Talk:Northern lion

Please improve consitency
Why is in the abstract almost all information about the western population and no info of the indian one? The article itself has also almost no info on the indian population but very detailed for the west african. I would restrict the detailed info on population dynamics in the respective popuation articles: the Asiatic lion and West african lion ...actually also Central african lion. Most people want to read info about things they know. They will be in a zoo and read the sign Asiatic lion.. If modern taxonomists change taxonomy, we have to provide a short overview article but we should keep the old articles. Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed now the detailed information on population status, since it should be only at one place. Now it is all in the soubgroup articles. If we want to have the information here in this article, I think we should also include here the detailed population status of the Asiatic soubgroup. Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted my changes. If you want to include the information on the Western and Central clade in this article here, than please use both tables (There is a new one for the Central African lion). I recently updated the Central African lion populations. I am against adding the detaile info here also, since Western and Central lion are genetically and morphologically clearly distinct. The main reason for not beeing considered as distinct subspecies by the IUCN, is, that you would also have to split up the southern lion into three subspecies. And here the natural situation is quite complex. In some areas of Southern and Eastern Africa subspecies borders would run through National Parks. Best--Altaileopard (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PATT issues
I just realised how much of this content has been COPY-PASTED from other lion subpages without proper WP:PATT. Therefore I removed passages, that I have written in the pages on West African lion, Central African lion and Asiatic lion. There may be more that others and I wrote in older versions of lion main and sub pages. You can add this again, but attribute it!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Panthera leo leo be merged into Northern lion. The two are synonymous and should not have separate articles. I'd almost be bold and do it right now but figured it'd be prudent to discuss. My only issue is what the name should be. Wikipedia naming guidelines for animals says it should be at the common name, however the use of "northern lion" for P. leo leo is tenuous (although logical). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true : the name 'Northern lion' is indeed tenuous!! Hasn't been used at all in a scientific publication. And since redefinition of geographical extent of subspecies in 2017, not even the reviewers suggested a new vernacular name. The page Panthera leo leo had more content, but then I changed it to a stub with int links to pops, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panthera_leo_leo&type=revision&diff=861740101&oldid=860924227, also because someone thought it worthwhile to keep pages on subpops, but NOT merge them into just 2 subspecific pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from trying to merge articles on populations, I initially tried to do that, but that was opposed . As for the name "Northern lion", firstly, it was used as far back as the 19th century to describe lions in the northern part of Africa, separate from those in the southern portion of the continent, which more or less agrees with the assertion by Bertola et al. and the Cat Specialist Group that lions in the northern part of Africa are a different subspecies to those in the southern part, except that genetic analyses point to an overlap between the two subspecies roughly in the equatorial region, at least northern parts of East Africa, which resulted from different populations of lions migrating to different parts of Africa, and that the Asiatic lion is part of the northern subspecies, but in case the same person who blocked my efforts, and missed the fact that the reviewers of the classification continued to recognise the different populations as populations, even if not as subspecies (African lion Asiatic lion), objected to that, then I would have considered leaving Panthera leo leo as a stub, and redirecting Northern lion to another article that covers the subject, and leaving parts of Northern lion that are relevant to specific populations, such as where the Asiatic lion used to be, in the articles of those populations. Leo1pard (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 09:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge to Northern lion (or whatever article title is the consensus here). In terms of the article title, that is more of a separate issue and can be decided with a WP:RM if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC); edited 04:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; We should merge the Panthera leo leo to Northern lion (as I said here). — Punetor i Rregullt5ALBAN (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merger at scientific name. Northern lion has not being used as a common name for the newly defined subspecies in any reliable source I have seen. The possible exception is iNaturalist, but it cites the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which recommends accepting the two subspecies division but doen't use common names. While the northern lion is a perfectly common-sense and logical name, it would be original research to use it for the article name. Referring to it as the northern subspecies of lion is not the same as calling it the Northern Lion. As far as I have seen, the older references using northern lion were using it in the former geographical sense.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This support is for merger of northern lion and Panthera leo leo. I don't support merging the Barbary lion into this article. The Barbary lion is the original description of the Panthera leo leo and there are two centuries of scientific literature on this lion (Panthera leo leo sensu stricto) that makes it notable.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with merger at scientific name !! We don't need to invent a name, but can wait, until those do who work in the field on the species. There are at present umpteeeeen wiki pages about species and subspecies that do not have a vernacular name as yet, see e.g. Bufo and loads of mangrove tree species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note that iNaturalist doesn't have an area for references for common/vernacular names (it's a flaw/issue that arises occasionally in curating there) and iNat should never be thought of as an official or citable source for common/vernacular names. The name "northern lion" was added to iNat on August 19, 2017. The USFWS conservation status that displays under the title there is separate from the vernacular name. –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom, though I'd prefer the resulting page to be at the scientific name, as being less open to misinterpretation. Vanamonde (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - every possible grouping of lions doesn't need an article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge of synonymous articles, preferably at scientific name until such time as a common name becomes widely accepted. Loopy30 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge at scientific name, as Loopy30 says^.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * comment the table at Talk:Lion indicates a strong consensus to "Merge content … into Panthera leo melanochaita" and this one, less absolute although shifting to accord with the other merge, "…into Panthera leo leo". This proposal is for the opposite direction, yet support above is for the merge but some preference is expressed for the other title. As do I, "merge, …into Panthera leo leo". cygnis insignis 19:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposal
Given we really should stop at subspecies, can everyone comment on whether Barbary lion, Central African lion clade, Central African lion and West African lion should also be sunk here? Asiatic lion I can see as a seperate case. comment away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest to
 * 1) keep separate : Barbary lion AND Asiatic lion
 * 2) merge all the other content from West African lion, Central African lion and clade into Panthera leo leo, and ALSO info relating to leo in African lion. So that latter page is reduced to a stub with int links. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not Central African lion, but Central African lion clade, because not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies, but the 'Central' clade defined by Bertola et al. is, as shown by genetic analyses, so Central African Lion better off being part of African lion, as mentioned before, but as for information that I tried to put into Central African lion clade, that could be kept in here, as well as West African lion. As for Barbary lion, I don't agree with merging that here, because it 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 to which information is merged 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 13:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; I propose that:


