Misplaced Pages

Common Gull (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC nomenclature as its naming convention. The IOC name for this species is Mew Gull. Personally I do prefer Common Gull, but we are trying to streamline bird names where there are issues. Under Misplaced Pages:COMMONNAME - one is the common name in America, the other is the common name in Europe, hence both could apply. The IOC gives more weight to one name. Funnily enough, a quip among birders is that the name should be uncommon gull as it is by no means the most abundant species....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, relist move discussion and seek wider consensus. Original proposal didn't point out that Mew Gull is common name in America, which might have confused some readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did not vote in this formal move request, but I was aware of it. Perhaps, others refrained from voting like me, because they were indifferent at that time. The formal move request was signposted on the WP Birds talk page to alert people who were likely to be interested. I think that the move discussion was closed appropriately. Actually, I think that the move formal request has been handled in an exemplary way. Mew Gull is also used for the name of the American subspecies as well as being an alternative name for the species, so the term can be confusing. Talk:Australian Wood Duck is an example of a bird name that is not at the IOC name with the Australian name used in preference. Also note that the IOC can change a name and then change it back as has been done recently for two Australian black cockatoos, hence not all of the IOC names are ideal all of the time. Also, note that less than about 10 bird names on the Wiki have a name that is different to the IOC name (not including capitalization, hyphenation, and local language spelling, and names following recent taxonomy ideas), so alternative names are not a big problem on the Wiki like it used to be, as far as I am aware. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article is written in UK English (as far as I am aware), so logically readers would not have been persuaded to favour a page move to Mew Gull (the American name), if the original proposal had pointed out that Mew Gull is the common name in America and Common Gull is the common name in the UK. In fact, a theme in the page move discussion is that the article is written in UK English and hence that the English name "Common Gull" is preferable. Snowman (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I hadn't conisdered what it was written in. That is fairly mutable and could be changed in a matter of minutes so I would not hold that as something to be of concern. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• With regard to a change of language localisation, see MOS:RETAIN, which says; "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change". The bird is found in USA and the UK, so I see no reason to change the article from UK English. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to conflate the variety of English used with the IOC name. The IOC names are international names, whether or not a particular name is associated with usage in a particular country. With reference to MOS:RETAIN, quoted by Snowman above ("With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change"), the use of “Common” in a common name is ambiguous. No bird is common everywhere (although Common Starling is pushing hard to be so). The usage is highly biased towards birds that may be common in western Europe or North America. Maias (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with part of Maias's argument in that the IOC is our international standard for bird names. We should use that standard when naming common names. We shouldn't use the standard when we like it, then not use it when we don't. In this case COMMONNAME and ENGVAR should not apply since 2 different English names equally apply in two different parts of the world. I agree with Snowman about using the word "Common" in other species where the word is commonly referenced for the species and is recognized as our accepted standard, and there are no conflicts internationally....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just run a script to extract all the birds where the IOC uses "Common" in the English name. "Common" is used 75 times by the IOC, so clearly it is acceptable by them. Clearly, "Common" does not imply that the birds are common all over the world. It seems to me that birds from all over the world are listed. I have not done a regional count, but at first glance, I would reject the idea that the list is highly bias towards birds of the West. See: Snowman (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• 1 Common Ostrich
• 2 Common Shelduck
• 3 Common Pochard
• 4 Common Eider
• 5 Common Scoter
• 6 Common Goldeneye
• 7 Common Merganser
• 8 Common Quail
• 9 Common Pheasant
• 10 Common Diving Petrel
• 11 Common Black Hawk
• 12 Common Buzzard
• 13 Common Moorhen
• 14 Common Gallinule
• 15 Common Crane
• 16 Common Buttonquail
• 17 Common Ringed Plover
• 18 Common Snipe
• 19 Common Redshank
• 20 Common Greenshank
• 21 Common Sandpiper
• 22 Common Tern
• 23 Common Murre
• 24 Common Wood Pigeon
• 25 Common Emerald Dove
• 26 Common Bronzewing
• 27 Common Ground Dove
• 28 Common Hawk-Cuckoo
• 29 Common Cuckoo
• 30 Common Potoo
• 31 Common Nighthawk
• 32 Common Poorwill
• 33 Common Swift
• 34 Common Paradise Kingfisher
• 35 Common Kingfisher
• 36 Common Scimitarbill
• 37 Common Flameback
• 38 Common Kestrel
• 39 Common Sunbird-Asity
• 40 Common Miner
• 41 Common Scale-backed Antbird
• 42 Common Tody-Flycatcher
• 43 Common Smoky Honeyeater
• 44 Common Woodshrike
• 45 Common Newtonia
• 46 Common Iora
• 47 Common Cicadabird
