Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

More Cap Discussion

This table would argue different, here are the 25 mammal FAs which cover species. The first column shows articles where the article name and emboldened article name in the lead are capitalised. The second column shows those article where the article name is capitalised but in the text it is not and the third column shows no capitalisation.

Species cap
Blue Whale
Bobcat
Cougar
Fin Whale
Giant Otter
Island Fox
Jaguar
Javan Rhinoceros
Platypus
Ring-tailed Lemur
Sei Whale
Short-beaked Echidna
Sumatran Rhinoceros
Tasmanian Devil
Thylacine

Article cap
Humpback Whale
Killer Whale
Pygmy Hippopotamus

No cap
Domestic sheep
Elk
Guinea pig
Hippopotamus
Lion
Raccoon
Sea otter

This table doesn't really show anything significant, though I'm sure the middle column should be fixed. If the article name is capitalised then so should the text and vice-versa. Jack (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the table of articles. That clearly shows that I did view all FA-class articles but a sample as I had noted. However, I think it further shows the need for a clear definitive answer to the question of what direction to go with this policy. The questions remains: where do we go for a decision? BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

After the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD (a similar problem to the one we're having) was declined as content dispute it was suggested that the following routes were possible: request for comment, third opinion, and mediation. I personally believe we should follow a text as opposed to following opinion (as stated by Ucucha below). Although MSW3 is becoming increasingly dated (and a new edition isn't due for years) it is still a standard mammal reference guide. New publications should be able to overrule existing names so long as they are seen to be accepted by the scientific community (see many recent Mittermeier papers on lemurs). We should choose to take one of the routes suggested by the arbitrators. Jack (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For me, both sides of the debate have some merit. I like noncapitalization, because it looks more natural and because I do not believe that species are individuals. That, by the way, is one drawback of capitalizing species, but not higher taxa because "species are individuals that should have proper nouns as their names": assuming that species, but not higher taxa, are individuals brings us into esoterical philosophical questions that we really don't want to be in. On the other hand, the trend in the relevant literature does seem to be moving toward capitalization, as seen in MSW 3 and Mammals of South America, as well as the Red List, and we ought to be moving in the same direction if that trend continues.

One solution to these problems with common names, at least for extant species, would be to adopt some standard source for common names, including their capitalization. I think that there are two sources that need to be considered for that: (a) MSW 3 (Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, Wilson and Reeder, 2005, Johns Hopkins University Press); and (b) the Red List of threatened species (at http://www.redlist.org). Both use capitalized common names. The Red List is problematic in that it does not list common names for all species, and MSW 3 in that is out of date for some taxonomic groups and in that it has idiosyncratic names for some groups (notably, muroids). I would prefer MSW 3. Doing so would (I think) permit us to use the exception provided in the MOS rule.

As an aside, my first preference would be to do away altogether with common names for taxa without well-established such names (~80% of all mammals) and use scientific names instead, but that is unlikely to be accepted, so I'm not proposing it. Ucucha 18:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ucucha, especially on the last point. (Using common names creates many problems, hence the exclusive use of scientific names in the academic literature.) That aside, I should note that the Ring-tailed Lemur article only follows the caps rule because it was suggested during the GAC... or at some similar point during its development. I personally prefer no caps, but if the authorities are moving towards using caps, then we should follow them. –Visionholder (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ring-tailed Lemur has always been capitalised in the article as far as I am aware, as are the rest of the primates. Jack (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the individual argument is silly, just take the Rocky Mountains which is acollection of mountains (not an individual mountain) but a single mountain range. A species is like a mountain range, and once it has a standardized name, it is capatalized. At WP:BIRD, such a single list exists, and thus they are capitalized. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephantidae

Per recent discussion on Talk:Elephant (here), a request to move List of elephant species → Elephantidae has been posted (here). --Una Smith (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to create a redirect from the old list to the new, please. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That happens automatically whenever a page is moved. Once (if) the move is made, then incoming links to the redirect(s) should be checked. They may need fixing, as some may in fact intend one of the several articles about elephants (meaning one of the extant species). --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Human lead image

Since this is one of the WikiProjects overseeing the article Human, and discussion on Talk:Human has stagnated for the moment, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion on a proposed switch to a more neutral, consistent, visually informative, and anatomically and culturally accurate image (preferably a photograph) for the lead section of the article.

Since the function of a lead image is to provide an informative example of the article's subject, not to symbolically represent the subject's "essence", we are neither required nor permitted by Wikipedia policy to employ a stylized, idealized drawing (particularly one which censors the primary sex-organ of the female in deference to "puritanical" or "Victorian" sensibilities, as Sagan describes it) to metaphorically 'represent' this important species. I have therefore suggested several alternatives consonant with Wikipedia policy, of which the simplest and least controversial seems to be File:Akha cropped.png. It's not perfect, but I think it's adequate. I welcome your opinions on Talk:Human. -Silence (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the taxonomy of cats

The genus Catopuma has been merged with Pardofelis, according to several sources (such as ). These sources also merge the genus Profelis with Caracal. Perhaps we should implement these changes in the respective articles on Wikipedia? DaMatriX (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I've been told that the IUCN is not an acceptable source for taxonomy changes. However, the changes I've requested are the result of the influential work by Johnson et al: Johnson WE, Eizirik E, Pecon-Slattery J, et al. (January 2006). "The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment". Science (journal) 311 (5757): 73–7. doi:10.1126/science.1122277. PMID 16400146.

