Jump to content

Talk:Chimpanzee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dates

Hmmm. Where did the 4-7 million years come from? Best guesses I'd read (though they were a decade ago) were ~10 million at least. --Robert Merkel

Is there really no reason to differentiate hominids and the apes? I think that humans, and our ancestors, designate a distinct break from the apes. --James

Agreed that chimpanzees are hominids, but putting them in Homo seems questionable: it would require reclassifying all human ancestors back to the human/chimp split as Homo (instead of Australopithecus, etc.). Part of the problem is that we don't yet have a clear family tree for H. sapiens; another part is that few if any fossils of chimpanzee ancestors have been found. --Vicki Rosenzweig

Robert, I can give you three relatively recent references:Jared Diamond (1992) speaks of 6-8 million years; Frans de Waal (1997) proposes a split off at 6 million years; Juan Luis Arsuaga, from the Atapuerca research group (1998) suggests between 4.5 and 7 million years. The gap has been getting smaller in recent years, as you can see. James, are you sure you can say objectively that humans are a distinct break from apes? technologically we've gone a long way of course, but biologically (and classifying species is after all about biology) the differences aren't that great. Vicki, youre absolutely right as to the difficulties involving a reclassification, but I'm not quite sure about the sentence you introduced referring to chimpanzees forming longer-lasting relationships than bonobos. Basically, bonobos use sex in different ways than chimpanzees, and more extensively.

As I said, I'm planning to expand on this article. In any case, I wanted to catch people's attention with my introduction and I think I've managed. -Calypso

Calypso, the sentence about chimpanzee and bonobo relationships wasn't my diff, and someone else will have to explain it. --Vicki Rosenzweig

Should humans be placed on the same branch with chimpanzees? The 99.4% figure for chimps expounded again. Usedbook 23:35 20 May 2003 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm

It is still too controversial for us to say conclusively one way or the other (however my own POV is that chimps and humans are in the same genus). I would be more convinced if the 99.4% figure applied to all genes and not just the "functionally significant" very very small subset (which was chosen by the researchers, BTW, which raises the question of selection bias - however unintended). But the new data should be part of this article (properly framed per NPOV of course). --mav
I think it's a bunch of hooey, designed to get press attention. % gene identity is a meaningless statistic for measuring identity. For all we know a single gene mutation might be enough to cause speciation, and a half-dozen might result in a vastly different animal. I say, we should keep them out of genus Homo, because in a few weeks this 99.4% stuff will all be forgotten. Graft 23:48 20 May 2003 (UTC)
It really depends on if you are a lumper or divider. For example the dingo is considered to be a separate species from the common dog and yet wild bred dog-dingo hybrids have no noticeable reduction in reproductive success (as would be expected in a hybrid between even different subspecies within the same species). Then there are different strains of bacteria within the same species that have more genetic variation between them than do whales and horses. Oh I almost forgot hybrid plants with two, three or more sets of chromosomes from different species of plants (which causes a huge headache when trying to make a taxobox for the damn plant!). The point is that our classification of organisms is really an arbitrary method we use to categorize and try to make sense of the word. Therefore the dividing lines are somewhat fluid and can change over time (not that I'm arguing for a change in what we say in this and the homo article; I'm just saying that the most recent findings are interesting and could lead to something - or not). --mav
Don't dogs and wolves have that same reproductive success? Species names are pretty POV, aren't they? -- Zoe
Like I said the distinctions are often arbitrary and reflect a good deal of historical bias (wolves=bad, dogs=good ergo wolves and dogs must be different species!). However I'm only aware of dogs and dingos producing reproductively whole young under natural breeding conditions. I'm not aware of dog-wolf hybrids forming spontaneously in the wild (but they are bred by people and are just as furtile and have just as good reproductive success as any dog or wolf). And yet we still consider then to be separate species. --mav
Well, for species there are criteria that say what is one species and what is two species. Even though it may in some cases be difficult to apply those criteria in practice. But there are no such criteria for genera, apart from the fact that they should be monophyletic. How large or small a genus should be is completely a matter of convention and convenience. So it will really just cause a lot of confusion if people revise genera without a clear necessity. --Chl 16:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Mystery Ape

What about the new mystery ape that has recently been photographed, captured and had its mitochondrial DNA analyzed? Seems to be a third species of chimp; a few people have suggested it may be descended from a weird Gorilla-chimp hybrid. It seems to be a previously unknown species of chimp. This topic should be discussed in our articles on Ape, Chimpanzee and Cryptozoology. (Of course, the text should not be identical in each article.) RK 04:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Bondo Mystery Ape

CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape'

Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

Actually, those mitochondrial DNA analyses indicated that it's not a new species or subspecies, but falls into P. t. schweinfurthii. See New Scientist, 9 Oct 2004. --Chl 16:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have put some information on ape. Indeed, if it is a hybrid chimp and gorilla, it means that all great apes must be in the same genus! - UtherSRG 16:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inter-Tribal Violence

Can we get a para.or two on violence between tribes of (Pan troglodytes) chimps? Thanks. -- orthogonal 14:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Latin name citation

"binomial name = Pan troglodytes Blumenbach 1799"
Surely this is wrong? The species was first described by Linnaeus, as Homo troglodytes, in 1758. So the citation should be Pan troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758). Blumenbach was just the revising author who changed the genus, not the person who made the first description of the species. - MPF 16:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears that this is one of the (very) few instances where either the authority process isn't follow, or where Linnaeus is discounted. Google shows well-known websites stating Blumenbach as the authority for P. troglodytes, not Linnaeus. Perhaps this is because what Linnaeus called Homo troglodytes was done without a type specimen? Perhaps Linnaeus meant some proto-human? But that can't be, as Linnaeus was pre-Darwin. - UtherSRG 18:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly Linnaeus lacked a type specimen for Homo troglodytes. He was relying on second- or third-hand accounts, so it isn't at all clear to what animal this name refers to. As Huxley says in his essay Man's Place in Nature,

"Linnaeus knew nothing, of his own observation, of the man-like Apes of either Africa or Asia".

So Linnaeus name is a nomen nudum and not available for scientific use. Blumenbach was the first to publish the name together with a description, so he gets the credit. Gdr 05:24:43, 2005-07-31 (UTC) P.S. However, we have the date wrong. Bluemnbach's description of the chimpanzee appeared in De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa, 1775. I will fix.

Chimpanzee Attacks

I added the small bit about chimps occasionally attacking and eating human infants. I just saw it on national geographic. I couldnt't see a reason why it couldn't be in the article. I'll try and find some more to sources back that up. Irresponsible Irresponsible 15:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I first thought this was a joke, so I Googled it. You are correct. - UtherSRG 18:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Okay, while I am NOT a fan of Duh-bya Bush, I think we need to find a photo of an ACTUAL chimp for this article. No monkeying around (har har).