• 48 Common Green Magpie
• 49 Common Bulbul
• 50 Common House Martin
• 51 Common Chiffchaff
• 52 Common Grasshopper Warbler
• 53 Common Jery
• 54 Common Tailorbird
• 55 Common Babbler
• 56 Common Whitethroat
• 57 Common Firecrest
• 58 Common Hill Myna
• 59 Common Myna
• 60 Common Starling
• 61 Common Blackbird
• 62 Common Nightingale
• 63 Common Redstart
• 64 Common Rock Thrush
• 65 Common Waxbill
• 66 Common Chaffinch
• 67 Common Rosefinch
• 68 Common Linnet
• 69 Common Redpoll
• 70 Common Yellowthroat
• 71 Common Grackle
• 72 Common Reed Bunting
• 73 Common Bush Tanager
• 74 Common Diuca Finch
• 75 Common Cactus Finch

List written with the aid of a script. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, QED. Maias (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In the last Move request, only 5 people in total commented, with 3 supporting, 2 in opposition. I would hardly call that controversial. Given the low number of comments, Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC as it's defacto standard for English names. The IOC names have been used when a species occurs in 2 different areas with both using different names (see Black-necked Grebe, Common Merganser, Horned Grebe, Common Starling, etc). In some of those stated cases (and others), the European name was changed to the North American name after a long period of stability. The Project should stay consistent and follow its rules, the valid reason is to use the IOC name as its rules state. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR have only been used when a local or regional area have an overriding common name other than the IOC standard. In this case, North America and Europe each have different names, and the IOC common name has been used to settle those disputes. This species should not be any different......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. I think that the move discussion was adequately signposted on WP Birds talk page. The discussion was open for about 20 days. I think that the closure by User BrownHairedGirl was exemplary. I think that the "no consensus" conclusion is valid. I would guess that an immediate re-listing of the move discussions could be as fruitless as re-ploughing a ploughed field; however, I would not exclude the possibility of a second formal move discussion started after an appropriate length of time, perhaps after 6 months or 1 year. Of course, the outcome of a hypothetical second move discussion is irrelevant to this move review. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2014 (U
• Overturn. I also think the process was followed with the exception of the original admin reverting back the name from Mew Gull back to Common Gull. In the case of the move from European Starling from 2003 to 2011, someone moved the name to Common Starling in 2011. The move was made to conform to IOC. I'm guessing if I could muster up a few of my friends, we could have made a case to oppose that change move despite the logic of properly changing the page based on a naming standard the Wikiproject adopted to deal with rellatively uncontroversial page moves. In this case, the 2 comments used false logic to keep the birds name as Common Gull. The reason I am leaving is the project is too arbitrary in it's standards for my taste, and I'm sure Misplaced Pages will do well without me........Pvmoutside (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me put you right on the page moves; the move discussion was closed by User BrownHairedGirl as "no consensus", so she did not move the article, then User Jimfbleak moved the page to Mew Gull, and then User BD2412 moved it back to Common Gull. Personally speaking, I think that most people would think that Wiki bird articles are well named now. Only about less than 10 species articles out of about 10,000 bird species are now not at the IOC name, where the taxonomy is stable and widely accepted. Who can say if the Wiki or IOC has the best names for the 10 (approx) names out of synchronization? The work of keeping taxonomy up-to-date on the Wiki is in progress and the content of many many articles is imperfect. To me, the imperfection of thousands of Wiki bird articles is a bigger problem than the 10 (approx) Wiki page names not at the IOC name. Did you know that recently two black cockatoos were re-named by the IOC for a while and then they returned the original well-established names? To me, this appears to show that the IOC listens to feedback. I think that WP Birds can also listen to feedback. I do not fully understand what you mean by "muster up a few friends"; nevertheless, may I remind you that canvassing is not the ideal way to influence a vote on the Wiki and such an influence could jeopardise or degrade the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snowman for the clarification on the timeline, I stand corrected. I also agree with you most of the names are well named, and that is due to the diligence of everyone in the Wikiproject. I also agree that most of the names are stable and widely accepted. For those 10 (or so) names that differ from the IOC, in most cases valid arguments have been brought up and accepted by the body to keep them distinct (some I agree with, some I don't BTW). I also agree that there are many more articles that require our attention and many are a work in progress. But we shouldn't stop trying to correct those we believe to be flawed. We should do both. We have a standard and we should stick to it. I think 2 people (out of 5 total BTW) against moving the article is not enough of a sample size to ignore our naming rules (when you look at the overall number of Wikiproject or Wikpedia editors). We use the IOC as our defacto standard. We should use those names unless there is an overwhelming response not to. That's why we have a standard. We should strive to get it right every time. I feel so strongly with this I am willing to leave over it in this case. Yes the IOC has named birds one way, and then returned to it after consultation. Since it is our standard, we should follow it. There has been talk over a number of years of the "Mew Gull" and "Common Gull" splitting. It hasn't happened yet and until an accepted reference does, we should follow our standard naming convention. Sorry about being sarcastic about using the phrase "muster up a few friends", but don't we try to do that every time we get into a capitalization battle every few months? Bottom line, I feel so strongly over keeping our rules in place (unless there is strong local consensus not to), that I am willing to leave over it......