Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hey all. Please participate in the discussion in Infraspecific name (botany)#Cultivar, etc. regarding how to proceed with the proposed creation of a page on the term "Infraspecific".-- OBSIDIANSOUL

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive


I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yellow baboon?

Hi, Can anybody id this? [1] [2]. Is it a yellow baboon or an olive baboon? --Muhammad(talk) 00:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Solenidae and Pharidae (Razor shells)

I propose making changes to the genera included in these two families. I think the taxonomy must have been revised since the Wikipedia article on Solenidae was written. Wikispecies, WoRMS and ITIS all include the genus Ensis in Pharidae. I would like to adjust our coverage of the superfamily Solenoidea to reflect this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now made these changes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Outline of animal species and subspecies

Would some other editors take a look at Outline of animal species and subspecies and see if you think it makes any sense as conceived. I have concerns about it, as does one editor who posted on the talk page; however my prod was removed with no comment, and the editor writing the page has not responded to the talk page query either. LadyofShalott 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The possible scope is insane, to say the least.-- Obsidin Soul 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Totally undoable as a single article. The thing to do would be to make a "Lists of species" page, like we have Lists of people and list smaller lists by taxon there. Danger (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Woah. Definitely not worth creating... Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
CRIKEY !!!! Good luck with that one :P ZooPro 02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Danger, you mean like Lists_of_animals? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
By golly, that's exactly what I mean, at least that last part after the attempt at listing out chordate species. Sometimes I'm so brilliant it's painful. I'm going to crawl off into a private place and try to recover from this shame. --Danger (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Its ok Danger look at this were right :P ZooPro 08:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent renaming of animal articles

Recently Tara (genus) was renamed to Tara (spider). (see history for additional examples). This would rename appears contrary to WP:FNAME. Before reverted these moves, I want to check here for an expert opinion. Boghog (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:FNAME says anything about that. I prefer "spider" over "genus"; it's more important that Tara is a spider than that it has been arbitrarily ranked as a genus. Ucucha (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
While WP:FNAME does not specifically mention naming conventions for genus articles, it does list Morelia (genus) as an example. I don't have any strong opinion on this one way or the other, but I thought this should be brought up for discussion, especially when it involves the renaming of a large number of pages. Boghog (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


In the huWiki are the extinct aniamls by country, there is no dinosaurs, no prehistoric mammals, recent extinct species (dodo, moa, tasmanian tiger, Costa Rican toad...). Do you think a good idea? Proki User talk 2011. 09. 08. 18:38 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC).


On the article Ethology, there is a video of a "blue jay cracking nuts". Although I can see that said video would demonstrate animal behaviour, I do not think it is particularly useful to the reader, especially since the article does not discuss the nut-cracking habits of blue jays. As well, its placement in the lead section does not really help the reader either. Does anyone else think the video should be removed? Brambleclawx 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:TOL#The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?

Please see the above link. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Stale: The linked-to discussion was archived.

Carl Linnaeus – almost GA

The article on Carl Linnaeus is very close to being recognised as a Good Article. Unfortunately, the person who nominated it appears to be absent. The only outstanding issue is that the short section on "Linnean taxonomy" needs to be referenced. This is basically a summary of Linnean taxonomy, but that, too, is unreferenced. If anyone here can help with referencing that section – or even re-writing it – it would be much appreciated, and would be a huge step towards getting this very important article raised to GA level. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions of specimens

Today’s featured picture, from the article "Dwarf yellow-headed gecko", lacks information about the dimensions of the specimen pictured. A measuring line in the picture would be helpful. (This talk page is on my watch list, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo was taken in the wild, and the specimen was said to be roughly 7 cm long. I don't see how it would be possible given the angle the lizard is at and that it wasn't actually measured, to get a very meaningful line in the photo. You probably ought to ask the photographer. —innotata 14:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


According to WoRMS and ITIS, the name "Urochordata" is invalid and is now considered to be a synonym of "Tunicata". Unless others object, I propose changing Urochordata to Tunicata in taxoboxes and elsewhere wherever I find it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure that if you're doing find/replace that you don't change instances where the term is used in a historical context. But otherwise, godspeed. The work of the taxonomist is never done. :) Danger High voltage! 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Do WoRMS and ITIS accurately reflect scientific consensus on higher-order taxonomy? Google Scholar suggests "Urochordata" is still often used, even in recent papers, though it's hard to compare frequencies because "Tunicata" is also used as a specific name. Ucucha (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems so, though I guess it takes a while for this sort of thing to filter through. This listserv post details the argument, as does, apparently, this paper (I don't have access and am unable to verify what the snippet view indicates). Danger High voltage! 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I note what Danger says about the historical context. The listserve post clearly outlines the reasons why Tunicata is valid rather than Urochordata, and I will use this information if I find pages which require taxonomic clarification. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Need help on fossils

I have mass-reverted edits of (talk · contribs) because all were unexplained and some went against cited sources, removing the sources. The edits are on fossil ranges. Could someone please check. Revert me at will if .. Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Animal mating footage debate

FYI: This is a pointer to a relevant discussion on another talk page.

The alleged issue of whether is can be encyclopedic to include a video (or even a still image) of animal mating behavior has been raised at Talk:Cat#Mating behavior video vs. still photo. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish-speaking Editors: Please expand zoologist biography stub using a Polish source

Adolph Eduard Grube was a zoologist who spent most of his career in Wrocław. The only English source cited is very brief, but there's a pretty good Polish-language source cited on the French Wikipedia page: Słownik biograficzny przyrodników śląskich: Grube Adolph Eduard (1812–1880). I can pretty much guess what it says using Google Translate and my linguistics background, but I'd rather leave it to someone who speaks the language to do it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IUCN status - species and subspecies

Felis silvestris is listed as "least concern" on IUCN. Is it OK to say that Felis silvestris ornata is listed as "least concern" on IUCN? Bulwersator (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not. Some subspecies, including F. silvestris beati but no other silvestris subspecies, are assessed, but ornata is not. —innotata 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and a Least Concern species might have an Endangered or even Extinct subspecies. Unassessed means unassessed. Ucucha (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The IUCN assessment info about this species includes all the subspecies, the more so as they are all listed in the section "Geographic range":

Five subspecies (following Driscoll et al. 2007 and Macdonald et al. in press) are distributed as follows: .. The African Wildcat F. s. lybica occurs ... Asiatic Wildcat F. s. ornata occurs from ... Chinese Alpine Steppe Cat F. s. bieti was ... European Wildcat F. s. silvestris was ...

