![]() | 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. |
Regular thumbnail versions of possible images
|
---|
19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Jim1138 ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks, Hafspajen! Great ideas! Now to select... one thing I would consider of #1 importance is simply that the image looks good at the very small size used by the portal template. For example, in the above images, I think the mouse or the bright red parrot would look good. Perhaps we could narrow down the above list to perhaps 10 images, then shrink those to the size they will be seen, from there discuss? Montanabw (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{:::[/Very nosily butts in] As it looks like there are quite a few nice images to use on the Animals Portal, why not consider auto rotating them - a bit like Matty did with my archive box images? I think he does it on the Channel Islands Portal he set up as well? [closes door quietly behind me on the way back out]. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Animals Project‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Dear animal experts: This is a new submission at Afc. Is this a notable subject, and are the references reliable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
There are currently three articles and a list regarding cave-dwelling animals: Subterranean fauna, Troglofauna, Stygofauna and List of troglobites (to which Troglobite currently redirects). I'm not sure the concepts are necessarily distinct enough to warrant this separation: please see the discussion on Talk:Troglofauna. Cheers, --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
While I find the File:Sow with piglet.jpg quite cute, it seems that others do not. image edit history. I detest this type of action and don't like giving the impression of submission. But then, why go out of one's way to annoy and antagonize? Would it be possible to replace the image with another? Perhaps not so mammal-centric? Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Technical advice moved here from my talk:
::Looks like it lives at Module:Portal/images/a. You'll need an admin or template editor to change it, but once y'all decide on a good replacement image, just have them change the line
["animals"] = "Sow with piglet.jpg",
to whatever the name of the image is (minus the "File:", obviously). It's line 97 in the code. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to quickly select a temporary animal mascot to resolve the original issue? Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Easier to park thumbs here, look for images that look good at small size! Noms so far have been moved in. Add your favs here! Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Portal#Image_edit_request_13_March_2014_-_portal:animals. Per @ Hafspajen: above, image change request is File:CygneVaires.jpg. An alternative is File:Caribou_from_Wagon_Trails.jpg. This request is to speedily resolve the unclean animal issue. This can be readily changed again, presumably once consensus is reached. Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The template is under discussion at TfD, expert biological input is welcome. A similar issue is present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Many thanks! -- cyclopia speak! 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
13:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a dispute over whether recent new additions at copper shark should be retained. I would appreciate input from other editors on this issue. Thanks. -- Yzx ( talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD ( talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:27, 16 April 2014
Dear animal experts: Would it be appropriate to add some information from the above old Afc submission to the existing article Pinky (dolphin), and, if so, is there someone at this project that would be able to do it? The submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft if no one takes an interest in it. I know nothing of biology myself, so I can't do it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone add a taxbox to Cladorhiza concrescens and Cladorhiza caillieti? Many thanks. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear animal experts: This Afc submission was about to be deleted as a stale draft. There is already an article Little pied bat, and Chalinolobus picatus is a redirect to it. The Afc submission is much more extensive. The content can be moved to the mainspace article, and the attribution can be saved in the redirecct. Alternatively, the draft can be moved to Chalinolobus picatus, replacing the current contentless redirect, and the current tiny article can become the redirect. Which of these should be done, or is something different more appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Mama meta modal ( talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
The important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
The person messing with the "Sow with piglet" image was not offended by the image as such, but with this opprobrious piece of vandalism. They simply did not know how to revert it when they saw it in the article Six Kalimas, but they had a good attempt.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
There is an IP user (129.62.69.239 and 129.62.228.222) who keeps changing the name of the subphylum of Tunicate in the taxobox from Tunicata to Urochordata (but not the rest of the text, which now disagrees with the taxobox). Tunicata is the accepted name according to WoRMS with Urochordata being a junior synonym, and WoRMS is the source used in the taxobox. Any views as to which name should be used? I don't want to get into an edit conflict with the IP. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
On 12th May I expanded the Northern birch mouse article from a brief stub to a prose size of 2775 B (492 words). On 17th May, an IP has further expanded it to 6570 B (1053 words). Nothing wrong with that, I don't own the article. The new material has been added in one big addition and does not integrate well with what was there previously. I would be glad if someone else could have a look at it, especially the new referencing. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I intend to make the 16th century section of the Timeline of Extinctions so full to the point where it needs to break away and become its own article:
List_of_species_that_possibly_went_extinct_in_the_16th_century
I will then put a link to the new article within the 16th century section of the current article. Would anyone like to contribute to this? Let me know here! Cheers. Kirby ( talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again! Late replying here. To answer your question Animalparty, is it more along the lines of "when they went extinct". One of the species that I am planning on including in my article is of course the Megatherium, which is rumored to have gone extinct in the early-mid 16th century. :)
And yes, I do have sources for this article of course and I will be sure to add/cite them. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 12:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this question which I am sure has been successfully addressed hundreds of times before. There is a higher level article elephant. There are only two subordinate articles Asian elephant and African elephant. How much material should be duplicated? I think the answer is "as little as possible." So the African elephant article contains the specific amount that species eats. Then goes on about the table manner of elephants generally, which IMO seems inappropriate in that article. I think it should go into the higher level article.
