488:. Setting aside the occasional incivility in that discussion (cough), the takeaway was something like a) the "bear" part is absolutely in use, if not frequently, and should thus be mentioned prominently; and b) whether to call this out as "erroneous" or "inaccurate" in the lede is open to discussion - which at this point seems to have come down to not doing so (the right choice, IMO). I suggest reading that section to find out what we have already been over. Given current coverage, I doubt the angle of claiming that the poor reader has to be protected from false bear-ness will carry much weight. --
543:, with - you are correct - none of the discussion that should have happened at that point. I would advise against simply changing it back now though, since a year of no objections for a heavily trafficked article does confer some weight of consensus (if a weak one). - WRT pronghorn, "koala bear" usage by the rough measure of Google hits is 10x more common in usage. At 4 million hits it is frankly at a level were it would be excessively prescriptive to omit it from the lede, I think. --
213:
577:; vernacular names are not required to line up with formal taxons. To add to the examples already given the Barbary ape is a monkey, the ant-lion is an insect, she-oaks are not oaks, slippery elms are not elms, Russian thistles are not thistles, and Guinea chestnuts are not chestnuts. Koala bear may be on the way out (I used it 50 years ago; I don't use it now), but until it becomes an archaism it's worthy of inclusion. I suspect that
34:
91:
389:(Menkhorst & Knight, 3d edition) where dama wallaby is offered as an alternative common name for tammar wallaby (page 116) however koala bear is not offered as an alternative common name for koala (page 86). It seems very unlikely that a reader coming to the article looking for âkoala bearâ would be confused by the lead sentence only offering âkoalaâ as a common name.
871:
327:
678:
really like that option. However, this phrase would be more cautious than simply saying "erroneous" or "misleading"; whether or not it is misleading really depends on how one interprets that name, and we should not give the impression that the name "koala bear" should not be used anymore by indifferently labelling it as "misleading" or similar.
140:
122:
150:
946:
Done (there was only a half-sentence difference between the articles). This was pretty easy and straightforward, but as a reminder, the stated rules of this project are that articles should follow whatever MSW3 says, unless MDD and IUCN agree about a change. I know that it's a very very large area so
388:
Knowledge commonly offers alternative common names in the introduction to articles on animal species. This is useful in assisting the casual reader who may know the animal under another name to the accepted one. This is often done in guidebooks, for example âA Field Guide to the
Mammals of Australiaâ
662:
Through my work we see any number of
American tourists who call them "koala bears" (and are the only people who do). I don't know if anyone agues it, but a good proportion of them believe that koalas are bears. Australia is an expensive destination for Americans and most who visit are well-off and I
420:
The word âsometimesâ in this context invites questions: who? where? when? The statement âbrown bears are sometimes called grizzly bearsâ is correct. But without qualification it is potentially misleading, because the species has never been called grizzly bears across most of its historical range.