If IUCN assessors categorize a particular subspecies differently than the respective species, then there is a separate red list article. Just two examples:

This is how the IUCN Red List works : the assessment of the threat status of a species is valid for all the subspecies unless there is sufficient information for assessing a particular subspecies differently. But for most subspecies of feline and canid species the currently available info is too little for such infraspecific taxa assessments. Under this link you find more info and more links to relevant documents describing the assessment process. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulwersator (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This does not contradict what I wrote above. If there is an IUCN article for a particular subspecies, then because the available info for this subspecies is sufficient for a separate entry. But if the info is not sufficient -- as is the case for the wildcat subspecies --, then the IUCN assessment for the respective species is valid for all subspecies. In case you still doubt, I suggest to read some IUCN technical documents.
Will not be able to involve in this clarification any longer as I'm leaving for a field survey targeted at cats today. --BhagyaMani (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • "I suggest to read some IUCN technical documents" can you point me to documents describing that "assessment for the respective species is valid for all subspecies"? IMHO it is quite strange that extinct Daito Varied Tit is according to your logic recognised as least concern Bulwersator (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the Daito Varied Tit being declared extinct by the IUCN? If not then you cant claim it as having any IUCN status instead you can use the tag PE or PEW (Probably extinct or Probably extinct in wild). The IUCN assessment is only valid for species that have actually been assessed, if they are not assessed then you cant class them under the IUCN red list, you would place them as having No Evaluation. After reading your questions I am having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what you are trying to ask so I will answer your first question in a hope to explain.
You asked about Felis silvestris being assessed as least concern and if the same applied for Felis silvestris ornata the answer is no the latter would have a Not Evaluated (NE) tag as it has not been individually assessed like Felis silvestris bieti has been (hence its vunerable status). I hope this helps and if you would please change your edits on Asiatic Wildcat to NE instead of LC per the guidelines of Wikipedia:Conservation status. ZooPro 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Its inactive because its purpose hasnt changed... you seem to be fighting on this issue very hard for some reason when there is no fight to be had, it has now been 4 editors that have given you correct advice....what is it you really want??? ZooPro 11:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
While it seems trivial I will link to the exact same information on another page that is considered "Current Guideline" Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage#Conservation status ZooPro 11:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Zakerana is a new article that needs a look and cleanup. I tagged and did some minor cleanup. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a frog expert but looks umm dodgy to me .... Anyone got thoughts in the legitimacy of the article? No references... Possible speedy as a hoax.... ZooPro 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The genus is named in this paper, though in rather poor English. It's not a hoax. Ucucha (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thanks ucucha. ZooPro 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot task for species articles

There is a discussion about having a bot adding {{EOL}} to species articles at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#Adding template to species articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Animal assisted therapy

Anyone watching this page should be aware of some significant editing and discussion at Talk:Animal-assisted therapy. Essentially, there are about three POV-pushers there claiming that AAT is useless pseudoscience, (they also claim Acupuncture is pseudoscience) and on the other side, to be fair, the article itself is pretty weak, had some too-flowry POV in favor and it DOES need much improvement and citation to peer-reviewed works. But substituting one POV for another is not the solution I favor a fair and balanced treatment of AAT but don't have the time or energy to take this on, so am alerting those who might be interested to pop over and comment. Montanabw(talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of animal sounds into List of animal names

Hi folks. There's been a proposal to merge List of animal sounds into List of animal names, but it's been open nearly a year and hasn't had any comments until I made one just now. The discussion is here. Please could we get some more opinions? Or better yet, an offer to attack List of animal sounds with a serious scrubbing brush and a lot of references? Thanks :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Both have issues. Not sure it's mergeable at present, the animal names has two charts with some overlap and a need for serious cleanup, the sounds list has more animals than the names list... The idea of cleaning them both up is a good one, but where oh where to begin? Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Tell me about it. If the consensus goes against the merge (as I think it will) I might nominate the sounds list for deletion. It would be a shame (it's fun and potentially even useful) but in the five years or so since its last AfD, it still hasn't got anyone interested in improving it. Unless anyone here is willing to take it on? The names list is going to be one of my long-long-long-term projects.... ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It was closed without a merge. I've started discussion on what to do with the sounds list here. ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere I think there was a discussion of deletion in the past, and consensus was "keep." Even now, I suspect a RFD would fail. I do think that somewhere, somehow, there should be a chart of list of what we call animal noises. I think the existing list basically needs sourcing. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Please see Template talk:Taxonomy/Teleostomi#Skipping Eugnathostomata where we are discussing how to handle the display of Eugnathostomata in the automatic taxobox. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't told User:KimvdLinde, she's a good one to weigh in. Claims to be retired, but email always raises her ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting more watchers

I looked through the revision histories for Flora and Fauna, and found some instances of content deletion during vandalism reverts. The pages are a constant target of vandalism and test edits by IPs throughout the years, and I requested for semi-protection, but it was declined due to low activity. It looks like these articles just don't have enough users watching them, so if some users added the pages to their watchlist, then the content-replacement vandalism can be easily reverted once it happens instead of being completely removed by other IPs. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd restore to the last best stable version and again request permanent semi-protection, you just have to get the right reviewer. Make your reason "long-term anonymous IP kiddie vandalism target, low-level but ongoing problem." Or something like that. Works for me every time, I've gotten protection for about a half-dozen animal articles that way. Good luck! Montanabw(talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yea, but having more watchers is probably a better solution to temporary protection so that any acts of vandalism can be quickly reverted. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Triploidy, Quarploidy

