Mav writes:
Thus common nouns (those that tell the "kind" of something) are not capitalized but proper nouns (those that name a singular, specific person, place or thing) are capitalized. Anything other than that complicates matters.
This sounds logical but is completely inconsistent. Consider
V-1 Flying Bomb: This is a *kind* of aircraft, but it is capitalised Labrador Retriever: This is a *kind* of dog, but it is capitalised Splendid Fairy-wren: This is a specific *kind* of fairy-wren, which is why it too is capitalised. (A non-specific kind is written as plain"fairy-wren".)
The rules of correct capitalisation for species are plain and in the main straightforward. Those of us who do the vast bulk of the work in the fauna entries all know those rules and use them - which is precisely why we all have such difficulty when well-meaning people come along and ask us to ignore them!
The goal of the encyclopedia is indeed to be consistent. Right now it is highly *inconsistent* in that it uses the correct term for most things but tries to impose incorrect and ambiguous terms on only *some* of the fauna.
Tony Wilson (Tannin)
Tony Wilson wrote:
Mav writes:
Thus common nouns (those that tell the "kind" of something) are not capitalized but proper nouns (those that name a singular, specific person, place or thing) are capitalized. Anything other than that complicates matters.
This sounds logical but is completely inconsistent. Consider
V-1 Flying Bomb: This is a *kind* of aircraft, but it is capitalised Labrador Retriever: This is a *kind* of dog, but it is capitalised Splendid Fairy-wren: This is a specific *kind* of fairy-wren, which is why it too is capitalised. (A non-specific kind is written as plain"fairy-wren".)
Aircraft have nothing to do with the present debate. Applying this kind of analogy is another kind of logical fallacy.
Ec