Chimpanzee Genome spin-off

I'd like to suggest a spin-off of the section about the chimp genome. It's fascinating material, but it seems to have taken over the article, and it's almost as much about humans as it is about chimpanzees. Tverbeek 12:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a human genome article, so there is no reason there could not be a chimpanzee genome article. --JWSchmidt 13:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of animal species

Animal species are not normally capitalized. This article should be moved to common chimpanzee (and if that page did not have history that prevented me, I would have boldly moved it myself.) // habj 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And you would have been wrong to do so. This article is part of the Primates Wikiproject and the rule here is to capitalize species common names. I have reverted your changes. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

genetic relations

"though technically this term refers to both species in the genus Pan: the Common Chimpanzee and the closely-related Bonobo, or Pygmy Chimpanzee." Most Anthropologists do not consider bonobos to be chimps. It's notable that chimps and humans are as genetically similar as are chimps and bonobos. This paragraph should probably be cleaned up if this article wants to be taken seriously, as this is a horrible start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.150.79 (talk • contribs).

You are incorrect. The Bonobo and the Common Chimpanzee are certainly more closely related to each other than either is the humans. Some folks (including some anthropologists) call the two species "chimpanzees" and "bonobos". However, this is technically incorrect and misleading. Both species are chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HIV

I thought this started with the bonobo, not the Common Chimp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.40.198 (talk • contribs).

You are mistaken. But if you can find a scientific source that says otherwise, please feel free to update the article as appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

gestation about 230 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.198.178 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

chimpanzees are also known as silly billys because they do a lot of silly stuff like repeating the movements a human does. Chimpanzees are the first monkeys to live in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.217.241.118 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Skin color variable?

In the pictures you can see both light-faced and dark-faced chimpanzees. Do they have "races" like humans, or is this simply individual variation? -- 92.229.147.30 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it varies, but that they also get lighter (or is it darker?) as they age. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cave-dweller

Should we point out in the lead that despite the name troglodytes, chimpanzees do not actually live in caves? - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Chimp nutrition

The diet section states that most of the diet is fruit. It also cites leaves and buds, but then most of the rest of the section discusses hunting, as well as foraging for honey and insects. Is there data on the percentage of the diet due to fruit and plants, and that due to insects and meat? One fact I found recently was that 100% human vegan diets can be vitamin B12 deficient, but that termites are one of the highest sources of vitamin B12 in nature. It would be interesting to find research on the amount of termite consumption in chimps and their B12 dietary needs. What mass of fruit and plants do chimps eat in comparison to the meat mass? I would think that if a tribe kills and eats one monkey occasionally that the amount per chimp would be pretty low. — Parsa (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I also found that section disjointed and poorly written. There's an obvious agenda to portray Chimpanzees as herbivores, being counteracted by all the hunting information. Actual data would be good. WilyD 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the language on 22 December 2012 very slightly to help clarify and make it easier to see the connection in eating habits. "Omnivorous Frugivore" is a more precise way to describe Chimpanzees. First and foremost they are a frugivore, all the rest is supplements to that basic diet. And Parsa, that is true, there may be a linkage that goes all the way back to the common ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees eat insects and leaves etc. daily and on average eat meat weekly. But still it is a small % of their diet because they don't eat leaves, shoots, bark, dirt, insects or meat in large quantities. So they eat these other plants and animals regularly and it is an important part of their diet, but it is always in small amounts. This would suggest they eat them for important nutrients like B-12, certain proteins, minerals (and maybe long chain Omega 3's like DHA) not commonly found in fruit. But all chimps prefer their MAIN diet (at least 80-90%)to be sweet ripe fruit, when they can find it.

A good source is http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html and I also put links to other wiki pages on "Omnivorous" "Frugivore" to help source those meanings. I hope this helped.

68.12.189.233 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

cluebot

The last cluebot change might have overstepped the definition of vandalism. Monkee actually is a colloquial (and incorrect) term that was applied to chimpanzees for a very long time. It can still be seen too. Redddbaron (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page

There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common chimpanzee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How does a male recognize his offspring?

In "Mating and Parenting," we read, "Male chimps practice infanticide on unrelated young to shorten the interbirth intervals in the females." But if females mate with several males, how does any male recognize that he has won the sperm competition, and that a female's offspring is his? And isn't "unrelated" quite unexplained? Its broadness suggests that a male can recognize not just the offspring of his sisters, but also of his brothers—which brings us back to the initial question. Finally, isn't "parenting" inaccurate? Nothing is said about what fathers do in helping to care for their offspring. Wordwright (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Meat"

Chimpanzees don't eat "meat". The word 'meat' is a euphemism for the flesh of another animal. The reason the word 'meat' appears here is to give some kind of justification for the human consumption of animal flesh. For example, "chimpanzees eat "meat", therefore it's natural for humans to do so also." Please revert my changes stating that chimpanzees are largely herbivorous and a tiny fraction of their diet consists of the flesh of other animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.238.105 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your changes were correct insofar as the cited source does state that it is a tiny proportion; consequently, they have been incorporated. As to using "flesh" instead of "meat", that I suggest is your personal idiosyncrasy - "meat" is by far the more common and universal term, and not only used in regard to human consumption.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The taxonomy section stated: Chimpanzees are the closest relatives to humans (true), and humans are the closest relatives to chimpanzees (false). The latter statement is false because bonobos are closer. If anyone has evidence of the opposite i'll put it back. Meanwhile here is a reference supporting the claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP6YxohKN28 Dryfee (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimpanzee which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- Netoholic @ 22:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It does not affect this page, yet. Another discussion is assured to take place if the result is move. cygnis insignis 06:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Said I would open this immediately, happened to notice the other discussion closed as move to Pan (genus).

