![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
You may have noticed that User:Polbot's been creating a metric shedload of organism stubs, including many rodents. As a result, Category:Rodent stubs became considerably oversized -- twice over, in fact. I've tried to bash these into some sort of shape: see the various new subcats, and the discussion at WP:WSS/P. I've no idea whether the Latin or common names are preferable for most of these, so please give some consideration to that issue. There's possibly scope for yet more stub type: the parent could be reduced with one family that's about on the cusp of the usual creation threshold (Dipodidae), and probably further if higher taxons were used (such as the Hystricognathi). As the main category's down to manageable proportions, I thought I'd leave such more arguable cases for the time being. Alai 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And not so very differently, the bats: subtypes proposed. Alai 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text. As the outcome may affect your project, if anyone would like to contribute to the debate, with either view, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals. Thanks for your time. Owain.davies 10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, can you help us with this article. We are planning on making this GA or FA soon.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Content wise the article seems ok but we don't have enough images as of now-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:
Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! We are disambiguating [[ migration]], and we find an excellent article on [[ bird migration]], but it appears there is no article at all on non-bird animal migration. There are three redirects ([[ Animal Migration]], [[ Migration of animals]], [[ Animal migration]]) but no article. Would someone here like to write an article on [[ mammal migration]]?— Randall Bart (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry. JKNS$$ 2311 ( talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This arcticle states Insectivora as a mammal order, but it is now obselete and has been divided into Afrosoricida(Tenrecs, Otter Shrews, and Golden moles), Erinaceidae(Hedgehogs, Gynmures, and Moonrats), and Soricomorpha(Shrews, moles, Solenodons, and the extinct West Indies Shrews). This arcticle needs to be changed.
Xenathra, like insectivora, is now obselete, yet this arcticle states it as an order. It should be devided into Pilosa(Anteaters and sloths) and Cingulata(Armadillos). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.45.62 ( talk • contribs).
I would like to change the name of African Wild Dog to African Hunting Dog. I have read in several places that this is the prefered name nowdays. I guess it makes them sound nicer and also avoids confusion with feral domestic dogs. Would anyone object? Steve Dufour 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like African wild dog is still the most common name. BTW what is MSW3? Steve Dufour 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I've noticed that it is African Wild Dog as well. I would object to changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKNS$$ 2311 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure many of you have noticed that a bot has been creating articles filling in the sizeable gaps in our wikiproject at the species and genus levels. This has been done using data on the IUCN website. That taxonomy is generally based on Mammal Species of the World volume 2 (1993). In other words it is about 12 years behind compared to the starting taxonomy that humans are actually using in our articles (MSW3 - 2005). I don't think that's really a big problem in itself and have been slowly updating its work and other small errors it is making (not bolding species names in taxobox, ignoring parentheses in authorities, etc.). A month later and I'm on the C's in superfamily Muroidea. I'll get there eventually.
My problem is that by creating all these thousands of new articles it is attracting the attention of general editors outside of our wikiproject as certain categories and stubcategories are becoming so bloated that cat- and stubwatchers are now restructuring the articles based on this outdated taxonomy. Also, the bot is apparently requesting the creation of new categories that are duplicates of categories that already exist. For example, a family-level category may take the format of "category:common name" "category:[taxon]-idae" "category:[taxon]-ids" or "category:[taxon]-ids [noun (such as 'rodents')]" Then a merge is proposed, things go up for Cfd and it's almost random how the eventual vote will go. In many cases the votes are based on looking things up in these bot-created articles or categories. It would be really nice if we had a general decision agreed upon by human editors of the wikiproject that we could point to and apply.
I propose that categories be named as follows:
I expect that there will be discussion and this may likely not be adopted as is, but if adopted the -idae form for a category would not be used. For example Category:Soricidae will be deleted and only Category:Shrews will exist (based on #1), Category:Dipodidae would be replaced with Category:Dipodid rodents (based on #2), and Category:Leporidae would be replaced with Category:Leporids (based on #3).
