Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rodents: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages using AWB
archiving old threads
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|wp=yes|WT:RODENT}}
{{talk header|wp=yes|WT:RODENT}}
{{archive box|1=<nowiki />

* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (2009–2013)
== Getting Started : Sources ==
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (2014+)

}}
I could get started by collecting sources, especially those that will be helpful for multiple articles, (incl listing what I have in hard copy (if not available online)). Would this be helpful, and if so, where should I put it? This page, on the project page, a sub page of that page...? --[[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]]) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:That's a great idea 6th! Go ahead and create [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/References]], try to include as much info as you would need for a proper {{tl|cite x}} template and a description of what kind of info it is. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Goals ==

so i think it would be great if we agreed our first goal for this project. I personally would like to get all the main rodent articles up to GA, here is a list of candidates:
*[[Squirrel]] start-class (could be possibly be reclassified as B)
*[[Rat]] B-class
*[[Beaver]] B-class
*[[Pocket gopher]] start-class
*[[Mouse]] B-class
*[[Dormouse]] start-class
*[[Porcupine]] start-class (maybe picking either [[New World porcupine]] or [[Old World porcupine]] - both start-class)
*[[Capybara]] B-class
--&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'd also like to suggest [[Gerbil]] (currently B-class). Like [[mouse]] and [[Fancy mouse]] (both also B-class) there are areas lacking references, or where references could be improved, and sections that currently read as a "how to".--[[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]]) 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::Wow, somebody gave Gerbil a B? That page is a disaster. That's pretty much true for all the pet rodent articles except for [[guinea pig]] and only thanks to a lot of work by some good editors who got it in that condition and have been tough with reverting changes. There needs to be a page for he Gerbillinae as a whole - something covering the diversity of gerbils (there are over 100 spp.). It seems like that should be at gerbil and all the pet gerbil material should be at a page for ''M. unguiculatus'' or even an article called [[pet gerbil]]. There just doesn't seem to be a way to keep every 9 year-old's pet fluffy out of these articles. I think something like [[beaver]] is going to have a much easier time getting to GA status. Pet rodents are going to be a struggle. --[[User:Aranae|Aranae]] ([[User talk:Aranae|talk]]) 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:::i'm always torn between the article that desperately needs more work, and the one that just needs a little nudge to reach it's next step. the wikiProject council pages suggest that we try to an easily attainable goal first, in order to have a strong morale base and such... hmm... [[Gerbil]] or [[Beaver]]? Gerbil might take a month or more, but i think we could have Beaver nominated for a GA by the end of a week or two. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::yeah, I wouldn't have given it a B either, but being fairly new to wiki editing, I wasn't sure if I was being tough or not in that assessment. I agree, Beaver will probably be easier to tackle first. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/6th Happiness|contribs]]) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::the fun part about improving articles is learning new information on a subject :) --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== [[Black Rat]] ==

I just noticed that our article on the [[Black Rat]] is quite unacceptably stubby for the about third most common rodent of the world. Could we get some WikiProject collaboration to improve it? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

==Brazilian False Rice Rat==
[[Brazilian False Rice Rat]] has been nominated as a good article. In my opinion, the article is in great shape. Perhaps it could use a distribution map and the lede may be a bit technical at present, but I see no reason why it won't get there with minimal work. It will be nice to get another GA for this project. Contribute or comment if you are interested. --[[User:Aranae|Aranae]] ([[User talk:Aranae|talk]]) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

== Common names, and some oryzomyines ==

If there are any people here who don't follow WP:MAMMAL, the thread I started at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Common names]] may be interesting.

Also, [[Lund's Amphibious Rat]] is now at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Lund's Amphibious Rat/archive1|peer review]]; any comments would be greatly appreciated. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

: Looks good! I noticed that article references reference Hershkovitz's 1955 review of the genus Holochilus, and you mention Hershkovitz in the article, but I didn't see Hershkovitz's review itself. (If I missed it, apologies, I glanced quickly as I'm very busy atm). His 1955 review is digitalised here: http://www.archive.org/details/southamericanmar3724hers - search for ''magnus'' for relevant sections. Probably doesn't have much if any new info in it, but it makes the ref's more complete. --[[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]]) 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for your comment. Yes, I know, I have it and looked into it when preparing this article. It doesn't include any information mentioned elsewhere, is badly out of date and stained by Hershkovitz's somewhat eccentric theories, and I didn't need it to source anything in the article. I'll probably need to use it when I get to the articles on ''Holochilus'', though. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

::Ah, okay :-) --[[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]]) 00:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:It has now progressed to another title, ''[[Lundomys]]'', and to [[WP:FAC|FAC]] (see [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lundomys/archive1|here]]). Input from other RODENT participants would be much appreciated. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
::''Lundomys'' is now an FA, and ''[[Pseudoryzomys]]'' has replaced it at [[WP:Featured Article Candidates/Pseudoryzomys/archive1|FAC]]. Again, comments are welcome. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

== Assessment scales ==

I just created the project talk page banner ({{tl|Rodent}}) and added an importance scale on the project page. It can undoubtedly be improved, so please do edit it. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
: Thanks for creating this! --[[User:6th Happiness|6th Happiness]] ([[User talk:6th Happiness|talk]]) 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

== Pseudomys laborifex for deletion ==

''Pseudomys lorifex'' now recognised as a synonym for ''Pseudomys johnsoni''.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kimberley_Mouse#Merge_or_delete] [[User:T.carnifex|T.carnifex]] ([[User talk:T.carnifex|talk]]) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