Requested move 22 January 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved: there appears to be a general consensus to move. I expect this closure to be controversial as there's already a move review underway with regards to Pan (genus), but this has been sitting in the backlog for 12 days and someone's got to bite the bullet. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee – This follows the discussion and requested move at the article on the genus, now moved to that title, and much discussion and analysis is at the talk page. Some wanted the set of articles discussed together, because of the knock on effect, and this discussion is intended to reach a consensus after that close. I favoured that move and opened the request, I don't have an opinion either way on this move. cygnis insignis 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 14:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A lengthy digression about wikiprojects and RM ...
  • It isn't usually done because notifying wikiprojects has a strong tendency to produce WP:ILIKEIT-based bloc votes, when the entire purpose of WP:RM is to attract broader, topically disinterested editorial consideration. In a case like this (rather rare), it may actually be appropriate, because biological nomenclatural matters often require subject-matter expertise. E.g., we just went through the same sort of thing with a bunch of felid moves and mergers, and WP:CATS and WP:TOL among other zoology projects were notified. In more typical cases, like disputes about style trivia in the titles of works or bands or companies, attracting the input of over-involved wikiproject people tends to be detrimental to the RM process, and can be downright disruptive canvassing, especially if there's already a clear history of WP:GANG-style activity (cf. various spates of organized opposition to anyone who is not an active participant in one of the transporatation-related wikiprojects trying to rename any article pertaining to highways, railways, subway stations, airports, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's just wrong, and you've been around long enough to know that it's wrong, or maybe you need to read the CANVASSING guideline one more time. It expressly allows neutral notification of appropriate WikiProjects' members (as I'm sure you already know). I frequently and routinely notify WikiProjects when I relist a RM, and there is no way I can let that be characterized as "disruptive canvassing". I know where you're coming from, but there are readers of these talk pages who have varying degrees of experience, and they should not be misled! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  10:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Please don't oversimplify canvassing, what SMcCandlish says is more than apparent in quiet and noisy move discussions. Apparently I made a faux pas by not advising the disambiguation project, but am always very interested in the variety of views in zoology project members (Film and TV too, relevant?). Even an experienced closer has trouble seeing any workable consensus, maybe this is one is clearer (hadn't thought about it). cygnis insignis 13:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    You're right of course. Frankly, it's a sore point with me, because an editor once canvassed a WikiProject to try to get an article renamed to an inappropriate title in a RM in which I was involved. It was "canvassing" because it was done in a non-neutral manner. Fortunately, the ploy did not work and the title was renamed an appropriate name. Still, neutrally worded notification of appropriate WikiProjects is never canvassing; however, as I said, I do see and understand SMcCandlish's stream of thought... and yours. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    I understand responding emotively and a bit off-point when something is a sore spot (we all do that sometimes), but this "That's just wrong" spiel is wide of the mark. I never actually suggested that neutral notification of wikiprojects isn't permissible. Rather, WP:GANG-style ginning up of bloc votes is a problem. That happens, obviously, by non-neutral notification. If you look at how participants of "problem-area" wikiprojects notify their fellows, you'll see that there are obvious neutrality problems (sometimes also pointedly verbally attacking RM nominators).

    More to my real point, though: RM is in fact designed to attract editorial input that is arbitrary and disinterested, in the original and positive senses of those words. It is not required and not even common practice to notify wikiprojects' talk pages about RMs (or RfDs, or other such process), and doing so is often unhelpful, by re-narrowing the input and worsening the signal-to-noise ratio. We only need the input narrowed when subject-matter expertise is both required and is likely to be dispassionate. For wikiprojects that insist on tracking and trying to micromanage every XfD sort of process that affects "their" articles, there are bots like User:AAlertBot that prepare watchlistable alerts lists on a category-tree basis (and do so evenly, not by cherry-picking particular wikiprojects and "forgetting" to include others). Similarly, AfD is often updated with third-party notices along the lines of "Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions." This is another optional process that adds to watchlistable index pages of topically relevant consensus discussions.

    It is the responsibility of wikiproject participants to set up and use such tools; it is absolutely not the duty of the user of RM or other process to notify wikiprojects, much less to hand-deliver notices on their talk pages.

