Talk:Arctocephalus forsteri

message: I suggest this article should be moved to its common name of New Zealand Fur Seal, following the guidelines on WP:TITLE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.30.91 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "New Zealand Fur Seal" is no longer used in South Australia as it may give the impression that it is a recently introduced species from New Zealand, rather than being native to this area (the population has increased in recent years, after recovery from very low numbers due to 19th century sealing operations). The term "long-nosed fur seal" has since been adopted - see ref #3 in the article - so use of the scientific name is appropriate for the article title. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then having one of the other vernacular names other than New Zealand fur seal would be a good idea for the title. -- Troopersho (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia policy on common names is for the most used name for a topic to be used as the page title, not that it must be a vernacular name. When there are several vernacular names used im different places the scientific name can be the most common name in the Wikipedia sense. It can also be the neutral NPOV name when there are regional alternatives. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: ===Forsteri as a subspecies; and varying genus name===
This indicates that forsteri is a subspecies, not a species, and that the species is Arctocephalus australis. See also Google, Books, Scholar. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I saw the species/subspecies debate...which is why it is easier to have it at a common and not scientific name. Best we can do is lay out the reasons for and against taxonomy status as per the literature. Incidentally, the IUCN page lists it as species not subspecies. This book goes further and notes that Australian and NZ populations could end up being split anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, The IUCN Redlist does denote it as a species (my oversight), and the subspecies claims are noted as "synonyms". However numerous publications of recent years denote it as a subspecies: , .  Then there's also the varying genus name, Arctocephalus or Arctophoca. All of these things should be noted in the article text, and the disputed subspecies status should also be noted in the Arctocephalus australis article among the subspecies. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already mentioned on the latter page, though not discussed in detail Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

text: .....different species can simultaneously use the same English name. Most are more commonly associated with certain species more than others, while some are not. I know in birds, for example, multiple common names are listed on article pages, with the most commonly identified name used for the article title if one stands out amongst others.  I believe this follows both the Wikiproject guidelines and Wikipedia Manual of Style. No time like the present to fix the uncited tag once/if concensus can be reached on this species.........Pvmoutside (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: give the tribulations even we are facing with the common name its probably one of those article where its appropriate to dedicate a whole section the naming issues both current and historical. Gnangarra 01:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim has been challenged for 6 years and still remains unsourced I see no problems with removing it. If a source is later found then it can always be restored to the article but WP:V is clear: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." We add  to give editors a chance to source disputed claims but 6 years is long enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have therefore just now removed it. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More nomenclature problems 

message: This indicates that forsteri is a subspecies, not a species, and that the species is Arctocephalus australis. See also Google, Books, Scholar. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I saw the species/subspecies debate...which is why it is easier to have it at a common and not scientific name. Best we can do is lay out the reasons for and against taxonomy status as per the literature. Incidentally, the IUCN page lists it as species not subspecies. This book goes further and notes that Australian and NZ populations could end up being split anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, The IUCN Redlist does denote it as a species (my oversight), and the subspecies claims are noted as "synonyms". However numerous publications of recent years denote it as a subspecies: , .  Then there's also the varying genus name, Arctocephalus or Arctophoca. All of these things should be noted in the article text, and the disputed subspecies status should also be noted in the Arctocephalus australis article among the subspecies. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already mentioned on the latter page, though not discussed in detail Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Forsteri'' as a subspecies; and varying genus name

message: We need to either reliably cite or remove
... a claim in the lede that has gone tagged and uncited for six years. Google, Books, Scholar appear to turn up a variety of species and subspecies that seem to be called that. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: .....different species can simultaneously use the same English name. Most are more commonly associated with certain species more than others, while some are not. I know in birds, for example, multiple common names are listed on article pages, with the most commonly identified name used for the article title if one stands out amongst others.  I believe this follows both the Wikiproject guidelines and Wikipedia Manual of Style. No time like the present to fix the uncited tag once/if concensus can be reached on this species.........Pvmoutside (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: give the tribulations even we are facing with the common name its probably one of those article where its appropriate to dedicate a whole section the naming issues both current and historical. Gnangarra 01:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim has been challenged for 6 years and still remains unsourced I see no problems with removing it. If a source is later found then it can always be restored to the article but WP:V is clear: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." We add  to give editors a chance to source disputed claims but 6 years is long enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have therefore just now removed it. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Southern fur seal"

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Page left at current title. Aside from the proposer, there was general consensus that "New Zealand fur seal" was an inappropriate title.  There was also consensus for leaving this article under the scientific name, although some suggested other possibilities. Leaving the article title at the taxon name is consistent with both WP:FAUNA and WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure)  Bejnar (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Arctocephalus forsteri →  – move species page to common name Geekgecko (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Mammals has been notified of this discussion.  ASUKITE 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia reflects common usage not dictates it. Although "New Zealand fur seal" is technically a misnomer, it is the name used by Australian, New Zealand and international entities . Yes the Australians are pushing a new name, but it is not widely used, so I support the move. Many many critters have alternative names that are much less used, we don't list them all at scientific names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With that said, you also raise a point . I am not aware of this policy, and I cannot find reference to it in COMMONNAME, but if you can point me towards the policy and section, then I would without hesitation change my !vote, as if the policy is as you describe, it is quite unambiguous in what we should do. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxon article names are covered in detail at the WP:COMMONNAME subpage Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), which is where you find the details I have listed.--Kevmin § 00:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing that link; it seems to settle this matter quite unambiguously. As such, changed my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 August 2021