User:SMcCandlish/Guideline conflicts with MOSLIFE
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative. |
At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#Absolutely no consensus to push bird capitalization as a "standard" on Wikipedia, I was specifically asked to lay out the ways in which WP:NCFAUNA conflicts with MOS:LIFE. I'll do that in outline form here, and include NCFLORA, NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and any other pages that form part of the same snarl of guideline conflicts.
MOS:LIFE wording:
|
|---|
|
Animals, plants, and other organisms
When using scientific names, capitalize the genus but not the species or taxonomic rank below species if present: Berberis darwinii, Erithacus rubecula superbus. No exception is made for proper names forming part of scientific names. Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids). Common (vernacular) names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear (zebras, mountain maple, gray wolf, but Przewalski's horse). Some editors prefer to capitalize the IOC-published common names of birds (Golden Eagle) in ornithological articles; do not apply this style to other categories. Use a consistent style for common names within an article. Create redirects from alternative capitalization forms of article titles. General names for groups or types of animals are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, bottlenose dolphins, rove beetle, Van cat). |
WP:NCFAUNA wording:
|
|---|
|
Capitalisation and italicisation
Capitalisation of article titles follows general Manual of Style guidance on the use of capital letters. Common (vernacular) names
Articles whose titles are the common (vernacular) names of animals are normally titled in sentence case—for example, Przewalski's horse, Black bear. Where a vernacular name contains a proper name, that is also capitalised—for example, Small Indian civet. Common names are never italicised. Some wikiprojects [have] arrived at a local consensus to always capitalise the common names of bird species (and subspecies) in ornithology articles, and to permit but not require upper-casing of species of dragonflies, and of moths and butterflies in articles on Odonata and Lepidoptera, respectively. Do not apply such capitalisation outside these categories. In a capitalised hyphenated name, the word after the hyphen is normally not capitalised, unless a proper name. See WP:WikiProject Birds for exceptions, which can be complicated. When creating a new article (or moving an existing one), make a redirect to it from the alternative capitalisation. For example, if you name the article Bald Eagle, create a redirect to it from Bald eagle or vice versa (many field guides capitalise, and most other sorts of writing do not, so we have to account for both styles). Creating the redirect is not optional. There are some rare instances where lower case and capitalised versions have different meanings; suitable links or disambiguation should then be used. The common name of a group of species, or an individual creature of indeterminate species, is not capitalised beyond the first word in article titles (except where a proper name occurs): Bottlenose dolphin, New World monkey, Rove beetle, Slime mold. Scientific names
The first part of a binomial species name, the genus, is capitalized. The second part, the species, is never capitalised (even when derived from a proper name): Ninox novaeseelandiae versus Ninox Novaeseelandiae. The same applies to the third part of a trinomial name: Canis lupus arctos. Because scientific names are always italicised, per WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face, when the article title is a genus or lower-ranked taxonomic name (e.g. species or subspecies), the page title should also be italicised. There are three ways to accomplish this:
|
The 2012 consensus discussion
|
|---|
|
A. MOS problems in NCFAUNA
[edit]- The hatnote studiously avoids linking to MOS:LIFE itself, and only goes to subpages (at least one of which, MOS:CAPS, has been slowly shaped without consensus over the last few years to be similar to the anti-MOS positions in NCFAUNA. That's problematic in itself, but it's completely untenable in this case because MOS explicitly overrules its subpages. This hatnote should be replaced with
{{Hatnote|1=Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. For more detail on capitalization rules, see WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms, and on italicization rules, WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face and WP:Article titles#Italics and other formatting.}} - MOS and most of the other pages put the scientific name material above the common name rules, because it's more likely what people are looking for (99%+ of people know not to capitalize "Mountain Lion" already); do the same here.
