more questionable. It is standard to name the webpage (see IUCN links in most articles) in the link or source (person) but here it doesn't really matter: 'arthurgrosset' or 'Arthur Grosset'. I would argue for a simple modification of the links like saying what the specific page is named and what it includes. This would make it easier for a person seeing it to judge if he/she wants to visit and also make the links appear less automated and "spam-like". E.g.
I should mention that I don't really care if a website is commercial or not. As long as it doesn't include too much in-your-face advertising and includes good info (text or photo) that isn't available in the wiki article, I'd say include it among external links. 212.10.69.24 (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding a link to your own website may bring suspicions of a conflict of interest. Adding over 100 links to your own website also may bring suspicions of a conflict of interest. I have had a quick look through the contribution history and all the edits I examined were involved with adding external links. I could not find any other content added, although I can not exclude that some non-link content has been added somewhere on pages that I did not examine. I think that adding external links in this way is against wiki guidelines and should halt. It may be more appropriate for links to a users own website to be discussed on the article's talk page before being added to the article. Most of the existing external links with good content can probably remain, but any that are not helpful will probably be sorted out and deleted in time. The wiki guidelines on external links are at WP:EL. I can understand if someone deleted all of the links thinking it was spam. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

El Temprano (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 24 hours ago I thought that I was contributing in my small way to what I regard as an admirable and important project. In the last 24 hours I have been accused, judged and found guilty of a crime that I was not aware I was committing by a group of nameless entities. It is only now that it has been pointed out to me by one of these nameless entities that there are guidelines on external links. I obviously contravene these guidelines but what I object to in the strongest possible terms is the imputation that I have done so for some motive other than wishing to add useful content to Wikipedia. I will try to remove all links to my website as quickly as possible but, if you have some sort of bot that would zap them for me it would save me a lot of valuable time. I would like to make two suggestions which I hope you will regard as constructive. Firstly, would it be possible to automatically point to your guidelines on External Links the moment that someone tries to add one. Secondly, I think that when Wikipedia has a stub with only minimal information on it the page title should indicate that this is the case so that when the page comes up in Google or whatever it "would make it easier for a person seeing it to judge if he/she wants to visit"

Arthur, I am sorry that your experience is less than pleasant here at wikipedia. I think that adding your links was perfectly legitimate, especially as it was often for species for which we had less information than you. I can see that how they were named could be somewhat better, but to strong reaction you got from some is not the opinion of all here. Most of us prefer sense over rules, and look at specific situations. I edit under my own name, as I think that is better: -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Following the above request I have deleted all (or almost all) the external links that User El Temprano added to the wiki directed to his own website. The regex I wrote may have missed a few that were written in a different pattern, but I am fairly sure that I deleted over 95% of them after a second run with a modified regex. The link discussed above on a stub, Buffy-fronted Seedeater, without an image remains and this was not added by User El Temprano. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoo-hooo! A new editor bitten, a former source of images of hard to get species thoroughly soured to the Wikipedia project and a slavish devotion to the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Fucking. Great. Job. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
User El Temprano was given a welcome note and a table of useful links on 14 April 2009, including a link to "conflict of interest". Snowman (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That is both entirely true and completely misses the point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I have been quite out of the loop having been constrained by circumstances to attend to some rather knotty family matters in the U.S., and so I have not been in a position to follow what has ensued on the wiki for some time. That said, I am rather consternated to find upon returning to the wiki, all of this rather strange politics. Therefore, and to whom it may concern: I have known Arthur epistolarly (to coin a non-existent adverb) for something on the order of ten years. It is quite bridling to me to see he has been put into a position to feel that his character and his motivations vis-a-vis the laudable intent of furthering the dissemination of information of brazilian birdlife, the geographical zone in which he is now quite an authority, and of their preservation, has somehow been placed in question! I consider Arthur to be a person of high principles, and will actively contrast further attempts to cast aspersions on his character.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe that no one has questioned User El Temprano's character. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is obviously not the opinion shared by several of the regulars here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Motion

All external links to "Arthur Grosset's Birds" for species for which we do not have any or only poor images are allowed and restored using the following format:

I think the chasing away of this person, who has donated high-quality pictures to Wikipedia, was an error and should be straightened out. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominator. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Having links to photos where we have no photos ourselves does not harm the encyclopaedia. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Maias (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Agree, but the name of the author can be skipped on the link. After all the rest of the text and images do not go with the editor and photographers names on the article page itself. Shyamal (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Modified, I agree with that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support, with the text being replaced as per the format suggested above. I think it would be short-sighted to throw away useful links, and I hope that Arthur will reconsider his request (in the Discussion section below) and be happy for us to include his website in links. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support. If Arthur decides to change his mind, his site is a useful resource that will improve the 'pedia's bird articles, especially the stubs. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. They're helpful and informative links that were added in very good faith. hmwitht 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support - From the discussion above these were useful links that improved Wikipedia. Maybe it would be possible for Arthur to release low-res versions of the images to Commons so that they can be used throughout Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Stricken proposal per request of Arthus [1]. Great job. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Per Arthur's reversal of his own decision earlier. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I use this format, instead of re-adding the links immediately, as I do not want to engage in an edit war over the links, but I am tempted to restore most of the links. We frequently have links to websites with good pictures, and these links to generally high quality images should have been judged on their merit. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can the proposal be clarified? Is the first line about restoring links the entire proposal, or does the proposal include the second line that starts "I think the...", which looks like discussion about the wikipedia? I hope to vote after this is clarified. Snowman (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It includes the second line, as I am ashamed how he was treated. I hope you can see that the way he was treated was unacceptable. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How many images has the website owner donated to the wikipeda in the past? Snowman (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on making a similar proposal myself. I approve of the method that is suggested in the proposal to put certain external links on pages selectively. I note that this is different to adding links to many pages without considering the content of the page. Snowman (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that User Temprano has removed a lot of external links to his website that look like they have been added by other wiki editors; see contributions. These need to be checked in addition to the links that I removed that were added by User El Temprano after he requested them to be removed by a quick method. I was planing to follow this up with a motion for a consensus on adding links back selectively, and a was pleased to see the first line of the proposal this morning. Snowman (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In general an editor can make some good contributions, indifferent contributions, and mistakes. If an editor does some good edits or make some good contributions, it does not mean he or she can do other edits against wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


El Temprano (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)I would like to thank Kim and Sabine's Sunbird for their comments. I felt for a time that I was confronting a great faceless machine on my own. However I have reached a time in my life when I have far too many projects that I want to complete and probably not enough time to complete them before I drop off my perch. So I am quite happy that Wikipedia has arbitrarily removed one item from my to-do list. May I put an end to your discussion and votes by saying that I do not wish any of my web pages to be linked to Wikipedia. I have been through as many links as I can find made by third parties. Each link seems to have been made under the same criterion that I had used, i.e. that it would add something useful, but this does not seem to be what is required by Wikipedia which is why I have removed them. I would ask you not to re-instate these links and to remove any that I may have missed. Can I just mention that I have recently started posting images to a Brazilian site called Wikiaves. They have a policy on copyright that suits me. After a couple of days I received a very polite e-mail asking me not to include species and location details on the image and gave me the reasons for this. These were so convincing (future taxonomic changes, location information elsewhere, etc.) that I have now adopted this approach to the images I put on my own site. I am hoping that in future they will allow me translate their Portuguese content for the pages in English. So I will add another little project to my to-do list. Regards, Arthur Grosset

Is there no way that we could change your mind on that, Arthur? I only noticed this discussion this morning and from looking at it, it seems that you may not have received the assumption of good faith that all newcomers are entitled to by default. I suppose that seeing the 'pedia getting mass-spammed tens of times daily by people trying to drive traffic to their commercial websites can harden a user and make one cynical of any new user adding similar external links to multiple articles. That shouldn't be the case here - but unfortunately, it is. WP also has an 'ignore all rules' policy which was put in place (well, one of the reasons it was put in place...) in order to prevent newbies such as yourself getting slapped down by a complex, arcane ruleset applied to the letter of the law, not in the spirit of the law. Personally, if I'd noticed you adding the links at the time, I'd have checked a few of them out - then satisfied that your links were useful and that you weren't trying to sell parrot training DVDs, or Acai berries to enlarge and enhance the male member, or hawk your online casino, or whatever, I'd probably have just left them alone with no further comment. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Arthur, that you for commenting here. In light of your request, I will strike the motion, and I wish you all the best. I am happy that I at least have achieved that you do not feel that all editors here were in the same category. This incident and others in the past months, make me feel that I should start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on one of the editors here, because this is starting to hurt the project more and more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why User Shyamal brought the links for discussion here. I think that User El Temprano was given the benefit of WP:AGF by all the users who commented. I think that all the editors have been polite to User El Temprano. I think that the project will not benefit by blaming anyone, but it should analyse and learn from what went wrong. What lessons can be learnt for the future? Perhaps users should be contacted at the outset when a discussion is started about any of their edits. It could be a shock to find that ones own edits are the topic of discussion elsewhere. Should the users talk page been the main page for the discussion with signpost from this page? Snowman (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

