Campaign to standardise the capitalising of English names of species (1 Viewer)

[Mono]

Who exactly is going to enforce this?

 

[dantheman]

Who exactly is going to enforce this?

Surely it's not about enforcing, but using?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Who exactly is going to enforce this?

People that produce trip reports can lead the way but if you use a listing programme such as Scythebill, it's not an issue at all in any of their lists so just stay away from Wiki.........

 

[dantheman]

Crossed my mind earlier that this could be largely a native English vs non-native English speaker/writer issue to some degree (on here at least)? Depending on what convention you are used to and thus what appears correct? This was based solely on the observation of opisska's post #9 being 'liked' by international BF members from Estonia and Poland (a small sample size) yesterday evening. Interesting? Thoughts?


I was going to look at posts here on BF in some of the forums to see whether bird names are capitalised or not, but quickly gave up. However there is a convention on normal usage on here I believe (which I suspect parallels normal usage elsewhere) which is interesting - I would suspect that 95% + of all posts where bird names are written down they are capitalised. This is partly what makes it 'wrong' or jars when you read bird names elsewhere - whether on the RSPB website or news articles, or the occasional blog or even the odd post on BF where they aren't. Maybe this doesn't matter to everyone, but I think it does matter to many - this different construct does have some unpleasant effect when reading, much as changing something else such as syntax, spelling or punctuation does.

So I think that capital letters used in bird names is the normal usage - rather than imposing capitalisation on bird name use it strikes me that there is actually a process of imposition of lower case on bird names (and other species groups).

Perhaps this is all just pertaining to the issue/aspect of preference as opposed to usefulness (as outlined more extensively in posts above) as in differentiating common gulls or lark-like buntings etc), but I for one think it relevant ...

Anyway ... ;-)

 

[dantheman]

I was going to look at posts here on BF in some of the forums to see whether bird names are capitalised or not, but quickly gave up. However there is a convention on normal usage on here I believe (which I suspect parallels normal usage elsewhere) which is interesting - I would suspect that 95% + of all posts where bird names are written down they are capitalised.

Ok, I had another go. A brief look at the 'Your Birding Day' section here on BirdForum. 23 threads on the first page where bird species were mentioned in the posts - of these in 22 all bird names were capitalised. The sole one where bird names were not capitalised was by a young birder, under the age of 16, I believe (and who has since started capitalising bird species names).

 

[Mono]

English has no codified way of doing things it is up to publishers to decide on language choices, punctuation and capitalization. Different publishers do things differently. There is no right way. It is not some recent imposition of lower case, this argument has been going on for at least 120 years. It does seem to be a bird thing some of the non-bird natural history sources have only recently change to capitalisation after badgering (or should that be Badgering!) from the birdy types. Wikipedia has gone the other way, have a read of the discussion thread there.

My own view is that if it is your own text do what ever you want to, if it is being published by a third party then follow their guides. Personally in a trip report I find it helpful, but bold would be better regardless of capitalisation, in a piece of narrative text I find it stylistically jarring. Despite all contrived Common Gull vs common gull examples I have yet to come across any piece of text in the wild that has such confusions.

I don't think it should be a birdforum policy that common names should be capitalised, as it would fall to moderators to tell people off for their stylistic choices and that would hardly be welcoming.

 

[dantheman]

Definitely not Badgering! <shudders>

Think there has never (and should never) be any suggestion that people should have to conform to a certain way, here on BirdForum or on their own private blogs etc, heaven forbid!!! It was about birding organizations ... (and perhaps wider organizations, although that would take quite a change to happen).

(Others may think differently)

 

[Andy Adcock]

English has no codified way of doing things it is up to publishers to decide on language choices, punctuation and capitalization. Different publishers do things differently. There is no right way. It is not some recent imposition of lower case, this argument has been going on for at least 120 years. It does seem to be a bird thing some of the non-bird natural history sources have only recently change to capitalisation after badgering (or should that be Badgering!) from the birdy types. Wikipedia has gone the other way, have a read of the discussion thread there.

