Talk:Lion/Archive 5

Archive 5?
Would it be possible to get the first 23 sections of this talk page archived? Unless anyone objects? I just found that the bot that started archiving here is no longer active. Who knows how to trigger its replacement, lowercase sigmabot III ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It can also be done manually, until the bot works. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I manually archived only sections that had no discussions any more since summer 2018. The section now on top, 'FAR probably needed', is so long that I'm tempted to also archive this one. Any thoughts? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It should not be archived, because the discussion over whether this should go to FAR is still active and relevant. I continue to have concerns over the stability of this article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The actual species of the Gaetulian lion is lost to history. It is noted in Greek and Roman classic texts based on where it is was captured rather than a species classification. We might reasonably speculate it is the Barbary lion due to the range location near the Roman Empire, but there are no sources. I would say it is unrelated to the rest more of a literary history article. -- Green  C  23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, is it notable enough as a standalone or would it be best in a Cultural depictions of lions page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed lost to history. I have never seen a mention of this one in any modern publication on lion. So if it was only mentioned in classic texts, then it may make sense to shift the content in abbreviated form to the section 'cultural significance' of the lion mainpage, and delete Gaetulian lion? Shifting to 'Cultural depictions of lions' is also a good option. But is there a pic? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A merge to the culture history article would create a weight problem, unless it was reduced to a sentence or two which is doable but loss of information. Possibly could copy the quotes to citations, Wiktionary, Wikiquote. Or some combo. --  Green  C  03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This option sounds fine with me, to reduce and export quotes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A page titled Lion taxonomy is still my favourite, with info only about the historic purported subspecies that were described, in a list, not a table, without pics or at most a few old ones, but just who described when and on which basis. This info can be shifted there from the pages on Barbary, West African, Central African, etc. pages; and also include info about phylogeographic studies that are now repeated over and over again in the individual pages, but are surely worth being referenced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

American lion should be kept as a stand alone article, though the article itself needs updating to reflect it being currently treated as Panthera atrox, rather then Panthera leo atrox.-- Kev min  § 03:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with both: stand alone and update. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree about this - I was listing this more out of completeness really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I do not desire to have articles for every described subspecies, but to keep the articles only for the regional populations, aside from the main article and those on prehistoric forms, and I agree with BhagyaMani about Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita being stubs with links to existing articles, or if necessary, shifting them to a new page under the heading 'taxonomy', and keeping that as perhaps a merger of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita, but as BhagyaMani said earlier, there is relevant material about lions that wouldn't fit under the heading 'Taxonomy' or 'Phylogeography', so for such material, I would prefer to keep it in the articles of the regional populations. Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Which populations would you have separate pages on? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago, I had started to collate content from West African and Central African lion pages into one, namely under Panthera leo leo. But one or two editors disagreed, argueing that it's worthwhile to keep them separate, also because West African lion has been IUCN Red Listed differently than the species. Therefore, i also kept Southern African and East African lion separate, but only added ref'ed info there that is not in the mainspace page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was probably one of those editors. The Asiatic and West African lions are distinct conservation units and have been studied as distinct populations and/or subspecies since at least the early 1800s. Most scientific sources on morphology, ecology and bahaviour will refer to these lions rather than the new subspecies that subsumed them. At least for now it seems easier to keep them as separate articles, as they could yet be recognised as subspecies. If once the taxonomy has settled down the northern lion subspecies retains recognition, I wouldn't be adverse to merging the articles, although not keeping an article on the Asiatic lion would seem strange. A good sign of some stability in the taxonomy would be a common name for the subspecies.
 * The division of the southern subspecies is not so straighforward as there are several competing hypothesis. The most strongly supported, iirc, is the southwestern, south-east and northeast division. Unfortunately, its not always clear which traditonal subspecies/populations belong to these genetic divisions. I suspect that if this had been clearer there would have been six subspecies recognised by the CatSG (based on what the authors write in their research papers). Because of the uncertainty, there might be a stronger case for one article on the southern subspecies to cover the populations recognised in different studies.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fully agree to also keep Asiatic lion page separate, as it contains sooo much valuable info that it would be herculian to try integrating this into lion mainpage. that way, will also be easier to update in future. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As to Southern African and East African lion pages, I tend at present to also keep them separate, once because there is a host of publications out there that have not yet even been mentioned in these pages, and i expect more to come up in future, so that both will grow. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems like a slippery slope to have separate articles for something as diffuse and arbitrary as "populations". But it seems a similar problem has also just occurred with plains zebras, where traditional subspecies do not correlate to actual populations. Probably best with an article about lion taxonomy/subspecies where it can all be merged into, until the dust settles. There is probably not much unique to write about each subspecies other than their histories anyway. As for the American lion, it is hardly ever considered a subspecies of lion anymore, so it shouldn't be affected. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Due to the opposition that existed against all of this being in only 2 articles, what I was thinking was that these should be the articles:
 * As BhagyaMani said, not all of the relevant information on the current lions can be merged under that heading, but I am hoping at least that it should be a merger of what is in Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita. Leo1pard (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

