Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

Pregnancy and fetuses.

Hello, mammal people. I've a concern regarding mammals and people.

We currently have Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals). Also Fetus and Fetus (biology). This seems backwards, to use a qualifier for the general topic, and leave the general term redirect to specific mammal issues. Sure, that mammal is homo sapiens, the only kind to read Wikipedia. But we're meant to be objective and neutral here. Even widely-held bias is bias, and directing humans to learn about their own kind rather than the general term they queried furthers this bias.

I saw this briefly discussed on the human pregnancy talk page, but years ago. Anybody up for change? Any opposed? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

Icon

I think the icon of this WikiProject should be replaced with something cleaner, such as (but not necessarily) this image. Does anyone oppose changing the icon? JKDw (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what we have is fine and I'm not a fan of the circus it would entail to change it. I've been through one of those for WP:Animals. Long, drawn out and a pain. Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is fine but it could be better. I realise I'm being pedantic. I'm surprised; the icon of WP:Tree of life was recently changed, quickly and painlessly. JKDw (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that this could devolve into an issue regarding which mammalian clade you favor. Being a strepsirrhine person, I'm instinctually inclined to favor their pics. Though moles are no more or less a good example of mammals, maybe we should favor a member of the most populous order, Rodentia. I'll be the first to admit that this is a sticky issue, based on solely on opinion and bias, but given both of our biases, I'm inclined to favor the (so far) most successful mammals to date. – Maky ^« talk » 09:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in moles. I chose that image as an example because of its quality and simplicity, relative to the current icon. I was also thinking that a rodent might be the most justified choice. JKDw (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Though this might be an excellent picture, I feel a high quality picture with a natural background (again, favoring rodents) would be ideal. And, in all honesty, I would favor a slightly lower quality photo of a rodent in its natural environment. (After all, the icon will be of reduced quality due to it's size, so quality on this scale will not be an issue.) Anyway, I'm glad we agree on what you said above. Hopefully other editors will share our views. – Maky ^« talk » 11:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I oppose the whole thing. If I were to weigh in, I'd say that we ought to encourage involvement with a good photo of some sort of charismatic megafauna like an elephant, or at least something really cute and fuzzy-looking like a baby panda. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing mammals

The English Wikipedia now covers all species of mammals. Flamthonas FIrearrow (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Marine Mammal WikiSprint

Hi All,

I am the Education Committee Chair for the Society for Marine Mammalogy, we are hosting a "WikiSprint" which is a week long editathon starting on January 19th for all articles related to marine mammals. Please considering enrolling on our WikiEducation Course Page

ShaneGero (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora, List of carnivoran genera, and related list name discussions

First, I'd like to initiate discussion of List of carnivoran genera, which I feel should be merged or deleted, as it duplicates content from both List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora and List of mammal genera#Carnivora. The discussion started at Talk:List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora, but name change may affect similar lists, so it's probably best to discuss here. Secondly, List of carnivoran genera aside, I think it is unnecessarily redundant to have "placental" in all relevant lists (see Category:Lists of placental mammals). The article naming scheme appears to have derived from the category name, but by definition there are no non-placentals in any placental orders, so why not simplify the title of all to simply "List of mammals in order X", or better yet "List of species in order X" for less ambiguity, per WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE, to indicate that species are the focal elements being listed, as opposed to genera, individuals, etc? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

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 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, 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.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cetacean Taxonomy Template for auto taxobox

Hi,

I am trying to correct the taxonomy template for cetaceans. Template:Taxonomy/Cetacea/Mammalia. The Order for all cetaceans should be Cetartiodactyla Not Cetacea (which should be unranked based on current understanding); and Odontoceti and Mysticeti, which were previously suborder should be unranked. The old system should always be visible as unranked, since this is a major change in taxonomy compared to current public knowledge. I have managed to make Cetacea and the two suborders unranked in the template, but it will not allow me to make an new entry for the Order 0 which should be Cetartiodactyla. Does anyone here have experience with the Template:Taxonomy/Cetacea/Mammalia and who understands the classification changes I am proposing below. THANKS ShaneGero (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on molecular and morphological research, the cetaceans genetically and morphologically fall firmly within the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates). The term Cetartiodactyla reflects the idea that whales evolved within the ungulates. The term was coined by merging the name for the two orders, Cetacea and Artiodactyla, into a single word. Under this definition, the closest living land relative of the whales and dolphins is thought to be the hippopotamuses. Use of Order Cetartiodactyla, instead of Cetacea with Suborders Odontoceti and Mysticeti, is favored by most evolutionary mammalogists working with molecular data and is supported the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group and by Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, the largest international association of marine mammal scientists in the world.