African elephant correctly does not mention that the animal is a herbivore. This is addressed in the higher level article. I've commented in the elephant article that someone should "address" the organizational concerns. Not entirely sure what those are, but I assume "avoid duplication" is one goal. Right? Student7 ( talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems to have become part of a much larger discussion. May be of interest to project members here: Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested moves. Montanabw (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Sauropsida be at Sauropsid, for the sake of consistency with Synapsid, Anapsid and Diapsid, and Theropoda at Theropod, for consistency with Tetrapod etc.? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia can have "
List of organisms with possessives of personal names" or "
Category:Organisms with possessives of personal names" or (preferably) both. How many names of organisms contain possessives of personal names? (See also "
List of organisms named after famous people".)
—
Wavelength (
talk)
18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
When referring to an animal species by its common name and the common name starts with the possessive form of a person's name, should it say: "The Smith's longspur is ..." or "Smith's longspur is ...". I've seen it both ways and I'm not sure which is correct. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
( ←) Thanks for pinging the GOCE (experts, no; dedicated volunteers, yes :-)). As a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor (no professional copyediting experience, and more familiar with our Manual of Style than other style guides), I agree with the consensus that adding "the" clunks up the prose. All the best, Mini apolis 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary: My summary of the above is that there is no consensus to include or not include the definite article (the) in the names of species starting with a possessive name like Przewalski's horse, therefore either are acceptable in Wikipedia. Good enough? SchreiberBike talk 21:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Principle of the First Reviser into International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of the First Reviser. Discuss at Talk:International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature#Proposed_merge_with_Principle_of_the_First_Reviser Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear zoology experts: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this the right WikiProject to report, and is the draft acceptable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The ICZN ch.11 suggests listing the authors who place a species in a new genus following the original authority (the original authority placed in parentheses, of course). Apparently, some Wikipedia articles simply list the recombining authors, without parentheses (confusingly suggesting that they might have redescribed the species under the same name), as at great auk, until I just changed it [2]. (Side note: Mammals have their own format, making use of colons, that we have in many articles, but nobody apart from mammalogists uses it in modern literature.)
This came up (not the first time) at the Mariana mallard article ( talk). FunkMonk asked me to move this discussion somewhere more public. His argument is that listing recombination author without the original author is fine, since the original author is specified somewhere in the taxobox. He also says that because this is done widely, so it's not worthwhile to change this. First, I doubt this is a widespread issue; most lists of zoological synonyms on Wikipedia don't list authorities, or only give the original authors. As for whether we should allow this, I think regardless of widespread it is we need to fix it, because of the potential for confusion and because it isn't according to the ICZN. I would also note that the ICZN doesn't have anything to say about people who reclassify a taxon as a subspecies as at the Mariana mallard article, but clearly listing only the reclassifying author is confusing, and not in accordance with the ICZN, and whatever citation of authorities we use at that article we should give the original authority.
