Content deleted Content added
Pmanderson (talk | contribs) →Move proposal: exemplum |
Pmanderson (talk | contribs) →Move proposal: ce |
||
Line 18:
:Once again, whether or not it will "put off" a reader is pure speculation and is not at issue here. Naming conventions are ''policy''. Anything that doesn't demonstrate how it is appropriate ''according to that policy'' is irrelevant. [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] <sup>[[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]]</sup> 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This particular species is a perfect example of why [[Linnaean taxonomy]] makes more sense for animal articles. Common names are all too often entirely localized, inaccurate, out-dated (python?), or in this snake's case - in large number. Who is to say which is the "most common" usage? I've read and heard every variation mentioned in the article, and a few others that are not - I couldn't say any one is widely preferred over another. Though, I usually just defer to the article's original author when dealing with these kind of issues to prevent edit warring, unless it's glaringly wrong. -[[User:Dawson|Dawson]] ([[User talk:Dawson|talk]]) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''', because it depends on evidence of actual usage, which has not been presented by either side. But we should use common names when they are common and unambiguous; if they are also wrong or misleading, ''explain'' why to the reader. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
| |||