Talk:Red-masked 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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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 a "Cherry-headed Conure" there seems to be no reason for "Red-masked Parakeet" to be used, now that WP:bird rules are being used less strictly.

• Oppose It may well be true that more people know this bird as the Cherry-headed Conure, especially after The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, but I think we should stick with the name used in ornithology, not that used in aviculture. The British Ornithologists' Union sort of accepts "Blackbird" and "House Martin" while sort of conforming to Gill and Wright's longer names. I'm not sure the present titles are good ideas, but they're variations of names more widely accepted in science, and I don't think they justify moving to a completely different name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Features 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) 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is simple: I think an encyclopedia should use the names used in science, acknowledging the names used in other fields. "Red-masked Parakeet" seems to be used much more in science than any name with "Conure".

As I said above, I disagree with your idea that "Blackbird" and "House Martin" are precedents for "Cherry-headed Conure". First, those names are very similar to the names used more widely in science. Second, I don't see them as an example there's any reason to follow.

You mention that those two articles are featured, but as you know, Blackbird had some definite problems after it made FA. The grade of an article doesn't prove anything about whether what's in it is right or wrong. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific names are the latin names, but these are not used on the wiki. I do not known that "blackbird" had problems after it was a FA. It is currently a FA. Snowman (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

English names for birds are widely used in science, and as I said, "parakeet" is used much more in this context than any form of "conure".

After "Blackbird" made FA, I clarified a hard-to-understand paragraph and fixed a typo, and you fixed "rural" in this sentence:

In France, 74% of rural Blackbirds were found to be infested with Ixodes ticks, whereas, only 2% of Blackbirds living in rural habitats were infested.

That's why I said you knew it still had problems after it made FA, and one example of why I don't see a "featured" grade as meaning that everything in an article is good, even the title. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But, the name of the House Martin page was discussed on the House Martin talk page. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So it was, though as you may recall, not very conclusively—you pointed out, reasonably, that the WP:BIRD rules weren't being applied consistently, and Rabo3 seemed to prefer "Common" but didn't want to argue about it. By the way, a recent similar discussion had the opposite outcome (changing "Chough" to "Red-billed Chough"). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How inconsistent is that? Snowman (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jerry's reasoning. Personally I'd prefer most names to conform to Gill and Wright (including Blackbird), although in some instances the international names don't match the local names for endemics (like NZ). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC) No longer gpoing to oppose per my comments at WP:BIRD. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Morally) support - a more exacting epithet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:ENGVAR issue. Black Kite 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Erm...huh? I don't follow your rationale BK...can you please explain? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a commonly-used name. 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)

Every zoo I've ever been to in Australia labels all these conures, as does Joseph Forshaw's Parrots of the World. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...and here is a parrot zoo in the UK which calls them Conures. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC) ...and though it isn't the official website, here is another. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC) ...and a scholarly journal article..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but do you see the point? A zoo, an aviculture centre, a technical article. If you asked the average person on the street what a conure was, 99 out of a 100 wouldn't know. But if you asked them what a parakeet was, they would. Plus, also, the authorities (i.e. Sibley) seem to go for parakeet. I don't think this is clear-cut enough to move. Black Kite 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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.