Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Missing mammal species

Just for fun, I wrote a script to see how many of the 5418 species of mammals listed in the Mammal Species of the World database are covered in Wikipedia. Amazingly, there were only 652 species not covered (assuming my script worked correctly). I dumped the output list to a wikipage: Wikipedia:Missing mammal species. Feel free to do with it what you will. Kaldari 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (visiting from WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles)

You know, there's a bot that actually generates bird articles. Has it been at work on MAM? I just looked at Rat and found all bluelinks. In June it was mainly red. People do fill out categories—I made a point of finishing deer earlier this year—but I can't imagine that Rattus has been done by humans alone... Ah wait, see User:Polbot. Marskell 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, see the massive thread a few up, actually. Marskell 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From a cursory search it looks like the 600 or so redlink mammal articles left are species not included in the IUCN database (and often not in ITIS either). Unless Polbot can be reconfigured to pull data from the MSW site, I imagine those articles would need to be created by hand. Shell Kinney has already started! Kaldari 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't currently have access to more recent copies of the Journal of Mammology; there was a lot of great work done by Braun and Mares in 1999/2000 that would help flesh out the stubs I'm creating. Since I can glance at the abstracts at least, the full citations are being included in the articles if someone wants to take a gander and help expand these poor sentence long stubs. Shell babelfish 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Primates

I was thinking that, considering the project deals basically with a subsection of the articles this project deals with, that it might be a good idea to merge the two, possibly taking on the above project as a task force/work group or other subproject to permit common usage of a banner and assessments. John Carter 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No. there are other, active mammalian WikiProjects. These should stay separate. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree in opposing this merge. If anything we have reason to think about splitting off more subprojects, not merging things back to this one. --Aranae 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, if we were to merge it back in as a taskforce/workgroup, as I proposed, which might follow the models of WP:MILHIST, it would make it easier for further subprojects to be formed, not harder. In fact, my own basic agreement with the last statement above was why I proposed these mergers in the first place, as people would be more likely to try to create taskforces if there were an existing precedent. Also, by having taskforces, we could ensure that such groups would be less likely to be deleted for inactivity, which I think would be of benefit to all. John Carter 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials

I was thinking that, considering the project deals basically with a subsection of the articles this project deals with, that it might be a good idea to merge the two, possibly taking on the above project as a task force/work group or other subproject to permit common usage of a banner and assessments. John Carter 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No. there are other, active mammalian WikiProjects. These should stay separate. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree in opposing this merge. If anything we have reason to think about splitting off more subprojects, not merging things back to this one. --Aranae 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I also dissagree, maybe we should name this Project Placental mammals? Enlil Ninlil 04:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, if we were to merge it back in as a taskforce/workgroup, as I proposed, which might follow the models of WP:MILHIST, it would make it easier for further subprojects to be formed, not harder. In fact, my own basic agreement with the statement of Aranae above was why I proposed these mergers in the first place, as people would be more likely to try to create taskforces if there were an existing precedent. Also, by having taskforces, we could ensure that such groups would be less likely to be deleted for inactivity, which I think would be of benefit to all. John Carter 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Speaking of merges, you might want to merge the above two sections; they appear to be very alike in content and responses, and the irony is considerable. Richard001 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page needs to be shortened and older talks archived. Enlil Ninlil 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And even more so as of 17 Nov. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

I've reworked the project banner to include info for the Mustelids work group and Pocket pets work group at Template:Mammal. Anyone mind if I either cut and paste that banner into Template:MaTalk or something similar to create assessments for these two groups? John Carter 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Featured Articles..setting the ground for a mammal collaboration

Here's the list as it stands, a very interesting spread. Note lots of whales. Some were promoted some time ago and may need a bit of a clean up before any possible FAR. Note that Platypus was repromoted. I moved this thread to here as there is no current collaboration page (though may be in the future). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured mammal articles

FA Candidates

  • none currently

Former FAs

Good Articles

Standing list of of largish articles which may not need too much work to get to FA

I noticed you didn't make any references to WikiProject Dogs above, although I don't know if that means anything. Another option would be to nominate some decent articles for WP:ACID. Has anyone done so recently? John Carter 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just forgot is all...mammals ain't really my forte. I generally stick with birds, dinos, fungi and other stuff..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we "get together" and find some obscure mammal species article and just rock the socks out of it with research and images? It will be kind of fun, rifling through the e-journals and library books -- think of it as a barn raising...with a barnstar to cap it off. One after another until we get tired of it. Every mammalogist knows rodents and (likely) cervids up to wazhoo, and the databank is rich with info. What I've done elsewhere on Wikipedia is expand a stub article by adding and ref'ing every sentence. Then, I'll add a sources section below the ref's section to allow others to build off that research if they feel so inclined, or I'll go back and dig through it and add to the article without having to search much. Even if a perfect article doesn't come out of it, the student who use Wikipedia to start their research will have some material to search out, thus making us a better service for humanity. (See tremble dance for example.) Any takers article makers? TeamZissou 02:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

....well, there's odd-named ones like Tiger Quoll..and big 'uns like Brown Rat....umm....or a real challenge like the recently discovered Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
...now there's a good stub...Northern Smooth-tailed Treeshrew...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is the matter of being able to dig up enough research on the species... I'm going to try and tackle those suggestions a bit, at least with a source list. I'll get back to the project when I've made some progress -- please, anyone who's savvy with your university's journal index or Google hop in! Let's see what happens. TeamZissou 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote some featured articles on quite obscure mammals on nl.wikipedia (nl:Apomys gracilirostris, nl:Archboldomys kalinga, nl:Hipposideros diadema); it is actually possible. Ucucha 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Update -- Tiger Quoll seems possible, but the echidna and treeshrew don't seem to have enough info available. I may work on the quoll article later, but for now...sleep. Nights! TeamZissou 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Um

Um... can we put the sources either in a comment or on the talk page? If they aren't currently used in the article, they don't belong there. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about changing section title from "Sources" to "Further reading"? That would benefit the reader who needs to go farther and the editor who doesn't know where to begin, all without confusing anyone. TeamZissou 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Decent enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource thesis

There is a thesis on Wikisource s:Image:Aardvark.pdf that we need to work out what to do with. Wikisource does not to my knowledge host many recent thesis, but it isnt totally beyond the scope of the project. If this thesis is considered very useful, we could convert it to wikitext and use it as a reference on Aardvark, which is in need of sources. John Vandenberg 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bat taxonomy

I've just created a Glauconycteris page to satisfy red links introduced by deletion of the previous redirect. When I went to List of placental mammals to update that in line I found that most of those species were already there under Chalinolobus, but redirect to species pages that use the genus Glauconycteris. Is there anyone familiar with bat taxonomy who can sort this out? Lavateraguy 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here"s what Simmons says in Mammal Species of the World. Apparently most of Glauconycteris was once considered part of Chalinolobus. --Aranae 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC):
  • Glauconycteris
    • G. alboguttata
    • G. argentata
    • G. beatrix
    • G. curryae
    • G. egeria
    • G. gleni
    • G. humeralis
    • G. kenyacola
    • G. machadoi
    • G. poensis
    • G. superba
    • G. variegata
  • Chalinolobus
    • C. dwyeri
    • C. gouldii
    • C. morio
    • C. neocaledonicus
    • C. nigrogriseus
    • C. picatus
    • C. tuberculatus

Fictional animals

Is there any reason why Bugs Bunny is tagged by WP:MAMMAL? It seems absurd that a serious scientific project should care about cartoon animals...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the tag is specifically for the Pocket pets work group. The tag was added because the article is included in the Category:Fictional hares and rabbits, which is a subcat of Category:Lagomorphs, and thus falls within the explicitly stated scope of that work group. So, for that matter, does the List of fictional rabbits. In fact, I think it is probably the only group that latter article entirely falls within the scope of. As the person who added the tag, I would certainly welcome seeing the other projects the article relates to, including Television, Comics etc., tag the article as well. All the articles tagged by the work group are added to the work group's watchlist to check for recent changes as well. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the project's banner being perhaps one of the smaller ones on the page, and maybe even included in one of the banner shells, but there aren't enough of the other tags from projects which hold the article to possibly put in the shell yet. John Carter 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually came here to say the same thing about the article Pikachu. I think the real problem is that Category:Fictional hares and rabbits shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Lagomorphs. The latter is about biology - something that has little relevance to, say, Pikachu. The category Lagomorphs just doesn't seem to apply, nor do such articles sensibly fall into WP:MAMMAL or any other biology/sciences project. --Cheeser1 07:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So is anyone going to address this concern? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You would be free to address this concern yourself, although it probably would have been more appropriate to place the message on the talk page of the work group. The primary purpose of placing such tags on articles about fictional mammals is the List of fictional rabbits, which contained links to these articles, and which in its entirety falls only within the scope of the work group. You are free to remove any tags you find inappropriate, and recategorize categories as you see fit as well. However, I cannot guarantee that doing so might not result in the links from the list page ultimately not connecting to the articles. Also, should there ever be a portal for that group, which is still an open question, removal of the tag would almost certainly ensure the article never appear on that portal. Considering that new portals for this subject area have recently been created, I can't say one way or another whether portals for this project's groups will ever be created or not. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, apparently, I'm not free to remove any such tags. I was reverted, and if memory serves, I was reverted by you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I remember, you simply took it upon yourself that you were in a position to decide things for everyone, without prior consultation. That is not acceptable anywhere in wikipedia, and possibly/probably a violation of WP:OWN. You have now raised your points, and, though I personally consider them frankly not particularly valid or reasonable, I have been given an opportunity to respond, which I believe I was denied before. Personally, if you can think of another project which considers that article significant, then you are free to add that banner as well. It is certainly possible that the Pokemon project will become markedly less active over time, and the other relevant extant projects which may replace or supplant it might place even less importance on that article than that workgroup would. However, as stated, if the project is in effect told by you that they have no place or input in that article, including preserving links in articles which they seem to be most likely to maintain, I don't think that anyone could object to their not continuing to maintain such content. And, as stated before, there actually is a place for discussion of the specific work groups, which is the specific talk pages of those groups. Norms of conduct indicate that discussion take place at the most appropriate spot, which this is not. Personally, I have gotten the impression that you as an individual have decided what you will and will not allow to exist on what you seemingly consider "your" article. Based on that impression, I cannot see how there would be any benefit to this project to even attempt to maintain it, given the impression you have given that you consider yourself and your group the only people who are even remotely qualified to edit it. So, yes, I cannot see how any input regarding reversion of vandalism, improvement, or anything else we might have regarding that article would be something you would agree to, so there is no reason to keep the banner in place. However, if the banner is removed, then I think you can reasonably understand that the article will be removed from the watchlist. I cannot see any real benefit to such action on your part for doing so, but then I have never understood any such claims of exclusive input at all. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding. I'm acting like I own the article? I removed an inappropriate tag when it was added - you reverted my revert, and I even let it stay to avoid an edit war, and brought my concerns here politely. You're the one who asserted your personal authority over some sort of workgroup/project when reverting me. If you want to completely and blatantly assume bad faith against me because I've asked that the group address my question, that's just absurd. I am a minor contributor to that article, and have no intention of forcing you or your friends to not be able to watch it. Good lord, this is the most elaborate and irrelevant tirade I've ever seen. Pikachu is not an animal, it is a fictional character. I asked to discuss how the categories/projects wound up including it, and while you insist that my points are invalid or stupid, you have said nothing to explain yourself or your position and have immediately jumped into accusations that I am my tyrannical reign over an article that I barely edit instead of discussing the issue. What on Earth is your problem? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rat (Pearls Before Swine)

I'd like to point out that the article which you added to this section under the "pocket pets" workgroup is absolutely, 100% irrelivent to the actual animal and only conserns a character from a comic strip (whom, if he was real, would be very angered over being labeled a pet, let alone a pocket one.) As, not being part of this project, do not think it would be very polite to remove the tag without varifing with you that the article is irrelevant to your project (or at least that specific workgroup), I have started discussion here. I would greatly appreciate it if you would explain to me how the article fits under the scope of anything even related to pets. I do not feel that the fact that the article in question is about a character who happens to be a fictional rat is a good enough reason to assume he is a "pocket pet." Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add, for the record, that I noticed after posting this that you are getting similar complaints from people involved with other fictional-mammal-related articles. I would suggest doing some large-scale cleanup. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The name of the group was chosen on the basis of the definition of Pocket pet. Actually, it was initially proposed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals apge, and that name was ultimately chosen because it is about the only name available which covers rodents and lagomorphs. That work group's defined scope includes all articles in the Lagomorphs and Rodents categories and their subcategories. This article and the others are all included in at least one of those categories or subcategories. Basically, that group is the only one whose scope includes all the articles in the List of fictional rabbits, List of fictional mice and rats, and similar lists, and it is in the group's interests to know which articles exist so that the links can be kept current. If you were to look at the work group's page, you would also see that all the articles are being added to the groups watchlist, to be monitored for vandalism, improvement, questions, etc. It might have made more sense to actually post these questions at that page, though, as it actually is more relevant to that particular group. John Carter 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Evolution of mammals: very good article

IMHO Evolution of mammals is a very well-done article. I would suggest it as a model of the sort of thing that Wikipedia is trying to achieve. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Stubs needed for some ancient mammals

From Kollikodon: "Kollikodon would be a contender for the largest Mesozoic mammal known, along with other possible giants such as Repenomamus, Schowalteria, and Bubodens. --- Anybody care to start stubs for those redlinks? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neglected family of articles

The articles for the animals in Procyonidae seem to have been somewhat neglected by the project, most were not even tagged on the their talk. VanTucky Talk 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of articles is unfortunately one of the most time intensive and, generally at least, regarded as one of the least rewarding aspects of wikipedia. I can well understand that many such articles haven't been tagged yet. For what it's worth, it looks like my primary actions in wikipedia into the indeterminate future is to try to tag and assess articles for the various relevant projects, as so few others show any real interest in doing either. I would however welcome any other parties who might be willing to do so to do whatever they saw fit to do in either regard. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleo-mammalogists needed...

See doi:10.1126/science.1149267 for a fantastic discovery. So if you folks can get access to Science journal... Kharmerungulatum needs an article I'd say :D (Kharmerungulatum vanvaleni would be redirect). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

List of placental mammals

Hi all,

Mbisanz (talk · contribs) has shown some initiative and split List of placental mammals into more digestible chunks. However, the names for the articles, as generated from the split, seem to me, (a non-biologist) to be redundant. For example List of placental mammals in Order Chiroptera. All sub taxa of Eutheria are placental mammals by definition and for the title to read "List of placental mammals in..." seems to indicate that some species of Chiroptera are not placental.

I would go ahead and fix it except I have no idea what an appropriate title would be for these articles or what the convention is when using the names of different ranks such as orders. Your help would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope of pocket pets work group

Somehow giant hutia, giant beaver, Laotian Rock Rat, Anomaluromorpha, and Castoridae along with just about all rodents and lagomorphs have been placed into the pocket pets workgroup of this wikiproject. I have a hard time seeing how an extinct rodent the size of a bear, a recently discovered rare endemic rodent, or higher level taxa of rodents at all fit the definition of pocket pet. I'm all for a rodent/Glires/rodents & lagomorph subproject/workgroup, but the notion that every rodent/lagomorph is a "pocket pet" is absurd and borders on irresponsible. Pocket pets includes rodents, lagomorphs, and other small mammals that are kept as pets such as guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, Oryctolagus, ferrets, and even exotics such as giant pouched rats and prairie dogs. Fossil taxa, endangered species, and higher level taxa are never kept as pets and don't belong there. --Aranae (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention Pikachu, Bunnicula, Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, Roger Rabbit, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The scope of that group includes all rodents and lagomorphs at this point. I grant that the name is not the best. If anyone can think of a better name for such a group, which received sufficient members on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page to start as a group, they are more than welcome to suggest it on the talk page of the work group. However, that was the name the group was proposed under, and even the banner tab for the work group says it includes all lagomorphs and rodents, so it's scope should be somewhat clear. Like I said, though, it probably makes more sense to discuss that on the talk page of the work group, as it is the more appropriate place. If you can think of any better names, of course, feel free to propose them. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Pocket pets" refers to hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, fancy rats, gerbils, domestic rabbits, sugar gliders, ferrets, etc. Specifically, animals that are pets. Many of these pages are in desperate need of work. When the pocket pets group was brought up here, I assumed it concerned pocket pets. It would be great to see a lot of these pages about animals kept as small pets transformed the way that guinea pig was some time ago. My objection is to the notion that the term "pocket pets" is somehow being defined as a synonym for Glires. As I say above, 90% of these articles do not have anything to do with the term pocket pets. For a group pertaining to the taxon Glires the terms "Glires" or simply "Rodents & Lagomorphs" would be sensible. --Aranae (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Eastern Small-footed Bat needs your help

Eastern Small-footed Bat was created 5 December 2007. It is almost completely lacking in necessary info. We may want to redirect this to an existing article, or for all I know it could even be a joke. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go -- existing article on Myotis leibii at Eastern small-footed myotis -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Smilodon needs review / cleanup

Smilodon could use review / cleanup. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Indohyus

Indohyus. In the news, article needs work. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Elephant GA Sweeps

I've placed the Elephant article on hold as part of the GA Sweeps. Relevant comments may be found on the article talk page. Corvus coronoides talk 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuscomys, Cuscomys ashaninka, Cuscomys oblativus

Cuscomys ashaninka and Cuscomys oblativus are very short stubs. Do we want to merge both of these into Cuscomys?
(Cuscomys currently redirects to Cuscomys ashaninka; if we merge we should change this.) (And we may also need to throw Abrocoma / Abrocoma oblativus into the mix here.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy is a mess

Has anyone else noted that taxonomy in wikipedia is totally messed up? Different taxons have totally different schemes for the taxa below them, and different sources seem to be used to a great extent. It seems to me that we ought to follow the most recent general taxonomies for our main boxes, and then indicate controversies and recent discoveries in article text. As it stands, everything's a total mishmash. john k (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot is in good order. I worked my way mostly through volume 1 of MSW3. (Vol 2 is all of Rodentia.) I believe I left off somewhere in Carnivora. Would you like to pick up where I left off? - UtherSRG (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Which parts are in good order? Whenever I try to browse through the taxonomy, I find that each article I click on has a somewhat different list from the others. The Carnivora article gives a different taxonomy from Felidae, and so forth. Carnivora also lists Prionodontidae as a separate family, whereas everywhere else it's Prionodontinae and a subfamily of Viverridae. Levels between Order and Family always seem particularly confused and inconsistent. Also, we pretty much never cite sources for the taxonomy we give. john k (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Check it against the MSW3 website. Any article that cites MSW3 should be correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good that you point out specific examples of inconsistencies. Now that you have identified them, you can fix them - and cite the taxonomy appropriately. MSW3 is as good and up-to-date a resource as any. Otherwise, it is not particularly helpful to generalize. I can't speak for all mammals (I don't know that anyone can) but as Uther points out there is much that is in fine shape. Much work has been done lately, for example, to improve the Pinniped taxonomies. Yes, there is a lot of inconsistency in a lot of articles, and many other problems. That is the nature of a work-in-progress. But it should also be clear that taxonomies are not carved in stone. They are in some sense estimates of phylogenies and are constantly being revised, especially as molecular data is continually being used to inform divisions originally made based on phenotypes. The elimination of the fur seal and sea lion subfamilies (Arctocephanlinae and Otariinae), for example, was fairly recent and is still not reflected in all sources. There will inevitably be some lag and periods of lack of consensus in the literature - I wouldn't be surprised if some of the examples you point to above are examples of that. But you are right that taxonomies should be current, up to date and cited. That is something that we can all work on. - best, Eliezg (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
My general feeling is actually that efforts to get fully up to date are part of the problem. We ought to try to follow the most recent comprehensive sources, rather than changing everything when someone publishes a paper. C.f. Eastern Canadian Wolf, for instance, which is listed at Canidae as its own species. A major source like MSW3 appears to be is a good place, but we ought to clearly rely on it, and to cite it when appropriate. Disagreements found in other sources can be reported and discussed, and new papers that suggest reorganizations can be talked about, but the basic infoboxes and discussions ought to follow one source. john k (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Another example from the Camelidae - MSW3 gives the Guanaco as a subspecies (L. glama guanicoe) of Lama glama, also including the domestic llama (L. glama glama). Our article gives the Guanaco as a separate species, L. guanicoe. It also gives the Alpaca as Vicugna pacos, which is not listed in MSW3, although it does mention that the Alpaca is often now considered a member of Vicugna (the Alpaca, so far as I can tell, is not specifically listed in MSW3). I'm not even sure how to address this, especially the Alpaca issue, since MSW3 doesn't list the alpaca at all. ETA: I see that MSW3 actually sees Vicugna pacos as a synonym for Vicugna vicugna. But it doesn't list a subspecies, and the Alpaca really does seem lost in the mist here. The Domestic Pig seems even more lost in MSW3 - Sus scrofa does not list "Sus domestica" as a synonym, nor does it list a subspecies for Sus scrofa domestica. john k (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, some more examples:

  1. Canidae - beyond including various cladistic subdivisions not included in MSW3, we use Pseudalopex for the South American foxes, whereas MSW3 uses Lycalopex. We also list the Cozumel Fox as a third member of Urocyon. Canis lycaon, the Eastern Canadian Wolf, is listed as a separate species, as is the Red Wolf - both are considered subspecies of C. lupus in MSW3. MSW3 considers the arctic wolf to be Vulpes lagopus.
  2. Felidae - MSW3 lists Felis catus as separate from Felis silvestris, we consider it a subspecies. The Bornean Clouded Leopard is considered a subspecies in MSW3, not its own species.
  3. Ursidae - MSW3 recognizes no subfamilies
  4. Mustelidae - MSW3 recognizes only two subfamilies, Mustelinae and Lutrinae. MSW3 includes Mydaus in Mephitidae
  5. Procyonidae - We list Procyon insularis as a separate species - MSW3 considers it a subspecies of P. lotor. We don't include P. pygmaeus, which MSW3 does consider to be its own species. We include Nasua nelsoni as its own species - it's considered a subspecies of N. narica by MSW3. We give two subfamilies not recognized by MSW3
  6. Hyaenidae - We put the Brown Hyena in its own genus, Parahyaena. MSW3 lists it as Hyaena brunnea.

So, anyway, tons of issues in Carnivora, and I'm not sure how best to deal with all of them, as they're generally not restricted to family articles, but go down to the genus and species articles, as well. john k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, a reminder that many taxonomic divisions, especially intermediate ones like "suborder", "superfamily", "subfamily" etc. are ultimately fairly arbitrary. Even "species" isn't an entirely unambiguously defined concept. The divisions correspond neither to a specific percentage of difference in DNA or a specific era of speciation or any other rigorously quantifiable measure of difference in traits. The main purpose of the whole system is to conveniently summarize phylogenies. Pushed to the extreme, every branching of a species or groups of species could technically be classified as another taxonomic division. Just because MSW3 doesn't have a subfamily subdivision for the Ursidae doesn't mean the article is wrong - or the reader is misled - by having the three major groupings of bears identified as subfamilies in the article: It is informative to know that Pandas (Ailuropodinae) separated away from the Spectacled Bears (Tremarctinae) followed by the more closely related group (Ursinae) that includes the Brown Bears, Polar Bears, Black Bears, Sloth Bears, etc. If that information is presented in terms of "subfamilies", then so be it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discourage a cleanup of inconsistencies or an updating of the sources, but the very nature of taxonomy is going to make fixing EVERYTHING at once something like hammering a dent out of the bottom of a pan - you're liable to go crazy. My own feeling is that the most useful information is graphical presentations of phylogenetic trees. Best, Eliezg (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
ps - Here is a brief discussion on these topics by someone other than myself.
(Response to John Kenney) I think the biggest question is why are they different. Certainly new discoveries and species descriptions warrant changes. The same would hold true for published elevations and synonomies that are not refuted. There are also cases where the authors of MSW3 clearly state that they are just putting things in certain groups as a guess pending any real data. Again, if there's no real refuting of new studies that provide these data, I see no reason why we should wait another decade for MSW4. As for specifics: Lycalopex appears to have priority; having an article for an as yet undescribed species is awkward (the authors could change their mind - if they had a 100% case they would have described), but once it is described, Cozumel Fox is valid; wolves are a mess and I think we should use MSW3 for taxoboxes, but discuss alternate opinions in the text; molecular data supports Vulpes alopex - MSW3 is more up to date than wikipedia; many MSW3 authors chose to intentionally not deal with domesticated taxa and that's a separate issue; Neofelis diardi is a post MSW3 elevation and is therefore valid (to my knowledge it's not controversial); I see nothing wrong with recognizing intermediate ranks where MSW3 has no opinion - we certainly do it above the order level; I think this may be a case where our editors can argue that there's a sufficient opposition in the literature against this taxonomy that the carnivoran folks should talk about it - Taxidiinae and Melinae (at least the core of Melinae) are basal to both of these subfamilies; Mydaus should be a mephitid; the remaining issues are situations where unless there are compelling new studies (as was seen in N. diardi), we should probably go with MSW3. --Aranae (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it's all arbitrary, especially which levels are used, and such. My main view is essentially Aranae's - for taxoboxes, use MSW3, but discuss alternative/newer information in the text. In terms of subfamilies and suborders and such that aren't recognized by MSW3, we should a) be certain to actually cite what source we're getting it from; and b) in general, be careful about when we use this - I'd prefer discussions of prospective cladistic organizations, rather than muddying about the species lists with them. Keep the basic lists fairly clean, with only well-recognized divisions, and keep detailed discussion of phylogeny to other parts of the articles. john k (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey. I created a barnstar to be awarded to people who contribute greatly to improving and/or creating mammal-related articles:

Image What to type Description
{{subst:Mammal barnstar|your message ~~~~}} The Wikiproject Mammals Barnstar is the award given to Wikipedians recognized for their efforts to improve and to develop, including their contributions to mammal-related articles.

Have a nice day. -- Leptictidium (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work - I have a suggestion though, can you tweak it a bit so the star is paler as it looks a little indistinct on my monitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Discussion over "List of mammals in (or of) Foo" articles

A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of" about whether "List of mammals of Foo" or "List of mammals in Foo" is more appropriate. The discussion brings up broader points about how Wikipedia editors should name lists. Interested editors, please comment there. Noroton (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding synonyms to taxoboxes

Dear all, I should like to add some generic synonyms at the bottom of the taxobox of Raphicerus; however, I cannot figure out how to add another "sub-box" after the "subdivision" sub-box. Can someone advise me, please? Thanks—GRM (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Use "| synonyms =". - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size

Hey all, I was pondering where to place this link. useful? 'nuff said..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge articles on Pacas?

We have an article on the Paca (Cuniculus paca), as well as a stub on the Mountain Paca (Cuniculus taczanowskii). Would it be logical to merge these? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, every species warrants its own page. Even if it is only a stub now, there is always enough information out there to eventually make these pages full articles. --Aranae (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Every species warrants its own page." - I am 100% fine with this (after all, the project only covers some 5,400 species) however, I'd like to point out that
(A) This policy/guideline/whatever does not appear on the main page of WikiProject Mammals
(B) Said WikiProject Mammals main page says "Right now policy is covered by Grandmother project Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life", and
(C) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles says "Not all species need have separate articles."
Therefore, in order to clarify this for the future, may I suggest that we add something to the main page of WikiProject Mammals to the effect that the policy of WikiProject Mammals is that "every species warrants its own page."
-- Thanks. - 201.37.229.117 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior AfD

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration heads up?

It struck me that maybe more than other animals, there are several mammal articles which have the potential to be very hefty articles indeed, in the manner of lion. I feel that these more herculean tasks may be best improved by collaboration rather than single editors. Anyone up for collaboration to see if some of the biggies can be improved? I'm not a huge mammal person but have been really impressed with efforts over at WP:dinosaurs and WP:birds. I can help set it up and start the ball rolling. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Range maps

Can someone point to those handy template maps used to make range maps? I can't remember where I last found them. Marskell (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For SVGs I use Image:BlankMap-World6, compact.svg and crop. Looks like Image:BlankMap-World-alt.png would work in a standard picture editor. Is that what you were looking for? --JayHenry (t) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jay. I was looking for something else and found it: Brion VIBBER's maps at http://leuksman.com/misc/maps.php. Very helpful stuff. Marskell (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cream the Rabbit

Do you guys really call that fictional character a mammal? Cream the Rabbit, i'm sorry but if your seriously covering fictional characters you forgot sonic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Making a to-do list for California Sea Lion

Bobisbob is looking to work on this article. I started a to-do list on the talk page, so if anyone else could think of any material the article should cover, place here so we can get comprehensiveness sorted out first before reffing, copyediting and more copyediting. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sea otter Peer Review

Hi everyone. I've started a peer review for Sea otter, Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sea_otter/archive1, and would appreciate your input. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea otter. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerbil article

There is a discussion at the Gerbil article on the inclusion of pet keeping information. Can we have a view from the project please? SpinningSpark 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is over whether or not the material should be deleted. Opinions from project members are badly needed. SpinningSpark 11:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mammal articles needing photos

This category is getting too big to be useful. Suggest splitting into smaller categories on specific taxa. Richard001 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image dispute on Procoptodon

User:Apokryltaros has asked for my assistance on an edit dispute on the prehistoric mammal article Procoptodon. The dispute is over which is the more useful and appropriate and accurate image A) Image:Procoptodon BW.jpg or B) Image:Procoptodon goliah.jpg. Apokryltaros, who signs as Mr Fink, feels that image A) is not accurate as Procoptodon had a single large toe. User:UtherSRG feels that image B) is not attractive. Other images of this creature are [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Please give your views here. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your description of the dispute doesn't seem to be accurate. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The edit summaries for image A): "better image", "revert - it's still a superiour inage to your cartoon", "it's a better image". Edit summaries for image B): "does not show its distinctive fingers", "that image is wrong", "Procoptodon had only one toe per foot, this picture has three toes per foot". SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)