African lion (partly to include information that can't be easily accommodated in articles of the subpopulations of lions in Africa: Barbary lion, Cape lion, Central African lion, East African lion, West African lion, and Southern African lion, and to make it clear what the different clades are for example), Asiatic lion, and History of lions in Europe, aside from articles on prehistoric relatives like Panthera shawi and Panthera spelaea, and to keep relevant information about lions which doesn't fit under the heading "taxonomy" or "phylogeography"; there is far more to lions that has been studied than just taxonomy or phylogeography, or may be studied in the future to the extent that keeping them all in one place would be pointless, like BhagyaMani said. Leo1pard (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Only reordered sequence of replies to Cas Liber's question re separate pages chronologically. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Not every lion related article should be merged, obviously. The issue seems to be mainly the subspecies, none of which have particularly long articles anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a different approach has to be taken to existing articles on concepts that have been in the scientific literature since Darwin's day and articles on new subjects. The Asiatic lion has been a subject of scientific study for centuries and its status as subspecies or population of a subspecies doesn't change the notability. If the lion was a newly described species then the two subspecies approach would clearly be the preferred approach (assuming enough material for several articles). If we go for lumping then the articles on the Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger would have to go, too. These subspecies divisions should also be treated as provisional as the next taxonomic revision might be written by splitters. However, as you suggest, the shorter articles would probably benefit from some merging.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which ones do you consider the 'shorter' ones? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking generally rather than thinking of specific articles. I think a lot of the short ones have already been merged (e.g. Ugandan lion). The four under Panthera leo leo are all sufficiently long and clear on subject matter. Similarly the three under Panthera leo melanochaita seem of reasonable length, but I have sime misgivings over the split. Both the east and south african lion articles seem to overlap with the south/east African clade of Bertola et al (2016), although they follow the split of the same authors a year earlier and probably better reflect the historic literature of where regional studies took place. There isn't such a clear answer as for the northern subspecies.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aah ok, I see; yes indeed, most of the pages on the old subspecies have been merged. There are currently some 40+ pages with regional and localised lion names that redirect to the African lion page. Re the two pages on melanochaita populations: these foremost merged the former Kalahari / Transvaal lion pages and the various former ones about lions in East Africa, respectively; both with some new info. They are not intentionally written along the clade lines of Bertola et al. (2016) and previous authors, but much more oriented to lion conservation efforts in these regions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That merger history explains things and keeps text and sources more closely related. I think this arrangement is fine for now as conservation efforts are likely to drive future changes to the taxonomy. The quirk that you have some lions of the southwestern clade in Kruger National Park suggests that conservation is effecting the historical distribution of lions.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Re the African lion page, I see the following issues that imo need to be addressed: 1) a large part of its content has been duplicated from the main lion page: the duplicate detector found 176 matching phrases, see dupdet results; 2) it contains 175 phrases duplicated from the West African lion page, see dupdet results; 3) and 221 duplicated from the Central African lion page, see dupdet results; 4) and 239 phrases duplicated from the Southern African lion page, see dupdet results; 5) and 226 phrases duplicated from the East African lion page, see dupdet results; 6) and 167 phrases duplicated from the Cape lion page, see dupdet results; 7) and 210 phrases duplicated from the Barbary lion page, see dupdet results; 8) the edit history indicates that none of the duplicated content has been WP:PATTed. Even if all the references used are deducted from the dupdet results, there is still a substantial amount of content that is already available in the main lion page and subpages. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Much of the 'duplicate' stuff are actually details of references like that of Bertola et al. or commonly used words or phrases like "extinction" and "East and Southern Africa", otherwise, there are major differences between what is in that page and the other ones. Leo1pard (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, what about northern lion and Panthera leo leo - these seem synonymous to me and should be merged. Furthermore, looking online, the evidence for this being a common name assigned to this subspecies is tenuous (although logical) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For that, considering the size of Northern lion, I am thinking of leaving relevant material in other pages where it can fit, such as information on the past distribution of Asiatic lions in the article Asiatic lion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Northern lion has 13kb prose size. It could be tripled and not be a problem. I have no problem with Asiatic lion being separate, but that is not what I am asking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The pages on Barbary, Asiatic, West African and Central African lions are unique, because they provide specific info about these populations. Whereas the Northern and African lion pages do not contain unique info: most of the content has been copy-pasted from the former four pages, i.e. already available info is repeated there. So both can also be reduced to int links, without loosing anything !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Additionally, content of East African and Southern African lion pages has also been duplicated in the African lion page, at least large parts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * African lion does contain plenty of information that at least you wouldn't want to have on other pages, and I already mentioned that much of the 'duplicate' stuff are actually details of references like that of Bertola et al. or commonly used words or phrases like "extinction" and "East and Southern Africa", otherwise, there are major differences between what is in that page and the other ones, and I am thinking of changing Northern lion, but first this issue of you constantly ignoring discussions, like what you did recently, to fit in your POV, which may occasionally ignore what is in WP:reliable sources, and trying to distract people from that, needs to be addressed. Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 07:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I might be a little late to this discussion, but my thoughts are as follows: Leave Panthera spelaea and Panthera atrox out of it. Those aren't commonly considered lion subspecies, and they are more relevant to paleontology than lion taxonomy. On the proliferation of subpages: keep Asiatic lion, it is a stable and well-done page about a topic of some notability. And not everyone agrees that the Asiatic lion is the same subspecies as African lions, rather than its own subspecies. Also, merge some of those pages into the appropriate subspecies article, those being P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita. Cape lion might need to stay (it has some notability from what I can tell). Gaetulian lion is a historical/legendary creature; the info on that page is distinctly different from the more biology-focused subspecies & populations pages. As for the rest, merge into the two subspecies pages and note the mixed population on the main Lion page. The current variety of pages about lions is confusing, to say the least. And for editors: please peacefully resolve your issues with each other. I am not interested in edit warring, or in getting involved in a massive argument, but I am interested in keeping the myriad Felid-related articles organized and properly categorized.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: I have gone in and added my two cents to the merge proposals and the deletion nomination. Again, please avoid long arguments and edits wars.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: How many subpages?
Right, there has been some discussion at Talk:Panthera_leo_leo and sections below it over what and how lion taxonomy is discussed on wikipedia. Right now we have:


 * lion - a Featured Article (recently genetic research has reduced the subspecies from lots to just two)
 * Panthera leo leo - a stubby article that is in effect a disambiguation page to:
 * Barbary lion
 * West African lion
 * Central African lion
 * Asiatic lion
 * Panthera leo melanochaita - a stubby article that is in effect a disambiguation page to:
 * Cape lion
 * East African lion
 * Southern African lion

We also have:
 * African lion
 * Northern lion - synonymous with Panthera leo leo (???)


