Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

Nemertean auto taxoboxes are outdated

While browsing, I noticed that the current taxonomy templates (and articles) for the nemerteans still use the Anopla/Enopla classes which no longer seem to be accepted, at least in WoRMS. While I can change the taxonomy templates to the new classification, I felt I should ask if there were any preexisting reasons not to before I changed taxa at the class level. While I understand the usual protocol would be to ask in Talk:Nemertea, the last two people to ask this question there received no reply. Zygmeyer (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many invertebrate groups have few or no active editors, so outdated taxonomies often remain. When a talk page comment like the one from Malin Strand gets no response, it's not a decision to use an alternative taxonomy. When you have reliable sources, you should feel free to change the taxonomy templates. Make sure to add a source reference, then the onus is on anyone who thinks there is a better taxonomy to provide sources. I will try and update the taxonomy templates later. It looks like some orders have been defined since that 2018 letter to Zoologica Scripta (see Palaeonemertea).  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zygmeyer: I've gone through the taxonomy templates and set up the suprafamiliar structure on WoRMS, moving families to the higher order taxa. I've made some changes in articles to make them compatible, but I'm sure I haven't caught all the discrepancies. There are some family articles for families that are no longer recognised, e.g. Baseodiscidae, although the Baseodiscus article correctly places it in Valenciniidae.

I notice you set up Template:Taxonomy/Arhynchocoela. Are you planning to create an article on Arhynchonemertes?  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential significant change to species notability

Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

IP edits need check

Please review Special:Contributions/2603:8080:FAF0:BE80:C5D8:9AC7:4F84:BBD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida

Hi, I've proposed to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida, since the two are largely synonymous. Discussion can be found here. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Policy discussions relating to species notability

This WikiProject is likely to be interested in the following discussions: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Species notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology. C F A 💬 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomy used in WikiProject Fishes

I have put forward a proposal to change the taxonomic authorities used by WikiProject Fishes the proposal is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)