Some of the changes that are suggested by Johnson et al. are:

• The merging of Catopuma and Pardofelis
• The merging of Profelis and Caracal, perhaps Leptailurus should be included as well
• The merging of Uncia and Panthera
• The merging of Herpailurus and Puma (already implemented in MSW3 and widely accepted), perhaps Acinonyx should be included as well
• Taking the Pallas Cat (Felis manul) out of Felis and placing it somewhere in between Felis and Prionailurus. The former genus Otocolobus may be resurrected for this purpose

The IUCN has implemented these changes, while the official website of the Cat Working Group has not been updated for many years. Mammal Species of the World, however, has not (yet) implemented these changes, although I'm confident this will be a matter of time. Perhaps someone could contact the authors of MSW about these issues? DaMatriX (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, we should implement such taxonomic changes when they are generally accepted in the recent scientific literature. MSW is a 2005 book and there have been no updates since then, although it may become more dynamic in the future. The Red List may often be a good source to use in mammalian taxonomy: it is updated regularly and reflects the efforts of many taxonomists.

At least some of these taxonomic changes in felids seem to be fairly commonly accepted outside the Red List (for example, elevating F. manul into its own genus); these changes should therefore also be carried out on Wikipedia. Ucucha 08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we should not implement these changes immediately, at least not until there has been some more discussion about this. In that way we can determine if the majority of Wikipedians (interested in this subject) agrees with these changes. DaMatriX (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 2008 the IUCN seems to be a very good source as far as the taxonomy on mammalian species and genera is concerned. The next few years the Handbook of the Mammals of the World most certainly will also prove very useful in this regard. The first volume, published this year, covers the Carnivora (Fissipedia, actually). The work mentioned above is listed in its bibliography. The taxonomy of cats is given as follows:

• Pantherinae
  • Neofelis: Neofelis nebulosa, Neofelis diardi
  • Panthera: Panthera uncia, Panthera tigris, Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, Panthera onca
• Felinae
  • Pardofelis: Pardofelis marmorata
  • Catopuma: Catopuma badia, Catopuma temminckii
  • Leptailurus: Leptailurus serval
  • Profelis: Profelis aurata
  • Caracal: Caracal caracal
  • Leopardus: Leopardus pardalis, Leopardus wiedii, Leopardus colocolo, Leopardus jacobitus, Leopardus tigrinus, Leopardus guigna, Leopardus geoffroyi
  • Lynx: Lynx rufus, Lynx canadensis, Lynx lynx, Lynx pardinus
  • Acinonyx: Acinonyx jubatus
  • Puma: Puma yagouaroundi, Puma concolor
  • Otocolobus: Otocolobus manul
  • Prionailurus: Prionailurus rubiginosus, Prionailurus planiceps, Prionailurus viverrinus, Prionailurus bengalensis
  • Felis (domestic cat not listed): Felis chaus, Felis nigripes, Felis margarita, Felis bieti, Felis silvestris

-- Torben Schink (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the above source, the use of the genus Uncia should be discouraged on Wikipedia in favour of Panthera uncia. However, the merging of Profelis/Caracal/Leptailurus and Pardofelis/Catopuma are apparently not yet official. I'm confident they will become official in the near future - until that time, we should keep the respective genera seperate, at least for the time being. By the way, the genus Otocolobus is cleary back in favour again - this implies we should move the Pallas Cat from Felis to Otocolobus on Wikipedia. Case (probably) closed - for the moment. DaMatriX (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. A single article, or non-peer reviewed source is insufficient to change the taxonomy of species. When Jaguar was up for FA, I dug through the taxonomic literature at that moment related to Pantera, and the result is that there is no consensus, see Jaguar#Taxonomy. If someone wants to change this, it either has to be a sold review covering all the literature or a comprehensive study using most studies, not one. The IUCN page contains non-existing ref's and they do not list the reference, only inline citations. So, lets not run to fast here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Uncia? In that case, I don't think that's a correct representation of what is in the jaguar article. It gives two refs for Uncia still being a separate genus, of which one is a Red List entry about the jaguar which doesn't seem to say anything about P. uncia at all, and the other is some 1996 document, which has little relevance to today's taxonomic consensus. Ucucha 07:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, is this statement in the Leopardus article accurate: "Leopardus was previously regarded as a subgenus of the genus Felis." A "subgenus"? Is that a real term? Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See subgenus. Jack (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know this discussion now is 2+ weeks old, but I'll comment anyway. Surely, when a peer-reviewed article is published, it is a valid possibility to follow it (emphasis on possibility – some clearly shouldn't be followed). I find it hard to believe that no people on WP:MAMMAL are able to judge the validity of evidence such as that presented in Johnson et al (2006)... or is WP:BIRD really that far ahead here? Things move fast in taxonomy and MSW3 is increasingly out-of-date. It should be noted that there already are several cases where new publications have been used as an argument for changes on wiki, e.g. Paradoxurus and Moschiola. The evidence for genus changes in the above mentioned Johnson et al (2006) easily matches the evidence for having four species of Paradoxurus on Sri Lanka presented in Groves & Mamemandra-Arachchi (2009) or the evidence for three species of Moschiola by Groves & Meijaard (2005). And yes, I know Groves is one of the authors of MSW3, but surely new evidence should be based on its quality, not the name of the author. I'm not saying Groves & Mamemandra-Arachchi (2009) or Groves & Meijaard (2005) are wrong – just that the willingness to follow them when unwilling to follow others is strange to say the least. Finally, IUCN is not a reference for taxonomy in themself, but they do present a good pointer when trying to establish if changes proposed in some new article are likely to gain general use. 212.10.88.5 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with taxonomic changes is that the taxonomic system was designed before Darwinian evolution was known. Also, there is always room for debate since molecular and genetic tests are still hotly debated and questionable, and conflicts often arise with people basing phylogeny on morphology. Consequently many researchers have no interest in taxonomy, often referring to it as "too changeable, and too subject to the whims of particular individuals" (Anne Yoder, personal conversation in email). Instead, they prefer to focus on cladistics. In my work to re-write the Lemur page (still forthcoming), I can see that lemur taxonomy is a complete mess, even within the academic literature. There are often three opinions to everything and no universal support. From what I can tell, in that community Groves does not carry a lot of respect, so MSW3 is often blown off in the literature or casually offered as an alternative. Therefore, I agree that choosing one person as a primary taxonomic authority is a bad policy here on Wiki. I recommend at least 2 authorities. (For lemurs, I use Mittermeier and Groves, but weigh the findings of Yoder to choose between the two when they conflict.) It is good to consider the concensus from the academic literature, but not good to jump on the first paper published describing a new species or offering a new taxomony, unless the paper bares the name of one of your taxonomic authorities for that animal group. (It is, however, good to mention the new discoveries and suggested taxonomic changes in the body of the article.) –Visionholder (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