 * History of lions in Europe
 * American lion
 * Sri Lanka lion
 * Gaetulian lion
 * Cultural depictions of lions

Note that we do not have a Taxonomy of lions or Lion conservation page.

Please, can as many folks as possible look over the pages involved and give opinions below onto which pages should be separate or upmerged or split or rearranged? Some options include moving all material into a Taxonomy of lions page, plus just the two subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We also have Mixed lion populations. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another superfluous page, in view of the efforts to reduce the number of lion subpages!! Most of this page's content is anyway odd ends copy-pasted from the meanwhile redirected African lion page, unnecessarily revisited. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In that page that you call superfluous page, we can redirect Central lion as that population is genetically mixed between leo and melanochaita. Also, the information in African lion doesn't exist anymore! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussions on Central African lion and Central African lion clade
Once again, is showing disregard for discussions. For a long time now, there has been discussion regarding what BhagyaMani does, and it was repeatedly said in there that Central African lion clade should be an article, and Central African lion redirected to another larger article with WP:reliable sources that cover subjects like that population of lions, and this was agreed between us, particularly after BhagyaMani got into arguments with, which I said could have been avoided if BhagyaMani didn't turn Central African lion back into an article. Then, after I did the agreed changes, partly to stop any more arguments on that, and talked to them about it here, BhagyaMani once again showed disregard for discussions, by turning Central African lion back into an article, and Central African lion clade back into a stub, accusing me of edit-warring, when in fact I was doing something that was agreed in a discussion, and these comments of his which have similarities show that he doesn't want to be corrected on anything that he does, even if he has made edits which show disregard for what is in reliable sources, and I see that he wants to distract people from issues that he's responsible for, by making claims here and there about certain things which ignore the issues at large, such as accusing me of an "edit war" after I made an agreed change which he knows has been discussed for a long time. Central African lion (which was meant about lions in Central Africa in general, not any specific clade in Central Africa) is not supposed to be an article, but Central African lion clade is supposed to be an article about the 'Central' clade defined by Bertola et al. in northern Central Africa and East Africa, and, I am not Punetor, otherwise certain disagreements that occurred between us shouldn't have happened. I only met Punetor this year, as far as I can remember. Leo1pard (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 07:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not "preeatedly said" ther should be any of these articles. Genetic mixing can be best explained by a few lines in lion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree that a few sentences in the main Lion page are sufficient!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Right, the unique encyclopedic information of Mixed lion populations could surely be condensed to a few sentences at most and merged to lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- that article just seems flat out of place and rather, well, odd. Like a dog among cats.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is going out of hand, this cannot be explained in just a few lines, and we have enough discussions already, see my message. Leo1pard (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC); edited 06:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * yes it can be explained. Much of the information in the Mixed lion populations is general and repeated elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this information, which makes use of relevant sources, a few lines that can be repeated elsewhere?

"In the 19th century, a number of subspecies were described for lions in Northeast Africa. For example, zoological specimens from Nubia and Somalia were described or proposed by zoologists under the trinomina Felis leo nubicus and Felis leo somaliensis. In later centuries, these trinomina were alternatively considered to be synonymous with the scientific names of the North and East African lions. A test done in 2012 on 15 lions at Addis Ababa Zoo and lions from 6 wild populations demonstrated that the captive lions were genetically different to wild lions in other parts of East Africa, but similar to wild lions from Cameroon and Chad. Among six samples from captive lions which were of Ethiopian origin, five samples clustered with other East African samples, but one clustered with Sahelian samples. ... Lions of northern Uganda have not been analysed genetically, and might belong to the Northern subspecies. In northern Uganda, lions are present in Kidepo Valley and Murchison Falls National Parks. The Central African lion is a population of lions in Central Africa that has been grouped under the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), but was also found to be related to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),  depending on the subpopulation, and is fragmented into small and isolated groups since the 1950s. ... Its hair samples were collected for phylogenetic analysis by Barnett et al., and compared with tissue samples of lions from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo that were killed in the 20th century. Results indicate that this individual, besides extinct lions in Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of the Congo, is closely related to the ancestral lion population of the area, and that its DNA shows a typical Southern lion haplotype. It is considered possible that this lion dispersed to the area from Namibia or Botswana. A phylogeographical analysis conducted by Bertola et al. depicted a number of lions in places adjacent to East and Southern Africa as belonging to the southern group, with others in Central Africa belonging to the northern group. In particular, the northern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is adjacent to the East African country of Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, is believed to have both genetic groups."