395:
In
English language grammar, we place adjectives before a noun. Thus, we talk of a âbig houseâ or a âblue dressâ. This is reflected in binomial English common names for members of the Animal Kingdom. âSloth bearâ refers to a bear that resembles a sloth, while âbear cuscusâ refers to a cuscus that
965:
Thanks for the merge, and for the explanation! Mammals are pretty far out of my wheelhouse so I'm a little nervous making changes like this without seeking input from more experienced editors, but now that I know MDD+IUCN consensus is generally enough to override MSW3 I feel much more comfortable
634:
Knowledge has to describe things reflecting the real world, not the world one wishes it to be. The koala is often called the koala bear and this is an easily established fact. No one argues it is a true bear, it is just a vernacular name that is widely used in the
English language. There are many
519:
The normal editing cycle can refine such indication but in the meantime, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As
361:
I only registered as an editor on
Knowledge recently, joining on the 1st of August, although I have been editing informally for many years. One if the first things I noted was the use of âkoala bearâ in the Koala article. To somebody of my background as an Australian with an interest in wildlife,
677:
Maybe we could add "sometimes called the koala bear for its resemblance to a bear" to give a hint, using the phrase that is used later in the article. But that would make the first sentence longer and more difficult to read (and we already say it's a marsupial anyways), so I'm not totally sure I
365:
Reading some of the history on the talk page it became obvious removing the term would be contentious, so I decided to try to introduce âerroneouslyâ into the article as a compromise qualifier. I left a note outlining my proposal and reasons on the talk page, and five days later, there being no
613:
Regarding other cases, happy to accept there are many inconsistencies, however we are talking about the Koala article here not them. By the way, marsupial mouse in never used now, I have never heard of a marsupial shrew, and marsupial moles are never seen by anybody. The other examples are all
513:
As far as I could see, discussion came down largely to an argument between mostly
Americans and mostly Australians. I'm not surprised, at my work the only people who call it a koala bear are American tourists. The most frequent question from them after "what is its name?" is "are they really
828:). As the IUCN and MDD both support the synonymy I'd support the merge in principle. We have the odd situation where the target article is more of a stub than the one being merged, so perhaps the merge should also involve expanding the target article to at least the same level. Â â
396:
resembles a bear. This form of nomenclature is very well understood by the general public. âKoala bearâ is unique (happy to be corrected) in that the adjective is placed after the noun, which at the least is confusing. That is, of course, unless you believe the koala to be a bear.
382:, where former common names such as pronghorn antelope are dealt with further down the lead and are qualified. Ironically, there is a far greater difference, both in appearance and in terms of taxonomy, between a koala and a bear, than there is between a pronghorn and an antelope.
525:
I wonder what the response would be if "Pronghorn" was edited to include "sometimes called pronghorn antelope" in the lead sentence? Actually, I think that article treats older, misleading names very well, and I would be more than happy if Koala was edited in a similar manner. ďżź
658:
You could have used
American robin vs European robin vs Australian robins. Again, we are talking about the Koala page, so these are irrelevant. But most of your examples are maybe species in different genre, or at the most different Families. Koalas and bears are in different
465:
It seems to me none of these sites could be used to reference the current lead sentence to the article. Yes, there were travel sites and personal sites further down that did use âkoala bearâ but nothing that could be described as âreliableâ when talking about koalas.
406:
It has been argued that this problem with the name is discussed in the article. This is true; however, it is buried in the middle of a long and technically dense article. Many readers will only skim the introduction, an issue that is recognised in
815:
It was recognised by the IUCN and MSW3, and subsequently by aggregator sites (e.g. ITIS, GBIF, COL), which is why it has a page. The archive of the shows how little was known about this animal. The IUCN cites the phylogenetic study of
947:
it's not always followed, but this article has had a note that it may not be a legitimate species for 20 years, and the IUCN has agreed for at least 5 (and probably much more), so feel free to merge similar articles as you see fit. --
456:(about halfway down the page) âYou may have heard this iconic animal is also called the âkoala bearâ. Despite its endearing charm, this nickname can be very misleading. Koalas are marsupials and thus have no relation to bears.â
643:, e.g. Darwin's fox and Andean fox, which are not true foxes. With birds there are more examples, e.g. the European blackbird is a thrush rather than a blackbird and let's not touch warblers, babblers and finches. Â â
817:
427:
After having some of my other edits deleted because of a lack of references, and learning how contentious this name is I was surprised that nobody had referenced âkoala bearâ, so I decided to give it a go.
369:
I only ask you take the time to properly consider my arguments. I would prefer that the phrase âsometimes called the koala bearâ be removed from the lead, but if not, it be at least qualified.
43:
414:
It has also been argued that the next sentence describes the koala as a marsupial. Again, it needs a certain level of education about animals to know that a bear cannot be a marsupial.
663:
would have thought well-educated. It leaves me wondering what people in less educated sectors of the community think. Your statement "No one argues it is a true bear" is just a guess.
