Talk:Senkaku mole

New records

See http://www.arkive.org/ryukyu-mole/mogera-uchidai/info.html -- Kmoksy (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

About the article title

Generally, names that are actually used in English are preferred for article titles at English Wikipedia. That being said, if people really loathe the fact that a Japanese name appears in the article title, don't move it to a name that's not actually used in English (references: all URLs provided do not mention the name "Diaoyutai Mole"), whatever your non-NPOV political passion may be. Instead, we could use the Latin name, which is not an official language of any of the nations disputing the islands. Only if we really have to resort to changing the status quo, that is. See also: WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV. Reverts should be done responsibly, and with careful consideration. --Bxj (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would actually favor the scientific name, as explained at User:Ucucha/Titles. An animal like this is not going to have a really prevalent English-language name. Ucucha 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. This was in no way an uncontroversial move, and the reason given was false. Google Scholar shows 19 examples of "Senkaku Mole", and Google Books shows 7. Neither shows 'any hits for Diaoyu mole or Diaoyutai mole. Unless someone has evidence that any other name is ever used in English, there is no debate about the name of this animal. Yes, there is a different name used in Chinese, but, for that matter, there's a different name used in Japanese, and, of course, neither name matters because we only care what English sources use. As a general rule, we use the common English name of animals, not the scientific one, unless there is some overriding reason. I don't see any such reason here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was moved to the scientific name, you know, the authoritative Latin name Genus + specie (namely, Mogera uchidai). I don't even know why you are bringing up that unrelated statement, or giving an arguement against a name to which it was never moved to. I was the one that requested it. Also, here's two common names: [1][2] --Cold Season (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia doesn't put articles on animals at the scientific name when a common name exists for animals; c.f., Crocodile, Gray wolf, Polar bear, etc. Regarding the use of "Ryukyu mole", that name is significantly less common (1 Google Scholar hit, 6 Google Books hits), thus, again, showing that Senkaku mole is the common name. Qwyrxian (talk)

Not that I ever taken into consideration to those hits in searches for measurement, never will, nevertheless "significant" is a big word considering the already low number of "hits" overall, no strenght to it. My reason was also not inaccurate or "false", there's clearly several names. Fine, I'll drop it... for now... Cold Season (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. What was "false" was the placement of the move into "Technical moves" as a "non-contentious move", given that it's not how we do animal articles. Apologies if I sounded too strong. If more sources (or particularly prominent ones) show more uses of Ryukyu mole in English, such that it's approximately balanced, then I would support the scientific name as a balanced alternative. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Title of this article

I reverted the move to "Senkaku islands mole". There is no such name as "Senkaku islands mole". The followings are Google Book search result:

• "Senkaku Mole" -LLC -Wikipedia 10
• "Ryukyu Mole" -LLC -Wikipedia 6
• "Senkaku islands Mole" -LLC -Wikipedia none

Also see the following source. "Mogera uchidai"'s common name is either "Senkaku Mole" or "Ryukyu Mole".

• Senkaku Mole
  • Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History
  • Interagency Taxonomic Information System
• Ryukyu Mole
  • ARKive
• Ryukyu Mole, Senkaku Mole
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)