Discussing information like this in any of the pre-existing discussions from the 6th of November has just made one more complicated, because of things like this, the pre-existing discussions haven't been solved, even though it is over a week since they were started, and they got more complicated as more people come in to say more things, which were not relevant to the discussions when they were created on the 6th of November. Before things get any more complicated, particularly in the discussions that were opened on the 6th of November, due to the haste in making discussions on articles that were not originally discussed there, based on the false premise that sorting things out would be simple, these new discussions on the genetically complicated lions must close, and the focus should now be on finishing what was initially under discussion. Leo1pard (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To propose a redirect for a mixed population between leo and melanochaita in Panthera leo leo, it's like to say that 1+1=10 — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the above paragraph of information could be condensed into a few concise sentences. In fact, as it is, it is far too technical in detail.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Leo1pard the fact that you can't see that is troubling. Any information on subpsecies named can be elsewhere and the testing is in way too much detail. it needs to be summarised concisely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, We create articles on Wikipedia, so different people who need information can read them, we shouldn't summarised a paragraph so detailed in few concise just because you want. People who read Wikipedia need much more informations than that paragraph that you want to summarise just with few sentence. — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 05:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment, I would have wished that the initial discussions (Talk:Panthera leo melanochaita and Talk:Northern lion) from the 6th of November should have finished first, without attention drifting towards other articles, and though I warned 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) 07:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the fact that >90% of the content of most of these articles is duplicated and unneccessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment : I appreciate that this merger discussion is about ALL lion subpages, thus addressing Cas Liber's initial question 'How many lion subpages?'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

more than 150 redirects
At present, there are more than 150 redirects to lion main and subpages, many of them with broken links; including 48 to lion, 29 to Asiatic lion, 29 to East African lion, 12 to Southern African lion, 11 to Barbary lion, 7 to West African lion, 6 to Central African lion, 4 to Cape lion, 4 to Panthera leo leo, and another 4 to Panthera leo melanochaita. Imo: quite a mess, and the vast majority superfluous. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless someone sweeps them with nous and a bot assist, and is willing to repeat that in the near future, it might be a matter of waiting until the titles stabilise after any moves. cygnis insignis 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of these requires instant action, can surely wait until subpages are consolidated. We can use this talk section to compile a list of redirects that can be deleted afterwards. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A talent you have shown, to put you in the frame and add to your to do list :—) The concern is worth attention, and will require a broad effort than I can only follow on with work to verify facts against sources. cygnis insignis 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With 'we' I meant all of us, not just you and me. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping we meant someone else. but seriously, this is a great idea and I will do what I can. cygnis insignis 16:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at some of them reveals that some are apparently individual names of lions (such as Kali (lion)). In all likelihood, those are entirely superfluous. I could start making a list of redirects on this talk page if yall want. I'm not much good at working on actual articles, so I am feeling pretty useless on this huge merge- I'd like to help, but I would probably make things worse.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great that you wanna start!! If you want, make a table, e.g. with 2 columns 'keep' and 'delete', where we can enter them. I see many more superfluous ones and will add; others will perhaps also contribute, once someone takes up the initiative. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. I'll start this list, but I don't know how to make a table. That's a good idea, though.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Section headings
Please see this. I remembered this after a long time. Leo1pard (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Prelim overview
The following table is hopefully useful to provide a prelim overview on the discussion. In case, I added any of your names into the wrong column, please delete and add it to the correct column. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I ping other contributors of lion main page please add your names into table columns. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you staying neutral on Barbary lion and Cape lion? You summarise my opinions correctly. I tentatively support a separate article on taxonomy that can cover the historical subspecies and molecular populations in more detail, but perhaps that will be covered adequately in the subspecies articles, so I would hold off on any new articles until there is a semblance of order.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added, just forgot when collating from all the pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You also! — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 11:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lion –> Panthera leo ? cygnis insignis 15:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Would not be happy about it, but willing to compromise with "lion panther" as the title! cygnis insignis 12:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

