Talk:Hominidae

message: I have given up vandalizing to try and have this page protected. This could be a page that could be vandalized when people who cant vandalize the Human page follow the link that comes to here. I wont ever vandalize again if this page gets protected for users to edit only. 68.191.178.216 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather original argument for protection. No, we only semi-protect when excessive and persistent vandalism actually occurs, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Ucucha 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree, vandalism is not as persistent on this page as on some of the others on my watchlist that have yet to be protected. I can't see a compelling case here. Anaxial (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of this page? 

message: This article states that Oreopithecus is classified in the subfamily Homininae as an extinct human ancestor. However, since the Wikipedia article on that genus says that hypothesis is highly contested, I clarified that point in this article. Since I am not a scientist, someone with the appropriate experience should take care of this problem.-constantthinker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantthinker (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oreopithecus Classification

message: I removed the indication "hominid status highly problematic" from Sahelanthropus. First, because the critics to the hypothesis that S. is closely related to humans are, at best, not better supported than the hypothesis itself ("controversial" would be a more appropriate expression); second, because if the critics are right, S. would still be related to the gorilla, thus belonging to Hominidae. 
217.162.217.199 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "hominid" is also sometimes (and confusingly) used to refer to Hominina (everything that is closer to humans than to chimps), reflective of an earlier definition of Hominidae. Ucucha 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahelanthropus

message: The article continues to violate WP:NPOV in presenting and adopting only one use of the term "great ape", namely the use which includes humans. Any accurate dispassionate survey of the literature will show that the common names "ape" and "great ape" are used both to exclude and to include humans. Different sources use the terms differently, and the same source is usually inconsistent (including Dawkins – see User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape" and Benton – see the last paragraph of Primate#Historical and modern terminology). The note about different usages is itself biassed: "Subtly, it may seem to exclude human beings" – "Subtly" is an editorial comment, and it does not "seem" to exclude human beings: in one of the two usages it does exclude human beings. Both usages need to be presented clearly in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article about Great Apes is referring to the classification of Hominidae, not the different uses or meanings of the term "ape." Taxonomically, humans fall under this group because of the similar genetic and anatomical features we share with gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. That is what taxonomy is about, grouping organisms into groups based on genetic and anatomical similarities. Thus, humans are great apes no matter the colloquial usage of the term "ape" or "great ape" Cadiomals (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Hominidae" is a taxonomic one. The taxon is clearly circumscribed in current usage (although this has changed so old uses need to be mentioned). So there is no doubt that humans belong to Hominidae, as currently defined. No up-to-date reliable source suggests otherwise. "Great ape" is not a taxonomic term. Some authors now use "great ape" to mean "hominid". Others don't. Most are inconsistent as per User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape". The usage and thus meaning of "great ape" cannot be established by reference to taxonomy; common names are not regulated by any code of nomenclature. So in respect of common names a Wikipedia article must maintain WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter what I think or what you think or what anyone else thinks, only what usage can be sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "great ape" 

message: (Opinion) Fearing a Planet Without Apes by John C. Mitani (professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan) published August 20, 2011 New York Times
Also on coverstory of December 12, 2011 issue of The New York Times Upfront "A Planet without Apes?  why our closest animal relatives may be on the road to extinction", pages 6 & 7.
 
97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource 

message: I was wondering if you could be more specific about this tag. What parts do you find not NPOV? Is it possible to localize this tag? The reason I ask is that, of all WP articles I have looked at,  this one has come the farthest. When I last saw it a few years ago whether or not man was a great ape was consuming the entire discussion. Any changes made, any tags put on, were being almost immediately reverted. Now I find it has got a whole lot more scientific. We have finally got around to distinguishing scientific from non-scientific terms. It looks to me like previously unhoped for progress has been made. So, I do not think the whole article deserves the tag. Perhaps you could give us some pointers as to which parts you consider non-NPOV? It seems to me based on past resolutions and progresses it might be possible to resolve this question. If it has already been resolved then someone forgot to take off the tag.Dave (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that real progress has been made recently.  When the tag was put there (a) the article had more POV-pushing over the use of the term "great ape" than it does now (b) when sensible changes were made there were immediate reversions. However, it seems to me that there is still a strong attempt to impose the terminology "great apes" = "hominids", rather than reflect the usage of relevant sources. Why does the article begin with the statement "The Hominidae (... anglicized hominids, also known as great apes), as the term is used here"? Why "as the term is used here"? This is a bit of a give-away that the article is not reflecting usage but imposing it. So I think that we aren't there yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not NPOV Tag dated October 2011

