Talk:Chimpanzee (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common chimpanzee which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 January 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close: this has been in the backlog for almost a week now. There doesn't appear to be consensus and this forks an extant discussion. Let's wait for the outcome of that and if necessary re-discuss there in a multi-move format. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Chimpanzee → Chimpanzee (disambiguation) – to redirect Chimpanzee → Common chimpanzee as the primary topic for the term "chimpanzee" (as opposed to "pygmy chimpanzee" or "panin") per the lead information in each article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 10:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the means or outcomes of these discussions bothers you, I am happy to assume responsibility where that is due, please indicate how I can avoid that. cygnis insignis 03:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This dab page was created earlier this month during the other move request. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the term chimpanzee is used in different ways in different sources (some use it for both species, some only for the common chimp), as has already been pointed out several times. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Being used in different ways means there's ambiguity. Being used primarily in one of those different ways means there's primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is plenty of ambiguity, as has been demonstrated again and again, which is why it should be a disambiguation page. That some editors here prefer one use over the other doesn't really make a difference. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be unusual to declare a primary topic when the terms are so clearly related and the potential for confusion is large. Take Britain for example. Many would argue that term, used on its own, primarily refers to the nation state (ie United Kingdom) but the terminology is sufficiently ambiguous that the disambiguation page serves readers by far the best. The same applies here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary topics aren't declared, but recognized. Common chimpanzee leads with "The chimpanzee...". Pan (genus) notes that sometimes the member species of the genus are collectively known as chimpanzees. And the pygmy chimpanzees are a partial-title match. And the film is not the primary. Readers would be best served by landing on Common chimpanzee when entering "chimpanzee" in the search bar and pressing Enter, not by landing on a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - I am not sure this is necessary, but it is a better solution than the proposal being discussed at Talk:Common chimpanzee to rename that page "Chimpanzee." With this approach, at least the users looking for the genus who come to that page through the redirect would have ample warning through the title that they may not be on the page they were looking for. My weak support is based on my suspicion that more people who type "chimpanzee" would be looking for the species than the genus. Although some participants in these move discussions have unequivocally stated that to be the case, I am not convinced. Even if that suspicion is correct, that would not make "chimpanzee" the appropriate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the species page, since I think that there are still plenty of users who would be interested in the genus (or not even know to distinguish between the species and the genus), but if my suspicion is correct this approach would make it easier for that slim majority to find what they are looking for. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from weak support to full support. Although I am not certain, I think per SmokeyJoe this is probably ok under WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{Discussion top |result= {{Moved discussion to | [[Other page name#Thread name]] }} }}, then a closing {{Discussion bottom}}.
  • Comment This section is interlinked with the Pan troglodytes RM and they should form one discussion. Both hinge on similar questions such as "What does chimpanzee mean?" and "Does it have a primary topic?". It would be particularly unfortunate if we found consensus to leave the dab at Chimpanzee whilst simultaneously moving Common chimpanzee to the same title. Certes (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Chimpanzee" often refers specifically to the "Common chimpanzee", but sometimes refers to "Common chimps and bonobos", depending on context. "Chimpanzees are the closest relative of humans" for example. This is sufficient for a PRIMARYREDIRECT, usually right, not very wrong otherwise, but it is not sufficient for changing the title of Common chimpanzee. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. abstaining from this concurrent discussion, but support reverting to SIA. cygnis insignis 03:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as second-best solution if Common chimpanzee is not moved here. bd2412 T 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It was clearly established in the original RM that there is no primary topic *in reliable sources* between the genus, which encompasses common chimps and bonobos, and often simply called "chimpanzee", versus the specific species Pan troglodytes, which is also often known simply as "chimpanzee". This entire debate, and the one 9n the other page, is predicated on an incorrect assumption that bonobos are never considered chimps. Much like the New York example, this sort of two dabs scenario should be handled with a disambiguation page, to avoid confusion when people land on the page. I wish people would sometimes think of readers rather than their own incorrect assumptions.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. Even in this discussion, the claim that "chimpanzee refers to the genus" (as opposed to referring to its constituent species, whatever that distinction is) is not settled. This debate makes no assumption about the consideration of bonobos as chimps. The proposal makes the claim that the primary topic for the readers (reliable sources are not readers) looking for "Chimpanzee" is the common chimpanzee, and that the other topics also sought by other readers would be best navigated to through hatnotes from that article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong, the ambiguity was clearly established. It's right there in the first line of the close: We have a fairly clear consensus, supported by WP:PRECISION and related guidelines, that the current name is ambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for illustrating your error precisely: "The current name is ambiguous" was established. "The current name has no primary topic" was not established. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wondered. If someone is searching with the term "chimpanzee", what are they most likely searching for? So, I checked Google. One of the top Google hits when searching with "chimpanzee" is this San Diego Zoo web page which is titled Chimpanzee and subtitled Pan troglodytes (a.k.a. Common chimpanzee). Brittanica's Chimpanzee article is also about troglodytes. And here's a BBC article about troglodytes behavior but only refers to them as chimpanzees or chimps. In general, when someone is talking about bonobos, the use the word bonobo. The case for making Chimpanzee (at least) a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Common chimpanzee is very strong. --В²C ☎ 01:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Chimpanzee (disambiguation) and having Chimpanzee redirect to Common Chimpanzee. Per above. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin: As there was no specific consensus for the creation of a disambiguation page at this title, please note that if there is an absence of consensus in this discussion, the page should revert to the status quo ante preceding the creation of the disambiguation page, which was as a redirect. The target of that redirect can be discussed in WP:RFD. bd2412 T 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect of indeterminate target (pending an RFD) is typically known as a disambiguation page. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The above "note to admin" is false. The previous discussion determined that there was no primary topic between the genus and this species as to which could be called "chimpanzee". So the default in the case of no consensus is to retain the disambiguation page here, as that was the outcome of the prior discussion. For the record I strongly oppose redirecting "Chimpanzee" to "Common chimpanzee". That would be the worst of the suggested options. If it is determined that it is primary topic, despite the opposition to that hypothesis, then common chimpanzee article should just move here directly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. And your note as to what the previous discussion determined is also false. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Please show me where there has ever been a consensus to create a disambiguation page at the title, "Chimpanzee". There certainly wasn't one in the previous move discussion, where only three of the eighteen participants even mentioned disambiguating the page, and a majority either endorsed moving "Common chimpanzee" to that title, or redirecting that title to "Common chimpanzee". bd2412 T 05:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: the previous RM closed with a consensus to move "Chimpanzee" to "Pan (genus)", and no consensus as to whether "Common chimpanzee" should move to the base page, the base page should become a redirect to "Common chimpanzee", or whether it should be a disambiguation page. The closer therefore set the "default" option to be this disambiguation page pending further discussion. This is in line with common practice that we don't create new primary topics unless there is an active consensus to do so. If there is no consensus between a new disambiguation page vs a new primary topic then we default to the new disambiguation page, and that is how the previous RM was closed, setting the new baseline for this one. If you had an issue with the findings in that close then you should have raised it with the closer. And once again, your assertion in the above "note to the closing admin" that "the page should revert to the status quo ante preceding the creation of the disambiguation page, which was as a redirect" is completely false and should be retracted. There has never been a redirect at the page chimpanzee. For virtually the entire history of Wikipedia, the article now at Pan (genus) was located here. It was moved on the 22 January. And for the past few weeks, the disambiguation page has been here, also as a result of the close of the previous RM on 22 January. The latter is the true status quo ante. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the vast majority of page moves result in the previous title redirecting to the new title. That would be the default. There was an existing Chimpanzee (disambiguation) page, but the original proposal did not include a move of that page, and there very little support was expressed in the discussion for a move of that page. Disambiguating a title with incoming links is a separate issue which requires separate consensus. bd2412 T 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [Actually,_] BD2412 changed the target from Pan to Pan troglodytes, overriding the intent of thousands of edits and certainly in opposition to the above statement, regarding the "vast majority of page moves result in the previous title redirecting to the new title". I point this out again, because the only response from the user is threats of dragging me to arbitration for pointing this out. Solutions are not evident in the declarations of those who evade directs question with distractions and whatabouts, rife throughout this wayward and baffling discussion about the integral meaning of FA. cygnis insignis 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The page moves caused disambiguation errors - which, I might add, was a violation of the principle that incoming links to a page should be fixed before a disambiguation page is created at that title. Suddenly, it seems, it is a crime to fix errors in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412:, and anyone else. I do not think for a minute that any user was not acting in accord with at least one established means of resolving, albeit temporarily, the architecture of our articles. The substance of this is agreed interpretation, which I contend is easily—and only—found outside of this discussion / debate / turf war in a 250 year old system of binomials. Our opinions are valueless. cygnis insignis 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    and in the case of an ambiguous common name for species and subspecies? This has not been addressed. How does an SIA not apply, when this is the arrangements for animal common names. This has been reverted with the insistence it a disambiguation page and cannot be changed by anyone [else], belongs to that project by default and thereofre constrained by an application of MOSDAB. An SIA clarifies the targets, more than two, how is that not an improvement and advantageous to those discussing this? The dab only muddies the situation even further, engaging some fractious dispute on PT and what a subjective term with no single objective targets. cygnis insignis 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "chimpanzee" is the species whose article is better titled "Common chimpanzee" (making it a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) or not. If it's not, then sure, this page can be a disambiguation page, a set index article, or a broad concept article. But if the title has that as a primary topic, that's how SIA doesn't "apply". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    restored SIA, reverter confirming it was a valid choice, and for reasons outlined above it assists this discussion and demonstrates a possible outcome of this discussion, not whatever question is in user's minds (and I honestly don't care about which common name, it's a stupid debate) cygnis insignis 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    restored disambiguation page; screwing up the navigation for the readers while this discussion continues does not assist this discussion. User the draft space for demonstrating a possible outcome of this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing anything you have done or will is obviously not up for discussion, as you have continued to ignore the objections, counter examples, and advance an absolute and personal idea on what this word means and respond with radical, unsupportable and absolute statements to a number of contributors to the page in a supercilious manner. Go chase yourself, you are not participating in the polite advancement of solutions. cygnis insignis 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, yeah, only editors who agree with you are allowed to participate, and any disagreement is impolite even as you utter "go chase yourself". The guidelines I provided links for in my responses are not radical, unsupportable, or supercilious; it's merely unfortunate that "a number of contributors" are unaware of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is little to be gained from discussing these matters with those who already agree, I'm disagreeing with the actions that have resulted in maintaining confusion and orchestrating ignorance of any other sourced views. The contradictions only arise from the vox pop of users making bombastic statements that assert their contrary truthiness. cygnis insignis 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. JHunterJ and BD2412 are admins that I respect greatly, but the level of WP:IDHT they have displayed in this discussion is starting to reflect very badly on them. And I note that the completely inaccurate "note to closing admin" above still hasn't been retracted. JHunterJ and BD2412: I'm happy to debate with you, and I accept your opinion on how these articles should be moved, I just wish you'd show me and others who disagree with you the same respect. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [Indeed,…] I am not happy to debate, or guesstimate who gets to point out what is flawed in in 'argument' that substitute for RS, N, V, and all those things users feel are irrelevant. Neither do I suppose that having a mop gives weight to what is obvi-opinion, there is nothing impolite about tamping down 'debates' that do not concern and should not influence the editorial community. In Deed, and in Words, Sincerely, cygnis insignis 14:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Amakuru is normally much more reasonable, but the level of WP:IDHT they displayed in the discussion etc. etc. Or, you know, we disagree and have put forth the reasons why. And have done so respectfully. So your wish has been granted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in NO doubt that the Amakuru has heard and seen the views of all here, and that is what prompted the comment. There is an obvious one-eyed arrogance and impoliteness in the way that several users have dragged some dispute to this discussion, some boyish territorial rumbling, and edits to mainspace that push aside any concerns in attempts to preempt and steer the outcome of these discussion. Yes, I Did Hear That, so has everyone else heard the din of tooled up users in their squirmishes and seen the potential and actual disruption. cygnis insignis 15:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the note to the closing admin is incorrect. On at 1:32 on June 17, 2004 "Chimpanzee" was created as a redirect. 15 minutes later, at 1:44 the same editor who had temporarily created the redirect moved the title "Chimpanzee" with this edit to the article that was just recently renamed "Pan (genus)" as a result of consensus at a discussion on that page. So it is very misleading to call the redirect from 15 years ago that was in place for literally about 15 minutes the status quo ante of this page. Rlendog (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If your impression is that the note to the administrator was specifying a redirect target, then you need to read it more carefully. There has never been a consensus for the creation of a disambiguation page at the title, "Chimpanzee". bd2412 T 05:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There has never been a consensus that "Chimpanzee" should be a disambiguation page. There has also never been a consensus that it should be a redirect. For the past 15 years it has been the title of a page, and based on discussion on that page there was a consensus to rename it, in part because the title "Chimpanzee" is ambiguous. Hence a dab page for "Chimpanzee" until further consensus is sorted out. It is disingenuous to use the 15 year old very temporary usage of the title as a redirect as reason to make this title a redirect now (regardless of target) in the absence of further consensus. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notwithstanding the difference in principle between a PRIMARYTOPIC and a PRIMARYREDIRECT, in this case I agree with Amakuru that either the Pan troglodytes article is at "Chimpanzee" or this article stays as a DAB or SIA. (What this whole discussion confirms is the sense of the WP:PLANTS guideline that articles about organisms should normally be at scientific names, which unlike English names, have the merit of WP:PRECISION.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which misses the same point: what title the article should have isn't this discussion. This discussion is what topic should the title lead to. The difference is indeed withstanding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which one are you looking for?
