Talk:Nanday parakeet

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some bird pages are reaching GA and FA status with common names and not by following the strict WP:bird rules (see Blackbird and House Martin). As this bird is known by most people as the "Nanday Conure" there seems to be no reason for "Black-hooded Parakeet" to be used, now that WP:bird rules are being used less strictly. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008

In my experience, birders are more likely to refer to the bird as the "Black-hooded Parakeet" while pet bird owners are more likely to refer to the bird as the "Nanday Conure". Neitherday (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is true, and it is known throughout aviculture as the Nanday Conure. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per reasoning at Talk:Red-masked Parakeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) No longer gpoing to oppose per my comments at WP:BIRD. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. A Google search seems to bear this out 278 hits for "Black-hooded Parakeet" vs. 767 hits for "Nanday Conure". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Google was always an accurate measure of how commonly used a term was, the most commonly used term is not always the most encyclopedic term. For instance, Prince Henry of Wales is more commonly used than "Prince Harry". On Google there are over 15 times as many hits for "Prince Harry" than for "Prince Henry"; however the title of his Wikipedia article is "Prince Henry of Wales", which is as it should be. Neitherday (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is more widely known as a conure. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I would probably support a move of Prince Henry of Wales to Prince Harry (or similar) if one were proposed. I think that the use of common names is a good thing. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, perhaps, but here in the UK the word is practically unknown. I've heard it because I'm interested in birds, but I almost certainly wouldn't have otherwise. Conures are termed parakeets in 99% of cases here. Black Kite 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see my comments above. Neitherday (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think Wikipedia should stick with the names used in science. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles like "House Martin" and "Blackbird" use the common names of the birds, so I do not follow your reasoning. It is because few people use the "official" names "Common House Martin" and "Eurasian Blackbird" in their English speaking ranges, and similarly most people know this parrot as a conure. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Morally) support - more ghits on 'Conure', plus more is a exacting epithet than the general 'parakeet'. I'd still love to know why the anti-conure sentiment from the AOU...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - WP:ENGVAR issue. Black Kite 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is about using a commonly used name. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...huh? I don't follow your rationale BK...can you please explain? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst both "parakeet" and "conure" are used interchangeably in different fields in the States, the former is almost universal in many other English-speaking countries. Try and search for "conure" in a British context, for example - the word is practically unknown. Black Kite 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Zoo= xConure [1]

US Gov't = xParakeet [2]

Taronga Zoo (Sydney)= xConure [3]

Lotta people going every which way really...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move any of these. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanday Parakeet → Nanday Conure — To popular names of parrots. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Golden Parakeet → Golden Conure
• Jandaya Parakeet → Jenday Conure
• Blue-crowned Parakeet → Blue-crowned Conure
• Red-masked Parakeet → Cherry-headed Conure
• Green-cheeked Parakeet → Green-cheeked Conure

• Note: After a long discussion at Wikiproject birds a motion was passed 10 to 2 that the IOC name "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)". This is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article title that "If the article is about an animal belonging to a group where Wikipedia editors have agreed on a standard for choosing among two or more common names, follow that standard". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, only have the movereq posted in one place. Let the bot deal with the cross-posting. @harej 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add this list to the existing discussion at Sun Parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (note - this is not a vote on the above RM request)I don't know if that's a good idea. The discussion at Talk:Sun Parakeet is already pretty well-established and adding several more requested moves to it will probably derail things there and cause confusion. My own intention was to let that one run to completion before suggesting any more moves - to get an idea as to the degree of support for/opposition towards the 'new' names and decide whether or not it was going to be a waste of time and effort to open move requests for any others... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you write your intentions down anywhere? Your move is only about the Sun Conure, and there is an appropriate way to do a batch move. I think that the discussion at the Sun Conure was going well, so I opted to start a batch request as well. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See diff. BTW, the sun Parakeet discussion was only going well when the WP:BIRD motion was ignored. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Kim said - WRT pointing out my comment, that is. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have initiated a batch move request - just that it might be an idea to let the Sun <Whatever> discussion run its own course without complicating the situation and confusing the heck out of people who haven't been following this from the beginning by merging this lot into it. I was just speaking for myself - you do what you see fit, Snowman. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion related to the Nanday Parakeet move is to a degree a duplicate of the discussion at WP:BIRD, of whihc I copy the voting here for reference:

Below has been copied from Bird Talk page by User:KimvdLinde in this edit Snowman (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nanday Parakeet to Nanday Conure as suggested by KSB and supported by me. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Snowman (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. Maias (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. We're using IOC names, remember? Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This voting (on the WP talk page) indicates that this page should not have been moved because there is no clear consensus to move this page. Also, I think that the page move should have been discussed here prior to a page move, so that a wider audience have a change to show their opinions. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see: this WP:BIRD motion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggested that an independent person should close the discussion and help to decide to what extend a WikiProject can make up its own rules to make page moves. IOC WBL is not being fully implemented because some people have preferred to disregard IOC WBL name hyphenated names. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and you have been the most vocal proponet of enforcing those names, so what it seems to me is that you are cherry-picking when to invoke the ICO names when it suits you, and not when it does not. I experience this as clear double standards. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to implement the IOC WBL names, but it was not me who cherry picked non-IOC WBL hyphenated names. Abandoning WBL IOC hyphenated names was the first major deviation away from IOC WBL names. I think that using wiki hyphenated names puts a spanner in applying IOC WBL names to wiki pages, and has de-railed any hope of applying IOC WBL names in full. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, across the parrots, you have been more than successful to change all names to the non-hyphenated, non-accented versions, see User:KimvdLinde/IOC_Names#.28done.29_PSITTACIFORMES (Need special CSS code to differentiate redirects from normal links). Besides that, the hypen only changes how the names looks, not the name by itself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question, did you propose to move these pages to make a point about the hyphen issue? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposals were marred by ambiguities. I thought the latter proposal with the comments with the votes said that all names are going to be changed to IOC WBL names (votes 10 to 1 at that time - now 10 to 2). Some people cherry picked wiki hyphenated names in preference to IOC WBL names. I had made all sorts of name changes not only hyphenated names. My semi-automated software, works best where there are names changes across many species, such as with hyphenated names. All hyphenated parrot name moves were put up for discussion and there was not one contested that involved a hyphenated name after one week, and I did the uncontroversial work of doing the page moves. Question, why did you make a heading for contested page moves and them move them all? Snowman (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions again as on other talk pages, sequence of what happened. First there was the proposal to move everyuthing, then I added the parrots to the mix, which resulted in contested moves, wheich became a mess, which promted Casliber to propose the motion that was accepted. The last motion is what counts. So, why are you ignoring that last motion, which as far as I can tell was very clear in its wording of moving everything first, discuss later, move to non-IOC name only if consensus is for a non-IOC name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support all. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). As far as I am aware, the original (Conure) names are long-established in many (most?) fields outside of ornithology and the 'Parakeet' titles are a fairly recent innovation. We should use the names that the majority of general readers will be familiar with. Also, the term 'Conure' is far more descriptive (by implying the land mass of origin) than is 'Parakeet'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support all as nominator. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. IOC name. No new arguments after the WP:BIRD discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose again for usual reasosn and complain about forum shopping. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. happy with IOC names. Maias (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. How many times do we have to vote on these for Christ's sake? This is ridiculous. Can I propose a cloture vote for all parrot names? Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.