Talk:Madidi titi monkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common Name[edit]

The species has a bionomial name, what exactly did golden palace pay for, the right to a common name? If so I'd say they got ripped off. --nixie 22:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • They paid for the common name. They have done dozens of promotional stunts, including paying a woman money to officially change her name to goldenplace.com. Kingturtle 23:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Note that the binomial name is "callicebus aureipalatii"; aureipalatii meaning, you've guessed it, "golden palace" (in not too classical Latin). Though I doubt anyone will actually call this the "GoldenPalace.com monkey" (at worst it'll become the "golden palace monkey") it's bad enough we have to put the article here. JRM 23:40, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Rather than naming the species after himself, a common act among biologists,

what? I'm not a biologist, but I know several, and the understanding I have is that it's a major faux pas to name a species after yourself. You're supposed to name species after people and things that you like/inspired you/etc. Am I wrong and is biology in fact full of egotists? Nohat 05:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome to fix the language as you see fit. i support such a change. Kingturtle 05:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not unheard of for scientists to name discoveries after themselves, even biologists have been known to do it. However, it is far more frequent that well respected and known biologists have things named after them by other bioogists. It is truely a rare occurance for the naming of a new species to be auctioned off in this manner. - UtherSRG 05:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's against the rules of ICZN for an author to name a species after him/herself. Sometimes you see it, but it's officially named after a parent or wife spouse. --Aranae 22:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Or husband! Nohat 23:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Parent or spouse, certainly. I was thinking of two specific examples. Many women in science retain their maiden name for publication, but certainly not all. Sorry, that was a pretty glaring mistake. --Aranae 23:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • What a sad reflection on the scientific world to allow an animal to be named after a company based solely on money. RedWolf 06:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hah. It's a sad reflection on the world of scientific funding is what it is. 24.76.121.176 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this name already officially published? Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not in a scientific journal, but it's been all over the newswires. We may have to make some edits after it's formally published in a journal, but what we have is good for now. - UtherSRG 21:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thus I have not overseen a new species :-). Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 05:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 2 families listed in the taxonomy? Kaldari 15:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wronmg template. I have corrected it, though that subfamily one could easily go away. Circeus 17:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Golden Palace Monkey?[edit]

Reasons to move:

  • GoldenPalace.com appear to prefer "Golden Palace Monkey" as the common name; see goldenpalacemonkey.com.
  • The Latin name just means "golden palace"
  • "Golden Palace Monkey" is nicer.

Reasons to leave alone:

  • Google test indicates usage is split 50:50.

14:03:04, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Groves did not include Callicebus aureipalatii in the MSW update coming out this December, so we can't use that fallback. Of the Google hits, what is the split on the more scholarly sites? - UtherSRG 14:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

No hits on scholar.google.com. Using the Latin name as a proxy for "scholarly" I see that "GoldenPalace.com Monkey" is winning 85:10. Gdr 15:21:39, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Wallace 2005?[edit]

What does Wallace 2005 refer to? I found Wallace et al. (2006), but failed to find that. Shaxshan (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

common usage[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), we are to use the most commonly used common name in English. "Golden Palace Monkey" -wikipedia retrieves ~100 links. "GoldenPalace.com Monkey" -wikipedia retrieves ~700. Therefore, the name of this article should be GoldenPalace.com Monkey. Kingturtle (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Rylands, A. B.; Mittermeier, R. A. (2009), "The diversity of the New World primates (Platyrrhini): An annotated taxonomy", in Garber, P. A.; Estrada, A.; Bicca-Marques, J. C.; Heymann, E. W.; Strier, K. B. (eds.), South American primates: Comparative perspectives in the study of behavior, ecology, and conservation, New York: Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 23–54, ISBN 978-0-387-78704-6. Their chapter only listed the Madidi titi or Madidi titi monkey as a common name for Callicebus aureipalatii, and never mentioned the Golden Palace. We do not only have to consider whether this article should be named the Golden Palace Monkey or GoldenPalace.com monkey, but also deliberate whether it should be Madidi titi monkey or not. --Shaxshan (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point. I'm just running out the door, now, but hope to investigate this further later this week. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

As it stands now, GoldonPalace.com Monkey is the more common usage, by far:

Kingturtle (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good job (and Mr. UtherSRG for moving the page). I propose one point. The reason that GoldenPalace.com monkey or Golden Palace monkey is more popular than Madidi titi in the Google search is conceivably because the name of GoldenPalace.com / Golden Palace is much more sensational. These Google search results should be among the indices for the popularity of each name, but that might not be everything. If we intend to write this article in a biological way, we can use more appropriate web search engines (like PubMed?) and find any academically reliable sources (websites or books, as I described above), I think. --Shaxshan (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the common man; it is not a scientific encyclopedia. Academic sources should not be used to determine common usage. Kingturtle (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with you as a whole. I didn't intend the academic source is everything, but intended the Google result isn't everything. Even to support the result (GoldenPalace.com monkey) more powerfully, we can use academic sources, which are reliable in some respect.
I thought it can be a problem that any academic source (including conservation) doesn't refer to GoldenPalace.com monkey. As far as I can find, such academic sources claim Madidi titi (this is perhaps academiccally prevalent), the golden palace monkey, and http://GoldenPalace.com monkey, not the GoldenPalace.com monkey. However, the last one should be easily qualified because it is just an abbrevation. --Shaxshan (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple common names, variants on Golden Palace or .com and the National park, monkey and/or titi. The species name is unambiguous and, as noted at the top of the page, happens to be the one notable for being auctioned. That reliable sources continue to apply common names, as they see fit, demonstrates which name the company 'bought'; that they implicitly own the GoldenPalace.com name, probably coined for media releases, may account for resistance to anyone else applying it. There is no rhyme, rule, or reason they should; neither should we according to policies and conventions. It is likely that reliable sources will adopt something more descriptive like Madidi titi, appropriate sources (like the single ref in this article) invariably use the binomial to title a definition or description. cygnis insignis 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of the monkey's name[edit]

There has been a lot of fuss over the GoldenPalace.com vs. Madidi part of this species's name, but should this be called a "titi," like all the other species in the genus Callicebus? Innotata 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus seems to be in favor of moving. decltype (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


GoldenPalace.com Monkey → Madidi Titi — Clearly the most commonly used name outside publicity for the strange scientific name of this species etc. Regardless of whether "GoldenPalace.com" is used, this should be a "Titi", like all its relatives. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per innotata. Also the name used by the IUCN Red List. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite the dopey name WP:COMMONNAME policy requires "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article.", and this isn't close... 59,000 uses of GoldenPalace.com Monkey versus a mere 450 for Madidi Titi. COMMONNAME is policy, not a mere guideline, so the article needs to stay here. 2005 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we're a serious encyclopedia. WP:COMMONSENSE trumps COMMONNAME here by a large margin. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the GoldenPalace.com monkey name may get more Google hits because of its notoriety (a number that drops down considerably when one excludes Wikipedia from the search, by the way), it appears that "Madidi titi" is the name that is used in the primatological community, for example in the Red List and this conference. I prefer such sources over the raw Google hits, as many sites included there have little relevant content or oversight and would not be considered reliable sources. Ucucha 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

You may have voted, but it is not a voting matter. This move needs to be reverted. Wikipedia goes with common usage, see Common_names. "GoldenPalace.com monkey" -wikipedia retrieves about 37,800 while "Madidi Titi" -wikipedia retrieves about 394. It isn't even close. Kingturtle (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madidi titi. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus appears clearly opposed to the move as requested. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madidi titi monkey → GoldenPalace.com monkey – That is the most common name used to refer to the monkey. A past discussion in 2010 erred on the common sense side, but it is unquestionable (it wasn't even then) this is the most common name used for the monkey. Given that the website is out of business, it cannot be alleged either it is promotional. Bedivere (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Ghit results for the proposed destination are less than half of those for the current title. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per UtherSRG. WP:GOOGLETESTs can sometimes be misleading, but nominator hasn't demonstrated that "GoldenPalace.com monkey" is more commonly used by any other metric. Plantdrew (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Google can be problematic when assessing the most common name. Just above, in 2010, it is said that there were "59,000 uses of GoldenPalace.com Monkey versus a mere 450 for Madidi Titi". Currently, while it is true that the traditional Google Search gives 7k results to "Madidi titi monkey" versus 6.8k to "Goldenpalace.com monkey", this latter has appeared more in print publications. I am more inclined to assess book and scholar publications rather than simple Google search hits. See Google Books for "Madidi titi monkey" and "GoldenPalace.com monkey". The latter denomination has further appearences as "Golden Palace.com monkey" and "Golden Palace monkey". Summing up, it is more common to use "Golden Palace" than "Madidi titi" to refer to this monkey. Google Scholar shows up 15 results for "Madidi titi monkey" versus 12 for "GoldenPalace.com monkey", two more for "Golden Palace.com monkey" and seven for "Golden Palace monkey". Bedivere (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google books results include books published before the monkey was described. I'm not sure why those books are coming up, but they don't actually mention the monkey. Google Scholar has 25 results for "Madidi titi". Many of the Scholar results with Golden Palace also mention Madidi titi. Plantdrew (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rechecked and thirteen book sources mention "GoldenPalace.com monkey" instead of 6 for "Madidi titi monkey". I'm a little lazy to go now and check the Scholar links, but 13 (Books) + 21 (Scholar) versus 25 (Scholar) + 6 (Books) is still a win for "GoldenPalace.com monkey". Bedivere (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Primates has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. And looking at only "Madidi titi monkey" (and yet all variations of "Golden[ ]Palace[.com]") fails to take account that "Madidi titi" also refers to this title. (This is not to say we should remove "monkey." It makes the Wikipedia title clearer at the expense of a bit of concision.) SilverLocust (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madidi_titi_monkey&oldid=1203336203"