    PS: I'm collapse-boxing this, and apologize for the digression. I should probably have predicted that meta-commentary like this would get lengthy. This RM in particular wasn't even a good place to bring it up, since it's apt to be one of the exceptions, not one of the cases where the problem under discussion even arises.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. It would be absolutely absurd to have a disambiguation page where the two assertedly ambiguous terms on the page were one of the best-known species, and a little-known film. bd2412 T 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    BD2412, purportedly* I'm thinking out loud a little here, and appending that to your comment. That is the current state of the disambiguation cum set article index (sia) chimpanzee, pending the outcome of this discussion, and that resembles many similar arrangements for ambiguous 'common names'. What would you prefer to see as the page, sia, or dab arrangements for one of the 'best-known genera', most commonly known as Pan, recently moved to the page name Pan (genus)? A general query on those links—names and labels—because they also need to accommodate the word 'chimpanzee' in a neutral and clear way. cygnis insignis 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    The common name of the widely known animal supersedes arcane technicalities about a related primate now known by a different name. However, if there is going to be something other than that animal at that title, it would have to be a broad concept article or an SIA, because there are no meanings of the term that are not derived from the animal. bd2412 T 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    If the technicality is arcane, we should be merging in the third species of chimpanzee? Confirm to me that you understand this situation, because you are having a big impact on the linking. You may wish to have a better grasp of the relationships between topics, and the words they use to convey meaning, and you may need to read up on this subject before using weighted terms to debate some matter. Chimpanzee may not mean what it suited you to mean when making thousands of changes at the rate of 10 per minute, sometime before or after voting here and announcing what the situation is with these monkeys and the absolute but unverifiable definition of whatchimpanzee means. None of this bothers me much, I know this is how you contribute, just making some points about how users are approaching this situation. The page gorilla was moved to Gorilla, by the way, I don't think anyone realised that also is an opportunity to top up an edit count. First thing you need to do is understand the "arcane technicalities about" the species of genus Gorilla, less like us (humans and chimps) but with a lot of similarities. cygnis insignis 02:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    What? There is no "third species of chimpanzee"; there isn't even a second. There is one animal commonly known as the chimpanzee. There is one related animal that was never known just as "chimpanzee", but with the qualifier "pygmy" (compare Hippopotamus and Pygmy hippopotamus); the next higher level of abstraction encompassing both is not "chimpanzee" but Pan. The current situation creates an artificial ambiguity that confuses things in a way that they are not confused in the real world. bd2412 T 14:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not correct to say that the bonobo was never known as a chimpanzee. Originally it was just considered the same species as the chimpanzees living north of the river. All were chimpanzees. It was only later that it was raised to species status based on morphological differences. That is why it was called the lesser/gracile/pygmy chimpanzee, to distinguish it from others of the species it was previously included in. Until that time it was just another chimpanzee.   Jts1882 | talk  14:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It was never known as a chimpanzee without a qualifier, which is exactly what I have said. In any case, it is no longer known as a chimpanzee at all, and Wikipedia is written in the present. In modern writing, the bonobo is the bonobo, a non-matching title to chimpanzee. bd2412 T 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It was known as a chimpanzee without a qualifier because the distinction had yet to be made. Logically you wouldn't use a qualifier when you consider them the same animal. Chimpanzee included both animals. Possibly you are under the misapprehension that the pygmy chimpanzee was a newly discovered species rather than a split within one recognised species known as the chimpanzee (with no qualifier).
If you want to only consider modern usage then bobobo is the bonobo and the common chimpanzee the common chimpanzee. The latter name is in wide use among people who know there are two species in the genus. Most people couldn't tell the two apart and most people looking for an article on chimpanzees would be unaware of the distinction. An encycopaedia should aim to educate people about the two species, not pander to their lack of knowledge using a primary usage argument.   Jts1882 | talk  17:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Support move Common Chimpanzee → Chimpanzee, because:
  • The vast majority of readers searching for an article about the species would search for chimpanzee, not common chimpanzee, and conversely, by far most readers searching with the term chimpanzee would expect to be taken to an article about the species, not the genus.
  • The term common chimpanzee was coined to distinguish this species from another closely related animal that was at the time most commonly referred to as pygmy chimpanzee, but which now is recognized as a separate species and almost exclusively called bonobo. Prior to the discovery of bonobos, chimpanzees as a species were just called chimpanzees (as they are once again today).
  • Common chimpanzee is not incorrect, but now its use only makes sense either as a parallel term for pygmy chimpanzee or as a convenience for clarifying or emphasizing that some discourse is intended to apply to chimpanzees in contrast to bonobos (or vice versa). An article specifically about the single topic chimpanzee as a species has no need of the common preface, and should just be titled Chimpanzee.
  • I agree it is worth telling readers that common chimpanzee is another name used for the animal, but it's not the name most commonly used by laypeople (obviously) nor by experts (I can provide evidence). Why use it as the title of the article if it's not more accurate and is not even the most common term anyone uses? Genesyz (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
I'm becoming convinced by the opposing evidence and opinions added since I !voted. Making Chimpanzee a disambiguation would also make careless new links easier to find and fix. Certes (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll repeat the chart I produced in the Pan (genus) move discussion. The table below shows the common names I was able to find for Pan, P. paniscus and P. troglodytes in relevant sources from the past 20 years. I included the three papers I referenced in the Pan discussion as samples of usage in scientific papers, although I have no idea if that is universal.
Source Pan Pan paniscus Pan troglodytes
Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005) none Bonobo Common Chimpanzee
ITIS chimpanzees pygmy chimpanzee, Bonobo Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee
IUCN none Bonobo, Dwarf Chimpazee, Gracile Chimpanzee, Pygmy Chimpanzee (under title "Bonobo") Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee, Robust Chimpanzee (under title "Chimpanzee")
Mammal Diversity Database none Bonobo Chimpanzee
All the World's Primates (2016) Chimpanzees and bonobos Bonobo or Gracile Chimpanzee (uses "bonobo" in the discussion) N/A - skips to subspecies of P. troglodytes without an entry for the species itself
Handbook of the Mammals of the World (2013) Chimpanzees Bonobo Chimpanzee
Primates in Perspective (2007) Chimpanzees and bonobos Bonobo Chimpanzee
Walker's Primates of the World (1999) Chimpanzees Pygmy chimpanzee, bonobo Chimpanzee
Hey, 2010 title refers to "Divergence of Chimpanzee Species and Subspecies" covering both Pan species bonobo or gracile chimpanzee (bonobo used throughout the paper) common chimpanzee or robust chimpanzee (common chimpanzee used throughout the paper)
Caswell et al, 2008 refers to "at least four distinct populations of chimpanzees" including bonobo and 3 common chimpanzee subspecies bonobo common chimpanzee
Becquet & Przeworski, 2007 refers to both Pan species as chimpanzees bonobo common chimpanzee
Allen (1939) Checklist of African Mammals refers to genus Pan as chimpanzees lesser chimpanzee three subspecies: chimpanzee, western chimpanzee and long-haired chimpanzee
Simpson (1945) The principles of classification and a classification of mammals uses as chimpanzee to refer to genus Pan presumably considered a subspecies of chimpanzee

So the term "chimpanzee" is commonly used - both in books produced for general readership and by specialists in scientific journals - to refer to both the genus Pan and the species P. troglodytes, and even the bonobo is sometimes referenced as a type of "chimpanzee." As such, the term "chimpanzee" does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article, and this move would reinstate the ambiguity that was just resolved in the Pan (genus) article. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

