Talk:Trogon

Reflist columnformat

I hope no one minds me changing the reference lists column format. I think it generally makes more sense to use the colwidth parameter since that works best with different display resolutions and font sizes. (i.e. it makes the browser try to choose the best number of columns based on the width specified, that way the columns don't get too wide or narrow to read.)
— Apis (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, or any alternative move, at this time. BD2412 T 13:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

---

• Trogon → TrogonidaeTrogonidae
• Trogon (genus) → Trogon

– This article covers a family that includes species not commonly called trogons - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Utterly unnecessary, the HBW and Cornell's BotW both refer to the family as "trogon" alone, and the primary meaning of the word is for trogons, collectively, not specifically American ones of one genus. Almost every collective group of birds has members that do this, and a scaup is still a duck even if it is named a scaup. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. While I agree that it is reasonable to call quetzals a subgroup of trogons, what matters here is that there is a genus Trogon, which has greater claim to the pagename. The scaup example isn't relevant; there is no genus Scaup to interfere; also (further to the duck analogy), while a scaup is a duck, a swan is not a duck. - MPF (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• What would a normal person expect to see in an article in the space Trogon? What is the most common use of the name? The family or the genus? Why does the genus have greater claim? It doesn't if you consider all the rules around naming, only if you get very technical, and we are writing for general audiences. Hell, you and I are techincally minded, and if I told you that my nemesis bird was a trogon (and it is) would you assume I was referring to the genus or family? (Bonus points if you can guess which one). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  You'll have to say what a nemesis bird is before I can begin to guess . . . MPF (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• In birding a nemesis bird is a bird that you badly want to see but miss repeatedly despire many attempts to find it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sabine's Sunbird if it's any consolation, I've not seen any Trogonidae of any species 😄 - MPF (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Birds has been notified of this discussion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Trogon can be used for either family or genus, although for the family I'd expect the plural (which for some reason violates Wikipedia naming conventions). As the vernacular trogon can refer to either, we should use the scientific names for both family and genus and avoid the ambiguity .  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

But the sciontific name for the genus is identical to the common name for the family. Ambiguity is unavoidable, so we must consider which usage is more widespread, and thats obviously the family. If a non-scientist says "I just saw a trogon in the bushes" they will be referring to the family, unless they are very jargon-happy and are in America. The widespread, globabl use of the name is the family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Trogon is a perfectly standard way to refer to this family as a whole. I don't know how one would test this, but it seems to me that the English word trogon is more used than the genus name. Certainly the top results on Google outside of Wikipedia are using it to refer to the family, including e.g. Birds of the World, the BOU, and iNaturalist. If this move goes through, I would still oppose moving the genus page - it would be better in that case for trogon to be a disambiguation page. Somatochlora (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you are suggesting this as a preffered alternative:

  • Trogon → Trogon (family)
  • Trogon (genus) → don't move
  • replace the vacated Trogon as a disambiguation

  Yes? I could get behind that, if there wasn't a term for the family already, but I figured to be explicit making this clarification. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Trogon → TrogonidaeTrogonidae
  • Trogon (genus) → don't move
  • replace the vacated Trogon as a disambiguation

  This might be a workable compromise. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  This second option is what I mean. I still think the status quo makes the most sense though. Somatochlora (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Trogon → Trogonidae per nom, and per our usual convention to use the proper taxon name for all taxa, and especially for monotypic taxa as described at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The fact that "trogon" is ambiguous provides even stronger justification for this move. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Addendum: Oppose Trogon (genus) → Trogon. Make Trogon a dab page instead. Original !vote amended per discussion below. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Which usual convention? WP:FAUNA has "Use the common name when possible" as its top rule. The most common name for the family - the only common name for the whole family, is trogon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I meant using the proper name for the taxonomic rank, when that name is chosen. Other editors have disputed whether "trogon" is the common name for the entire family and have pointed out that the term is ambiguous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Swapping trogon to be about the genus doesn't remove ambiguity, if anything it increases it. I've cited two of the highest authorities on birds we use that use the name for the whole family, and for lay audiences (not experts) the most commonly used name. The criteria for naming conventions include recognisability, naturalness, precision, consistency and concision. The common name of the family trumps all of those. In any context where the name is not in italics every reader that is someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area would conclude that the family was being discussed (especially readers from the Old World). Lay readers looking for information about the family would search or follow trogon, (The title is one that readers are likely to look for or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles). It's more concise than the jargon scientific name, and the name trogon is used consistently throughout wikipedia and beyond to denote the family. So all it slightly stubles at is precision, because there are two terms that it could be referring to, but given the term is more widely understood to include the whole family, and this is not an American site, the family is the primary topic, what is being achieved by shoving the more important article into a jargon title? Has anyone provided an source supporting the idea that the quetzals are not considered trogons? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You raise some good points but overall it still appears that Trogon is ambiguous; I will amend my !vote to reflect that. Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish between trogon and Trogon in article titles or search, so this distinction which is meaningful in print and on the screen doesn't help us (nor our readers). I did a quick scan of Google Scholar and on the first few pages use of trogon and Trogon appears roughly mixed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Google scholar is representative of how scientists and experts use terms, not lay readers though. Even birders, who know about genera, typically use common names in ost instances (my hortcultural minded mother always reminds me of this) If we were not writing for a general audience, I'd agree completely that the scientific terms would be used. This is reflected in page views - 84 people a day on average come to trogon, 7 to the genus page. And yes, there is a small amount of ambiguity, but that is unavoidable regardless of where the article sits. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Based on page views, the family is clearly the primary topic, and handling the genus via a disambiguated title and hatnote is exactly what’s supposed to happen in these WP:ONEOTHER cases. —-В²C ☎ 06:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.