image help

I've tentatively identified File:Rodent on a rock in South America-8.jpg as a wild long-tailed chinchilla. Can someone who knows more confirm? Having a wild shot of a chinchilla species would be a great addition to this article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know, but User Aranae says that this is a picture of a viscacha (see edit summary), and it does seem to have the colours of a viscacha. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The tail looks too short on the viscachas. Then again, there seem to be more than one misidentified South American rodent - this viscacha is clearly something else. Perhaps we shuld move this whole conversation to WP:MAMMAL to get more eyes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is probably better to get more opinions. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Chinchilla. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That other 'viscacha' you mentioned looks like a Notomys or a jerboa. I can't think of any South American rodent that should look like that. Ucucha 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a jerboa. --13² 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's coloring is more viscacha-ish, however, it's body just...isn't. It's long and sleek with a very long tail, which a long-tailed chinchilla should have. It just doesn't have that "rabbit" body that the viscacha seem to have. --13² 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a viscacha - Lagidium peruanum. 100% certain. If you look at the other photos in the flickr stream where it originated you'll also see it was taken at Machu Picchu where viscachas are fairly common but no chinchilla ever has been recorded. 212.10.86.216 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to have stirred up trouble and then left. The pelage color and texture really don't fit with either species of chinchilla. If 212.10.86.216 is correct about this being from Machu Picchu, it also is clearly not C. lanigera. I think the Lagidium peruanum ID is potentially a good one, but I'm much more comfortable saying the animal isn't C. lanigera than saying what it is. --Aranae (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Check another photo taken 1½ hours later than the viscacha photo (see "More properties" in lower right corner for clock). There are few ways to get to Machu Picchu and none of them would allow someone to visit another part of Peru with bamboo (as can be seen on the photo with the viscacha; probably Chusquea) during daylight hours on the same day (let alone within 1½ hours), as the rapidly accessible areas around the Sacred Valley and Cusco city itself all either are too dry or too high. For people that haven't visited Machu Picchu, I'm pretty sure the background on the viscacha photo are the near-vertical cliffs that rise above the Urubamba River when standing at Machu Picchu and looking in the direction away from Aguas Calientes. But regardless – even if the locality had been unknown, this is certainly L. peruanum, a species which, somewhat unsurprisingly, follows both Allen's and Gloger's rule. On a separate issue, the "red link" photo linked to in the earlier comment by Sabine's Sunbird was a Long-eared Jerboa, but I nominated it for speedy delete because it was copyvio. 212.10.88.5 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dental formula template

Since mammals have heterodont dentition, I am trying to create a template for WP:MAMMAL that will help editors include dental formulas in articles, yet unlike Template:Dentition and Template:Dentition2, it can be placed inline with text. Template:DentalFormula is a very simple template that uses <math>...</math> markup to either generate a simple dental formula (upper over lower) or a dental formula as well as the total number of teeth. (Additionally, it also provides alternative text automatically.)

