![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it useful or appropriate for an article about an animal to give a list of words for that animal in various non-English languages? Specifically, should the Etymology section of "Giraffe" include a list of words for giraffe in various African languages? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
"list of words"is not suitable for Wikipedia. I have to agree with Finnusertop, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it Google translate (or any other translator in that sort) and therefore a list of translations for Giraffe is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
While adult giraffes standing among trees and bushes are hard to see at even a few metres' distance, that can't possibly be right for an animal of such size.-- 2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:3DB6:3B3:569B:713 ( talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that not all zoos were/are particularly careful when they thought there was only one species, are there many hybrid specimens in zoos? 99.112.124.20 ( talk) 01:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Considering the reclassification of giraffes as four species, the phrase "the giraffe" should be removed from this article. Most usages would change to "giraffes". -- Khajidha ( talk) 14:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2016-09-08: Fancy writing all this up?
Giraffe genetic secret: Four species of tallest mammal identified
It is a famous, gentle giant of the African savanna, but the giraffe's genetics have just revealed that there is not one species, but four. Giraffes have previously been recognised to be a single species divided into several sub-species. But this latest study of their DNA suggests that four groups of giraffes have not cross-bred and exchanged genetic material for millions of years. This is a clear indication that they have evolved into distinct species. The study published in the journal Current Biology has rewritten the biology of Earth's tallest mammal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37311716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.33.232 ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
SlySven ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Abductive, Neegzistuoja, SuperTah, SlySven, Elmidae: I suggest the Giraffa article be augmented with the general information about all giraffes, including the new species delimitations of Brown et al. (2007) and Fennessy et al. (2016), and details specific to seperate species be placed under the species-specific articles. DerekELee ( talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all- in light of no response, after five and a half hours, from the majority of you, I believe that I should take leadership of this role. Elmidae, I concur with DerekELee, in believing that a pragmatic solution must be taken, in reforming all related Giraffid articles to align with recent research. I only take this option at this time as I believe that with the surprising amount of editors having already taken action on this subject, that the majority believe we should take this action, and that continuously undoing many editors work on the basis of patience, when the research seems definitive, is counterproductive. I also agree in making species specific articles- however, the 'Northern Giraffe' article should not be pasted upon the original Giraffe species article. Thus, I shall undo all progress on the Northern Giraffe, and place my original recalibration of an article pertaining the overall genus. The 'new' genus page shall be reformed to become the new 'Northern Giraffe' page. I shall give fifteen minutes from the posting of this piece for any comments or queries, as action must be taken, especially since there shall be a significant amount of traffic incoming due to press. SuperTah ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for the messiness of this rework- I shall endeavour to fix this dead links on this page. SuperTah ( talk) 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please leave this article for the northern giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and edit the genus article Giraffa about the split into four species. And the new species are:
I would suggest creating the new articles at the scientific names, since the "common" names are newly minted. I leave it to others to decide what G. c. angolensis, G. c. antiquorum, G. c. rothschildi, G. c. thornicrofti and G. c. peralta are now, if anything. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the general giraffe information currently in the northern giraffe article be shifted to Giraffa, and specifics of each species be put under the species-specific articles DerekELee ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Pages for the four species do exist, titled by the common names.
Marfinan ( talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Yes, that study strongly suggests there are four species. But they have not yet been recognized. They may well be, but they have not yet been so recognized. Wulfy95113 ( talk) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh my. All these moves have made a real mess of things. There was a page at Giraffa that included 7 extinct species. I don't know where that's gone. The page history for Giraffe is now at Giraffe (Giraffa) (as is this talk page). I really hope all the moves are done. Talk pages need to get realigned with article titles, histories need merging, and I hope somebody can figure out what happened to the page that covered the genus and it's extinct species. Plantdrew ( talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The four species classification requires another column on the table, which I've added. Not sure why Rothschild's and Rhodesian are labeled as "former subspecies." Should we just say nine subspecies? Marfinan ( talk) 12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The International Union for Conservation of Nature have reported on declining numbers: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/giraffes-become-at-risk-of-extinction-as-population-plummets-by-40-conservationists-warn-a3415086.html
If this is new data, perhaps the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.219.229 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Ping to:
Abductive,
Dger,
SuperTah,
Elmidae.
