Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Disputed content

Sorry to drag you guys into this, but there is a dispute going on at Talk:Frugivore where someone who identifies with animal rights has been involved in edit warring over trying to add a statement about humans being "obligate frugivores". It looks like it already went through 3O before I got called in, so I figured I'd take the next step and call on the most relevant wiki project. If I have to, I'll take it to RFC. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Primate social organizations

I have created stubs for all the social organization types for primates that Wiki had been lacking articles for. Except of "Cooperative polyandrous group", which is only seen in Callitrichidae and is now mentioned in its respective article, the following articles were created: Multi-male group (synonymous with "multi-male/multi-female"), One-male group, and Solitary but social. These join the other known social organization types that already existed on Wiki: Fission-fusion society and Pair bond. I encourage everyone to start linking their primate articles to their appropriate page and help expand the new stubs. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New Lemur article is complete

The new Lemur article is now complete and has been rolled out. It could definitely use an updated class reassessment and a good copyedit. I'm also putting the article up for GAC after I finish the DYK nomination. Feel free to ask questions or help polish it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The first of several summary articles related to the new Lemur article has been published today: Lemur evolution and diversification

I will be submitting it for GAC immediately, though the article could use a quick, preliminary class assessment. A thorough proof-read and copy-edit would be greatly appreciated if anyone's interested. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Macaca irus

Does someone at this project know whether Macaca irus is the same as Macaca fascicularis, or a subspecies, or something else? The World Health Organization uses the name M. irus in the description of monoclonal antibody sources. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a synonym of Macaca fascicularis fascicularis according to Groves (2005, Mammal Species of the World, p. 162). Ucucha 12:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Importance ratings: re-visited

I would like to finally formalize the importance standards for this project. ("To be filled later" does not meet my expectations for a project standard... especially for my favorite Wiki project.) UtherSRG started to address this issue over a year and a half ago, but nothing was formalized. Working off of UtherSRG's work and my own thoughts, here are the issues that I think need to be factored in:

Recognizability/Generality

How broadly recognizable is the subject and/or how applicable is it to primates in general? The more recognizable and general, the higher the score should be.

Page popularity

This could help to give added weight to the previous category and helps bump up pages that get a lot of hits, even if inexplicably (such as Slow loris). This can be checked at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Popular pages. Consideration has to be given for temporary bumps a page might get due to various reasons, such as media attention.

Captive representation

Whether in zoos or in research facilities, animals in captivity may be of slightly higher interest and importance. This can be checked (loosely) at: ISIS Species Holdings

Representation in academic literature

Heavily researched subjects (including model organisms, highly published researchers, key research facilities) deserve extra emphasis.

Flagship/umbrella/indicator species

Species labeled as flagship species, umbrella species, or indicator species deserve extra attention because of their status. They were chosen for a reason, often due to public appeal.

Parent taxa of "important" species

Genera, families, etc. of popular species should also merit attention, especially when they immediately contain model organisms.

Media coverage

This, of course, drives temporary and long-term interest from the public, but can be hard to judge, especially if the assessment is occurring during a bubble of popularity.

IUCN rating

Species at risk of extinction require special attention to help educate the public, regardless of whether or not they are a flagship species. Extinct species (evaluated by IUCN only) indicate recently lost opportunities. Near Threatened primates could join the Threatened species quickly. Least Concern or (more questionably) Not Evaluated indicate either high abundance (and possibly already high recognizability) or insufficient information to begin with (meaning we need more research). This can be checked at: IUCN Red List

Unfortunately, some of this can still be quite subjective. (For example, the Gray Mouse Lemur may be one of the more common lemurs in captivity, but they're not at any of the zoos in southern California where I used to live!) That is why I will include as many links as possible to help assess a page's score. Regardless, if we use a simple point system, that should help standardize things and help reduce the likelihood of bias to strongly affect important assessments. The ratings can be assigned ranges as follows:

Score ranges: 0–12

Suggested ranking scores:
Top = 9–12
High = 6–8
Mid = 3–5
Low = 0–2

Ideally, the number of articles in each category should relate as such: # Top < # High < # Mid < # Low

Here are my proposals for the point system (based on five broad types of articles):

1) Lower taxa (including individual species and subspecies):

Recognizability

+3 for highly recognizable species or subspecies (i.e. Ring-tailed Lemur, Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur, Bonobo, Mandrill, etc.)