For example, a simple dental formula would be diplayed by using the following: {{DentalFormula|upper=2.1.3.3|lower=2.1.3.3}}

This would yield: 2.1.3.32.1.3.3

To also show the total number of teeth, use the following: {{DentalFormula|upper=2.1.3.3|lower=2.1.3.3|total=36}}

This would yield: 2.1.3.32.1.3.3 × 2 = 36

Unfortunately, it's not working yet because of what seems like a parser issue. I've opened the question on WT:MSM and MediaWiki. Since this will (hopefully) benefit WP:MAMMAL, maybe someone on the team with lots of template experience can help figure it out. –Visionholder (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed, and the template is now available for use. Hopefully project members can find it useful. –Visionholder (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification of monkey

File:Red-shanked Douc (3091716427).jpg to confirm identification please. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It does look like a douc to me, but I'm unfortunately unable to say what species it is, which is a pity, as the picture would be a really good addition to our article on that species. Perhaps you should also ask WP Primates? Ucucha 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken at the Philadelphia Zoo, according to the image summary. At the zoo's web site, it lists the Red-shanked Douc Langur and provides a photo to match. No other langurs are listed under their primates section, so unless the zoo is in error (which is unlikely since they are an AZA accredited zoo), this should be correct. Also, it seems to be the closest match that I have in series of B&W photos of all langur species in "Walker's Primates of the World" (ISBN: 0-8018-6251-5). Hope that helps. –Visionholder (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That provides some good evidence that it is red-shanked, yes. Our article on doucs also gives a picture of a red-shanked from Philly Zoo. From the photos I found on the internet, this animal appears to be definitely a douc, definitely not a black-shanked douc, and probably not a grey-shanked douc, although grey-shanked and red-shanked look rather similar. I'd go with my impression and, more importantly, with the zoo's web site and list it as a red-shanked douc. Ucucha 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Resources

I am not sure if it has been brought up before, but where do they go. http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/default.html are pft scientific articles with from the The American society of Mammologists. Thats all Enlil Ninlil (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Animal for identification

Re: File:Dasyurus geoffroii -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the muzzel is not as slener as the northern, I don't see spots on the tali like the Spoted_tailed Quoll, so it is either an Eastern or Western Quoll. The uniform colour suggests a Western Quoll. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I just nominated a lot of mammals categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_16#One-page_mammals_categories. It's about Polbot-created genus categories for monotypic genera. Comments would be appreciated. Ucucha 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing taxa

I just created a list of mammalian taxa at User:Ucucha/List of mammals, which incorporates changes made since MSW 3 was published. There is still a lot of red links, which is partly because of taxonomic changes (in which case we do need redirects), such as in the ground squirrels, but also to a large extent because we don't have the articles (see Lophuromys, Platyrrhinus, and Lonchophylla, for example). Ucucha 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock hyrax rewritten

I've pretty much rewritten Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) since it was getting confused with lots of fluff and not enough detail. I also added a number of pictures (of mine) which illustrate the points mentioned in the text. As a general point - and in my opinion - closeup photos showing characteristic features of any species are much more beneficial to a page than the most beautiful of safari shots. Arikk (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy

Input from WP:MAMMAL members at the Featured Article candidacy of Lundomys would be greatly appreciated. Ucucha 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Capital idea?

Since when does WP dictate English usage? Usual usage is no caps. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific in what you are refering to? ZooPro 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to Talk:Sperm whale. This is a perennial debate and I frankly don't think proclaiming that one side is right is going to bring us any further. Ucucha 02:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. ZooPro 02:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed!

I am working on a project with my AP Biology class. Our assignment is to take a stub article and transform it into a FA. My group is actively working on perfecting the pudu deer article, and I noticed this project organization has pudu deer on its list of articles to improve. We would greatly appreciate additions/critiques to the article. Thanks! Lisa Anne893 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to be a longtime contributor, or somebody who knows all about Wikipedia, or even what to tell you, but I think that is quite a task. I'm giving myself a few months–maybe a year–to try to turn House Sparrow and Cormorant into FA's, though largely single-handed. For a start, hardly any of the citations at pudu are adequate. The text is going to take some work to get to B-class, and no journals are cited. So what needs to be done? Everything, I'd say. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, seems like a strange task to say the least. Though this User has not responded to any of my questions on thier talk page so i cant make to many judgments. ZooPro 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like this is going on at bog turtle, part of WP:AAR. Queer business, it is. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This explains it: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009 Fishy! innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm i think im lost for words, i have never come across something like this before. I will look into it, i suppose it is allowed however like i said i have never come across it before. Anyone else got any suggestions. ZooPro 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as it's done right, I think it's a great idea and a nice way to improve articles. I'm certainly watching how it turns out (so far so good). --Aranae (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree; it is both good for the students, as writing good Wikipedia articles requires several academic skills, and good for us, as we'll get some articles improved. Ucucha 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Last year resulted in some good article work. A student took Macaroni Penguin to GA and I took it on to FA..Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

identify?

can someone please identify this possum for me, its a Common Brushtail Possum isn't it? Image here IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like some sort of Trichosurus, but as my field guide to Australian mammals is currently at the other side of the ocean I'm not positive that it is the common brushtail (T. vulpecula). Where did you take the image? Ucucha 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

South East Queensland, AustraliaIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Trichosurus caninus, the Short-eared Possum, also occurs there, but it apparently has much shorter ears (surprise) and more black in its tail than T. vulpecula does, and the one on your image has long ears and a not completely black tail, so I'd say that, yes, it's a Common Brushtail. Ucucha 23:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin nom for Ucucha

Ucucha, a frequent contributor to this wikiproject has been nominated for adminship. Those of you involved here will probably be most likely to have interacted with him and formed an opinion, whether good or bad, and I wanted to point you there. --Aranae (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Need article on peradectids

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215202320.htm:

A University of Florida researcher has co-authored a study tracing the evolution of the modern opossum back to the extinction of the dinosaurs and finding evidence to support North America as the center of origin for all living marsupials. The study, to be published in PLoS ONE on Dec. 16, shows that peradectids, a family of marsupials known from fossils mostly found in North America and Eurasia, are a sister group of all living opossums.

