Jump to content

Talk:Homopus femoralis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Karoo Cape tortoise)

Naming discussions

[edit]

Please see the naming discussions about Homopus species at Talk:Boulenger's Cape tortoise (and Talk:Homopus). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karoo Cape tortoise → Homopus femoralis – There has been lingering discomfort (esp. by one particular Wikipedian who primarily advocates 'padloper' names, although such names may not be recognizable to many people as referring to tortoises) for the article names of the Homopus species. Wholesale renaming of all Homopus articles may not be appropriate and was rejected in the last formal RM, but if we focus on just this one species, I think a rename for its article is justified. In the various article naming discussions for Homopus (see Talk:Homopus, Talk:Boulenger's cape tortoise and Talk:Speckled tortoise), three problems with this article's title have been asserted: 1) that this tortoise doesn't occur on the Cape, so having "Cape" in its name doesn't seem appropriate, 2) that it also primarily doesn't live in the Karoo, so having "Karoo" in its name also doesn't seem appropriate, and 3) that the name could cause confusion with Homopus boulengeri, since that tortoise is more specialized to the Karoo and one of its common names includes "Karoo" and it is also a "Cape tortoise" (since all Homopus are referred to as Cape tortoises). Therefore, using the name "Karoo Cape tortoise" for this article seems confusing, and switching to the scientific name is a good way to avoid the confusion of its lack of a clear and widely recognizable common name. BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The scientific names are generally more recognisable anyway and all common names can be linked to it via redirects. According to the IUCN Checklist of turtles this species is called the "Greater Dwarf Tortoise" in anycase as a common name. I think it is preety clear that there is probably considerable variation on the accepted common names for this species. So I agree with the move. Faendalimas talk 18:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have looked at this issue across the whole genus now, including the discussions on other pages. Under the WP:Naming Conventions for fauna when there can be no consensus or it is not clear what is referred to by or easy to determine what the common name is then the scientific name should be used. I have looked up internationally recognised common names for this group and also recognise the preferred names by the South African community I think it best if this genus goes to the scientific name. So I propose that this move be applied to all five species and the most common and recognisable common names, such as various Padloper's, various Dwarf Tortoise's etc be made into redirects. Then whichever name people know will be found. I will leave this for 24 hours then do it. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 16:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The padloper names are universal in southern Africa and are the most commonly used names for these tortoises internationally in tortoise fora. Barrelproof, it is not just one wikipedian who favours the 'padloper' names.
The argument that "such names may not be recognizable to many people as referring to tortoises" is a very weak one. The name "platanna" does not imply that it is a frog to people who don't know frogs. There are THOUSANDS of other examples like that. Would you want to impose your own names on such species simply because you are not familiar with the species? This tendency of a small but proactive group of wikipedians who aren't knowledgeable on the species, to impose a naming system that they rather like, is one of the reasons that wikipedia articles are such a joke among people who work with the subjects currently (they are, trust me!) Faedalimas, we've already spoken about this rather ridiculous situation, but I'm sure you're both aware that Chersina angulata was until recently entitled "Bowsprit tortoise"! This has caused much laughter on teh Cape Tortoise Group (which I run) and no Barrelproof, the phrase "Cape Tortoise" in the group name does not refer to Homopus species, it refers to the c.4 tortoise genera that occur naturally around the Cape. By the way, the name "dwarf tortoise" is UTTERLY unknown in the community of conservationists, scientists and state bodies who work with the species here in southern Africa. It might be descriptive, but then we might as well rename Gopher tortoises "Blackish North American tortoises" for all the popularity the name will garner!
That said, I would support the move to scientific names, as they're a lot less ridiculous that the current set up. Go for it!S Molteno (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will respond to every comment made above. I'm glad to see that the move request has attracted some participation in the discussion, and I have an open mind as to the desirable outcome. If we may be changing the names of other articles than this one, we should probably put a notice on the Talk pages of those other articles first, so that people watching those articles will be informed that this discussion is happening and understand how to participate. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will provide a pointer on the other talk pages. No need to do more move requests they require an admin to close. Lets see how this one goes and follow through with it then. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is not exactly overwhelming, but a few days have elapsed and I see no opposition. I saw and processed three entries, I thought there were five. Is this still in process, or did I misread. If late entrants change the consensus, please ping me, as a change in consensus on this entry would affect others as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two others. The three that you processed are the Beaked, Speckled, and Boulenger's tortoise articles. The other two are this one (Karoo Cape, not yet moved) and Berger's, which was moved by Faendalimas a couple of hours before the three that you moved. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick yes this is correct. I was able to move one of them, other three I could not. I left this one alone as it had an active discussion and I am neither an admin nor neutral so could not close the discussion. Therefore only this page to go. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think this move makes sense, in case someone else is watching, but I haven't yet processed, because I haven't read through the closing instructions, and cannot at the moment. I hope someone else will handle this, if not I'll read through the instructions. Ping me if this isn't handled soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't like scientific names because they generally are not recognisable and they change quite often. In this case no common name seems to have established itself, so for the reasons BarrelProof points out and the fact IUCN no longer support the 'Karoo' name, I support the move. For other species the same reasons put forward don't hold true so I oppose other Homopous moves without a discussion. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful that you support this move but I would like to make a point. Scientific names within the herpetocultural world, thats not just scientists but hobbyists also, are well known, Herpetology seems unique among vertebrates for that. In any place I have given talks people will ask me about species by their scientific name, this includes kids and adults from all walks of life. However I accept it is important to also recognise the common names. Secondly though, common names tend to be regional and I am aware of species with six or more common names. Third scientific names do not change as often as it sometimes appears, for some groups that is true, but for others its not Chelonia mydas was first named as such in 350bc and has been called the same ever since. But more importantly to change a scientific name requires a nomenclatural act that must be published and linked now in ZooBank. There is nothing to control the usage of a common name but preference and popularity and they change over time, as all words do. Sometimes very quickly. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homopus femoralis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homopus femoralis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homopus_femoralis&oldid=1202313562"