Page popularity

+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200

Captive representation

+1 if the species is represented in captivity, such as zoos or research facilities, per ISIS holdings (searchable online)

Representation in academic literature

+1 if heavily studied (model organism, i.e. Gray Mouse Lemur or Ring-tailed Lemur)—use Google Scholar if needed—or is a popular subject in most textbooks (i.e. Bonobo)

Flagship/umbrella/indicator species

+1 for species or subspecies that are flagship species, umbrella species, or indicator species

IUCN rating

+3 for threatened species (CR, EN, and VU)
+2 for IUCN-classified extinct species (please verify at IUCN Red List)
+1 for NT (near threatened)

Examples:

Article	Points	Score	Rank
Ring-tailed Lemur	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +1 (model organism); +1 (flagship species); +1 (near threatened per IUCN)	9	Top
Mandrill	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +2 (vulnerable per IUCN)	8	High
Indri	+3 (highly recognizable); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (flagship species); +3 (endangered per IUCN)	8	High
Silky Sifaka	+1 (umbrella species); +3 (critically endangered per IUCN)	4	Mid
Gray Mouse Lemur	+1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +1 (model organism)	3	Mid
Brown Mouse Lemur	+1 (model organism)	1	Low

2) Higher taxa (taxonomic genera, families, etc. up to order Primates):

Recognizability

+3 for highly recognizable higher taxa (i.e. Lemur, Gorilla, Sifaka, Chimpanzee, etc.), even if the name itself is not (i.e. Lemuridae for the Ring-tailed Lemur, ruffed lemurs, and brown lemurs)

Page popularity

+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200

Parent taxa of "important" species

+3 for higher taxa that immediately contain model organisms, flagship species, umbrella species, indicator species (i.e. Ruffed lemur for two flagship/umbrella/indicator species, Mouse lemur for model organism: Gray Mouse Lemur)
+1 for genera represented in captivity per ISIS holdings (searchable online)

Media coverage

+3 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage

Examples:

Article	Points	Score	Rank
Primate	+3 (highly recognizable); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa); +3 (semi-regular media coverage)	12	Top
Lemuridae	+3 (highly recognizable); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa);	7	High
Mouse Lemur	+1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa); +1 (sporadic media coverage)	5	Mid
Slow loris	+2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa)	5	Mid
Guenon	+1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (parent taxa: captive representation)	2	Low

3) Historic taxa (including all taxa levels):

Recognizability

+3 for highly recognizable taxa, (named) fossils, or common names (i.e. Homo erectus, Neanderthal, etc.)

Page popularity

+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200

Representation in academic literature

+2 if heavily studied (i.e. Homo erectus, etc.)—use Google Scholar if needed—or is a popular subject in most textbooks (i.e. Neanderthal)

Media coverage

+1 if there is moderate media coverage or better

Evolutionary importance

+3 for key transitional fossils

Examples:

Article	Points	Score	Rank
Homo erectus	+3 (highly recognizable); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied); +1 (media coverage); +3 (key transitional fossil)	12	Top
Australopithecus	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied); +3 (key transitional fossil)	10	Top
Cro-Magnon	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied);	7	High
Babakotia	+3 (key transitional fossil)	3	Mid
Hadropithecus	no points	0	Low

4) Subjects:

Generality

+3 for subjects that encompasses all or most primates or is a popular subject (i.e. Monkey, Human evolution, Brachiation, etc.)
+1 for subjects that encompass several medium to large groups of primates (i.e. toothcomb, toilet-claw, prehensile tail, etc.)