An impressive and helpful table, nice work I thought. I prefer the names that label the columns, their clarity and utility is evident in defining the casual terminology and implied taxonomy of the vernacular. I'm tending to this oppose position, yet think an SIA for 'chimpanzees' [sp. & gen.] is best. [A confusing set of discussions, so note—dear reader—that I am the indifferent proposer of this move] cygnis insignis 03:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal is to move an article from an unambiguous name to an ambiguous name. There is no question that chimpanzee is used in both senses. I could add a couple of classic works to the table (Allen's mammals of Africa and Simpson' classification of mammales). The argument that most people expect to find an article on the common chimpanzee is misleading, as I suspect most of those people are unaware that there are two species. Few would see a picture of a bonobo and be surprised that they weren't seeing a picture of a common chimpanzee. They might even learn something if confronted with the two chimpanzees. Surely that is what an encylopedia should do — guide people to new knowledge, rather than pander to their incomplete knowledge.   Jts1882 | talk  15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding the table and comments. There is a recent similar situation at Cat. The Cat article is about the domestic cat, even though Big cats such as Tigers, Lions, and other felidae's are cats as well. But the word "cat" commonly means the small, furry, domestic variety, and that's where it should stay. The solution I came up with there (which is oddly being opposed tooth and nail, to coin a cat phrase) is to add and link Big cats in the lede paragraph. At this page "chimpanzee" is by far the common name. The mentions in the first lead paragraph of, and links to, Bonobo and the genus Pan, explain and clear up any confusion while still allowing the common name "chimpanzee" to become the primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope the comment above by Randy Kryn is well noted. The fact that the term chimpanzee is sometimes applied to both species is clearly explained (and links provided) at the very beginning of the article, and now that the genus article is better titled, there is no ambiguity. It is unnecessary to name this article anything other than what the vast majority of readers know this creature is called, and no readers will be confused about the close relationship with bonobos. Unless there is a situation calling for emphasis that some topic of discourse is meant to apply to this species in contrast to bonobos (or vice versa), the common preface is superfluous. To see what experts most often call this species, try this: Search Google Scholar using the search terms "Pan troglodytes" and "research papers," and list them by most recent. See how deep you have to go to find one that calls the species "common chimpamzee". And if it does, does it do so without purposeful distinction from bonobos? Genesyz (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz @Genesyz: hey bud, I moved this comment because you have that is okay before and i gues this is where you intended to place it. cygnis insignis 10:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think cat should stay as is, but I don't think that is a particularly apt analogy to this situation. If you showed a group typical Wikipedia users a picture of a house cat and lion (or tiger or leopard), and asked what the pictures were of, almost all would say " a cat and a lion." If you showed a group typical Wikipedia users a picture of a bonobo and a common chimpanzee and asked what they were, (putting aside those who would identify one or both as "monkey", "gorilla" or "ape") I am sure that far more would say "chimpanzees" than "a bonobo and a chimpanzee." My point being that most Wikipedia readers would not even be aware that there are 2 different species of "chimpanzee" or would necessarily know to be looking for the particular species that Jane Goodall studied as opposed to the particular species that uses sex to resolve conflicts. Not to mention that many scientists (such as the articles I linked in the table, which were the first ones I found when looking up a question that came up in the Pan move discussion), use "chimpanzee" to refer to the collective term covering the 2 species. Which is why I cannot agree that most Wikipedia would necessarily be looking for this particular species when looking up "chimpanzee." Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This should have been a multi-move request covering both Common chimpanzee and the dab page. I've left a comment for the initiator of the Talk:Chimpanzee RM and plan on bundling them together.--Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would have been inclined to support, but since BD2412 has apparently replaced all the article space links to chimpanzee with common chimpanzee, I think it's better going forward to keep the disambiguation page at the base title so that any future links get an extra level of scrutiny. I will note that some of the links that BD2412 changed to common chimpanzee should definitely go to Pan (genus); in Orangutan–human last common ancestor and Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, "chimpanzee" pertains to the genus more than the species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    BD2412 did you individually check each entry to make sure common chimpanzee was really intended? Bearing in mind that until a few days ago, "chimpanzee" referred to the genus, and in most cases (unlike New York) it will not be immediately obvious which meaning was intended by the author, I think a lot of care was needed on that operation.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    I specifically filtered references to "pygmy chimpanzee" to point to "pygmy chimpanzee", since that is the only other meaning that could be intended, given the target of the page prior to disambiguation. In the entire run of over 1,200 pages, there was only one link intending this meaning. bd2412 T 23:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    No, I'm afraid that's incorrect. The other principal meaning is not so much the pygmy chimp, but the Pan (genus), which was moved to its current title from Chimpanzee a few days ago. Many links, particularly those pertaining to taxonomy and perhaps to common diseases etc. should definitely be retargeted to the genus rather than the species, especially as the genus was indeed their target until the recent move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Many links intended for the genus had already been changed so, when BD2412 started work, most remaining links would be for the species. I had left the cases I was unsure about but many were arbitrary choices, the text being equally valid for both genus and species. Certes (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    From 2004 to three weeks ago "Chimpanzee" was a redirect to "Common chimpanzee"; if something other than that was intended, then all those links were wrong all along. My edits merely preserve the status quo ante, which is likely what was intended if editors were at all paying attention. bd2412 T 02:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    That is incorrect. We just had a RM discussion, Chimpanzee → Pan (genus) [January, 2019], the links that went to that page were redirected to this page (by you), which assumes that no one linking it was paying attention to the topic (and that you know what they meant). The closer of that discussion, which ended half an hour before this one opened, created a redirect as a result of the move, and that was then converted to a disambiguation by the same user. I made it an SIA, and others added to that, but the user reverted to their version because it should remain like that until this discussion is over (for some reason). That is where we are up too. cygnis insignis 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    Certes disambiguated some of the incoming links early yesterday. I did a few more, looking specifically for titles that indicated subjects where the genus was likely intended or at least more relevant than the species (e.g. human evolution, taxonomy, comparative anatomy related topics). I had to go to work before I had a chance to look all the links. By the time I had a chance to get back to Wikipedia, BD2412 had disambiguated them all to common chimpanzee. Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We established in the last RM that the term may refer to the genus, including common chimps and bonobos, or it may refer just to common chimps. This depends on context and depends on the source used. The fact that bonobos are separate species is a red herring because that doesn't prevent them being known as chimpanzees, in the same way that mountain gorillas and lowland gorillas are both gorillas despite being separate species. Since the term is ambiguous, and there doesn't seem to be a primary topic one way or the other, disambiguation is our friend. Then the reader can choose what they want.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But gorilla is a genus name, so this is not just like that. I don't see what bearing that chimpanzee can refer either to this species or to both species of Pan has on naming this article using the most common name. If there is a permanent disambiguation page, I guess it doesn't matter. Otherwise, if a reader intends the meaning to apply to both species, the first two sentences of this article shows them what they are looking for. If they mean it to apply to one or the other species, the same is true. How does titling the article common chimpanzee help anything? Genesyz (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
There are two arguments for calling this article "Common chimpanzee".
  1. It's simply a better title than "Chimpanzee".
  2. We'd have liked to call this article "Chimpanzee" but that title is needed for the disambiguation page; "Common chimpanzee" is the next best choice.
Personally I don't support either statement, but they're both reasonable points of view. Certes (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If the disambiguation page is to be permanent, then that would make sense. Otherwise, I can see no reason to prefer "common chimpanzee" over "chimpanzee" as the title for this article. The objection that chimpanzee can refer either to the species or to both species of the genus doesn't make an argument that justifies naming the article "common chimpanzee" instead of the obviously more common term "chimpanzee," at least no argument that has been made explicit. How does that conclusion follow? How does naming it "common chimpanzee" help anything? I don't have an objection to keeping the disambiguation page though, if that is preferred. Genesyz (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
A third argument is that chimpanzee has always referred to the same animal. The term has been used for the animals in west Africa and the Congo since long before Linnaeus. No distinction was made for animals living north and south of the Congo River. The recognition that the animal south of the river differed enough morphologically (albeit questionably at the time) and the molecular evidence for the lineages seperating long enough to justify a division into two species, doesn't mean that they stopped being chimpanzees. That's why they were called the common chimpanzee and lesser/pygmy/gracile chimpanzee, respectively. The gradual adoption of the name bonobo for the latter doesn't change this. Since the recognition of two species, animals north of the river have always been known as common chimpanzees. Before that they were considered chimpanzees along with their southern relatives. Chimpanzee alone has never referred solely to the animals north of the river. Most people using the term chimpanzee couldn't tell the two types apart and are certainly not making a distinction based on whether they live north or south of a particular river, so the argument that they would expect an article called chimpanzee to only refer to the northern group is based on a false premise.   Jts1882 | talk  08:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead will tell the reader what it is about. It will direct the reader to Pan and bonobo. It will do this far more informatively and clearly than a dab page that asks the reader whether by "chimpanzee" they meant the genus, the common chimpanzee or the bonobo. Srnec (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Err, so you are ignoring all other examples of different uses mentioned earlier just because Britannica (which is hardly an authority on the subject) uses one definition? Anyhow, if we are going to follow dictionary definitions, here Oxford Dictionaries uses chimpanzee as a synonym of Pan, yet again demonstrating that there is no "primary topic", and why it needs to be a disambig page:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this discussion about whether or not to keep the disambiguation page, or about the name of this article? Is keeping the disambiguation page permanently an option? I'm okay with that (if it's written properly), I just didn't know if that was on the table. I thought this discussion about the article name meant the disambiguation page was a temporary thing. Obviously, if that page is named "chimpanzee," this one can't be. It does seem a reasonable solution that allows readers to decide for themselves what sense of the term they intend. Would someone please clarify the scope of this discussion? Thanks. Genesyz (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
    • The disambiguation page in some form or under some title would need to remain regardless of how this discussion ends up. If this discussion ends up with renaming this article as "Chimpanzee" then the disambiguation page would need to be retitled along the lines of "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)." Besides the issue that Pan (genus) can refer to "chimpanzee" and Bonobo can refer to pygmy chimpanzee (or its variants), there is also the Chimpanzee (film) article that we have. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Rlendog. If this article were named "Chimpanzee," the search term chimpanzee would still be directed to the disambiguation page titled "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)," is that right? If so, that is exactly what I support, as it would seem to address every problem. Genesyz (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
