![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Fair enough. Well, once we close off the discussion above we can sort out the gulls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I can't see there being much of a problem with Grey/Gray - but I've got a horrible feeling that any attempt to rename Common Gull is going to cause at least one person, somewhere to get very (and vocally) upset. In answer to Snowman - yeah, I'd be happy to start adding it to gull articles as it stands. If it's transcluded (as it will be - and as it is on this page), it can easily be edited later anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For gulls Mew/Common is the only contentious one as it represents that US/British division. Grey/gray is less of a problem as the IOC prefers Grey but states that Gray is acceptable in NA. I don't think there is a need for an amendment, I think the navboxes should simply reflect what the IOC list and possibly have alternate common names in instances where the alternate is very widely used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Fine in principle, two minor points
Oh, so *that's* how you do headings. :) I didn't think that it was that simple (I'd been looking for a specific heading field to use)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The two are probably different species anyway...why not have two pages? Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am neither from the US nor from the UK, and I found it confusing to find a name that is not the official IOC name. I have no inclination to either the US or UK form, as long as it is an official term and should be used in all places. The world is larger than either the UK or the US, and we should consider that standardizing on an official English term will be beneficial to the most number of people.
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 6 March 2014. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Common Gull → Mew Gull – Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC nomenclature as its naming convention. It appears that a lot of informal conversation has already occurred regarding this species (at least since August 2009). Now formalizing the process here..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The AOS has accepted the proposal to split Larus branchyrhynchus from Larus canus. I propose a new article be made and the descriptions to correspond to the two distinct species. JoeMomma21 ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fair enough. Well, once we close off the discussion above we can sort out the gulls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I can't see there being much of a problem with Grey/Gray - but I've got a horrible feeling that any attempt to rename Common Gull is going to cause at least one person, somewhere to get very (and vocally) upset. In answer to Snowman - yeah, I'd be happy to start adding it to gull articles as it stands. If it's transcluded (as it will be - and as it is on this page), it can easily be edited later anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For gulls Mew/Common is the only contentious one as it represents that US/British division. Grey/gray is less of a problem as the IOC prefers Grey but states that Gray is acceptable in NA. I don't think there is a need for an amendment, I think the navboxes should simply reflect what the IOC list and possibly have alternate common names in instances where the alternate is very widely used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Fine in principle, two minor points
Oh, so *that's* how you do headings. :) I didn't think that it was that simple (I'd been looking for a specific heading field to use)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The two are probably different species anyway...why not have two pages? Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am neither from the US nor from the UK, and I found it confusing to find a name that is not the official IOC name. I have no inclination to either the US or UK form, as long as it is an official term and should be used in all places. The world is larger than either the UK or the US, and we should consider that standardizing on an official English term will be beneficial to the most number of people.
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 6 March 2014. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Common Gull → Mew Gull – Wikiproject Birds has adopted the IOC nomenclature as its naming convention. It appears that a lot of informal conversation has already occurred regarding this species (at least since August 2009). Now formalizing the process here..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The AOS has accepted the proposal to split Larus branchyrhynchus from Larus canus. I propose a new article be made and the descriptions to correspond to the two distinct species. JoeMomma21 ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)