User talk:Merobi

Welcome!

Hello, Merobi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome Margie =)

Impressive first edit! It looks like UtherSRG changed your "mandrill"s to "Mandrill"s as per some rule by the masses "consensus": Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles

Do you agree? -Elindstr 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the link above? WP:PRIM points to that as justification for capitalizing as we do. In addition, this is backed up by the capitalization in Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Wikipedia is using an aloof rule, that isn't consistent with other elite publications (e.g. The Oxford English Dictionary, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the Encyclopedia Britannica). I can't even find a capitalized version of mandrill in any of the lesser publications (e.g. encyclopedia.com, Columbia Encyclopedia, infoplease.com, fact monster, bartleby, etc). Most importantly, all peer-reviewed journal articles of mandrill I can find use "mandrill."

It seems like given these precedents, combined with Wikipedia's own ambiguity on the subject, a more justified reason needs to be given for the capitalization besides just referring to some policy, that was created by a small group of laypeople.

Your citation of Mammal Species of the World seems to be an anomaly among the field. However, it seems like that could be explained by noting that this is an electronic database, which chooses to capitalize all common names. It seems like some common names (e.g. plants) might be more commonly capitalized; however, it doesn’t follow that because one computer database chooses to simpify its data by capitalizing all of one group, that Wikipedia should aimlessly follow suit.

This seems to be further fuel on the fire suggesting that Wikipedia succumbs to the whims and walleys of an erratic mob instead of observing established academic consensus. -Elindstr 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make your arguments on WP:BIRD and see what they say there. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]