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Austrolopithecus africanus.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The Physical Description section states “Human teeth and jaws are markedly smaller for their size than those of other apes, which may be an adaptation to eating cooked food for more than a million years,” but the cited evidence (at least that available online) does not support this claim.  The article cited is about post-pleistocene changes in human dentition.  The Pleistocene ended a little over 10,000 years ago, so the evidence points towards a change in diet 10,000 years old rather than 1,000,000 years old.  Maybe someone can find some better evidence for the million-year assertion?  Or perhaps the million year figure should be deleted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.28.126 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating cooked food for a million years? 

message: I know you don't know me from Eve, but I'm a bit nonplussed that this article presents human consumption of meat as only having occurred since the Neolithic, when we all here know better than that.  I was going to change it, but I don't feel like dredging up sources that Wikipedia would find acceptable and don't feel like getting into a holy war with the vegans.  Can someone please take the time and effort, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, and correct this egregious oversight?
By the way, chimpanzees hunt also, which I notice was not mentioned either.
This sort of thing is why Wikipedia is blown off as a credible resource.  69.47.97.116 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've been eating meat since much farther back than the Neolithic 

message: To be consistent with the Ape article, the genus Pan should be described as "chimpanzees and bonobos". The term "pygmy chimpanzee" instead of "bonobo", which would justify the use of "chimpanzees" to cover both species, isn't favoured nowadays as can be taken to suggest that bonobos are not a separate species but just a subspecies or other variant of the chimpanzee. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that, if this is the case, the article chimpanzee really needs to be changed, since that's what we're currently linking to in the page. If the chimpanzee article is changed, I have no problem. But at the moment, this article is explicitly stating that bonobos both are, and are not chimpanzees (by linking to another article that says they are the same, and then, later in the same sentence, saying that they're not). What we need is consistency, and we don't currently have that. I have no particular preference for which consistent version we use, but I really dislike the idea of enforced inconsistency. Anaxial (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not straightforward, which is why I suggested discussing on the talk page. Given that Wikipedia should describe not prescribe, the Chimpanzee article should explain both uses: the older usage in which chimpanzee = the genus Pan, i.e. the common chimpanzee and the pygmy chimpanzee; the modern usage in which chimpanzee = common chimpanzee with bonobo = pygmy chimpanzee. But I don't see that in articles like Ape or Hominidae we need to explain both uses; in these articles I would suggest keeping to what seems to be the preferred modern usage. Alternatively both could be explained. I can't see any justification for just using the older terminology. (This is a good example of the advantages of using scientific names as article titles, as WP:PLANTS prefers.) Peter coxhead (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, shouldn't we link to common chimpanzee, instead of to chimpanzee, since that's the sense of the word we're using? The current text is still inconsistent, and I don't think that's a good idea. I'd also suggest starting a Move discussion on chimpanzee, (and possibly also common chimpanzee) if you think the page has the wrong title for its subject matter. Anaxial (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, if you want to argue that all the other articles need fixing before using the "and bonobos" form here, I don't agree, but it's a rational argument. I just wanted to be sure that your reversion was discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "chimpanzees" 

message: I propose we use this "consensus classification" based on Bradley 2008, and represented by Wood (2010) in the Blackwell Companion to Bio. Anth. page 66.
Superfamily Hominoidea
:Family Hylobatidae
:::Genus Hylobates
:Family Hominidae
::Subfamily Ponginae
:::Genus Pongo
::Subfamily Gorillinae
:::Genus Gorilla
::Subfamily Homininae
:::Tribe Panini
::::Genus Pan
:::Tribe Hominini
::::Subtribe Australopithecina
:::::Genus Ardipithecus
:::::Genus Australopithecus
:::::Genus Kenyanthropus
:::::Genus Sahelanthropus
:::::Genus Orrorin
:::::Genus Paranthropus
::::Subtribe Hominina
:::::Genus Homo
As more recent peer-reviewed research has surfaced since the early 2000s, I think it is best to write this and related articles according to that research. I support a re-classification be done to this article, as well as to the Homininae article. -Ano-User (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To Hominini as well, come to that, because, while it does mention the scheme above, as written that article implies that it is a non-standard classification, with little support as yet - something that is no longer true. In summary, I support the change, which I understand reflects the current scientific consensus, if not necessarily those of older published sources. Anaxial (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please make this change! We need to use the current consensus classification, not an out of date one. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I am happy we all agree. It would be excellent if we can all work together on this, because it is a lot of work and affects a large number of articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We are also going to need a new family tree illustration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start on this page, changing the definitions (although, of course, now the links point to pages that say the opposite...) There may be further editing needed, of course. Doing so reminded me, though, that, in my view, the page still gives too much weight to the Red Ape Hypothesis (that orangutans, not chimps, are humanity's closest relative). I also note that the section on evolution is really only about the Hominini, not the purported full range topic of the article. Anaxial (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Orangutan ancestor hypothesis has been completely discredited by genetic studies. It should have no weight at all, it isn't even mentioned in current textbooks. I've removed that part. It goes all the way back to when it was thought that Ramapithecus was a hominin ancestor, and not just a female sivapithecus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Didn't want to change it myself, having been previously involved in a debate on the subject. Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I was basically guessing on that one. I'll remove it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Classification