== hamsters ==

The current information on hamster classification verges on the nonsensical. The confusion seems to be due to the popularity of pet hamsters. Hamster fanciers really are no good at sticking a name to a single species and the names "Russian White," Dzhungarian," and Campbell's" seem to be applicable to ''every'' member of ''[[Phodopus]]''. Can someone sort out the classification? I suspect there are a number of redundant hamster pages. It is far too confusing to me to handle, at least alone, and I'll likely need an admin to make changes to article names. Maybe Latin names will be necessary. If this can get sorted out it would be good to make a navigation template like that for the [[Gliridae]]. [[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
:Rodents that are held as pets always seem to attract a lot of attention, but little that actually improves the articles.
:If the common names are more confusing than enlightening, it may be a good idea to place the articles at the scientific names. Alternatively, we could switch to the MSW 3 common names, but I'm not sure whether these are in common enough use. To get a detailed grasp of the issues, you might want to create an overview of common names for each species like the one I made for a different group at [[User:Ucucha/Oryzomyini#Common names]].
:The {{tl|Hamster}} template is in dire need of an upgrade to a more standard format. I'll see what I can do about that. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
::Done; it's a standard navigation template now. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There's been only one study of any notable size on cricetine evolution since Mammal Species of the World Volume 3. It's Neumann et al. (2006 - cited at [[Hamster]]). Although they indicated that ''[[Cricetulus]]'' is polyphyletic, ''C. migratorius'' at least will need to be placed in a separate genus, they took no formal action regarding taxonomy. Thus, as far as I can tell, MSW3 should probably be adopted here, with potential changes suggested by Xie and Smith (2008). The classification section currently in [[Hamster]] is essentially in agreement with MSW3 with two exceptions. MSW3 treat ''Cricetulus griseus'' and ''Cricetus hehringi'' as synonyms of ''Cricetulus barabensis'' and ''Cricetus cricetus'' respectively. As for common names, I think these animals have the opposite problem of many of the rodents we have recently discussed. They have an overabundance of common names. I think using the scientific names will become a tougher sell. I think MSW3 and IUCN are the best places to start, but I wouldn't be opposed to adopting a common name applied by the pet folks. I have no idea where one would look for that. Here are the species and their common names at those sources:
*''Allocricetulus curtatus'' Mongolian Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Allocricetulus eversmanni'' Eversmann's Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Cansumys canus'' Gansu Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Cricetulus alticola'' Ladak Dwarf Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN [IUCN also lists Tibetan Dwarf Hamster])
**Actually, IUCN lists "Ladakh Hamster", not "Ladak Dwarf Hamster", as MSW 3 does. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
*''Cricetulus barabensis'' Striped Dwarf Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN) (includes ''C. griseus'')
*''Cricetulus kamensis'' Tibetan Dwarf Hamster (MSW3), Kam Dwarf Hamster (IUCN)
*''Cricetulus longicaudatus'' Long-tailed Dwarf Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Cricetulus migratorius'' Gray Dwarf Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN [IUCN also lists Gray Hamster])
*''Cricetulus sokolovi'' Sokolov's Dwarf Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Cricetus cricetus'' Common Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN [IUCN also lists Black-bellied Hamster]) (includes ''C. nehringi'')
*''Mesocricetus auratus'' Golden Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Mesocricetus brandti'' Brandt's Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Mesocricetus newtoni'' Romanian Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Mesocricetus raddei'' Ciscaucasian Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
*''Phodopus campbelli'' Campbell's Desert Hamster (MSW3), Campbell's Hamster (IUCN)
*''Phodopus roborovskii'' Roborovski's Desert Hamster (MSW3), Desert Hamster (IUCN), Roborowski's Hamster (IUCN)
*''Phodopus sungorus'' Striped Desert Hamster (MSW3), Dzhungarian Hamster (IUCN)
*''Tserskia triton'' Greater Long-tailed Hamster (MSW3 & IUCN)
Note that IUCN lists ''Cricetulus lama'', the Lama Dwarf Hamster, and ''Cricetulus tibetanus'', the Tibetan Dwarf Hamster, as distinct species citing the Mammals of China (Smith and Xie, 2008). --[[User:Aranae|Aranae]] ([[User talk:Aranae|talk]]) 23:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:Considering this list, I'd say that we'd best use these names in general, as IUCN and MSW are mostly in agreement. We'll have problems with ''Cricetulus alticola'', ''C. kamensis'', and the ''Phodopus'' species, though, for which various common names exist. I think we'd best avoid "Tibetan Dwarf Hamster", which has been used for both ''C. alticola'' and ''C. kamensis''. ''C. alticola'' would then best be "Ladakh Hamster" on the basis of Google hits, and ''C. kamensis'' can be "Kam Dwarf Hamster" as the IUCN has it. For ''Phodopus'', the MSW and IUCN names are all different and there are presumably various pet names, so we have several possibilities there. Google seems to favor the IUCN over the MSW names. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
::Some notes: Ladak is a horribly incorrect spelling of a place name–use [[Ladakh]]. Kam is an awful description of distribution–Tibetan is better, as far as geography goes. (Kam is a jungle area near Tibet, to cut things short). I think we should also check for names used for multiple species, like Dzhungarian. For now, let's only set names if they ''unequivocally'' refer to ''one'' species. [[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 16:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::"I wouldn't be opposed to adopting a common name applied by the pet folks". These common names are the problem here. [[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::If there is a clear consensus for a certain common name for a pet, I don't see why we shouldn't prefer that name to the IUCN or MSW3 name, but it seems more likely that the pet names are only confusing, in which case we'd better use MSW or IUCN names. I'd rather say "Ladak" is a different (and uncommon) transcription, but I agree that "Ladakh Hamster" is the name we should use for ''C. alticola''. I don't quite understand the latter part of your comment, as you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't use names that can refer to multiple species, even though you also say that we should use "Tibetan Dwarf Hamster", which has been used for different species in different sources. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry about the confusion over Tibetan species. The pet names I don't like are the ones like Russian Winter White and the like. To cut this short, I really give up on these hamsters! I'll sort out another, more manageable mess, but this is beyond me. [[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

== [[Template:Rodent]] ==

I've just added a documentation page here; please do improve it. Note that the [[Template:Squirrels]] has been redirected to Template:Rodent, which may result in some duplication. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:I added a little. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

== LA flying squirrels ==
where do flying squirrels live in louisiana <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.33.110.108|67.33.110.108]] ([[User talk:67.33.110.108|talk]]) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The [[southern flying squirrel]] (''Glaucomys volans'') has a distribution that generally spans all of Louisiana. You are most likely to find it in hardwood-pine forests, as the [http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-078-01-0001.pdf Mammalian Species account] indicates. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
::I think it is probably found in the whole state, including urban areas. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

== Automated banner adding ==
I recently read about [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WPArkansas Bot 3|this]] newly approved bot. Would it be a good idea to ask [[user:Coffee|Coffee]] to add the {{tl|Rodent}} banner to all articles in [[:Category:Rodent stubs]] and its subcategories? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:Why not? —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
::No reason really, just wanted other people's opinion before going ahead to ask for it. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

== Capitalisation ==

Me, Ucucha, and Aranae have been discussing the capitalisation of the names of rodents at [[User talk:Ucucha#Degu; Spermophilus]], and have decided that it would be good to adopt some sort of standard for this WikiProject, for the sake of consistency. The main conclusion we have come to is that both are and will be used, with the major difference being context. I summed up my opinion in this matter:

:I think that since the only opinions here are ours (here meaning mine, Ucucha's, and Aranae's)—don't care, really should be consistent—or else strong, strong support of lowercase, as at [[Talk:Indian giant squirrel]], we should use sentence case for rodent articles. However, there are a few problems, as title case is used most frequently for certain groups of rodents: Australian ones and obscure ones, as Ucucha pointed out. So I think we should make a few exceptions.

Is this a good idea, adopting a standard of capitalisation? —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:I agree, there should indeed be a level of consistency, so I'm on-board in that respect. I just did a quick review of the literature at my disposal (all regarding Australian rodents, or other mammals) and found little convention. The two books, ''Dictionary of Australian and New Guinean Mammals'' and ''A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia'', both used title case for all common names. However, the journal articles I reviewed (three rodent papers published in Volume 27 of Wildlife Research) all used sentence case for common names when used in text (common names obviously weren't used in sub-headings). I would probably lean towards using title case, but I guess my preference might be influenced by what I'm familiar with (Australian rodents, which you pointed out already tend to use title case). At the end of the day, I guess I don't care a great deal either and will follow the consensus. [[User:T.carnifex|T.carnifex]] ([[User talk:T.carnifex|talk]]) 04:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:As I wrote at my talk page, I don't care much but have a slight preference for sentence case because that seems to be more widely used (cf. [[Talk:Indian giant squirrel]] and some other places where people assembled sources). In particular, title case is very rarely used in actual flowing prose, which is what we at Wikipedia primarily should be concerned about. I noted already that title case may be a bit more common in Australia, but it looks like journal articles do mostly use sentence case in prose, and Breed and Ford's book on ''Native mice and rats'' does use sentence case.
:Therefore, I mildly favor using sentence case throughout Rodentia for article titles and in the text for well-established common names. On the other hand, I would prefer to continue using title case when mentioning common names like "Lund's Amphibious Rat" in ''[[Lundomys]]'', as they have never been used in sentence case in the literature. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