The controversy started:
read these papers. In particular, the first summarizes: "Fennessy et al. present a new perspective on giraffe taxonomy, but the conclusions should not be accepted unconditionally". To make it simple, results from the 2016 paper were known with more details since 2007 (Brown et al. study). The 2016 team was just ballzy enough to elevate four names to species rank. These names were already recognized and applied to subspeccies described for centuries, though
in interview researchers said stuff like: "We were extremely surprised, because from our observations the morphological and coat pattern differences between giraffe are minor" and "For some reason this megafauna has been overlooked by scientists for a long time". This is a study case of inflating results to make the news. And it worked even here on WP, as the article is divided in four pieces.
The division of the Giraffe in 9 subspecies, or 4 to 6 species with subspecies does not reach consensus: it urges to wait. Though, my modifications appeared not to be consensual either (
1 and
2), so it seemed be better to discuss it before editing.
Totodu74 (
talk)
10:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
"This split is not accepted and there are sources now; being the most recent is not being right." I read the PDF file. And I see following Bercovitch et al. interpreting with the idea of 4 separate giraffe subspecies being unacceptable, Fennessy et al. corresponded after. In the PDF file, the whole thing wasn't about confirming that the four-species idea was wrong. I am seeing a conflict between the two of them. One that contradicts the whole idea and the other that still considers the possibility. And I agree with Fennassy group about one thing, none of us are surprised that the four-species idea would have stir up controversies. Since the day the giraffes were listed as Vulnerable in Summer 2016, it was mentioned by the IUCN that it was premature to alter taxonomy. It was after the Fennessy group's analyses on four giraffe kinds. And I agree that it was too soon to change things. But it was too late. Welp, the updates have already been established, in the English Wikipedia and others of different languages. Since there is a conflict between two sources, as there is a four-species claim whilst the IUCN sticks with the view of a single species, we are waiting for giraffe experts to reach a conclusion. So why bothering for further changes if things are already done before we reach a conclusion? We will be willing to restore things back to Giraffa camelopardalis once the division of four giraffe species idea is rejected (that would be kind of hassle after working hard on them...), or we stick to what we currently have here if the Fennessy group's plan is legit. We have four giraffe species here now, so no immediate changes until then. I know you're not okay with what we have here, but once the whole idea gets denied per consensus, we will restore things back to the way they were. Honestly, we wouldn't split any articles to begin with otherwise and the idea of doing so would be unaccepted until we have a consensus. But it's too late. And when you asked if I saw the talk page, Totodu74, I knew most about it way back before the controversy started. Controversies between sources and on Wikipedia were bound to happen, like right now.-- FierceJake754 ( talk) 02:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Page watchers are invited to assist with the expansion of the newly created stub, April (giraffe). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Minnesota, Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Canada, Mexico, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Australia 2601:446:8100:B57B:59DE:4C1E:894A:52DC ( talk) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a category: Individual giraffes that includes six entries. This is probably not sufficient for a standalone article, but I suggest a section for this article would be appropriate (i.e.: a bullet-list with summary). Comments? -- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF ( talk) 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 3rd paragraph of the
Relationship with humans section there is a hidden link: [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]]
. Please change to reveal link. Suggested:
Another [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]] was brought
...[[Zarafa (giraffe)|Zarafa]] was another famous giraffe, brought
...![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giraffe is one kind of animal there is only 1 species there are not 12 or 4 but 1 species of Giraffe 208.105.183.219 ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ping to:
Abductive,
Dger,
SuperTah,
Elmidae.
