Stan Shebs wrote in part:
So to me it's clearly a house style issue, which is fine - we have lots of house style rules already, and their existence forestalls edit wars every day. What I don't think is acceptable is to get all angry if someone doesn't follow a rule that was discussed in various places, but never officially documented in the MoS.
Nor, IMO, is it acceptable to get *angry* if someone doesn't follow a rule that *has* been officially documented in the MoS. (But they must by default lose any edit war, however, before it starts.) I certainly don't intend to check the MoS every time I make a style decision, and even the MoS itself says (or said the last time that I checked) that its prescriptions don't have to be followed by every writer, only that MoS-philes will change things when they get around to them. (Even this way, I think that the MoS has far too much in it, crowding out the few items that are useful, but I can live with it.)
OTOH, the bird names go beyond the MoS -- they're a *naming*convention*. The primary point of Stan's post -- that this needs to be documented -- not only stands, but is even more important in light of this. First, we can't expect people to follow undocumented conventions. But also, naming conventions really do need to be followed, or else navigation through the encyclopaedia will get all messed up.
For instance, in the case of fish, I'm still assessing what is favored practice. When I'm satisfied, I'll write it down in the MoS - people disagreeing with the MoS will have to change it before I'll go along with them changing articles.
If it's a naming convention that you'll be deciding, then please write it down on a naming conventions page too!
-- Toby