  • Not quite. If this article were named "chimpanzee", someone typing "chimpanzee" would come here. There would be a hatnote helping direct people to other pages. There would still be a page called "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)", but in order to get there someone would need to type "chimpanzee (disambiguation)" or get there through the hatnote on this page (and possibly the "Pan (genus)" page. Rlendog (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case, I would have favored just leaving this as "Common chimpanzee," but I don't think the disambiguation page will correctly make the distinction between Pan and its member species. Chimpanzee may refer to the member species of Pan (i.e. panins), but not to the genus itself. There still seems to be will to make chimpanzee an equivalent term for Pan, but it is not. Some are even trying to make the circular statement: "Chimpanzee may refer to chimpanzees," which effectively does the same thing. Therefore, I'll continue to support Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee and trust the opening lines of the article will make everything clear.
Pan has been described as "chimpanzees", so perhaps the plural is more ambiguous than the singular. Chimpanzees currently redirects to the obvious target of Chimpanzee, but might the disambiguation page be a better destination? Certes (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|Pan troglodytes|reason=see above}}
  • I agree with Randy Kryn and am in favor of what Rlendog said above: "redirecting "chimpanzee" here, but still using "Common chimpanzee" as the title here so readers looking for the genus have a better chance of knowing they are in the wrong place." Genesyz (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I have slightly changed my position. Keep the title of this article as "common chimpanzee" but have "chimpanzee" redirect here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wondered. If someone is searching with the term "chimpanzee", what are they most likely searching for? So, I checked Google. One of the top Google hits when searching with "chimpanzee" is this San Diego Zoo web page which is titled Chimpanzee and subtitled Pan troglodytes (a.k.a. Common chimpanzee). Brittanica's Chimpanzee article is also about troglodytes. And here's a BBC article about troglodytes behavior but only refers to them as chimpanzees or chimps. While there are exceptions, in general, when someone is talking about bonobos, the use the word bonobo. I want to add that Rlendog's table above is impressive, but a survey of usage limited to scientific papers and publications is going to be skewed in favor of more precision than is commonly used in standard reliable sources meant for the public at large, which is what drives title decision-making on WP, because of how closely that is tied to how users are likely to be searching here. The case for making Chimpanzee the title of this article based on the widespread common meaning of "chimpanzee" is very strong. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: 07 tyfys What would your determination have been in the previous discussion Chimpanzee -> Pan (as Pan (genus))? And should that have been a multimove? Yours, cygnis insignis 02:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I would have opposed Supported that one. I'm persuaded "chimpanzee" is not commonly used to mean the genus. --В²C ☎ 04:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC) corrected —В²C ☎ 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle, I think others have expressed a similar view, so please excuse another ping if this is impertinent or I have something muddled. You oppose the move, Chimpanzee → Pan, but support this one, Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee. cygnis insignis 05:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies! I would have supported Chimpanzee → Pan. —В²C ☎ 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That is clearer, cheers, I think others objected because it prevented this move. There was also a suggestion (and criticism, feh) that it should have been a multimove. Your view on this is also most welcome, if you are inclined to, and what you would guess the outcome would have been. Regards, cygnis insignis 06:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a multimove (Chimpanzee → Pan; Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee) would have been the best way to go. As to guessing what the outcome would have been... I'm guessing the first move would have been approved, not sure about the second, but at least an explicit option in the proposal would have garnered more attention that part of it, which was only implicitly possibly raised by the single move proposal. --В²C ☎ 20:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There is likely to be valid objections to both approaches, getting the title for the species is likely to confounded the previous move to the explicitly defined concept, genus Pan. The populations are also explicitly defined, as species and subspecies, the legacy of the common name 'chimpanzee' is incidental and carries no implicit definition or usefulness as a name; it is implicit that any "common name" is a qualified term and that is the first thing to know about one group of organisms. cygnis insignis 03:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, if the children can tell the difference between a common chimpanzee and a bonobo. If the children cannot tell the difference, should an encyclopaedia inform them or acquiesce to their childish knowledge?   Jts1882 | talk  20:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It should inform them, as ours certainly will no matter what article is titled what. The question is, will we falsely inform them that it is wrong to call Pan troglodytes simply "chimpanzee"? No? Then what's the problem? Srnec (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It is false to assert that the bonobo is not a chimpanzee. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
"Chimpanzee" is an ambiguous term. The bonobo is a chimpanzee (Pan) but not a chimpanzee (P. troglodytes). The question is whether the latter meaning is the primary topic. Certes (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
A reminder for those who just joining us now, the factual premises established so far are: 1. The Primary Topic of this page is species Pan troglodytes. 2. Chimpanzee is a common name. Now read on, or again, as we attempt to ignore both of these easily verifiable facts and sources and reinvent the wheel. cygnis insignis 11:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we’ve made some progress wading through molasses. A point that I don't think has sunk in for all: Just because it is a “PRIMARYTOPIC” per Wikipedia conventions, that doesn’t mean it is the best title. The term “common chimpanzee” is PRIMARYTOPIC for the common chimpanzee, without question. The term “chimpanzee” is arguably the PRIMARYTOPIC for the common chimpanzee to a weaker standard, it is mostly true, and where wrong, it is not astonishingly wrong. PRIMARYREDIRECT is a weaker standard than “best title”. Chimpanzee can redirect here, no one will be astonished. The best title for this article is “Common Chimpanzee”, consise, recognisable. Natural, precise, and most important, completely correct. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead with the changes. There seems to be no objections to a redirect without a title change and this conversation isn't getting anywhere. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point, SmokeyJoe, regarding primary topic. If an article's subject is primary for two (or more) potential titles, then we still need to evaluate WP:CRITERIA to decide which is the better title. Regarding WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, practically everyone is familiar with this article's topic, and they are certainly going to recognize "Chimpanzee"; but will most people recognize "Common Chimpanzee"? That term is more likely to arise in scientific sources, is it not? Isn't that WP:JARGON that's contrary to WP:COMMONNAME? I think Chimpanzee is clearly more WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. I don't think consistency plays a role here, but Chimpanzee is arguably less WP:PRECISE than "Common Chimpanzee". In fact, scientists use the latter precisely for its precision. But I think that's outweighed by the other considerations. --В²C ☎ 02:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you're going back to old ground. Look at Rlendog's table. Look at the long term history. Some, not most, not none, but some, in quality sources, use "chimpanzee" to refer to "common chimpanzee plus bonobo". This is also seen very frequently in the vernacular, with "chimpanzees are humans' closest relative". Consider the 1979-1980 papers challenging the species vs subspecies designation of the bonobo, and that this challenge is frequently referred to but not taken much further (basically, I believe, because it doesn't matter to anything). Look at the old synonyms of the bonobo that explicity calls it chimpanzee. Calling the common chimpanzee a chimpanzee in the standalone title is wrong, although acceptable as a PRIMARYREDIRECT. NATURAL is irrelevant to this discussion, Common chimpanzee is NATURAL, as it is every other NCCRITERIA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
CONSISTENCY does play a role here. Articles on mammal species consistently use the vernacular names from Mammal Species of the World as article titles. "Common Chimpanzee" is the MSW name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Well, it's closer than I thought, but not enough to tip the scales, I don't think. It's just that "Chimpanzee" is practically an iconic COMMONNAME for this topic. --В²C ☎ 21:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
We do have articles on iconic names as the page topic, I feel certain, but that is not the topic of this page as currently conceived. The topic is not the name, it is animals that are crucial to an understanding of our species and have had quasi-legal identities as individuals. cygnis insignis 07:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin: As there was no specific consensus for the creation of a disambiguation page at the title, Chimpanzee, please note that if there is an absence of consensus in this discussion, the page should revert to the status quo ante preceding the creation of the disambiguation page, which was as a redirect. The target of that redirect can be discussed in WP:RFD. bd2412 T 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Note that there were various rebuttals to a similar note at the forked discussion on that page. cygnis insignis 07:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:VITAL, etc. The "pygmy chimpanzee" thing is a red herring, since that term has been obsolete for decades and amounts to a misnomer. Bonobos being related to chimps and in the same genus doesn't make them chimps, just related to chimps and in the same genus. (Direct analogy: dogs and coyotes are not wolves, except in a certain line of zoologist thinking.) As a second choice, I would be okay with the alternative proposal to reverse this idea, basically, and keep the article at the current title but redirect Chimpanzee to it per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If Chimpanzees are like dogs, bonobos are not like coyotes, they are like dogs. Pygmy chimpanazee was only a misnomer with respect to pygmy, was due to having only received juvenile specimens. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hey mate, how are things] VITAL?, I had wondered what that notion had morphed into. I wouldn't argue it is not vital, but will mischievously point out that would have redirected to the genus before the previous discussion ;-) And, of course, I will point out the topic is vital, not the name, and I will also plead for citations to support those assertions on definitions of incidental vernacular, because they would end the discussions as quickly as my proposal. cygnis insignis 07:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the argument could be made that topics of VITAL articles are primary for their respective COMMONNAMEs due to historical significance. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Once again, you have stated what I find is implicit in other comments and this is one reason I place a high value on your contributions. That the name has an inherent value, I cannot disagree, it is historically significant; that is not relevant to how we understand these other apes and it is an incidental name that entered pop-culture to entertain and is only informative in a general or specific way when qualified with context. It is merely a common name, some sounds scratched out as a string of letters, no serious source pretends otherwise. It is important that readers find the content they are looking for, monkeys in film, the 'different chimp', the story about some guy eaten alive by them, rather than weighting one common name and insisting they adapt to a conceit, created by wikipedia, that lumps verifiable concepts and thousands of facts under a loose term, not as navigation but assertions that reflect impromptu vox pop debates spiralling around contrary and absolute opinions of the otherwise disinterested. Even the proposed monkey man #1 is looking like a better title after this squirmish across two debates. cygnis insignis 06:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of approaching this VITAL thing from the same angle as B2c; it's not that we have a policy or rule about it, but it's (in my view) a sound position to take, a WP:Common sense matter. The bare fact is that to the vast majority of our readers, the word "chimpanzee" refers to a specific animal (which scientists have various names for, the most precise of which is Pan troglogytes). Very, very few of our readers (mostly just some subset of professional zoologists and zoology students, I would wager) come here conceiving of "chimpanzee" as meaning "the genus Pan". This is all we really need to consider in a RM discussion, which should cling closely to the WP:CRITERIA. They are sometimes in competition with each other; something that isn't 100% WP:PRECISE enough in the eyes of a few can still be the right title to use because it fits all the other criteria and they together outweigh the one that isn't an absolutely perfect fit. Our titles need be only precise enough to do the job of an encyclopedia; when there's not perfect precision (because a name ends up being more recognizable, concise, natural, and consistent with our titling practices, despite a slight lack of precision to some) we have disambiguation hatnotes to smooth over the bumps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ref style