- Moved comment by User:Leo1pard re 'Northern lion' (because of "Northern lion" being more common than previously thought, but only relevant content from Central African lion!) and re Panthera leo melanochaita (I see the likelihood of these becoming more common) out of the table. Please just add or delete your names and add comments below the table, if you deem commenting necessary. Thank you! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You vote to keep Mixed lion populations as a separated article, than why did you voted to merge Central lion to P. l. leo when this population is a mixed population between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita? — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 17:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful table. This was a real headache of a set of discussions to wade through and absorb. I've moved my stance on the major merges. My concern wasn't strongly that any trinomial would be used at all, but mostly that we were looking at an inconsistent result of using one in case A but not in case B.  While I tend to favor vernacular names, on a second thought the trinomials are better for both big merged articles, because they're taxonomic matters; i.e., what the common names correspond to keep getting reclassified, and those articles are really about those classifications.  The big fuzzy animals the kiddos want to read about are covered at Lion, and we can WP:SUMMARIZE the taxonomic kerfuffle in a paragraph there.  PS: I don't have a huge objection to keeping Mixed lion populations separate if there's a really good case for doing so, but it seems to me that all of this can be covered at the other articles.  It's probably most efficient to cover the idea in brief at the Lion article, juxtaposed with the summary of the taxonomic stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered another WP:REDUNDANTFORK : History of lions in Mesopotamia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just REDIRECTed this orphan to Asiatic_lion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More discussions this month already?
Can I ask why you have decided to make more discussions already, considering that the old issues haven't been resolved yet? How many discussions have to happen at once, in this month? Leo1pard (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the others, but I joined the redirects discussion because that is something I can do, to help resolve this mess.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop. had earlier complained "This was a real headache of a set of discussions to wade through and absorb", and I earlier said that things were getting out of hand as more and more discussions were being made, but you're still keen on making or having newer discussions? Leo1pard (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC); edited 17:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * support my proposed move lion -> lion panther and we may have something to talk about. cygnis insignis 17:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Leo1pard (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC); edited 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , does the title seem awkward, I just guessed at a translation of species. cygnis insignis 09:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'lion' and 'panther' are used differently. Leo1pard (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No non-specialist has any chance of absorbing and understanding anything on this Talk page. It's very frustrating the mess that has been created with all these esoteric subpages. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did warn against having more and more of this, and I knew that non-specialists who aren't as familiar with these things as people like me would get confused. Leo1pard (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I said stop. Others agree with me that having all these discussions, particularly in this talk-page, is frustrating. Leo1pard (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC); edited 17:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not alone in being frustrated over this jungle of discussions, look above. How many times do I have to warn against making more and more discussions, which people may find frustrating? I knew that things would get more complicated if more of this happened, the old issues are still not resolved. Leo1pard (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC); edited 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You warn as long as you like to. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Leo1pard, I am not doing anything wrong. I am simply listing the many lion-related redirects, some of which should probably be deleted as superfluous. If you are frustrated with the many discussions, you may withdraw. You are under no obligation to participate. You do wish to participate, please confine your comments in the section above (just below the table) to arguments directly related to why or why not certain redirects should be kept or deleted.
 * Concerning the many discussions, I would be perfectly happy if everyone else went, carried out the merges, and then came back to discuss the redirects (or not) after I have listed and sorted all the redirects. However, since the status the the lion subpages directly effects the redirects, the redirects must be dealt with eventually.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:TALKFORK. Spawning more and more redundant proposals thwarts actual consensus-building. PS: I propose a new merge: just put felid content at Kittehs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Persistence / Relevance
Stop persisting in the new discussions. The older issues have not been resolved, and you have helped to make a jungle of discussions which people like myself were not keen on in the first place. You can't say that you respect your friend's earlier efforts if you keep on making discussions after discussions about what you WP:like or not. As it is, people outside Wikipedia don't always have the same attitude as you, but they are interested in things that I have done here. Want proof? Leo1pard (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC); edited 08:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Do you want proof of people having similar views as mine about what is what? Leo1pard (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is standard practice, there is general agreement here that any change or addition is supported by published sources [outside]. This has gone wrong in your opinion? cygnis insignis 08:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is going wrong is that all these new discussions are taking place, even though the old issues haven't been resolved, and it's been weeks since those old issues started. Leo1pard (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you go ahead and complete the agreed-upon merges, if you are frustrated with the lack of resolution on the earlier discussions. However, you are not an admin, and you do not get to tell me what to do. I do not wish to start a fight, but your continuing demands of stop now are getting on my nerves.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please wait. Leo1pard (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Warning: STOP! telling people that they are NOT allowed to tell you what to do. This is your third to last advice on this matter, unless I forget all about it, and my formatting and personal sense of indignation will escalate from this point on. My next action will be to hurl the computer across the room. Thanks. cygnis insignis 14:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if I encounter any more such threads, I'm liable to them, with  pointers back to the main thread on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Merging process
Before we start with any merging, there are a few steps we should agree upon, imo: like 1) ask someone neutral, i.e. someone who did not yet contribute, to conclude the discussion; perhaps or  ? And then 2) agree on an entry point for the mergers. For this, I propose this revision of Panthera leo leo and this revision of Panthera leo melanochaita. Or should we wait a few more days / weeks so that some invitees still get a chance to vote? I'm not in a hurry. Who is? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As hinted below, I'm definitely not in a hurry to do that, nor am I worried about people knowing that I read a lot of things like these to do a lot of things, because I know that people are interested in stuff like what I had to say. Leo1pard (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not in any huge hurry, but since I won't be much help with the actual merger (my article writing skills suck), my opinion matters little. I would, however, like for the mergers to happen sometime this year and with a minimum of conflict. In the meantime, I will sort through the many lion redirects, remove the useless/inappropriate/redundant, and put the remainder up for discussion.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update- I have decided to begin some preparations for the merges. A preliminary section/subsection layout on Panthera leo leo (I used the layout from Asiatic lion as the base), and some category adding and removing (isolating the soon-to-be-merged subpages, while placing relevent categories on the merged-to subpages). If any of this is premature, just say so.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I indeed think this was a little premature. See the diffs of earlier versions mentioned above: the subsections already exist there anyway. Let's wait for a consensus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I was just trying to make the merge a little smoother; I didn't mean to step on your toes. Sorry.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, don't worry: you didn't step on my or anybody else's toes. Lets just wait and put all of this on a solid consensus, which I think is really important after all the lengthy discussions and disagreements, going on since last year. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I stuck to the categorizing, then? It was my impression that a consensus to merge had already been reached.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure: there may be categories already in the earlier versions?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "earlier versions"; you aren't planning on reverting all the way back to the versions you posted above are you? Also, I went ahead and implemented it a bit; I also decided to do some minor bottom of the page edits to (hopefully) simplify things, such as removing some See Also links, taxon identifiers (replicated across articles), etc. to reduce page volume. Also, since Asiatic lion is staying, I think it might be better to have it categorized under Mammals of India, instead of P. l. leo.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirects, table of
A list of various redirects to the various lion pages.

