Talk:Hadramphus tuberculatus

Odd choice of article title

To me it seems very strange to redirect from the accepted scientific name to one all experts (according to the article) agree is wrong. To my understanding, usually the page title is the most frequently used common name, with less frequently used common names and scientific names being redirected. If no accepted common name exists, the article title should be the correct scientific name. -- Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

well your contact person for moving the article might be Stemonitis. At the other hand it seems still unclear whether Karocolens should be in include into Hadramphus or whether both genera should be treated as distinct, --Melly42 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Karocolens tuberculatus → Spaniard weevil – according to the article it is undisputed Karocolens tuberculatus belongs to Hadramphus. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use the most common name when possible, the new name should be Spaniard weevil having 573.000 hits on google, whereas Canterbury knobbed weevil has 10.100 hits and Banks Peninsula speargrass weevil 5.550; both other vernacular names and both scientific names Karocolens tuberculatus and Hadramphus tuberculatus, in my understanding should be redirect pages. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed but what do think others? --Melly42 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, move to Canterbury knobbed weevil instead: Most common name based on Google hits is Canterbury knobbed weevil (27k hits), vs Spaniard weevil (3k hits) and Banks Peninsula speargrass weevil (25k hits) per WP:FAUNA. Two of the three references for the article give CKW as the trivial name, and the third gives no trivial name. Adabow (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Adabow gets a totally different hit number, but since two out of three cited article do give CKW as trivial name, I agree to the proposed alternative. -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I used quote marks, ie searched for "spaniard weevil", not spaniard weevil. This ensures the phrase is searched for, rather than an inflated count of pages where 'spaniard' and 'weevil' may be anywhere on the page. Adabow (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep at current title. I actually started to close this, noting that we normally consider Google Books, News Archive, and Scholar results before ever attempting a Google web search, but that in this case there are few results for any of the proposed titles in them, but then realized I never looked at the current title. . The current, scientific title, is by far the most common name in a Google Book search (which concentrates reliable source much more than a web search). Indeed, the other three get no hits at all. I attempted a more nuanced look by searching New Zealand's Papers Past but found nothing for any of the four.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The current valid name is Hadramphus tuberculatus (see all the references in the genus article Hadramphus). I know that Gvt paper but I would like to see some current sources that say that Karocolens is still a valid genus and that the placement in Hadramphus is not correct --Melly42 (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, see WP:FAUNA: "The article title should usually consist of the common (vernacular) name that is most common in English". The most common common name is Canterbury knobbed weevil. Adabow (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Adabow. I am aware of the local consensus, but where the scientific name predominates over any vernacular name in reliable sources, I believe it should be the title regardless, per the commons names policy and its underlying precepts. Here, the vernacular names aren't even present in any books I can find, while the scientific name has 62 appearances. For precedent, see Talk:Mauritia flexuosa and Talk:Megalomys luciae.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Move, again

I started the above debate that ended without reaching consensus. I'm flexible, and this is my last attempt. Let me summarize the situation we arrived at now:

• Hadramphus tuberculatus, the scientific name that is supported by all experts, redirects to Karocolens tuberculatus, a subjective junior synonym.
• Lyperobius tuberculatus, the type of Hadramphus tuberculatus redirects to Karocolens tuberculatus
• Canterbury knobbed weevil and Spaniard weevil, attempts to give a common name, none of which is used (which should not come as a surprise, since the little fellows went extinct, or so one presumes), all redirect to the subjective junior synonym. Banks Peninsula speargrass weevil lacks a redirect.
• Karocolens however, redirects to Hadramphus.
  

I'd say this is quite confusing, and it gives the impression that users have taxonomic opinions that they promote through wikipedia. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a possibility to write an own article for Karocolens with the remark that it is disputed. Especially do the fact, that it is listed at EOL.org and that the IUCN is still hasitating (after 17 years) to move this taxon to the correct genus --Melly42 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is needed. It can just be mentioned as a section of the Hadramphus article. I would support a move of this article to Hadramphus tuberculatus, as that seems to be the most accepted name of the genus. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the new IUCN assessment should be sufficient to move this article to the correct lemma Hadramphus tuberculatus http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/39307/0 --Melly42 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite

Very awkward writing style and half of it is just kinda wrong. I tend to leave these comments as a note to self to one day come back and fix things... Dustinlamont (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)