::Ucucha makes a god point in distinguishing between use in a checklist and use in the prose of text. MSW3 is often held up as the primary example of a text that applies capitalization, but the actual usage in a sentence is not consistently capitalized. There are very few examples of common names used in text, but for rodents, see page 1593: "The common name coypu is preferred to nutria, since nutria in Spanish means otter" (Woods and Kilpatrick, 2005). Even among the more frequently capitalized primates there is this quote from page 121 "it is not known whether these represent the living aye-aye or a separate, extinct species" (Groves, 2005). Neither of these are perfect examples (coypu vs. nutria is arguing about the words more than the species; aye-aye could be interpreted as a reference to a roup larger than a single species). The same does hold true for many field guides - the entry is capitalized, but usage in sentence is lowercase. That, however, is not true in all cases (see Kays and Wilson, 2002 Mammals of North America for an example). --[[User:Aranae|Aranae]] ([[User talk:Aranae|talk]]) 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Menkhorst and Knight 2001 on Australian mammals also use title case, even for "Horse" (p. 210). So do ''The Kingdon Pocket Guide to African Mammals'', Gurung and Singh's ''Mammals of the Indian Subcontinent'', Payne et al.'s ''Mammals of Borneo'', and Jameson and Peeters's ''Mammals of California'', but not Emmons and Feer (''Neotropical Rainforest Mammals'') and ''Smithers' Mammals of Southern Africa''. However, I think field guides like these are already on the periphery of real prose. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:There is a simple rule for this in science that can serve as a guideline. Animal names are generally considered common nouns as long as they are not standardized. For birds for example, there is a [http://www.worldbirdnames.org/index.html single standardized list of names], and hence, bird names are capitalized as proper nouns. For mammals, I am not aware of such a single standardize list, and lower case would be proscribed for that.
:Personally, I think names of species should be capitalized and seen as proper nouns, as they are similar to names of places etc. However, that is a totally different discussion that I rather do not go into. I guess that it is just a matter of time till standardized lists will be made for more groups, so it will get there eventually. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::I don't entirely agree with this. It is a little more complicated. In fish, there are some semblances of official lists, and all of them use sentence case. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::We are not using any such standardized list; rather, we use different sources for the common name, including [http://bucknell.edu/msw3 MSW 3], [http://iucnredlist.org the IUCN Red List], and Duff and Lawson's 2004 checklist of the mammals of the world, and usage in other sources to determine which common name to use (at least, that's my understanding, and I think it's a good situation). [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::And hence you use lower caps. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Really, I think you indicated it right, the '''semblance''' of official list'''S''' should be a clear indication that there is no single official list, so it makes sense. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::::A good point here is that almost nobody uses title case for fish (and some other animals, too). The semblance I referred to is the database [[FishBase]], which doesn't include a common name for every species—hence the "semblance". Looking at rodents, the idea of an official list for mammals seems absurd, as for the majority of mammal species would have to start from nothing. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 15:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yup, if you really look, there is just one official list animals, and that is for birds. That makes an easy answer with regard to rodents. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 11:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so it looks like there is strong support for consistency, and for sentence case. The only matter now is whether we need exceptions for Australian rodents, and obscure ones like the [[Marsh Rice Rat]]. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 17:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:So, as discussed I'll start moving rodent pages to sentence case. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

::I don't think the marsh rice rat (!) merits an exception: see [http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=%22Marsh+Rice+Rat%22&hl=nl&btnG=Zoeken&lr=]. I am not entirely sure about the Australian ones, but don't think they merit an exception either, because the journal literature from what I've seen also mainly uses sentence cases, and a recent influential work (Breed and Ford's ''Native mice and rats'', cited fully on ''[[Pebble-mound mouse]]'') also uses sentence case.
::I think we should add a text to the project page about article titles along the lines of:
<blockquote>Article titles should follow usage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Articles should only be located at a [[vernacular name]] when that vernacular name is used in a significant proportion of sources and has thus entered common usage; otherwise, the scientific name should be the article title. If the vernacular name is used, the article title should normally be in sentence case, as sentence case is more often used in the relevant literature. When in doubt, open a discussion on the article talk page.</blockquote>
::Feel free to tweak the text. It should reflect our recent consensus about use of scientific names ([[WT:MAMMAL#Common names]], RMs listed at [[User:Ucucha/Titles]]) and sentence case (this discussion). [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Alright. Seems fine to me, though I think that in some cases we should use a common name even if it is not frequently used, as long as it is unambiguous—essentially, we should use common sense. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

::::The species this is intended to cover (such as ''[[Lundomys molitor]]'', or ''[[Oligoryzomys griseolus]]'') have often been referred to under any vernacular name only a few times, and still they often have several different ones, deriving from the Red List, MSW 3, and Duff and Lawson. I deliberately left the text a bit vague to offer some discretion here. I am not sure appealing to common sense is all that useful here, but I think it is very reasonable to require a vernacular name to have been used in a significant proportion of sources before using it in an article title. ("Significant", in my view, could mean as little as 20% or less, but exact rules are best discussed in specific cases.) [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I really can't explain this better. If I remember what exactly my concern was I'll post it here. Can you move those Spermophilus pages I can't move now? I've started this, but it seems half need an admin. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::OK. I'll happily move some over redirects (the nice thing about that is that moving them back won't require an admin, and then moving them back again won't require an admin either), but don't have more time now. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I now added the paragraph I proposed to the main project page. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since our articles are not targeted to specialists, I think we should use sentence case as much as possible (it looks really silly to capitalize "Horse"), and in any case, we shouldn't be using vernacular names at all if we want precision, but binomials. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
:Rather odd time to say it. Both capitalisations are used, and it is to me a hard choice but this project has opted for ''all sentence case''. As it is we agree that the great majority of rodents should be at their binomial names (suggested further reading: [[User:Ucucha/Titles]]). —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
::I have a few comments to make about the subject of capitalizing species common names in general. In formal English prose, there are rules for capitalization; [[proper noun]]s get capitalized, common nouns don't. Whether a noun is a proper noun depends on how many ''examples'' of it exist; for proper nouns, that number has to be one. The number of ''names'' that exist for an entity has no bearing on whether it is a proper noun. Thus, "[[Punxsutawney Phil]]" is a proper noun (based on the myth that there is only one of him), while [[groundhog]] is not. Neither is [[mammal]], even though there is only one official term for it. All upper case common names for taxa represent informal prose that is technically wrong, even in the case of birds.

::From my perspective, there is a valid argument for capitalizing birds' common names, but it is not a compelling one and doesn't actually apply to Wikipedia. The reason is that many birds' common names are descriptive-sounding, and in some contexts could be confused with a description. This situation would tend to arise in a narrative in which Latin [[binomen]]s were not in use. If an author was describing what birds he saw on a hike through a rainforest, a reader who wasn't familiar with bird species wouldn't know if a "[[blue-and-yellow macaw]]" represented possibly any macaw with those colors or a specific species. This situation would be less likely to arise with rodents because fewer of them have descriptive-sounding names, and because they are much more cryptic and thus are less likely to appear in narratives. Many primates do have descriptive-sounding names, but the number of primate species is much lower than that of birds, making confusion less likely. However, Wikipedia doesn't contain narratives, does use binomens, and in addition will normally have species common names linked to the appropriate species article; thus, the type of ambiguity that the practice of capitalizing species common names is intended to avoid should never arise in Wikipedia in the first place. This is one reason most general-purpose encyclopedias, such as [[Encyclopædia Britannica|Britannica]], use lower-case names for species of birds as well as for species of other classes.

::So, I think that in any taxon for which there is not a strong tradition of capitalizing, the choice should be automatic: use sentence case common names. If there is such a tradition, the gain from being consistent with it needs to be balanced against the loss: the endless confusion that will arise from using different rules in different taxa. [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 08:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:::This is rather late to say it, as we have decided on sentence case, while considering that title case is also used. Ucucha has stated he is not, and I are not convinced by many arguments more abstract than how often is one system used (and I could type up some more paragraphs on title case being technically correct and your argument being based on old prescriptivist attitudes toward language—that annoys me a bit), and this is the rodent project talk page, not the bird project talk page. And lastly remember that most rodent articles on Wikipedia should be at the scientific name (see [[User:Ucucha/Titles]] for details). —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