Page popularity

+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200

Research mention

+3 if the subject is popular in most textbooks on primates or in academic literature
+1 if mentioned occasionally

Media coverage

+3 for frequent media coverage (i.e. human evolution)
+2 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage

Examples:

Article	Points	Score	Rank
Human evolution	+3 (highly general); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (research focus); +3 (frequent media coverage)	12	Top
Monkey	+3 (highly general); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (research focus); +3 (frequent media coverage)	12	Top
Brachiation	+3 (highly general); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (research focus)	7	High
Primate cognition	+1 (mildly general); +3 (research focus); +1 (sporadic media coverage)	5	Mid
Toilet-claw	+1 (mildly general)	1	Low

5) Famous primatologists/primates:

Recognizability

+3 for highly recognizable primatologists/anthropologists, animals, and organizations (i.e. Jane Goodall, Koko (gorilla), etc.)
+1 for being generally recognizable (i.e. Duke Lemur Center, Bubbles (chimpanzee))

Page popularity

+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200

Widely published (primatologists)

+3 for widely published researchers, research subjects, or major research facilities

Media coverage

+3 for frequent media coverage (i.e. Jane Goodall)
+2 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage (i.e. Bubbles (chimpanzee))

Examples:

Article	Points	Score	Rank
Jane Goodall	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (reputable researcher); +3 (frequent media coverage)	11	Top
Koko (gorilla)	+3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (research subject); +1 (sporadic media coverage)	9	Top
Duke Lemur Center	+1 (generally recognizable); +3 (major research facility); +1 (sporadic media coverage)	5	Mid
Bubbles (chimpanzee)	+1 (generally recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (sporadic media coverage)	4	Mid
Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey	no points	0	Low

Admittedly, my examples pull mostly from the lemur side of things, but that is what I am most familiar with. From what I can tell, ranks mostly match up with what is currently assigned. However, don't expect the ratings to match up perfectly. I expect a formalized ranking system to create changes... hopefully seen as corrections. What I need to know is whether or not this will generate unexpected results, such as making a trivial article Top importance or a critical article Mid or Low importance.

So what does everyone think? Do the articles you manage come out with an appropriate ratings? Any obvious flaws or something omitted? (If you find a flaw or omission, please provide a suggested fix if possible.) – VisionHolder « talk » 05:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very ambitious project, I hope progress won't be hindered by its complexity. I would quickly like to point out it is no way inexplicable that the slow loris page is so popular just see YouTube! Cheers, Jack (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh great... the exotic pet trade. Just what we need... a bunch of "cute" videos showing lorises as pets. <deep sigh> Anyway, that gives an even stronger reason why the article should be expanded, especially the conservation section. As for defining importance, it is ambitious, but as my examples demonstrate above, I think I have nailed all the important points and created a functional and fairly accurate rating system. I just need people to help test it out a little bit and give feedback. If I don't hear anything in a week or two, I may post what's above as a guideline, leaving it open for minor tweaks by group members as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, VH! Now, given that there are on the order of 1000 articles that are covered by this Project, do we have a way to automate this? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol! As I said, even with this point system, there are still subjective elements to it. I couldn't even imagine a way to automate this. Even if you could, you would spend more time making and testing the bot than if you visited each page individually. The way I envisioned it, we could add it to our list of things to do, and break it up into sections. I already plan to do all the lemur pages, and I wouldn't mind also branching out and covering the lorises, bushbabies, and tarsiers, as well as their related topics. That leaves primatology & misc. (medium-sized list), "famous" non-human primates (medium-sized list), New World monkeys (large list), Old World monkeys (large list), apes (medium-sized list), and prehistoric primates (medium-sized list). The calculation sounds complex, but trust me—after you do about 10 of them, the numbers you need will be in your head. And if the people who do the groups know something about the topic, it can go even faster because you won't have to look them up. For example, off the top of my head, I know that the Black Lemur is represented in captivity (+1) and is Endangered (+3), making it Mid importance. All I had to check was the page popularity. I can do these ratings (mostly) in my head with the prosimian primates, and I was hoping that others might be able to do the same with the higher primates. If not, I will do it all... but gradually. It's already taken nearly 2 years to define importance, and I'm sure I can finish 1000 article assessments in a lot less than that. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be home in about 10 days and will be able to look at the monkeys and apes then. It's still difficult to do much work while I'm at work (at sea - very slow connection). - UtherSRG (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, it's great to hear from you again! You've really been missed! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The wikivacation was much needed. It's good to know I was missed; I got beat up a bit before my conneciton issues became overwhelming. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good to see you back.