References

I don't know much about the intricacies of automatic taxoboxes myself. You might better luck asking at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Making the change is a bit fussy and nonobvious. I or folks who frequent Template talk:Automatic taxobox can do it. In fact, we had a discussion about whether to do it long ago at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_8#Cetacea.But first we need to decide if we want to:

• replace Order Cetacea with Order Cetartiodactyla on all whale taxoboxes. e.g. Common dolphin, etc.
• replace Order Artiodactyla with Order Cetartiodactlya on all cow/deer/etc taxoboxes. e.g. Moose, etc.
• change Cetacea/Odontoceti to be unranked everywhere: article text, etc.
• etc

Please discuss. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I directed ShaneGero (talk · contribs) here from Template talk:Taxonomy/#Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ShaneGero started this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. The thing is, they didn't link back to the original (see WP:MULTI) but created a fresh discussion as if there had been none previously. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure ShaneGero hadn't seen WP:MULTI nor would I have expected him to. :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that there have been similar discussions about including Saurischia or Dinosauria on e.g. Bald eagle's taxobox, and they obviously didn't get very far: e.g. Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_6#Attention_members_of_WP:BIRDS. Maybe this is more palatable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:@ErikHaugen:@Redrose64: Consolidating this discussion here until we get to some resolution - I think its an inconsistency issue across the articles rather than a scientific one. Cetartiodactyla is the phylogenetically correct ORDER. Its correct in some articles and not others (although not always in the taxobox, but in text of the article) and its even clear on the even-toed ungulate page. The issue is with public perception, and this is why I was trying to leave Cetacea and its two suborders visible with unranked status, and eventually I was also going to do so for Artiodactyla, until the phylogeny within Cetartiodactyla is clarified below Order. If you read that 2010 series of posts, it is a bold move, but its the correct one, I just do not have the know-how to edit the template code. My apologies, but I am new to Wikipedia. I can provide all the references to back it up if that is part of the problem. I think if we leave the old system visible and footnote it with links to the old order pages then we should be fine. Look at Sperm whale which I changed since it has a manual taxobox. It has the footnote for Cetartiodactyla and the unranked Cetacean and Odontoceti still link to the original articles. This way people can read the justification, and go to the articles about the old system if necessary (although they need to be updated too - working on it). Will someone revert it? Maybe, but then we can try to move forward from their. I am new, so I=is this not the correct approach? Should we ping in some of the users from that 2010 series of posts and from Talk:Cetartiodactyla? ShaneGero (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Trinomial reference

Hello, does anyone know where I could confirm the Trinomial reference to go in the taxabox for an extinct sub-species of Canis lupus, please? William Harris • talk • 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for just the name and author or the original reference? If it's not listed under ITIS Canis lupus, you might have luck with a Google Scholar search. This paper may provide assistance. What trinomial are your looking for? --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, thanks for your speedy reply. I have created a short article on Canis lupus variabilis named by Pei in 1934. I had assumed that this name gets recorded in some august volume somewhere in the world and that this makes it official. (NB: I am not a biologist, have no idea!). Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that an available name, recognised by the ICZN? I ask because Canis variabilis was named by Wied-Neuwied in 1841, and is now synonymised with a subspecies of grey wolf. So, if Wied-Neuwied's animal is now a subspecies, wouldn't that be the "real" C. l. variabilis? Either Pei's referring to the same animal, in which case the reference is "Weid-Neuweid 1841", or he's tried to name a new one, in which case (it seems to me) his name isn't valid? Not having the original source, I'm wondering whether Pei actually said he was the first to formally describe this animal? Anaxial (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just dug up a further reference (Wang & Tedford 2008), and it does seem that "Pei 1934" is the correct author. Whether the name is available or not is another matter, especially since the animal's subspecific nature is apparently in doubt, but it does appear to be in wide use. Anaxial (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)