I propose the main page be rewritten slightly to include alternative taxonomies. At least present Groves and Grubb 2011 statistical analyses and 9-species taxonomy alongside Fennessey 2016 and add the commentary by Bercovitch 2017. The present situation is giving tacit approval to a 4-species system of taxonomy that is not widely accepted. It should be pretty easy to turn the 'subspecies' pages into 'potential species' pages.
Thoughts?
DerekELee (
talk)
11:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)DerekELee
Still, it's quite messy. We could have just waited for a consensus.-- FierceJake754 ( talk) 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would anybody be able to add a cladogram on the giraffe's place in the Artiodactyla or ruminant linage and place it in the evolution section? There one in the deer article but it is not formatted to fit in the text. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Giraffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/download/25567/16607When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giraffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently producing a scale chart for the Giraffe; the current iteration can be seen here: [2]. The idea is to show the maximum recorded heights for males and females. I have read that the maximum height for males is 5.88m measured 'between pegs' which from what I can gather means you stretch out the animal as far as it can go then measure the distance, represented by the grey silhouettes in my chart. According to the Wikipedia article, the tallest recorded female is 5.17m and cites 'Walker's Mammals of the World' and 'The Giraffe its biology.....'. I can't find online copies of these books. Does anyone know if any of these books states how the female was measured? Cheers. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The conservation status identifies the Giraffe as being critically endangered, however the source referenced lists them as vulnerable: http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9194/0
Gazamixed ( talk) 12:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, this clause: the tallest living terrestrial animals and the largest ruminants. If it's referring to giraffes [plural], then it's incorrect, because plural giraffes does not precede it. And if it's referring to "African even-toed ungulate mammals", then it's just awkwardly worded. I think it is intended to refer to giraffes, but since only the singular form precedes it, it should then be: the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant., listing the second and third "thing" that a giraffe is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Membender ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering, reading the English Wikipedia article about giraffes, if there is only a single specie in that genus, as it says it in the introduction, or if there is four different species : G. camelopardalis G. giraffa G. tippelskirchi G. reticulata.
Indeed, a significant number a scientific information, also broadcast by the BBC : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html, as providing an information where they say that there is 4 species. You can also see that NCBI and ITIS taxonomy are defending that thesis. In the english article, I saw that there is only one specie, but looking further down, I saw in the chapter Taxonomy a table where there is written the four species that I have written above. I want to know which information is correct, or, better, to know if you consider the 4-species theory more likely to be exact by considering the context and the information from many magazines :
https://www.livescience.com/56025-giraffes-are-4-species.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html
-- Pontarrêt ( talk) 11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest amending the following sentence to include "comedy", in reference to Dave Gorman's incredibly funny giraffe joke:
"The giraffe has intrigued various cultures, both ancient and modern, for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons."
Perhaps worded something like this:
"featured in paintings, books, cartoons and, most recently, comedy as the subject of Dave Gorman's hilarious, face-pain inducing, belly-laugh invoking 'best giraffe joke ever'." Caprakan ( talk) 11:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the giraffe sound section should be expanded. It's a myth that giraffes only make sounds that are barely detectable. Giraffes make loud noises more than people think, often when they or their calves are in danger. They growl pretty much like a camel would and hiss. It'd be good if that could be included. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoology/comments/jiessv/giraffes_make_loud_sounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstruse0 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
DerekELee, how come you removed the cladogram? You didn't give an edit summary. I would also like Jts1882's and Cygnis insignis's thoughts. LittleJerry ( talk) 15:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As an experiment, I created a compacted version of the current table at Species and subspecies – available here. I made it so much narrower that it now has space for three extra columns and fits on a portrait mode monitor while the text sise is still nicely readable. One of the extra columns is for a picture of the pelage. This has only 3 sample images; we could use the individual pictures contained in the image announced seven years ago to fill it up. ◅ Sebastian 12:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
A new study has come out further supporting the existence of four species, with seven subspecies: [3] — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 05:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
What do the admins think? There are now multiple sources that support the 4 species model. Should the article be changed to reflect this? Somed00d1997 ( talk) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This subsection summarizes the arguments whether this article should based on one species, or on four. The purpose is to enable us to weigh them properly.