- "Normally" (in "Articles whose titles are the common (vernacular) names of animals are normally titled in sentence case") is a weaselword that directly, unmistakably contradicts MOS:LIFE's firmness and clarity, introducing an implied boundless wiggle-room to make up exceptions. To the extent there are variances, we immediately explain them. You don't need to say "I normally don't eat meat, except scallops" when "I don't eat meat, except scallops" will do. Just delete "normally".
- "Some wikiprojects [have] arrived at a local consensus" (the "have" is disputed as of this writing) is both incorrect in two ways, and flies in the face of the lengthy, involved and all-sides-represented 2012 consensus discussion (details above) at WT:MOS. In particular:
- It was decided not to mention wikiprojects at all here, because as a matter of policy at WP:CONSENSUS project are nothing but pages at which individuals editors agree to collaborate on a topic of mutual interest; they are not entities and do not take actions on their own, and have no authority of any kind. Pointing a a wikiproject also falsely implies that all members of the project go along with the idea. The wording at MOS, "some editors prefer" was quite carefully chosen and should not be discarded. "Some wikiprojects" here should be replaced with "Some editors".
- This is not how to properly use the phrase "local consensus". According to policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, a local consensus is something that a project is supposed to avoid! It cannot reasonably be used here to indicate something normal or desirable; it's a state of conflict and controversy. The choice at MOS to use a link to it to preserve the fact that bird capitalization is actually controversial while using it as a piped link so as to not seem to be unduly drawing attention to the conflict or demonizing anyone, was a hard-won compromise and should not be discarded. The "have arrived at a local consensus to" link should be replaced with a piped-link "Some eidtors prefer to" constructions mirroring MOS:LIFE here.
- This is incorrect: "to always capitalise the common names of bird species (and subspecies)". Only a small minority of WP:BIRDS members have ever suggested such a thing. The position of most of the pro-caps editors in the project is predicated firmly on the idea that the IOC list is a special case, a "universal standard", and capitalization of IOC names was agreed in the 2012 consensus discussion as what to mention here. "Always" is a pointless bit of hyperbole here. Merge the correct, compromise-based MOS wording with the greater detail of the NCFAUNA text: "to capitalize the IOC-published common names of bird species (and subspecies)".
- This is false: "and to permit but not require upper-casing of species of dragonflies, and of moths and butterflies in articles on Odonata and Lepidoptera, respectively." Only one editor any time in the last few years has maintained anything like this suggestion, and he correctly notes that the projects in question did not come to a consensus on the matter. That is not the same thing as coming to a first consensus, as NCFAUNA falsely implies to be permissive in this regard and (most importantly here) to continue to assert a local consensus to be lax even after MOS concluded in 2012 to stop being lax about capitalization. Just remove it. If a notable number of editors who focus on such topics do suddenly pop up and make the same sort of "we defy MOS because we have what we assert is a universal convention in reliable sources", MOS would probably add that topics to birds at MOS:LIFE. Unless that happens, NCFAUNA has no business trying to invent new exception to MOS. NCFAUNA's job is to apply not defy and usurp the site-wide style guidelines. When MOS settled firmly on "do not capitalize organism common names", every biological project had been making up its own rules based on (guess what?) an early version of NCFAUNA telling them to do so, without any basis for it. MOS explicitly overrode this chaos in 2012. No topically focused group of editors has objected other than WP:BIRDS. The insects projects are no different from any other on the list I just gave, and there is no basis for listing them as "exceptions" here.
- "See WP:WikiProject Birds" doesn't make sense; the project is not an authority on anything. What we want here is their explanation of these matters. Change to "See WP:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles".
- "For example, if you name the article Bald Eagle, create a redirect to it from Bald eagle or vice versa" is backwards, basically. Only a tiny percentage of new common-named species articles will be at capitalized titles, but we still want redirs from capitalized to lower-case. We must not actively promote bird caps as exemplary of a general principle, or people will continue to misconstrue it and go around capitalizing cats and trees and amoebas and primates. Use a non-bird example, LC first with a UC redirect.