What does anyone make of this statement in Biota_of_Tokyo_Imperial_Palace#Fish where it suggests that a) there are a lot of triploidy and quarploidy (no article yet) fish in a moat; b) they appear to be reproducing, which I thought was impossible for wrong quantity of genes; and c) that they appear to be reproducing identically, not just similarly, to their parents, and d) efforts have been made over a long period of time to exclude pollutants from the area?

c) and d) may be beyond the scope of a casual question here. It clearly puzzles the scientists studying it.Student7 (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My first impression is that someone doesn't know the proper spelling or use of triploidy or quadraploidy/tetraploidy, and therefore may not be reporting the information correctly.
Polyploidy apparently does occur in animals, and my understanding is that it won't stop sexual reproduction if there even numbers of chromosome sets that represent pairs. There are also non-sexual modes of reproduction that wouldn't be affected by polyploidy (see parthenogenesis) Chuck Entz (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That helped. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal aggression

I've been thinking that I should start work on this page, because it's been there for a while. I was wondering, however, if it should be called "Animal aggression" or if "Aggression in animals" would sound more professional. What do you think? Brambleberry of RiverClan ChatWatch 14:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There already is Dog aggression. Curious as to if there is a need for an overall article. Montanabw(talk) 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
On the main page, there is a "monthly to-do list", and animal aggression has been there for multiple months. Brambleberry of RiverClan ChatWatch 17:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Well the title is fine in the simplest form possible. (Which main page?) Still wonder who put it up and why; seems awfully broad, but if you want to do it, I have no real issues, more just wondering. Montanabw(talk) 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A special memorial collaboration request

Philip Chalmers, known to most Wikipedians as Philcha, recently passed away due to a brain tumor. He was a prolific editor, and had authored or collaborated on 42 Good Articles, mostly about animals. He continued editing Wikipedia (or trying to) up until he was no longer able to write coherent sentences. His last efforts were to improve the article Nematode.[3] Unfortunately, he was unable to complete the effort.[4][5] I would like to propose that we set the WikiProject Animals Collaboration to Nematode (it hasn't been changed in 4 years anyway) and encourage people to bring it up to GA status in memory of Philip's work. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Very appropriate. I'm in support! Montanabw(talk) 18:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new group on Human-animal interaction

I have proposed a new group to work on the broad topic of human-animal interaction. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Human-animal interaction. Any input would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Anthrozoology ??? ZooPro 11:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering where the obvious main article on the subject was, actually. Yeah, very much like anthrozoology. Thanks for the pointer. :) John Carter (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That will be a big group. good luck! Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

List of animal cartoon characters sorted by biological taxonomy

I am interested in seeing an article "List of animal cartoon characters sorted by biological taxonomy".
Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Growth rings: New study and a suggestion for a standalone article

BBC reports:

"Dinosaur cold-blood theory in doubt" (sic)

Prior studies of dinosaur bones uncovered what are known as "lines of arrested growth".
The creatures were presumed to be cold-blooded because modern cold-blooded animals show these same lines.
But scientists reporting in Nature have studied the bones of 41 modern mammal species from around the world, finding every one had these lines as well.

"Seasonal bone growth and physiology in endotherms shed light on dinosaur physiology"

If you search for "growth rings" on Wikipedia, it redirects to Dendrochronology - dating the age of trees by their rings.

The article Bone (IMHO surprisingly) appears not to mention growth rings in bone.

In short, Wikipedia appears not to really have anything on this topic.

Since bone rings are found in many different taxa, I suggest that we create an article addressing this topic.

-- (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(Other discussion at ) -- (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Pointer to a discussion about A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Parasite articles

It looks like many, if not most, articles on medically important parasites are packed mostly with information about whatever disease they cause and the organism itself is short-changed, while this content is largely duplicated in a separate article about the disease. (See Trichuris trichiura and trichuriasis for an example of an article pair like this.) Is there any consensus as to how much replication of material is appropriate? Danger! High voltage! 22:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of New Editors

Hello, my friend WhitleyTucker and I are currently enrolled in Behavioral Ecology at our university. In the next few months, we hope to learn about and contribute to the topic of mating systems in the WikiProject Animals community. Njoymusic2 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Be sure you define your meaning of "mating systems" so we can be assured you aren't talking about zoophilia! LOL! But seriously, what would be the sorts of articles you'd most like to work on? We can point you to some areas that need help ...Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
We are actually doing this as part of a class project, so you can be assured that we will be adding information related to the scientifically defined mating systems of animals. So far, we have mainly contributed to articles of animals that we have studied in class, but feel free to let us know of any areas that still need help and we'll try our best.Njoymusic2 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Harem model herds of the big North American mammals are interesting; bison, elk, etc... the bison article is really poor, the elk article has some material, but could use improvement. For that matter, a search on harem model redirects to Polygyny, which is focused on humans, the article harem (zoology) is really poor quality. Would work on the broad topic also possibly be a good idea? Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Wow! This article could use a serious copy-edit from somebody with calm nerves and a steady hand. How can something so straight-forward get so out-of-hand? ("Too many chefs..."). ~E (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, too many chefs... and if I remember correctly, attempts to co-opt the Frugivore/Folivore articles to favor a vegetarian viewpoints may have spilled over there, too, a couple years back. I don't have time to look, but if that's the case, then someone had an axe to grind. Please do what you can to clean it up and cite reliable sources. Also, don't be shy about creating an account. It's always nice to associate edits with a recognizable username. – Maky « talk » 06:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked the 1st paragraph a bit, but any further editing would result in wholesale extrication of excrement, and would likely be promptly reverted. ~E (talk)23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If you do it right, it should not be reverted. If you have the sources and the time, simply write what should be there and cite it. If there's a cited statement in the current article that merits mentioning, try to adapt it for your re-write or find a better source if the idea is obsolete. Making big edits doesn't have to be a negative thing. If it was, I wouldn't be here. Personally, I tend to take trash articles and obliterate them... but in doing so, I replace them with high-quality content. Again, if you have the time and resources, Wikipedia could use such an editor—especially for such broad and fundamental topics in biology. – Maky « talk » 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is intended as an attempt to "recruit an expert in Animal" (which I am not). Frankly, everything after the lead should be scrapped and started over. I added a sentence to the lead in the hopes of introducing concepts that could (should?) be discussed in the article (morphology, trophic adaptation, etc.). While willing to be bold and DIY I might eventually be able to fix some stuff; however, somebody who knows what they're doing would be preferred. ~E (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The last time I looked, some of your edits were unsourced, but as long as you weren't plagiarizing, I would say that your level of understanding is sufficient to perform at least a modest revamp of the article. You don't need a PhD to write these articles. If anything, you could tone down the technical talk, or at least try to explain it a little more plainly. All that's important in making the kinds of edits you're talking about is that you understand your sources and paraphrase them in a way that is understandable to a fairly general audience (unless you're like me and write about specialty topics). If you stick to secondary sources (which is a must, especially for general topics like this), I think you will be fine. Personally, I don't have time to fix that article, but if you do it and want help, I'll support you as best I can. – Maky « talk » 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Created new category (Desert fauna)