843:
We do not need to support articles for no longer valid species. I just redirected 3-4 opossum articles to the species they are now considered to be a part of. (See the history of
366:
response, added the word. It was immediately reverted, and surprisingly I was accused of vandalism. It was suggested that I seek consensus on this page and thus here I am.
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
385:
2. Given the other problems of the name, âkoala bearâ is not an important enough name to include in the first line of the article, nor is it necessary.
444:(in lead) âDue to the animalâs superficial resemblance to a small bear, the koala is sometimes referred to, albeit erroneously, as the koala bear.â
940:
722:
the question was asked and the answer was yes, and "inaccurately" was inserted. Then a year ago it was removed without discussion or consensus.
1001:
996:
1006:
975:
936:
805:
693:
469:
The above references also support my original contention, that is using the term âkoala bearâ is both erroneous and misleading. --
403:
appears to believe this to be a real issue as they bluntly start their article with "Koalas are not bearsâtheyâre marsupials".
789:
767:
920:
898:
555:
500:
163:
127:
392:
3. The syntax of âkoala bearâ has the potential to mislead the casual reader as to the taxonomic status of the species.
102:
50:
308:
438:
I did a search for âkoala bearâ on Bing (donât ask). The first link was to
Knowledge, the next four were as follows:
912:
894:
173:-related subjects on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
522:
Based on this should not "inaccurately" still be in the lead? Or was consensus sort to change that in the meantime.
683:
593:
gives
Tasmanian tiger and Tasmanian wolf as vernacular names. I think that article is fine without an adjective.
358:
article, or if not, it at least be qualified. My contention is that the phase is both erroneous and misleading.
287:
905:
Hello again! I've found another article for an opossum species that appears to be reduced to synonymy. The IUCN
781:
763:
354:
This post seeks consensus for the removal of the phrase âsometimes called the koala bearâ from the lead of the
697:
971:
932:
801:
520:
near as can be determined, the "proposal to modify material" stems from this edit removing "inaccurately".
743:
727:
668:
619:
598:
531:
474:
108:
692:
Maybe we could state "...sometimes inaccurately referred to as a Koala bear", which would be correct.
719:
679:
640:
485:
510:
Thank you for giving me that link. The discussion certainly went places I would not want this to go.
421:
Better to qualify the statement, eg: âbrown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears in
Americaâ.
432:
853:
710:
447:
400:
341:
293:
61:
589:. Closer examples include marsupial lion, marsupial mole, marsupial mouse and marsupial shrew.
967:
928:
882:
834:
797:
649:
551:
496:
399:
This leaves the potential for an uninformed reader to believe that koalas are a type of bear.
739:
723:
664:
615:
594:
527:
470:
289:
212:
979:
960:
887:
856:
838:
809:
747:
731:
713:
701:
687:
672:
653:
623:
602:
560:
535:
505:
478:
375:
1. The lead is not consistent with other articles in Knowledge where similar issues arise.
344:
954:
775:
459:
291:
517:
Please help me out here, the box at the top is some sort of summary or ruling? It reads
408:
155:
906:
33:
990:
850:
707:
484:
This again...? Well, admittedly the last merry-go-round was 4 years back. Please see
338:
17:
830:
645:
636:
545:
490:
825:
909:
845:
778:
774:
I don't know much about mammals so apologies if I'm off the mark here. The IUCN
453:
949:
878:
864:
145:
590:
379:
441:
334:
320:
870:
326:
411:. The problem is not helped by âkoala bearâ being highlighted in bold.
581:
persists more strongly with regards to plushes (from the influence of
849:
for the redirected articles.) I support merging any relevant data. -
169:
892:
355:
149:
139:
121:
540:
The word appears to have been removed almost exactly a year ago
738:
I totally agree with you. The current lead is so inaccurate. ďżź
294:
206:
84:
28:
869:
325:
442:
Koala | Appearance, Diet, Habitat, & Facts | Britannica
927:) - would anyone be willing to perform the merge? Cheers,
450:(first line) âKoalas are not bears â theyâre marsupials.â
796:) - should the former be merged into the latter? Cheers,
881:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
337:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
541:
76:
69:
433:
AMTC Species List | The Australian Mammal Society Inc
167:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
824:and the MDD cites their follow-up classification (
417:4. âsometimesâ in this context is a weasel word.
448:Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com)
401:Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com)
454:Koala - WWF-Australia | Koala | WWF Australia
302:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
720:Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate"
486:Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate"
431:Firstly, a reference for âkoalaâ as a name:
879:Talk:Moggy#Requested move 4 September 2024
865:Talk:Moggy#Requested move 4 September 2024
585:); the bear morpheme also carries over to
116:
101:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
877:There is a requested move discussion at
333:There is a requested move discussion at
118:
312:when more than 5 sections are present.
335:Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024
321:Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024
7:
610:is fine by me. Happy to accept that.
90:
88:
565:If you're looking for an adjective
107:It is of interest to the following
25:
378:An example is the article on the
306:may be automatically archived by
161:This page is within the scope of
639:, which are not true moles, and
211:
148:
138:
120:
89:
32:
980:08:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
961:03:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
941:02:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
888:16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
857:12:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
839:07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
810:05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
790:northern three-striped opossum
768:Northern three-striped opossum
748:02:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
732:03:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
714:02:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
702:01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1002:NA-importance mammal articles
997:Project-Class mammal articles
921:white-bellied slender opossum
899:White-bellied slender opossum
460:Koala - The Australian Museum
372:My arguments are as follows:
362:that is a complete nonsense.
350:"Koala Bear" in Koala article
183:Knowledge:WikiProject Mammals
177:and see a list of open tasks.
1007:WikiProject Mammals articles
186:Template:WikiProject Mammals
688:21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
673:13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
654:16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
624:12:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
603:19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
561:13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
536:08:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
506:06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
479:03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
424:5. Where is the reference?
1023:
706:Asked and answered. No. -
345:19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
59:
913:Dorothy's slender opossum
895:Dorothy's slender opossum
133:
115:
782:chestnut-striped opossum
780:both seem to regard the
764:Chestnut-striped opossum
569:is probably better than
919:) as a synonym of the
874:
826:Pavan & Voss, 2016
788:) as a synonym of the
718:Actually, if you read
462:No mention of âbearâ.
330:
309:Lowercase sigmabot III
873:
822:Monodelphis americana
820:for its inclusion in
794:Monodelphis americana
635:other cases, such as
329:
18:Knowledge talk:MAMMAL
925:Marmosops noctivagus
911:both seem to regard
641:South American foxes
45:a WikiProject Report
164:WikiProject Mammals
40:WikiProject Mammals
917:Marmosops dorothea
875:
863:Requested move at
818:Pavan et al (2014)
786:Monodelphis rubida
331:
319:Requested move at
103:content assessment
559:
504:
316:
315:
205:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
58:
57:
54:on February 2010.
16:(Redirected from
1014:
957:
952:
885:
837:
652:
549:
548:
494:
493:
311:
295:
215:
207:
191:
190:
187:
184:
181:
158:
153:
152:
142:
135:
134:
124:
117:
94:
93:
92:
85:
79:
72:
42:was featured in
36:
29:
21:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1011:
987:
986:
955:
950:
903:
883:
868:
829:
772:
680:Jens Lallensack
644:
544:
489:
352:
324:
307:
296:
290:
220:
189:mammal articles
188:
185:
182:
179:
178:
154:
147:
83:
82:
75:
68:
64:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1020:
1018:
1010:
1009:
1004:
999:
989:
988:
985:
984:
983:
982:
966:being bold :)
902:
891:
867:
861:
860:
859:
841:
771:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
736:
735:
734:
660:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
611:
563:
523:
515:
511:
351:
348:
323:
317:
314:
313:
301:
298:
297:
292:
288:
286:
283:
282:
265:
222:
221:
216:
210:
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:
194:
192:
175:the discussion
160:
159:
156:Mammals portal
143:
131:
130:
125:
113:
112:
106:
95:
81:
80:
73:
65:
60:
56:
55:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1019:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
994:
992:
981:
977:
973:
969:
964:
963:
962:
959:
958:
953:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
907:
900:
896:
890:
889:
886:
880:
872:
866:
862:
858:
855:
852:
848:
847:
842:
840:
836:
832:
827:
823:
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
769:
765:
761:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
712:
709:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
661:
659:Infraclasses.
