Talk:Common yabby

Indigenous Language

Anyone able to elaborate on which language group uses 'Moheetu Lakakatu' as a name for the yabby. Kinda misleading given the huge number of aboriginal languages etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.232.157 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand

I don't think destructor is in NZ. Does anyone have any evidence? GrahamBould 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

True indeed. --Stemonitis 13:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference style

The convention in references (including Wikipedia) is footnotes after punctuation, Harvard style before punctuation. That's why I changed it. Grant65 | Talk 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only a guideline, not a policy, and is not mandatory. Most crustacean articles follow an alternative, but consistent (and logical) style. The other problem is that the term "misapplied" cannot be included, and the addition of "nowadays" would require a reference to demonstrate that it hasn't been so for longer. It's also better to link to scientific names until an article exists, because of the likelihood of different common names being used for the same organism (whereas at least a redirect from the scientific name should always be created). --Stemonitis 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. Wikipedia:Citing sources says "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines". There is a section entitled Footnotes come after punctuation, which says: "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation. For example: President Bush called for a halt to the violence,^[3] and opposed a timetable for withdrawal.^[4]" I have never seen any published source where footnotes come before punctuation. Grant65 | Talk 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And as I keep saying "misapplied" was not used in isolation but in the formulation "shared (or misapplied)". "Nowadays" is so indeterminate as not to require referencing; clearly there was a time in the past when other Cherax species were not known as yabbies. Grant65 | Talk 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole page WP:CITE is prefaced with a banner stating that it is a guideline, but if you wish to take it as policy, then the following section applies: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." This is not, however, a very important issue.

If it is unclear whether the name is misapplied or not (as suggested by your argumentation above), then "shared" is identical in verifiable meaning with "shared (or misapplied)", and so the additional words are redundant. Similarly, if "nowadays" is so indeterminate, then it can happily be left out without losing any information, and "clearly there was a time in the past when Cherax species were not known as yabbies" is only true in as much as the animals have only been known (by Europeans) for a couple of hundred years at most. By conscious design, Wikipedia reports common usage, regardless of how erroneous it may be (or originally have been). I would personally find it much easier if the term "yabby" referred only to Cherax, or only to C. destructor, but sadly the world is not that simple. --Stemonitis 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What if instead of "shared" we said "applied to"? I would be happier with that. I grew up in an area (WA Wheatbelt) where production of destructors is widespread. The difference between them and gilgies or coonacs is well-understood there, but I'm not sure about city folk.

As for the referencing, you seem to be interpreting "guideline" as meaning non-compulsory, but I don't think that's correct. Grant65 | Talk 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POL: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

"Applied to" would be much better than either "shared (or misapplied)" or "shared"; I think you've found the solution there. --Stemonitis 09:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yabbies not endangered

Concerned to see yabbies (Cherax destructor) listed as endangered. This is not correct and should be changed. I cannot fathom why the IUCN would list them as Vulnerable. They still have a very wide range and are very common. The creation of countless farm dams throughout south-eastern Australia has in fact created much new habitat for them.

Codman 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to vulnerable. I suspect the IUCN does not count aquacultured animals in their counts, just as captive endangered species don't stop a species from being extinct in the wild. — ceejayoz ^talk 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even allowing for not counting aquacultured animals, surely the vast numbers in farm dams & lakes should be counted as they are effectively wild. Bizarre. GrahamBould 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The populations in the countless farm dams across SE Australia that I refer to are not aquacultured populations but wild, self-maintaineing populations using additional habitat created by European settlement. Even excluding these populations and these habitats, yabby populations are strong and secure in many natural habitats, and not under threat. A pleasant change to dire situation most Australian fauna are in! cheers, Codman 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything we can do to remove the Vulnerable tag then? GrahamBould 08:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe whoever listed them as Vulnerable got the common yabby confused the Murray crayfish in the picture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.247.39 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)