Talk:Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus
Latest comment: 5 years ago by SkyGazer 512 in topic Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus
edit
is the most common name. The guideline doesn't say "the common name should be used when possible as long as the name is uncontroversial and reliable sources call it as such". There are several vernacular names for the species, so they are even less common. cygnis insignis 09:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: When I reviewed SkyGazer 512's request, it seemed to follow WP:FAUNA's advice to use a vernacular name unless it is ambiguous or there is no consensus on which is the most common name. A check of sources showed that the requested vernacular name was far more popular than the other two listed in the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)- I regard these moves as contentious and would prefer that they not be forwarded as technical requests. My opinion is that interpretation of policy and guidance has been skewed by otherwise disinterested contributors engaged in a culture war, close application of these documents gives the accepted and regulated name as the default. That's the background in nutshell, and your action is understandable given a trend or cause célèbre to suppress the nomenclature that reliable sources use to convey information; my post here is to merely to flag this not a technical request. I hope this note finds you well and that you have a safe season. cygnis insignis 04:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Noted. I will undo the move as contested. SkyGazer 512, please open a move discussion on the article talk page if you wish to pursue a move (and given the relatively low traffic, you might want to post a link to the discussion at some place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)- (responding here since I was pinged) I agree with Ahecht's interpretation of the guideline; its common name seems to be more commonly used than the scientific name, the common name is not "so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained" and "When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to" is not true either. If the title were to be at its common name, the scientific name would be a redirect and would have a mention in one of the first words of the lead, so I'm not really sure how that's "suppressing nomenclature." AFAIK, the title should be at what is most commonly used in English as confirmed by reliable sources, not what is most commonly used by scientists; this seems to be the case here. I didn't think that a move such as this would be considered controversial; otherwise I wouldn't have listed it at WP:RM/TR. All that being said, it's true that the common name is mentioned in the lead as well and that it's a redirect, as well as the fact that it's not a very high-traffic page. Therefore, I don't think I'm going to open a RM at this time, as it doesn't seem worth the trouble, but I would be happy to participate if someone else happens to want to do so. Thanks to both of you for commenting and letting me know about this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- SkyGazer 512, "Rough-snouted giant gecko (Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus), also known as the greater rough-snouted gecko or tough-snouted gecko, …" which of these terms defines the page concept, allows us to say 'rough-snouted giant gecko' = 'greater rough-snouted gecko'? I may be able to establish this, in English language sources, but not without an accepted and verifiable description of the organism. cygnis insignis 15:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Not trying to be dense here, but I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. How exactly is this different than if the lead were in scientific-name layout? (which I guess we need to change this to now that it's been moved back)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- SkyGazer 512, a common response, and I appreciate that you are not trying to be obtuse; I assure you that is not my intention either. I know what you are getting at, but without a reference to the description in parentheses the first line is a jumble of rough tough snouty geckos, greater than something not mentioned. Anyway, I had forgotten how interesting these species are, and nice work with expanding the content. cygnis insignis 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Thanks for the follow up; the species is quite interesting and I still have quite a bit of work to do on it; i.e., more expansion and fixing some unreferenced material. So, back to the point. :-) Are you suggesting an explanation about what the scientific name means? Adding more material about the species' features to the lead? Specifying that it's greater than Rhacodactylus trachycephalus? I'm still not quite clear on how whether the page would be titled as the scientific name or common name would affect this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- SkyGazer 512, a common response, and I appreciate that you are not trying to be obtuse; I assure you that is not my intention either. I know what you are getting at, but without a reference to the description in parentheses the first line is a jumble of rough tough snouty geckos, greater than something not mentioned. Anyway, I had forgotten how interesting these species are, and nice work with expanding the content. cygnis insignis 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignis: Not trying to be dense here, but I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. How exactly is this different than if the lead were in scientific-name layout? (which I guess we need to change this to now that it's been moved back)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- SkyGazer 512, "Rough-snouted giant gecko (Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus), also known as the greater rough-snouted gecko or tough-snouted gecko, …" which of these terms defines the page concept, allows us to say 'rough-snouted giant gecko' = 'greater rough-snouted gecko'? I may be able to establish this, in English language sources, but not without an accepted and verifiable description of the organism. cygnis insignis 15:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- (responding here since I was pinged) I agree with Ahecht's interpretation of the guideline; its common name seems to be more commonly used than the scientific name, the common name is not "so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained" and "When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to" is not true either. If the title were to be at its common name, the scientific name would be a redirect and would have a mention in one of the first words of the lead, so I'm not really sure how that's "suppressing nomenclature." AFAIK, the title should be at what is most commonly used in English as confirmed by reliable sources, not what is most commonly used by scientists; this seems to be the case here. I didn't think that a move such as this would be considered controversial; otherwise I wouldn't have listed it at WP:RM/TR. All that being said, it's true that the common name is mentioned in the lead as well and that it's a redirect, as well as the fact that it's not a very high-traffic page. Therefore, I don't think I'm going to open a RM at this time, as it doesn't seem worth the trouble, but I would be happy to participate if someone else happens to want to do so. Thanks to both of you for commenting and letting me know about this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Noted. I will undo the move as contested. SkyGazer 512, please open a move discussion on the article talk page if you wish to pursue a move (and given the relatively low traffic, you might want to post a link to the discussion at some place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles). --Ahecht (TALK
- I regard these moves as contentious and would prefer that they not be forwarded as technical requests. My opinion is that interpretation of policy and guidance has been skewed by otherwise disinterested contributors engaged in a culture war, close application of these documents gives the accepted and regulated name as the default. That's the background in nutshell, and your action is understandable given a trend or cause célèbre to suppress the nomenclature that reliable sources use to convey information; my post here is to merely to flag this not a technical request. I hope this note finds you well and that you have a safe season. cygnis insignis 04:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)