66.167.48.193 (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Help!

I am part of a group involved in developing a stub article into a GA article as part of an AP Biology project. We edited the Pudu page, and it is ready for a GA review. No one has come along to review it yet, and our grade is riding on this. We would greatly appreciate a GA review, especially from one of your members as the article is listed on your page. Thanks! Kyleemmroz (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it this weekend. Ucucha 14:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I Apply??

Hello, this is Belugaboy535136. Can I please join WikiProject Mammals?? I would love to help out with it!! Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your time, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for yah life, you can join by adding your name here [1]. Welcome to the Project and feel free to ask me anything if you need help. Regards ZooPro 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done i have already added your name to the list. ZooPro 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, BB535136 again here. How do you put "banners" (like the "This User is a Member of WikiProject Mammals" banner) on your userpage?? I am very proud to be on WPM, and I want to show it. Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your time, BelugaBoy535136 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to Userboxes and it seems your user page already has one. ZooPro 05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Killer Whale - featured article review

I have nominated Killer Whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)

Hi everyone,

I put the following notice on the Cetaceans wikiproject page a couple of days ago but it hasn't yielded any substantial input yet, so I'm spreading the net a bit wider.

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. The Luna (Orca) article has the same issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Red Kangaroo

Someone please jump over to this article and fix the photo problems, i have not got the patience.ZooPro 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of Articles

It is with great pride i announce that all 568 unassessed articles have been assessed and now the list is empty and every tagged article has been given a class and status. Lets just hope it never gets to that number again. ZooPro 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. For many articles, project assessment is the only acknowledgement that the writer receives. It's a good way to keep people motivated. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well done :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Squirrel for identification

• A black squirrel probably in Canada for identification prior to upload to commons. Snowman (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the black morph of the Eastern Gray Squirrel, which was introduced to the Vancouver area. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job Sabine's Sunbird! I agree. See http://www.stanleyparkecology.ca/programs/conservation/urbanWildlife/naturalHistory/squirrelEasternGrey.php . A friend of mine calls them rats with bushy tails. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okapi to Leopard

I checked and I found the Okapi is no longer the symbol for WikiProject Mammals, but the Leopard instead. Could somebody explain, Regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess ZooPro thought it was a good idea. Ucucha 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the image and some of the colours as part of an upgrade for 2010, if editors have an issue with it then it can be changed back, i was merely attempting to keep the project fresh. If anyone has any ideas they want to put forward please do so. ZooPro 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors are very quick to point out problems with a simple photo however i didnt see anyone interested or willing to clear the backlog at the mammals assessments page, cant have it both ways. ZooPro 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I don't like this leopard image very much, because it doesn't show the whole animal clearly at the size in which it appears in the banner. Incidentally, that problem is worse with some of the work group images, which are even smaller. The koala and ground squirrel are not ideal, but the weasel is worst; it looks like a sea lion to me at that size.

The okapi was a nice image and has become a sort of recognized symbol of WP:MAMMAL, which may in itself be a reason to keep it. I don't feel very strongly either way, though.

I am not happy with your last comment. Your contributions to assessment are valued and appreciated, but others may be contributing constructively to this project in other ways--for example, Innotata has been assessing for the WP:MAMMAL child project WP:RODENT and contributed to other areas of Vertebrata, and I have written some articles on rodents and their anatomy. Everyone here is discussing constructively the issue of the image, not your conduct; there is no need to bring in such a poke here. Ucucha 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right with the last thing, Ucucha. As for this image, which I think does matter a bit (it symbolizes the project on talk pages), how about looking through the mammal featured images? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The shot in question is a good one at medium size but doesn't seem to scale down well. Images with a less cluttered composition or a bolder colour difference between the animal and background would be best here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies im just not very happy that of all people to question my edits it had to be Belugaboy (infact that comment was aimed at him), if another editor asked me then i would have been 100% fine with it. I do understand everyones contributions and they do a fantastic job and i know how hard Innotata and Ucucha works on rodents, however small issues like this seem to annoy me sometimes when there are bigger things to worry about. I will undo my changes to both the image and the color. ZooPro 01:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user makes a valid point why should you care who it is? – that is one little thing I'm puzzled about. This sort of attitude coming from you puzzles me in general, since so far you've usually kept a cooler head over this sort of thing than some (eg, myself). In particular, I'm surprised you still find reasons to "aim" comments at Belugaboy. I think that while the image matter is small, it does matter — again, this is the project symbol—, and is a valid point of discussion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Belugaboy535136 didn't make a point, but asked that someone explain why the image had been changed. Furthermore, while it's best to keep ones cool, I can understand the frustration with a user who at times seems more interested in the surface than substance, has repeatedly overreached himself and shown ignorance of and unwillingness to read up on policies and procedures. I see this more as a lesson for ZooPro rather than a judgment over him. --Swift (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that yes i think frustration played a very big part in my reaction. ZooPro 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back on topic, the okapi image certainly did/does scale down well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have decided that i will give belugaboy another chance. I will only judge him on future edits and not on his past, we all make mistakes and its good to see some change. Yes i think i was getting a bit to stressed, i have just returned from holidays so am fresh and relaxed. ZooPro 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've renovated the userbox, but kept the okapi pic. Everyone think that it's all right? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodent article capitalisation

