![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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".-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL
Hi,
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)
Hi, Can anybody id this? [1] [2]. Is it a yellow baboon or an olive baboon? -- Muhammad (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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? Bramble claw x 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the above link. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a
discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species. Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
I have mass-reverted edits of 93.72.168.221 ( 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)
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)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
The IUCN assessment info about this species includes all the subspecies, the more so as they are all listed in the section "Geographic range":
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 http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Chat ♠ Watch 14:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am interested in seeing an article "
List of animal cartoon characters sorted by biological taxonomy".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
19:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
BBC reports:
"Dinosaur cold-blood theory in doubt" (sic)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18602965
"Seasonal bone growth and physiology in endotherms shed light on dinosaur physiology"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11264.html
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.
-- 186.221.136.197 ( talk) 14:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
(Other discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Growth_rings:_New_study_and_a_suggestion_for_a_standalone_article ) -- 186.221.136.197 ( 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)
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)
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)
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 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 05:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
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?
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 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
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? -- 70.24.248.246 ( talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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. — daranz [ t ] 21:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:48, 5 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 has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just a heads-up in case anyone wants to review this submission. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- 202.124.89.1 ( talk) 04:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 ( talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
I have updated Missing topics about Animals - Skysmith ( talk) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
76.250.61.95 ( 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)
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))
There is a discussion currently taking place at WikiProject:Plants ( here) regarding the status of WikiSpecies. All comments are welcomed and requested.-- Kev min § 04:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Thanks
-- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Washington University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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".-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL
Hi,
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)
Hi, Can anybody id this? [1] [2]. Is it a yellow baboon or an olive baboon? -- Muhammad (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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? Bramble claw x 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the above link. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a
discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species. Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
I have mass-reverted edits of 93.72.168.221 ( 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)
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)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
The IUCN assessment info about this species includes all the subspecies, the more so as they are all listed in the section "Geographic range":
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 http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Chat ♠ Watch 14:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am interested in seeing an article "
List of animal cartoon characters sorted by biological taxonomy".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
19:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
BBC reports:
"Dinosaur cold-blood theory in doubt" (sic)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18602965
"Seasonal bone growth and physiology in endotherms shed light on dinosaur physiology"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11264.html
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.
-- 186.221.136.197 ( talk) 14:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
(Other discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Growth_rings:_New_study_and_a_suggestion_for_a_standalone_article ) -- 186.221.136.197 ( 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)
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)
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)
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 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 05:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
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?
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 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
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? -- 70.24.248.246 ( talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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. — daranz [ t ] 21:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:48, 5 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 has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just a heads-up in case anyone wants to review this submission. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- 202.124.89.1 ( talk) 04:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 ( talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
I have updated Missing topics about Animals - Skysmith ( talk) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
76.250.61.95 ( 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)
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))
There is a discussion currently taking place at WikiProject:Plants ( here) regarding the status of WikiSpecies. All comments are welcomed and requested.-- Kev min § 04:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Thanks
-- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Washington University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)