El Temprano (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Having reflected on many of the comments and other messages that I have received, I think that I may have been too hasty in my reaction. So please link to my website when you think that my pages will add something useful. I will not be adding anything to Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Once bitten, to use your jargon, twice shy. I graduated in 1968 and have been imbued ever since with a necessity to react against what I perceived to be the overweaning authority of the establishment. When I first came across Wikipedia I thought that the concept was brilliant and in the tradition of what we thought was a bit of a revolution in 1968. Sadly it seems to have gotten a bit stuck in the quagmire of its own legislation. But I wish you luck with your birds project. The more people know about these marvellous creatures, the more chance we have of saving a bit of habitat here and there.

I feel I should stand up for Wikipedia here and point out that one of our supreme commandments, enshrined for all time, is ignore all rules. We are pulled in both the direction of stultifying authoritarianism and dizzying anarchism and the most difficult path is the narrow one between the two. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The wiki is conservative, Jimmy Wales said this in a television interview. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Wikipedia is neutral. Moreover 1)authoritarianism versus anarchy are different concepts to liberal/conservative or left/right 2)Jimbo is our founder, not our lord and master (unless he's looking :P) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think he said "very conservative", but I am not sure. Perhaps he meant "tending to resist change": see wiktionary. For me, I think is gives a sense of solidness. I am sure there are other facets of the wikipedia, and I also agree with the concept of balancing on the authoritarianism to anarchism spectrum with regards cooperation. I think "ignore all rules" should be used wisely. Snowman (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When I posted the note, I was only hoping that someone could do an automated edit of the link names and never expected such a long discussion. One of the ideas behind Wikipedia is that it should last long, beyond the lives of people. their websites and even beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Free licensing is part of the mechanism that ensures this, by letting people make copies, forks and versions. Many of the editors do a substantial amount of research to gather information, write up the text with citations, others contribute photographs, illustrations or read and improve the text and for all their pains, none of them get their names credited on the article, so the external links with the author's name did stand out as being unfair to the rest. Many of the editors here we have lots of work to do (More than what we can actually achieve-User:Shyamal/todo), none of us may complete our tasks and all of us are eventually going to fall of our perches and the idea here is to ensure that what we do helps in the long run. The project discussion page is only a secondary page that aids us in our work. None of us are really here for vote fests or to hurt any editors/contributors. If I have inadvertently hurt anyone here, I am extremely sorry for it. (my comment on the EoL btw was more to note their failings and also to point out Prof. Rod Page's blog and research findings on why Wikipedia is currently the best choice for anyone interested in making basic biodiversity information available). Apologies again for any misunderstandings. Shyamal (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that User Shyamal had good intentions and had the basic fundamentals of this wikipedia at the front of his mind. I believe that the spirit of this encyclopaedia is to provide "free" content (creative commons licensing), and it is at the heart of this project to bring such content to its pages. Here is a list of some useful information (some items only tangential to any discussion on this page) from the wikipedia, which new users may find informative and established (already familiar with these topics) may wish to reflect on: Wikipedia:NOT#LINK; WP:AGF; Wikipedia:Civility; WP:EL; Ad hominem; Sarcasm. I hope that we can impress new users with teamwork in future. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, snowman, I am sure that you had also the best intention when you accused Arthur of link spamming (while three people disagreed with that), and WP:COI and started to delete all links despite that three editors had indicated that they did NOT think it was spam. Telling Arthur that he has to read WP:NPA after he expresses how he feels about you treating him, was about the biggest irony you can imagine. If any one has to read some policies, it is you and I suggest that reading WP:CON, WP:BITE and WP:AFG are the first three to start with. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Shyamal, I do not think you have to apologize for anything, asking about how to format a series of links is perfectly logical. And if it had been followed up appropriately, it would not have escalated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was careful with my words and I did not accuse the new user of anything. I did raise ask some reasonable questions, as did User Shyamal. I deleted links after the new user had requested links to be removed, and after this he continued to delete scores more added by other users. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not consider this careful and clearly accusatory towards a newcomer of link spamming and conflict of interest smacking wp guidelines at the new user. O sure, the words are carefully chosen, but the message is all to clear. I suggest you read WP:BITE. And for the deletes, yes, you started it only after he requested it, which was after the post above. Not surprising at all. If that post had not been written, he would not have requested deletion in the first place, and we would have come to a quick conclusion that changing the links would have been the proper action in this case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that you are splitting hairs unnecessary. Most of what I wrote is factual or common sense and I was expressing my opinion that I thought "adding external links in this way is against wiki guidelines and should halt", and there is nothing wrong with that. The consensus on your proposal seems to agree with this, as your proposal suggests that the links should be written differently and only those on pages that we do not have any or only poor images should be kept. I went on to say that most of the links could be kept. There is no accusation of COI in what I wrote, and I quite reasonably raised a suspicion. I informed the new user that a discussion was taking place on this talk page and I was the first person to provide the new user with links to some wikipedia guidelines. In politely informing the new user of wiki guidelines, there was no intended element of biting the newcomer. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Snowman, it is obvious to me from our discussion here and at other places, that you genuinely do not see what went wrong, to the point that I am seriously wondering what caused you to have such poor social skills. Mind you, I do not know whether it is true that you actually have poor social skills, but it are thoughts that are going through my head after trying to show you that biting new comers with rule, policy and guideline thumping is counter productive, only to be countered by exactly the same response. The lack of social skills that I generally think to observe makes me wonder at times whether you might have a autism spectrum disorder, but until proven otherwise, I will assume that you are not. However, that makes me wonder whether the perceived (but probably incorrect) lack of social skills is deliberate, but I will assume good faith until proven otherwise, although it makes it difficult to understand what I experience as a gross lack of social skills. But if I write things down as my own thoughts, it should not matter, everybody has the right on their own opinions about others, and I will keep assuming good faith in that you mean the best and just doesn't get it without assuming that it is malice or a neurological disorder. But in general, this problem is not limited to this specific case, but a general issue that comes up time and over again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what went wrong, and I am fairly sure my analysis is advanced beyond what I can write down. However, asking editors to reflect on the edits is the best I can do in this setting. The hares and the rabbits can not teach the tortoises to run. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And based on what you just wrote, I feel that you keep confirming exactly the same thing I was thinking before. Thank you. I think your response is extremely arrogant and devoid of social insight. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The most important thing here is that lesson our teachers tried to teach us on school trips when trying to get us to behave, we are all ambassadors for the project. A very small number of potential interactions can have a huge effect on how we are perceived by the wider internet bird community - and this community is linked and talks to each other. We already have a position, due to Google, of dominance in search engine results, if we combine that with a reputation for hostility or arrogance then the pool of image donors and potential future editors is going to evaporate very quickly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the issues here are approaching a personal level and need to be defused. I'm sure that all parties involved harbour a genuine desire to improve the quality and scope of bird-related topics, and the more passionate the desire the greater the heat created when there is a difference of opinion. Maybe WP:IAR could have been applied here while a solution was found to address the linkspam problem, but at the same time, Snowman, who is a long-standing and experienced editor who continually strives to maintain accuracy and precision, was correct in pointing out the policy on linkspam. We all sometimes let the niceties of social interaction slip from time to time when focusing intently on an issue and should be cut some slack when doing so – assume good faith! However, whether or not the general opinion here agrees with what Snowman was attempting to do, the personal attacks on him exhibited in later comments are unacceptable! --Red Sunset 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy to let the whole thing slide, but the new editor was absolutely seething at how he was treated. Assuming good faith is all very well for me, but it took me several emails to convince him of good faith all round. It would be a great deal easier to let it all go if Snowman indicated he had the slightest understanding of how this kerfuffle kicked off or that he had learnt anything at all about dealing with new editors. Because I really have better things to do than damage control. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_44&oldid=1146516060"