Visionholder, your system looks sound. The only concern I have is that you may be giving too much importance to these importance rankings. The rankings are only an internal tool for this project; does the work that will go into assessing hundreds of pages against this set of criteria do enough to improve the content of our encyclopedia to justify it? Ucucha 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, the idea started off small when I first started writing it, but it became more and more complex as I tried to formalize the system for each type of article. If anything, this system should give some general guidelines on how to weigh the factors governing importance. The actual number crunching could be reserved for handling disputes (should they arise) or articles that are difficult to judge. I admit that I don't see a point to using this system with the majority of our articles—either those on the very top or the lowest ranking articles. Those should be obvious. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

VH - do you want to merge this into Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Assessment, or maybe copy it to that page's talk as a guideline for importance? I think I'll be able to start working on reassessment soon. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping to merge this in tonight. I plan to hide most of the text in a collapsible/expandable textbox, and explain that it can be used for articles that are difficult to assess or for disputes. Otherwise, I plan to mostly show the list of issues to consider. If you don't want to wait, you can make the move. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having fun now with WildBot, improving the links in our articles, reaquainting myself with the Project. then I'll be ready to do Importance reassessments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the lists idea. There is probably a bot which will create and update a page like that. Also we do love to complete lists here within the Primates/Mammals Wikiprojects! Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you, Jack. Sorry. Anyway, a couple of evenings ago I massaged the info above and placed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Assessment#Importance standards. Feel free to tweak it if needed. I may start evaluating importance on the lemur articles within the coming week. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was a bit quick with that. I just meant that I agree the articles should be split up into separate lists, and then I reckon there may be a bot to keep the lists updated with importance designations, sort of like we have now. If I ever get time not entering data/writing up field notes I would like to lend a hand and also delve back into other aspects of the project. Cheers, Jack (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

revisit redux, and a new list

Ok, so in order to refresh my memory (and to see how things stand) I decided it would be better to create list of New World monkey species in the fashion of VH's lemur list. It could do with some more text up top, but I've finally gotten all of the species formatted. I see that we are missing descriptions (particularly weights) for many of the species, and that sometimes we used average weight (either for the species or for both males and females) and sometimes we use a weight range. I just put what we had in the article into the list. I'm without my Rylands & Mittermeier... it's home in NJ and I'm in the middle of the Pacific... so I can't check to see if they affirmed or rejected or otherwise changed anything wrt MSW3, except of course the reorg of the Parvorder and Callitrichinae. It would probably be a good thing if someone checked that, particularly the handful of species where there is a question or the few new species not listed in MSW3.

Anyway, that's all in preface to say I'm going to soon be reviewing our assessments of the neotropicals. Then I'll repeat the process with the Old World monkeys, making a new list article for them before I reassess them. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your list looks great! Sorry I don't have the ref you're referring to in order to double-check your list. As for size, if you don't want to include size in your table, I don't think you'd need to, honestly. Lemurs are generally monomorphic, so one weight usually fits all. The species that have ranges experience dramatic weight fluctuations due to dormancy. With sexual dimorphism in anthropoids, it may be too much of a challenge to do weights unless you do one line for males and another for females, or just report maximum size. My only suggestion on your list has to do with the references. For pages like this, I added a parameter to Template:MSW3 Groves called "heading". If you include the taxonomic name from the top of the online MSW3 page you're referencing, it distinguishes the numerous MSW3 refs. See the template and List of lemur species for examples. Otherwise, keep up the great work! – VisionHolder « talk » 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm almost done tallying up importance. Holy cow this is easy when you have a complete list in your hands! For "+1 heavily studied", what Google Scholar value do you think makes a good cutoff? I get a fair number under 100, another sizable number under 500, and only a handful larger than that, including some over 10,000! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tallying things up, I tallied up the rankings using both 1000 and 500 as cutoffs for Google Scholar searches:

	1000+	500+
Top	3	3
High	5	5
Mid	57	62
Low	67	62

Not much difference, but with Low and Mid so close, I'll use 1000 as the cutoff. Using anything higher than that doesn't change the levels, only the intermediary score. Off to the assessor's bullpen.... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

....and I'm back. 132 NW monkey articles assessed for importance. However, I noticed that there are some night monkey changes. I'm making a (not so) mental note here to remind myself to look over the genus article and update the various lists that include Aotus... time for me to pack up and go to bed! - UtherSRG (talk)

First off, I want to warn you... I've had a a few margaritas tonight, so take what I say (and my spelling) with a bit of caution. (Sorry, Internet connection has been out for the last 2 hours, so I've had some spare time to kill.) Secondly, let's just say that the numbers look pretty balanced for what I'd expect in terms of ranking percentage. Top out-ranks High, which out-ranks Mid, etc. With that being said, I have to caution against the use of a simple Google Scholar search. I can't speak to your abilities at search engine query syntax, nor can I speak to Google Scholar's syntax parsing. (Sorry... got my master's in information science, specializing in information retrieval.) Maybe I should have made this more clear, but to me, the literature search should be balanced by search results and common sense. Did you make sure that the results returned only articles about the species, and not the genus in general? Depending on the search engine's parsing, this could be affected by the use of quotes around the search string. As long as you're confident that the results aren't terribly biased, then everything sounds good. Again, I intend the use of the "formula" to be used more for disputes and questionable cases. Do the species you're ranking above Mid sound familiar to you? Does it sound like an extensively studied species? Is it well-known to the public? Or is it just known because the genus is well-known (i.e. Capuchin monkeys?) Anyway, I trust your judgment. If all looks good, go ahead and update the importance status. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Your spelling was fine. :) I'm a fairly decent searcher, although I probably should have not included citations in the search. If I changed my cut off to 5000+, it didn't change the rankings of any assessment, so I think I made the right choice. When you ask if the species I rank above Mid sound familiar.... the answer is of course... but I'm familiar with all of the species. :D LOL! Ok, I'm gonna take a break from assessment for alittle bit before I start making the Old World monkey species list. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of the lemur articles is complete. Sorry, I didn't tally any totals. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Old World monkeys done, all 139 of them. there were more mids than lows, but there's a ton that are vulnerable or worse. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit that with primates, that is a problem. Primates are so badly endangered, almost all species deserve Mid status over Low. The problem is like like grade inflation in U.S. schools. The only reason the lemurs didn't have the same problem is because so many of them are Data Deficient. I guess if we have to, we could tighten the restriction so that only Critically Endangered primates get the added importance. Anyway, good job on getting so many assessments done. BTW, I've seen your request for an article reassessment, and I'm trying to find time for it. However, with the limited activity of this group and given how that subpage is out-of-the-way, I may have been one of the only people to notice it. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lemur (and Strepsirrhine) classification revisited

Two or three journal articles have come to my attention that need to be addressed in the new articles, Lemur and Lemur evolutionary history. I will try to have them incorporated by Sunday evening. Before I can make some of these edits, I need to formalize the higher-level lemur taxonomy, which you may have noticed can be quite controversial. Some ideas I thought were dead are not, while newer, more radical ideas have taken shape outside of my radar over the past few years. The worst part is that there is no consensus among the experts. Before the recent criticism of Wiki's FAC process and the suggestion that expert reviews should be explored, I have worked to build relationships with numerous experts in the world of lemur research, conservation, and husbandry. As I will summarize below, their responses demonstrate the sharp divide which makes it difficult to represent lemur taxonomy on Wiki. They all appear to agree on phylogenetics, but disagree about both the interpretation at the species/subspecies level (which I feel I have handled) and how to translate the phylogenetic tree into an out-dated taxonomic system at higher levels. Therefore, none of these taxonomic systems conflict with phylogeny. The disagreement comes from disputes over where to draw the lines for infraorders and superfamilies around the established phylogenetic divergences. In fact, these disputes are so horribly unhelpful and unproductive that neither side is wasting much energy on publishing anything about it, while many (like Ann Yoder) want nothing to do with what they see as a broken and/or meaningless taxonomic system.