Thoughts on what should be done? — innotata 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the usage of several article names is up for discussion, see Talk:Anglo-Nubian -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 05:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Animal anatomy and many of the subcategories are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear zoology experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, animal experts! This draft article has been up for review at AfC for some time. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at WikiProject Animal Anatomy about how to organise and structure articles related to sexual reproduction in animals. That discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. In order to keep the discussion centralised, please reply there (yes, in retrospect I should have posted here). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
On this task list page there is a request for an article on the Gobi Desert toad. I thought I would create such an article but I could not find a scientific name for it. So, does this toad exist? While searching for it on Google I found "Images for Gobi Desert toad" included many images of a lizard, the toad-headed agama Phrynocephalus versicolor, so I created an article for that instead. If the Gobi Desert toad does not exist, perhaps mention of it should be removed from the task list page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (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. |
Regular thumbnail versions of possible images
|
---|
19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Jim1138 ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Thanks, Hafspajen! Great ideas! Now to select... one thing I would consider of #1 importance is simply that the image looks good at the very small size used by the portal template. For example, in the above images, I think the mouse or the bright red parrot would look good. Perhaps we could narrow down the above list to perhaps 10 images, then shrink those to the size they will be seen, from there discuss? Montanabw (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{:::[/Very nosily butts in] As it looks like there are quite a few nice images to use on the Animals Portal, why not consider auto rotating them - a bit like Matty did with my archive box images? I think he does it on the Channel Islands Portal he set up as well? [closes door quietly behind me on the way back out]. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Animals Project‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Dear animal experts: This is a new submission at Afc. Is this a notable subject, and are the references reliable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
There are currently three articles and a list regarding cave-dwelling animals: Subterranean fauna, Troglofauna, Stygofauna and List of troglobites (to which Troglobite currently redirects). I'm not sure the concepts are necessarily distinct enough to warrant this separation: please see the discussion on Talk:Troglofauna. Cheers, --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
While I find the File:Sow with piglet.jpg quite cute, it seems that others do not. image edit history. I detest this type of action and don't like giving the impression of submission. But then, why go out of one's way to annoy and antagonize? Would it be possible to replace the image with another? Perhaps not so mammal-centric? Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Technical advice moved here from my talk:
::Looks like it lives at Module:Portal/images/a. You'll need an admin or template editor to change it, but once y'all decide on a good replacement image, just have them change the line
["animals"] = "Sow with piglet.jpg",
to whatever the name of the image is (minus the "File:", obviously). It's line 97 in the code. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to quickly select a temporary animal mascot to resolve the original issue? Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Easier to park thumbs here, look for images that look good at small size! Noms so far have been moved in. Add your favs here! Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See Template_talk:Portal#Image_edit_request_13_March_2014_-_portal:animals. Per @ Hafspajen: above, image change request is File:CygneVaires.jpg. An alternative is File:Caribou_from_Wagon_Trails.jpg. This request is to speedily resolve the unclean animal issue. This can be readily changed again, presumably once consensus is reached. Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The template is under discussion at TfD, expert biological input is welcome. A similar issue is present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Many thanks! -- cyclopia speak! 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
13:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a dispute over whether recent new additions at copper shark should be retained. I would appreciate input from other editors on this issue. Thanks. -- Yzx ( talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD ( talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:27, 16 April 2014
Dear animal experts: Would it be appropriate to add some information from the above old Afc submission to the existing article Pinky (dolphin), and, if so, is there someone at this project that would be able to do it? The submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft if no one takes an interest in it. I know nothing of biology myself, so I can't do it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone add a taxbox to Cladorhiza concrescens and Cladorhiza caillieti? Many thanks. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear animal experts: This Afc submission was about to be deleted as a stale draft. There is already an article Little pied bat, and Chalinolobus picatus is a redirect to it. The Afc submission is much more extensive. The content can be moved to the mainspace article, and the attribution can be saved in the redirecct. Alternatively, the draft can be moved to Chalinolobus picatus, replacing the current contentless redirect, and the current tiny article can become the redirect. Which of these should be done, or is something different more appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Mama meta modal ( talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.
Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal ( talk) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
The important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.
Mama meta modal ( talk) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
The person messing with the "Sow with piglet" image was not offended by the image as such, but with this opprobrious piece of vandalism. They simply did not know how to revert it when they saw it in the article Six Kalimas, but they had a good attempt.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
There is an IP user (129.62.69.239 and 129.62.228.222) who keeps changing the name of the subphylum of Tunicate in the taxobox from Tunicata to Urochordata (but not the rest of the text, which now disagrees with the taxobox). Tunicata is the accepted name according to WoRMS with Urochordata being a junior synonym, and WoRMS is the source used in the taxobox. Any views as to which name should be used? I don't want to get into an edit conflict with the IP. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
On 12th May I expanded the Northern birch mouse article from a brief stub to a prose size of 2775 B (492 words). On 17th May, an IP has further expanded it to 6570 B (1053 words). Nothing wrong with that, I don't own the article. The new material has been added in one big addition and does not integrate well with what was there previously. I would be glad if someone else could have a look at it, especially the new referencing. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I intend to make the 16th century section of the Timeline of Extinctions so full to the point where it needs to break away and become its own article:
List_of_species_that_possibly_went_extinct_in_the_16th_century
I will then put a link to the new article within the 16th century section of the current article. Would anyone like to contribute to this? Let me know here! Cheers. Kirby ( talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again! Late replying here. To answer your question Animalparty, is it more along the lines of "when they went extinct". One of the species that I am planning on including in my article is of course the Megatherium, which is rumored to have gone extinct in the early-mid 16th century. :)
And yes, I do have sources for this article of course and I will be sure to add/cite them. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 12:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this question which I am sure has been successfully addressed hundreds of times before. There is a higher level article elephant. There are only two subordinate articles Asian elephant and African elephant. How much material should be duplicated? I think the answer is "as little as possible." So the African elephant article contains the specific amount that species eats. Then goes on about the table manner of elephants generally, which IMO seems inappropriate in that article. I think it should go into the higher level article.
