Talk:Geronimo (alpaca)

Stay of execution? The petition campaign is claiming that

The Government have confirmed this evening that no steps shall be taken to execute the warrant to slaughter Geronimo the alpaca until 4pm on Monday 16th August, at the earliest. This was a result of a further application made to the High Court earlier today by Geronimo's lawyers, seeking judicial review of the issue of the warrant to execute Geronimo, on the basis of material non-disclosure by the Government.

I tried to include the link to the petition update, but Wikipedia apparently didn't like it. JezGrove (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo for Prime Minister?

The Times has suggested Geronimo for Prime Minister in this article! JezGrove (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many tests?

I've seen many articles saying that Geronimo has only had two tests in the UK. Can anyone confirm overwise?Cwmcafit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two according to DEFRA. The Independent report citing three tests seems to be an outlier. JezGrove (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Microchip08 You didn't supply a reason for your page move, so can I clarify what your objection is? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2021

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.

No such user (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

---

Geronimo (alpaca) → ? – Euthanisation of Geronimo the alpacaKilling of Geronimo the alpaca – This article is currently about 5% about the actual alpaca named Geronimo, and 95% about the TB test, attempts to prevent, and subsequent euthanisation of said animal, so the article title should reflect that. Suggestions for alternative titles conveying a similar shift in emphasis are welcomed, of course. EditorInTheRye (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be kept as it is. The euthanasia only happened right at the end of his life. This is the name that's most commonly used in the media and this is what people will be searching for. See also previous examples sush as Shambo Cwmcafit (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• People will find it through redirects, and your example should probably be moved too (
  WP:OSE, basically). To illustrate my point further, start typing "Murder of" into the search bar, and you'll find endless articles about murder cases, where barring a few exceptions the victim hasn't been given their own article. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment the wikipedians who want to euthanize articles will want to euthanize an article about an actual living thing which was sentient for the sentiment of expediecne but life has some poetry to it yet. Moreover it is in part the character of this enchanted alpaca which helped inspire this movement.. You cannot not suck the life out of everything while claiming to be the sultan personages of diversity by being the people who order the order of everything let the creature have its moment.Strattonsmith (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the notability of the article comes from the event (the court cases and euthanisation), rather than anything else in his life. In these cases, we generally use the name of the event rather than the name of the person (or in this case, animal). E.g. we have Murder of Dora Bloch, as she was predominantly notable for being murdered, and same logic is true for this alpaca. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And preemptively: I also think Gangotri (cow) should be moved to Killing of Gangotri the cow for the same reason. I imagine at some point this article might be used as an example in this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article shouldn't even use that word. Euthanasia prevents suffering, culling prevents spread. This was not a miserable alpaca, might have never been. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fair point, but I also think culling is (grammatically) something you do to a population, not an individual. Do you support something like Killing of Geronimo the alpaca? EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I would also support Killing of Geronimo the alpaca (no preference on killing or euthanasia, as that's the term used in sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Culling is killing for population control, but can be done to any number fewer than all of them (which'd be exterminating). Kind of like the animalogy to "pruning" vs "cutting" a tree. But "killing" is fine, just less specific. Probably overly wordy to say "the alpaca", though. Geronimo the human died naturally of pneumonia. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we want an article called Killing of Geronimo, though? The historical figure far outweighs the alpaca (or his killing) in notability, and a cursory reading of a title like that would make it unnecessarily misleading (implying that Geronimo (person) was killed). Naming guidelines would require the title to be concise, but at the same time it should be sufficiently disambiguating, and I think the latter takes priority in this case. EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the title I want. "Killing of x" is standard, and I'm sure there are same-names among them. Confusing some people sometimes is inevitable; on the bright side, anyone actually looking for or expecting to read about the famous killing of a guy who wasn't killed will still learn the truth about that guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you search for articles containing "Geronimo" right now, the first result is the person, and the second one is this article, so a cold read of just the titles would give an initial impression that the human might have been killed under circumstances notable enough to have its own article (compare it to the way you often have artists with an accompanying discography article as the second result). The confusion should be only brief however, as some body text is indeed included in the search results. Don't blame me if we change it and American history wikipedians start complaining! 😁 EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry, I already have too many American history editors to blame for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Afterthought - on the other hand, if we add the "the alpaca" qualifier, you could likewise argue that you create a false expectation there might be a "the human" article somehwere out there (or we wouldn't have disambig'd the title). Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess? EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And since "Killing of [name]" is so common, the verbose version may as easily wrongly suggest the victim here was named "Geronimo the alpaca". The lowercase "a" might be a big enough hint to the contrary. But then again, who knows how hip to that style this hypothetical misreader is? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, that's another subtlety I hadn't thought of. Killing of Geronimo (alpaca), then? It avoids ambiguity of the "the" part being part of the name (e.g. Peter the Great). EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Parentheses are better than "the", yes. But I remain sold on Killing of Geronimo as concise and precise enough. If that title were ambiguous, it'd be taken by another Geronimo killing already. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Since the purpose of killing the alpaca was not to prevent it from suffering, I believe the term "euthanisation" is in this case a
  WP:EUPHEMISM. Either move to Killing of Geronimo the alpaca or leave it as it is ("culling" would work for a population but not for an individual animal). TWM03 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Euthanasia is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'the practice of killing without pain a person or animal who is suffering from a disease that cannot be cured.'[1] Geronimo was a perfectly healthy alpaca and was not suffering from any disease. The claims made by Defra are disputed. ^[2] Consequently, the Wikipedia page title should be left unchanged or possibly changed to Killing of Geronimo the alpaca. Ger900 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that some variation of "Killing of Geronimo" is the title with the most consensus, with both supporters and opponents being fine with it. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully disagree, it seems the consensus is to retain the present title. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? There's 1 actual oppose, and 3 oppose votes that all mention a "killing of" title in some way, and 1 support that also supported "killing of". And then there's your "oppose per discussion", which I can only assume is also a support for a "killing of" title, as that's what the discussion has been about (if not, please clarify, or a diligent closing admin would likely disregard your vote). There is a clear secondary consensus for "killing of", and a closing admin should just be