The first taxonomic system was the one that used to be represented on enWiki and is still represented on Wikispecies. In it, the Aye-aye is in its own infraorder, Chiromyiformes, while the rest of the lemurs are within Lemuriformes. While superfamilies are shown in this system, the latest mentions of them are out-dated and no longer supported by the accepted genetic research. Consequently, until someone publishes an accepted taxonomy, complete with new superfamily organization, the use of superfamilies is pointless, or at best, unsupported or contradictory.

I have spoken with Colin Groves about this topic twice. The first email was in regards to the use of Chiromyiformes. As I will explain below, at the time I was under the impression from the literature that all "lemur families" were being lumped under Lemuriformes. Groves did not deny the the support for this view, so based on the literature available to me, I changed the taxonomic organization of the Aye-aye to reside as a family within Lemuriformes. Just this week, I wrote to Dr. Groves again, this time asking about a newer taxonomy by Marc Godinot (described next), and this time he replied that he (personally) still stands by his MSW3 classification, with the Aye-aye within infraorder Chiromyiformes. Since Russell Mittermeier at Conservation International (CI) is impossible to get in touch with, Dr. Groves pointed me to Anthony Rylands at CI. Rylands essentially told me that their 3rd edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar" (to be published this summer) does not concern itself with higher level taxonomy. He said they are more interested in the growing number of lemur species. He then went on to say that they more-or-less support whatever Colin Groves says. It should be noted that Groves is one of their contributors and a supporter of potentially inflated species numbers, something that helps conservation efforts.

Since MSW3 and Lemurs of Madagascar 2nd edition (LM2) are used on Wikipedia as "taxonomic authorities", it seems like a cut-and-dry case. However, there are a number of issues. First, MSW3 and LM2 agree because they share the same views on conservation—that large numbers of differentiated species can be used to protect lemur populations. This is not necessarily a majority opinion within the lemur research, conservation, and husbandry fields. Just because they are the only ones to publish books or book sections on lemur or primate taxonomy, does that merit using them as our "taxonomic authorities"—a term that seems largely arbitrary and is mostly meaningless outside of Wiki. As I'll show next, Marc Godinot has published his own views on higher level lemur taxonomy, which conflict strongly with that of Groves. Additionally, many of the researchers I know favor his taxonomy. (Honestly, I probably need to do a bit more research because I'm not 100% sure I can call the taxonomy "his.") Anyway, if we revert back to using Groves' taxonomy, we will ultimately need to revise the new Lemur article to explain. The term "lemur" will no longer be synonymous with Lemuriformes and the taxobox will have to be changed to include two infraorders instead of one.

The second option utilizes a taxonomy explained (and introduced?) by Marc Godinot in Lemuriform Origins as Viewed from the Fossil Record (Folia Primatol 2006;77:446–464 DOI: 10.1159/000095391). He suggests that all living strepsirrhines be classified under infraorder Lemuriformes, with lemurs falling under superfamily (Lemuroidea) and lorises and galagos falling under superfamily (Lorisoidea). The Aye-aye would (apparently) be listed as a family within Lemuroidea. This taxonomy has very recently been used by Williams, Kay, and Kirk in New perspectives on anthropoid origins (PNAS, 2010). As stated earlier, it does not conflict with lemur phylogeny. I asked Dr. Laurie Godfrey, an expert on subfossil lemurs and lemur evolutionary history, and she strongly prefers this taxonomy. (I explicitly told her that I did not want her personal opinion—something she understands well from working with me for so long—but I wanted to know if there was a majority opinion on the matter.) I'm interpreting her reply to mean that the majority of researchers in her area of expertise favor Godinot. This system would require a few changes on Wiki and solves the superfamily conundrum (with a more recent peer-reviewed source).