More to come...--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow me to help. Table is made with just a lot of pipes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome!! If you want to go on, then I suggest: be bold and propose a sorting into the 'keep' and 'delete' columns. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirects discussion
If anyone would like to contest the status of a redirect, please comment BELOW. Please do no edit the table. I will continue working on the table, and attempting to submit a change only to have it wiped away due to an edit conflict is highly frustrating. Thank very much.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A few arguments to start with: Kali (lion), Notch (lion), and Nakawa (lion) are all individual lions that redirect to the Lion mainpage. I think they should be deleted because if an individual lion is that notable (to be mentioned on Wikipedia), then it should have its own page. In addition, searching through the article itself, I can find no mention of any of those three. Thus, the redirects are unhelpful and do not contribute to Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't want to go through reliable sources for studying as I did, do you have any appreciation for what at least 2 others are saying below? Leo1pard (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This section is to discuss/contest the status of the many redirects in the above table of said redirects. If you have something else to say, please say it somewhere else (such as below or on my talkpage). I do not want an edit war, please respect this. I only wish to bring some organization and logic to the problem that is the Lion subpages and redirects.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I think you are doing a really good job clearing this jungle!!!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is growing frustration over this plethora of discussions, so you're not "clearing the jungle", you're making things worse. Please respect that. Leo1pard (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Leo1pard, BhagyaMani, please confine your comments in this section to arguments for or against specific redirects. Kindly take all other concerns elsewhere. There is a perfectly fine section below for debating in, I suggest you use it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Another argument against some redirects: both Lion penis and Lion's penis seem more like a pair of redirects created by a vandal than ones with legitimate uses. They are, in my opinion, juvenile and inappropriate, with no practical uses.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirect Lion is interpretative, even if it is a plausible title, it pushes the reader to the feature's role in reproduction and ignores its excretory function or an equally plausible link to anatomy. Without looking too deeply into this, there is notability in parts of some animals (is lion penis a commercial product?) that have other usage, if not implicated in their demise (eg. Tiger penis.). cygnis insignis 05:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there does not seem to be any special mention of that particular piece of anatomy in the article, and a quick check of "What links here" on both redirect shows nothing of value (the second only links to this talk page, period). And I have heard nothing a commercial use for that. Hence, I felt those were vandal-made (or very-young-new-editor-made) redirects.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A reasonable assumption I think, and if that is not supported in the content of the target I can only agree. If something turns up like a substitute for tiger in whatever horrible use that has, likely if profitable, it can be recreated. cygnis insignis 17:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Without checking any apparent taxonomic synonyms in the delete column, just note that Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes may apply. If they are cited by others they are probably notable, in a nutshell. cygnis insignis 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest to keep all the subspecific syns, irrespective of whether they are used in e.g. post-1980s publications? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading through A revised taxonomy of the Felidae (2017), the starting point would be to redirect those mentioned, "Wozencraft (2005) recognised 11 subspecies of lion" to the specific or subspecific article, following their conservative determination of certainty in the arrangement as two subspecies. That is what I see with a cursory glance, and I see how uncertain much of the taxonomy is in lacking types and based on historical suppositions. However, deleting an available name seems odd to me, even if redirected to an article that was silent on that name. cygnis insignis 16:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have switched up some redirects; I don't think that all of them should be deleted. The subspecific redirects should be kept, as should some of the "common" name ones.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Re to Cygnis insignis: so far, I agree. Two examples that warrant deletion, imo: 1) Panthera leo abyssinica: is not even listed in Wozencraft (2005), perhaps invented by the redirecter? 2) Panthera leo nobilis: the original was Leo nobilis by Gray 1867, a nomen nudum proposed as syn for Felis leo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reading American Society of Mammalogists 762:1–11, 1) a footnote to the synonymy, no name cited; 2) that combination is novel and I'm assuming pointless and ignored. Is it the case that these page creations were unjustified, the bullying creator is not the authority they claim to be, and instead are gleefully enjoying the havoc they created for some purpose unrelated to improvement of the document? Oh well, now I know a bit more about felid taxonomy, which is very interesting. Delete with prejudice. cygnis insignis 19:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As to your question: you hit the bull's eye :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No :) Leo1pard (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A children's book, what a nice joke!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why, want more? Leo1pard (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the complete set : author, year of publication + publisher, type specimen: skin, skull?, type locality. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Just found and added 4 more superfluous pages created by the two main redirecters. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Mix-up
Care should be taken as to which lions are in regions where the northern (Panthera leo leo) and southern (Panthera leo melanochaita) subspecies either overlap or co-occur, particularly for the Ethiopian lion (formerly P. l. abyssinica or P. l. roosevelti). Due to its genetic make-up, the Ethiopian lion has become WP:notable amongst the populations, at least since 2012. Much has been written about it, since Bruche et al. discovered that they were genetically different from other populations in East Africa, and finally, the Cat Specialist Group had a note about this, saying that their country was a contact zone between the two subspecies, based on the work of Bertola et al., which depicts Ethiopia as one of the places where genetic admixture is likely, not the only one, and yes, people are interested in stuff like that, not just scientific names that reflect a recent revision of subspecies, look how much has been written about Ethiopian lions since the genetic test in 2012, for example. In addition, "northern lion" and "northern subspecies" were not used by only one author, meaning people outside Wikipedia are interested in exactly which lion is which, as it is with tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC); edited 06:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed ping, this is a current discussion with many interested parties, pinging one of them may be seen as unhelpful although they may wish to respond as I have done. Ignoring you is also okay at this stage, because the consensus appears to be that you are muddying the waters in a belligerent manner. People are investing their time in sorting this out, I'm becoming inclined to assist them by undertaking a process to see this account (and any other throwaways) censored by the community. So see a solution instead …