Since there is a "Desert flora" category under "Deserts", I created a "Desert fauna" category. However, I have no idea how to go about filling it – is there some sort of automated process that can help?

Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Is there an IUCN-bot which automatically updates status charts in Taxoboxes, or does that need to be periodically checked by editors? ~Thanks, ~Eric F (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends. There is a semi-automatic process, developed by Snowmanradio (talk · contribs) for updating the bird species. He spent weeks updating all species that share taxonomy with the IUCN list, using their most recent data (from July). I don't think anything similar exists for other groups. MeegsC (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Genera category names

For Category:Orania, a position has been advanced that genera categories should always take the undisambiguated form, but in the case of this category, Orania is a genus of plant and a genus of animal, so how does that work? -- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This also applies to Category:Phoebe, Phoebe is both a plant and animal genus. Also Calamus -- Category:Calamus, Gaussia -- Category:Gaussia, Arachnis -- Category:Arachnis, Eucharis -- Category:Eucharis, Hypolepis -- Category:Hypolepis
-- (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why category names shouldn't be disambiguated just like article names, especially when there are other categories with a legitimate claim to the same name. Ucucha (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pets by country

Some categories need creating. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category:Pets_by_country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi. As the header says, I need help. I'm wondering how "famous" (or how much recognition) an individual animal has to be to have its own article. I was personally wondering because I wasn't sure if creating an article for Kimba (A giraffe who lived at Silver Springs Nature Theme Park and once starred in an episode of That's My Baby) would be appropriate or not.

In addition, since List of captive orcas is an article, I was wondering if there should be lists like that for other animals that are rare in captivity as well (such as Albino American Alligators as an example). SchautMaster98 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is specific guidance. The general rule is WP:NOTABILITY: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd run it up the flagpole, if you source it, it should pass Notability. We have something like 3000 individual race horse articles, most of whom were never on TV. Montanabw(talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Infanticide in primates

When writing the article Infanticide in primates, would it be necessary to include human infanticide since they are, in a way, primates? We already have a pretty sufficient article about infanticide in humans as just Infanticide. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it should cover infanticide in all primates. If there is a more detailed article about infanticide in a particular species, just summarize that information. Ucucha (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
You could also title it Primate Infanticide (non-human) or, like Infanticide (zoology) call it Infanticide (nonhuman primate) or something. Montanabw(talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that I'm going to call it Infanticide in primates and have a short section about human infanticide with a hatnote pointing to Infanticide. Thanks for your opinions! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging of Moth articles into Genus

Hi there WP Animals,

I noticed the creation of a large series of articles to do with individual species of moths that had little to no content other than the name and the fact they are moths. Araeomolis albipicta, Araeomolis guianensis, Araeomolis haematoneura, Araeomolis irregularis, Araeomolis nigripuncta, Araeomolis persimilis, Araeomolis peruviana, Araeomolis propinqua, Araeomolis rhodographa, Araeomolis robusta, Araeomolis rubens and Araeomolis sanguinea are the articles in question. I propose merging them into Araeomolis.

I would also be in favour of doing the same for the moths of Genus: Arachnis (moth). The criteria for inclusion of WP:INSECTS is "As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later" which is why I am proposing these mergers. I wanted to open up the discussion to gain a consensus on the matter as animals, genus, species etc is not something I can claim to know much about. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times before. The consensus has always been that every species deserves an article. May I ask you to please dont go on a crusade to merge all these species pages? I have been working hard for 2-3 years to create species pages with the correct taxonomy. There is consensus that these articles have a right to exist (and there are literally 1000's of them). Having them as seperate stubs encourages other users to add content and do so under the correct scientific name (since I am adding synonyms as redirects). You just noticed some articles and decided it would be better to merge, without much experience working on Lepidoptera articles. After discussing it with people who have been working on them for years, you still insist on merging and even embarked on a course to change the existing consensus that species all deserve an article. And all of that after reading on the subject for a few hours. I would be very happy to have more editors working on Lepidoptera, so if you are interested in it, feel free to expand articles. All species articles can be expanded, since a species description was always published somewhere. If you want to be helpful: look up descriptions and add them to the articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ruigeroeland, just to let you know I've replied over at the merger discussion. I think if we keep further discussion there it'll be less fragmented. Cheers, Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me that even posting here is creating a WP:ASK situation. We aren't biting. Nice try. Montanabw(talk) 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain what a 'WP:ASK' situation is? WP:ASK either points to WP:QUESTIONS or WP:ANGSAX. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, link changed. I meant "to ask the 'other parent'" i.e., if you aren't winning the argument, go look for allies amongst those who aren't aware of the issues and might take your side due to not knowing the issues. Generally discouraged on WP. Maybe I meant to link to WP:FORUMSHOP.
I don't know, this (or WP:TOL) is a pretty good place to talk about this sort of thing, and I don't think this has really risen to the level of forumshopping (maybe I missed something)? With that said, I don't think anyone's going to have much luck deleting articles about species. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I said this because WP:Taxonomy is an area with a lot of "drahmahz" and arguments and edit wars, (I think a capitalization issue over there went to an RfC if not arbitration) and I think any fight that spills over from WP Taxonomy is guaranteed to generate more heat than light. Ditto merge fights over species. Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ensembl external links

