This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mammals This page is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This post seeks consensus for the removal of the phrase ”sometimes called the koala bear” from the lead of the Koala article, or if not, it at least be qualified. My contention is that the phase is both erroneous and misleading.

I only registered as an editor on Wikipedia recently, joining on the 1st of August, although I have been editing informally for many years. One if the first things I noted was the use of “koala bear” in the Koala article. To somebody of my background as an Australian with an interest in wildlife, that is a complete nonsense.

Reading some of the history on the talk page it became obvious removing the term would be contentious, so I decided to try to introduce “erroneously” into the article as a compromise qualifier. I left a note outlining my proposal and reasons on the talk page, and five days later, there being no response, added the word. It was immediately reverted, and surprisingly I was accused of vandalism. It was suggested that I seek consensus on this page and thus here I am.

I only ask you take the time to properly consider my arguments. I would prefer that the phrase “sometimes called the koala bear” be removed from the lead, but if not, it be at least qualified.

My arguments are as follows:

1. The lead is not consistent with other articles in Wikipedia where similar issues arise.

An example is the article on the pronghorn, where former common names such as pronghorn antelope are dealt with further down the lead and are qualified. Ironically, there is a far greater difference, both in appearance and in terms of taxonomy, between a koala and a bear, than there is between a pronghorn and an antelope.

2. Given the other problems of the name, “koala bear” is not an important enough name to include in the first line of the article, nor is it necessary.

Wikipedia commonly offers alternative common names in the introduction to articles on animal species. This is useful in assisting the casual reader who may know the animal under another name to the accepted one. This is often done in guidebooks, for example “A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia” (Menkhorst & Knight, 3d edition) where dama wallaby is offered as an alternative common name for tammar wallaby (page 116) however koala bear is not offered as an alternative common name for koala (page 86). It seems very unlikely that a reader coming to the article looking for “koala bear” would be confused by the lead sentence only offering “koala” as a common name.

3. The syntax of “koala bear” has the potential to mislead the casual reader as to the taxonomic status of the species.

In English language grammar, we place adjectives before a noun. Thus, we talk of a “big house” or a “blue dress”. This is reflected in binomial English common names for members of the Animal Kingdom. “Sloth bear” refers to a bear that resembles a sloth, while “bear cuscus” refers to a cuscus that resembles a bear. This form of nomenclature is very well understood by the general public. “Koala bear” is unique (happy to be corrected) in that the adjective is placed after the noun, which at the least is confusing. That is, of course, unless you believe the koala to be a bear.

This leaves the potential for an uninformed reader to believe that koalas are a type of bear. Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) appears to believe this to be a real issue as they bluntly start their article with "Koalas are not bears—they’re marsupials".

It has been argued that this problem with the name is discussed in the article. This is true; however, it is buried in the middle of a long and technically dense article. Many readers will only skim the introduction, an issue that is recognised in WP:LEAD. The problem is not helped by “koala bear” being highlighted in bold.

It has also been argued that the next sentence describes the koala as a marsupial. Again, it needs a certain level of education about animals to know that a bear cannot be a marsupial.

4. “sometimes” in this context is a weasel word.

The word “sometimes” in this context invites questions: who? where? when? The statement “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears” is correct. But without qualification it is potentially misleading, because the species has never been called grizzly bears across most of its historical range. Better to qualify the statement, eg: “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears in America”.

5. Where is the reference?

After having some of my other edits deleted because of a lack of references, and learning how contentious this name is I was surprised that nobody had referenced “koala bear”, so I decided to give it a go.

Firstly, a reference for “koala” as a name: AMTC Species List | The Australian Mammal Society Inc.

I did a search for “koala bear” on Bing (don’t ask). The first link was to Wikipedia, the next four were as follows:

Koala | Appearance, Diet, Habitat, & Facts | Britannica (in lead) “Due to the animal’s superficial resemblance to a small bear, the koala is sometimes referred to, albeit erroneously, as the koala bear.”

Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) (first line) “Koalas are not bears – they’re marsupials.”

Koala - WWF-Australia | Koala | WWF Australia (about halfway down the page) “You may have heard this iconic animal is also called the ‘koala bear’. Despite its endearing charm, this nickname can be very misleading. Koalas are marsupials and thus have no relation to bears.”

Koala - The Australian Museum No mention of “bear”.

It seems to me none of these sites could be used to reference the current lead sentence to the article. Yes, there were travel sites and personal sites further down that did use “koala bear” but nothing that could be described as “reliable” when talking about koalas.