message: OK, I have your attention now.  I am looking for someone in the scientific community to think about adding a criticism section under the Gigantopithecus article.  I looked at all the references and none appeared to be from the scientific community.  I looked on the internet and could not find anything from the scientific community.  It just doesn't appear to be something recognized in the scientific community.  They even have a subclass called Ponginae which includes Pongo (Orangatans) and the rest, including Gigantopithecus, that are extant.  Are those true extant genera (word used on that article page)?  Thanks. Mylittlezach (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by the references at Gigantopithecus not appearing to be from the scientific community. One is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and another from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. A quick web search has also turned up these: Journal of Human Evolution, Chinese Science Bulletin, and Quaternary International, all with papers in the last three years. Having said that, no it isn't an extant genus... but then I can't find anything in either article that says it is. If there's something that gave you that impression (or that I simply failed to see), then I'll be happy to change it. Or you could change it yourself, if you like. Anaxial (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gigantopithecus 

message: This term is used in Transdimensional Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (page 16) to refer to Hominids. It's really only used once and then they just revert to calling them hominids in the rest of the section.
The understanding seems to be limited though. In spite of being published in 1990, it claims that the hominid classification includes Australopithecus, Robustus and Erectus but that it excludes Homo Sapiens (including Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man) as well as being different from the Ape (or Great Ape) classification, because they give separate statistics for the Chimp/Gorilla/Orangutang and don't seem to understand that these are also hominids. Ranze (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hominidon]]

message: Ape extinction should be included as a section in the main ape article. If the section ever got too large then it would make sense to create a subpage like this, but as it stands it's poorly referenced and lacking any depth. Jack (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: what exactly is the sourced content to merge? this POV pushing soapbox should have been deleted long ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair the content you removed was correct, yeah it's a bit soapbox-y, but it could be worked into the ape article with a few more sources. Apes are definitely threatened by the bushmeat trade, and human conflict does interfere with conservation efforts. Jack (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ape]] 

message: There are a number of internal inconsistencies that should be resolved regarding Great Apes:
# The introduction paragraph states there are "four extant genera", but goes on to list *five* items (1 chimp, 2 bonobo, 3 gorilla, 4 human, and 5 orangutan). That's confusing.
# The page on Apes notes that there are Greater and Lesser Apes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Greater_and_lesser), with three accepted Great Apes. However, the Great Ape page states there are "four", not three.
# The pages should explain the relationship between lesser apes (gibbons) and the bonobos, as it is not clear.
::With regard to the first point, the first line of the article does state that chimps and bonobos belong to the same genus. So there are, indeed, four extant genera: 1 chimps and bonobos, 2 gorillas, 3 orangutans, 4 humans. On the second point, I agree that there is some lack of clarity, since bonobos are not specifically mentioned in the section you refer to. That's due to a difference in terminology (mentioned in note 2 to this article), although I agree it would be better if we were consistent. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the third point, as it looks clear to me - could you elaborate? Anaxial (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is the common name for the . It's agreed that the two  are now often called "chimpanzee" and "bonobo", but the genus is called "chimpanzees". The HTML comment which has been left in the article says: "These are the common names for the four living genera in Hominidae. Please don't change it to include a mix of species and genera common names (for example, by adding bonobos). See the classification below. Ordering is alphabetical." So precisely what the comment says not to do has just been done (and, what's worse, the comment has been left). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: Sorry I'm in a rush to submit an assignment, but currently the world population clock referenced under the "conservation" section of the article says that the world population as at 23rd of August 2013 was 7.3mil, while the population clock now (25th Jan, 2015) says it's about 7.29mil, surely the population hasn't declined over that period??? Can someone check this along with the other estimates?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.230.147 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the PRB updated it's estimate sometime in the last 16 months. I've adjusted the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the data sheets, the September 2013 population was 7.137 billion , and August 2014 was 7.238 billion. —PC-XT+ 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect human population? 

