Talk:Irenomys

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Chilean Climbing Mouse → Irenomys — - As explained at length here, "common names" for animals such as this are not really in common use, and the articles should therefore be located at the scientific names. Usage of the genus name as the article title for a genus with a single species follows established practice in articles like Andrewsarchus, Lundomys, and Pseudoryzomys. Ucucha 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient Not enough. Show that the vernacular name is not in common use, and you have a case; but in the meanwhile, the presumption of WP:UE prevails. The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean Climbing Mouse vs. Irenomys tarsalis. The name "Irenomys" has been the most common name used in English-language publications for this animal since 1919. See the link provided in the first post for a detailed discussion of the policies involved. Ucucha 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By hypothesis, Google Scholar is a collection of the writings of specialists. (It's not quite as good at selecting them as it claims, but the difference for minor genera will be small.) Therefore, it is not representative, and does not answer the question of what general usage is.

The comments to which you link are your opinion. Two editors do not make Wikipedia policy, and the claim that they do is disruptive.

You are correct that by "common name", we mean the name in common usage - not necessarily the vernacular name. But the universe being sampled is all discussions of Chilean wildlife, including travel books, as well as - indeed in preference to - scientific papers: those who read scientific papers have other references, more reliable than us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The link I gave is more than my opinion: it is a discussion of the policy issues involved and a justification of why, in cases like this one, the article title should be the scientific name. I never said that what I wrote there was a policy; please be more careful before labeling my writing "disruptive".

This animal has probably been mentioned in few, if any, travel books. It is poorly known, and of little interest to nonspecialists. Google Books and regular Google provide similar results to Google Scholar. There is a multitude of reliable source that discusses this animal under "Irenomys tarsalis" (some also give other common names than "Chilean Climbing Mouse", CCM from now), cited in the article as Kelt, 1993; Musser and Carleton, 2005; Osgood, 1943; Kelt et al., 2006; Ojeda et al., 2004; Martinez, 1993; and Steppan, 1995. The only reliable sources I have so far found that use CCM are the Red List and the single result in Google Scholar. A Google search also turns up [1] and [2] for CCM, and [3] for the scientific name and [4] and [5] for other common names. Several common names have been used for this species, and there is no indication that "Chilean Climbing Mouse" is even the most common one.

The relevant policy, WP:NC, states that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." Irenomys is an English-language name, as it has been used in English-language publications for decades, and I think the sources I cited make it very plausible, to say the least, that it is also the most common English-language name. Ucucha 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I've never approved of WP:COMMONNAME, but this is a particularly egregious example of what happens when it's slavishly applied. Tevildo (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• And, yes, I do think the article that's currently at Lybia should be at Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. So nyah. Tevildo (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support — The current page name reflects a common misunderstanding of the difference between vernacular name and common name. The most common (prevalent) name of this obscure taxon is the scientific name. The taxon is a genus with single species, so per Wikipedia convention use the generic name. Hence the correct page name of this article is Irenomys. --Una Smith (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support The binomial is more common than the alleged common name, 361:120. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 22 November 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irenomys. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/

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) 18:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)