Please feel free to insert any points into the list. If you do so, please keep the same format with links (to reliable sources or diffs) so that each item is summarily expressed with few words for easy comparison. In this subsection, I think it is best to avoid any mention of editor's names so as to avoid WP:OWNERSHIP; this should be purely about the merits and demerits of the individual pros and cons. ◅ Sebastian 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Article based on one species:
Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo. This assessment is based upon an interim consensus that a single species of giraffes is resident on the African continent.
Article based on three species:
Article based on four species:
What did thare poo look like 2601:147:4001:73B0:F964:E87C:9498:D5B ( talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
A pile of around ten irregularly shaped droppings distinguishes theirs from deer poo, if you know what that looks like. ~ cygnis insignis 09:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I've read speculation that giraffes might have inspired the medieval Questing Beast and possibly the Chinese Quilin. Should this be added? (Are there any academic sources?) The Questing Beast in particular seemed convincing. Tabbycatlove ( talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Appearance and anatomy" there is sub header called "Internal systems". In my opinion this section requires a lot of attention because at the moment it is misleading. I'm not a biologist, but just looking up the references - and even the picture above (in mobile view, in desktop view it is to the side - captioned "Scheme of path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffe") - it is clear that what is stated in the first sentences of the article is not true.
First sentence compares left recurrent laryngeal nerve to the right one. Again I'm not a biologist, so I don't know whether there is a right recurrent laryngeal nerve (there might be none, but since it is so prominently stated in the article I might expect that other sources might have picked up the name after Wikipedia), but relevant comparison would be to the Superior laryngeal nerve. So the detour is expected to be at 4.5 m (not 30 cm). The number 30 in the source referees to 30 m not 30 cm and it is related to whale, not giraffe. Next sentence states that "left nerve is over 2 m". But the correct value is given in sentence four: "nerve cells have a length of nearly 5 m".
In my opinion these issues should be addressed. The same error was copied when translating this page to polish. Noble Oxym ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed there used to be a small note saying that males have no roles in raising the calves but still remain friendly, but i could no longer find it, i got curious and decided to look through the revisions and it was removed for some reason (that the editor doesnt explain why) in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Giraffe&oldid=1101003882 - if you go back to the previous one and then to parental care, you'll see it mentioned after the calving pool, i can imagine some reasons on why it got removed (its in the middle of the calving pool explanation rather than before or after it, and it was just an "appear to have friendly relations" thing that may not be true) but im not sure, i think it would be nice to mention it again?? 138.255.51.9 ( talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The existing beautiful range map graphic ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_distribution2.png) was made with 2010 IUCN data. However, it turns out nature is messier than that: apparently the subspecies do NOT correspond neatly to the blobs of the extant species range mosaic. A 2014 paper ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0219-7) found that, whereas the central Botswanan population is indeed the Angolan giraffe (G. g. angolensis), as shown in the map, the contiguous population in northern Botswana is actually the South African giraffe (G. g. giraffa). Then a 2018 paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2018.03.003) reported that the southern Zimbabwe population, contiguous with the South Africa range blob, is actually G. g. angolensis, not G. g. giraffa.