 * Ethiopian lion currently redirects to Mixed lion populations. It has been suggested that Mixed lion populations should be merged to Northern lion, which currently redirects to Panthera leo leo. The outcome looks to be Ethiopian lion will redirect to the nominate subspecies article. Is that going to suit your conception of the population of Panthera leo (lions), or do you have another solution you can state in the form 'X should redirect to Y'. cygnis insignis 08:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mixed lions" is about lions that are both of the northern and southern subspecies, or where they both occur, which has a brief mention in this article. Opinions on what editors are like or what they are not are not as important as the content from relevant sources, so forget that, stuff like that can be complicated for the very guys who say that others are such and such, if anyone wants to say that to someone, then they will have to face that person, and it can be the case that after making the accusation, the accuser will try to avoid the accused if the latter faces him, which is no good, I have seen that happen a number of times, accusing someone privately or publicly, then avoiding that person, so I have to keep a stringent watch over what happens here and there, if that sort of behaviour persists, then it risks damaging Wikipedia's image, people outside Wikipedia are watching what happens here (and that is particularly true for Democratic Unionist Party, when it was in an editing crisis after the party became important in the 2017 United Kingdom general election, people were making fun of it outside Wikipedia), so please don't focus on statements by such secretive users who are not willing to face others who face up to them if they have done something wrong, but focus on the content from relevant sources, such as that the group that revised subspecies said that the two subspecies overlap, which complicates the issue of subspecies because subspecies are supposed to be phylogeographically distinct forms of subspecies, as in that they are both genetically distinct and are separated, but whereas that is the case for tigers (being divided into the mainland and Sunda subspecies, which are geographically separated by Strait of Malacca between the Malayan Peninsula and Sumatra), that is not the case for lions, which not only overlap in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, in northern parts of East Africa, but also co-occur in the northeastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from where azandicus was described, in Central Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC); edited 10:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this one of those dog-whistles and/or free speech litmus tests rolled into one? Not cute anymore, cousin, a cry for help make that makes me feel sad for all those boys, lost and betrayed. My last sentence ought to have ended in a question mark, I would prefer you respond that with a simple statement of your preferred target. cygnis insignis 12:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this about guys who get caught talking negatively about others before they realise that and expose them, or about content? Leo1pard (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the preferred target for the redirect Ethiopian lion. Where should that go? cygnis insignis 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have an idea, since the subspecies are recognized as overlapping in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa by both Bertola et al. and the Cat Specialist Group. Leo1pard (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , did you mean 'I am not sure'? Where you said "I have an idea", was that mistyped? cygnis insignis 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I have an idea. Unlike the 2 newly recognized subspecies of tigers, P. t. tigris in Mainland Asia and P. t. sondaica in the Sunda Islands, which are geographically separated by the Strait of Malacca between the Malayan Peninsula and the Sunda island of Sumatra, the northern (P. l. leo) and southern (P. l. melanochaita) subspecies of the lion are recognized as overlapping by both Bertola et al. and the Cat Specialist Group, so I have an idea about what to do. Leo1pard (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC); edited 04:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , that would be interesting within its context, but would you mind if we returned to the question I posed at 06:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC), at the top of this section? cygnis insignis 15:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am thinking is that Ethiopian lion can be redirected to Panthera leo melanochaita, since this was used for lions in East Africa, but at the same time, Panthera leo leo should have a note on these lions, because Ethiopian lions are one of those populations that are shown to be both northern and southern. Leo1pard (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction
The evolution sections currently states that Panthera spelaea derived about 300,000 years ago. Then, in the extinct species section it states that P. atrox derived from P. spelaea 340,000 years ago. LittleJerry (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * good catch - first one is plainly wrong. removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , on second thought it may be that early European lions were P. l. fossilis not Panthera spelaea. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming that fossilis is a subspecies of Panthera leo, that's right, the fossilis cave lion is the more primitive Eurasian cave lion, and spelaea is the newer version. Leo1pard (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is some fall-out from elevating spelaea and atrox to species. Beforehand fossilis, spelaea, atrox were all subspecies of one lion species. When spelaea and atrox got elevated to species, fossilis got left behind. If fossilis is the same linaeage as spelaea, then it shouldn't be left in P. leo. When considering references on how fossilis is named, it is important to consider when they were written and how they handles spelaea status. P. leo fossilis is how it was called when spelaea was also considered a subspecies. So fossilis should either be elevated to species or be considered a subspecies of spelaea. The problem is finding some recent literature on fossilis that can be used as a reference.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, fossilis shouldn't have been left alone if spelaea at least was going to be treated separately from Panthera leo. This should have been considered before the mass renaming of articles of prehistoric felids into scientific names, which can be disputed. Leo1pard (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with Jts1882's comments, but we cannot elevate fossilis to specific level without a reliable source. I'm not aware of any at present. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may find this useful. Leo1pard (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sotnikova & Foronova (2014) (researchgate) use Panthern (Leo) fossilis and includes a formal systematic palaeontology for a new fossilis finding. I think this can be used to support species status. A quick literature search confirms what I suggested above that P. leo fossilis is only used in conjunction with spelaea as a subspecies. More recent work uses P. spelaea fossilis or P. fossilis.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, usually the combination of 3 nomes with the middle one in indicates insecurity of authors in regards to the taxon's specific or subspecific status. So we should use exactly this : Panthera (leo) fossilis. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the conventional notation for a subgenus, not a sign of insecurity. That is why it is uppercase. The authors group the four (or five if you include youngii) lions into a subgenus Leo. It is essentially an alternative to keeping them all as subspecies within one species. I don't suggest we use the subgenus as the subgenus Leo is also occasionally used to group lions with leopard and jaguars and is only really useful for large genera, e.g. Mus or Pteropus.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Description as used by a number of sources
Aside from the issue of certain lions in Central Africa, particularly Congo-Kinshasa, being shown by genetic analyses, including that of Bertola et al., to belong to the "southern subspecies or group (P. l. melanochaita), the use of 'northern' and 'southern' to describe the subspecies has extended to beyond the sources used in the articles, which made use of Bertola's results, like this. Leo1pard (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, she doesn't call them "northern lion" and "southern lion" but merely northern group and southern group. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not just "Northern group" and "Southern group", but also 'subspecies'. "Northern lion" and "Southern lion" were used by others. Leo1pard (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? The paper still does not call them northern and southern lion yet does it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant that 'northern' and 'southern' were used to describe the subspecies, at least as descriptions. Others used "northern lion" and "southern lion", but people like Bertola et al. used "northern subspecies", "southern subspecies", "northern group" and "southern group" to describe the subspecies or genetic groups. Leo1pard (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Consistency for cave lions
As has been mentioned elsewhere, treating the Upper Pleistocene Eurasian cave lion (Panthera leo spelaea or P. spelaea) as a different species to P. leo must come with doing something similar for the Early Middle Pleistocene Eurasian cave lion (P. l. fossilis, P. fossilis or P. spelaea fossilis), since the latter is believed to be an ancestor to the former. Leo1pard (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC); edited 15:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