The above references also support my original contention, that is using the term “koala bear” is both erroneous and misleading. --Corythaeola (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This again...? Well, admittedly the last merry-go-round was 4 years back. Please see Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate". Setting aside the occasional incivility in that discussion (cough), the takeaway was something like a) the "bear" part is absolutely in use, if not frequently, and should thus be mentioned prominently; and b) whether to call this out as "erroneous" or "inaccurate" in the lede is open to discussion - which at this point seems to have come down to not doing so (the right choice, IMO). I suggest reading that section to find out what we have already been over. Given current coverage, I doubt the angle of claiming that the poor reader has to be protected from false bear-ness will carry much weight. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me that link. The discussion certainly went places I would not want this to go.

As far as I could see, discussion came down largely to an argument between mostly Americans and mostly Australians. I'm not surprised, at my work the only people who call it a koala bear are American tourists. The most frequent question from them after "what is its name?" is "are they really bears?".

Please help me out here, the box at the top is some sort of summary or ruling? It reads The normal editing cycle can refine such indication but in the meantime, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As near as can be determined, the "proposal to modify material" stems from this edit removing "inaccurately". Based on this should not "inaccurately" still be in the lead? Or was consensus sort to change that in the meantime.

I wonder what the response would be if "Pronghorn" was edited to include "sometimes called pronghorn antelope" in the lead sentence? Actually, I think that article treats older, misleading names very well, and I would be more than happy if Koala was edited in a similar manner.  Corythaeola (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word appears to have been removed almost exactly a year ago [1], with - you are correct - none of the discussion that should have happened at that point. I would advise against simply changing it back now though, since a year of no objections for a heavily trafficked article does confer some weight of consensus (if a weak one). - WRT pronghorn, "koala bear" usage by the rough measure of Google hits is 10x more common in usage. At 4 million hits it is frankly at a level were it would be excessively prescriptive to omit it from the lede, I think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for an adjective misleadingly is probably better than erroneously or inaccurately; vernacular names are not required to line up with formal taxons. To add to the examples already given the Barbary ape is a monkey, the ant-lion is an insect, she-oaks are not oaks, slippery elms are not elms, Russian thistles are not thistles, and Guinea chestnuts are not chestnuts. Koala bear may be on the way out (I used it 50 years ago; I don't use it now), but until it becomes an archaism it's worthy of inclusion. I suspect that koala bear persists more strongly with regards to plushes (from the influence of teddy bear); the bear morpheme also carries over to drop bear. Closer examples include marsupial lion, marsupial mole, marsupial mouse and marsupial shrew. Thylacine gives Tasmanian tiger and Tasmanian wolf as vernacular names. I think that article is fine without an adjective. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleadingly is fine by me. Happy to accept that.

Regarding other cases, happy to accept there are many inconsistencies, however we are talking about the Koala article here not them. By the way, marsupial mouse in never used now, I have never heard of a marsupial shrew, and marsupial moles are never seen by anybody. The other examples are all extinct. Corythaeola (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to describe things reflecting the real world, not the world one wishes it to be. The koala is often called the koala bear and this is an easily established fact. No one argues it is a true bear, it is just a vernacular name that is widely used in the English language. There are many other cases, such as golden moles, which are not true moles, and South American foxes, e.g. Darwin's fox and Andean fox, which are not true foxes. With birds there are more examples, e.g. the European blackbird is a thrush rather than a blackbird and let's not touch warblers, babblers and finches.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have used American robin vs European robin vs Australian robins. Again, we are talking about the Koala page, so these are irrelevant. But most of your examples are maybe species in different genre, or at the most different Families. Koalas and bears are in different Infraclasses.