Hey all. A new editor has recently made several edit requests (Tasmanian devil, sheep, cat, alpaca, giant panda), asking for Ensembl links to be added to the EL section of each article, but there seems to be some question whether such additions are appropriate.  — daranzt ] 21:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Question where? What issues are being raised? Looks like a legit scientific database of genome info. Not sure how useful it is to average readers, but half the stuff in our scientific infoboxes of every other kind isn't of any use to anyone but grad students... — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
By issues being raised I meant KuyaBriBri (who responded to the requests) being unsure whether such additions would be appropriate. I figured it may be of interest to this project.  — daranzt ] 19:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I just made a similar enquiry for Ensembl Genomes (EG, sister project of Ensembl) here. As I see that you went ahead and did this, I assume that it's OK for EG too? --Dan Bolser (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS and "Behavior" sections in breed articles

(Some posts have been refactored in from the same topic at WT:DOGS.)

Here's a great example of what's wrong with almost all "Behavior", "Behaviour", "Temperament", "Personality" or "Disposition" sections in articles on domestic animal breeds; this is the full text of that section from British Longhair (a cat breed, but this sort of problem applies regardless of species):

According to breeders, British Longhairs are quite calm and easy going. They are fun-loving and playful, particularly as kittens. These cats attach quickly to their owners, with great affection. British Longhairs are good for owners who have to work, because they will enjoy just laying around all day. They are not destructive, and do not need any other animals for company. However, some individuals do enjoy living with another British Longhair that is similar in personality.[1]