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn. After considering the arguments here, I think this is a case where WP:IAR can be applied to the WP:ENGVAR arguments, as this is, in fact, a case where despite the ENGVAR there is a "standardised" name accepted by authorities in the field, and in this case the name is "Mew Gull". I might note, however, that Maias' argument above is, in this case, not an appropriate one: regardless of how 'ambiguous' "Common" might be, it is, as noted, an (ahem) commonly used official name, and it's not Misplaced Pages's place to decide otherwise. However, based on the arguments in the RM, I believe the correct action here is renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a small clarification Bushranger....both "Common Gull" and "Mew Gull" are accepted names for the full species by authorities in the field depending where you are and who you talk to. My preference (and the history of the Wikiproject) is to use the IOC name for those species occurring in more than one region of the world where names are different and equal in value....What further confuses this particular species is that both regions refer to both "Common Gull" and "Mew Gull" but in different ways. Europe refers to the species as "Common Gull" with the North American "Mew Gull" as a subspecies. North America (and the IOC) refers to the species as the "Mew Gull" with the European "Common Gull" as the subspecies.Pvmoutside (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn, basically on the grounds that where there is a low vote and no consensus we should go with an established convention, i.e. the IOC names list. I should add, since my aside about the use of the prefix 'Common' in common names appears to have been an unnecessary distraction, I am not suggesting that, with such names, we should go with non-IOC alternatives. For me the IOC name should generally be preferred, whatever my personal aesthetic stance may be. Maias (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion was open for about 20 days and it was signposted on the WP talk page, so I expect the discussion was seen by many viewers who did not vote. Perhaps, some viewers would have been aware that the original page discussion was arriving at "no-consensus", because this would be obvious on a quick look at the progress of the discussions and they might have been happy to leave it alone and not comment thinking that the suggested move will not happen. I wonder if more people would have expresses an opinion if the result was heading one way or another. Likewise, the quality of a horse can not be determined when it is raced with slow horses. Also, consider that the bird was at "Common Gull" here for about 9 or 10 years. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• In have not been able to confirm that the Common Gull is sometimes called the uncommon gull by some, as claimed in the nomination. This claim is seen in the Wiki article, and it looks like it is supported by an in-line reference. I have looked at the relevant in-line source in Google books, but I could not see the last part of the entry. The book appears to list old regional names for the bird and I did not see any mention of "uncommon gull". I am not saying that it is not a birders pun, but I would like to see a reference for it. Can anyone find a source for "uncommon gull"? Also, IUCN reports that in 2006 "The global population is estimated to number c.2,500,000-3,700,000 individuals", so the bird is not rare and not-uncommon. I think that innuendos in the introduction may mislead some people into thinking that the bird has low numbers. Also, I think that to say "funnily enough" in the nomination is biased language and unnecessary dismissive of the name "Common Gull" that it is widely known as. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some people have voted for "Overturn", but I am not sure what practical outcome is anticipated by this. What does overturning a "no-consensus" imply? Does is support the nominator's idea of re-listing the move discussion? How can a decent move discussion be overturned without re-running the move discussion? Snowman (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have found something at Misplaced Pages:Move_review#Closing_reviews. Typically, when the original move discussion is no consensus and the page is not moved, then the outcome here at this move review of "Endorse" and "Overturn" both do not lead to the page being moved. See Misplaced Pages:Move_review#What_this_process_is_not, which gives a table of possible outcomes. It also says "this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse - Clearly no-consensus. Note a no-consensus close does not preclude openning a new move discussion. Seems like some of the arguments above might work better in a future move discussion then in a move review. PaleAqua (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. I voted in the discussion, and would vote the same way again if nothing was done to show one name being either as common or more common than the other. If any reason was given to think that Mew Gull was the more common name or was trending to become the more common name, I would have supported moving the page. If they want to relist it, that's fine with me, but bring something new to the table if you are justifying a move. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse The question in a review is whether the closure was proper. This is not a place to re-argue the question of the move itself. The closure was a reasonable one within admin discretion, and nothing precludes another move request after some time has elapsed. Xoloz (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn and change name to Mew Gull, as clearly and unambiguously outlined by the IOC List, which is the stand apobted by WikiProject Birds. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• It seems to me that a number of people are using this move review as if it was a move discussion. See information about move reviews at Misplaced Pages:Move_review#What_this_process_is_not, which says; "this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse I agree with User:Snowmanradio that this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. WP:BIRDS is a well-established project and many experienced editors work there. If you reach a firm conclusion about usage of IOC names you can make an RfC or take some other step that will guide move discussions in the future. As User:Pvmoutside stated in his move proposal, "It appears that a lot of informal conversation has already occurred regarding this species." The move closer should not be expected to study the the past two years of WP:BIRDS discussion to make their own summary of the informal conversations. That's what RfCs are for. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because: 1) closer counted supporting and opposing votes incorrectly and 2) closer based the decision on the (incorrect) numbers rather on Misplaced Pages Titling Policy in closing this requested move prematurely. There was a lack of consensus for the recent unilateral move to a new, irrelevant name by an interested party. Therefore, the closer should have reverted the page title to the longtime title while discussion continues. Thank you for considering this review.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• As the closer, I confess that I made a mistake in the original vote count. It has been fixed. The majority was actually 4:3 in favor of the move to Anna Pou case, or 3:2 if you discount editors who have no participation outside the move discussion. I closed this as No Consensus. AccuracyObsessed has already discussed the closure with me on my talk page. Due to concerns about WP:BLP I argue that a strong consensus would be needed to rename the article about this case so as to attach it to one person. No national news organization (New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News) calls it the Anna Pou Case in their headlines, though some New Orleans papers do. The Times-Picayune did so at least once. If you go down the reference list at the bottom of Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina you will see that the 'Anna Pou Case' does not appear in any of the titles. The journalist always finds some other way to identify the case. They use phrases like 'Memorial case' or 'post-Katrina deaths.' A grand jury declined to indict Anna Pou and the others. The charges against Anna Pou were eventually expunged from the record and the State of Louisiana agreed to pay her legal expenses. The state Attorney General who brought the case was defeated in the next election. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But the article has been attached to Anna Pou, whose famous case is taught at many universities, for eight years, until Schwartzenberg, who has attempted to scrub her name from multiple sites, made a unilateral, undiscussed move a couple of weeks ago to an irrelevant name that is drawing much less traffic. There was no consensus for his unilateral move, and my move request should have been closed by you reverting to Anna Pou case, which properly describes the article according to Misplaced Pages titling policy.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that AccuracyObsessed created their account on 22 February 2014, the same day AccuracyObsessed requested the move. Schwartzenberg (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

By the same token, it should be noted that Schwartzenberg made the first unilateral move away from the longtime title of this article after having attempted to delete the page entirely and, the same day, add objectionable POV material to the BLP of an investigative reporter who wrote about the Anna Pou case.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Endorse very reasonable admin discretion by EdJohnston (talk · contribs), a highly respected Wikipedian applying good judgement on a high profile emotive topic.

  Warn AccuracyObsessed (talk · contribs) that he is looking close to blockable as a WP:DUCK-failing WP:POV-failing disruptive account.

  It's hard to judge whether Schwartzenberg (talk · contribs) deserves being tarred by any of the mud. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse a perfectly reasonable closure. The miscount was unfortunate, but does not affect the outcome, so it is of no relevance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a reasonable closure, especially given the valid BLP concerns relating to titling the article after an individual. Xoloz (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close seems like a reasonable close. While usually an article goes back to a long standing name in a no-consensus close, the argument citing BLP seems like very reasonable discretion. PaleAqua (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)