  • Oppose. As has been clearly established, chimpanzee is an ambiguous term, used both to cover both types of chimpanzee in genus Pan and more specifically to refer to the common chimpanzee. Some have argued that most people searching for chimpanzee would expect to find and article on the common chimpanzee. I'm more convinced by the argument that most lay people calling the animal a chimpanzee are unaware that the bonobo exists. If chimpanzee redirects to common chimpanzee, the assumption being made is that readers are looking for an article on the animal on the left and would be surprised to see material on the animal on the right. Or is it the other way around?   Jts1882 | talk  14:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, from abstain and hoping to be uninvolved, barring a better solution I am persuaded by the oppose arguments and realise it does make a difference. And yes, creation of content on plants is not bogged down in title nonsense, and so much easier to cross reference (is there a hyphen in the name, capitals, the answer is no and one). cygnis insignis 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. User:Srnec is right. No consensus to move this page in the first place, it must move back until there is. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why a consensus was needed to move this page. Per WP:DABNAME "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation)." After the discussion at the former "Chimpanzee" page (now "Pan (genus)"), there was no primary topic for the term "Chimpanzee," hence no need for the tag "(disambiguation)" at this page. If the consensus at "Common chimpanzee" results in a consensus that "Chimpanzee" is the primary topic for that page, them this page will require and I am sure get the "(disambiguation)" tab back. If not then WP:DABNAME would suggest that this page is named correctly as is, although as I stated above, I can see an argument to make an exception here and redirect "Chimpanzee" to the current "Common chimpanzee" page. But that is what would require a consensus, as that is what is not consistent with existing guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

post move discussion[edit]

@Rlendog: Consensus was needed because it is disputed. There was no disambiguation page AT ALL until you created one in the midst of a different RM. Then the closer moved that page to the base name without discussion. It was not part of the move proposal. The RM at Pan (genus) did NOT determine there was no primary topic. The primary topic should have remained the genus until a separate discussion had sorted out whether it was the species or there was no PT at all. Not a single person in 17 years of WP thought a DAB of this sort was necessary until last month. It's amazing. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I had the idea you blaming me for all this, but note an earlier comment about "taxonomy nazis" was plural. You are not responsive to requests for clarification of the aspersions you have cast about, consider not making them at all. I would prefer that your hyper-partisan interjections were censored, and may seek some input from the community on whether that is appropriate. cygnis insignis 04:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you have to do. You are not one of the "taxonomy nazis". They are mainly plant people. See the comment above: "What this whole discussion confirms is the sense of the WP:PLANTS guideline that articles about organisms should normally be at scientific names." What I blame you for is twice opening move requests that should have been multi-moves as single-page moves. Srnec (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: calling others "nazis" is the surest sign of the absence of a sensible argument, apart from being in violation of WP:AGF, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I created the page "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)". I am not sure why that was a problem given that there clearly is ambiguity in the name "Chimpanzee", including a film title, and the discussion in the other RM indicated that the ambiguity was causing confusion that was unresolved by the hatnotes. And nothing about creating a dab page under that title inhibited any decision under the other RM. As you say, it was the closer of the other RM who moved this page to "Chimpanzee." Given that it was the closer of that other RM who made the move, it was most likely because in light of that discussion he determined that "Chimpanzee" was not the primary topic for the page under consideration, Pan (genus). Nor was there any consensus - certainly not at that time - that the "Common chimpanzee" page was the primary topic of "Chimpanzee." Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Srnec: You weren't talking about me [yet] so I shouldn't care? I create plant articles and think that targeting that polite and productive part of the community is simply laughable. Tell me about your view on these 'taxonomy nazis': what are they are up to? What is wrong with the plant guidelines? How does this have an impact? How do you to resist that? Why do users with no interest in animals or plants think that there is something awful afoot in which title is chosen? I have my suspicions, prove me wrong. cygnis insignis 13:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpanzee =/= Pan[edit]

Chimpanzee can refer to both member species of the genus Pan, but is not another name for the genus Pan. 

