Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 27 January 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Requested move

Move Bird of paradise (disambiguation) over Bird of paradise. Bird of paradise was a redirect when I first saw it today; I made it a disambiguation page and then I found Bird of paradise (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Bird of paradise" should redirect to "Birds of paradise". Or more likely "Birds of paradise" should be renamed "Bird of paradise" being the singular as a heading. Snowman (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As near as I can tell, the primary topic for Bird of Paradise is the plant species botanists have named Strelitzia reginae (which is not a common name -- in any sense -- for anything, by the way) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. There are other uses, but clearly Srelitzia reginae is the primary topic for Bird of Paradise. As far as actual birds of paradise, there is no clear usage for that, and, so, Birds of paradise is an appropriate dab page for them. Bird of paradise (disambiguation) should remain as is, pointing out the primary usage, as well as the other uses, including a link to the dab page for the actual birds of paradise. See new vote below. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have been convinced that there is no primary topic for Bird of paradise (that is, neither the plant/flower nor the family of birds is the primary topic), and therefore Bird of Paradise needs to be, or redirect to, the dab page covering all the uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, Snowman is right, Birds of Paradise and Birds of paradise should redirect towards Bird of paradise which should be for the family. Per MOS article titles should be single not plural. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Qualify my vote. I frankly feel it is ridiculous that an entire family does not get the primary topic status over the unofficial common name of a single species which was probably named after the family anyway. However if it is not decided that the bird family should sit at bird of paradise I will support the move of the DAB page to bird of paradise over the even more ridiculous idea that bird of paradise should be a redirect to a species. And then I'll go and smack 4444hhhh for moving Bird of paradise to Birds of Paradise in the first place. Also, could the destination of the family be Bird of paradise (family) not the stupid looking Bird of paradise (bird). (What's next, Republic of Albania (republic)? Tree (tree)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (as nom); the above opposes argue in favor of different primary topics, thus there is no real primary topic and the disambiguation page should occupy this ambiguous page name. --Una Smith (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I should note it is rather bold to extrapolate a pattern from three comments. Lets see what other people think, eh? I would suggest that the bird family is more a primary topic over three unrelated (I assume) genera or species by virtuer of taxanomic weight (family = more important than genus) and age (I assume, but am prepared to be corrected, that the birds have been known as such for much longer and may have even given the plant its name). The page never should have been moved as described below. So we'll see what other people think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Una. If people are disagreeing over which is the primary usage, a disambiguation page is best. Hesperian 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, if anyone besides Una is claiming, or has ever claimed, anything other than the plant is primary usage, I missed it. Where? If you google for "Bird of paradise" the results, though not exclusively about the plant, are dominated by the plant in a manner that is emblematic of a genuine primary topic. I would like to see the basis for claiming any other topic is primary for this name. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I am. You know, that whole bird family. Yes, usually referred to as birds of paradise, because when referring to families you usually say "the hawks" or "the crows and magpies" or whatever, but the MOS states that singulars are used for article titles, hence bird of paradise would be the correct term for a singular unspecified member of the family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Sabine, you're saying that you believe the family of birds commonly referred to as birds of paradise is the primary topic for "Bird of paradise", in accordance with the criteria outlined on that page? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link Fullstop provided, the majority of the links to bird of paradise are avian related. I do think that a family of forty birds should have priority over a single species? Yes, and while I'll fully admit to birdy-bias but I have also provided reasons above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, I don't see any statement from you or anyone else that indicates you feel the bird family is the primary topic prior to Hesperian asserting that that was the case, and my questioning that assertion. Apparently he's better at reading between the lines than I am. At any rate, I have been convinced now that the plant/flower is not the primary topic, because there is no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, do you now support the requested move? --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've just updated my vote. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reality check please. Plenty of people seem to be thinking of something other than the flower. Insisting on "correct usage" is as surreal as giving Latin names to flowers and asserting that to be the common name (and then having the chutzpah to cite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC too!) -- Fullstop (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the insults really necessary? I am not disputing that the term has other uses, including the bird. The issue is whether the plant/flower is the primary topic for the name, not whether it is the only topic (which clearly it isn't), and, in particular, whether anyone is claiming anything other than the plant/flower is the primary topic. Asserting that there is no primary topic (which may very well be the case) is a related but separate point from the assertion that Hesperian made and I'm questioning. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Una wants the page to be a dab, which would then include the flower on the very first line. You want it to redirect to the flower. Sure sounds like disputing other uses to me.

The fact that anyone felt dab was the better way should by itself give you cause to pause. But you continue to insist that yours is TheRightOne. Sure sounds like denial of any position but your own.