This is sourced to a single, tertiary, categorically unreliable blog that doesn't cite its sources. There is no evidence anywhere that this breed is unusually "calm and easy going"; it's an absurd overgeneralization. All cat breeds are "fun-loving and playful, particularly as kittens". All cat breeds "attach quickly to their owners, with great affection". All cat breeds "enjoy just laying around all day" (cats of all breeds spend more than 80% of their lives asleep). There is no breed that does not engage in scratching, territory marking and other behaviors that some would classify as "destructive". Like all of this blather, whether a particular animal desires the company of other animals is an individual trait, and a generalization about this across the entire breed is unsupportable. There is no evidence anywhere of a particular domestic breed of anything able to distinguish much less prefer members of the same breed; this would be quite a revelation if true – front-page news in major science journals – since it would be proof of near-human intelligence. Virtually every single section of this sort, in all sorts of domestic animal breed articles, has severe WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:NOR / WP:COMMONSENSE / WP:BOLLOCKS problems of this sort. Fancier magazines and websites are not reliable or independent sources for this sort of "information" either, almost invariably, because they uncritically parrot promotional materials of breeders, and their content is at least partially under the thumb of their advertisers. They also pander to the lowest-common denominator reader, which tends to be children and little old ladies who want story-book material about how special and precious their pets are. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that there are a handful of sources that tend to be a little more... indirect? with their temperaments. I am frankly of the opinion that if something can't be cited - sometimes to multiple sources, especially in the temperament sections - that it isn't worth including. For example, I pushed the Bedlington Terrier article through to GA, and its temperament section mentions that it is "good with kids", but also makes it clear that of the numerous sources cited in that section, only two recommended it as being good with children.
The problem seems to be that a lot of breeders are adding information like that to articles in order to help 'push' their breeds, and if you dig a little you can find lots of information that contradicts what they add.
I'll come back to this in the morning, I'm so tired my eyes are watering and I just want to read about sled dogs haha.--TKK bark ! 01:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No hurry; this is a site-wide problem, and not limited to dogs. I've opened the matter at WT:ANIMALS more broadly. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SMcCandlish on the temperament sections of articles. It's not just breeders, or even sources, though - it's much simpler; people who like a particular dog breed will tweak the article to emphasise how nice the dog is. Hence it appears that all dog breeds are loving, intelligent, good with kids, &c &c. Of course, if pushed to provide a source, somebody will find a magazine or a breeder's website which supports such claims, but that's just an extension of the more general problem. Next challenge: Out of our hundreds of thousands of articles on music, try to find one which says "Actually, this album's not very good". bobrayner (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
At least for films we have — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You make a good point about reliable sourcing, though you are also ranting a bit (smile). However, "ALL" is a bit too broad. Animals are not machines and do have personalities and temperament, sometimes breed-associated to some degree. (for behavior, personally, I distinguish between sentience, which many animal species have, and reason, which -at least arguably- they do not) Many breed registry sites CAN be reliable for certain things, such as a breed standard, conformation, etc. so long as the promotional material is reviewed critically. (Likewise, any commercial product's website, say Cheerios, will be reliable for things like what ingredients the company claims are in it) So on one hand, I agree that what I call the "pink ponies and unicorns" stuff has to be taken with a grain of salt, but on the other hand, things like temperament ARE breed traits in some cases and often relevant -- the person buying a Jack Russell Terrier ("The Jack Russell is an energetic breed") is going to get a very different animal than would someone buying a Golden Retriever (" Because of their ... gentle temperament..."). So, while I fully agree that statements like "puppies are playful;" or "our dog breed is loyal" are just filler and stuff true throughout most of the species, (I routinely chop crap in the horse articles like "this breed has a long mane and tail." for example) I also thing that saying something about temperament commonly associated with the breed does have legitimacy, the trick is to not source to blogs and such. Usually the registry's breed standard will say something about a desired temperament if there IS a behavior standard that is relevant. Hope this reply isn't TL:DR. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Not TL;DR. I think we need to be careful to distinguish some things, however. There's a difference between a breeder publishing a list of traits and an independent source doing so. Breeder-published sources are generally not going to be reliable for this sort of thing, while those of broader registry/fancier organizations are more likely to be, as are books and articles published by third parties and which cite their own sources. You or I may be personally certain that there's temperamentally a major difference between a JRT and retriever, but we still have to have genuinely reliable sources for this sort of thing. I'm not arguing that no behavioral information can ever be included, only that it is generally going to be more suspect by default (than facts that can be more readily observed like head shape, or whatever). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, after all, and many, many claims about animal breeds are quiet extraordinary. There are only two kinds of reliable sourcing for behavior claims about breeds: 1) a preponderance of the "usual suspect" sources being in consistent agreement on such a claim (it's unlikely that a breeder could make something up and then get virtually all organizations, publishers, etc., to parrot the claim), and 2) controlled studies published in reputable journals, entirely independent of breeder/fancier circles. Virtually everything else, from articles at to fancier magazine articles that do not cite sources, to breeders' own websites, are categorically unreliable on such topics. Thus "almost all" (not "all") behavior claims in WP breed articles are presently problematic, because almost none of them are sourced to more than one references, and most of those are bloggish, breeder-published, and/or tertiary. The fact that some behaviorial traits are in fact parts of breed profiles makes resolving this problem doubly important – we need to not only removed the "fantasy" material, but properly source, clarify and retain the actually reliable information. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I more or less agree with your fundamental premise, that a) the fluff and cruft (my "pink ponies and unicorns") needs to go, and b) private breeder, blog, or self-published sources are inherently quite dubious. But I also know how tricky WP:RS can be when dealing with agriculture and animal topics where a huge amount of "common knowledge" is transmitted via oral tradition and then to self-published web sites (an aside, I'm finding similar problems with Native American articles -- often the "WP:RS" qualified stuff is actually crap, and the tribe's own web site, however poorly designed and sourced, is actually correct - but how to explain this to someone from, say, the UK?) Sometimes breed encyclopedias, though tertiary, are the only "neutral" sources available. I think you did agree that we do need be careful to generalize about "breeder-published sources" as, for example, the Jockey Club would be highly reliable, particularly to verify that the Thoroughbred is a race horse and not a plow horse (with corresponding different temperaments). On the other hand, these guys are much less so. I agree with you that commercial farm websites are often very problematic and best avoided when possible. (However, this is tough for rare breeds). The trick is to focus on accuracy and comprehensiveness, in many cases, the sources develop over time and the article can be improved. I definitely see this with the more major breeds of animals, but in a case where there may be an endangered breed, there just isn't much out there. In those cases, I think the article can "teach the controversy" with a explanation of the source material. For example, "the only person who has ever studied this animal is Dr. X, who published a book in 1975 outlining his observations...but he said... though this claim has yet to be independently verifies." You see what I mean. Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Editorializing like that to "lead" the reader is probably going to be a WP:NOR problem (synthesis) and a WP:NPOV issue too, more often than not. The fact that sourcing is hard or there aren't many sources about something doesn't mean we can use poor sources; WP:V and WP:RS are pretty clear on this, I would think. But people do it anyway. And see WP:Verifiability not truth (an essay, but a very well-accepted one): sometimes articles simply have to wait on better sources, and it's better that they do so quietly than presenting material that is seriously questionable. I agree that there's a difference between between the Jockey Club and a couple of random people trying to promote an alleged new breed, but the real problem is the breed clubs and small-scale breed associations (e.g. 12 or 30 or 500 people all with a vested commercial and personal interest in exaggerating various claims about an animal breed). We should probably come up with some definitions or categorizations or distinctions or whatever. The Jockey Club, like The International Cat Association or the American Kennel Club, isn't what I mean by "breed clubs" or "breeder-published sources" being problematic. I'm thinking more about, say, the "International York Chocolate Association" which really seems to be about a dozen people, who have what Wikipedians would call a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about CCA vs. FFE standards for the breed. I'm thinking of things like [[Dog Fancy (magazine}|Dog Fancy]] magazine and their breed profiles which rarely cite sources and are often written by people who are breeders of that breed or close friends of developers of the breed, or which simply rehash any and all claims made by breeders about hard-to-prove behavioral traits, to pander to their audience and advertisers. Virtually any "pink ponies and unicorns" claims, like a particular breed being oh-so-great with kids or unusually intelligent or whatever, can be "sourced" (unreliably) to one or another of these sorts of publications.
I think we have two different issues here: One, where we agree, is uncritical "pink ponies and magic unicorns" fluff that has no place in an encyclopedia. That's gotta go, and usually the sourcing problems are going to get it tossed. This extends not only to the "temperament" sections, but to anything else. (If I run across one more article that says that an animal breed has a soft/warm/silky coat, I am going to scream and rip all my hair out! I swear!). But on the other hand, I disagree about your view of Dog Fancy or any other magazine, on any topic, for aficionados. It is people with expertise who must write for these, as they are the ones who know what they are doing. Sometimes they can't write particularly well, and obviously they have some bias, but seriously, who else will write anything, anywhere? (If you find it, do share) While these magazines are far from peer-reviewed literature, such third-party publications are going to meet at least the basics of WP:RS. So there, I think you may be taking a bit too broad of a brush. In some cases, the general-interest publications are the ONLY place you will find any material on certain uncommon or rare breeds. For example, to take horse breed stuff, a magazine such as The Horse or Equus tends to be highly reliable. On the other hand, Horse Illustrated is more like Dog Fancy, but if you want the basics on the Curly horse (speaking of a horse breed article that needs help! =:-O) , that and a few breed encyclopedias are all you have other than the breed registries (multiple) and breeder sites. (the horse doesn't seem to have much) In all Seriousness, if you can find better sources, please post them on that article's talk page! Montanabw(talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel there are certainly problems with many dog breed articles - I can only comment on dogs as I haven't strayed into cat/horse/pink ponies/magic unicorns etc. Part of the problem is how very easy it is nowadays for people to quickly set up websites and then claim to be 'bona fide' registries/breed clubs which are then used as refs/sources for the 'magic unicorn breed I made up yesterday - which by the way I'm the only person selling'. Inclusion on Wikipedia then gives credence to their claim. I tend to only use breed clubs if they are recognised by a major kennel club (i.e. AKC, the Kennel Club, FCI etc) and then only for breed history information. I remove links to Breeder websites, whether used as a ref or EL as they are not WP:RS and would be WP:SPS. It's surprising how many dog articles also have refs/links to blogspots, forums etc or use WP:SPS's like dogbreedinfo or doggonit; if we try to remove them or (heaven forbid) take articles to AfD, all hell breaks loose. As an example I would point you to my personal Bête noire but there are many others! It would be really helpful if a consensus could be reached and applied for all domestic animal articles? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I doubt a consensus can ever be reached on all companion animal breed articles, let alone all animal articles! LOL! But I agree with you that this is a common problem. We are slowly working on similar issues with horse breeds, complicated by the fact that the USEF doesn't register horses at all (except to record for keeping a competition record) and no longer plays the kind of allbreeds clearinghouse role it once did (cracking down on abuses or other turf battles led to several breeds taking their marbles and starting their own clubs over the last 30 years...). To some extent, WP:RS and WP:V helps a lot on these, with a bit of occasional IAR and AGF where you have an obscure breed that really is a breed, but not much written about it. Nonetheless, usually if there's a blog site, we can toss it in favor of a breed encyclopedia or some other more neutral source. Chat fora can be dumped with impunity, though they also can be a good starting place to find what few RS exist. I've given up on prod tagging anything. In horse land, the one I tried and failed to dump was Moyle horse, though I DID manage to prevail with Zangersheide. Wasn't happy to see Warlander get started either, but if you can't beat 'em, I guess you just clean 'em up the best you can. (Big sigh) Montanabw(talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Crinoid drawing.jpg