Genesyz (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want to talk about the etymology of "pan"? Yes please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about the etymology of Pan, I'm talking about the semantic extension of the term chimpanee. Chimpanzee can refer to both species of the genus, yes, but it is not an equivalent term for (and does not refer to) the genus itself. I don't know if you understand this distinction, so that is my first question. Chimpanzees may refer to: (1) Pan troglodytes (including any or all of its four subspecies), (2) Panins = Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, (3) and some may even just mean Pan paniscus. I think we agree about this, right? That is my second question for you. However, Pan is a taxonomical term, whereas chimpanzee is a generic (and common) term. We must not imply that they are interchangeable and equivalent. The term Pan contains the entire extension of the term chimpanzee, but not vice versa. Chimpanzee can refer to the member species of Pan (panins), but does not refer to Pan itself. The distinction is important. Genesyz (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's quite a convolution you have made there. Chimpanzee is a common word. Pan is a technical word. All members of Pan are chimpanzees. All chimpanzees belong to Pan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


We shouldn't say Chimpanzee may refer to "chimpanzees" either. Genesyz (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for directing me to that policy. It would be most helpful if you could also point out the relevant part of the policy you have in mind here. Thanks. Genesyz (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole policy is relevant. Let me know if you have a specific part of the edits I reverted in mind. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that each item should be fronted with a form of chimpanzee? I can see (and accept) that, if that is what is expected for uniformity. As long as it's clear "chimpanzee" refers to the members of the genus and not the genus itself, I have no argument. There weren't explanations with the edits/reverts, and no helpful comments here before, so I did not know what you had in mind. Genesyz (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your last comment. The whole policy is relevant to the page, but I doubt the whole policy is relevant to your edits/reverts. It would have been more helpful for you to give some kind of explanation when you made them (or to give specific rationale here). I guess you have no obligation to be helpful, but it would sure be nice and save time if this were a collaboration. Genesyz (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the edits I had in mind were the parts I edited that you reverted. I was looking to understand your reasoning, as you didn't make them clear when you changed them. Nevermind though. Genesyz (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can go first. You removed all links on the film entry line, thereby eliminating all navigational function for that entry on the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that wasn't good. Good catch. What else? Genesyz (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mine wasn't an offer to do all the work. What else do you have questions on? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be a set article index, but some other dispute has it fixed to disambiguation page. And this allowed a mass edit to change the target from the genus Pan to the species Pan troglodytes. An SIA potentially clarifies this situation without the constraint of MOSDAB, that is the point of creating concordance for ambiguous common names and especially relevant to the current discussion, so I propose to restore the draft. This is firstly to facilitate the correct linking and secondly because I believe that would be the solution if P. troglodytes remains at *common chimpanzee*. cygnis insignis 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be an SIA but a broad concept stub could serve the purpose you're describing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, that is bald assertion. How would the SIA template:animal common name not apply to the common names of these animals? cygnis insignis 17:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The assertions above that the nomenclature isn't the common name of the genus but rather a way of referring to the two component species of the genus (a distinction that I as a non-specialist find hard to grasp) while also being a common name for one particular species of that genus makes both the SIA idea (things of the same type) seem to exclude it and the broad concept article idea seem to suit it, since it would essentially need that prose explanation of the distinction, not simply a list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your question, JHunterJ? Genesyz (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all worked out right in the end. Genesyz (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute revert. Link to articles. Random notes. Bila apes.[edit]

I dispute this revert. The links should be to articles, which are the commonname titles. The links should not be going to technical name redirects.

Also, why is there a "compare" note randomly added? Its purpose is unclear, at least.

Also, the Bila is a real topic that should be available in navigation pages, whatever its status. They are clearly most related to the Eastern chimpanzee, DNA and range boundaries.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not 'technical names', they are words used to communicate a concept in a variety of sources. The premise that a common name accords with what we know now about these organisms is ill founded. The page is concerned with providing a means of accessing specific or general information via the legacy of a name 'chimpanzee', that is self evident to anyone reaching the page. What is not self evident to article titlers is that the name that was learnt at an early age (common) and know from appearances on television and starring roles in movies (with future presidents, [TYFYS President Reagan o7]) does not accord with reality (the technicality). cygnis insignis 06:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chimpanzee_(disambiguation)&oldid=1200851730"