In the interests of cooperative editing and of the articles linking to "Bird of Paradise", the dab would make sense too. But no, you wanna play rules-'n-regulations-hang-reality, and then don't like it when others call you on it. Not disputing? Ooookay. If you say so. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Una. The issue (which the opposes seem to miss entirely) is whether 'Bird of paradise' should redirect to a flower, or be a disambig. This request-to-move would be a vastly different story if the flower article were actually named "Bird of paradise". But its not. The opposes citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC need to read the sentence about "common name" vewy, vewy caefuwwy. By calling itself 'Srelitzia reginae', the flower article is itself saying that 'Bird of paradise' is not the common name. What that stuff about plurals is all about I cannot even begin to guess. There are no plural forms mentioned in the nom. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• "By calling itself 'Srelitzia reginae', the flower article is itself saying that 'Bird of paradise' is not the common name." That interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is absurd. That's like saying the fact that Carmel-by-the-Sea redirects to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, that "Carmel-by-the-Sea" is not the common name for the subject of that article. The fact that the article is (wrongly, IMHO, but that's a separate issue) at Strelitzia reginae reflects nothing about the common name of that article, but everything about the current flora guidelines. Now, that doesn't mean that "Bird of paradise" has no primary topic, just that the fact that the article title is not "Bird of paradise" does not indicate anything about that question one way or the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That analogy doesn't wash since there is only one Carmel-by-the-sea. No disambiguation necessary. And if there were multiple Carmels-by-the-sea, 'Carmel-by-the-sea' would be a dab, which would stand contra to what you contrived the analogy for. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood, sorry. The implication of your statement (the one I quoted above) seemed to be very general: "By calling itself 'A', the article is itself saying that 'B' is not the common name". My apologies. Thanks for explaining. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I'm inclined to agree with Sabine's Sunbird (that the dominant use is probably the bird), the fact that there's disagreement makes me lean towards having the dab page at Bird of paradise. So support move. Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Having read the discussion and thought about this a little more, I feel pretty clear that the page should not redirect to the Strelitzia. I also believe that it's pretty clear that the birds are the dominant usage. What I'm not so sure about is the relative importance of the two uses, and whether the birds are dominant enough to have the page there. So I support a move, but I'm not sure which article should replace the current redirect. Guettarda (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Una has been asked to not attempt to enforce her desired policy of making all common names in English dab pages. She's been asked lots of things, but to no avail. Una should discuss changing the policy and desist immediately with her continued attempts to change the policy by changing as many pages as possible, piece by piece. Please don't continue to support Una's bit by bit change of policy when she already knows that the way to change the policy is to discuss the policy change, not change the policy without discussing it. --KP Botany (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume KP Botany is referring to an ANI this editor made against me, here. --Una Smith (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a mess. Delist from WP:RM, centralise discussion, then eventually move the article on the birds back to bird of paradise. How can we best avoid this happening agian, I wonder? Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to me there is no primary topic on this one. A google images search for "bird of paradise" shows mostly plants with a significant showing of birds. A google web search shows somewhat the same but with even more mixed results (including things like hotels and folded napkins which are probably named after one or both of the other two but which are not either one itself). As an additional comment, I think the mess of redirects, disambiguations, and links which point to some place other than intended argues for WP:BOLD not being such a great idea for article names and related topics. Kingdon (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Per its edit history, Bird of paradise was made a redirect in 2007 when the former article there was moved to Birds of Paradise (the bird family). It remained a redirect until today, when I made it a disambiguation page. Born2cycle changed the dab page to a redirect to Strelitzia reginae (one species of 3 plant genera known as "bird of paradise"). So we have here an excellent example of the kind of situation where a disambiguation page is called for. --Una Smith (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the issue raised here is what to call the dab page. Snowman (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowman(radio) has submitted a competing request to move Birds of Paradise over Bird of paradise. --Una Smith (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There already exist these redirects: Bird of Paradise, Bird Of Paradise, Bird of Paradise (plant), Bird of paradise (flower), Bird of paradise (bird), etc.; I think all of them would be more useful if redirected to the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not as confusing as you make it seem, Una. The first four in your list all represent the primary topic and refer and redirect to the same article about that topic, currently unfortunately and obscurely named Strelitzia reginae rather than Bird of paradise. To be fair, I just fixed one of them (plant) to redirect to the species commonly referred to as Bird of paradise rather than the genus more rarely referred to as that. The last, Bird of paradise (bird), is an excellent title, IMHO, for the article currently at Birds of paradise (plural), and I've made an alternative move proposal at that talk page accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not confusing at all, Born2cycle. It is very simple: all these minor variants on "bird of paradise" should redirect to the disambiguation page. By the way, when I encounter "bird of flower", I think of Heliconia. --Una Smith (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, a few hours ago you created a proposal at WP:RM for this move along with this rationale: "... because this is a chronic source of confusion". That's why I wrote above about the situation here that "it is not as confusing as you make it seem, Una". Now you're telling me the situation "is not confusing at all"? From a "chronic source of confusion" to "not confusing at all" in a matter of hours? Wow. I always try very hard to understand your position Una, but it's often difficult if not impossible. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I thought you were referring to my list of similarly named pages, all redirects. See, you wrote "It's not as confusing as you make it seem, Una. The first four in your list..." --Una Smith (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are 85 incoming links from mainspace pages to Bird of paradise. --Una Smith (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of which should go to either the plant or flower at Bird of paradise, or the bird at Bird of paradise (bird), IMHO. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which bird? Which plant? Which flower? --Una Smith (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of which are clearly looking for the bird Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of incoming links from mainspace:

• Bird of paradise (redirect page, formerly to the bird family, now to a plant species) has 85
• Bird of Paradise (redirect page) has 17
• Birds of paradise (redirect page) has 29
• Bird of paradise (bird) (redirect page) has 0
• Bird-of-paradise (redirect page) has 0
• Bird Of paradise (redirect page) has 0
• Bird Of Paradise (redirect page) has 0
• Birds Of Paradise (redirect page) has 0
• Birds Of paradise (redirect page) has 0

Another 13 pages with "bird of paradise" titles redirect to Strelitzia reginae, but apart from Bird of paradise they contribute only 1 incoming link in need of disambiguation. So in all there are about 130 incoming links that would require disambiguation. That is a small number, as disambiguation jobs go. Assuming for the moment that the disambiguation page is moved to Bird of paradise, I would recommend changing all of these redirect pages to redirect to Bird of paradise. That would simplify future disambiguating. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question to those who would prefer that the bird family occupy Bird of paradise: if the dab page occupies that page name, would you rather have the bird family article stay where it is, or move to Paradisaeidae? Paradisaeidae, now a redirect page, has 77 incoming links from mainspace and Birds of Paradise (article about the family) has 17. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The large number of links to Paradisaeide is due to two factors User:Polbot created articles which refer to the Paradisaeide in the opening statement and the taxoboxes, which use the scientific name. The low number of links to Birds of Paradise is because it is flat out wrong - the P should not be capitalised for a non-species and the s should not be there for MOS reasosn - and because it was moved without anyone at WP:BIRD noticing, which is why we have so many links to the redirect (now helpfully pointing to a plant!), they were pointing at the right place and aren't anymore. For preference I would not like the article to sit at Paradisaeidae. Where an unambiguous common name is applied to a family it is much better to use that (Gull, Cockatoo, Albatross). Only when this doesn't apply do we use the proper scientific name (Procellariidae instead of Shearwaters and petrels). While some birds of paradise are called other things like sicklebills they are universally known as a group as the birds of paradise, which is why bird of paradise (family) would be better than anything else. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see. Well, don't be too annoyed with 4444hhhh; the ambiguity is intrinsic to the shared use of a common name, not created by that user. Bird of paradise (family) sounds good to me. I would avoid Birds of paradise because, given the number of plants and animals called "bird of paradise", the plural "birds of paradise" may also accumulate incorrect links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

444hhh has a history of well intentioned sweeping changes that create a lot of work. I know it's in good faith, but I'd still sometimes like to tie him up in gaffa tape. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I requested only moving the dab page to Bird of paradise, and that request does not involve moving the article about the bird family. --Una Smith (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I raise it because this discussion brought to my attention the fact that the family page was missnamed, so that has to be fixed. Had it not been for your proposal however I would simply have moved the article back to bird of paradise where it originally was. The best place to discuss all these problems is here, which is why I brought it up. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page. If the requested move passes, then before any link disambiguating happens, it would be good to resolve the question of the page name of the bird family article. Also, I expanded Bird of paradise (disambiguation) a little, but it could use more work, and that work can be done while we wait on the outcome of this proposal. It does not depend in any way on the outcome. Given that some but not all birds in the family are known as "bird of paradise", a more extensive dab page would help to direct readers (and more importantly editors) to the birds that are known by this name or some approximation of it. The requested move is simply to put the dab page at the ambiguous base name, which helps considerably with all future link disambiguating. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Beware of reading too much into the fact that some birds of paradise have the actual phrase in their common name and some do not. wigeons, Gadwalls and teal are still ducks even if the word isn't in their common name, koels are still cuckoos, lovebirds are still parrots and coots and moorhens are still rails. Each family page will have a complete list (unless it is immense); there is no need to point to anything other than the family page on the dab page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The family article does serve to disambiguate the "official" common names of birds known as "bird of paradise". But are there other "bird of paradise" common names in the literature, that a reader may have in mind when coming to Misplaced Pages? How are those handled? --Una Smith (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only birds that have or had that name would be species formerly considered to be in the Paradisaeidae (the satinbirds and the split out honeyeater). These are also linked in the page Birds of Paradise (wherever that ends up), but it would not be inappropriate to at least link to the satinbirds. However there is no need to link to individual species in either families. Actually, the whole Birds of Paradise page needs something of a clean up to reflect the split out of the satinbirds - they are identified as unique but apparently not placed there in a new family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting aside, the earliest mention of bird of paradise in the OED is from 1606 for the bird, whereas the plant (called a bird-of-paradise) isn't used until 1884, which supports the idea the plant was named for the birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I expect the plants are named after the birds. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone seriously posit otherwise? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in this request-for-move? Had it been for 'bird', there would have been only one oppose. But the request was for dab, and there are three opposes. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages