SilverTiger12 (talk | contribs) |
How many discussions within one month? |
||
Line 720: | Line 720: | ||
: Allow me to help. Table is made with just a lot of pipes. -- [[User:BhagyaMani|BhagyaMani]] ([[User talk:BhagyaMani|talk]]) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
: Allow me to help. Table is made with just a lot of pipes. -- [[User:BhagyaMani|BhagyaMani]] ([[User talk:BhagyaMani|talk]]) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks so much.--[[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
::Thanks so much.--[[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
== More discussions this month already? == |
|||
{{ping|BhagyaMani|Cygnis insignis|SilverTiger12}} Can I ask why you have decided to make more discussions already, considering that the old issues haven't been resolved yet? How many discussions have to happen at once, in this month? [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 17:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:02, 26 November 2018
Lion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
FAR probably needed
This has been a featured article since 2007, and last went through WP:FAR in 2011. Since then, the article has changed dramatically and I've observed that FA quality has not been maintained. For example:
- The section that was once Taxonomy and Evolution has been rearranged into a confusing set of headings including the puzzling "Fossil lions" and Evolution was moved to its own section, inconsistent with other mammal FAs. The narrative is extremely difficult to follow now.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- The former "Cultural depictions" section was changed to "Cultural significance" and has blown up to at least twice its previous size. Lots of trivia of unknown significance has been added including the "In entertainment" subheading which is always a magnet for drive-by additions of questionable notability.
- The "In entertainment" subsection was there for years but was previous known as "Baiting and taming" and in the conservation section. I changed the title back. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Choppy and sub-par prose have been introduced throughout.
- Copyedit done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sources used to write the reviewed version have been removed and replaced with others, so a complete source review and spot-check for plagiarism should be carried out.
- MoS violations have been introduced like bolding in the article text and inconsistent or incorrect citation styles.
If those active on this page are willing to address the above items, we can possibly avoid listing this at FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I removed the bold format from some words, so now only the word 'lion' is in the bold format. Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. Haven't looked at this in a while as haven't had the energy. But yeah...needs some....housekeeping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe even a revert to the reviewed version would be in order? And then adding whatever that has been placed there since which was of value. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The new phylogenetic material is important. Hence the FA version is outdated. I have been meaning to compare the FA to current version and see what they look like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did a cleanup of "group organization", "Diet and hunting" and "Reproduction and life cycle" a while back and added in information on cultural views of the lion in Africa. I can confirm that the sources I have (Schaller, Denis-Hoot) are properly cited in these sections but I don't have all of them. I also requested a copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The citations need cleanup, especially those with multiple names stuffed into a single parameter, or editors in author parameters. I did a bit of cleanup but do not have time right now. Ping me if you don't get around to it. P.S. Here's a diff of the 2011 FA version to today. There is too much improvement to revert, IMO. You need to go forward with what is here, perhaps with some restructuring. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did a cleanup of "group organization", "Diet and hunting" and "Reproduction and life cycle" a while back and added in information on cultural views of the lion in Africa. I can confirm that the sources I have (Schaller, Denis-Hoot) are properly cited in these sections but I don't have all of them. I also requested a copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. Haven't looked at this in a while as haven't had the energy. But yeah...needs some....housekeeping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging LittleJerry, Casliber, FunkMonk, and Jonesey95: Can you weigh in on the current state of this article? I brought up a potential FAR in June. BhagyaMani and Leo1pard continue to play out disputes about lion subspecies here and across other related articles, which I think causes serious stability problems for this to be a Featured article. What needs to be done here? --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- One thing that should happen is that we are able to justify what we do in relevant talk-pages like this one. For example, when I did this, I said why I did that below. Leo1pard (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure both of you feel that you can justify what you do, but you've created a slow-moving edit war lasting months that affects the stability of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that both of us cannot do that, but a difference between me and him is that I am careful to justify in relevant talk-pages what I do in articles like this, but he has a habit of ignoring what I say, even if I ping him in talk-pages like this to talk to him. For example, when I tried to talk to him about the fact that not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), he just ignored me and carried on with whatever he wanted to do. From this, it appears that he thinks that because I joined Wikipedia long after he did, I can't tell him what he doesn't know. Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have the same comment as before. I looked at the citations, and they need tidying to FA standards. It is tedious work, but not hard. Here's an example:
|author=Hanby, J. P., Bygott, J. D.
. Those two author names should each appear in their own parameter,|author1=
and|author2=
, or|last1=
,|first1=
,|last2=
, and|first2=
. I count 16 references with this problem. There is also a mix of CS1 (e.g. cite book, cite web) and CS2 (e.g. citation) templates, which means that citations are formatted inconsistently. I see at least one author name in the format "Frump, RR" instead of "Frump, R. R." I see inconsistent formatting of page ranges, like "841–849" and "716–28". I see author initials written like "Loarie, S.R." instead of "Loarie, S. R." None of this is surprising in a long article that has been edited by many people over a period of years, but these things need to be made consistent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)- These two are edit warring over minutiae on every article where lions are even just mentioned, which I think is part of the problem. They even edit warred over which damn lion subspecies should be linked from an image caption in the completely unrelated Smilodon article. I think they need to cool down, they are disturbing more than they are improving with their shenanigans. The energy wasted is better spent on fixing those citation issues above, f they really care about these articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I need to get my head around what the dispute is actually about. Clarifying who is right would be a good place to start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have the same comment as before. I looked at the citations, and they need tidying to FA standards. It is tedious work, but not hard. Here's an example:
- I'm not saying that both of us cannot do that, but a difference between me and him is that I am careful to justify in relevant talk-pages what I do in articles like this, but he has a habit of ignoring what I say, even if I ping him in talk-pages like this to talk to him. For example, when I tried to talk to him about the fact that not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), he just ignored me and carried on with whatever he wanted to do. From this, it appears that he thinks that because I joined Wikipedia long after he did, I can't tell him what he doesn't know. Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure both of you feel that you can justify what you do, but you've created a slow-moving edit war lasting months that affects the stability of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- One thing that should happen is that we are able to justify what we do in relevant talk-pages like this one. For example, when I did this, I said why I did that below. Leo1pard (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that LittleJerry did an excellent FAR job earlier this year, which included shortening the section on subspecies considerably. In particular, the excessive details on now obsolete subspecific names, earlier presented in a table, was reduced to just a short list. Now this old stuff is back in again, AND it is replicated on this talk page. In both cases with too much and therefore dispensable detail, imo. Possibly, most citations are ok when this section is again reduced to the previous version without table. Try it out. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I just saw that Casliber suggested to delete the table in June. And probably was the one who turned it into a list? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let me explain what the issue is in the first place. BhagyaMani's policy is to have pages like Lion, Asiatic lion and Central African lion, have only information that he wants, or to remove information that he doesn't want, even if I try to talk to him about what is wrong with those edits, whereas I have a policy of allowing different views from different sources to exist, so as to allow articles to be WP:balanced between the different sources, and I would try to justify what I do in talk-pages like this, as you might see from the fact that I have talked here quite a lot. Here is an example, the Central African lion:
- BhagyaMani would say "The Central African lion is a Panthera leo leo population in northern parts of Central and East Africa.[1][2]"
- I would say "The Central African lion[3] is a population of lions in Central Africa that has been grouped under the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), but was also found to be related to the southern subspecies[4][5] (Panthera leo melanochaita),[2][1] depending on the subpopulation, and is fragmented into small and isolated groups since the 1950s.[6][7]" I also provided a justification for it in a relevant talk-page like this.
- Despite making several attempts to talk to BhagyaMani about what has gone wrong (for example, [1], [2], [3] and [4]), BhagyaMani has a habit of ignoring what I try to talk to him about, notice that after I tried to talk to him about certain edits that he made, he did not respond to my recent attempts to talk to him here, as of now, but continued to edit the article, and even apart from that, he has made several edits that reflect a WP:biased understanding of lions, or what should be in these articles, for example, saying that the name of the Central African lion did not exist in any of the sources that I provided, when in fact I already gave him one source that did,[3] and earlier insisting that the Cape lion is not extinct, but that it is a subspecies which is alive today! Leo1pard (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the Cat Specialist Group continues to recognise the Asiatic and African populations,[8][9] despite their revision of subspecies in 2017.[2] Take the article about the Asiatic lion for instance, they mentioned that it was now recognized as belonging to the subspecies Panthera leo leo. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- And yout point is? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- You refer to websites that have probably not been updated in a long time. Relevant are publications, NOT content of websites!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- They[8][9] reflect the recent revision of the subspecies, stating that Asiatic lions are of the same subspecies (P. l. leo) as certain African lions, with others being P. l. melanochaita, and that the ranges of these subspecies overlap in Ethiopia, and it's from the same group that published the revision, so it's a broader explanation on lions by the CSG in 2 pages that are meant to be about lions, rather than felids in general, so what matters here is that it's from the CSG, not the format of their work.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The web site has been updated, as it includes the recognition of the two subspecies. In fact it was updated in 2015 to include the provisional split into two subspecies and then in 2017 to reflect official recommendation. You can't dismiss the official website of the group making the determination. The publication will be the more important taxonomic reference, but the website has additional information on the lions. The IUCN publish a lot (most?) of their work on their websites. With respect to the Cat SG, their website is organised on geographical grounds and uses common names for species as article titles. The only exceptions are the articles on Asiatic lions, cheetahs and wildcats, none of which fit the taxonomy conveniently. The African lion article is about Panthera leo in Africa and has recognised that the old division into African and Asiatic lions is obsolete since 2014 (which I think was the website first appeared). The title certainly doesn't reflect any recognition of the African lion as a subspecies or distinct population, now or then. Jts1882 | talk 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Template:IUCN
- ^ a b c d e Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 71–73. ISSN 1027-2992.
- ^ a b Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
- ^ Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2.
- ^ Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) - ^ Chardonnet, P. (2002). Conservation of African lion (PDF). Paris: International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 November 2013.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Bauer, H.; Van Der Merwe, S. (2004). "Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa". Oryx. 38 (1): 26–31. doi:10.1017/S0030605304000055.
- ^ a b Asiatic lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01
- ^ a b African lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01
Taxonomy and phylogeny section
From "Taxonomy and phylogeny", subsection "Subspecies", in the table, "Asiatic lion": "It is protected in the Gir Forest National Park, and four protected areas in the region." Does this mean that there are four separate protected areas within the Gir Forest? Or is the whole Gir Forest protected, with four other protected areas near the forest? Two references are given, but I am unable to view them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean that "there are four separate protected areas within the Gir Forest". These patches are outside the protected area. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to leave it for some time, as this revised taxonomy dates only 2017, and still spurs some objections. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Casliber Oppose, the classification by the Cat Specialist Group in 2017[1] does not solve the issue of where lions in Northeast Africa go, they put a question mark over the region in the map on Page 72. They also proclaimed "The contact zone (between the 2 recognised subspecies) is somewhere in Ethiopia ... On the basis of these recent studies, we recognise two subspecies, although morphological diagnoses are currently unknown," which means that their classification of subspecies of lions, as of now, is not perfect or complete, and still needs review. Leo1pard (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, this is an example of the objections spurred. The referenced article by Bertola et al. 2016 clearly and unmistakably placed lion samples from Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya into the East African lion group. It does NOT mean that lion taxonomy needs another review, but merely that morphological analysis of the samples has not been done yet. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- They did indeed: see supplementary table 1. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not exclusively the South-East African group, but also including the North-East African group, and this diagram was used in the Page 12 of the document to which the supplementary table links. In addition, some samples from Ethiopia grouped with the North-Central African lion group (which is linked to the North African and Asiatic lions), which you should know. Leo1pard (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- No opinion on the content matter but we need to stop introducing sub-par writing to this article. "It is thought" is not good writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @BhagyaMani and Leo1pard:, regardless of where some populations are put, the table itself is outdated and misleading, and should be replaced by one with two (2) subspecies plus notes on indeterminate populations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- No opinion on the content matter but we need to stop introducing sub-par writing to this article. "It is thought" is not good writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not exclusively the South-East African group, but also including the North-East African group, and this diagram was used in the Page 12 of the document to which the supplementary table links. In addition, some samples from Ethiopia grouped with the North-Central African lion group (which is linked to the North African and Asiatic lions), which you should know. Leo1pard (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Casliber Realistically, you would have to be talking about a table like this, because the indeterminate population of lions in Northeast Africa, which the CSG[1] had difficulty in resolving, are in a region where the two recognized subspecies (P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita) overlap (which would result in P. l. leo × P. l. melanochaita, similar to a liger being Panthera leo × Panthera tigris), or are both determined by genetic tests to be present at least:[2] Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- The middle row in the proposed table is superfluous. melanochaita includes the 9 lion samples from Ethiopia with leo haplotypes. This is what the cited authors wrote, it would anyway be insincere to extrapolate from 9 samples to such a generalized statement that the lion population in Northeast Africa is admixed. Seems to be a big misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the 2 cited sources. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- That melanochaita includes the 9 lion samples from Ethiopia with leo haplotypes is what I had said was 'problematic' for the CSG's recognition of only 2 subspecies of lions in Africa and the Old World.[1] The classification of lions into 2 subspecies (P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita) should mean that lions are divided into 2 groups that are genetically and geographically distinct from one another, but due to the fact that they overlap or are both present in northern parts of East Africa, including Ethiopia, that does not always apply, and certainly, I did not mean that all Northeast African lions are of this genetically mixed group, like I would not say that all Central African lions belong to P. l. leo, when in fact those in the southern part of Congo-Kinshasa or Central Africa belong to the South-East African group[2] (P. l. melanochaita). Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Another misinterpretation of the revised lion taxonomy!! But at least you seem to understand now that not all of Northeast Africa is the contact zone but merely Ethiopia. That btw is the basic understanding of subspecies: that they were connected once upon a time, many generations ago. I see that you just copy-pasted my recent addition to the Central African lion wiki article into your wiki posts. I feel honoured. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Name | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Panthera leo leo[1][3] (Linnaeus, 1758)[4] | Lions in Northern, Western and Central Africa, and Asia. | |
Panthera leo leo × Panthera leo melanochaita[1] (Smith, 1842)[4] | Lions in northern parts of East Africa, which exhibit varied or mixed genetic traits between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita.[1][2] | |
Panthera leo melanochaita[1][3] (Smith, 1842)[4] | Lions in Eastern and Southern Africa. |
A table consisting of three images and a little bit of text seems very superfluous. Discuss it in the text and save the space. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree that 2 are sufficient. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Even the bulleted list may be sufficient. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would have at least modified the information that you put in Central African lion regarding lions in Sudan (which is not in Central Africa, but regarded as being in Northeast or North Africa, or even East Africa), once I made that clear to you where Sudan and its lions actually belong, even if in varied ways. There are lions of which the genetic and geographic statuses make the classification into 2 subspecies complicated. It is not like the case of separating tigers into 2 subspecies, because these 2 subspecies (P. t. tigris in mainalnd Asia and P. t. sondaica in the Sunda Islands) are geographically separated, unlike the subspecies of African lions, and I am using subspecies of tigers for a comparison here, because they are comparatively well defined and simple to understand, partly due to geographic separation. If P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita did not share a region or overlap, then classifying lions into either subspecies would have been easier, like classifying tigers into 2 subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is a source cited in Conservation (Bauer & van der Merwe) but not defined. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O'Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
- ^ a b c d Bertola, L. D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K. J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P. A.; Driscoll, C. A.; Tende, T.; Ottosson, U.; Saidu, Y.; Vrieling, K.; de Iongh, H. H. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
- ^ a b Template:IUCN doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en
- ^ a b c Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
- Reversion. I suppose that these few had exactly a single ruff between them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Head-to-body length
In "Description", what does "Head-to-body length" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Axl: It means the length of the head and body together and excluding the tail. LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is that the phrase used in the sources? When I read it, it seems to me to mean the distance between the head and the body; the head is directly joined to the body (without much of a neck) so the "head-to-body length" is zero. I think that "head-and-body length" makes more sense. However we should follow the sources. If the sources confirm "head-to-body", perhaps we could add a note to explain the definition? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
References
From "Population and conservation status", subsection "In Africa", paragraph 5: "There is disagreement over the size of the largest individual population in West Africa; the estimates range from 100 to 400 lions in Burkina Faso's Arly-Singou ecosystem." This is referenced to IUCN. However I don't see this information in the reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. I suspect stuff got moved around. Was going to trawl through history but am really tired now. Tomorrow (unless someone does it overnight) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This reference gives 356 (246–466) for the West African lion in the so-called WAP complex, in which is Arli National Park in Burkina Faso.[1] Leo1pard (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- The IUCN entry for the Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation) discusses that article and others. [2]
- "Taxonomy and phylogeny", subsection "Hybrids": the end of the first paragraph needs a reference. (Is Chamorro supposed to be the reference?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Henschel, P.; Coad, L.; Burton, C.; Chataigner, B.; Dunn, A.; MacDonald, D.; Saidu, Y.; Hunter, L. T. B. (2014). Hayward, M. (ed.). "The Lion in West Africa is Critically Endangered". PLoS ONE. 9 (1): e83500. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083500. PMC 3885426. PMID 24421889.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ "Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation)". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015: e.T68933833A54067639. 2015.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help)
Dispute over a Namibian lion being a Southern African lion?
LittleJerry Can you explain what's disputable about the Nambian lion in Okonjima being a Southern African lion? Namibia is in Southern Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- The subspecies have been revised. See the subspecies subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
LittleJerry I said, then are you going to remove the name of the Bengal tiger from the lead image of Tiger as well? Why is it that you removed the name of the Southern African lion from this lead image, with the arguments on subspecies (which I already know, but the same should apply to that Bengal tiger because subspecies of tigers have been revised as well, if really your argument on subspecies was relevant to the purpose of this discussion on what type of lion this is), and then that "The name of a population is of no relevance to the average reader", when you were happy to keep the name of the Bengal tiger in the lead image of the article 'Tiger'? Like I said, this lion is a Southern African lion, like that tiger is a Bengal tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Southern African lion is no longer considered a subspecies. Lion subspecies have been revised numerous times and we don't need that in the main image. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- LittleJerry Then why did you apply the opposite logic to the lead image of 'Tiger'? You are unhappy to call this lion a "Southern African lion", even though you were happy to call that tiger a "Bengal tiger". The revision of subspecies is also applicable to tigers, but you followed a different policy for this species. However, as discussed before, the revision of subspecies in 2017 won't necessarily stop people from referring to different populations of big cats, such as South African lions[1] and Bengal and Siberian tigers, as "South African lions" and "Bengal and Siberian tigers", for example. These names have been there, and they continue to be used, despite the reclassification of subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Southern lion is not a subspecies. Its that simple. LittleJerry (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- LittleJerry Then why did you apply the opposite logic to the lead image of 'Tiger'? You are unhappy to call this lion a "Southern African lion", even though you were happy to call that tiger a "Bengal tiger". The revision of subspecies is also applicable to tigers, but you followed a different policy for this species. However, as discussed before, the revision of subspecies in 2017 won't necessarily stop people from referring to different populations of big cats, such as South African lions[1] and Bengal and Siberian tigers, as "South African lions" and "Bengal and Siberian tigers", for example. These names have been there, and they continue to be used, despite the reclassification of subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- LittleJerry your argument "The Southern lion is not a subspecies. Its that simple." contradicts at least one source, though it should be noted that not all East African lions purely belong to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita), particularly considering the genetics of the Ethiopian lion.[2] In addition, if the Southern African lion is not a subspecies, then neither is an Asiatic lion nor a Bengal tiger, because both populations have been included in wider subspecies, Panthera leo leo and Panthera tigris tigris (for tigers in Mainland Asia) respectively,[3] but you are happy to call those as an "Asiatic lion" and "Bengal tiger", respectively. It is not fair that you are using the issue of subspecies being revised to ignore the name of the Southern African lion, but at the same time, uphold the names of the Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger, especially considering that you kept the name of the latter in the lead image of the article 'Tiger'. If you are going to call an Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger as an Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger, despite the revision of subspecies, then do not stop me from using the name "Southern African lion", to be fair. Leo1pard (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The current article on the Southern African lion discusses only lions from the very south. No East African lions which are also part of P. l. melanochaita are included. So no, Southern African lions is NOT a valid subspecies. Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context that they are the only population that survives in Asia. I haven't been following tiger taxonomy and I could care less if you remove mention of the Bengal tiger from the lead image. That's irrelevant to this article. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, the current article on the Southern African lion does not just discuss lions from the very south, it also talks about East African lions in a relevant context, that is taxonomy and genetics:
- Section "Taxonomic history": "In 2016, IUCN Red List assessors subsumed all African lion populations to P. l. leo.[4] ... Results of phylogeographic studies support the notion of lions in Southern Africa being genetically close, but distinct from populations in Western and Northern Africa and Asia.[5][6] Based on the analysis of samples from 357 lions from 10 countries, it is thought that lions migrated from Southern Africa to East Africa during the Pleistocene and Holocene eras.[5] Results of a DNA analysis using 26 lion samples from Southern and Eastern Africa indicate that genetic variation between them is low and that two major clades exist: one in southwestern Africa and one in the region from Uganda and Kenya to KwaZulu-Natal.[7]"
- Secondly, Panthera leo melanochaita is valid for lions in Southern Africa, including Namibia,[3] but you opposed my use of that name, so your argument on subspecies here is not matched by what you did then. Here, you talk about the validity of subspecies, but there, you give a different argument.
- Thirdly, why did you argue here "Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context that they are the only population that survives in Asia," when you would remove the name "Asiatic lion" for pictures of lions from Asia, at the same time, as if it is not? Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fourthly, I was using the example of what you did to the article 'Tiger' to complain that the way you treated this article is different to how you treated another article, and you are me "I haven't been following tiger taxonomy ..." 23 hours after I told you "Well, then never mind what subspecies it is. It is a Southern African lion, like the tiger in the lead image of Tiger is a Bengal tiger, otherwise, are you going to take off the name of the Bengal tiger from the tiger in the lead image of the article 'Tiger' as well?" But you did not care about what I said then. Leo1pard (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sign. I meant that the Southern African lion only has the very southern living lions as the SUBJECT! It only discusses East African lions by their relation to Southern African lions. This article discusses other big cats, but only in relation to lions. Please stop with the hair-splitting. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You should not have argued with me about subspecies in the first place if you were going to change it to being about 'hairsplitting'. I follow the same rule here as I did in other articles like 'Tiger'. The lead image of that article has had the name of the Bengal tiger population since 2006, and I was happy to keep that name there, even though subspecies were revised in 2017, partly as people would still call Bengal tigers as "Bengal tigers", like they would still call Siberian tigers as "Siberian tigers", and likewise, I was applying the same logic here, but you give me statements that do not always match what you say, or conflict with each other, for example, after you tell me "The subspecies have been revised. See the subspecies subsection." I proceed to talk about subspecies, but then you change your argument to say that this isn't necessary, then I make this edit with a saying about applying the same logic to the article 'Tiger', then you revert it, without caring what I said then, then you talk about subspecies again, then Jts1882 and I had to show that your argument about the Southern lion not being a subspecies contradicted at least one source, then you talk about the issue of subspecies again, and make an argument about the Asiatic lion that did not match what you did at the same time, and now, you are not using the issue of subspecies, but 'hair-splitting', so your statements and actions contradict each other. Please do not give me any more contradictory statements about subspecies or details, or actions, like removing the names "Asiatic lion", "East African lion" and "Southern African lion" (or even "[Southern lion" (Panthera leo melanochaita)), even if it is relevant to the context of what they are in, considering that you told me "Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context ..." and just let me proceed to do something that I would do in other articles like 'Tiger', out of fairness. Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Look. I argued that mentioning the Asian lion is valid since it is the only surviving lion in Asia. That doesn't mean I think it is completely necessary and their is still one photo that refers to Asian lions ("Distribution and habitat"). "Valid" and "necessary" do not mean the same thing, so there was no contradiction in my actions there. As for this, I'll admit I exampled poorly there, but "Southern African lion" is not the common name for P. l. melanochaita. If you want to remove mention of the Bengal tiger in the lead image of the tiger article, I won't stop you. But that's relevant here. LittleJerry (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed that the simple statement that the Southern Lion is not a subspecies is wrong. There are two recognised subspecies, a southern one (with populations in southern and eastern Africa) and a northern one (with populations in western and central Africa and in India). The problem is that there are no clear common names for these subspecies. Some would argue that southern lion applies only to the southern African population of a Southern and Eastern African lion, while others would consider this a mouthful and opt for the more manageabe Southern (African) lion. I note the article on the Southern African lion is about the southern African population. Either way the Southern African lion describes the photo accurately.
- The iNaturalist article links to a US Fish and Wildlife Service publication, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Two Lion Subspecies, which gives a nice summary of the situation. It's interesting to note that this predated the Cat Specialist Group publication by almost two years. Jts1882 | talk 10:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- P. l. melanochaita is not called the "Southern African lion". That's my point. LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"Southern lion" is used as the name here.[8] Leo1pard (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- And the article Southern African lion does not have all the lions classified under P. l. melanochaita as its subject. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Southern lion now does, but only in the context of genetics and distribution. I prefer to leave other information like taxonomic history and characteristics are to the older, more detailed pages on the different populations. Leo1pard (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Schofield, A. (2013). White Lion: Back to the Wild. Pennsauken: BookBaby. ISBN 0620570059.
- ^ Bertola, L. D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K. J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P. A.; Driscoll, C. A.; Tende, T.; Ottosson, U.; Saidu, Y.; Vrieling, K.; de Iongh, H. H. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
- ^ a b Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
- ^ Bauer, H.; Packer, C.; Funston, P. F.; Henschel, P.; Nowell, K. (2016). "Panthera leo". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016. IUCN: e.T15951A115130419. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
- ^ a b Antunes, A.; Troyer, J. L.; Roelke, M. E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; Packer, C.; Winterbach, C.; Winterbach, H.; Johnson, W. E. (2008). "The Evolutionary Dynamics of the Lion Panthera leo Revealed by Host and Viral Population Genomics". PLoS Genetics. 4 (11): e1000251. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000251. PMC 2572142. PMID 18989457.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Bertola, L. D.; Van Hooft, W. F.; Vrieling, K.; Uit De Weerd, D. R.; York, D. S.; Bauer, H.; Prins, H. H. T.; Funston, P. J.; Udo De Haes, H. A.; Leirs, H.; Van Haeringen, W. A.; Sogbohossou, E.; Tumenta, P. N.; De Iongh, H. H. (2011). "Genetic diversity, evolutionary history and implications for conservation of the lion (Panthera leo) in West and Central Africa". Journal of Biogeography. 38 (7): 1356–1367. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02500.x.
- ^ Dubach, J.; Patterson, B.D.; Briggs, M.B.; Venzke, K.; Flamand, J.; Stander, P.; Scheepers, L.; Kays, R.W. (2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.
- ^ Southern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. melanochaita), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03
Source
The article currently states "In Sudan, lions were reported in Southern Darfur and Southern Kordofan provinces in the 1980s." I can't find were the sources support this. This was added recently. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- See Chardonnet (2002). If that ref is missing, please add it, should have ref name=Chardonnet2002. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Its there on my screen. It doesn't mention Sudan or the provinces. LittleJerry (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay I guess your using the maps in Riggio et. al. for the provinces, but I don't see a map for Chardonnet (2002). LittleJerry (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Don't you have a search function in your pdf viewer. See page 57!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, okay. The wayback link only goes down to page 27 (for me at least) and the original link is dead. I'd take your word for it that the info is there. LittleJerry (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the info is there, a pers. comm. of the author in 1985. Do you think I would invent this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, sources could have gotten mixed up. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The newly classified subspecies
Before 2017, plenty of subspecies of lions, especially the Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo) and Cape lion (Panthera leo melanochaita),[1][2][3] were recognised, then in 2017, the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies of lions, besides for other felid species, and recognised the subspecies Panthera leo leo (for lions in Northern, Western and (northern) Central Africa and Asia) and Panthera leo melanochaita (for lions in Eastern and Southern Africa), but put a question mark over the Horn of Africa in a map on Page 72, saying that the two subspecies come into contact in Ethiopia,[4] and this is apparently due to the fact that lions in Ethiopia and other northern parts of East Africa are genetically mixed between clades belonging to two subspecies.[5] meaning that subspecies of African lions are not fully resolved by the Cat Specialist Group as of now. Aside from that, when people say Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita, they would often mean the Barbary and Cape populations, not always the newly classified subspecies, which I named the "Northern lion" and "Southern lion", using this[6] and this[7] from the iNaturalist. I ask, what is the point of having the trinomina Panthera leo leo and Panthera le melanochaita as articles of their own when:
1) People use them to refer to the Barbary and Cape populations of lions, therefore
2) We need to be able to call the new subspecies with names, as in, what do you call a Panthera leo leo lion if not a "Northern lion", and what do you call a Panthera leo melanochaita lion if not a "Southern lion"? "Panthera leo leo lion" and "Panthera leo melanochaita lion" are unusual for proper names, and I had earlier used "Leonine" and "Melanochaitan" to describe lions belonging to the two newly classified subspecies, due to a lack of names for them, other than "Northern lion"[6] and "Southern lion".[7] Leo1pard (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A common name is a name that is COMMONLY used in scientific and popular publications about an organism. If you or the owner of a website invents a name for an organism, this doesn't make it a common name! 'Northern' lion and 'Southern' lion have NOT been used in ANY scientific publication since the revision of lion taxonomy was published in April 2017. Hence, they are NOT common names. A multitude of species and subspecies were not given common names by respective authorities. For such cases, the Latin, i.e. scientific name is used. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- They may not be common names now, but that's not the only point. As it is, the 2017 revision was recent, you still need to be able to name those subspecies, to avoid confusion. The Barbary and Cape lions are not the newly classified subspecies, so what are you supposed to call them? Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
They 'may not' only be, but ARE NOT common names now. What exactly confuses you about Barbary lion and Cape lion? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just as I was not confused about what I was talking about here (the tigers were not the point of what I was saying, but you could not understand what I was talking about), I am not confused about the Barbary and Cape lions, which are populations of lions whose common names were used a lot in scientific literature in the context of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita respectively, before the reclassification, I am asking you a question. What are you supposed to call a Northern lion if not a "Northern lion",[6] and what are you supposed to call a Southern lion if not "Southern lion"?[7] Leo1pard (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I answered your last question already on 29 Aug 15:41, see above bolded for you: if the respective authority did not give a common name, the Latin name is used. Neither you nor the owner of a website are authorities for inventing or giving common names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Common names have been used, and they are "Barbary lion" (or other names like "Atlas lion") and "Cape lion", but these are specific populations whose trinomina have been used for the 2 subspecies. What are you supposed to call the subspecies to help people distinguish them from the populations, other than the ones used by the iNaturalist?[6][7] Leo1pard (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
See again my reply from 29 Aug. The names Barbary lion + Cape lion have been COMMONLY used in scientific and popular publications for decades, for at least 10-15. And that is why they are COMMON NAMES: they have been coined long time ago. Today, with the changed understanding of the geographical range of the 2 subspecies, the only unambiguous names for them are their Latin names!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- The 2 newly recognised subspecies overlap in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, according to the Cat Specialist Group,[4] unlike the Barbary and Cape populations, which were geographically separated by thousands of kilometres, and the CSG could not decide where to put lions in this region, meaning that unless you accept these lions are mixed between Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita,[5] there is ambiguity as to whether these lions should be classified as Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita (which made the CSG put a question mark over the Horn of Africa), so the understanding of the subspecies of lions is not yet complete in that perspective, and the iNaturalist[6][7] warned that whereas common names vary by geography (and this can apply to "Serengeti lion"[8] for lions in the Serengeti subregion of East Africa, and "Kalahari lion"[9][10] for lions in the Kalahari subregion of Southern Africa), scientific names change from time to time, and that people are not likely to prefer scientific names (which are in Latin) to common names, especially as nobody or few people today would speak Latin, the CSG said that though they did recognise 2 subspecies, morphological diagnoses were currently unknown (and the work of Bertola et al. (2016)[5] is one of the studies that influenced what the CSG presented on the subspecies, another being the work of Barnett et al. in 2016),[11] and the IUCN said in 2016[12] that its recognition of the same was based on the work of Barnett et al., but that the work of Barnett et al.[11] is based only on mtDNA and that it could reflect female philopatry, not male philopatry, and that reminds me of the issue of lions in the Central African countries of Gabon and the Republic of Congo being maternally (but not necessarily paternally) related to lions in Southern Africa,[13] which is an issue, because the CSG subsumed lions in Central Africa to the Northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), not the Southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),[4] meaning that whether lions in Central Africa and northern parts of East Africa are Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita has not been fully resolved by the CSG's revision of subspecies of lions in 2017. In addition, we have been missing something here. Bertola et al. actually used the names Northern and Southern for the 2 subspecies,[5] so the iNaturalist is not alone in calling the 2 subspecies 'Northern'[6] and 'Southern'.[6] Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
And I see that the use of 'Northern' and 'Southern' for the subspecies is spreading. Leo1pard (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- The names Northern lion and Southern lion are logical, but they are not established common names. They have only being used by iNaturalist. Bertola et al (2016) variously refered to them as the northern and southern subspecies or lineages or populations, but these were descriptions, not proposed names. Even if they were proposing a name, scientific publications don't determine common names, usage does.
- On the other hand, using the trinomials for the article titles seems strange for such well known animals as lions. The problem is that Wikipedia requires sources. iNaturalist is not a particularly reliable source and in this case cites the US Fisheries and Wildlife Service.[14] The USFWS recommends dividing the lion into two subspecies based on the preliminary IUCN Cat Classification Task Force proposal (which has since been published), but they refer to the two subspecies by the scientific names throughout. Wikipedia naming guidelines suggest we should do the same for now. Jts1882 | talk 13:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jts1882!! I performed two searches for 'Northern lion' and 'Southern lion': 1) within Bertola et al. (2011 and 2016): they clearly refrained from coining vernacular names for the described clades; 2) in search engines: not a single publication refers to any of the two. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- If reliable scientific publications are not enough to name the subspecies, but usage amongst people is, then I found a fourth website, which not only makes use of the phrase "northern lion", but also "northern subspecies", besides 'southern' for other lions. Like I said, I saw the usage of 'Northern' and 'Southern' spreading. Leo1pard (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have however noticed something about the Southern subspecies. Names like "Southeast African lion"[15] or "East and Southern African lion"[16] have been used, and they can apply to the southern subspecies as it is recognised as comprising lions in Eastern and Southern Africa.[4] Leo1pard (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Surprise. John George Wood, using capital letters, referred to the Barbary lion as the "Northern Lion", and described the Cape or Southern African lion as its "Southern relative", in 1865![17] Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- What you FAILED TO NOTICE is that ALL these publications date to before revision of lion taxonomy (2017), hence are names for Panthera leo melanochaita and P. l. leo populations, respectively, but NOT for the subspecies as understood since 2017!! You created at least 20 pages with invalid and uncommon names for lions that only contain redirects to other pages with invalid names that you created. You seem to be quite fixated on names. What a waste of time and space, imo, to discuss this for daaayys on end! BhagyaMani (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, I did not fail to notice that, and I know that though the CSG did name felid species, they did not name any subspecies of felids, but that does not change the fact that they were named beforehand, how many times do I have to debunk what you say or do? Leo1pard (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- As it is, the trinomina used by the CSG for the subspecies do not solve everything. For example, there is ambiguity regarding lions in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa,[4] because two clades of lions that were related to the Northern (P. l. leo) and Southern (P. l. melanochaita) subspecies were found to be there,[5] meaning that you cannot simply classify them under either P. l. leo or P. l. melanochaita, and it is not just this population of lions for which the CSG's taxonomic revision cannot be easily applied. Certain Central African lions were found to be related to the Southern[13] subspecies (P. l. melanochaita), so if the CSG meant that all lions in Central Africa should be subsumed to P. l. leo, or all in East Africa (particularly the Horn of Africa) should be subsumed to P. l. melanochaita, then they were wrong, because genetic assessments, including those they they referenced to come up with the revision, do not support those, and the lion is not the only felid species which they had trouble with, in recognising subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- On the Central African lions the CSG is clear. The population defined in the molecular studies as Central African lions belong to the northern subspecies. However, this population is confined to the northern part of Central Africa. Not all lions in the geographical or geopolitical region called Central Africa are part of this population. The south-western population of the southern subspecies extends into the southern part of the Central Africa region. The tropical rainforest acts as a clear biogeographical barrier for lions, unlike the situation in Ethiopia where the lion populations may overlap. Jts1882 | talk 10:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- More specifically, lions in the northern part of Central Africa,[4] but even then, lions in the area of Virunga National Park, which is the northeastern part of the DRC, and is adjacent to Queen Elizabeth National Park in the East African country of Uganda, were found to be related to the Southern subspecies, which comprises the Haplotype 15,[5] and the Central African lions referred to in the study by Barnett et al. as being at least maternally related to Southern African lions were from the northern Central African countries of Gabon and the Republic of the Congo,[13] so even for northern Central African lions, there should be caution as to which lions belong to the Northern and Southern subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
And the names of the Eastern and Southern African populations continue to be used, like here, though caution should be made regarding those in the northern part of East Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
And I still see it as the case of you wanting them to have only what you want them to have, and things like this, and your comments above about the proper names existing before the CSG's revision or using scientific names, are in contrast to what you've done for members of other species, like here, where you were happy to use a proper name, even if it was used before the CSG's revision, and that was a huge comment using multiple sources about the name of a particular subspecies, and it's not like I couldn't do something similar for the lions, that is, using this reference[16] to merge the names of two populations that had been used often. Leo1pard (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
It is an undeniable fact that melanochaita has been used since 1842, i.e. 176 years now. No other name has been established as long for the leopard in this geographical range!! Vernacular names used in newspaper articles are not relevant, they come and go. Scientific names don't change as frequently, but are long-lasting. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Self-contradiction, Melanochaita was used for a population of lions in the 19th century, and likewise orientalis for a population of leopards at around the same time, in the 19th century, and then both melanochaita and orientalis were applied to broader populations of lions and leopards respectively, due to revisions of subspecies,[4] but that did not stop you from using a proper name for the leopard, but you're complaining about using proper names for the lions. Leo1pard (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Though it was different to what I had done, I decided to respect your attempt to name that page on the leopard subspecies P. p. orientalis as "Far Eastern leopard", seeing its use in literature, so now, Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should be redirected to Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, for similar reasons. Leo1pard (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You were keen on calling P. p. orientalis with a proper name, and I follow the same policy, but you don't? Leo1pard (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't care how frequently you change page titles and move content from one to the other. And will refrain from editing any of the lion pages that you created and moved back and forth in the past few weeks. Fact is that neither Bertola et al. (2016) nor Kitchener et al. (2017) introduced and proposed vernacular names for the 2 recognised subspecies. None of the various names that you used in the past weeks have been established in scientific literature since 2016, hence are not common names: I strongly advise you read this definition. As Jts1882 already pointed out with reference to Wikipedia naming guidelines that in such a case should scientific names be used throughout. BTW: the name 'Amur leopard' is a long-established vernacular name for this leopard subspecies, hence a common name. I'm tired of this ridiculous discussion with you on names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
1) Amongst others things, the link that you sent me says "A common name is sometimes frequently used, but that is by no means always the case.[18]"
2) This reference[18] says that common names may be specific to certain places, and that they lack universality.
3) Names, like those of the eastern and southern populations of lions are commonly used,[15][19][20][21] and indeed, Bauer et al. had used "East and Southern African lion",[16]Bauer, H.; Chardonnet, P.; Nowell, K. (December 2005), Status and distribution of the lion (Panthera leo) in East and Southern Africa (PDF), Johannesburg, South Africa: East and Southern African lion Conservation Workshop, retrieved 2018-09-03</ref>
4) Like Jts1882 said, it also depends on usage. From what I see, after scientific names like orientalis and melanochaita in the 19th century, came names like "Amur leopard" and "Northern lion", and whereas the earliest use of "Amur leopard" that I see dates back to 1910, the names of the Northern and Southern lions date back to 1865,[17] and since then, a number of publications like that of Bertola et al.[5] have referred to the currently described subspecies using the words 'northern' and 'southern' (though the names of the eastern and southern populations havebeen used to the extent that I prefer to keep the other name), so firstly, the names that I used for the 2 subspecies are names from literature, and secondly, they have increasingly widespread application.
5) The names "Northern lion" and "Southern lion" are more common than you think, that[17] was not the only book that I found on their names, so redirect Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita back to Northern lion and East-Southern African lion. Leo1pard (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
As stated here, people are interested in specific information like regarding what an East African lion is,[15][19][20][21] or indeed, an Eastern-Southern African lion,[22] the recent revision of subspecies involving the use of scientific names (which was not fully resolved for lions the Horn of Africa by the Cat Specialist Group as of 2017)[4] does not necessarily affect that, people are quite likely to use proper names rather than scientific names (which are in Latin, a language that is not commonly used today), and these are not mere repetitions of what is already, for example, this article does not say who first used the name "Northern lion" or when,[17] and Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should be shifted to the more detailed articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, respectively. Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Before I can show you books or publications on names, an idea that I had was to redirect these subspecies to African lion, with adjustments for the Asiatic lion, like its taxonomic history. Leo1pard (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like I need to show you them, like this.[23] Leo1pard (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, we should not have 2 articles for each of the two newly described subspecies. Whereas my creation of the pages Northern lion and Southern lion (now named East-Southern African lion for a reason mentioned here) was due to an earlier discussion regarding the 2 newly classified subspecies, the turning of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita from being redirects to Barbary lion and Cape lion, to articles of their own, which are to an extent based on Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, was not based on any discussion in any relevant talk-page, before Panthera leo leo got turned into an article and I could see what would eventually happen to Panthera leo melanochaita, after which I discussed it here. As for African lion, I turned it into an article, and mentioned it here, so as to have a second option regarding the merger, because I had difficulty in getting Panthera leo leo merged with Northern lion, and Panthera leo melanochaita merged with East-Southern African lion, despite talking about it for some time. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Now, East African lion and Southern African lion have been reconverted into articles, with Panthera leo melanochaita a stub that links to both. Leo1pard (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Lion". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–95. ISBN 978-90-04-08876-4.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - ^ Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
- ^ a b c d e f g Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b c d e f g Northern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. leo), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03
- ^ a b c d e Southern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. melanochaita), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03
- ^ Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti lion: A study of predator–prey relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-73639-6.
- ^ Roberts, A. (1948). "Descriptions of some new subspecies of mammals". Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 21 (1): 63–69.
- ^ "Kalahari xeric savanna". Worldwildife.org. 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-27.
- ^ a b Barnett, Ross; Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki; Shapiro, Beth; Ho, Simon Y. W.; Barnes, Ian; Sabin, Richard; Werdelin, Lars; Cuisin, Jacques; Larson, Greger (2014). "Revealing the maternal demographic history of Panthera leo using ancient DNA and a spatially explicit genealogical analysis". 70 (14). BMC Evolutionary Biology. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-14-70. Retrieved 2018-08-31.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Template:IUCN
- ^ a b c Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1−8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2. Cite error: The named reference "Barnettetal2018" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ US Fisheries and Wildlife Service. "Listing Two Lion Subspecies; Final rule" (PDF). Federal Register. 80 (24): 80000–80056.
- ^ a b c Jackson, D. (2010). "Introduction". Lion. London: Reaktion Books. pp. 1–21. ISBN 1861897359.
- ^ a b c Bauer, H.; Chardonnet, P.; Nowell, K. (December 2005), Status and distribution of the lion (Panthera leo) in East and Southern Africa (PDF), Johannesburg, South Africa: East and Southern African lion Conservation Workshop, retrieved 2018-09-03
- ^ a b c d Wood, John George (1865). "Felidæ; or the Cat Tribe". The illustrated natural history. Boradway, Ludgate Hill, New York City: Routledge. p. 147.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - ^ a b Kruckeberg, Arthur (1991). The Natural History of Puget Sound Country – Appendix I: The naming of plants and animals. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97477-4.
- ^ a b "What Will It Take to Save the East African Lion from Extinction? Hunting or Herding?". Africa Geographic. 2013-05-13.
- ^ a b Kaplan, Sarah (2016-11-02). "Teddy Roosevelt shot this lion 107 years ago. The world is about to see it again". The Washington Post. Bangor Daily.
- ^ a b Kamoga, J. (2018). "East African lions dying of poisoning". The Observer. Retrieved 2018-02-24.
- ^ Barnett, R.; Yamaguchi, N.; Barnes, I.; Cooper, A. (2006). "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1598): 2119–2125. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3555. PMC 1635511. PMID 16901830. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2007.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Beolens, B.; Watkins, M.; Grayson, M. (2009-10-07). The Eponym Dictionary of Mammals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 110. ISBN 0-8018-9533-2.
A whole series of edits regarding populations and subspecies
Despite talking to him since last year, BhagyaMani has once again made a lot of misleading edits regarding populations of lions. For example, 1) A number of Central African lions (particularly the Congo lion (formerly Panthera leo azandica) are of southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),[2] whereas others, such as the Cameroon lion (formerly Panthera leo kamptzi) are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo),[3][4] but BhagyaMani has insisted again and again that Central African lions are P. l. leo and not P. l. melanochaita. 2) The northern and southern subspecies are both present in northern parts of East Africa, particularly Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, and likely overlap there, but BhagyaMani would make it look as if for example Ethiopian and Somali lions are of the southern subspecies. 3) That all Congo lions are Southern African lions, even though the Democratic Republic of the Congo is in Central Africa. 4) That the Nubian lion (formerly P. l. nubica), from a region that is shared between Egypt and Sudan in Northeast Africa, is the same as the Barbary lion (P. l. leo) of the Maghreb. That is like saying that Sudanese lions are Barbary lions.
This is a list of formerly described subspecies, and note that Dubach et al.[5] said that nine subspecies were recognised in East Africa alone!
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Barbary lion (P. l. leo), also called the "Atlas lion", "Berber lion" or "North African lion" | Formerly found in the Maghreb, this is the nominate lion subspecies from North Africa. It is extinct in the wild due to excessive hunting; the last, known Barbary lion in the wilderness was killed in Morocco in 1920.[6][7] This was regarded as being one of the largest subspecies,[8] with reported lengths of 3.0–3.3 m (9.8–10.8 ft) and weights of more than 200 kg (440 lb) for males. Besides West and certain Central African lions, it is more closely related to the Asiatic lion than to other African lions.[3] A number of animals in captivity are likely to be Barbary lions,[9] particularly the 90 animals descended from the Moroccan Royal collection at Rabat Zoo.[10] |
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Asiatic lion (P. l. persica), also known as "Indian lion" or "Persian lion" | Is found in Gir Forest National Park of northwestern India. Once was widespread from Turkey, across Southwest Asia, to India and Pakistan,[11] now 523 exist in and near the Gir Forest in the Saurashtran region of Gujarat.[12][13] Genetic evidence suggests its ancestors split from the ancestors of sub-Saharan African lions between 203 and 74 thousand years ago.[14] Its closest relatives are North and West-Central African lions.[3] Subforms were referred to as the "Bengal lion" (P. l. bengalensis), "Persian lion" or "[15][16]
Southern Europe: Formerly Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
|
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Senegal lion (P. l. senegalensis), also known as "West African lion" | Found in West Africa.[17][18] It is currently listed as critically endangered, as of 2015.
West Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana,[19] Mali, Nigeria, Niger and Senegal |
|
Gambian lion (P. l. gambianus) | Formerly found in the Gambia.[20] |
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Cameroon lion (P. l. kamptzi) | Found in Cameroon and the region south of Lake Chad, in Central or Western Africa.[21] | |
Northeast Congo lion (P. l. azandica), or simply the "Congo lion" | Found in the northeastern parts of the Congo, adjacent to Uganda.[17] It is currently extinct in Rwanda.
Central Africa:[22] (Democratic Republic of the Congo) |
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Nubian lion (P. l. nubica) | From Nubia in Northeast Africa.[23] | |
Somali lion (P. l. somaliensis syn. P. l. webbiensis | From Somaliland or Somalia, East Africa.[24][25] | |
Masai lion (P. l. massaica) | Found in East Africa, from Ethiopia and Kenya to Tanzania and Mozambique;[18] a local population is known as the "Tsavo lion". | |
Ethiopian lion (P. l. roosevelti syn. P. l. abyssinica), also known as "Abyssinian lion" and "Addis Ababa lion" | 15 captive lions in the Addis Ababa Zoo.[26] Researchers compared the microsatellite variations over ten loci of fifteen lions in captivity with those of six different wild lion populations. They determined that these lions are genetically unique and presumably that "their wild source population is similarly unique." These lions were part of a collection of the late Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia.[27]
Northeast Africa: (Ethiopia) |
|
Kilimanjaro lion (P. l. sabakiensis) | From the northern vicinity of Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa.[28] | |
Ugandan lion (P. l. nyanzae) | Found in Uganda, East Africa.[21] | |
Sotik lion (P. l. hollisteri), also known as "Hollister's lion" or "Lake Victoria lion" | Found on the eastern bank of Lake Victoria in Kenya, East Africa.[21] |
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Cape lion (P. l. melanochaita) | Formerly found from the Cape Province to Natal, South Africa.[29][30] | |
Katanga lion (P. l. bleyenberghi), also known as the "Angola lion", "Bleyenbergh's lion" or "Southwest African lion" | Found in southwestern Africa. It is among the largest populations of African lions. The type specimen was from Katanga in what in what used to be the Belgian Congo in central Africa.[24][31]
Central Africa: Formerly Katanga (Congo-Kinshasa) Southern Africa: Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe[18] |
|
Kruger lion (P. l. krugeri), also known as the "Southeast African lion", "South African lion" or "Transvaal lion" | Found in the Transvaal region of southeast Africa, including Kruger National Park.[18]
Southern Africa: (Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe) |
|
Kalahari lion (P. l. vernayi) | Found in the Kalahari Region of Southern Africa.[21] |
Leo1pard (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Casliber Even if it is unnecessary for the main page, it is for this talk-page, because, despite making several attempts to talk to BhagyaMani about the error of his ways (for example, [5], [6], [7] and [8]), BhagyaMani has a habit of ignoring what I try to talk to him about, and making several edits that reflect a WP:biased understanding of lions, for instance, insisting that all lions in the Central African country of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are Southern African lions, and after my first edit, at first trying to hide the relationship between Asiatic lions and West African lions, and saying that the name of the Central African lion did not exist in any of the sources that I provided, when in fact I already gave him one sources that did, which is this.[32] Leo1pard (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I would prefer that discussion on article talk pages be restricted to improvement of the article, there is guidance at the top of this page on avoiding the confusion and disruption that is often generated in personalising them.
My opinion [think what you will of me] is that reliable sources only associate vernacular with the systematic names they have preferred since Linnaeus, it follows they are the most common name and the often fascinating history of what the organism has been called in English sources—the 'common names'—can be discussed in the article. The notion that one of the latter can replace the systematic name either slightly or greatly falls foul of core policies on sourcing and pov. If this article were moved to Panthera leo, the verifiable name in English (and other languages [which is good, no?]), the other names can be directly attributable to sources [not talk page discussions] and the reader directed to appropriate content via the current understanding of its subpopulations. That is what we are doing here, as I understand editing, and would prefer that we avoid any involvement and investment in assigning another name to replace and suppress the systematic one. Read any good book on animals and they will propound a similar sentiment in their introduction to their own use of nomenclature and taxonomy. — cygnis insignis 08:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. In case there is a barnstar for finding the title, I'm going with Taxonomy of Panthera leo, although Taxonomy of Panthera sounds more interesting to me. My view is that 'taxonomy', as defined elsewhere [OED], also includes discussion of non-systematic names that arise; thorough sources often set aside a paragraph on who named an organism what, and when, and why [it is sociologically interesting, if nothing else]. A split to a new article may solve anything that may emerge as undesirable content forking, with a broader scope to elaborate on what has been proposed and accepted in notable sources. — cygnis insignis 11:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment. With respect to the FAR I think there is a good case to review any article after a decade and thousands of edits. However, most of the issues with this article concern the subspecies and populations. This is a large article so only a short section on subspecies is necessary, with a mention that there have been many subspecies recognised in the past but current thinking only recognises two subspecies and some significant populations worth conserving within them. Then the details can go in a Subspecies of lion article, along the lines of Subspecies of Canis lupus. That way the historical and current thinking can be presented in more detail, along with the status of extinct lions as possible subspecies. I think this would include the information in an efficient and practical way and minimise potential disruption to the featured article. My position on the common names and populations can be found elsewhere and is more relevant to the broader discussion of lion articles that is sorely needed. Jts1882 | talk 08:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I fully agree with Cygnis insignis and Jts1882!! I had earlier tried to explain that there is no common name (yet) for the subspecies as redefined in 2017, see section #The newly classified subspecies, where I was repeatedly pinged. I searched libraries and internet for names like 'Northern lion', 'Southern lion', 'East-Southern lion', results: 0 scientific publication using any of these. I had also proposed possible solutions to end the dispute on lion taxonomy, see Talk:Panthera_leo_leo#Solution?, including a page titled Lion taxonomy. But alas to no avail. True of course also is that there is plenty of scientific sources about lion ecology, behaviour, threats and conservation issues that have not been addressed in the mainspace yet. So I find it rather ridiculous to spend so much time on history of taxonomy and use of names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I have found names like "Eastern-Southern African lion".[33] Cygnis insignis I would also like to say that there is an issue with the revision of subspecies by the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group: Uncertainty. They expressed uncertainty over subspecies of lions, besides subspecies of other felid species. Though they said that they currently recognised 2 subspecies, Panthera leo leo (referred to as the 'northern' subspecies by people like Bertola et al.) for lions in North, West and Central Africa and Asia, and Panthera leo melanochaita (referred to as the 'southern' subspecies by people like Bertola et al.) for lions in Eastern and Southern Africa, they admitted on Page 72 that "morphological diagnoses are currently unknown," and in the map with the caption "Distribution of subspecies of lion", they put a question mark over Ethiopia, which is in the Horn of Africa, a northern subregion of East Africa, saying that the contact zone between the 2 subspecies is somewhere in that country,[4] and this is based on the work of Bertola et al.,[3] which suggests that the northeastern clade of the southern subspecies overlaps with the central clade of the northern subspecies in Ethiopia and Somalia in the Horn of Africa, and possibly northern parts of Kenya and Uganda, to form a genetically mixed population of lions, or at least that both subspecies are present in Ethiopia and this part of Africa.[34] Leo1pard (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Leo1pard: I am not clear on why I was pinged here? These appear to be sources about what is known about the population and where uncertainty still lays, whatever improvement is being proposed is clouded by an unproductive and adversarial debate. — cygnis insignis 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- To put it simply, there is a big problem with the taxonomy of the lion, besides for other felid species, that is uncertainty, so the use of the scientific names isn't always going to be helpful. See the question mark that they used in Page 72.[4]
- @Leo1pard: forget the common names. As there appears to be confusion and a lack of consensus, any attempt to define a consensus (especially with the redefined subspecies) would be OR. So they should not be focussed on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have gone through the various references, and I can tell you that what I've said about is not OR. For example, the Cat Specialist Group used a question mark regarding their classification of subspecies of lions,[4] and that's why I've been cautioning BhagyaMani about classifying populations that were found to be related to both the northern and southern subspecies, that is the Central African[2] and Northeast African populations,[3][34] against treating them as belonging to one subspecies each. Leo1pard (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- And Casliber, I have decided to avoid editing this article for the time being, because of the discussion, but you have used this opportunity to remove valid links including Panthera shawi? Leo1pard (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seealso lists are generally a bad idea - in about 99% of cases, either the item is linked enough to be discussed in the article or remote enough that it is irrelevant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't according to the rules, this is an WP:opinion. Leo1pard (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OPINION is about including points of view in articles. It is not relevant to opinions on talk pages about should and shouldn't go in articles. That is one purpose of talk pages. However, I agree that Wikipedia policy does not say "see also" sections are a bad idea (although they are discouraged in medical sections). MOS:SEEALSO states 'one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics', i.e. that the section can contain links to indirectly related material that is not readily incorporated in the article. I think where possible it is better to include them as hatnotes in relevant sections. If no section is relevant enough, the relevance of the link should be questioned. This is subjective, though. Jts1882 | talk 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly - occasionally I find things worth sticking in a seealso section but it is pretty rare. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with that. I read 'See also' sections as content that might be incorporated into an article, and remove items in those when I have done that [or consider it off-topic]. They have a place in undeveloped articles, and I prefer any exception (eg, "copyright") to be directed from the 'External links' section of a peer reviewed article. — cygnis insignis 12:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OPINION is about including points of view in articles. It is not relevant to opinions on talk pages about should and shouldn't go in articles. That is one purpose of talk pages. However, I agree that Wikipedia policy does not say "see also" sections are a bad idea (although they are discouraged in medical sections). MOS:SEEALSO states 'one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics', i.e. that the section can contain links to indirectly related material that is not readily incorporated in the article. I think where possible it is better to include them as hatnotes in relevant sections. If no section is relevant enough, the relevance of the link should be questioned. This is subjective, though. Jts1882 | talk 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't according to the rules, this is an WP:opinion. Leo1pard (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seealso lists are generally a bad idea - in about 99% of cases, either the item is linked enough to be discussed in the article or remote enough that it is irrelevant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not like articles like Panthera shawi are unrelated to this. Leo1pard (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
refs
References
- ^ Joseph, Albright (2018-06-13). "Original MGM lion rests in N.J. & other historical tidbits". Newjersey.com. Retrieved 2018-06-13.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ a b Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2.
- ^ a b c d e Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b c d Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 71–73. ISSN 1027-2992.
- ^ Dubach, J.; Patterson, B. D.; Briggs, M. B.; Venzke, K.; Flamand, J.; Stander, P.; Scheepers, L.; Kays, R. W. (2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.
- ^ Nowell, K.; Jackson, P. (1996). "Panthera Leo". Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–21, 37–41. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
- ^ Black, S. A.; Fellous, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Roberts, D. L. (2013). "Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation". PLoS ONE. 8 (4): e60174. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...860174B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060174. PMC 3616087. PMID 23573239.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Yadav, P. R. (2004). Vanishing And Endangered Species. Discovery Publishing House. pp. 176–78. ISBN 81-7141-776-0. Retrieved 14 December 2010.
- ^ Burger, Joachim; Hemmer, Helmut (2006). "Urgent call for further breeding of the relic zoo population of the critically endangered Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo Linnaeus 1758)" (PDF). European Journal of Wildlife Research. 52: 54–58. doi:10.1007/s10344-005-0009-z.
- ^ Black, Simon; Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki; Harland, Adrian; Groombridge, Jim (2010). "Maintaining the genetic health of putative Barbary lions in captivity: an analysis of Moroccan Royal Lions". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 56: 21–31. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0280-5.
- ^ "Asiatic Lion—History". Asiatic Lion Information Centre. Wildlife Conservation Trust of India. 2006. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
- ^ Singh, H. S.; Gibson, L. (2011). "A conservation success story in the otherwise dire megafauna extinction crisis: The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) of Gir forest". Biological Conservation. 144 (5): 1753–1757. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.009.
- ^ Meena, V. (2016), Wildlife and human impacts in the Gir landscape. In: Agrawal, P.K., Verghese, A., Radhakrishna, S. and Subaharan, K. (eds)., Human Animal Conflict in Agro-Pastoral Context: Issues & Policies, New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research
- ^ Burger, J.; Rosendahl, W.; Loreille, O.; Hemmer, H.; Eriksson, T.; Götherström, A.; Hiller, J.; Collins, M. J.; Wess, T.; Alt, K. W. (2004). "Molecular phylogeny of the extinct cave lion Panthera leo spelaea" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30 (3): 841–849. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.020. PMID 15012963. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2007. Retrieved 20 September 2007.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
- ^ Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
- ^ a b Sunquist, M. E. and Sunquist, F. C. (2009). Family Felidae (Cats). In: Don E. Wilson, Russell A. Mittermeier (eds.): Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 1: Carnivores. Lynx Edicions, 2009, ISBN 978-84-96553-49-1, pp. 137 ff.
- ^ a b c d Macdonald, David Wayne (2006). The Encyclopedia of Mammals. pp. 628–635. ISBN 0-87196-871-1.
- ^ F. M. Angelici; A. Mahama; L. Rossi (20 July 2015). "The lion in Ghana: its historical and current status" (PDF). Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. 38.2: 151–162. Retrieved 26 February 2016.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) - ^ Gray, J. E. (1843). List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
- ^ a b c d Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Lion". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–95. ISBN 978-90-04-08876-4.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - ^ "United Nations Statistics Division- Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications (M49)". un.org.
- ^ Hemmer, H. (1974). "Untersuchungen zur Stammesgeschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae) Teil 3. Zur Artgeschichte des Löwen Panthera (Panthera) leo (Linnaeus, 1758)". Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung (in German). 17: 167–280.
- ^ a b Haas, S. K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P. R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Allen, J. A. (1924). "Carnivora Collected By The American Museum Congo Expedition". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 47: 73–281.
- ^ "A New, Genetically Distinct Lion Population is Found". News Watch. National Geographic Society. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2013.
The Addis Ababa zoo lions have dark manes and small bodies, unlike other African lions. But life in captivity can sometimes influence appearance. A team of researchers, led by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and the University of York in the UK, checked to see if the lions really are different by comparing DNA samples of 15 lions from the zoo to six populations of wild lions. Their genetic analysis revealed that the gene sequence of all fifteen lions were unique and showed little sign of inbreeding.
- ^ Bruche, S.; Gusset, M.; Lippold, S.; Barnett, R.; Eulenberger, K.; Junhold, J.; Driscoll, C. A.; Hofreiter, M. (2012). "A genetically distinct lion (Panthera leo) population from Ethiopia". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 59 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0668-5.
- ^ Lönnberg, E. (1910). "Mammals". In Sjöstedt, Y. (ed.). Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Zoologischen Expedition nach dem Kilimandjaro, dem Meru und den umgebenden Massaisteppen Deutsch-Ostafrikas 1905–1906. Volume 1. Uppsala: Königlich Schwedische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
- ^ Allen, G. M. (1939). "A Checklist of African Mammals". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 83: 1–763.
- ^ Mazak, V. (1975). "Notes on the Black-maned Lion of the Cape, Panthera leo melanochaita (Ch. H. Smith, 1842) and a Revised List of the Preserved Specimens". Verhandelingen Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (64): 1–44.
- ^ Lönnberg, E. (1914). "New and rare mammals from Congo". Revue de Zoologie Africaine (3): 273–278.
- ^ Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
- ^ Barnett, R.; Yamaguchi, N.; Barnes, I.; Cooper, A. (2006). "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1598): 2119–2125. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3555. PMC 1635511. PMID 16901830. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2007.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Supporting Information: Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)
Removal of other referenced content
Casliber Before I can edit it, may I ask what is the meaning of this? I used this reference[1] to help to explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, I did add information regarding it, contrary to what you said. Leo1pard (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- For starters the book says "young elephants" not "even adult elephants", so the sentence you added does not match the source at all. And the sentences the new material splices are both referenced to the reference at the end of the sentence after. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
- It says that though it's usually young elephants that lions take, they can even team up to take down fully-grown ones,[1] and even Compion and Power said that though they usually preyed on young elephants, that was not always the case.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I missed the part in the book you supplied. Still, the book is likely getting its information from the article, so we're essentially using two refs for the same thing. Hence the second one is redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- We can't assume that the book is using the same reference, even if likely (I can't access the reference section of the book). If they are, the book is a secondary source so would be the preferred reference by wikipedia policy (WP:SECONDARY). I think both references should be included. The paragraph on lions and elephants is fairly clear about lions occasionally hunting adult elephants and the observation about the diet sometimes being 20% elephant meat is one worthy of inclusion.[3] Jts1882 | talk 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I missed the part in the book you supplied. Still, the book is likely getting its information from the article, so we're essentially using two refs for the same thing. Hence the second one is redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- It says that though it's usually young elephants that lions take, they can even team up to take down fully-grown ones,[1] and even Compion and Power said that though they usually preyed on young elephants, that was not always the case.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- For starters the book says "young elephants" not "even adult elephants", so the sentence you added does not match the source at all. And the sentences the new material splices are both referenced to the reference at the end of the sentence after. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
References
- ^ a b Sunquist, Fiona; Sunquist, Mel (2014-10-02). "Bibliography". The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats. China: University of Chicago Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-2261-4576-X.
- ^ Power, R. J.; Compion, R. X. S. (2009). "Lion predation on elephants in the Savuti, Chobe National Park, Botswana". African Zoology. 44 (1): 36–44. doi:10.3377/004.044.0104.
- ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZH6aBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=%22The%20Wild%20Cat%20Book%3A%20Everything%20You%20Ever%20Wanted%20to%20Know%20about%20Cats%22&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Wild%20Cat%20Book:%20Everything%20You%20Ever%20Wanted%20to%20Know%20about%20Cats%22&f=false
Request for comment: How many subpages?
Right, there has been some discussion at Talk:Panthera_leo_leo#Merge? and sections below it over what and how lion taxonomy is discussed on wikipedia. Right now we have:
- lion - a Featured Article (recently genetic research has reduced the subspecies from lots to just two)
- Panthera leo leo - a stubby article that is in effect a disambiguation page to:
- Panthera leo melanochaita - a stubby article that is in effect a disambiguation page to:
We also have:
- African lion
- Northern lion - synonymous with Panthera leo leo (???)
Note that we do not have a Taxonomy of lions or Lion conservation page.
Please, can as many folks as possible look over the pages involved and give opinions below onto which pages should be separate or upmerged or split or rearranged? Some options include moving all material into a Taxonomy of lions page, plus just the two subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- We also have Mixed lion populations. Template:Long line Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another superfluous page, in view of the efforts to reduce the number of lion subpages!! Most of this page's content is anyway odd ends copy-pasted from the meanwhile redirected African lion page, unnecessarily revisited. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- In that page that you call superfluous page, we can redirect Central lion as that population is genetically mixed between leo and melanochaita.[1] Also, the information in African lion doesn't exist anymore! Template:Long line Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another superfluous page, in view of the efforts to reduce the number of lion subpages!! Most of this page's content is anyway odd ends copy-pasted from the meanwhile redirected African lion page, unnecessarily revisited. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|last-author-amp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)
Discussion
The actual species of the Gaetulian lion is lost to history. It is noted in Greek and Roman classic texts based on where it is was captured rather than a species classification. We might reasonably speculate it is the Barbary lion due to the range location near the Roman Empire, but there are no sources. I would say it is unrelated to the rest more of a literary history article. -- GreenC 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, is it notable enough as a standalone or would it be best in a Cultural depictions of lions page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed lost to history. I have never seen a mention of this one in any modern publication on lion. So if it was only mentioned in classic texts, then it may make sense to shift the content in abbreviated form to the section 'cultural significance' of the lion mainpage, and delete Gaetulian lion? Shifting to 'Cultural depictions of lions' is also a good option. But is there a pic? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- A merge to the culture history article would create a weight problem, unless it was reduced to a sentence or two which is doable but loss of information. Possibly could copy the quotes to citations, Wiktionary, Wikiquote. Or some combo. -- GreenC 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- This option sounds fine with me, to reduce and export quotes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
A page titled Lion taxonomy is still my favourite, with info only about the historic purported subspecies that were described, in a list, not a table, without pics or at most a few old ones, but just who described when and on which basis. This info can be shifted there from the pages on Barbary, West African, Central African, etc. pages; and also include info about phylogeographic studies that are now repeated over and over again in the individual pages, but are surely worth being referenced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
American lion should be kept as a stand alone article, though the article itself needs updating to reflect it being currently treated as Panthera atrox, rather then Panthera leo atrox.--Kevmin § 03:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with both: stand alone and update. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
As I have said elsewhere, I do not desire to have articles for every described subspecies, but to keep the articles only for the regional populations, aside from the main article and those on prehistoric forms, and I agree with BhagyaMani about Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita being stubs with links to existing articles, or if necessary, shifting them to a new page under the heading 'taxonomy', and keeping that as perhaps a merger of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita, but as BhagyaMani said earlier, there is relevant material about lions that wouldn't fit under the heading 'Taxonomy' or 'Phylogeography', so for such material, I would prefer to keep it in the articles of the regional populations. Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Which populations would you have separate pages on? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- A few weeks ago, I had started to collate content from West African and Central African lion pages into one, namely under Panthera leo leo. But one or two editors disagreed, argueing that it's worthwhile to keep them separate, also because West African lion has been IUCN Red Listed differently than the species. Therefore, i also kept Southern African and East African lion separate, but only added ref'ed info there that is not in the mainspace page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was probably one of those editors. The Asiatic and West African lions are distinct conservation units and have been studied as distinct populations and/or subspecies since at least the early 1800s. Most scientific sources on morphology, ecology and bahaviour will refer to these lions rather than the new subspecies that subsumed them. At least for now it seems easier to keep them as separate articles, as they could yet be recognised as subspecies. If once the taxonomy has settled down the northern lion subspecies retains recognition, I wouldn't be adverse to merging the articles, although not keeping an article on the Asiatic lion would seem strange. A good sign of some stability in the taxonomy would be a common name for the subspecies.
- The division of the southern subspecies is not so straighforward as there are several competing hypothesis. The most strongly supported, iirc, is the southwestern, south-east and northeast division. Unfortunately, its not always clear which traditonal subspecies/populations belong to these genetic divisions. I suspect that if this had been clearer there would have been six subspecies recognised by the CatSG (based on what the authors write in their research papers). Because of the uncertainty, there might be a stronger case for one article on the southern subspecies to cover the populations recognised in different studies. Jts1882 | talk 15:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fully agree to also keep Asiatic lion page separate, as it contains sooo much valuable info that it would be herculian to try integrating this into lion mainpage. that way, will also be easier to update in future. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- As to Southern African and East African lion pages, I tend at present to also keep them separate, once because there is a host of publications out there that have not yet even been mentioned in these pages, and i expect more to come up in future, so that both will grow. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- A few weeks ago, I had started to collate content from West African and Central African lion pages into one, namely under Panthera leo leo. But one or two editors disagreed, argueing that it's worthwhile to keep them separate, also because West African lion has been IUCN Red Listed differently than the species. Therefore, i also kept Southern African and East African lion separate, but only added ref'ed info there that is not in the mainspace page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a slippery slope to have separate articles for something as diffuse and arbitrary as "populations". But it seems a similar problem has also just occurred with plains zebras, where traditional subspecies do not correlate to actual populations. Probably best with an article about lion taxonomy/subspecies where it can all be merged into, until the dust settles. There is probably not much unique to write about each subspecies other than their histories anyway. As for the American lion, it is hardly ever considered a subspecies of lion anymore, so it shouldn't be affected. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Due to the opposition that existed against all of this being in only 2 articles, what I was thinking was that these should be the articles:
- As BhagyaMani said, not all of the relevant information on the current lions can be merged under that heading, but I am hoping at least that it should be a merger of what is in Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita. Leo1pard (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
African lion (partly to include information that can't be easily accommodated in articles of the subpopulations of lions in Africa: Barbary lion, Cape lion, Central African lion, East African lion, West African lion, and Southern African lion, and to make it clear what the different clades are for example), Asiatic lion, and History of lions in Europe, aside from articles on prehistoric relatives like Panthera shawi and Panthera spelaea, and to keep relevant information about lions which doesn't fit under the heading "taxonomy" or "phylogeography"; there is far more to lions that has been studied than just taxonomy or phylogeography, or may be studied in the future to the extent that keeping them all in one place would be pointless, like BhagyaMani said. Leo1pard (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
(Only reordered sequence of replies to Cas Liber's question re separate pages chronologically. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC))
- Not every lion related article should be merged, obviously. The issue seems to be mainly the subspecies, none of which have particularly long articles anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think a different approach has to be taken to existing articles on concepts that have been in the scientific literature since Darwin's day and articles on new subjects. The Asiatic lion has been a subject of scientific study for centuries and its status as subspecies or population of a subspecies doesn't change the notability. If the lion was a newly described species then the two subspecies approach would clearly be the preferred approach (assuming enough material for several articles). If we go for lumping then the articles on the Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger would have to go, too. These subspecies divisions should also be treated as provisional as the next taxonomic revision might be written by splitters. However, as you suggest, the shorter articles would probably benefit from some merging. Jts1882 | talk 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Which ones do you consider the 'shorter' ones? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking generally rather than thinking of specific articles. I think a lot of the short ones have already been merged (e.g. Ugandan lion). The four under Panthera leo leo are all sufficiently long and clear on subject matter. Similarly the three under Panthera leo melanochaita seem of reasonable length, but I have sime misgivings over the split. Both the east and south african lion articles seem to overlap with the south/east African clade of Bertola et al (2016), although they follow the split of the same authors a year earlier and probably better reflect the historic literature of where regional studies took place. There isn't such a clear answer as for the northern subspecies. Jts1882 | talk 08:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Aah ok, I see; yes indeed, most of the pages on the old subspecies have been merged. There are currently some 40+ pages with regional and localised lion names that redirect to the African lion page. Re the two pages on melanochaita populations: these foremost merged the former Kalahari / Transvaal lion pages and the various former ones about lions in East Africa, respectively; both with some new info. They are not intentionally written along the clade lines of Bertola et al. (2016) and previous authors, but much more oriented to lion conservation efforts in these regions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- That merger history explains things and keeps text and sources more closely related. I think this arrangement is fine for now as conservation efforts are likely to drive future changes to the taxonomy. The quirk that you have some lions of the southwestern clade in Kruger National Park suggests that conservation is effecting the historical distribution of lions. Jts1882 | talk 09:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Aah ok, I see; yes indeed, most of the pages on the old subspecies have been merged. There are currently some 40+ pages with regional and localised lion names that redirect to the African lion page. Re the two pages on melanochaita populations: these foremost merged the former Kalahari / Transvaal lion pages and the various former ones about lions in East Africa, respectively; both with some new info. They are not intentionally written along the clade lines of Bertola et al. (2016) and previous authors, but much more oriented to lion conservation efforts in these regions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking generally rather than thinking of specific articles. I think a lot of the short ones have already been merged (e.g. Ugandan lion). The four under Panthera leo leo are all sufficiently long and clear on subject matter. Similarly the three under Panthera leo melanochaita seem of reasonable length, but I have sime misgivings over the split. Both the east and south african lion articles seem to overlap with the south/east African clade of Bertola et al (2016), although they follow the split of the same authors a year earlier and probably better reflect the historic literature of where regional studies took place. There isn't such a clear answer as for the northern subspecies. Jts1882 | talk 08:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Which ones do you consider the 'shorter' ones? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think a different approach has to be taken to existing articles on concepts that have been in the scientific literature since Darwin's day and articles on new subjects. The Asiatic lion has been a subject of scientific study for centuries and its status as subspecies or population of a subspecies doesn't change the notability. If the lion was a newly described species then the two subspecies approach would clearly be the preferred approach (assuming enough material for several articles). If we go for lumping then the articles on the Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger would have to go, too. These subspecies divisions should also be treated as provisional as the next taxonomic revision might be written by splitters. However, as you suggest, the shorter articles would probably benefit from some merging. Jts1882 | talk 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not every lion related article should be merged, obviously. The issue seems to be mainly the subspecies, none of which have particularly long articles anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Re the African lion page, I see the following issues that imo need to be addressed: 1) a large part of its content has been duplicated from the main lion page: the duplicate detector found 176 matching phrases, see dupdet results; 2) it contains 175 phrases duplicated from the West African lion page, see dupdet results; 3) and 221 duplicated from the Central African lion page, see dupdet results; 4) and 239 phrases duplicated from the Southern African lion page, see dupdet results; 5) and 226 phrases duplicated from the East African lion page, see dupdet results; 6) and 167 phrases duplicated from the Cape lion page, see dupdet results; 7) and 210 phrases duplicated from the Barbary lion page, see dupdet results; 8) the edit history indicates that none of the duplicated content has been WP:PATTed. Even if all the references used are deducted from the dupdet results, there is still a substantial amount of content that is already available in the main lion page and subpages. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Much of the 'duplicate' stuff are actually details of references like that of Bertola et al. or commonly used words or phrases like "extinction" and "East and Southern Africa", otherwise, there are major differences between what is in that page and the other ones. Leo1pard (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, what about northern lion and Panthera leo leo - these seem synonymous to me and should be merged. Furthermore, looking online, the evidence for this being a common name assigned to this subspecies is tenuous (although logical) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- For that, considering the size of Northern lion, I am thinking of leaving relevant material in other pages where it can fit, such as information on the past distribution of Asiatic lions in the article Asiatic lion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Northern lion has 13kb prose size. It could be tripled and not be a problem. I have no problem with Asiatic lion being separate, but that is not what I am asking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The pages on Barbary, Asiatic, West African and Central African lions are unique, because they provide specific info about these populations. Whereas the Northern and African lion pages do not contain unique info: most of the content has been copy-pasted from the former four pages, i.e. already available info is repeated there. So both can also be reduced to int links, without loosing anything !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Additionally, content of East African and Southern African lion pages has also been duplicated in the African lion page, at least large parts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- African lion does contain plenty of information that at least you wouldn't want to have on other pages, and I already mentioned that much of the 'duplicate' stuff are actually details of references like that of Bertola et al. or commonly used words or phrases like "extinction" and "East and Southern Africa", otherwise, there are major differences between what is in that page and the other ones, and I am thinking of changing Northern lion, but first this issue of you constantly ignoring discussions, like what you did recently ([9] [10]), to fit in your POV, which may occasionally ignore what is in WP:reliable sources, and trying to distract people from that, needs to be addressed. Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 07:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I might be a little late to this discussion, but my thoughts are as follows: Leave Panthera spelaea and Panthera atrox out of it. Those aren't commonly considered lion subspecies, and they are more relevant to paleontology than lion taxonomy. On the proliferation of subpages: keep Asiatic lion, it is a stable and well-done page about a topic of some notability. And not everyone agrees that the Asiatic lion is the same subspecies as African lions, rather than its own subspecies. Also, merge some of those pages into the appropriate subspecies article, those being P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita. Cape lion might need to stay (it has some notability from what I can tell). Gaetulian lion is a historical/legendary creature; the info on that page is distinctly different from the more biology-focused subspecies & populations pages. As for the rest, merge into the two subspecies pages and note the mixed population on the main Lion page. The current variety of pages about lions is confusing, to say the least. And for editors: please peacefully resolve your issues with each other. I am not interested in edit warring, or in getting involved in a massive argument, but I am interested in keeping the myriad Felid-related articles organized and properly categorized.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Edit: I have gone in and added my two cents to the merge proposals and the deletion nomination. Again, please avoid long arguments and edits wars.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Northern lion and Panthera leo leo
Okay, I have gone and proposed a merger of these two articles, discuss at Talk:Northern_lion#Merger_proposal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
African lion nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: The discussion was closed with consensus to redirect to Lion.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion into Panthera leo melanochaita
I have also suggested Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion be merged into Panthera leo melanochaita - see Talk:Panthera_leo_melanochaita#Merger_proposal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Physical comparison of tigers and lions
I nominated the article for deletion of the article for the second time. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
BhagyaMani An error occurred which I spoke to him about, so I think that it's in his interests that not too much attention to what he does is drawn, particularly by dropping a message on his space, because he made his IP address clear whilst doing this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Archive 5?
Would it be possible to get the first 23 sections of this talk page archived? Unless anyone objects? I just found that the bot that started archiving here is no longer active. Who knows how to trigger its replacement, lowercase sigmabot III ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- It can also be done manually, until the bot works. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I manually archived only sections that had no discussions any more since summer 2018. The section now on top, 'FAR probably needed', is so long that I'm tempted to also archive this one. Any thoughts? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- It should not be archived, because the discussion over whether this should go to FAR is still active and relevant. I continue to have concerns over the stability of this article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I manually archived only sections that had no discussions any more since summer 2018. The section now on top, 'FAR probably needed', is so long that I'm tempted to also archive this one. Any thoughts? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussions on Central African lion and Central African lion clade
Jts1882 Once again, BhagyaMani is showing disregard for discussions. For a long time now, there has been discussion regarding what BhagyaMani does, and it was repeatedly said in there that Central African lion clade should be an article, and Central African lion redirected to another larger article with WP:reliable sources that cover subjects like that population of lions, and this was agreed between us, particularly after BhagyaMani got into arguments with Punetor i Rregullt5, which I said could have been avoided if BhagyaMani didn't turn Central African lion back into an article. Then, after I did the agreed changes, partly to stop any more arguments on that, and talked to them about it here, BhagyaMani once again showed disregard for discussions, by turning Central African lion back into an article, and Central African lion clade back into a stub, accusing me of edit-warring, when in fact I was doing something that was agreed in a discussion, and these comments of his which have similarities ([11] [12] [13] [14]) show that he doesn't want to be corrected on anything that he does, even if he has made edits which show disregard for what is in reliable sources, and I see that he wants to distract people from issues that he's responsible for, by making claims here and there about certain things which ignore the issues at large, such as accusing me of an "edit war" after I made an agreed change which he knows has been discussed for a long time. Central African lion (which was meant about lions in Central Africa in general, not any specific clade in Central Africa) is not supposed to be an article, but Central African lion clade is supposed to be an article about the 'Central' clade defined by Bertola et al. in northern Central Africa and East Africa, and Casliber, I am not Punetor, otherwise certain disagreements that occurred between us shouldn't have happened. I only met Punetor this year, as far as I can remember. Leo1pard (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 07:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It was not "preeatedly said" ther should be any of these articles. Genetic mixing can be best explained by a few lines in lion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree that a few sentences in the main Lion page are sufficient!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Right, the unique encyclopedic information of Mixed lion populations could surely be condensed to a few sentences at most and merged to lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support- that article just seems flat out of place and rather, well, odd. Like a dog among cats.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is going out of hand, this cannot be explained in just a few lines, and we have enough discussions already, see my message. Leo1pard (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC); edited 06:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- yes it can be explained. Much of the information in the Mixed lion populations is general and repeated elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is this information, which makes use of relevant sources, a few lines that can be repeated elsewhere?
- yes it can be explained. Much of the information in the Mixed lion populations is general and repeated elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In the 19th century, a number of subspecies were described for lions in Northeast Africa. For example, zoological specimens from Nubia and Somalia were described or proposed by zoologists under the trinomina Felis leo nubicus[1] and Felis leo somaliensis.[2] In later centuries, these trinomina were alternatively considered to be synonymous with the scientific names of the North[3][4] and East African lions.[5][6] A test done in 2012 on 15 lions at Addis Ababa Zoo and lions from 6 wild populations demonstrated that the captive lions were genetically different to wild lions in other parts of East Africa, but similar to wild lions from Cameroon and Chad.[7][8] Among six samples from captive lions which were of Ethiopian origin, five samples clustered with other East African samples, but one clustered with Sahelian samples.[9] ... Lions of northern Uganda have not been analysed genetically,[10] and might belong to the Northern subspecies. In northern Uganda, lions are present in Kidepo Valley and Murchison Falls National Parks.[11][12] The Central African lion[13] is a population of lions in Central Africa that has been grouped under the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), but was also found to be related to the southern subspecies[14][10] (Panthera leo melanochaita),[15][16] depending on the subpopulation, and is fragmented into small and isolated groups since the 1950s.[17][11] ... Its hair samples were collected for phylogenetic analysis by Barnett et al., and compared with tissue samples of lions from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo that were killed in the 20th century. Results indicate that this individual, besides extinct lions in Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of the Congo, is closely related to the ancestral lion population of the area, and that its DNA shows a typical Southern lion haplotype. It is considered possible that this lion dispersed to the area from Namibia or Botswana.[14] A phylogeographical analysis conducted by Bertola et al. depicted a number of lions in places adjacent to East and Southern Africa as belonging to the southern group, with others in Central Africa belonging to the northern group. In particular, the northern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is adjacent to the East African country of Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, is believed to have both genetic groups.[10]
Discussing information like this in any of the pre-existing discussions from the 6th of November has just made one more complicated, because of things like this, the pre-existing discussions haven't been solved, even though it is over a week since they were started, and they got more complicated as more people come in to say more things, which were not relevant to the discussions when they were created on the 6th of November. Before things get any more complicated, particularly in the discussions that were opened on the 6th of November, due to the haste in making discussions on articles that were not originally discussed there, based on the false premise that sorting things out would be simple, these new discussions on the genetically complicated lions must close, and the focus should now be on finishing what was initially under discussion. Leo1pard (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- To propose a redirect for a mixed population between leo and melanochaita in Panthera leo leo, it's like to say that 1+1=10 Template:Long line Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, the above paragraph of information could be condensed into a few concise sentences. In fact, as it is, it is far too technical in detail.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, We create articles on Wikipedia, so different people who need information can read them, we shouldn't summarised a paragraph so detailed in few concise just because you want. People who read Wikipedia need much more informations than that paragraph that you want to summarise just with few sentence. Template:Long line Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 05:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment, I would have wished that the initial discussions (Talk:Panthera leo melanochaita#Merger proposal and Talk:Northern lion#Merger proposal) from the 6th of November should have finished first, without attention drifting towards other articles, and though I warned ([15] [16]) that focusing on other articles would lead to complications, it was not heeded, and those discussions became focused on other articles that I wished should not be part of them, and new discussions have been opened up regarding them, so close to 2 weeks after those initial discussions started, they are not closed, and have become more complicated over time, with more people making more comments that were not initially relevant to the discussions, and mixing what was in the newer discussions with these older discussions. Leo1pard (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't change the fact that >90% of the content of most of these articles is duplicated and unneccessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment : I appreciate that this merger discussion is about ALL lion subpages, thus addressing Cas Liber's initial question 'How many lion subpages?'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Blainville, H. M. D. de (1843). "F. leo nubicus". Ostéographie ou description iconographique comparée du squelette et du système dentaire des mammifères récents et fossils pour servir de base à la zoologie et la géologie (in French). Vol. 2. Paris: J. B. Baillière et Fils. p. 186.
- ^ Noack, T. (1891). "Felis leo". Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten. 9 (1): 120.
- ^ Allen, G. M. (1939). "A Checklist of African Mammals". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 83: 1–763.
- ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Haas_al2005
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Kingdonetal.2013
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "A New, Genetically Distinct Lion Population is Found". News Watch. National Geographic Society. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2015.
The Addis Ababa zoo lions have dark manes and small bodies, unlike other African lions. But life in captivity can sometimes influence appearance. A team of researchers, led by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and the University of York in the UK, checked to see if the lions really are different by comparing DNA samples of 15 lions from the zoo to six populations of wild lions. Their genetic analysis revealed that the gene sequence of all fifteen lions were unique and showed little sign of inbreeding. The study was recently published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bruche_al2012
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Bertola, L. D.; Van Hooft, W. F.; Vrieling, K.; Uit De Weerd, D. R.; York, D. S.; Bauer, H.; Prins, H. H. T.; Funston, P. J.; Udo De Haes, H. A.; Leirs, H.; Van Haeringen, W. A.; Sogbohossou, E.; Tumenta, P. N.; De Iongh, H. H. (2011). "Genetic diversity, evolutionary history and implications for conservation of the lion (Panthera leo) in West and Central Africa" (PDF). Journal of Biogeography. 38 (7): 1356–1367. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02500.x.
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
Bertola_al2016
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Bauer_vanderMerwe
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Riggio, J.; Jacobson, A.; Dollar, L.; Bauer, H.; Becker, M.; Dickman, A.; Funston, P.; Groom, R.; Henschel, P.; De Iongh, H.; Lichtenfeld, L.; Pimm, S. (2013). "The size of savannah Africa: a lion's (Panthera leo) view". Biodiversity Conservation. 22 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0381-4.
- ^ Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Barnett_al2018_Origin
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Catsg2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
iucn
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Chardonnet, P. (2002). Conservation of African lion (PDF). Paris: International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 November 2013.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
Prelim overview
The following table is hopefully useful to provide a prelim overview on the discussion. In case, I added any of your names into the wrong column, please delete and add it to the correct column. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, I ping other contributors of lion main page @LittleJerry, Cygnis insignis, Materialscientist, Alphard08, Greedo8, Apokryltaros, and Axl: please add your names into table columns. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Are you staying neutral on Barbary lion and Cape lion? You summarise my opinions correctly. I tentatively support a separate article on taxonomy that can cover the historical subspecies and molecular populations in more detail, but perhaps that will be covered adequately in the subspecies articles, so I would hold off on any new articles until there is a semblance of order. Jts1882 | talk 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Added, just forgot when collating from all the pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Leo1pard: You also! Template:Long line Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 11:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Lion –> Panthera leo ? cygnis insignis 15:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Would not be happy about it, but willing to compromise with "lion panther" as the title! cygnis insignis 12:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved comment by User:Leo1pard re 'Northern lion' (because of "Northern lion" being more common than previously thought, but only relevant content from Central African lion!)[1] and re Panthera leo melanochaita (I see the likelihood of these becoming more common)[1] out of the table. Please just add or delete your names and add comments below the table, if you deem commenting necessary. Thank you! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Apokryltaros: You vote to keep Mixed lion populations as a separated article, than why did you voted to merge Central lion to P. l. leo when this population is a mixed population between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita? Template:Long line Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 17:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful table. This was a real headache of a set of discussions to wade through and absorb. I've moved my stance on the major merges. My concern wasn't strongly that any trinomial would be used at all, but mostly that we were looking at an inconsistent result of using one in case A but not in case B. While I tend to favor vernacular names, on a second thought the trinomials are better for both big merged articles, because they're taxonomic matters; i.e., what the common names correspond to keep getting reclassified, and those articles are really about those classifications. The big fuzzy animals the kiddos want to read about are covered at Lion, and we can WP:SUMMARIZE the taxonomic kerfuffle in a paragraph there. PS: I don't have a huge objection to keeping Mixed lion populations separate if there's a really good case for doing so, but it seems to me that all of this can be covered at the other articles. It's probably most efficient to cover the idea in brief at the Lion article, juxtaposed with the summary of the taxonomic stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Northern lion
I just discovered another WP:REDUNDANTFORK : History of lions in Mesopotamia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
more than 150 redirects
At present, there are more than 150 redirects to lion main and subpages, many of them with broken links; including 48 to lion, 29 to Asiatic lion, 29 to East African lion, 12 to Southern African lion, 11 to Barbary lion, 7 to West African lion, 6 to Central African lion, 4 to Cape lion, 4 to Panthera leo leo, and another 4 to Panthera leo melanochaita. Imo: quite a mess, and the vast majority superfluous. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Unless someone sweeps them with nous and a bot assist, and is willing to repeat that in the near future, it might be a matter of waiting until the titles stabilise after any moves. cygnis insignis 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of these requires instant action, can surely wait until subpages are consolidated. We can use this talk section to compile a list of redirects that can be deleted afterwards. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- A talent you have shown, to put you in the frame and add to your to do list :—) The concern is worth attention, and will require a broad effort than I can only follow on with work to verify facts against sources. cygnis insignis 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- With 'we' I meant all of us, not just you and me. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was hoping we meant someone else. but seriously, this is a great idea and I will do what I can. cygnis insignis 16:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- With 'we' I meant all of us, not just you and me. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- A talent you have shown, to put you in the frame and add to your to do list :—) The concern is worth attention, and will require a broad effort than I can only follow on with work to verify facts against sources. cygnis insignis 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- None of these requires instant action, can surely wait until subpages are consolidated. We can use this talk section to compile a list of redirects that can be deleted afterwards. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- A quick glance at some of them reveals that some are apparently individual names of lions (such as Kali (lion)). In all likelihood, those are entirely superfluous. I could start making a list of redirects on this talk page if yall want. I'm not much good at working on actual articles, so I am feeling pretty useless on this huge merge- I'd like to help, but I would probably make things worse.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great that you wanna start!! If you want, make a table, e.g. with 2 columns 'keep' and 'delete', where we can enter them. I see many more superfluous ones and will add; others will perhaps also contribute, once someone takes up the initiative. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, then. I'll start this list, but I don't know how to make a table. That's a good idea, though.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great that you wanna start!! If you want, make a table, e.g. with 2 columns 'keep' and 'delete', where we can enter them. I see many more superfluous ones and will add; others will perhaps also contribute, once someone takes up the initiative. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Unless someone sweeps them with nous and a bot assist, and is willing to repeat that in the near future, it might be a matter of waiting until the titles stabilise after any moves. cygnis insignis 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Redirects, table of
A list of various redirects to the various lion pages.
Redirects to | keep | delete |
---|---|---|
Lion: | African lion, African Lion, African lions, Felis leo, King of Beasts, Lion (animal), Lions, P. leo, Panthera Leo, Panthera leo, Southeast African lion | Kali (lion), Nakawa (lion), Notch (lion), Addis Ababa lion, Addis Abeba lion, Congo lion, Congo Lion, Lady Liuwa, Lionesses, Middle African lion, North East Congo lion, Northeast Congo lion, Northeast Congolese lion, Nubian lion, Panthera leo abyssinica, |
Asiatic lion: | ||
Barbary lion: | ||
Cape lion: | ||
Panthera leo leo: | ||
Panthera leo melanochaita: | ||
West African lion: | ||
Central African lion: | ||
Northern lion: |
More to come...--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Allow me to help. Table is made with just a lot of pipes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks so much.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
More discussions this month already?
@BhagyaMani, Cygnis insignis, and SilverTiger12: Can I ask why you have decided to make more discussions already, considering that the old issues haven't been resolved yet? How many discussions have to happen at once, in this month? Leo1pard (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)