 * We should keep Barbary lion (sensu scrito) as a separate article
 * We should keep Asiatic lion (or Indian lion) as a separate article
 * We should keep West African lion as a separate article
 * We should keep Central African lion as a separate article but if anyone wants to merge this article, then Central lion should be merge here, and then to turn "Central clade" from a stubby one, to an article per Northern subspecies
 * Panthera leo leo should be merge to Northern lion (as said)
 * Panthera leo melanochaita should be merge with Southern subspecies

Thank you! — Punetor i Rregullt5ALBAN (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'd defintily be in favour of merging Central African lion clade, Central African lion and West African lion, and could go either way on Barbary lion (slight preference to merge but can see reasons for keeping separate). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why we need a single sentence Central African lion clade. Every single clade doens't warrant an article, not even if it consists of lions... FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Central clade" is a Central African population that is include in P. l. leo, but Central African lion is include in P. l. leo and in P. l. melanochaita so you can't merge this population to a Northern subspecies. — Punetor i Rregullt5ALBAN (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't talk about merging. I'm asking why do we need it? A bunch of editors seem to think every single lion population/clade needs an article. They don't. FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

*Support, per nom. This is getting rather out of hand...Vanamonde (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite, as I said before, I am not interested in creating articles for every described subspecies or clade. Leo1pard (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , what are you supporting? There are numerous options presented in this subthread. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was supposed to be in the section above. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I support merging all those articles which do not cover a biologically distinct population, ie everything except Asiatic lion and Barbary lion. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the relationship they have with each other and other lions, the Asiatic lion and Barbary lion are not the only biologically distinct populations, strictly speaking, but anyways, certain populations could be placed together, as they were linked with each other. Leo1pard (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I support keeping Barbary lion and Asiatic lion as they are biologically distinct enough to have their own separate articles. The one-line article Central African lion clade should be deleted posthaste as redundant material. Central African lion should be merged to lion as the population straddles the two subspecies (at least for now) and its existence should also be mentioned in the two subspecies articles. As a separate population page, West African lion should be merged to the Panthera leo leo page. Loopy30 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, after ploughing through all of this. I remain concerned, however, that the other merge discussion going on, at Talk:Panthera leo melanochaita, is going to produce a comparable merged article but at a trinomial instead of a vernacular name.  That's not ideal for either WP:CONSISTENT or WP:RECOGNIZABLE reasons.
 * I support merging Central African lion clade, Central African lion, and West African lion into Panthera leo leo. Barbary lion might have enough notability to remain separate (publicity about extinction, etc.). Asiatic lion definitely needs to remain separate.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As for Central African lion, because not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), only relevant material from Central African lion should go into the merged article, such as the case of lions in Cameroon, not irrelevant material, such as that certain Central African lions, like in Gabon, were found to be linked to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita). Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No big deal. We all know that already!! Can be sorted out once merging is in process. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, calm down. As for the mixed population, I feel that both Mixed lion populations and the relevant information in Central African lion should be merged into either the main 'Lion' article and the two subspecies articles. Something along the lines of, "in the Central African region, lions of both subspecies were found to coexist/interbreed/etc.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The mergers are going to make the IUCN assessments in the taxobox difficult, as there are no assessments corresponding to the new subspecies designations. The global assessment of Vulnerable can reasonably applied to the southern subspecies (which includes most lions), but what about the northern subspecies? The IUCN has seperate assesssments for the Asiatic lion (Endangered) and the West African lion subpopulation (Critically Engangered) and the numbers for the Central African lion population are also low. The absence of the conservation status from the taxobox in the Northern lion article is the correct decision, but the absence for such a well studied and important animal does seem odd.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the best course of action would be to leave the conservation status in the taxobox empty, and note the assessment(s) regarding the populations in the appropriate section of the article. Hopefully, the IUCN will provide assessments soon.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I support the merge of Central lion here per some reasons that are listed here. Take two minutes to read them please, thank you! — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it- nice research, but I still don't see the need to have a separate article about that. It would be much easier and more concise to just type a few lines about in the article 'Lion'. Same goes for the article Mixed lion populations, which currently is wrecking havoc on clarity (and my OCD categorization, lol).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't said that Central lion need a separated article, I just said that we shouldn't redirect Central lion to P. l. leo as it belongs to leo and melanochaita, but instand, we can redirect it here per some reasons. — 03:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)




 * Comment, Why we shouldn't redirect Central lion to Panthera leo leo;
 * Cameroon is located at Central and West Africa, so, lions there are closely releated to each other belonging to Panthera leo leo. Both of these populations were formerly classified as Panthera leo kamptzi.
 * Lions in southern parts of Central Africa (at Virunga National Park, D. R. Congo regions) are closely releated to lions in Uganda. Those populations were formerly classified as Panthera leo azandica. And also, Cat Specialist Group put a question mark there.
 * The synonym P. l. bleyenberghi was used per lions in the Katanga Province, in the southern part of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so bleyenberghi lions were called "Katanga lions", whereas azandica lions were called "Northeast Congo lions" or "Congo lions".

Here are some more:     — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment, I would have wished that the initial discussions (this and Talk:Panthera leo melanochaita) 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) 07:57, 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)