king and the lord of the Beast
I try to find the sources where lions are called king or lord. The earliest sources I found so far is The Fables of Æsop. --mingwangx (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * KING: 1921, translation by T. James and G.F. Townsend. The Kingdom of the Lion: "The beasts of the field and forest had a Lion as their king."(An argosy of fables/Æsop)
 * LORD OF THE BEASTS: 1922, translation by Joseph Jacobs. The Lion, the Fox, and the Beasts: "a Calf came up to receive the last wishes of the Lord of the Beasts."(The_Fables_of_Æsop_(Jacobs)/The_Lion,_the_Fox,_and_the_Beasts)

WP:Conflicting sources on weights, like tiger like lion
Just as the fact that a number of WP:RS's state that the Siberian tiger is the biggest tiger or cat doesn't mean that we should say it just like that, because it contradicts what reliable sources about wild lions and tigers say, that for instance the Bengal tiger has heavier average weights in the wild than the Amur tiger, we must exercise caution when dealing with sources giving different statements about the weights of lions, otherwise, what you did would be akin to changing the statement "the Siberian tiger is often considered to be the biggest tiger or felid" to "the Siberian tiger is the biggest tiger or felid", which is WP:Bias, and the talk-page for the tiger has had a similar discussion already. Leo1pard (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC); edited 05:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1980 study had a sample size of 344, while your study had a sample size of 16. The 1980 study wins out. End of story. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Add information about male-female ratio
Is it possible to add, is there any information to be found, about the number of male lions <> female lions in nature? I've seen a National Geographic documentary about the lion (Lion Ranger - Trouble in the Pride - s01e01) where they say there are significantly more male than female lions. It would be interesting if this ratio is provided for the species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.94.49 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunting and diet
Hello LittleJerry,

I won't dispute that cluttering a featured article with too many pictures is not a good thing (= your revert of my proposal).

However, I can't help regretting that, in a chapter dealing with Hunting and diet, we don't have a series of pictures describing a typical hunting sequence, complete with the initial stalking and the final dragging of the prey to store it away from vultures and hyenas.

Now, we do have such a series of pictures, as shown in the French article. I am aware that it might mean moving away some of the existing photographs; but then, some of them (such as the one showing the lion's teeth) could quite well illustrate a different chapter, as they are not specific to hunting.

Well, I won't fight over that, anyway: it's up to you. Just a regret... Azurfrog (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But do you think it adds anything really specific that is not understandable by text? This article has alot of images already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think the more the pictures exemplify and illustrate the text, the better it is. Which is the case here: first crawling to get "close to their prey before starting the attack" (1st pic), then "They usually pull it down by the rump" (2d pic), and "kill by a strangling bite to the throat" (3d one), and "sometimes drag large prey into cover" (4th one). The idea that pictures should somehow show preferably something that's not in the text is rather new to be: I just thought what it added here was precisely to have a very typical complete hunting sequence. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I do agree that we already have pictures galore. There again, I certainly won't fight over it, so end of story, as far as I am concerned. Azurfrog (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Further edits
Since the article is over 144,000 bytes, I think new edits should be monitored and any new information added should be discussed here first. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do too and think that LittleJerry does a great job to watch over and revise additions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that new edits need to be monitored, but we can't require that editors discuss changes first. That goes against the ethos of Wikipedia. We can be stricter on sourcing and edit summaries, but it would be hard to justify removal of a new section that was properly sourced and explained just because it wasn't discussed first.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lions in Eurasia and America
In the lead it states that "In the Pleistocene, the lion ranged throughout Eurasia, Africa and North America, but today it has been reduced to fragmented populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and one critically endangered population in western India." This is misleading, while Eurasian cave hyena are deeply nested within living african spotted hyenas, the Eurasian and American lions belong to an entirely separate lineage that split from living lions around 1.9 million years ago (i.e. species level split), and was present in Eurasia by 600,000 years ago |1. The expansion of living lions out of Africa also happened relatively recently, around 21,000 years ago during the terminal Pleistocene |2 I'm not sure how this could elegantly worked into the lead though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested alt, recognizing that this is the lead and not the article body: "Members of the lion lineage were broadly distributed throughout Eurasia, Africa, and North America in the Pleistocene. The range of living lion extended from Africa into India and the Middle East; today, it has been reduced to [...]" Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: New study: "The evolutionary history of extinct and living lions" in PNAS published yesterday, with nuclear genomic data of cave lions, suggests that the divergence took place 500,000 years ago, with no subsequent admixture. The terminology in the paper is confusing though as it inconsistently refers to the cave lion as a subspecies (Panthera leo spelaea) While referring to its Middle Pleistocene ancestor as Panthera fossilis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)