Talk:Eudyptes warhami

Reference utterly needed
I am involved with penguin science in New Zealand including the genus Eudyptes. But I haven't heard anything about a Chatham Island penguin so far. Even a quick Google check did not reveal any sources where this ominous article might have originated from. Unless thereis any form of reference I would suggest deleting this article altogether.C00ch 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

More than a year down the track and two references have been added; only one of them a scientific publication that does not describe or even mention a new species called "Chatham Island penguin". Until there is more evidence for a extinct penguin species the entire article is premature, if not misleading. It should definitely be removed. C00ch 12:14, 12 January 2009 (NZST)


 * I've added another scientific article as a reference. The sources seem unequivocal about this being a species, so I think our article should remain. I'll delete the prod template accordingly. The sources are not clear about the name; good point there. Can you think of a better title? Whether the species should be listed in our Penguin article as an extinct species is probably better discussed in that article's talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I got this information originally from Wikipedia articles when I created the pageThylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added information about the habitat that they lived in and the cliamte. Not much is really known about this penguin so I have put as much as I could get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwilliams19 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is listed in the 2012 book "Extinct Birds". I don't know where the species name "chathamensis" comes from, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions?
Does anyone know when and where these penguins actually lived for a fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwilliams19 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Appears to be until 19th century around the Chatham Islands. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomen nudum
The scientific name Eudyptes chathamensis is not available according to ICZN. Because there was never a valid description --Melly42 (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Eudyptes chathamensis appears to have first been "published" with this edit to Wikipedia in 2009. I don't have access to the source cited by Thiebot (Gill B, Martinson P (1991) New Zealand’s Extinct Birds.) for Eudyptes chathamensis, but Thiebot came out 4 years after Wikipedia had the name. If it's not in Gill & Martinson it's probably a Wikipedia invention. 02:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chatham penguin. 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/20090228183540/http://www.royalsociety.org.nz:80/Site/publish/Journals/nzjz/2001/11.aspx to http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/nzjz/2001/11.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.230.230 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Real or fake
Although the article may need more info, I did do some researching and found the penguin, It was a book created by the Cornell bird university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.230.230 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a real species, but its name is not and was never chathamensis
Now that the species description has finally been published after 25 years, I've gone through the article, expanded it, and removed irrelevant references. The name Eudyptes chathamensis seems to have no basis in reality, and was never a proposed name let alone a synonym, but unfortunately it's promulgated its way across the web; I just removed it from multiple languages of Wikidata. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2022

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Columbianmammoth (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Closing requested move survey; page not moved

– According to the guinea pig example in UCRN, the preference for English names over scientific names in article titles is official Wikipedia policy. Thus, almost all Wikipedia pages for living and recently extinct species use their common name as the title. Among living and recently extinct penguins, these two species are the only exceptions. Also, the article Eudyptes warhami appears to have been titled Chatham penguin before it was unilaterally moved without discussion in 2020. This particular critique does not apply in the case of Eudyptula novaehollandiae, but again the preference for common names is both official Wikipedia policy and the common pattern among Wikipedia pages. Columbianmammoth (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eudyptes warhami → Chatham penguin
 * Eudyptula novaehollandiae → Australian little penguin
 * Comment: The policy is not to use the English name, but rather to use the name that is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources (if that name is unambiguous). See, for example, Talk:Daboia palaestinae. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for your precision. I cannot comment on Daboia palaestinae. Regarding the two penguin species in question, I am certain that the English names are more widely recognized than the taxonomic names. (I might attribute this to the fact that the scientific names are intimidating and difficult to pronounce for most native English speakers, despite their scientific superiority.) This is true for all other penguin species, which is why their Wikipedia articles are titled with their English names. This is actually true for numerous living and recently extinct species, including the guinea pig example in UCRN. Columbianmammoth (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think these discussions should be split as my rationale would be different for each one. For the record, I Oppose for Eudyptes warhami, as a search reveals a number of common names, including Warham's penguin, Chatham Islands penguin, and Chatham Islands crested penguin, therefore to reduce confusion, and as the taxon is extinct, I would say retain the binomial.
 * I'm less sure for Eudyptula novaehollandiae, but think I'm leaning oppose. As a recent split from Eudyptula minor it would need strong proof that the common name presented has embedded properly. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comment.
 * I'm not sure how to split this discussion, but I'm open to the idea.
 * Regarding Eudyptes warhami, it's quite common for living and extinct species to have a plurality of common names. That's often how language works. Also, all of the common names you listed are close variations of the same name, except for "Warham's penguin". For comparison, see the page Snares penguin. This page is titled "Snares penguin," but the introduction also provides the alternative common names "Snares crested penguin" and "Snares Islands penguin". Likewise, see Rakali. This page is titled with the common name "rakali". The introduction also provides the alternative common names "rabe" and "water rat".
 * Many, many Wikipedia pages about animals follow this pattern. Likewise, the Eudyptes warhami page could be titled "Chatham penguin" but the intro could provide the alternative common names that you suggest. I prefer the name "Chatham penguin" for the title because that was the title of the article before it was unilaterally moved without discussion in 2020. Also, that is the English name for the species used by this Wikipedia article and others.
 * It's also quite common for species known only from paleontology to have common names. See the List of birds of New Zealand for dozens of examples, including the famous moa species as well as the Waitaha penguin. The Wikipedia pages for most of these species are titled with their English names.
 * Regarding Eudyptula novaehollandiae, you are right that the split from Eudyptula minor was recent. However, the name "Australian little penguin" is a minor variation of the original name "little penguin". For comparison, see Zebra finch, Sunda zebra finch, and Australian zebra finch. The two zebra finch species were split very recently. However, their Wikipedia articles are titled with the English names "Sunda zebra finch" and "Australian zebra finch," which are just minor variations of the old name.
 * Thanks for your time and consideration. Columbianmammoth (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving this article to "Chatham penguin". New Zealanders don't use the shortened common names Northern Hemisphere birders are trying to promulgate, so it would be "Chatham Islands penguin", or its Moriori name. But actually there is no settled common name for this bird, as its been extinct for hundreds of years and only recently described. Until there is evidence from multiple reliable sources that it's being referred to as "Chatham penguin", it should stay with its Latin name. WP:FAUNA policy is to use the "most commonly used" name. No evidence has been produced to show "Chatham penguin" is the dominant form in reliable sources. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the discussion of Eudyptula novaehollandiae, it seems like it should be taking place on Talk:Eudyptula novaehollandiae where people will see it. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.