Talk:Giraffe

Archives
May 2004 to May 2016 May 2016 to April 2018

Giraffe sounds

I feel like the giraffe sound section should be expanded. It's a myth that giraffes only make sounds that are barely detectable. Giraffes make loud noises more than people think, often when they or their calves are in danger. They growl pretty much like a camel would and hiss. It'd be good if that could be included. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoology/comments/jiessv/giraffes_make_loud_sounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstruse0 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Four species

A new study has come out further supporting the existence of four species, with seven subspecies: [1] —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What do the admins think? There are now multiple sources that support the 4 species model. Should the article be changed to reflect this? Somed00d1997 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This question should not just be addressed at admins. But let me answer this: As long as the relevant section Species and subspecies begins with “The [IUCN] currently recognises only one species of giraffe ...” we can't fundamentally change the article to reflect this yet. ◅ Sebastian 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Somed00d1997 and GPHemsley:} We had a recent discussion on the status of the giraffe articles and number of species to recognise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Giraffa_sp.. This article is now supposed to be about the genus (see the taxobox), although parts were clearly written when it was about the single species. There are separate articles on the Northern giraffe, Southern giraffe, Reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe, which are inconsistent on which is a species, proposed species, or subspecies.

I should add that admins don't determine the content of articles on Wikipedia (admins are a mix of moderator and technical support). All editors, whether admins, registered or just using an IP address should have equal say and what is accepted for the articles is by consensus. I think there is now a sort of consensus from that discussion to recognise four species following Coimbra et al (2021) (primary source) and ASM-MDD (secondary source). The articles need some cleaning up. What is needed is someone to be WP:BOLD and start making the changes to make the articles consistent with the four species model. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Giraffa_sp.. Where do you see in that discussion a consensus about what this article “is now supposed to be”? At one point you agree with one other editor on the statement “now is the time to weigh the pros and cons”. But nowhere did such weighing actually take place, let alone that it resulted in any specific agreement. ◅ Sebastian 14:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My "is now supposed to be" comment refered to the fact that the giraffe article is about the genus (note the taxobox) and whatever number of the species contained within it. It's not entirely written that way as the change from the species to genus wasn't done very thoroughly

The "now is the time to weigh the pros and cons" comment was made by HFoxii, who went on to suggest adopting the four species proposal following the recent molecular studies and acceptance by the ASM-MDD. I agreed with the proposal and then cygnis insignis pointed out that Coimbra et al's proposal also aligns with the common names of the existing subspecies and noted the early divergence supporting four species. No one subsequently objected to the proposal. That's what I meant by a "sort of consensus". A problem with consensus building is that absent a strong objection the discussions often just peter out without people explicitlu expressing support for the proposal.

A secondary consideration is that the current state of the articles is contradictory and a bit of a mess with the Wikidata linking. Adopting the four species model offers the easiest way of fixing it, as well as following the latest research that can be backed by primary and secondary sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

the circumscription of the genus has implications for the conservation status of the populations, the iucn is only one source for that, for other mammals I have used different conservation listings as the citation. ~ cygnis insignis 07:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Compact list

As an experiment, I created a compacted version of the current table at Species and subspecies – available here. I made it so much narrower that it now has space for three extra columns and fits on a portrait mode monitor while the text sise is still nicely readable. One of the extra columns is for a picture of the pelage. This has only 3 sample images; we could use the individual pictures contained in the image announced seven years ago to fill it up. ◅ Sebastian 12:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why tabulate the various arrangements at all? The prose can discuss previous descriptions and the current theory, rather than overlaying each against the other ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Poop

What did thare poo look like 2601:147:4001:73B0:F964:E87C:9498:D5B (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)