Note that many of these have been, are, or will be on CFD (and how inconsistent the decisions there have been). Hopefully we can develop a guideline (even a flexible one) to point to when they pop up there. -- Aranae 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, consistency is good. On the other, having categories sized properly to the number of articles is also good. On the third hand, making categories reasonably user-friendly is good. I don't think we can fully reconcile all of the different hands. Categories that are under the auspices of an active WikiProject should not get touched (says he who is most active in the Primates WikiProject). Categories should have a reasonable number of member articles. Categories should have recognizable names, when possible. Categories and subcategories should be organized in a logical manner. CFD should be following these guidelines. It should not be allowing the deletion of categories under the auspices of an active WikiProject, and certainly not without consultation of that project. Aranae's list seems fine to me. Yes the difference between #2 and #3 is somewhat arbitrary, and so using the general guidelines I described above should be used to help guide the decision. I'm fine with removing informal names (such as Category:Monkeys, which I helped to erect in the first place), as long as the resulting category and subcategory structure still follows the guidelines above. Getting rid of Category:Monkeys, for example, would elevate Category:Old World monkeys and Category:New World monkeys to the position Category:Monkeys now holds in the Category:Primates category tree. But this doesn't work, because Category:Monkeys contains both the formal Old and New World monkey categories, as well as more informal subcategories and articles that should rightly be in a "monkeys" category, which would be less appropriately filed under the more general Category:Primates. We'll have to be careful looking at the category and its contents when making these kind of decisions. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The following are lists of recently created categories that may need revision and might make their way to CFD. Perhaps we can discuss them by section and by individual entry. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are recently constructed categories that correspond to a category that existed prior to their creation. Most are either bot-created or are the results of a bot request. New categories are listed first. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are categories that are in the format [stem]-idae. This may be objectionable if we want to name categories based on common name for the group or in the plural [stem]-ids format. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are categories at the genus-level and currently contain 5 or fewer articles. They may be candidates for deletion and upmerging. Alternatively, they may have some potential for growth and/or be useful. I suggest they be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that time has passed and a grand total of two people have waded in on the specifics, what comes next? Does this trickle to CFD one at a time? Do we send all of this over there at once? -- Aranae 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just suggested a Proposed project "Agriculture" with a possible alternative (or descendant, I suppose) "Livestock". Obviously, although agriculturally significant birds would be a large area, the vast majority of livestock would be mammals, so I would appreciate commentary, preferably at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture --Doug. Talk 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Done In case anyone didn't notice,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture is up and going strong.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)
01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the content related to several kinds of mammals might be significantly improved if they had specific work groups or task forces assigned to working on that particular "family" or other qualifier. Would the members of this project perhaps be amenable to adjusting the project banner to include assessment parameters and possibly additional information regarding specific task forces? I note that there are already several proposals for new groups on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page for such groups, and think that they might best be facilitated by this project perhaps taking a more active role, at least as a parent project, in the development and management of such content. John Carter 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Please create a separate article for:
The actual common full name for it is " Wild Asian Water Buffalo", it is endangered (and it is little known outside wildlife circles), see IUCN Red List, while Domestic Asian Water Buffalo selectively bred for thousands of years is very famous and numbers in millions and has various livestock breeds. There are many breeds of domestic water buffalo.
Atulsnischal 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please develop this article whenever you all can find time, Thanks Atulsnischal 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on the Dzo ( yak-cow hybrid) needs alot of work. It doesn't even have a scientific categorization. VanTucky Talk 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Animals are placed in the cervidae category because they are all related species which all belong to the animal kingdom, chordate phylum, classified as mammals, and in the artiodactyla order. they all also have antlers.
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
You may have noticed that User:Polbot's been creating a metric shedload of organism stubs, including many rodents. As a result, Category:Rodent stubs became considerably oversized -- twice over, in fact. I've tried to bash these into some sort of shape: see the various new subcats, and the discussion at WP:WSS/P. I've no idea whether the Latin or common names are preferable for most of these, so please give some consideration to that issue. There's possibly scope for yet more stub type: the parent could be reduced with one family that's about on the cusp of the usual creation threshold (Dipodidae), and probably further if higher taxons were used (such as the Hystricognathi). As the main category's down to manageable proportions, I thought I'd leave such more arguable cases for the time being. Alai 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And not so very differently, the bats: subtypes proposed. Alai 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text. As the outcome may affect your project, if anyone would like to contribute to the debate, with either view, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals. Thanks for your time. Owain.davies 10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, can you help us with this article. We are planning on making this GA or FA soon.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Content wise the article seems ok but we don't have enough images as of now-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:
Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! We are disambiguating [[ migration]], and we find an excellent article on [[ bird migration]], but it appears there is no article at all on non-bird animal migration. There are three redirects ([[ Animal Migration]], [[ Migration of animals]], [[ Animal migration]]) but no article. Would someone here like to write an article on [[ mammal migration]]?— Randall Bart (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry. JKNS$$ 2311 ( talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This arcticle states Insectivora as a mammal order, but it is now obselete and has been divided into Afrosoricida(Tenrecs, Otter Shrews, and Golden moles), Erinaceidae(Hedgehogs, Gynmures, and Moonrats), and Soricomorpha(Shrews, moles, Solenodons, and the extinct West Indies Shrews). This arcticle needs to be changed.
Xenathra, like insectivora, is now obselete, yet this arcticle states it as an order. It should be devided into Pilosa(Anteaters and sloths) and Cingulata(Armadillos). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.45.62 ( talk • contribs).
I would like to change the name of African Wild Dog to African Hunting Dog. I have read in several places that this is the prefered name nowdays. I guess it makes them sound nicer and also avoids confusion with feral domestic dogs. Would anyone object? Steve Dufour 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like African wild dog is still the most common name. BTW what is MSW3? Steve Dufour 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I've noticed that it is African Wild Dog as well. I would object to changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKNS$$ 2311 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure many of you have noticed that a bot has been creating articles filling in the sizeable gaps in our wikiproject at the species and genus levels. This has been done using data on the IUCN website. That taxonomy is generally based on Mammal Species of the World volume 2 (1993). In other words it is about 12 years behind compared to the starting taxonomy that humans are actually using in our articles (MSW3 - 2005). I don't think that's really a big problem in itself and have been slowly updating its work and other small errors it is making (not bolding species names in taxobox, ignoring parentheses in authorities, etc.). A month later and I'm on the C's in superfamily Muroidea. I'll get there eventually.
