Mav writes: many of the links to the bird/mammal articles will be from articles that "highlight some thing other than the creature in question. In those articles it is most correct to have "bald eagle" in the running text of the article and not "Bald Eagle".

I agree entirely. We should only use "Bald Eagle" where the aim is to specify a particular exact species - i.e., the Bald Eagle as opposed to, say, the Golden Eagle or a Spotted Harrier. In general, that will nearly always be within the context of a fauna entry.

Mav suggests the following compromise: Have the bird and mammal articles follow the capitalization convention deemed appropriate by the specialists and enthusiasts working on them BUT a down style redirect MUST be pointed to the up style article title.

This makes excellent sense and I agree wholeheartedly.

Mav writes: what is needed is to make redirects far less ugly than they are now. People seem to get real pissy when they follow a term they know and use only to get a result that in effect screams "the method you are using to access this page is depreciated".

Yes. There is *absolutely* *nothing* wrong with redirects, they are a really useful, indeed essential part of the 'pedia. But people do tend to think that there is something "wrong" with using a redirect. How about we change the "Redirected from XXXX" display font so that it is in smaller letters? I'm sure that there are more advanced and elegant solutions around (Mav offers some in his post), but that on its own would help quite a lot. Also, we should sprinkle a few more "there is nothing wrong with a redirect" statements around the place. In the welcome pages, the FAQs, wherever.

Mav writes: So if specialists will allow down style links to their articles I can live with those articles following the up style and other conventions deemed appropriate

I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone else will either.

------------------

The place where we *will* have problems is demarkation. At what point do we draw the line between the "specialist" entries and the "general" entries? This is a potential breeding ground for edit wars.

If we can discuss this in advance and work out a policy *before* we run into disputes, then the disputes need not happen.

My suggestion is that we should start from the idea that if the intention of the article is to single out that *particular* *species* as opposed some *other* species, then capitalisation is correct.

On its own, that's not quite enough to make a workabe guideline, so let's work some examples.

First, consider the case of the bald eagle as the symbol of the United States. If that is coming from an entry about the President of the USA, it should normally be down style. (I can think of some unlikely hypothetical exceptions, but they are just that: unlikely and hypothetical.)

Now, what about a more difficult example: Mav's case of an article on the US parks system that mentions the bald eagle. Seems to me that if we are talking in generalities, then "bald eagle" is correct. If, on the other hand, we are talking about specific species in a context where exact identifiication of that species matters - say, the parks service having to decide if they should prioritise scarce financial resources to the preservation of either the Bald Eagle or the Golden Eagle - then correct capitalisation to distinguish between the species is appropriate. Here is a rule of thumb to help decide: if you could sensibly replace "bald eagle" in the sentence with "Haliaeetus leucocephalus" and not have it seem horribly out of place, then you should capitalise. If "Haliaeetus leucocephalus" is clearly inappropriate, then you should *not* capitalise.

My thanks again to Mav for a handsome compromise offer. I think this one will fly.

Tony Wilson (Tannin)