My own view is that if it is your own text do what ever you want to, if it is being published by a third party then follow their guides. Personally in a trip report I find it helpful, but bold would be better regardless of capitalisation, in a piece of narrative text I find it stylistically jarring. Despite all contrived Common Gull vs common gull examples I have yet to come across any piece of text in the wild that has such confusions.

I don't think it should be a birdforum policy that common names should be capitalised, as it would fall to moderators to tell people off for their stylistic choices and that would hardly be welcoming.

I think the small sample to which Dan alluded, is telling as to what birders generally think.

 

[James Lowther]

English has no codified way of doing things it is up to publishers to decide on language choices, punctuation and capitalization. Different publishers do things differently. There is no right way. It is not some recent imposition of lower case, this argument has been going on for at least 120 years. It does seem to be a bird thing some of the non-bird natural history sources have only recently change to capitalisation after badgering (or should that be Badgering!) from the birdy types. Wikipedia has gone the other way, have a read of the discussion thread there.

My own view is that if it is your own text do what ever you want to, if it is being published by a third party then follow their guides. Personally in a trip report I find it helpful, but bold would be better regardless of capitalisation, in a piece of narrative text I find it stylistically jarring. Despite all contrived Common Gull vs common gull examples I have yet to come across any piece of text in the wild that has such confusions.

I don't think it should be a birdforum policy that common names should be capitalised, as it would fall to moderators to tell people off for their stylistic choices and that would hardly be welcoming.

With respect I think you’ve misunderstood the thrust of the campaign. It’s nothing to do with enforcing usage on birdforum which as an Internet forum runs the full gamut of bad spelling, grammar, punctuation etc

Rather the aim of the campaign is to persuade scientific journals, wildlife organisations etc to change and harmonise their style policies.

Personally I prefer capitalisation regardless of the grammatical rules underpinning it. But not terribly bothered either way.

Cheers
James

 

[Andy Adcock]

With respect I think you’ve misunderstood the thrust of the campaign. It’s nothing to do with enforcing usage on birdforum which as an Internet forum runs the full gamut of bad spelling, grammar, punctuation etc

Rather the aim of the campaign is to persuade scientific journals, wildlife organisations etc to change their style policies.

Personally I prefer capitalisation regardless of the grammatical rules underpinning it. But not terribly bothered either way.

Cheers
James

Very close to what I was about to write.

 

[delia todd]

I don't think it should be a birdforum policy that common names should be capitalised, as it would fall to moderators to tell people off for their stylistic choices and that would hardly be welcoming.

Quite definitely not!!! There's no way any of us would do such a thing.... we'd be correcting spellings next LOL

 

[dantheman]

I don't know if people hadn't seen it (looks like it's a broken link in the OP post #1), but here is the original blog post where the OP talks about articles he had written being altered/messed up due to changing away from the capitalization of species names, amongst other things -

Why English names of species should ALWAYS be capitalised

So this has been a pet hate of mine for years. And after a rant on Twitter recently, I thought it was best to put all my thoughts down on th...

analternativenaturalhistoryofsussex.blogspot.com

Would be interesting to know the history of change from lower to upper or vice versa (maybe it's in one of the links I posted on page 1 of this thread), but don't think any convention has ever been 'imposed' as such. Interesting to see that it has become/evolved to the state where in 'normal 'usage it is almost entirely capitalised however in informal use (as well as much scientific).

 

[Xenospiza]

Crossed my mind earlier that this could be largely a native English vs non-native English speaker/writer issue to some degree (on here at least)? Depending on what convention you are used to and thus what appears correct? This was based solely on the observation of opisska's post #9 being 'liked' by international BF members from Estonia and Poland (a small sample size) yesterday evening. Interesting? Thoughts?

As a non-native speaker: the birds stand out more in a text if the names are capitalised and it seems to be the preferred way for birders. I see no need for tight regulation though. Choosing for lower case may be preferred if you are writing for people who are not birders and who may find it distracting.