WikiProject Rodents will be discussing the capitalisation of rodent article names at WT:RODENT#Capitalisation. Feel free to add your opinion if interested, and if you have been contributing to rodent articles, please do add your username to the list of participants. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked template: MSW3 Groves

Because lately I have been writing articles that make multiple references to different pages on the online version of MSW3, I have decided to tweak Template:MSW3 Groves, adding a "contribution" (a.k.a. "heading") parameter to the citation. The addition, like all other parameters for the template, is optional. I have also written a documentation page for the template. Comments, suggestions, and further tweaks are welcome. Note that I primarily work in WP:PRIMATE, so I only tweaked the MSW3 Groves template, not the other (numerous) related templates. If other sub-projects of WP:Mammal want to duplicate what I have done for those templates, be my guest. –Visionholder (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question!

Okay then, Zoopro, do you want to start up and coordinate a monthly collaboration? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If no one else is interested in doing it then i would be happy to assist. I did start one for wikiproject zoo however it didnt have much interest maybe the Mammals project will be more enthusiastic. ZooPro 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ZooPro 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Common names

Over the past few weeks, I have worked on some of the articles on oryzomyines, a group of mostly fairly obscure Neotropical rodents. Our articles on most of these are located at common names, mostly but not exclusively from the IUCN Red List (see User:Ucucha/Oryzomyini#Common names for an overview).

I have become increasingly dissatisfied with this situation. Problems with oryzomyine common names include ambiguity (Allen's Rice Rat, Large-headed Rice Rat, Big-headed Rice Rat), confusing names (Large- and Big-headed are different species and Broad-headed is another, Talamancan Oryzomys and Talamancan Rice Rat, as well as Ecuadoran Oryzomys and Ecuadorian Rice Rat are different species even though "Oryzomys" usually = "Rice Rat" in other common names), inconsistency (St. Vincent Colilargo but Santa Lucian Pilorie in the same source), and even factual incorrectness (Small-footed Bristly Mouse for a species that is not a bristly mouse (Neacomys), but a water rat (Nectomys), and that is neither a mouse, bristly, nor small-footed). On the Wikipedia articles, the situation is confused a little more by the occasional usage of common names that don't appear to be used anywhere else (Rock pygmy rice rat, for example) or that are changed from the source for various reasons (Atlantic Forest Arboreal Rice Rat). Most of these common names are hardly if ever used in the scholarly literature, as evidenced by Google Scholar. (Incidentally, it is not true that Google Scholar always returns far more hits for the scientific name, as it does for all oryzomyines I checked: for species like Macropus rufus, Pteronura brasiliensis, and Balaenoptera musculus, which do have well-established common names, the numbers of hits are fairly similar, though often higher for the scientific name.)

The relevant Wikipedia conventions include WP:UCN and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). The former, somewhat confusingly, says "use common names", but the text makes clear that "commmon name" means "commonly used name" and not "vernacular name": "Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, except where other specific conventions provide otherwise." For oryzomyines, I would argue that the scientific names are generally the names most commonly used in English, as the common names are not commonly used. The latter convention states "If there is a most commonly used common name in English, and it is not ambiguous, use that," referring to several mammals as examples (lion and yak among others). That would throw out most of the oryzomyine common names, as most species have more than one common name and none seems to be clearly in wider use than another. I would argue, also, that it shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that we should use a common name as soon as there is one, since otherwise we would have the tyrant lizard king, which means that the common names for the few oryzomyines with only one not-so-common name shouldn't be used either.

Now, I see the merits of the argument that common names make the articles more accessible to the lay reader. It is a powerful and important argument, but I can see several compelling arguments against it:

• Use of common names where these are not well-known may in fact make the articles less accessible to biologists, who may constitute a significant part of the audience for articles on species like these;
• Where common names are as badly standardized and often inconsistent as in many oryzomyines, the added layer of confusion may add an extra layer of confusion.
• When we use common names for oryzomyines, we will have to choose between two possibilities: choosing the common name separately for each species or using one source for all common names. The former is subjective, creates an opportunity for endless silly disputes, and is not very consistent with conventions like no original research, and the latter is also problematic as all sources that give common names for oryzomyines are problematic in some way (among other concerns, some are incomplete, and MSW 3 uses scientific names of genera in its common names, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of common names, which is making the articles more accessible to people not familiar with the scientific names).
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wikipedia conventions are, in my interpretation, more friendly to the use of the scientific name where common names are not well-known (as discussed above).