657:
656:
655:
651:
647:
642:
638:
633:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
562:
557:
553:
547:
542:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
524:
521:
516:
512:
509:
508:
507:
502:
498:
492:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
467:
463:
461:
457:
455:
451:
449:
445:
443:
439:
436:
434:
429:
425:
422:
418:
415:
412:
410:
404:
402:
397:
393:
390:
386:
383:
381:
376:
373:
370:
367:
363:
359:
357:
349:
347:
346:
343:
340:
336:
328:
322:
318:
310:
305:
300:
299:
285:
284:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
219:
214:
209:
208:
193:
176:
172:
171:
166:
165:
157:
151:
146:
144:
141:
137:
136:
132:
129:
126:
123:
119:
114:
110:
104:
100:
96:
87:
86:
78:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
53:
52:
47:
46:
41:
38:
35:
31:
30:
27:
19:
968:Ethmostigmus
948:
929:Ethmostigmus
924:
916:
904:
876:
844:
821:
798:Ethmostigmus
793:
785:
773:
637:golden moles
608:Misleadingly
607:
586:
582:
578:
575:inaccurately
574:
570:
567:misleadingly
566:
518:
468:
464:
458:
452:
446:
440:
437:
430:
426:
423:
419:
416:
413:
405:
398:
394:
391:
387:
384:
377:
374:
371:
368:
364:
360:
353:
332:
303:
225:
217:
174:
168:
162:
109:WikiProjects
99:project page
98:
49:
44:
39:
26:
846:Monodelphis
740:Corythaeola
724:Corythaeola
694:14.2.206.29
665:Corythaeola
616:Corythaeola
595:Lavateraguy
571:erroneously
528:Corythaeola
471:Corythaeola
991:Categories
583:teddy bear
579:koala bear
614:extinct.
591:Thylacine
587:drop bear
380:pronghorn
77:WT:MAMMAL
62:Shortcuts
976:contribs
937:contribs
851:UtherSRG
806:contribs
708:UtherSRG
556:contribs
514:bears?".
501:contribs
339:UtherSRG
304:150 days
218:Archives
51:Signpost
908:and MDD
884:ASUKITE
831:Jts1882
777:and MDD
646:Jts1882
546:Elmidae
491:Elmidae
409:WP:LEAD
180:Mammals
128:Mammals
48:in the
893:Merge
854:(talk)
762:Merge
711:(talk)
342:(talk)
170:mammal
105:scale.
70:WT:MAM
897:into
766:into
356:Koala
97:This
972:talk
970:đż (
951:Pres
933:talk
931:đż (
835:talk
802:talk
800:đż (
744:talk
728:talk
698:talk
684:talk
669:talk
650:talk
620:talk
599:talk
552:talk
532:talk
497:talk
475:talk
808:)
573:or
993::
978:)
974:|
939:)
935:|
804:|
746:)
730:)
700:)
686:)
671:)
622:)
601:)
554:¡
534:)
499:¡
477:)
435:.
279:14
277:,
275:13
273:,
271:12
269:,
267:11
263:10
261:,
257:,
253:,
249:,
245:,
241:,
237:,
233:,
229:,
956:N
923:(
915:(
901:?
833:|
792:(
784:(
770:?
742:(
726:(
696:(
682:(
667:(
648:|
618:(
597:(
558:)
550:(
530:(
503:)
495:(
473:(
259:9
255:8
251:7
247:6
243:5
239:4
235:3
231:2
227:1
111::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
