Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer polleni, Furcifer willsii

Furcifer polleni, Furcifer willsii
*... that the Canopy Chameleon and the Mayotte Chameleon are both ranked as Least Concern by IUCN?
 * ALT 1: *... that the Canopy Chameleon and the Mayotte Chameleon are both endemic to islands in the Indian Ocean?
 * ALT 2: *... that because of their ability to survive in degraded or non-natural habitats, the Canopy Chameleon and the Mayotte Chameleon are not threatened, unlike other endemic chameleons?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/311 discography, Template:Did you know nominations/Barry Clarke (engineer)

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 14:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg: the two articles are new enough and of sufficient length. They appear to be sufficiently referenced, though I would suggest adding archive URLs to avoid link rot. The hook is of an appropriate length and is properly referenced. (It's not terribly exciting, though – is there some other more interesting fact that links the two varieties of chameleon?) Pictures would be great, if available. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The hook is not interesting or unique; the majority of animals are ranked as least concern by the IUCN. Needs a more interesting hook. Sasata (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about ALT 1? Judging from the articles, this seems to be the only other fact common to both varieties of chameleon. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg enough, still long enough after revisions. Appropriately cited and do not appear to plagiarize their sources. Hook ALT 1 is correct; have also proposed ALT 2. (Reference to other endemic chameleons is in F. polleni article; both species are IUCN "least concerned", hence not threatened.) Choess (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT 2 is problematic: while the Mayotte Chameleon does have an inline citation after the statement that it should survive due its abilities with non-natural habitats, the Canopy Chameleon merely has an uncited statement that it seems to be able to live in degraded habitats, but not that this means it should survive in the long term. Additional sourcing and a modification of that article would be necessary if ALT 2—which is the most interesting of the three—is to be used. Also, I didn't see any sourced comparison between the two chameleons and other endemic chameleons: at best, "some other" rather than "other" is the best that can be claimed, but even so there ought to be something about it in one of the articles (and with the requisite inline source). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This was promoted with ALT 2, which simply can't stand. The only other hook available is ALT 1, but it's virtually identical to a hook that was declared uninteresting (and thus ineligible) by Sasata (who objected to the original hook here): since Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer angeli, Furcifer balteatus, has had the hook "are both endemic to Madagascar" found uninteresting, ALT 1's "are both endemic to islands in the Indian Ocean" must be viewed as similarly problematic. If the articles can be made to support ALT 2, I'm fine with that, but as it stands now, none of the hooks are eligible for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT3: *... that both the Canopy Chameleon of Madagascar and the Mayotte Chameleon of the Comoros Islands have been exploited as export commodities? Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Review of suggested ALT3 hook needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg: No problem with the length of the hook. Am a little bit uncertain about whether to approve it outright, though. The fact stated in the hook is, strictly speaking, accurate – the two varieties of chameleon "have been" exploited as export commodities. However, the sources in the articles indicate that the Canopy Chameleon (Furcifer willsii) "was one of the most commonly exported species between 1989 and 1993 until CITES parties suspended all imports from Madagascar", suggesting that it is no longer commonly exported today. As for the Mayotte Chameleon (Furcifer polleni), according to CITES data 1,560 specimens were exported between 2000 and 2010, but at present "recent quotas for commercial export numbers are relatively low or even zero for most species" and so "[t]he relatively low export numbers of species from Mayotte are unlikely to have a significant impact on populations". Thus, I wonder if the hook as presently drafted is not slightly misleading. Would it be better to say that the chameleons "... were exploited as export commodities in the past"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your own quotes do not demonstrate that these animals are not still being exploited, albeit in relatively small numbers, so I think it would be if not incorrect then at least misleading to add "in the past". In any case, "have been" is itself already a reference to past events, but without the implication that the events in question are merely historical in nature, so in my view "have been" is preferable. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I said, I wasn't certain. I'll leave it to BlueMoonset to decide. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought is that "have been" is accurate in and of itself, given the information above (one was commonly exported from '89 to '93, and the other had 1560 exported in a decade). I don't believe that adding "in the past" is helpful, and it may not be accurate given "relatively low" recent quotas isn't (necessarily) zero, even if the exploitation may be quite minimal today. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg: All right, in that case I think ALT 3 is OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)