Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Primates and anything related to its purposes and tasks. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| WikiProject Primates | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| This page is archived by MiszaBot. |
Contents |
[edit] Renaming Ape article
At present there are some serious problems with the Ape article, partly lack of referencing and partly what is not disputed to be a POV use of the term "ape" for the superfamily Hominoidea (see Talk:Ape#Sourcing_and_POV). One way of resolving this is to rename the article "Hominoidea" and then mention the common use of "ape" for (Hominoidea − humans); the article doesn't deal with extinct species, so in its context "humans" = Homo. The alternative is to be clear that "ape" is a common term for a paraphyletic group, and include a "bracketted cladogram" to show this, as per Prosimian and Monkey. I don't normally edit primates articles, so I don't have views either way; I'd just like to see the existing article improved, partly because it's on the schools CD. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- As no-one objected, either here or at Talk:Ape#Sourcing_and_POV, I have re-written the article to avoid the POV/UNDUE previously complained of. It seems even clearer to me that the article should be re-named either "Hominoidea" or "Hominoid". I'll wait to see if anyone objects. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] FAR notice
I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species
 |
Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species. Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
[edit] Infinite monkey theorem
A certain User:Robofish, who I haven't checked whether he's affiliated with your project, recently put your project banner on talk:infinite monkey theorem.
Now, of course these banners say only that an article is "of interest" to a given WikiProject, and it's totally your call whether you're interested in something. But the article in question has very little to do with real monkeys. It's about mathematical tidbit that's illustrated with metaphorical monkeys.
So your call, but I doubt the article has much to do with the mission of your project. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Crab-eating macaque - incorrect images
A complaint has been made to the Foundation about some mis-labelled images. Specifically File:Crab-eating Macaque.jpg which is used in Monkey and several other articles on other Wikipedias and File:Monkey eating.jpg. A Commons search [1] seems to show at least one other incorrectly labelled image. Is there anyone who can correctly identify these and fix the problems in the related articles? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Sapajus
An article from 2011 concluded that the genus Cebus, containing the capuchins, should be split between the non-tufted capuchins, which would remain in Cebus, and the tufted capuchins, which should be moved to the genus Sapajus.[2] The new classification seems to be getting used in recent articles, e.g., [3]. Does anyone have an issue if I begin to apply the new genus to our capuchin articles? Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
