Template:Vital article

	Lion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 30, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted April 14, 2011 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Cats FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Burundi / Chad / Eswatini / Kenya / Malawi / Morocco / Republic of the Congo / Sierra Leone / South Africa / Tanzania / Togo / Tunisia / Western Sahara FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Burundi (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Chad (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eswatini (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Morocco (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Republic of the Congo (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sierra Leone (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Togo (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara (assessed as Top-importance). Ethiopia: Climate and environment FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Climate and environment. India FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

LOL I"M AWESOME LOOK!!!

More to come...--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to help. Table is made with just a lot of pipes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SilverTiger12 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)[reply]

Leo1pard 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)[reply]

And I think you are doing a really good job clearing this jungle!!!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani and SilverTiger12: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The redirect Lion#Reproduction and life cycle 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Without checking any apparent taxonomic synonyms in the delete column, just note that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Species may apply. If they are cited by others they are probably notable, in a nutshell. cygnis insignis 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As to your question: you hit the bull's eye :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No :) Leo1pard (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A children's book, what a nice joke!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, want more? Leo1pard (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the complete set : author, year of publication + publisher, type specimen: skin, skull?, type locality. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, the preferred target for the redirect Ethiopian lion. Where should that go? cygnis insignis 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leo1pard, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leo1pard, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

good catch - first one is plainly wrong. removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | talk  08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You may find this useful. Leo1pard (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 | talk  10:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | talk  11:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]