My problem is that by creating all these thousands of new articles it is attracting the attention of general editors outside of our wikiproject as certain categories and stubcategories are becoming so bloated that cat- and stubwatchers are now restructuring the articles based on this outdated taxonomy. Also, the bot is apparently requesting the creation of new categories that are duplicates of categories that already exist. For example, a family-level category may take the format of "category:common name" "category:[taxon]-idae" "category:[taxon]-ids" or "category:[taxon]-ids [noun (such as 'rodents')]" Then a merge is proposed, things go up for Cfd and it's almost random how the eventual vote will go. In many cases the votes are based on looking things up in these bot-created articles or categories. It would be really nice if we had a general decision agreed upon by human editors of the wikiproject that we could point to and apply.
I propose that categories be named as follows:
I expect that there will be discussion and this may likely not be adopted as is, but if adopted the -idae form for a category would not be used. For example Category:Soricidae will be deleted and only Category:Shrews will exist (based on #1), Category:Dipodidae would be replaced with Category:Dipodid rodents (based on #2), and Category:Leporidae would be replaced with Category:Leporids (based on #3).
Note that many of these have been, are, or will be on CFD (and how inconsistent the decisions there have been). Hopefully we can develop a guideline (even a flexible one) to point to when they pop up there. -- Aranae 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, consistency is good. On the other, having categories sized properly to the number of articles is also good. On the third hand, making categories reasonably user-friendly is good. I don't think we can fully reconcile all of the different hands. Categories that are under the auspices of an active WikiProject should not get touched (says he who is most active in the Primates WikiProject). Categories should have a reasonable number of member articles. Categories should have recognizable names, when possible. Categories and subcategories should be organized in a logical manner. CFD should be following these guidelines. It should not be allowing the deletion of categories under the auspices of an active WikiProject, and certainly not without consultation of that project. Aranae's list seems fine to me. Yes the difference between #2 and #3 is somewhat arbitrary, and so using the general guidelines I described above should be used to help guide the decision. I'm fine with removing informal names (such as Category:Monkeys, which I helped to erect in the first place), as long as the resulting category and subcategory structure still follows the guidelines above. Getting rid of Category:Monkeys, for example, would elevate Category:Old World monkeys and Category:New World monkeys to the position Category:Monkeys now holds in the Category:Primates category tree. But this doesn't work, because Category:Monkeys contains both the formal Old and New World monkey categories, as well as more informal subcategories and articles that should rightly be in a "monkeys" category, which would be less appropriately filed under the more general Category:Primates. We'll have to be careful looking at the category and its contents when making these kind of decisions. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The following are lists of recently created categories that may need revision and might make their way to CFD. Perhaps we can discuss them by section and by individual entry. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are recently constructed categories that correspond to a category that existed prior to their creation. Most are either bot-created or are the results of a bot request. New categories are listed first. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are categories that are in the format [stem]-idae. This may be objectionable if we want to name categories based on common name for the group or in the plural [stem]-ids format. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are categories at the genus-level and currently contain 5 or fewer articles. They may be candidates for deletion and upmerging. Alternatively, they may have some potential for growth and/or be useful. I suggest they be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that time has passed and a grand total of two people have waded in on the specifics, what comes next? Does this trickle to CFD one at a time? Do we send all of this over there at once? -- Aranae 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just suggested a Proposed project "Agriculture" with a possible alternative (or descendant, I suppose) "Livestock". Obviously, although agriculturally significant birds would be a large area, the vast majority of livestock would be mammals, so I would appreciate commentary, preferably at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture --Doug. Talk 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Done In case anyone didn't notice,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture is up and going strong.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)
01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the content related to several kinds of mammals might be significantly improved if they had specific work groups or task forces assigned to working on that particular "family" or other qualifier. Would the members of this project perhaps be amenable to adjusting the project banner to include assessment parameters and possibly additional information regarding specific task forces? I note that there are already several proposals for new groups on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page for such groups, and think that they might best be facilitated by this project perhaps taking a more active role, at least as a parent project, in the development and management of such content. John Carter 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Please create a separate article for:
The actual common full name for it is " Wild Asian Water Buffalo", it is endangered (and it is little known outside wildlife circles), see IUCN Red List, while Domestic Asian Water Buffalo selectively bred for thousands of years is very famous and numbers in millions and has various livestock breeds. There are many breeds of domestic water buffalo.
Atulsnischal 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please develop this article whenever you all can find time, Thanks Atulsnischal 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on the Dzo ( yak-cow hybrid) needs alot of work. It doesn't even have a scientific categorization. VanTucky Talk 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Animals are placed in the cervidae category because they are all related species which all belong to the animal kingdom, chordate phylum, classified as mammals, and in the artiodactyla order. they all also have antlers.