This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cats High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality. Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Leo1pard (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani "Eastern-Southern African lion" was used twice by Barnett et al. in page 4.^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC) You are right, I saw that too. But this does not justify an int link to a redirecting page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then neither would that apply to names of the Amur leopard for example, it is not just "East-Southern African lion" or "Eastern-Southern African lion" that is the issue, people know the names of the Eastern or Southern African populations of lions like they would for populations or subspecies of other felids, the recent revision of felid taxonomy does not necessarily affect that,^[2][3][4][5] and as it is, the CSG had trouble deciding what to do with lions in the Horn of Africa, for which subspecies were originally described, and these lions are not the only felids which they had trouble with, in deciding subspecies.^[6] Leo1pard (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 'Amur leopard' has been established in scientific literature for decades as common name for P. p. orientalis !! Whereas none of the names for lions you keep using is established, hence not at all common. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it's not like they are not established or not commonly used, do I have to state why that is? Leo1pard (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, you did still not comprehend the meaning of the term 'common name'!! Therefore again: this is a name that is commonly used. E.g. since the mid-1980s, at least 43 scientific articles were published using the name 'Amur leopard' in the title, and as many using the name 'Far Eastern leopard' in the title; not counting those that use either one in the text. This makes both names common names for this subspecies. Whereas your recent attempt to moving the respective wiki page to an irrelevant never used name was nothing more than frills and furbelows. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because, names like "East African lion"^{[2][3][4][5][7]} and "South African lion"^[8][9][10] are still common, despite the recent revision by the CSG.^[6] Like I said earlier, people are still interested in such names or details. Leo1pard (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's EITHER the one, 'East African lion', OR the other, 'South African lion', used for resp. lion populations. But in NONE of the cases you refer to, is the name 'East-Southern African lion' used for the melanochaita subspecies!!! And the newspaper articles in your list do not even refer to a subspecific name!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I already gave you stuff like these.^[1][11] Leo1pard (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed. But the first neither uses 'East-Southern African lion' nor the subspecific name melanochaita. Authors of the 2nd neither use any of the two for the subspecies in question !! These were easy ones to debunk your argument. Which school class are you going to, if I may ask? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the work of Barnett et al.^[1] is one of those works that influenced the recent revision of subspecies of lions by the Cat Specialist Group,^[6] and never mind any school class, watch out for what I have in mind. Leo1pard (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ain't telling me any news kid. I read Barnett et al. (2006) long before you joined wikipedia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I managed to point out certain things to you before, and so you did not expect me to do something like this to tell you something that I did not tell you before. Leo1pard (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good name for the subspecies is Southeast African lion Dennis the mennis (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really up to any of us to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in what has been discussed so far this topic, and wishing to engage with me in this, please come here. If anyone does not want me to engage with me in this, then I prefer not to engage with that person, but that people should see what goes on there, as it may affect what happens here. Leo1pard (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have proposed that Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion be merged into this one. All are considered to be the same subspecies now. On wikipedia, we generally stop at species or rarely subspecies level. This ultrasplitting results in alot of repetition on separate pages and misrepresentation of populations as being more distinct than they actually are. None have been particularly notable nor warrant separate article-hood really. The three pages are 4, 6 and 7kb of prose - not big by wikipedia standards. Presuming much of the content is repeated, material unique to this subspecies could easily be tripled. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and also for merging relevant content relating to melanochaita in African lion page. Most of its content is anyway already provided in those three. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Cape lion, but support the merger of East African lion and Southern African lion into here, for similar reasons to not merging Barbary lion into either Panthera leo leo or Northern lion, partly as mentioned by Jts1882. The Cape lion, like the Barbary lion, was a type specimen that can be distinguished from extant lions, because it's extinct in the wild, at least, with the issue of possible descendants existing in captivity being a controversial yet notable matter, and has defined morphological characteristics which make it separate from extant lions belonging to the same subspecies. African lion should be kept out of this, partly because the Cat Specialist Group could not assign all African lions to either subspecies, as demonstrated by their use of a question mark over the Horn of Africa in Page 72, and the page Panthera leo melanochaita should be about information that is specific to lions that could be classified into this subspecies, and not too much about controversial populations for which classification is tricky due to their genetic make-up, or what I mentioned above about specific populations that were treated as subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree to make African lion page an exception. That subspecies overlap to some degree is not unusual. And the info re overlapping can easily be incorporated into the melanochaita and leo pages. With fewer pages, it'll also be much easier to follow up and add new info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Overlap is not the only issue over there. It's much more complicated than that, there are so many WP:reliable sources on this matter that something like an overlap of the subspecies in the Horn of Africa is not the only reason why this is kept separate from articles on subspecies, and as it is, it's so WP:notable that the very organisation that reorganised the subspecies continued to talk about the African lion as a population, even after reorganising the subspecies, and something similar applies to other notable populations of cats that aren't necessarily subspecies, so don't worry about that complicated issue here. Leo1pard (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited Leo1pard (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging all but can see a valid reason for leaving Cape lion separate so could live with that being separate. In answer to Leo1pard, all these upmerged articles can be far larger so an argument about size is not valid. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the merge of East and Southern lions but not the merge of Cape lion (sensu scrito). I think that this two subspecies can be merge to "Southern lion" as we have a "Northern lion". Also support merging of P. l. malanochaita to Southern lion and merging of P. l. leo to Northern lion! — Punetor i Rregullt5^ALBAN (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with a possible exception for the Cape lion, which does seem to be a biologically distinct population. Vanamonde (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - every possible grouping of lions doesn't need an article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the Cape lion should be kept separate, for similar reasons as the Barbary lion. It was a distinct looking lion (the black mane) with a substantial scientific literature referring to the specific population. Its extirpation makes it notable. There is no clear settled and definitive position on the lion populations within P. l. malanochaita (e.g. SW/S+E/NE vs. S/E) so I think the extant southern lions should be covered in one article, although I see the reasoning for the eastern and southern lion articles based on how lions were studied in the scientific literature.   Jts1882 | talk  08:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument IF Barbary lion separate, then also Cape lion separate. But a black-maned lion specimen was also described from the Kalahari. So mane colour was not a distinct characteristic of this particular pop, which was very likely connected to pops in other South African provinces, see Yamaguchi (2000)'s line of argument and historical records in Guggisberg (1975) and Rautenberg (1978) in the Highveld. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't necessarily the colour of the mane that made the Cape lion distinct from its surviving relatives, but the fact that its mane was so 'luxuriant', as some would put it, that it covered the belly. Aside from captive lions, and considering that Asiatic lions in Mesopotamia were depicted with belly-covering manes, the only other African lions known to have had belly-covering manes were Barbary lions. Climate is suspected to be a factor, but as you may remember, extant Southern African lions were relocated to Addo Elephant National Park, which is in the southernmost part of South Africa, and so far, I see no evidence of even them having belly-manes, so the issue of the Cape lion versus the extant Kalahari and Kruger lions is similar to the issue of the Caspian tiger versus the extant Siberian tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge of all three population articles (Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion) into this one (Panthera leo melanochaita) in order to reduce redundancy and return to a coherent article structure of lion topics. Loopy30 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ^. We have way too many confusing and kinda WP:CFORK lion articles. However, the other merge discussion going on, at Talk:Northern lion, is going to produce a comparable merged article but at a vernacular name instead of a trinomial, producing a WP:CONSISTENCY issue. Using a trinomial for something as common in the public mind (if not, these days, alive and walking the veldt) is not ideal for WP:RECOGNIZABLE reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for proposed merger of East African lion and Southern African lion into Panthera leo melanochaita. However, the Cape lion does seem to be a morphologically distinct population, and it seems to have some notability in the public mind.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, use the trinomial name as the article title(s)- I haven't seen any consistent common name for the two subspecies. The trinomial will work until a common name turns up.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree to merge into melanochaita, but not use any vernacular name as page title for now!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The first step to resolving the array of splits and forks that are both conceptually dubious and synthetically titled. For the sum of related discussion, there is a table on participants positions and consent at Talk:Lion#Prelim_overview, also a big help to unpuzzling the profligate digressions of content created in response to disharmonious talk page discussions. cygnis insignis 19:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As African lion was redirected to the lion main page, I'm redirecting Panthera leo melanochaita, Southern African lion and East African lion to Southern lion! — Punetor i Rregullt5^ALBAN (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably shouldn't do anything of the sort until there is a consensus on what to do. We don't need more hasty, unilateral decisions in this area that only make revision history less transparent. Wait for the discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Punetor i Rregullt5: I agree with FunkMonk. Your pre-emptive plan is a severely unhelpful idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I wished that the initial discussions (this and Talk:Northern lion#Merger proposal) from the 6th of November should have finished first, without attention drifting towards other articles, and though I warned ([1] [2]) that focusing on other articles would lead to complications, it was not heeded, and those discussions became focused on other articles that I wished should not be part of them, and new discussions have been opened up regarding them, so close to 2 weeks after those initial discussions started, they are not closed, and have become more complicated over time, with more people making more comments that were not initially relevant to the discussions, and mixing what was in the newer discussions with these older discussions. Leo1pard (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the fact that >90% of the content of most of these articles is duplicated and unneccessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd agree that the page should not have been moved to "Southern lion" without the discussion first. Having it done that way first may come to an agreement. Iggy (Swan) 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the loong discussions running over several months in 2018 at Talk:Lion/Archive_5#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? and the decision in Talk:Lion/Archive_5#Prelim_overview to keep Latin names as page titles for the 2 lion subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binturong32 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Have read some very good suggestions on this talk page. Would the names 'Eastern-Southern African Lion' or 'Southern-Eastern' be acceptable for the Panthera leo melanochaita.[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. The title name was discussed a few years ago among several wikipedians who decided that it's best to use the Latin name. Btw: this is common practise for pages on subspecies. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binturong32 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Ok, wonder if the taxonomic nomenclature authorities will ever consider a common name.[reply]