message: There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is an RFC that may affect this page 

message: *If anyone is interested for input there, other move discussions like above for deciding between rare names vs common English names are open at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)'s talk page, Haplogroup R-M420's talk page, Haplogroup R-M207's talk page, and Haplogroup R-M17's talk page.Although the discussions have been listed on the Talk pages of relevant Project pages, yet only one editor (other than me) !voted in three of the requests, and only two editors (other than me) voted on the last one. Please help us reach a consensus with more input. Thank you in advance. Khestwol (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hominidae is a specialized name but it is not rare or uncommon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by comparison Hominidae is less common in usage than "great ape(s)". Also, Hominidae is far less recognizable/familiar in general, as compared to "great ape". Khestwol (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note:Move discussions 

message: Hominidae says 7–0 Mya, but Homininae (subfamily of Hominidae) says 8–0 Mya; it is clearly impossible for both age ranges to be correct. Either the lower bound for Hominidae must be 8 or more, or that for Homininae must be 7 or less.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date range conflict 

message: If this article title should stay as Hominidae, shouldn't the title of the ape article be Hominoidea? The article structure of the two are not much different. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency with [[ape]] 

message: The article body sometimes appears to use the term chimpanzees to include the common chimpanzee but not the bonobo.  Examples:Gorillas and chimpanzees live in family groups of around five to ten individuals...In both chimpanzees and gorillas, the groups include at least one dominant male...Bonobos don't live in family groups. And there are no dominant bonobo males. Bonobo groups do, however, include at least one dominant female.
Recommendations:
* In much of the article body, the term bonobos and chimpanzees or the term common chimpanzees can be substituted for the term chimpanzees.
* Any passage that shows a counterfactual bias against female superiority can be corrected or deleted.
Nothing too controversial here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does 'chimpanzees' exclude bonobo? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hominidae. 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/20071204144328/http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/46/index.html to http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/46/index.html
*Added  tag to http://animallaw.info/great-apes/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The picture is bad. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 02:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hominidae. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518164244/http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=556&ArticleID=6033&l=en&t=long to http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=556&ArticleID=6033&l=en&t=long
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The new picture is good, but it says nothing about the conspicuous stuffed ursid.
Octaazacubane (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a minority group. 60% of the Earth population lives in Asia. 193.69.88.226 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: Gorillas at their largest are 6 ft. the average is 5.6, yet humans out size them in length (although this depends on population). Even by mass many humans outweigh gorillas! --Bubblesorg (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The average weight of a healthy male gorilla is over 150 kg, which is certainly heavier than a typical healthy male human. And that, I would say, is the appropriate guideline to follow. Anaxial (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, but still humans like Jon Brower Minnoch out weigh them--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter. When we talk about size we need some statistically significant basis of comparison. For every huge human I can bring you a (hypothetical but probable) huge gorilla. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans are the largest primates 

message: The IPA should end in /ai/ not /i:/ (approx.). I tried to fix it but I got an error messsage. Can anyone fix this ? CecilWard (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually the correct American pronunciation. Having said which, I see no reason not to include the British English pronunciation as well (which is as you say), but I can't find a suitable citation to support it. Anybody have one? Anaxial (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA is broken 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (Pau) a l'Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Are people from Gabon gorillas? 
I'm kidding, but the layout/wording is pretty weird. Synotia (moan) 13:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of great ape species Map 

message: I think the first image that shows the bonobos, chimps, Gorillas, orangutan and humans and so on should change the human to multiple different ethnic groups and not just the SEA mother and son, because of negative connotations others here have mentioned.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 22:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First image  

message: This discussion was created per WP:BRD in order to find consensus and prevent an edit war.
In my edit, I wikilinked the four hominid genera listed in the image caption in the infobox. Sumanuil reverted it, saying that it constitutes overlinking. However, I argue that my edit concurs with MOS:DL, which states that "[a link] may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes [...]". –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 19:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been an issue in the past. People would link every instance of the common names, and I've gotten a bit overzealous. As long as that doesn't happen, I'm not going to edit-war. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thank you for responding. I am restoring my edit now. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 00:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in infobox image caption