reference info for Chimpanzee
unnamed refs 102
named refs 76
self closed 64
cs1 refs 207
cs1 templates 176
cs1-like refs 5
cs1-like templates 5
sfn templates 13
cleanup templates 2
webarchive templates 1
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 df dmy 1
cs1|2 dmy dates 34
cs1|2 ymd dates 1
cs1|2 dmy access dates 47
cs1|2 ymd access dates 3
cs1|2 dmy archive dates 52
cs1|2 ymd archive dates 5
cs1|2 last/first 119
cs1|2 author 28
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (28)
  • Cite book (5)
  • cite encyclopedia (1)
  • Cite journal (21)
  • cite journal (70)
  • cite magazine (2)
  • cite news (12)
  • Cite news (2)
  • cite web (28)
  • Cite web (7)
List of cs1-like templates
  • cite iucn (5)
List of sfn templates
  • sfn (13)
explanations

The article was largely in the usual biology ref style with authors in "Doe, John" from the first appearance of citations in the early 2000s until January 2019, though some medical-type references had been imported in "Doe J" (Vancouver) style. On 13 January 2019, an editor changed all the references to Vancouver. Yesterday I began the task of putting these back as the change to Vancouver was clearly against policy. I see that a different editor has now reverted the changes calling these "cite repairs". They are not repairs but deliberate changes. I suggest that we put the article back into "Doe, John" style, complying with policy that ref style should not be changed without very good reason (and consensus), and so that authors can be named in full, making navigation easier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your changes were not reverted, as far as I can see. See the documentation for {{cite journal}}, which says: authors: Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged. For multiple authors, use |author1=, |author2=, etc. or (better) |last1=, |first1=, etc., like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: cheers for the et al demo, something I need to know. Just to make you aware: The article is currently being improved with an eye to GA, something noted on other talk pages, what I propose is the citation style being discussed during a pre-GA copy edit (maybe as the refs are verified). I happen to agree with most of the proposals for citation style, but I have seen discussion and changes in the midst of content improvement become contentious; the solution is to have a round of copy-edits after the content is laid down. cygnis insignis 09:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with your GA quest. As for the citation style, it looks like it has been a mix of Vancouver and more conventional styles for a long time. This 2016 version, for example, has a mix of styles, and other random versions that I checked out also have a mix. At this point, your best bet is to decide by consensus here, or at a project page, on a consistent citation style, and then change to using that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I've made a note to ask for your assistance when that phase is underway [and argue about when to use et al :] cheers. cygnis insignis 10:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I am that different editor. I came to this page initially to fix misuse of 'et al' in author-name parameters. What I found was a bunch of |authors= and |editors= where the assigned name-lists were in Vancouver format. The cs1|2 templates produce metadata that can be read by various programs (Zotero, etc). Because |authors= and |editors= are free-form, the cs1|2 templates cannot reliably create metadata from those parameters (because editors are endlessly creative in how they write lists of names) so author-name and editor-name metadata are not produced for citations using |authors= and |editors=.
Vancouver format is the only format supported by cs1|2 that allows for multiple names because Vancouver has a strict surname-and-two-initials requirement for the listed names. Because of this requirement, cs1|2 can create useful metadata (as good as |first= / |last=) from |vauthors= and |veditors=.
Beyond this explanation of my edits yesterday, I have no opinion on how referencing for this article should be styled going forward except that use of |authors= and |editors= should be avoided. Editors involved in advancing this article to GA or higher might want to enable display of the cs1|2 maintenance messages (see Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Good information, I'll refer to this when I steer it to the Guild or whoever. I'm enthusiastic about content improvements, my comments are intended to just 'nudge the tiller' for smooth sailing; I don't envy those attempting to get the content right and that is the current priority. Regards, cygnis insignis 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap and I will like to bring this to GA, so could you guys please leave the article to us until we are finished. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the scholarly input, everyone. I hope the article develops to everyone's satisfaction. I'll have a look at the Humans section now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I was checking a ref to the above site a news item on chimps in labs and research (c. 2005), I didn't find it but notice there is more developments on the topic. A lot of chimps are leaving labs, creating a problem of where to retire them, and lawyers arguing for legal status similar to humans https://www.nationalgeographic.com/search?q=chimps+research cygnis insignis 17:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'Humans' section is already rather long. Perhaps we are getting close to covering "the main points" there. Legal status of animals could of course become an article someplace. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
What a great idea!, Cheers, cygnis insignis 11:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There's alerady an article for great ape personhood. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chimpanzee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