I can make an attempt to capture that info in the text of the piece, and make a note in the map caption as well. But what should we do about the map itself? After all, that's the main thing people are going to go by. Also, does anyone know of more recent or authoritative sources? Gould363 ( talk) 02:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Elmidae: In reverting my edit, you wrote "oxpeckers are not mentioned in the text, so this is not exactly illustrative". Oxpeckers are mentioned in para 3 in the section Giraffe#Mortality_and_health. -- Tagooty ( talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It is the tallest living terrestrial animal (disputed) who claims the largest mammal in the world? 2404:8000:1005:9517:AD8E:59EF:7D75:A399 ( talk) 16:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Born a little while ago Dr Jackson is not rweal ( talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it useful or appropriate for an article about an animal to give a list of words for that animal in various non-English languages? Specifically, should the Etymology section of "Giraffe" include a list of words for giraffe in various African languages? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
"list of words"is not suitable for Wikipedia. I have to agree with Finnusertop, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it Google translate (or any other translator in that sort) and therefore a list of translations for Giraffe is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
While adult giraffes standing among trees and bushes are hard to see at even a few metres' distance, that can't possibly be right for an animal of such size.-- 2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:3DB6:3B3:569B:713 ( talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that not all zoos were/are particularly careful when they thought there was only one species, are there many hybrid specimens in zoos? 99.112.124.20 ( talk) 01:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Considering the reclassification of giraffes as four species, the phrase "the giraffe" should be removed from this article. Most usages would change to "giraffes". -- Khajidha ( talk) 14:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2016-09-08: Fancy writing all this up?
Giraffe genetic secret: Four species of tallest mammal identified
It is a famous, gentle giant of the African savanna, but the giraffe's genetics have just revealed that there is not one species, but four. Giraffes have previously been recognised to be a single species divided into several sub-species. But this latest study of their DNA suggests that four groups of giraffes have not cross-bred and exchanged genetic material for millions of years. This is a clear indication that they have evolved into distinct species. The study published in the journal Current Biology has rewritten the biology of Earth's tallest mammal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37311716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.33.232 ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kortoso ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
SlySven ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Abductive, Neegzistuoja, SuperTah, SlySven, Elmidae: I suggest the Giraffa article be augmented with the general information about all giraffes, including the new species delimitations of Brown et al. (2007) and Fennessy et al. (2016), and details specific to seperate species be placed under the species-specific articles. DerekELee ( talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey all- in light of no response, after five and a half hours, from the majority of you, I believe that I should take leadership of this role. Elmidae, I concur with DerekELee, in believing that a pragmatic solution must be taken, in reforming all related Giraffid articles to align with recent research. I only take this option at this time as I believe that with the surprising amount of editors having already taken action on this subject, that the majority believe we should take this action, and that continuously undoing many editors work on the basis of patience, when the research seems definitive, is counterproductive. I also agree in making species specific articles- however, the 'Northern Giraffe' article should not be pasted upon the original Giraffe species article. Thus, I shall undo all progress on the Northern Giraffe, and place my original recalibration of an article pertaining the overall genus. The 'new' genus page shall be reformed to become the new 'Northern Giraffe' page. I shall give fifteen minutes from the posting of this piece for any comments or queries, as action must be taken, especially since there shall be a significant amount of traffic incoming due to press. SuperTah ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for the messiness of this rework- I shall endeavour to fix this dead links on this page. SuperTah ( talk) 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please leave this article for the northern giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and edit the genus article Giraffa about the split into four species. And the new species are:
I would suggest creating the new articles at the scientific names, since the "common" names are newly minted. I leave it to others to decide what G. c. angolensis, G. c. antiquorum, G. c. rothschildi, G. c. thornicrofti and G. c. peralta are now, if anything. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the general giraffe information currently in the northern giraffe article be shifted to Giraffa, and specifics of each species be put under the species-specific articles DerekELee ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Pages for the four species do exist, titled by the common names.
Marfinan ( talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Yes, that study strongly suggests there are four species. But they have not yet been recognized. They may well be, but they have not yet been so recognized. Wulfy95113 ( talk) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh my. All these moves have made a real mess of things. There was a page at Giraffa that included 7 extinct species. I don't know where that's gone. The page history for Giraffe is now at Giraffe (Giraffa) (as is this talk page). I really hope all the moves are done. Talk pages need to get realigned with article titles, histories need merging, and I hope somebody can figure out what happened to the page that covered the genus and it's extinct species. Plantdrew ( talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The four species classification requires another column on the table, which I've added. Not sure why Rothschild's and Rhodesian are labeled as "former subspecies." Should we just say nine subspecies? Marfinan ( talk) 12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The International Union for Conservation of Nature have reported on declining numbers: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/giraffes-become-at-risk-of-extinction-as-population-plummets-by-40-conservationists-warn-a3415086.html
If this is new data, perhaps the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.219.229 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Ping to:
Abductive,
Dger,
SuperTah,
Elmidae.