  WP:BOLD and consider that move instead. My bad on coming up with a poorly researched proposed move destination in the first place, but this really seems like the best way forward to me. EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• My oppose was to the either-or question in the nomination. There is no direct consensus for any name change, the editors, including myself, appear satisfied with the present name. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article is still meant to be focused around the Alpaca, even if the euthanization part took up the majority of the Page. Dunutubble (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to
  WP:ONEEVENT. Vpab15 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - the subject is the alpaca, anyone who searches for the topic will search the name. Current title is suitable and does not need to be made more specific. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Geronimo (alpaca) controversy on the grounds it was the controversy surrounding the case which was notable --JBVaughan (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

• Comment by relister by agreement with the proposer, I have struck through the original proposal, which is no longer supported by any editor, and relisted the proposal which currently has the most support. My view is that the current main options are (1) move to Killing of Geronimo the alpaca or (2) keep at current name, although of course editors are welcome to propose or endorse other names. I will take no further part in this RM. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect, the proposal with the most support is leaving the name as it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, I mean the move proposal with the most support. I'm not expressing any view on whether my (1) or (2) has more support. I'm afraid that my creative use of the template has gone a bit wonky, but since there have been subsequent comments I'll leave as is. Havelock Jones (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirming that I support this relisting. I have no idea if it's the proper way to handle a no-consensus move, but why not
  ignore all rules since at least most seem to agree that the current title isn't good... EditorInTheRye (talk
  )
• Three points: firstly, I have now successfully relisted this RM, with thanks to Wbm1058 for fixing my mangled markup. Secondly, I feel I should clarify that I didn't add the line and text in orange above, although I don't particularly object to it. Thirdly, please comment in the usual way by adding a new line at the bottom of this section starting with an asterisk, then your !vote in bold. Now, I really am going to withdraw from this RM. Havelock Jones (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of participants in original listing: @Cwmcafit:, @Strattonsmith:, @Joseph2302:, @InedibleHulk:, @TWM03:, @Ger900:, @Mellohi!:, @Dunutubble:, @Vpab15:, @Elmidae:, @JBVaughan:

"most seem to agree that the current title isn't good...", incorrect. We are reading two different discussions in the sense of having a point-of-view disagreement. Almost all of the commenting editors seem fine with the present title but a few also provide alternatives but do not fully endorse them. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for the new proposal, as per
  WP:EVENT applies as the court cases were only notable because of the possibility of Geronimo being killed in the future. TWM03 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support moving to Killing of Geronimo the alpaca, if I haven't already formally supported it. The event is the important thing, not the animal itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I can see the argument that Joseph2302 makes. But we can't really separate the two. Thousands of farm animals get slaughtered every day, but most of them are not given names and treated as pets, or make the news headlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can some support this RM, and this other guy remain neutral (like a stalled rickshaw), when they find out this alpaca could sign autographs? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Oppose I remain unshakably convinced of the pure simple goodness in Killing of Geronimo. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I blame Fort Sill, not the unnamed horse. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upgrade to Strong Oppose (since we seem to be replaying the down). Geronimo is probably the most famous alpaca of all time, and this notability rises above his needless ridiculous end. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the subtle tip-off, Randy. Time for another RM over at
  Killing of Harambe?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Humanity of Harambe" describes him well, but

Harambe (gorilla) actually might work again due to the many memes generated by the events surrounding the lad's desire to meet gorillas. Harambe, we hardly knew ye. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

p.s. Martinevans123, thinking about it more a Harambe move would likely be successful, as the notability of the memes and popular culture references expand the scope of the page beyond "killing of..." It just needs a good lead paragraph summarizing those page-sections, which it doesn't yet have. "How is this at all relevant to this RM" may be asked, and, as Martin implies, there would then be no consistency to follow in this renaming nomination. Geronimo didn't do anything to anybody, just as Harambe was only trying to help, and both arguably have single-name worthy notability concerning human interactions with their species (in Geronimo's case, the only member of his species to have a separate Wikipedia page). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Geronimo didn't do anything [..]" - and therein lies the issue. The animal is a passive party in this issue which is all about the circumstances culminating in the killing. Oh, and we don't keep biographical articles around just because they happen to fulfil some imagined requirement to write at least one article about a named individual from every species. EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least we've got a worm already. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Not to mention a llama, of cousre.[reply]

The attempted human intervention to save Geronimo made him notable, not the last few moments of his life. That he is the only alpaca with an individual Wikipedia article was not the result of a species checklist (a.k.a. Jimbo's Ark), but since this has occurred it gives more reason to continue with the existing adequate page name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our very own Holy Relic? I see him more as a Rex Harrison figure. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Oppose change. Keep as it is, as this was more of a campaign around saving Geronimo. With
  Harambe (gorilla) I would support as it's quite a mix bag on naming see also Binky (polar bear), Binti Jua, Jambo. Cwmcafit (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

References

1. ^ https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/euthanasia?q=euthanasia
2. ^ "Geronimo the alpaca should be studied not killed, vets say". BBC News. 23 August 2021.

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.

Image

Why is a "non-free use rationale" required for a photograph of an alpaca? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a silly question. It's because Geronimo didn't sign a modeling release, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now just look here, Mr R Kryn, kindly stop monkeying around. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Helen Macdonald, who took the photo and therefore owns the copyright, hasn't released the image under a free licence. The photographer holds the copyright, same as for all photos. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Twitter actually allow for a copyright statement to be appended to a photo? Or does the lack of one imply that copyright is always inherently withheld? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries use "assumed copyright" i.e. works are assumed to be copyrighted even if no copyright information is shown. This is the case in the UK ([1]), and so the image won't be allowed on Commons (as it would need to be copyright-free in US and UK, the country of origin). I believe assumed copyright also applies in US too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds about right. An image can zip round the Twittersphere, getting re-copied millions of times, with no-one batting an eyelid. But we dare not try and post it at Commons because of the dire legal implications. Funny old world, t'inter-webs, innit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]