Through my work we see any number of American tourists who call them "koala bears" (and are the only people who do). I don't know if anyone agues it, but a good proportion of them believe that koalas are bears. Australia is an expensive destination for Americans and most who visit are well-off and I would have thought well-educated. It leaves me wondering what people in less educated sectors of the community think. Your statement "No one argues it is a true bear" is just a guess. Corythaeola (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could add "sometimes called the koala bear for its resemblance to a bear" to give a hint, using the phrase that is used later in the article. But that would make the first sentence longer and more difficult to read (and we already say it's a marsupial anyways), so I'm not totally sure I really like that option. However, this phrase would be more cautious than simply saying "erroneous" or "misleading"; whether or not it is misleading really depends on how one interprets that name, and we should not give the impression that the name "koala bear" should not be used anymore by indifferently labelling it as "misleading" or similar. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could state "...sometimes inaccurately referred to as a Koala bear", which would be correct. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. No. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate" the question was asked and the answer was yes, and "inaccurately" was inserted. Then a year ago it was removed without discussion or consensus. Corythaeola (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. The current lead is so inaccurate.  Corythaeola (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about mammals so apologies if I'm off the mark here. The IUCN[2] and MDD[3] both seem to regard the chestnut-striped opossum (Monodelphis rubida) as a synonym of the northern three-striped opossum (Monodelphis americana) - should the former be merged into the latter? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was recognised by the IUCN and MSW3, and subsequently by aggregator sites (e.g. ITIS, GBIF, COL), which is why it has a page. The archive of the [2008 IUCN assessment] shows how little was known about this animal. The IUCN cites the phylogenetic study of Pavan et al (2014) for its inclusion in Monodelphis americana and the MDD cites their follow-up classification (Pavan & Voss, 2016). As the IUCN and MDD both support the synonymy I'd support the merge in principle. We have the odd situation where the target article is more of a stub than the one being merged, so perhaps the merge should also involve expanding the target article to at least the same level.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to support articles for no longer valid species. I just redirected 3-4 opossum articles to the species they are now considered to be a part of. (See the history of Monodelphis for the redirected articles.) I support merging any relevant data. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moggy#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've found another article for an opossum species that appears to be reduced to synonymy. The IUCN[4] and MDD[5] both seem to regard Dorothy's slender opossum (Marmosops dorothea) as a synonym of the white-bellied slender opossum (Marmosops noctivagus) - would anyone be willing to perform the merge? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done (there was only a half-sentence difference between the articles). This was pretty easy and straightforward, but as a reminder, the stated rules of this project are that articles should follow whatever MSW3 says, unless MDD and IUCN agree about a change. I know that it's a very very large area so it's not always followed, but this article has had a note that it may not be a legitimate species for 20 years, and the IUCN has agreed for at least 5 (and probably much more), so feel free to merge similar articles as you see fit. --PresN 03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the merge, and for the explanation! Mammals are pretty far out of my wheelhouse so I'm a little nervous making changes like this without seeking input from more experienced editors, but now that I know MDD+IUCN consensus is generally enough to override MSW3 I feel much more comfortable being bold :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List_of_manids#Merge_to_Manidae; some input would be welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last couple of years, several new species of the shrew genus Soriculus have been described, but these are not yet recognised as valid by the IUCN or ASM as far as I can tell at this time (probably due to their recency). I don't know what the procedure is here. These proposed species seem worthwhile to include in the text for the Soriculus article, even if they are just noted as proposed species (I don't think they warrant individual articles at this time, obviously). For other taxonomic articles, like say Nectogalini or Red-toothed shrew, can these other species be acknowledged as proposed species, while not necessarily considering them recognised? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slippery slope. If you add them in the body of a taxonomically larger article, then someone adds a link for them, then someone tries to make their articles. It's better just to hold off. Perhaps say something like "three new possible species have been described", provide the reference for that, and then tuck away in a sandbox the edits for something more fully fleshed out. As a rule of thumb, if there shouldn't be an article, there shouldn't be a link. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: As it turns out, all 4 species are recognised by the ASM, (S. nivatus, S. beibengensis, S. medogensis, S. minor) Does this change the situation, or do we absolutely need to wait for IUCN recognition? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Mammals' stance has been that if not listed in both IUCN and MDD, that it would need to be listed in one with essentially WP:SIGCOV in one or more non-primary sources. I don't know how the new WP:Notability (species) impacts this stance, but it's a good stance to hold for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit ago I made a new topic on the currently inactive pocket pets work group. I feel like it could be of use to the organizational structure to completely rework that project to be only about order Lagomorpha rather than the vaguely defined "pocket pet", and to exclude fictional characters from the scope - to bring it more in line with WP:RODENT and WP:DOGS. Since there's almost zero involvement with that work group now, is this basically a fruitless effort now, or something better brought up with the WikiProject Council? Reconrabbit 17:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pocket pets work group was created before Wikiproject Rodents. Most pocket pets are rodents, and at some point the mammal project banner (along with the pocket pets work group) was replaced with the rodent project banner for rodents. Lagomorphs are generally too large to fit in pockets anyway. I guess maybe the idea was that pocket pets would cover mammals other than dogs or cats kept as pets, but it really is vaguely defined and never attracted activity as a work group.

I think it would be better to start a lagomorph work group from scratch than to try to rework pocket pets, but I don't think that a lagomorph work group would really attract participants either. WikiProject Rodents is also barely active, and it might be better to just roll that back up into mammals. 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful to know, thank you. I'll focus more on writing the lagomorph articles rather than how they're categorized on the talk pages then. Reconrabbit 17:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]