I believe the situation is best handled as I did at Megalomys audreyae, using the scientific name as the article title, but listing proposed common names prominently in the lead. In this way, the article is truly titled according to the most commonly used name, but the common names are also displayed prominently for those who prefer them. Alternatively, common names could be listed in a hatnote above the article text (both of these approaches are used in some of the herpetology GAs). In any case, common names should be retained in the article title if there is a single well-known common name (as I think is true for the Marsh Rice Rat, Oryzomys palustris), and, of course, all common names should redirect to the main article except where they are ambiguous.

I am focusing on oryzomyines now because that is the group I am working with at the moment, but the same arguments could be made for any other lesser-known mammal (a substantial majority of species, I would estimate). I would like to know what other editors here think about this issue.

An added advantage of this proposal is that we get rid of the endless discussions over capitalization in common names. Ucucha 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes you are right. Common praxe with naming gastropod articles is like this:

• Some gastropods have commons names, but they are usually more known under their scientific names. Usually wikipedists starts articles with scientific names, because those few used common name are already in encyclopedia.
• If there are two commons names for the same species, then it is often useful have article with scientific name.
• If there is common name for more species, then it is disambig page, for example Madeiran land snail.
• The main thing is to avoid confusion. Every name of the article should try to use rules, but in many cases is better to use scientific name. Do not hesitate to use scientific name, when there is a strong reason for it. --Snek01 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those "common" names of obscure species are not common in either sense: prevalent, as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); and vernacular. They are pseudo-common names. Botany has a lot of these, sometimes coined by an author for publication but not otherwise used by anyone, not even the author. They are the least useful name to use as a Wikipedia page name, and they certainly do not fulfill any Wikipedia guideline. --Una Smith (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the absence of contrary opinions, I will start moving some of the pages to the scientific names in a few days. Ucucha 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I havent had a chance to reply earlier, but would like to add my support for the use of Scientific names as the article titles. The area I edit most is extinct taxa and I have never had a lot of patience for "commons names" applied to taxa which lived before modern human history, as many of the names applies are more obscure then the scientific names and /or down right inaccurate. Two examples, Canis armbrusteri, is currently at "Armbruster's Wolf", which while sometimes used is less often used then the scientific name. Equus lambei was formerly at Yukon wild ass which has a number of problems, its possibly not in the Asinus subgenus, it ranged much farther then the Yukon, and as it lived in the Pleistocene, what else would it be besides wild?. That plus several other variation on the "common name" structure lead to its move to the scientific name. all things considered, apart from a very small number of taxa with unambiguous accurate "common names" its much more accurate to have extinct taxa at scientific names. (getting off soapbox now) --Kevmin (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Kevmin. I think the problems with common names for extinct taxa illustrate many of the same problems with little-known living taxa, and in both cases common names should be used with care.

Since there is still no one disagreeing, I will now begin moving some of the pages that I think would better be at the scientific name. I won't be mass-moving hundreds of articles, just sets of articles I work on. Ucucha 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion. I have not been associated with WikiProject Mammals so take this as a comment from a disassociated editor.

I do recognize the fundamental problem with common names as potentially being inspecific and inaccurate, and I am certainly not suggesting that they always be used. But ultimately Wikipedia should be targeted toward the average person, not the experts. I am generally in favor of using more accessible names for articles. Also I do not believe that which name is statistically the most widely used should be a primary criterion. For example, I would not argue that the article Lion should be named Lion simply because that is statistically the name used in the most publications (I presume this is the case). I believe that is the best name because 1) it is an accepted name in general use, and 2) it is easy for the average reader to recognize and remember. The key here is "general use", not "common use". Whether or not most people have heard of the animal is not the point. As long a vernacular term tends to be recognized by people who have actually heard of the animal then it can be said to be in "general use."

To the extent that these vernacular names have ambiguity there are disambig schemes that can be applied (it may be painful for contributing scientists to resort to such things but it can be done). Trying to turn Wikipedia into a scientific journal is — I believe — getting away from its aims. We should always be biased toward making things easier on the readers, not easier on the editors.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao and I discussed this a little more on our talk pages. I think the key point is that the names we have been discussing are those that are not in general use. My opinion, which I think is in line with consensus so far and with relevant guidelines, is that we should only use vernacular names that have entered general usage. Lion clearly has, Paracou Neacomys clearly has not, but even species like the Marsh Rice Rat where the common name is often used, but not more often than the scientific name should have their article under the vernacular name. Ucucha 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since our articles are not targeted to specialists, I think we should use sentence case as much as possible (it looks really silly to capitalize "Horse"), and in any case, we shouldn't be using vernacular names at all if we want precision, but binomials.