The controversy started:
read these papers. In particular, the first summarizes: "Fennessy et al. present a new perspective on giraffe taxonomy, but the conclusions should not be accepted unconditionally". To make it simple, results from the 2016 paper were known with more details since 2007 (Brown et al. study). The 2016 team was just ballzy enough to elevate four names to species rank. These names were already recognized and applied to subspeccies described for centuries, though
in interview researchers said stuff like: "We were extremely surprised, because from our observations the morphological and coat pattern differences between giraffe are minor" and "For some reason this megafauna has been overlooked by scientists for a long time". This is a study case of inflating results to make the news. And it worked even here on WP, as the article is divided in four pieces.
The division of the Giraffe in 9 subspecies, or 4 to 6 species with subspecies does not reach consensus: it urges to wait. Though, my modifications appeared not to be consensual either (
1 and
2), so it seemed be better to discuss it before editing.
Totodu74 (
talk)
10:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
"This split is not accepted and there are sources now; being the most recent is not being right." I read the PDF file. And I see following Bercovitch et al. interpreting with the idea of 4 separate giraffe subspecies being unacceptable, Fennessy et al. corresponded after. In the PDF file, the whole thing wasn't about confirming that the four-species idea was wrong. I am seeing a conflict between the two of them. One that contradicts the whole idea and the other that still considers the possibility. And I agree with Fennassy group about one thing, none of us are surprised that the four-species idea would have stir up controversies. Since the day the giraffes were listed as Vulnerable in Summer 2016, it was mentioned by the IUCN that it was premature to alter taxonomy. It was after the Fennessy group's analyses on four giraffe kinds. And I agree that it was too soon to change things. But it was too late. Welp, the updates have already been established, in the English Wikipedia and others of different languages. Since there is a conflict between two sources, as there is a four-species claim whilst the IUCN sticks with the view of a single species, we are waiting for giraffe experts to reach a conclusion. So why bothering for further changes if things are already done before we reach a conclusion? We will be willing to restore things back to Giraffa camelopardalis once the division of four giraffe species idea is rejected (that would be kind of hassle after working hard on them...), or we stick to what we currently have here if the Fennessy group's plan is legit. We have four giraffe species here now, so no immediate changes until then. I know you're not okay with what we have here, but once the whole idea gets denied per consensus, we will restore things back to the way they were. Honestly, we wouldn't split any articles to begin with otherwise and the idea of doing so would be unaccepted until we have a consensus. But it's too late. And when you asked if I saw the talk page, Totodu74, I knew most about it way back before the controversy started. Controversies between sources and on Wikipedia were bound to happen, like right now.-- FierceJake754 ( talk) 02:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Page watchers are invited to assist with the expansion of the newly created stub, April (giraffe). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Minnesota, Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Canada, Mexico, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Australia 2601:446:8100:B57B:59DE:4C1E:894A:52DC ( talk) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a category: Individual giraffes that includes six entries. This is probably not sufficient for a standalone article, but I suggest a section for this article would be appropriate (i.e.: a bullet-list with summary). Comments? -- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF ( talk) 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 3rd paragraph of the
Relationship with humans section there is a hidden link: [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]]
. Please change to reveal link. Suggested:
Another [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]] was brought
...[[Zarafa (giraffe)|Zarafa]] was another famous giraffe, brought
...![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Giraffe is one kind of animal there is only 1 species there are not 12 or 4 but 1 species of Giraffe 208.105.183.219 ( talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ping to:
Abductive,
Dger,
SuperTah,
Elmidae.