Dutch birders tend to capitalise birdnames as well (already 100 years ago!), although I will usually not do it when I write to my (non-birding) relatives. There is no coherency with other groups (mammals: capitalised, plants or butterflies: either not capitalised or only the first word).
On the German wikipedia the entire name is capitalised, so it's "Großer Brachvogel", not "großer Brachvogel" (the noun is always capitalised in German and the majority of birdnames are single nouns anyway).
In French, usage seems to be split between either uncapitalised or only the first word (e.g. on wikipedia), but hardly ever on all words (quick on-line check).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In French, usage seems to be split between either uncapitalised or only the first word (e.g. on wikipedia), but hardly ever on all words (quick on-line check).

Example of standardized French names (generic in bold):

Grand Gravelot (Charadrius hiaticula) [see the capitalized adjective "Grand"]

Guêpier de Leschenault (Merops leschenaultii)

Pie-bleue ibérique (Cyanopica cookii)

Fauvette à tête noire (Sylvia atricapilla)

Rougegorge familier (Erithacus rubecula)

Po-o-uli masqué (Melamprosops phaeosoma)

A French technical name, which is not a popular name (although it may have popular origins), but remains a vernacular name as opposed to latin name, is always binomial and capitalized

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

(e.g. on wikipedia)

Wikipedia, boullchite √10⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Jan,

It's really a shame that all this effort isn't directed to something that actually matters, unlike the cases of letters.

Well, computer science introduced "syntax highlighting" a couple of decades back, and because it's so extremely useful, it has quickly become an indispensable tool of the trade.

None of the highlighting makes the code run any better, it's just something that helps the programmer to read, understand and even navigate the program lines more quickly and reliably. Apparently, the underlying concept is called "secondary notation" in English.

Capitalization of letters is a (mild) form of secondary notation as well.

It's worth noting that in Science, where it probably matters more than elsewhere, there are estalished conventions regarding capitalization and non-capitalization of scientific species names, augmented by typesetting conventions to firmly establish "secondary notation".

Not that I have much of an opinion on actually trying to standardize the capitalization of common English bird names against all odds, but if I could just hit a button to turn it on, I'd be enthusiastically pushing that button right now ;-)

Regards,

Henning

 

[l_raty]

In French, usage seems to be split between either uncapitalised or only the first word (e.g. on wikipedia), but hardly ever on all words (quick on-line check).

Of course a proper noun (the name of a person, continent, sea, river, etc.) within a bird name is always capitalized. (But beware that French, like German but unlike English, does not capitalize proper adjectives.)

Besides this, what gets capitalized are (1) the first word of the name and (2) the word (always a noun) that acts as a 'generic' name. In most cases these are one and the same, and thus only one word is capitalized; the main exceptions are for species that are called Petit(e) [Something] or Grand(e) [Something], because these adjectives (unlike most others) traditionally precede the noun they qualify.

 

[Dave Boyle]

Whenever I write a report I always capitalise all bird names, even though I know someone will go through & change them all - the occasional one gets though which keeps me happy. The same people who change capitals to lower case in reports always use capitals in emails or messages so I'm not sure why its deemed incorrect. I always use lower case for rspb & doc even though they always get changed too!

 

[jalid]

Unlike in English, in many languages the bird species names are compound words and therefore easier to parse from the sentence. For example, New Caledonia Chicadabird in Finnish is uudenkaledoniankäpinkäinen. Note that even the geographical name is not capitalised, and although New Caledonia (Uusi-Kaledonia) is not a compound word, it becomes such in the bird name. In English it could be littleringedplover or maybe little-ringed-plover.

In the Cyrillic alphabet the difference between upper and lower case is not as pronounced as in the Latin alphabet, and quotation marks are sometimes used to highlight proper nouns in Russian. It could be "little ringed plover" in English. Anybody used to reading computer languages will find that nice, but the there will be arguing if single or double quotations are better.

But well, I prefer capitalisation in English language. Mostly because I am used to it.

 

[HH75]

Hi all,
This recent gem from a report of a Tundra Bean Goose on an Irish birding website neatly illustrates the perils of lower case, I think:

'1 ad. with pink feet in mobile flock between Whitehouse cross and Iveco garage. Flocks mobile and wary. All left area at about 14.00.'

Reading it at face value, if one hadn't already seen photos of the bird in question, it could be believed that the Tundra Bean Goose had pink feet...