File:Crinoid drawing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Systems of animal taxonomy

Hello, I would like to know opinions about the creation of a List of systems of animal taxonomy, like the List of systems of plant taxonomy. I think this site would serve as a good initial reference. The main classifications (that don't deal just with insects) in this site are the following:

Zorahia (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Student edit

A student in my class created Jaechub. I am having trouble verifying it exists. Can I ask for a review of this article? You may want to copy any review to the creator (student) talk page, too, to show them how Wikipedia works (thanks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#Category:Animal cruelty

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#Category:Animal cruelty. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Zoo holdings, studbooks, and related information

I am reviewing hartebeest, which is currently at FAC, and noticed that it does not use the hartebeest studbooks as a source, nor does it give any details of zoo populations, breeding programmes, studbook information, and so on. I don't have access to the member areas of the International Species Information System or the zoo association sites (AZA, EAZA) so I can't be specific about the information available there. This seems like important information about an animal to me. I looked at some featured articles to see whether they used this sort of information: lion, jaguar, giant anteater, blue iguana, hippopotamus, and painted turtle; in a couple of cases they had sections about the animals in zoos, but those sections were more about the kind of enclosure than about zoo populations and breeding programmes. The blue iguana article mentions the studbook and gives some information from it about genetic diversity, but none of the others mentioned the studbook or used it as a source, as far as I could see. Shouldn't this information be expected in an article about an animal, at least at featured level? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of it is hard to find - alot of zoo journals I had great difficulty getting fulltext access to. I agree it is important for animals with notable breeding programmes that are hard to keep in zoos - so pandas, rhinos and king penguins spring to mind as definites - needs to be checked on a case by case basis..i.e. meerkats are pretty commonplace in zoos.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Cas that this is something for special cases. Almost everything is kept in zoos or as a pet somewhere, but that is not usually notable. I'd hate to see "The lesser woozlum is kept in zoos in Andover, Berlin... Zagreb, and as a pet by Donald Trump" unless either the aforementioned woozlum was an endangered species with a captive breeding programme or Trump was eaten by his pet. As far as my bird FAs are concerned, the only time I've mentioned zoos was for the highly endangered Northern Bald Ibis, where captive breeding is a key to its survival. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a list of zoos containing the animal is clearly uninteresting unless there are only two or three. But if there's a studbook, shouldn't the studbook holder be listed, and the breeding programme mentioned? If that studbook contains a description of the genetic diversity of the captive population (which it usually does, from the ones I've seen) shouldn't that be included? Cas, re your comment about difficulty getting access to journals, I think at FA level we need to at least know that what is not being consulted is not going to change the article. As far as membership and access is concerned, I'd be willing to contact ISIS and the zoo associations and ask if there's any way to get member access to be able to source information for Wikipedia articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point - not sure as it has been a while since I looked into this. Will have a look at hartebeest as a good place to start. We also have the Rhino FAs, all of which should have some discussion on this (I haven't checked yet) and see what resources are around and which need some accessing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Inter-kingdom homonyms

Seeking comments about how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Poodle article

A request for comment has been raised on the Poodle talk page; further detail can also be found on the Dog Project talk page. Please add your thoughts. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Just a heads-up in case anyone wants to review this submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not feed the animals

There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD: Safari cards

There is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safari cards on a series of animal trading cards with which some WikiProject Animals members may be familiar. Contributions are welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada

You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ranita Roja and Strawberry poison-dart frog

Dear zoologists: The first article above was declined at Afc because the subject already exists in the encyclopedia, and Ranita Roja redirects to and Strawberry poison-dart frog. However, that article does not appear to mention Ranita Roja. Is this another name for the same animal, and if so, should the article reflect that fact? If not, is the draft article useful? It will soon be deleted as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Ranita roja" seems to be just a common name in another language and we don't make a habit of noting this on species articles. As for the proposed article, it looks like a direct translation of the cited website and so is probably a copyvio. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have nominated it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this a hoax?