I propose the main page be rewritten slightly to include alternative taxonomies. At least present Groves and Grubb 2011 statistical analyses and 9-species taxonomy alongside Fennessey 2016 and add the commentary by Bercovitch 2017. The present situation is giving tacit approval to a 4-species system of taxonomy that is not widely accepted. It should be pretty easy to turn the 'subspecies' pages into 'potential species' pages.
Thoughts?
DerekELee (
talk)
11:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)DerekELee
Still, it's quite messy. We could have just waited for a consensus.-- FierceJake754 ( talk) 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would anybody be able to add a cladogram on the giraffe's place in the Artiodactyla or ruminant linage and place it in the evolution section? There one in the deer article but it is not formatted to fit in the text. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Giraffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/download/25567/16607When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giraffe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently producing a scale chart for the Giraffe; the current iteration can be seen here: [2]. The idea is to show the maximum recorded heights for males and females. I have read that the maximum height for males is 5.88m measured 'between pegs' which from what I can gather means you stretch out the animal as far as it can go then measure the distance, represented by the grey silhouettes in my chart. According to the Wikipedia article, the tallest recorded female is 5.17m and cites 'Walker's Mammals of the World' and 'The Giraffe its biology.....'. I can't find online copies of these books. Does anyone know if any of these books states how the female was measured? Cheers. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The conservation status identifies the Giraffe as being critically endangered, however the source referenced lists them as vulnerable: http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9194/0
Gazamixed ( talk) 12:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Specifically, this clause: the tallest living terrestrial animals and the largest ruminants. If it's referring to giraffes [plural], then it's incorrect, because plural giraffes does not precede it. And if it's referring to "African even-toed ungulate mammals", then it's just awkwardly worded. I think it is intended to refer to giraffes, but since only the singular form precedes it, it should then be: the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant., listing the second and third "thing" that a giraffe is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Membender ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering, reading the English Wikipedia article about giraffes, if there is only a single specie in that genus, as it says it in the introduction, or if there is four different species : G. camelopardalis G. giraffa G. tippelskirchi G. reticulata.
Indeed, a significant number a scientific information, also broadcast by the BBC : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html, as providing an information where they say that there is 4 species. You can also see that NCBI and ITIS taxonomy are defending that thesis. In the english article, I saw that there is only one specie, but looking further down, I saw in the chapter Taxonomy a table where there is written the four species that I have written above. I want to know which information is correct, or, better, to know if you consider the 4-species theory more likely to be exact by considering the context and the information from many magazines :
https://www.livescience.com/56025-giraffes-are-4-species.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html
-- Pontarrêt ( talk) 11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Giraffe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest amending the following sentence to include "comedy", in reference to Dave Gorman's incredibly funny giraffe joke:
"The giraffe has intrigued various cultures, both ancient and modern, for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons."
Perhaps worded something like this:
"featured in paintings, books, cartoons and, most recently, comedy as the subject of Dave Gorman's hilarious, face-pain inducing, belly-laugh invoking 'best giraffe joke ever'." Caprakan ( talk) 11:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the giraffe sound section should be expanded. It's a myth that giraffes only make sounds that are barely detectable. Giraffes make loud noises more than people think, often when they or their calves are in danger. They growl pretty much like a camel would and hiss. It'd be good if that could be included. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoology/comments/jiessv/giraffes_make_loud_sounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstruse0 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
DerekELee, how come you removed the cladogram? You didn't give an edit summary. I would also like Jts1882's and Cygnis insignis's thoughts. LittleJerry ( talk) 15:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As an experiment, I created a compacted version of the current table at Species and subspecies – available here. I made it so much narrower that it now has space for three extra columns and fits on a portrait mode monitor while the text sise is still nicely readable. One of the extra columns is for a picture of the pelage. This has only 3 sample images; we could use the individual pictures contained in the image announced seven years ago to fill it up. ◅ Sebastian 12:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
A new study has come out further supporting the existence of four species, with seven subspecies: [3] — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 05:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
What do the admins think? There are now multiple sources that support the 4 species model. Should the article be changed to reflect this? Somed00d1997 ( talk) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This subsection summarizes the arguments whether this article should based on one species, or on four. The purpose is to enable us to weigh them properly.