African elephant correctly does not mention that the animal is a herbivore. This is addressed in the higher level article. I've commented in the elephant article that someone should "address" the organizational concerns. Not entirely sure what those are, but I assume "avoid duplication" is one goal. Right? Student7 ( talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems to have become part of a much larger discussion. May be of interest to project members here: Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested moves. Montanabw (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Sauropsida be at Sauropsid, for the sake of consistency with Synapsid, Anapsid and Diapsid, and Theropoda at Theropod, for consistency with Tetrapod etc.? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia can have "
List of organisms with possessives of personal names" or "
Category:Organisms with possessives of personal names" or (preferably) both. How many names of organisms contain possessives of personal names? (See also "
List of organisms named after famous people".)
—
Wavelength (
talk)
18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
When referring to an animal species by its common name and the common name starts with the possessive form of a person's name, should it say: "The Smith's longspur is ..." or "Smith's longspur is ...". I've seen it both ways and I'm not sure which is correct. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
( ←) Thanks for pinging the GOCE (experts, no; dedicated volunteers, yes :-)). As a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor (no professional copyediting experience, and more familiar with our Manual of Style than other style guides), I agree with the consensus that adding "the" clunks up the prose. All the best, Mini apolis 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary: My summary of the above is that there is no consensus to include or not include the definite article (the) in the names of species starting with a possessive name like Przewalski's horse, therefore either are acceptable in Wikipedia. Good enough? SchreiberBike talk 21:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Principle of the First Reviser into International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of the First Reviser. Discuss at Talk:International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature#Proposed_merge_with_Principle_of_the_First_Reviser Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear zoology experts: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this the right WikiProject to report, and is the draft acceptable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The ICZN ch.11 suggests listing the authors who place a species in a new genus following the original authority (the original authority placed in parentheses, of course). Apparently, some Wikipedia articles simply list the recombining authors, without parentheses (confusingly suggesting that they might have redescribed the species under the same name), as at great auk, until I just changed it [2]. (Side note: Mammals have their own format, making use of colons, that we have in many articles, but nobody apart from mammalogists uses it in modern literature.)
This came up (not the first time) at the Mariana mallard article ( talk). FunkMonk asked me to move this discussion somewhere more public. His argument is that listing recombination author without the original author is fine, since the original author is specified somewhere in the taxobox. He also says that because this is done widely, so it's not worthwhile to change this. First, I doubt this is a widespread issue; most lists of zoological synonyms on Wikipedia don't list authorities, or only give the original authors. As for whether we should allow this, I think regardless of widespread it is we need to fix it, because of the potential for confusion and because it isn't according to the ICZN. I would also note that the ICZN doesn't have anything to say about people who reclassify a taxon as a subspecies as at the Mariana mallard article, but clearly listing only the reclassifying author is confusing, and not in accordance with the ICZN, and whatever citation of authorities we use at that article we should give the original authority.
Thoughts on what should be done? — innotata 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the usage of several article names is up for discussion, see Talk:Anglo-Nubian -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 05:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Animal anatomy and many of the subcategories are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear zoology experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, animal experts! This draft article has been up for review at AfC for some time. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at WikiProject Animal Anatomy about how to organise and structure articles related to sexual reproduction in animals. That discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. In order to keep the discussion centralised, please reply there (yes, in retrospect I should have posted here). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
On this task list page there is a request for an article on the Gobi Desert toad. I thought I would create such an article but I could not find a scientific name for it. So, does this toad exist? While searching for it on Google I found "Images for Gobi Desert toad" included many images of a lizard, the toad-headed agama Phrynocephalus versicolor, so I created an article for that instead. If the Gobi Desert toad does not exist, perhaps mention of it should be removed from the task list page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)