We also shouldn't allow walled gardens based on local specialist literature, such as capital case for Australasian rodents but sentence case for Asian rodents, or capital case for rodents but sentence case for lagomorphs: that starts getting silly. After all, our sources don't change capitalization from chapter to chapter. kwami (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we think there should be consistency—especially me—, but we have not yet decided whether we want sentence case to be used for all articles. If it is not possible to use one system of cases for all mammals, my idea is that we should use one system at the order or family level. It is really complicated the way the cases are used, as Ucucha probably can tell you. As for binomials, many, many, articles should be at them. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the text of the article, such as the dispute at thylacine, where people are insisting that we capitalize nonstandardized common names such as "Marsupial Hyena". Since we're targeted to the lay reader, that just looks silly. kwami (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case you follow sources. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That hardly addresses the issue, when the sources disagree. kwami (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick and choose one. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Leopard: Collaboration project with WikiProject Cats

The current collaboration project for the month of February for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats is Leopard, which is also an article listed under WikiProject Mammals. Members of both projects are invited to participate in the effort to get "Leopard" to feature article status! Tea with toast (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at that, good idea. I am sure we would be happy to help. ZooPro 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

hello, wanted to put this on someone's radar-

Vicugna is a genus name. it did redirect to the article for the animal named Vicugna Vicugna. which seems nice except there are other species in that genus, right? so, I think it needs an article or at least a solid 'see also' at the top of the page. could someone plz direct me to the proper smaller scale wikiproject if needed or pass this msg along? I'm sure taxonomy is a hell of a big undertaking on 'pedia or anywhere, and I'm just lookin a handful of chordata at th moment, so whatever I can do lemme kno. anyway, thx. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

unless domesticated alpacas and wild ones are classified the same, then maybe skip it? hmmmmmmm n-dimensional §кakkl€ 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are potentially two meanings for Vicugna: the genus Vicugna and the species vicuña (Vicugna vicugna). Those two may be the same, depending on whether one considers the alpaca to be a separate species (I myself think we should not do that), in which case Vicugna can simply redirect to vicuña, as it does now. If we do recognize two species (or more), then I think the redirect should still stay in place, as the species is probably the primary topic for the term "vicugna", but then there should be a separate page Vicugna (genus). Ucucha 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, cool answer. I'll let the ppl closer to the subject matter consider it then I guess. from a language POV, I basically thought "looks like a genus can have an everyday name, not just a latin one." I mean that's the case here, right? (or, local, s. american spelling could be preferred over the roma spelling.) I intially woulda said "there's no reason the content at Vicuña ought to be at vicugna, right?" but now I'll leave it up to the scientists.

my specialty is content-title tension when there's nominal pressure about either deleting an edit history (one major thing that distinguishes an article from it's content) or moving or merging. soooooooooooooooo, thx l8r. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Grubb's last work

Since several years there is an announcement for the book J. S. Kingdon and M. Hoffmann (eds), The Mammals of Africa, Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (with contributions of the late English zoologist Peter Grubb). Is this book still in preparation or it is already published? --Melly42 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One wonders how long it'll take. The IUCN references it as "in press". Ucucha 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The IUCN doesn't update that often, some "in press" papers having been published more than ten years ago. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Could we change the background in the info of the userbox? I don't think it goes well with the Okapi, maybe a green. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 13:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoo has a green userbox, maybe some other suggestions? ZooPro 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that yellow or red doesn't go well with it, and blue won't show up. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we switch it to a darker green than WP:ZOO? Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello, coordinators! I was wondering if I could do a review of the project for April 19's WikiProject report for the Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks, Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly worthwhile doing - has always been a bit of a 'sleeping giant' compared with other more active wikiprojects such as birds. We did try to kick-start a collaboration last year. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to squeeze in a space, I'm backup for the WP Reports, and I have to talk to iBen about it. Regards, Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got a space for April 19, 2010 (earliest I could find.) Hey, I'm only a backup. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine with me. ZooPro 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ZP! Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 12:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it goes to press this week!! I'm now a regular! Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banners

I have posted a question regarding talk page banners for this project and one of its subprojects on WT:PRIMATE. I'm treating it more as a "Primates" issue, but I'm sure we could use a consensus from this project and all subprojects. Please discuss it here. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a guideline on this created by the WikiProject Council its located here, It may be one of those things we need to form our own guidelines on as it has been discussed in the past, It would need to be a Animals wide consensus. ZooPro 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I would like to propose a merge of WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials with WikiProject Mammals. It is an inactive project and as such i think a merger could only benifit the project, if at a later date someone wants to re-activate it as a full project then they can. ZooPro 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per above. ZooPro 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak Support I think it would be good for that project, but I think Innotata is right about keeping the guidelines...maybe a separate section? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3.  Support per above. Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - I see no reason why it can not keep its current page format/structure as WP:Birds while being under the mammals hierarchy at a later date (i.e. if it forks out as a taskforce).Calaka (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

• Seems like a good idea, but I think it may be good to keep the bird guidelines used by the project. Changing this now certainly does not seem to be a good idea. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure what guidelines you are refering to, can u provide a link for me please. Cheers ZooPro 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he means this. That Project apparently uses the same forms as WikiProject Birds. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we would need to change anything in the project just have it under our wing so its not forgotten. I may have misexplaind what i mean by a merge, not a pyshical merge of projects combined into one, more of a wikiproject mammals looks after it in its own project space. ZooPro 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. So, basically, making it's appearance look more like WikiProject Mammals? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Monotremes and Marsupials Task Force after the merge would be a good idea. Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 12:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I had been under the impression that the Monotreme and Marsupial project was a subproject of Mammals, similar to Primates, Cats and Cetaceans. If not, and this merger proposal is to make it a subproject of Mammals, then that makes a lot of sense. But if it is already a subproject, I am not sure what would be achieved by a merger. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)