Talk:Malagasy civet

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Malagasy Civet → Fanaloka — Malagasy Civet, though used, is inaccurate. This animal is not a civet or one of their allies. A "canonical" published source has been cited, but I don't think that it should be followed. Fanaloka returns more results at GoogleBooks (166:94), GoogleScholar (45:30), just plain Google (6110:1710), and JSTOR (7:6). I could search other places, but I don't see why it's necessary. The encyclopaedia of mammals cited in the article uses "fanaloka". —Srnec (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed (2005) is the canonical listing of mammal taxonomy and common names. It is the only definitive source for mammal common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Evidently it does not determine individual uses, does it? "Canonical" is just a bunch of hand-waving: this isn't an inerrant, unchanging Bible of mammalogy and it is "definitive" only because it's really good. It is not a standard that we must follow, like the dictionary or the laws of logic. (Out of curiosity, does it capitalise all common names of species?) Srnec (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the standard that we follow here on Wikipedia. It takes a mountain of effort to use something other than what is listed in MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says? Besides you. Srnec (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MSW3 says it (the common names are a follow on to the previous listing of mammal species common names) and WP:MAM. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The MSW3 says it is the standard that we follow here on Wikipedia? I don't understand your parenthesis and your link is red. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MSW3 says it's the definitive source for mammal common names, and the Mammal WikiProject follows it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-ascriped "definitivenes"? Even so, doesn't apply here: especially where evidence suggest a more common name. And WikiProjects don't determine "policy". Srnec (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the move request above
It is my opinion that an article which was created at the title "Fanaloka" should require a consensus to be moved, not to be moved back after an undiscussed move was made. Perhaps this should be looked into. This method only encourages people like Uther not take arguments seriously, since they no that they don't have to do anything to quash the move. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)