::::That reminds me: why is the article on ''Marmota monax'' called "groundhog", rather than "woodchuck"? —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::I have no idea what reminds you of that, but based on a quick Google Scholar search, I agree that "woodchuck" is probably preferable. I suggest an RM. I fully agree with your previous comment, by the way, with the addendum that the main issue is how often ''reliable sources'' use one system or the other. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Innotata, if they are not posted elsewhere, I would be interested in seeing your argument(s) as to why title case is correct. Thanks, [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::::What I mean, more or less, is that most usage is correct. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::An examination of usage patterns would suggest that even if "most usage is correct", what is correct varies with context. That is, using title case is more correct in informal prose, and using sentence case is more correct in formal prose. I suspect that much of the disagreement about this issue arises from differing reading habits of different editors. Those who read mainly works such as field guides and "popular" magazines and books would likely tend to favor title case, while those who read more formal books, magazines, encyclopedias, journals etc. might tend to favor sentence case. Then the question becomes: which type of prose is a more appropriate for Wikipedia? If other general-purpose encyclopedias (such as Britannica) are used as style guides, use of sentence case would be indicated.
:::::I think it's also worth pointing out that some of those who advocated title case common names in the past were under the mistaken impression that species common names were proper nouns. [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 08:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for joining in a little late, but I think there's a point which hasn't been made yet: there's a difference between a "brown rat" (i.e. any rat which happens to be brown) and a "Brown Rat" (i.e.a member of the species ''[[Brown rat|Rattus norvegicus]]'') - the same as there's a difference between a "black bird" and a "[[Common Blackbird|blackbird]]". Surely the best way to avoid any ambiguity is to use title case? [[User:Dom Kaos|~dom Kaos~]] ([[User talk:Dom Kaos|talk]]) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:I think that's the best substantive argument for using title case. However, editors of scientific journals and books have to deal with the same issue, and it appears that they mostly use sentence case. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of the information other sources provide, it should (I think) follow the judgment of those sources, rather than the judgment of Wikipedia editors, in matters like the capitalization of vernacular names.
:Furthermore, the ambiguity you mention is probably fairly rare on Wikipedia, because when "brown rat" means ''Rattus norvegicus'', it will usually be bluelinked and/or accompanied by the scientific name, and in many other cases it will be clear from the context what sense of "brown rat" is meant. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::As I pointed out previously, there is little reason for descriptive terms to be used to identify animals in Wikipedia (as they might be in a narrative), so the argument that there is likely to be a lot of ambiguity between common names and descriptive terms in Wikipedia doesn't ring true. [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 08:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:::hey i just wanted to clarify.... you guys were mainly talking about how the articles are titled right? b/c WP already has it pretty figured out when it comes to prose:
:::*Sentence case for titles unless there is a proper name to be capitalized - e.g. Big brown rat, Grand Canyon vole
:::*Sentence case with the same proper name exception when referring to the species as a multitude - "All big brown rats live in..."
:::*''Title'' case when referring to the species proper (essentially if you use ''the'' before it) - "The Edible Dormouse is native to..."
:::this is how i've always been taught to write neways... again, wishing i had visited this page a little more often ;) ciao! --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

== Stubs ==

{{user|Starzynka}} has been creating very inadequate stubs (''[[Apodemus epimelas]]'' for an example). I asked the user to stop and create more complete pages instead. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some cleanup and expansion, and adding expand tags, since this is not just a matter of very short stubs, these are almost useless articles. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, the articles have no content that would not be the same as for any other mammal species. Polbot did much better than that. On a technicality, though, I don't think {{tl|expand}} templates are terribly useful, as the stub templates already contain the same information. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::The expand templates indicate a serious deficency, and are less specific than the stub tags, though most of these just use the mammal-stub. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

== WP 1.0 bot announcement ==

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|WP 1.0 assessment system]]. On '''Saturday, January 23, 2010''', the [[User:WP 1.0 bot|WP 1.0 bot]] will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rodent articles by quality statistics|summary table]] will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index|WP 1.0 project homepage]]. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

== Important WikiProject Notice ==

{{Ambox
| type = notice
| image = [[File:Ambox notice.png|38px|notice]]
| text = '''Project Activity'''
- Please Confirm your WikiProject's Activity by changing the status from "Unknown" to "Yes" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animals/Directory this] page, this is to assist the Coordinators of WikiProject Animals update the directory listing on the WikiProject Council Directory. If your project is NOT updated within 1 (one) week of this notice it will be assumed the project is inactive and the project page will be tagged as such. If you have any concerns please contact me on my talk page. '''<font color="004730 " face="comic sans ms">[[User:ZooPro|Zoo]]</font><font color="FFD200" face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:ZooPro|Pro]]</font>''' 04:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) </center>}}

== Syrian Hamsters ==

I've noticed that all the articles for hamsters kept as pets attract a lot of edits with how to look after them, such as a section on how to handle Syrian Hamsters that I recently removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Hamster&oldid=341849927]. I'd like to create a new article for each of these hamsters, beginning with Syrians (as I have pets of this species) which would have details of the pets only, including their history, diet, behaviour, etc. which often differs greatly from the wild animals. I will start drafing these articles in my user namespace but I'd like to know what the rest of the project thinks before I carry on.

I have already talked to [[User:Ucucha|Ucucha]], who seemed to like the idea but suggested putting the content in it's own section but I think that if there was a section on this it would still attract edits to the rest of the article about pets.

Thanks, --[[User:Tb240904|Tb240904]] ([[User talk:Tb240904|talk]]) 10:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:I think the single separate section idea is good. First, unlike [[domestic goose|domestic geese]] or [[guinea pig]]s, domestic golden hamsters are not well differentiated from their wild relatives, only being brought into captivity in the 30s (see [http://www.britishhamsterassociation.org.uk/get_article.php?fname=journal/discover_syrian.html here] for a sort of account), so I don't think people speak of "domestic golden hamsters". I also think that the amount of information on the subject we should have would be a section. By the way, I think the article should be at "golden hamster"—we use lowercase now, and "golden" is most common on Google, and is used by Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. (MSW3) and the IUCN Red List, our usual sources form names. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, domestic hamsters behave do have a lot of behavioural differences. Also, they may have only been captive for 80 years but this is plenty of time for them to have adapted: their gestation period is 16 days and the babies can be weaned about 28 days later, at which point they're also ready to mate, so in 80 years there have been possibly 663 generations, which is plenty of time to change genetically, and behaviourally with each new generation picking up new domestic behaviour from the last. Also, "Syrian" is the correct term. While I believe we should have "Syrian hamster" and a redirect from golden, the proper name should remain. --[[User:Tb240904|Tb240904]] ([[User talk:Tb240904|talk]]) 12:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Hmm, I don't think I can explain the thing about them being in captivity. The differences you pointed out are completely environmental, but I can't say anything more. I've explained why the name should be used at [[Talk:Syrian Hamster#Requested move Feb 2010]]. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== Squirrel ==

Should the two articles on squirrels be merged? Please discuss at [[Talk:Sciuridae]]. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Xerus to confirm id ==

Can anybody here confirm the identification of this ground squirrel: [[:File:Xerus and Passer.jpg]]? ''Xerus'' squirrels all look the same to me. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:[[:File:Xérus ou rat palmiste DSC 6258 Avril 08.JPG]] This ''Xerus'' also needs ID. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::Same for me, but fortunately all ''Xerus'' are allopatric. The first one is from South Africa and should be ''[[Xerus inauris]]''; the second is from Senegal and should be ''[[Xerus erythropus]]''. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:::More specific: All ''Xerus'' species have [http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/default.html Mammalian Species] accounts. Apparently, the only species that is easy to tell apart is ''X. rutilus'', which lacks the white lateral stripe. Both of our ''Xerus'' do have one. ''X. inauris'' is distinguished from ''X. princeps'' in having a less bushy tail, which seems to match with our SA ''Xerus'' (considering the photos in the MS accounts). ''X. erythropus'' and ''X. inauris'' are apparently impossible to tell apart, unless you are able to count either mammae or chromosomes in those pictures. However, both are safely within their geographical ranges, so their ID shouldn't be problematic. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::[[:File:Nibble 2362237368.jpg]] What's this, then? Dysmorodrepanis couldn't identify it. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> 20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::''[[Paraxerus cepapi]]''. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Automated tagging and assessing ==
{{anchor|Automated tagging}}
I have put up a request [[User_talk:Xenobot_Mk_V/requests#WP:RODENT|here]] to have a bot automatically tag pages for our project. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:It has also been requested at the bot automatically assess where possible (the bot looks for a {{tl|stub}} template on the article, or inherits the rating from other project banners). If there are any objections to this, please make them known- else the task will commence in 72 hours. Cheers, –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks Xeno. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

==Unreferenced living people articles bot==
{{User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/welcome}} [[User:Okip |Okip ]] 23:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

==Standardized nomenclature question==
I'm wondering what should be the standard we should use for the first sentence of an article, specifically, what formatting the common and scientific names should take. I looked at some of the "Good Articles" and "Featured Articles" in this WikiProject, but even they do not reflect a standardization! Yoiks!

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about (these examples are supposed to be the first sentence of a Wiki article that has the title [[Central American Dwarf Squirrel]]):
<noinclude>
* The '''Central American Dwarf Squirrel''' ''Microsciurus alfari'' is a [[tree squirrel]] species of [[rodent]] in the [[Sciuridae]] family.
* The '''Central American Dwarf Squirrel''' (''Microsciurus alfari'') is a [[tree squirrel]] species of [[rodent]] in the [[Sciuridae]] family.
* The '''Central American Dwarf Squirrel''', '''''Microsciurus alfari''''', is a [[tree squirrel]] species of [[rodent]] in the [[Sciuridae]] family.
* The '''Central American Dwarf Squirrel''' ('''''Microsciurus alfari''''') is a [[tree squirrel]] species of [[rodent]] in the [[Sciuridae]] family.
</noinclude>
So, my question is, what should be the standard for giving the scientific name for this species' article's first sentence? Thanks for any help. --[[User:Saukkomies|Saukkomies]] <sup>[[User talk:Saukkomies|talk]]</sup> 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
:Well, the article should have the title ''[[Microsciurus alfari]]'', to start with: "Central American Dwarf Squirrel" does not really appear to be in common use.
:We have one FA ([[guinea pig]]) and one GA ([[muskrat]]) with common name article titles; both use the second format you listed. I am doing the same on [[marsh rice rat]]. I think placing the scientific name within parentheses is standard scientific usage, and I see no compelling reason to bold it, since it's already clear what the scientific name is. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

::I totally agree with you Ucucha, about the title: it ought to be the scientific name. However, I'm just editing pre-existing articles that have already been named by someone else, not creating new ones, so I'm mostly concerned with the situation where the common name is the title.

::At any rate, thanks for the answer. I will make sure that all the articles I'm editing will conform with the standard of the scientific name in parentheses and not bold. Thanks for your timely response. --[[User:Saukkomies|Saukkomies]] <sup>[[User talk:Saukkomies|talk]]</sup> 05:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:::hmmm... kinda makes me wish i was here more often, but since no one else seemed to bring up these issues, i might as well.
:::[[WP:TOL#Article titles|naming conventions]] call for the common name to be used if one exists that can be agreed upon. sometimes (often with rodents) there are multiple common names with no clear preference so we stick to the scientific name for sanity's sake. in this specific case, the common name should be used since there's only one, and we have reliable sources to verify it's actually called this (IUCN is pretty reliable).
:::i agree parantheses are ALWAYS to be used around a scientific name when following a species's common name.
:::bolding is actually due to wikipedia's MOS, specifically, [[WP:LEAD]]. the scientific name is a legit alternative name, and thus is bolded like all other alternative names in all other wikipedia articles. note that outside the first appearance in the leade, it is inapproriate to bold either the title or alternate names. These are not my preferences but merely standard convention. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

== Parasites? ==

I just wrote a stub on ''[[Eimeria kinsellai]]'', which infects the [[marsh rice rat]], and I wondered whether I should tag it for this project. What do others think? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
:I tag bird parasites for the bird project, and some others do occasionally. &mdash;[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 21:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
::OK, I'll do the same. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
:::interestingly enough, i also tend to include diseases where rodents are noteworthy vectors :) --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

== [[Eastern chipmunk]] ==
I've posted the above to Peer Review and want to send it to FA. [[User:Susanne2009NYC|Susanne2009NYC]] ([[User talk:Susanne2009NYC|talk]]) 13:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Rodent articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release ==

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team|Wikipedia 1.0 team]] for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection|selected based on their assessed importance and quality]], then article ''versions'' (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the [[WikiTrust]] algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&namespace=0&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=100&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality&filterRelease=on&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=1&projecta=Rodent Rodent articles and revisionIDs we have chosen]. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at '''[[Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8]]''' with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi articles with cleanup tags] and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at [[Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8]]. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as [[One Laptop per Child]] and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia for Schools] to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with [[Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.8|your WikiProject's feedback]]!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, [[User:SelectionBot|SelectionBot]] 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

== WikiProject cleanup listing ==

I have created together with [[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for [[User:WolterBot|WolterBot]] and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of [[:Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions]]). See [[User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing|the tool's wiki page]], [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListing.php?project=Rodents this project's listing in one big table] or [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=Rodents by categories] and [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/Index.php the index of WikiProjects]. [[User:Svick|Svick]] ([[User talk:Svick|talk]]) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

== Forest dormouse ==

I have just expanded the stub [[Forest Dormouse]], ''Dryomys nitedula''. I notice that there is another article, [[Forest dormouse]] which is about the genus ''Dryomys''.

Would it not be better if the latter were renamed ''Dryomis'' to prevent confusion? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:I don't know quite how names go around here, but probably: of the two other species in the genus, one appears to be a restricted-range version of ''D. nitedula'', and the other isn't called "forest dormouse".

== happy fun monotony ==

so i decided to do my annual cleaning of the to-do list... hmm - seems i should prolly take a whack at some of that low hanging fruit. i also found out that there's still 1100+ articles out there without our tag on them - i've asked a bot for help, so hopfully we'll be able to pull out some of the workload from WP:MAMMAL. there's lots of easy articles to tweak so we can scratch them off the to-do list, and then of course there's plenty of meaty articles to play with. cheers! --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

== Taxonomy help ==

I came across [[Long-tailed ground squirrel]] which is classified as ''Urocitellus undulatus'' here on wikipedia. It would seem that ''[[Urocitellus]]'' is a genus applied to several rodents which were also put into ''Spermophilus'' often by the same researcher at the same time. i normally don't notice or pay attention, but i've been cross-referencing with iucn and they don't recognize ''Urocitellus''. I'll admit, i'm not familiar with this, and my first impressions may be wrong, but wouldn't it be better to place this species, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Urocitellus&namespace=0 others] under ''Spermophilus'' in taxoboxes and such? --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:''[[Spermophilus]]'' explains this: the genus is seriously [[paraphyletic]]. &mdash;[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::i'm thinking an article on ''[[Urocitellus]]'' would have been helpful :) --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

== Assessment ==

I know some people can view this as a waste of time... but I put together a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/Assessment|more complete guideline for assessment]] than what's on the main project page. I would really like some feedback on the related talk page, or even for you guys to be bold and make some changes that you think are appropriate (please use <s>strikethrough</s> and ''italics'' for subtractions and additions). Please leave comments regarding your changes on the talk page :) dhan'yavāda! --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:I put together an alternative guideline years ago at [[WP:RODENT#Assessment scales]]. I don't think the matter is especially important, though. Note that your proposed guidelines would lead us to mark ''[[Oligoryzomys]]'' as high-importance and [[Erethizontidae]] and ''[[Myodes]]'' as top-importance. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::the matter's not horribly important, but it's useful for identifying articles on topics which are most likely to have information about them. I don't see what's bad about giving a high importance to a genus that's a known zoonotic vector for hantavirus throughout an entire continent, and I actually do think that New world porcupines and voles deserve a pretty high importance rating, while ''Myodes'' does have some rather small isolated species, there are a number of ecologically important species within the group, just like ''Rattus'' or ''Mus'' (which, granted, have a more significant anthropological importance too). But this is why i wanted feedback :) i look forward to reading your ideas, and will comment on ur proposal page. abientot --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict)wow, that's what i get for not reading things closely (3rd shift, 2 jos, and no sleep will do that). I'm aware of those guidelines, but they aren't very helpful for trying to decide what to do about taxa important in other places outside the u.s. and europe. they also do little to suggest guidance for non-animal topics ([[Beaver dam]]) or fictional subjects (which i'm not sure anyone in this group right now, including myself, is terribly concerned about including in our scope), that's why i'm proposing a more thought out approach like other projects with large scopes tend to have.
:::i guess i'd just like to know if ''you'' see a problem with marking ''Myodes'' or New World porcupines as at least high-importance (which would require some tweaking), and how we might go about adjusting the criteria to better reflect something that we can all agree on. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't care one straw about fictional rodents. High importance may be reasonable for the red-backed voles and American porcupines; I don't think top importance (which is what the proposal suggests—both taxa occur in >50% of two continents) makes much sense. As a matter of fact, I'd also be happy scrapping "importance" entirely; it's not used much and more subjective even than the quality assessment. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Well, ''Oligoryzomys'' is not a known hantavirus vector in an entire continent—only in a small area. I agree that the matter is of little importance—very little, in fact. However, I think you should at least make clear what the difference is between "limited distribution and ecological or human interaction" and "some known ecological or human interaction". Would ''[[Oryzomys gorgasi]]'' be mid-importance because it has ecological interactions with the worms that parasitize it and the crabs, flies, and grasses it eats? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:::terms like ''limited'' and ''significant'' are in high usage throughout wikipedia's guidelines and policies - while they occasionally create some heated discussion, i'm not really treading new waters with these terms which allow for some wiggle room. but maybe that's not what you were meaning. i thought it would be obvious that ''limited'' referred to things like land area and human population (a couple tribes with numbers in the few hundred who make a specific low-dist species their staple diet). by ''some known'' i was referring to common knowledge outside of highly specialized groups. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Vagueness in other places is no excuse to also be vague here. I am more concerned about the "ecological interactions" (I doubt there are any rodents that are the staple diet just of a single tribe)—I still don't know how ''O. gorgasi'' would be marked under your proposal. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:::i actually made a point to say "couple tribes" b/c i agree a single tribe is unlikely :) and i'm not using it as an excuse, but merely as a point that wikipedia seems to think we should always allow some wiggle room. so maybe talking out this example will get me better language.
:::''O. gorgasi'' would still qualify as Low b/c
:::*It has limited distribution (i tried to cut this off at around >50% of a continent, although there may be better ways to define this)
:::*It has limited ecological interaction based solely on it's limited distribution (while these two would often go together, there is hypothetical potential for some species to have impacts outside of their distribution area)
:::**In defining ecological interaction i was talking about the species' ecolgical imapact as a potential food source (for any species), predator, zoonotic vector, and landscaper (like beavers for the easiest example).
:::*It also has limited human interaction because there have been no significant conservation efforts, no zoonotic risk for humans, and no significant active domestication or predation by humans.
:::**It's a controversial subject, but compare the [[Panda bear]] which arguably has also has low dist. and arguably little ecological effect where it does exist as it's neither predator nor prey, but we have undergone massive conservation efforts for it. If i was in the bear wikiproject and no one had ever given a rat's ass about pandas, i would suggest it be listed as low or mid importance for the sake of it's importance in chinese herbal medicine at best (pun intended, and i listed an obscure rodent species as mid for that very reason).
:::so how do i get that meaning into something succinct? --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::::hmmm... a species with a low population that no one really cares about... how's that grab you? lol --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I like species with no population at all left even better, in general. Why would the giant panda not be ecologically important as a major predator of bamboo? [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::oh b/c it's limited population and dist. would make it have a negligible effect on all natural bamboo populations... like i said, that's actually a controversial subject, but the best one i could come up with on the spot. a lone panda bear certainly eats a lot of bamboo, but it's not like if all of them went extinct, bamboo forests would suddenly get out of control - we already exist as a secondary "predator" and forest plants are kinda limited by nutritional availability. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 02:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:::if you have no suggestions for how to improve the wording, i guess i'll take another whack it a little later, but thanks for the insights. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 02:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::::here we go... a rodent equivalent to the giant panda, [[Western Gray Squirrel]]. i would classify it as low importance b/c while perhaps mid or high importance in the western coast, it's nationally inconsequential. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 06:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

== [[Simplicidentata]] ==

i'm going to come back to this article and try to fill something in, but if any of you have access to stuff non-web on this order(?) i'd appreciate it, cause right now it's little more than a poorly worded dictionary definition. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
:McKenna and Bell's 1997 ''Classification of Mammals'' uses this taxon. I'll see what other things I have about it. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::thanks ucucha! --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

== merging ==

so i'm trying to go through our monstrous list of unassessed articles, and while there certainly have been several that merited close review of their notability, as u are well aware, most species and genera and some families are so rare and obscure that there is slim chance we will even have significant basic biological data on them any time soon. while i tend to be anti-mergist b/c that usu involves rming info from articles to make them fit, i'm also pragmatic in that it's a huge undertaking to try and monitor/manage 2900+ articles. ALL the information from each of these stubs could be merged into a parent article and it would likely make for more robust genera and family articles anyways. I don't really perceive any lost benefit to the readers (of course i'm very interested in what others think), but i can see LOTS of benefit for purposes of maintenance. At such time that a species section could stand as Start-class on it's own we could then break it off into it's own article. i've propsed a related merger at [[Talk:Striped ground squirrel]] as a test case. Really just need consensus to make a significant change like this. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
:As I've written on the talk page (which is now at [[Talk:Lariscus]], because I found that the common name used is ambiguous), I agree with the proposed merger. I think we shouldn't be afraid to merge any articles that haven't developed beyond what Polbot put there (i.e., rudimentary information about common name, authority, status, distribution, and habitat). We're probably helping readers more by giving them all the information we have about a genus in one place than by forcing readers to go through scores of tiny species articles. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
::so i finally went ahead and merged [[Lariscus]], then to try something slightly more complex i merged most species under [[Callosciurus]]. The resulting article is a VAST improvement, and while i did a little tidying, i'm aware there are issues within the merged text itself. any feedback? --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Improvement for ''[[Lariscus]]'', but I'm not convinced about ''[[Callosciurus]]''. The latter has also become a mess in the edit history. Since it is a merge of 7 (?) articles, including several with a reasonable number of edits, it would be a serious pain for any admin to [[Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves|fix the cut-and-paste moves]]. Additionally, ''Callosciurus'' includes several quite well known species where there easily is enough info available to make full articles for each: ''C. finlaysonii'', ''C. erythraeus'', ''C. notatus'' and ''C. prevostii'' are among the best known squirrels in Asia (indeed they're among the best known rodents in Asia). When someone decides to add more to one of these well known species and splits the article (...again...) I can only imagine how confusing the edit history will be. So, I do understand ''Lariscus'' where there really isn't much available info (i.e., the species sections are likely to remain quite small) and the edit history of the individual species articles was limited, but ''Callosciurus''? I might suggest continuing the page merges for genera that match the pattern of ''Lariscus'' (example: ''[[Exilisciurus]]''), but not for genera that match the pattern of ''Callosciurus'' (example: ''[[Ratufa]]'').
::: A potential "intermediate" solution in genera like ''Callosciurus'' is to merge the poorly known species where there is little edit history completely into the genus article. For the better known species with a larger edit history; leaving their own species articles and only making a [[WP:Summary style|summary style]] species section in the genus article with a <nowiki>{{main|name of individual species article}}</nowiki> hatnote at the top. Leaving the species article when also making near-complete copies to the genus article (cf. [[Callosciurus#Plantain squirrel]] versus [[Plantain Squirrel]]) is borderline [[WP:Content forking|content forking]]. [[Special:Contributions/62.107.217.53|62.107.217.53]] ([[User talk:62.107.217.53|talk]]) 05:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
::wow... um... three months later... lol... ok gimme a sec to look over you comments and the articles again. real life often takes precedence over my time on wikipedia. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
:::i apparently forgot to redirect two of the larger stubs so that issue is resolved, there's no content forking going on now. additionally i added {{tl|copied}} templates to the talk page, following guidlines at [[WP:MERGE]] so that should address your issues with attribution and histories. with proper linking it is no unneccessary for admins to perform full history merges on pages which are not otherwise deleted (deletion is the only reason admins should be merging histories anyways). I agree that the species u mentioned are notable and could be fleshed out... the sad thing is that they haven't been, and i think they're more likely to get lost in the sea of 2000+ stubs leaving them where they are. this will increase visibility to them and hopefully encourage more constructive edits. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 01:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== RFC at [[Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F]] ==
You may want to participate in the RFC at [[Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F]] --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 13:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

== Automatic taxoboxes ==

Hi All. I'm the enthusiast who converted a lot of taxoboxes within the family [[Caviidae]] to automatic taxoboxes (for taxa aboove species) and speciesboxes (for species). I should explain. When I read about automatic taxoboxes, I thought "what a great idea!", and did a few dozen. Then, I discovered (to my dismay) that there was '''not''' a general consensus that the conversion should be done. So, I thought it would be polite to apologise for my impetuousness, retrospectively ask if it's OK if I do what I've done, and perhaps describe the concept, so that other editors can discover what a mervelous thing that they are. And even ... continue the conversion? They are described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Automatic_taxobox/doc/Step-by-step. The really cool thing about them is that if (for example), someone changed the classification of the Caviidae so that they moved to a different sub-order, then currently, the editors would have to modify the manual taxoboxes of all of the genera and species below them to the new classification. On the other hand, if the Caviidae have automatic taxoboxes and speciesboxes, then a single edit can reclassify all of them at once. Cool, nicht wahr? [[User:Ben morphett|Ben morphett]] ([[User talk:Ben morphett|talk]]) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not too happy with them here either, for some of the same reasons I gave at [[Talk:Monotreme]]. Besides, we shouldn't be showing the suborder on the taxoboxes of caviid species anyway, so I don't think there is a pressing need to cater for that. [[User:Ucucha|Ucucha]] ([[User talk:Ucucha|talk]]) 12:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
::i'm not completely sure, but there should be a way to customize what groups r shown on each relevant page? but ucucha is right, rodent taxa have some weird controversies that spring up randomly, so while this may be useful for some lines, others it would be quite inappropriate, and the headache is unlikely to be worth the time "saved". i'd focus this concept on younger taxa with more stable lines. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 13:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

== Mouse in Kenya for ID ==

Can anyone identify the rodent in some images from Kenya, starting [http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwooper7/6014456166/in/set-72157623845943546/ here]? I know it's central or southern Kenya, since the [[sparrow]]s are [[Kenya Sparrow]]s; I've asked what the yellow bird in the first mouse image is. &mdash;[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

==Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species==

{{consensus|Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 7#Capitalization of common names of species (redux)|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species].

Please take a moment to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines|visit the draft]], and comment at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines|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. [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
}}

== Dimensions ==

The dimensions of the various mouse types look like they were made by someone who is unfamiliar with the metric system. For example, the brush mouse is described as being 105 centimeters long! That is over three feet long, people! I noticed that in another mouse article but can't find it now. Anyway, if someone knows how big these rodents are, please scrub the various articles for units.

[[User:Seanross|Seanross]] ([[User talk:Seanross|talk]]) 21:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Sean Ross
:Yes, must be mistakes; I've made them in bird articles, when I'm putting down a series of values with some in centimetres and some in millimetres. I've corrected [[brush mouse]]—the values were those given in the source in mm. There are a lot of mouse articles, shall we say, so could you correct them yourself or point out specific articles to other users? &mdash;[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

::I found a similar issue in the article [[Southern big-eared mouse]]. Listing "237 to 242 centimetres (93 to 95 in) in total length, including the tail, and weigh between 45 and 105 grams (1.6 and 3.7 oz)". I suspect 'cm' should be 'mm', but I don't have access to the source to verify this change. [[User:CuriousEric|<font color="indigo">'''Curious'''</font>]][[User talk:CuriousEric|<font color="darkgreen">'''Eric'''</font>]] 19:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

== [[Olympic marmot]] assess ==

Could someone from the project assess the importance of [[Olympic marmot]]. Regards, [[User:SunCreator|SunCreator]] <sup>([[User talk:SunCreator|talk]])</sup> 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

== [[Callosciurus]] ==

Is there a reason this article contains all of the species articles, instead of them being in their own articles? I can see that the texts were copied from the various species article into the one genus article. Shouldn't the genus article talk about the genus and give comparative descriptions of the various species, with each species being in its own article? - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 12:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:HighBeam ==

[[Wikipedia:HighBeam]] describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to [[HighBeam Research]]. <br>
—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

== Missing rodent articles ==

Hi, there's a list of 'missing' rodent articles in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals/Pocket_pets_work_group|pocket pets]] project. Would someone like to either delete this list or move it over here? thanks [[User:Halon8|Halon8]] ([[User talk:Halon8|talk]]) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Cuniculus hernandezi? ==

Looking at [[Paca]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paca&diff=374696394&oldid=371294454 someone] added the new species ''Cuniculus hernandezi''. I haven't asked the user, since he/she hasn't been active since 2010. I can find a few popular articles mentioning the species, all repeating the same claims (i.e., copies of a single source article), but am strugling to find a valid scientific description. The nearest I have been able to locate is a talk at ''[http://www.xcongresoammac.ugto.mx/Programa%20Academico%20CNM2010_Final.pdf X CONGRESO NACIONAL Y I CONGRESO LATINOAMERICANO DE MASTOZOOLOGÍA]'' (a congress for Latin American mammalogy). That's fine and it may well be a new species, but can someone point me in the direction of its scientific description? A talk isn't a valid description, cf. [[ICZN Code]]. If none is available the inclusion of ''Cuniculus hernandezi'' on wikipedia seems questionable, per [[WP:V]]. [[Special:Contributions/62.107.192.144|62.107.192.144]] ([[User talk:62.107.192.144|talk]]) 03:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:I haven't been able to find a formal description either, though for all we know it may have been published in some obscure Colombian journal. I agree that we shouldn't list it until it has been formally described. [[User:Ucucha|Ucucha]] ([[User talk:Ucucha|talk]]) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

::There is a report in a local publication of Universidad Nacional de Colombia [http://www.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/en/dper/article/un-mal-pensante/ here] //[http://www.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/uploads/media/UNPeriodico_English2.pdf here]. [[User:Burmeister|Burmeister]] ([[User talk:Burmeister|talk]]) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:::''Cuniculus hernandezi'' - Castro, López & Becerra. (2010). Una nueva especie de Cuniculus (Rodentia:Cuniculidae) de la Cordillera Central de Colombia. Rev. Asoc. Col. Cienc.(Col.), 22: 122-131. [http://www.accbcolombia.org/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=0&view=summary&cid=84&catid=7 link for download pdf document]. [[User:Burmeister|Burmeister]] ([[User talk:Burmeister|talk]]) 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

== school report ==

what is the lifecycle of a hamster?--[[Special:Contributions/174.25.20.121|174.25.20.121]] ([[User talk:174.25.20.121|talk]]) 23:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

== Project's connection to philtrum? ==

I noticed that a bot added [[Talk:Philtrum|Philtrum]] to this WikiProject in February 2011, which appears to be an error to me. Removing it seems a bit presumptuous, though, so I'm leaving a note here, in case there is some rationale I'm unaware of. [[User:Calathea|Calathea]] ([[User talk:Calathea|talk]]) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:i'm guessing the bot added it because Philtrum is in [[:Category:Rodent anatomy]]. Seeing as how most rodents rely on exceptional smell vs. sight, I can see why this is a useful thing to categorize. More rodent articles could link to this article and it would reflect the importance this biological structure plays. --&#65279;[[User:Zappernapper|ΖαππερΝαππερ]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

== prairie dogs ==

what is a special structure of a prarie dog and what is it's special habits/characteristics--[[Special:Contributions/173.184.241.74|173.184.241.74]] ([[User talk:173.184.241.74|talk]]) 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

== Northern Flying Squirrels ==

Would it be possible that you add a section for how to deal with these rodents when they enter your home?
The subject is growing as thousands of acres of wetlands and forests are now being torn down to make way for developments of homes, and in my own personal experience, if even ONe of these little guys gets into your basement, they are NOT leaving!
My parents own a home in Massachusetts, and it is in the woods. These flying squirrels will come right into the finished part of the basement, not even sure how they are getting in, and despite repeated exterminator visits, (he used a trap and release cage) they have returned again and again, and are quite comfortable perched on the top of the cellar stairs , on the railing, to scare the heck out of anyone who opens the door.
They are also very noisy, and will eat almost anything.
You cannot use glue traps, as they are too big, and could bit you if you even tried to remove it!
(the roof repair guy found several , dead, under the tiles of the roof when he was repairing it! Now why would they go under the roof tiles, and then die??)
So a topic on extermination or at the very least how to deal with them living in your area would be wonderful! I was surprised there was not one already! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.118.231.166|76.118.231.166]] ([[User talk:76.118.231.166|talk]]) 13:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Vampire Bats ==

I was over at [[Talk:Venomous mammals|the talk page]] for [[Venomous mammals]] and the question came up as to whether or not Vampire Bats are considered venomous. The relevant passage is:

:Vampire bats secrete a powerful anticoagulant in their saliva.[7]

Intuitively it seems like anti-coagulants are not the same as venom. Also, I'm not sure if it's considered venom if it isn't injected (though that's a weaker claim I'd say). I was wondering if someone with a background in zoology or rodentia could comment as to whether they are considered venomous, and maybe provide a citation to that effect. Thanks.

[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

== Classification of beavers ==

Some assistance would be appreciated at [[Talk:Beaver#Beavers are not closely related to squirrels|Talk:Beaver]], where a user has suggested the article does not reflect the current understanding of ''Castor'' 's relationship to other rodent genera. I do not have the expertise to properly evaluate the sources provided. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== Belding's ground squirrels in Ohio ==

There have been several sightings of this sub-species in Northeastern Ohio (at our home in Girard, OH and at local golf courses). Photographic evidence can be supplied.
[[Special:Contributions/2602:306:BC31:1E00:D69A:20FF:FE62:CE07|2602:306:BC31:1E00:D69A:20FF:FE62:CE07]] ([[User talk:2602:306:BC31:1E00:D69A:20FF:FE62:CE07|talk]]) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Lisa Fleck

== Gobi jerboa ==

How could [[Joel Asaph Allen]] name this [[Gobi jerboa|creature]] in 1925, when he died 4 years earlier in 1921? [[User:DenesFeri|DenesFeri]] ([[User talk:DenesFeri|talk]]) 11:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


== One of your project's articles has been featured ==
== One of your project's articles has been featured ==
Line 470: Line 26:
{{FYI|Pointer to relevant thread elsewhere.}}
{{FYI|Pointer to relevant thread elsewhere.}}
[[Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds]] may be of interest to editors here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds]] may be of interest to editors here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

== Comment on the WikiProject X proposal ==

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please '''[[meta:Grants:IEG/WikiProject X|review the proposal here]]''' and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my [[User talk:Harej|talk page]]. Thank you for your time! <small>(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.)</small> [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=627879829 -->


== Rattus Mollicomulus - little soft-furred rat ==
== Rattus Mollicomulus - little soft-furred rat ==
Line 491: Line 42:


This is a notice about [[:Category:Rodent articles needing expert attention]], which might be of interest to your WikiProject. [[User:Iceblock|Iceblock]] ([[User talk:Iceblock#top|talk]]) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about [[:Category:Rodent articles needing expert attention]], which might be of interest to your WikiProject. [[User:Iceblock|Iceblock]] ([[User talk:Iceblock#top|talk]]) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

== WikiProject X is live! ==

[[File:WikiProject X icon.svg|100px|right|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject X]]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject X|WikiProject X]]''' is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject X|check us out]]! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

'''Note:''' To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter]]. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

[[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=642466477 -->


== Schmidly v Schmidly ==
== Schmidly v Schmidly ==

Revision as of 12:35, 8 December 2016

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Gopher (animal), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

Ratzilla

Hi, what species of rat is Ratzilla ? IQ125 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tail length of paca's

length of tail for paca's seems far to large: 13–23 cm (5.1–9.1 in) mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paca. Should be ~1.5-3.5 cm. e.g. book Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide by David Burnie (2001) as well as various websites.

81.11.172.244 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animal breed disambiguation

 – Pointer to relevant thread elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Toward a standard for disambiguating titles of articles on domestic animal breeds may be of interest to editors here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rattus Mollicomulus - little soft-furred rat

This article, correctly I believe, states that this rat lives only in Indonesia (Sulawesi) but in the second paragraph gives range details from Pakistan and India. Clean up needed I think.

Green daemon (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)green daemon[reply]

I made a note at Talk:Little soft-furred rat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy issues, need an expert

On the Smooth-toothed pocket gopher page, Thomomys bulbivorus is assigned to the subgenus Thomomys. However, I am finding resources placing it in the subgenus Megascapheus. Megascaphues is currently a redirect page. At least one reference suggests that the subgenus Megascapheus was initially constructed for the species T. bulbivorus alone. I am going to be taking the T. bulbivorus page to GA status and would appreciate some help clarifying. —Gaff ταλκ 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • On further review, Template:Geomyidae_nav is also wrong in the assignments of the gophers to subgenus ranks. It is not concordant with ITIS and other refs. —Gaff ταλκ 05:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Rodent articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidly v Schmidly

The IUCN lists two species with the common name Schmidly's deer mouse:

It seems like too much of a coincidence that two species both happened to be called Schmidly's Deer Mouse, but it seems odd the same species would have two listings with opposite assessments. Anyone want to shed some light on this, or edit/create the relevant articles? Habromys schmidlyi currently has no article associated (I created a redirect for it before noticing that they might be different species, and so deleted it) —Pengo 04:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be different species. H. schmidlyi occurs on the Guerrero/Mexico state border. P. schmidlyi occurs in Durango, Sinaloa and Sonora. The "common" name is a coincidence. Habromys and Peromyscus both have deer mouse as a common name, and schmidlyi can be translated as Schmidly's. "Schmidly's deer mouse" isn't a real common name (in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME), just a translation of the scientific name invented to fill the common name field in IUCN's database. Obscure species that were only recognized by scientists in the last decade and which are endemic to countries where English isn't widely spoken don't have true common names in English. Plantdrew (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for looking into that. I've added a hatnote to Peromyscus schmidlyi and created a disambiguation page at Schmidly's deer mouse. —Pengo 06:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Rodents to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hystricimorph unreadable

Hi! The article on hystricomorph is too technical and impossible for a lay person to comprehend - even a knowledgeable lay person! Wikipedia is not meant to be written like a technical abstract (at least, that's my impression). The hystricomorph article needs to be completely rewritten in common English with the scientific terminology kept to a minimum. It's fine to include scientific words, but this article is way beyond the ability of an ordinary educated person who is not a biologist to read. If this were a person's first visit to Wikipedia, he or she would probably be very discouraged and never come back.

So... please write in common everyday English for everybody to understand and if you want to include some scientific jargon, then put plenty of ordinary English in between so it doesn't come across as cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.15.118 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks! JTdaleTalk~ 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 22, 2015

Rodent will be on the Main Page soon. The article gives "mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters" as examples of rodents, but also says "most rodents weigh less than 100 g (3.5 oz)". How many of those rodent species typically weigh less than 100 g as adults? Should we be saying "most" and then giving a list that's mostly not? - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "most" to "many" would work for me, or upping the weight limit a little. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal trapping listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal trapping to be moved to Trapping. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Woodland Oldfield mouse

Should this article title be Woodland oldfield mouse? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like "oldfield" should be capitalized, but it's not clear that it should be at that title at all. There's a suggestion on the WikiProject Rodents page to use scientific names in cases like this. WikiProject Mammals prefers the "common" names put forward by Mammal Species of the World; which is woodland thomasomys for this species. Capitalized "Oldfield" is at least consistent with the titles of other articles listed in Category:Thomasomyini Plantdrew (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

house mouse

what are some habits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.41.100 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really experienced in Wikipedia, but I noted that the "vole per acre" and "vole per hectare" number on the meadow vole page are wrong. (It cannot be 600/ha AND 1482 per acre as an acre is 0nly 40% of a hectare.

Just wanted to mention it somewhere, thanks. DCI Pascoe (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist link

The watchlist link appears to be broken. If you click on it, it takes you to a "page not found" error on an external server. 8bitW (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New article - Animal testing on Syrian hamsters

I just made this new article. I thought I would share. Also, last month I made Domestication of the Syrian hamster. More hamster articles are coming too! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Rodents Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rodents&oldid=753649875"