Talk:Blackear wrasse

Requested move 12 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackear wrasse → Halichoeres poeyi – The most common name by far used in reliable sources for this species. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the scientific name is more commonly used than the vernacular name. Scientific names are also more CONSISTENTly used than vernacular names as titles of articles about fishes. Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew Personally the only reasons that I would use a binomial are

There is no common name

There is more than one widely accepted common name

The common name is ambiguous

The advantage of common names is that this is an encyclopaedia and is for the general reader, many of whom find binomials offputting. In addition, there is the stupid policy (not applicable in this case) of using the generic name for monotypic genera which you can get round by using a widely accepted common name, where available.Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the common name is used by the authorities followed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes, namely Fishbase. It is also used by the IUCN and the Smithsonian. Where there is an unambiguous English common name then that should be the title, there is no other English common name for this species and all of the "reliable sources" list the common name alongside the binomial. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why wasn't it relisted first? Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the last input was a week ago. If the last input had been in the past day or two - yes, relisting would be quite appropriate. Personal judgement - no hard policy on this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for explaining. If I want to get additional input from WikiProject Tree of Life members, would the best route be to start a move review? Or to just open a new move request? Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you have a strong oppose above, I'd not class this as a non-controversial move which could be handled via the Technical Moves route. Is Queszall964 a member of the WikiProject Tree of Life? If no, then one route would be to post an intent to propose for move at that wikiproject or use a tag that targets that wikiproject ... so I see that Requested Moves show up on the WikiProject's front page, so anyone who actively reviews status would see it. One possibility is that key active members who typically input on these types of discussions are not active right now (it's during vacation season for Sweden right now, as far as I know, for instance); waiting a couple of weeks could clear up that block if it is present (there is no dearth of time here). The opposition refers to Wikiproject Fishes, so looking at the relationship between the Tree of Life and Fishes wikiprojects could lead to a better understanding of whether one follows the other typically or vice versa. I'm just throwing out thoughts here. The resolution to the problem lies in socialization and social engineering and not technical matters. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - definitely not proposing a technical move request. The person who moved this and many other articles to their vernacular names actually had all their moves reverted by numerous community members, and my original move back to scientific name felt routine, following the guidelines at WP:NCFAUNA, to use the name most commonly used by English speakers (in this case, the scientific name). My question was that I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to open a new, standard move request like the one above, or to go some other route. When there's been dissent and few voices, move requests that I have participated in are relisted, during which there is an opportunity to expand my case or to try to find more people who care about articles about taxa to participate. In my experience the majority of active editors don't tend to follow the list of move requests, but will see the alerts in their Watchlist if someone comments on the Talk page of the project. Thanks for your thoughts! Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The use of common names for article titles is preferred according to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCFAUNA and WP:WikiProject Fishes. While there are good arguments for using the scientific name, these should be used to change the guidelines. Until such time we should follow them. — Jts1882 | talk 11:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]