This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Northern New Zealand dotterel is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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 section.
result: Moved. The ensuing discussion did not voice objection, but inquired about the available options. Proposer answered the inquiries clearly. Side note to Air55 regarding the scientific name discussion: It appears Charadrius obscurus aquilonius is redirecting one level higher to what appears to be Charadrius obscurus. I presume a retarget of the former is in order, but I defer to you as more of a subject matter expert. (Charadrius obscurus obscurus seems to redirect appropriately.) (non-admin closure) -2pou (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– This is in conjunction with my other proposal to change the article name of the species which these two subspecies fall under. I believe a name change is warranted under WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of the English name, Northern/southern red-breasted plover is not in common usage, whereas Northern/Southern New Zealand dotterel is used in various news articles[1][2] and scientific literature.[3] – including the paper that first described the northern subspecies.[4] To my knowledge, the IOC does not currently list any particular names for the two subspecies, in which case the common names would certainly take priority here.
^Lord, A.; Waas, J. R.; Innes, J. (1997). "Effects of human activity on the behaviour of northern New Zealand dotterel Charadrius obscurus aquilonius chicks". Biological Conservation. 82 (1): 15–20. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00013-X.
To add to this – a Google Scholar search returns 126 results for "Northern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 2 results for "Northern red-breasted plover"), and 34 results for "Southern New Zealand dotterel" (compared to 3 results for "Southern red-breasted plover"). -Air55-(Talk)
IUCN seems to use "Northern red-breasted plover". Does Wikipedia have a convention about whether to ordinarily follow IUCN or IOC? Have you considered using the scientific names? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding: WP:NCFAUNA is the relevant Wikipedia guideline here (which follows WP:COMMONNAME). According to that guideline, the article name should "usually consist of the name that is most common in English". In regards to international nomenclature authorities (in this case, the IOC), WP:Birds states that "bird article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." WP:NCFAUNA also mentions that the names used by authorities such as IOC is to be preferred when "what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained." Overall, there is no requirement for the names stated by IOC/IUCN/etc to take priority over common names (except where the 'most' common name cannot be ascertained) – hope that makes sense. As for the scientific names - I think it would make more sense to name the articles by the common name, as most literature do not refer to these subspecies solely by their scientific names. Though I would be happy to accept it as a compromise if a consensus cannot otherwise be reached.-Air55-(Talk)05:58, 14 June 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.