Talk:Taurotragus

Requested moves

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The rationale for the move request is not entirely clear. When you argue WP:COMMONNAME you must be intending to get the reader to their most likely destination as quickly as possible. Somebody who actually types the uncommon word 'Taurotragus' into the search box probably wants to read about the genus. Nobody but the nominator made their wishes clear about the move request since they did not give a bolded Support or Oppose. The debate about incoming links did not have any obvious bottom line and did not help me read any consensus. People who want to link directly to Common eland from other articles are still free to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

Taurotragus → Eland
Eland → Eland (disambiguation)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Extant large mammals are hard enough to come by that I think it will generally be the case that a group will be known by its common name, and will be the primary topic of that name. In this case, no matching title for "Eland" seems to compare with the genus in terms of historical importance (compare Zebra, Gazelle, Impala. bd2412 T 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that readers searching the term "Eland" are most likely interested in ending up at either Giant eland or Common eland, rather than the rather bare bones article that we have at Taurotragus. This case somewhat differs from ones like, say, Elephant, where we have our substantial, fleshed out page on the species as a whole at that page and then individual ones like African bush elephant have their own pages to provide more specific information. In this case pretty much all the information is contained on the pages for the two different species.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That, my friend, is a question of article improvement, not of which topic is primary for the title. bd2412 T 15:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that the genus is the primary topic of "eland", as opposed to the species (T. oryx). T. oryx is the original referent of the term "eland", and "common eland" was invented as a less ambiguous form. But people using everyday speech still call the species "eland". And it's not just non-specialists; search Google Books or Scholar for the scientific name, and many specialist sources use just "eland" as the common name for the species. Common elands have a widespread distribution in Africa, including many countries where English is an official language (and which are often visited by English-speaking tourists interested in seeing large mammals). Giant elands have a much more restricted distribution, and almost no presence in English-speaking countries (or frequent tourist destinations).
Looking at incoming links to common eland (excluding those clearly transcluded from the Artiodactyla template), it seems that most places where "eland" appears as linked text in Wikipedia, it has been piped to "common eland". The status quo with the disambiguation page ensures that people following an "eland" link will get to the right page (once the link has been disambiguated, which is all but guaranteed with the status quo, and extremely unlikely to happen if the genus is at "eland"). Of the first ten (non Artidactyla template transcluded) incoming links, 7 have a piped link (i.e. eland) versus 3 that link directly to common eland:Joseph Campbell, Unicorn, List of domesticated animals*, Etosha National Park*, American Museum of Natural History, Disney's Animal Kingdom*, Hluhluwe–iMfolozi Park, West Midland Safari Park, Gorongosa National Park, Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park (starred articles link to common eland without piping).Plantdrew (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say "once the link has been disambiguated" as if that is likely to happen? We are currently overwhelmed with disambiguation links, with more new ones being added every day than we can fix. At the current rate, it is possible that new disambiguation links will never be fixed. bd2412 T 20:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to hear you say that, but for several years the number of disambiguation links has been in decline. There were 960K in June 2010, 750K in June 2011, 500K in June 2012, 300K in June 2013, 210K in June 2014, per WP:TDD. Dekimasuよ! 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On October 10, 2014, there were 58,770 pages with incoming links, and 179,205 total links. Today there are 61,748 pages with incoming links (about a 5% increase), and 187,197 total links, with no signs that it will turn around again. In short, it looks like we have bottomed out, and even a higher-than-usual amount of effort to combat the tide is doing nothing to prevent these rising numbers. bd2412 T 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to the extent that a lot of those extras are created through RM, the increase was probably a side effect of getting the 100 requests in the backlog down to 5 last week. Overall, I still think the trend is downward. Dekimasuよ! 23:00, 20 November 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.