Talk:Australian plainhead

	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
	This article was accepted on 19 December 2013 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Birds Low‑importance

Australian plainhead 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian plainhead is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 27 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. A few things seem clear here: while many articles on pigeon breeds are capitalized, other types of birds have been consistently decapitalized per MOS:CAPS. It appears that it may be time for a wider discussion on this. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:CONSISTENCY with all other WP articles on standardized breeds of domesticated animals (over 1,000 of them). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – It looks like you're making up proper names for consistency. I can't see "Australian plainhead" in any sources, and the red factor canary shows up in books lowercase mostly. The capped version is "Red-factor Canary", which I also don't favor, but maybe "Red-factor canary"? I'd like to see more source-based evidence before saying OK on any of these. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not canary expert; it's actually possible these are not breeds but "fancy varieties", as with cockatiels, rats, ferrets, and various other things for which there aren't any varieties that are so genetically distinct they are standardized and distinguishable breeds. If so, this would not be the first time one of our articles on domesticates were mislabeling something a "breed". This isn't one I looked into; I just noticed the casing was inconsistent with the other breed articles, and that the parent article claimed they're breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's probably time we downcased all the entries at Category:Pigeon breeds etc., just as we downcased all the other bird names (Ruwenzori turaco etc.) some years ago. Sources are mixed in both cases, and I don't see a great reason to treat breeds differently from species. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Amakuru: Well, that's a very different matter. This is just a WP:CONSISTENCY RM, not a decapitalization RfC (though we need to have one soon; the question remaining open is holding up the deployment of MOS:ORGANISMS). Caps on standardized breed names are the de facto standard here (for better or worse); we shouldn't have two articles, alone out of thousands on breeds, that use all-LC, even if we someday might decide they all should. These are the only ones I could find that are doing this, and the only reason they escaped detection this long is lack of categorization (there is no Category:Canary_breeds; I found them by looking at List of domesticated animals and digging around from there). PS: There are reasons to treat breeds differently from species; I've created a pro and con list of arguments at WP:BREEDCASE, and have been neutral on the matter for years. Some arguments on each side are strong, some are weak. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.