First comment, after initial run-through for spelling etc: you need to decide whether the article is in English or American spelling. At present we have BrE "behaviour", "centre", "fibres", "localised", "neighbouring", "oestrus", "recognisable", "recognised", "specialised", "vocalising" alongside AmE "analyzing", "favorite", "gray", "maneuvering", "neighbors". Either is fine, of course, but it should be one or the other throughout. More tomorrow. – Tim riley talk 23:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed to UK English. LittleJerry (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Detailed comments

An impressive article. A few points on the prose and sourcing:

  • "The English name 'chimpanzee' is first recorded in 1738" – this statement could do with a citation. (The OED confirms the date).
  • "members of the Pan clade" – we haven't had the word "clade" before: a link or explanation would be helpful to the non-expert.
  • "which likely evolved independently" – if the text is to be in BrE I'd replace "likely" with "probably": this is from The Guardian's style guide, which I find helpful: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
  • "Among males is generally a dominance hierarchy" – I had to go back and read this again to get the meaning: a "there" before "is" would make it more immediately clear.
  • "This is likely due to the chimp's fission-fusion society" – as for the earlier "likely"
  • "During aggressive encounters, displays are preferred over attacks." – can one prefer over rather than prefer to?
  • "However, other forms of mating exist" – This is the fourth "however" (of five) and one does begin to notice the repetition. More often than not one can lose the word, improving the flow of the prose without damaging the sense. I don't press the point, but you may like to consider.
  • "When submitting to a conspecific" – another term the non-expert reader may need help with
  • "the numbers 1 through 9" – 1 to 9 in BrE
  • "Despite the lack of complexity, forethought and skill are seen in making these tools and should be considered such." – not sure quite what this means: what should be considered what?
  • "Animal rights groups have urged a stop to such acts, considering it abusive." – plural noun with singular pronoun.
  • "In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified all chimpanzees, both wild and captive, as endangered" – unclear why the national body of only one country is mentioned
  • "While deforestation rates are low in western Central Africa, selective logging may take place" – I'd be careful with using "while" to mean "although": at first reading this seems to mean that logging may take place only while the rates are low, which isn't what you mean.
Fixed all the above. Chiswick Chap, can you deal with the references? LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The changes made address my comments completely and satisfactorily. Just the references to go and we can proceed to promotion to GA. Tim riley talk 22:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • References
  • Citations 37 and 49 seem to be two separate, and slightly differently worded, references to the same source document: one would expect an "a" "b" type listing, as for ref 120.
  • Citation 38 (to Goodall, pg. 232) isn't set out as all other references to Goodall are.
  • Citations 39 and 45 point to the same source, like 37 and 49, mentioned above.
  • St.Fleur – has a space after the full stop in the cited source
  • Citation 91 – this unsubstantiated assertion is a pretty woolly reference, especially for a whole paragraph. Can nothing more verifiable be found?
All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are all my quibbles. Tim riley talk 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

GA checklist

  1. A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

A top-notch article. A pleasure to read and to review. Clearly meets all the GA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from the nominators, Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Art of War

I was surprised to see this fact (from MIT Press article):

Zoologists have found chimpanzees intuitively follow Lanchester's Square Law before engaging another troop of chimpanzees. A group of chimpanzees will not attack another group unless the numerical advantage is at least a factor of 1.5.[1]

I think the information should be added to the article under Intelligence and cognition. I think it should be its own subsection, like Military Strategy. Does anyone have an objection? Or are there other suggestions?

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nieder, Andreas (July 16, 2020). "In the Animal Kingdom, the Astonishing Power of the Number Instinct". MIT Press. Retrieved September 11, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chimpanzee/Archive_1&oldid=1182755379"