Talk:Common pochard
(Redirected from Talk:Common Pochard)
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Jonesey95 in topic Cite Q template causes CITEVAR error
.svg){kind=small} | Europe Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
Requested moves
- 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 moved by Materialscientist. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Common Pochard → Common pochard
- Ring-necked Duck → Ring-necked duck
- Tufted Duck → Tufted duck
- Greater Scaup → Greater scaup
- Lesser Scaup → Lesser scaup
- Steller's Eider → Steller's eider
- Spectacled Eider → Spectacled eider
- King Eider → King eider
- Common Eider → Common eider
- Harlequin Duck → Harlequin duck
– Invert the redirections as the consensus and guidelines recommend not to capitalise the common (vernacular) names of species. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Coreyemotela (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy move per new naming consensus regarding birds at WP:FAUNA. Due to the new consensus, these moves could have been requested at WP:RMTR. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't see any new consensus about bird common name capitalization when I clicked on the WP:FAUNA link. In the past, the decision has been to go with the capitalization standard that was advocated by some big bird group. Now apparently there has been a discussion and the previous standard has been changed? Could a link be added here to exactly where that discussion is? --Davefoc (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the example of Bald eagle is considered the definitive source on what the standard for Wikipedia bird common name capitalization? I don't think any big bird article capitalization standardization effort should be undertaken until there is a very solid consensus established and a completely unambiguous Wikipedia rule in place. Maybe that is the case but I haven't seen it. --Davefoc (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (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.
Cite Q template causes CITEVAR error
MeegsC, can you please replace the Cite Q template that you added with a normal {{cite journal}} template, or otherwise fix the WP:CITEVAR author formatting problem? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found
{{Cite Q|Q112271116|expand=yes}}in the Cite Q documentation and have used that trick to fix multiple citation errors in that reference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)- That's good @Jonesey95:, because I didn't introduce the Cite Q template and have no idea how to use it. If you'd checked the history, you'd have seen it was MargaretRDonald who introduced that problematic template. ;) MeegsC (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- My mistake, and apologies. I misread the history. Your addition of CS1 templates and sfn templates was nicely done. It turns out that editor in question has been asked to comply with CITEVAR in the past. The work of gnomes is never done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's good @Jonesey95:, because I didn't introduce the Cite Q template and have no idea how to use it. If you'd checked the history, you'd have seen it was MargaretRDonald who introduced that problematic template. ;) MeegsC (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)