I've found a hoax admission on reddit here. I'm merely a WikiGnome, and don't edit content, but perhaps someone should investigate to see if this is true or not? --I dream of horses (T) @ 22:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be this:
and hence, a known hoax. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at this and you seem to be confused. It looks like the original post was about Olimar, but the comment being quoted here refers to a featured article about an animal:
A buddy of mine added a fictional name (he used the name of a friend of ours) for an animal to wikipedia over 8 years ago. It is now a featured article and will most likely never be changed. Still hillarious since a zoo actually used the name on its website.
It says "a zoo actually used the name" so it's obviously talking about an article about a type of animal, not about a specific animal. Additionally, Olimar was already deleted when this comment was posted based on the date (and was not created "over 8 years ago"). I'm not sure how many featured articles about animals there are, but maybe someone has an idea about how to find this one. Dcoetzee 09:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I really doubt this is out there. But you could go to the source and ask them to identify the article. It could be a small vandal edit that was missed somewhere. We only have, what, tens of thousands of articles on animals, certainly several hundred featured. I sure as heck don't have the time to go through them all. Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Solitary Animals is up for deletion.

It looks like Category:Solitary Animals is being discussed for deletion and this WikiProject was mentioned in the discussion. I don't know if anyone finds value in categorizing by trait, but it's there if you're interested either way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jumping out of water

Dear zoology experts: Above is an old draft that was never submitted at Afc. It will soon be deleted. Is this a notable topic that should be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hit the "move" button and move it into your own userspace, make the new title User:Myname/'Articletitle. Then it will stay there for as long as you need to work on it. I can do it for you if you need help. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, this isn't Anne Delong's article draft. I think she's just asking whether it's something worth saving. The editor that created it hasn't worked on it since April 2013, and hasn't edited anything (except for one userspace edit) since May 2013. MeegsC (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, either way, it would be a good idea for someone to see if there is a similar article about the concept, it's interesting, and probably should be incorporated somewhere. Jus IMHO, and I'm not the one with the time to do it...  :-P (eep!) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this is a much more developed version. Maybe somebody can do something with that one! MeegsC (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Good catch! I have requested a history merge, since the more developed article was a copy-paste of the other. If this is made into an article, perhaps a more suitable title would be "Aquatic animals which jump out of the water" or ""Jumping aquatic animals", or something similar. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal suicide

There is a slightly stale discussion of the writing of Animal suicide; I would like your thoughts on the talk page to dust off the discussion. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be on the right track to tone down the OR and remove the anthropomorphism. I'd say ping us if it gets too crazy over thee, otherwise, proceed until apprehended! Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Montanabw I do ZooPro 05:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bos grunniens and Bos mutus

Since no one seems to have noticed my query at Talk:Yak#ICZN Ruling, could I interest any of you familiar with the intricacies of zoological nomenclature in taking a look? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Animals - Skysmith (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfc Wolf attacks on humans

Maybe I'm all wet, but here's my take:

There are at least a couple of excellent sources used by the article that detail a non-trivial number of wolf attacks, which, in my view the article could be built around.

My objection is to may other sources cited: primarily use of sketchy historical accounts, in many cases centuries old, & accepting them as confirmed facts. Secondarily, there are also a number of doubtful, highly politicized sources from both the pro and anti-wolf movements.

I raised questions on this article's talk page. Getting no response after several days, I removed some of the material I felt was poorly sourced. Two editors reverted this. A third editor responded on talk page & said, among other things, that scientists routinely suppress information about wolf attacks, and "if the public only knew" & etc. (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Start a RfC and you'll get all the attention you could ever want. That said, it may be more than you ever wanted. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Veterinary Science editathon in London, UK

I hope this is of interest to at least some people here: Wikimedia UK and Jisc are running an editathon at the Royal Veterinary College on November 20th. We will focus on common diseases that vets see in everyday practice, but contributions with any relevance to veterinary science are welcome. This is a free event, and in-person and online participation is encouraged. See the event page for more details. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (link changed MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Discussion regarding WikiSpecies

There is a discussion currently taking place at WikiProject:Plants (here) regarding the status of WikiSpecies. All comments are welcomed and requested.--Kevmin § 04:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevmin has a long history of "sour grapes" with Wikispecies. He is once again trying to cause trouble and disharmony between the two Wikimedia projects. RealityCzecher (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevmin has been a longtime respected editor. While we have not always agreed on everything, he is an editor with good faith and a sincere interest in improving the encyclopedia. Please go canvass elsewhere, RealityCzecher. Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

electron microscope images

Hi All

I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum in London. I've been offered a small amount of time for someone to take electron microscope images of entomology specimens in the collection. What would be the most wanted images? Given the size of our collection we will probably have a specimen of most species you' d like. If you reply on my talk page in the few days that would be really good. Feel free to request images that have already been suggested, it will help me get an idea of the most wanted ones.


--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for input on Taxonomy & Nomenclature template

Hi all! I've been working on a template (User:Animalparty/Taxonomy and nomenclature) to help integrate topics and terminology concerning the naming and describing of taxa (e.g. holotype, lectotype, synonym, trinomen, International Nomenclature codes, etc.). I envision this template judiciously placed in the articles or sections dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature in depth. It's still in a rough stage and I'm looking for input on how to best sort the topics, and there are probably others that are currently missing. This doesn't necessarily have to cover every relevant article, but hopefully it will help curious readers get a better handle on these often obscure terms. You can post specific comments on the template talk page. I'll put a notice to the WP Plant people as well. Thanks! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived a few threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polka-Dot Batfish

Hello animal experts! Is this a notable animal? Should the old abandoned Afc submission be saved from deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's real: 6000+ hits in Google and Ogcocephalus radiatus (its species) Is a redlink. I think someone (not me, I just saved Canine cognitive dysfunction, this is someone else's turn...) should just add a few more sources, toss the redlinked image refs and move it into mainspace. It's not terrific, but it's adequate. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I have postponed its deletion until someone has time to work on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments: Template:Animal_sexual_behavior

I've recently made some expansions on the Template:Animal_sexual_behavior, which increase its utility but also its size, which may preclude its placement in relevant articles, especially those with many images. I believe it can be streamlined to be more versatile. Please see comments at the template talk page and feel free to weigh in. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cranial nerve

I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Would do especially well with some help about other animals. CFCF (talk ·contribs · email) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)