Please feel free to insert any points into the list. If you do so, please keep the same format with links (to reliable sources or diffs) so that each item is summarily expressed with few words for easy comparison. In this subsection, I think it is best to avoid any mention of editor's names so as to avoid WP:OWNERSHIP; this should be purely about the merits and demerits of the individual pros and cons. ◅ Sebastian 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Article based on one species:
Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo. This assessment is based upon an interim consensus that a single species of giraffes is resident on the African continent.
Article based on three species:
Article based on four species:
What did thare poo look like 2601:147:4001:73B0:F964:E87C:9498:D5B ( talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
A pile of around ten irregularly shaped droppings distinguishes theirs from deer poo, if you know what that looks like. ~ cygnis insignis 09:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I've read speculation that giraffes might have inspired the medieval Questing Beast and possibly the Chinese Quilin. Should this be added? (Are there any academic sources?) The Questing Beast in particular seemed convincing. Tabbycatlove ( talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Appearance and anatomy" there is sub header called "Internal systems". In my opinion this section requires a lot of attention because at the moment it is misleading. I'm not a biologist, but just looking up the references - and even the picture above (in mobile view, in desktop view it is to the side - captioned "Scheme of path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffe") - it is clear that what is stated in the first sentences of the article is not true.
First sentence compares left recurrent laryngeal nerve to the right one. Again I'm not a biologist, so I don't know whether there is a right recurrent laryngeal nerve (there might be none, but since it is so prominently stated in the article I might expect that other sources might have picked up the name after Wikipedia), but relevant comparison would be to the Superior laryngeal nerve. So the detour is expected to be at 4.5 m (not 30 cm). The number 30 in the source referees to 30 m not 30 cm and it is related to whale, not giraffe. Next sentence states that "left nerve is over 2 m". But the correct value is given in sentence four: "nerve cells have a length of nearly 5 m".
In my opinion these issues should be addressed. The same error was copied when translating this page to polish. Noble Oxym ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed there used to be a small note saying that males have no roles in raising the calves but still remain friendly, but i could no longer find it, i got curious and decided to look through the revisions and it was removed for some reason (that the editor doesnt explain why) in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Giraffe&oldid=1101003882 - if you go back to the previous one and then to parental care, you'll see it mentioned after the calving pool, i can imagine some reasons on why it got removed (its in the middle of the calving pool explanation rather than before or after it, and it was just an "appear to have friendly relations" thing that may not be true) but im not sure, i think it would be nice to mention it again?? 138.255.51.9 ( talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The existing beautiful range map graphic ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_distribution2.png) was made with 2010 IUCN data. However, it turns out nature is messier than that: apparently the subspecies do NOT correspond neatly to the blobs of the extant species range mosaic. A 2014 paper ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0219-7) found that, whereas the central Botswanan population is indeed the Angolan giraffe (G. g. angolensis), as shown in the map, the contiguous population in northern Botswana is actually the South African giraffe (G. g. giraffa). Then a 2018 paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2018.03.003) reported that the southern Zimbabwe population, contiguous with the South Africa range blob, is actually G. g. angolensis, not G. g. giraffa.
I can make an attempt to capture that info in the text of the piece, and make a note in the map caption as well. But what should we do about the map itself? After all, that's the main thing people are going to go by. Also, does anyone know of more recent or authoritative sources? Gould363 ( talk) 02:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Elmidae: In reverting my edit, you wrote "oxpeckers are not mentioned in the text, so this is not exactly illustrative". Oxpeckers are mentioned in para 3 in the section Giraffe#Mortality_and_health. -- Tagooty ( talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It is the tallest living terrestrial animal (disputed) who claims the largest mammal in the world? 2404:8000:1005:9517:AD8E:59EF:7D75:A399 ( talk) 16:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Born a little while ago Dr Jackson is not rweal ( talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)