The third option is what I'm currently using on enWiki. Lemuriformes and Lorisiformes are separate (agreeing with Groves), while the Aye-aye is listed as a family within Lemuriformes (agreeing with Godinot). Again, Groves did not object the first time I went to him about this. And with all my communications with Godfrey, she has never criticized this classification. In a way, it is supported by the literature (through inference), since all the articles and books by Mittermeier (and recently, Groves) simply mention 5 living families of lemur, making no mention of Chiromyiformes. This system does not solve the superfamily problem, though. The only changes it requires is additional text for the Lemur and Lemur evolutionary history articles (which I hope to add within a day or two) and restructuring on Wikispecies.

So which system do I go with? I'll be honest: I'm not going to be content with a generic "taxonomic authority" argument after all that I've uncovered by seeking numerous expert opinions. We need to go beyond taxonomic authorities in contentious cases like this and choose one side, the other, or somewhere in between, at least until it can be resolved in the literature (if ever). – VisionHolder « talk » 17:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that just saying "taxonomic authority" is not the right way to go about it. However, I don't think we need to choose any one classification. See here and User:Ucucha/Lemur for an example of what the lead of lemur could look like. Ucucha 19:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem with using primary sources for big changes. It's fine to use primary sources for new species, as those tend to be accepted readily (especially given the conservationist push for splitting), but it's problematical to rely upon primary sources for taxonomic structure changes. Those changes take a few grindings through the publications and swings back and forth from (for lack of better descriptions) a liberal structure to a conservative one. The secondary sources will stay fairly steady while the experts and specialists argue their various points in the primary literature, only changing once some kind of consensus or equilibrium is reached. Our best secondary source for taxonomic structure above the species level remains MSW3. I don't think MSW4 is going to radically change the taxonomic structure of the Primates order greatly, given what you've written. Perhaps it'll settle on a better placement for the Aye-aye. Perhaps the five families will still be split into superfamilies, or maybe they won't be. Likewise with infraorders. I think just pick something you're comfortable with, something you feel you can defend if an editor comes along to challenge your position. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Uther, but I've got to disagree with some of what you said about primary and secondary sources. When it comes to taxonomy, neither secondary nor primary sources can truly reflect the opinion of the field. Instead, they will reflect the views of the author. If there's any doubt about this, take a closer look at MSW3. In it, Groves essentially cites himself over and over, particularly in the contentious cases. Even most of the lemur species promotions he supported at the time are the result of self-citing. In this case, the only difference between Groves' and Godinot's taxonomies is that Groves wrote an edited book, whereas Godinot only wrote a peer-reviewed paper. Both taxonomies have been used since, even within this year. In this particular case, I really can't see secondary sources being freer from interpretive bias than primary sources. In fact, I'd argue that our secondary sources are strongly biased from their author's personal perspective. Ultimately, I think Ucucha's approach may be the best to use on Wikipedia. In fact, I endorse his new lead. Similarly, we'll need to take the same approach on the Lorisiformes and aye-aye pages. I still have no idea what to use on Wikispecies, though. Anyway, thanks to both of you for your feedback. I will try to update both pages once I get home tomorrow afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hardly meant to imply that by using secondary sources we'd avoid bias. Only that we'd avoid the thrashing of changes as they come out in the primary literature. I'm fully aware of the bias in MSW3! Pick something and go with it, but picking something that you can defend will make life easier. Secondary sources are easier to defend, especially if we use them consistently. Any challenging editor that comes along with the latest primary source can be easily fended off by saying that we stick to the secondary sources so as to prevent paradigm thrashing that would have us rewrite several articles repeatedly as new primary sources are published. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "picking something" aligns too well with neutral point of view. Ucucha 11:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I prefer Ucucha's approach by simply putting "See text" in the infraorder section. That will work well for Lemur, Daubentoniidae, Giant Aye-aye, and Aye-aye. The only problem is that we have about 40 pages under Category:Lorises and galagos that will need the same treatment. Another option for those articles (until someone gets around to rewriting all of them), is to only mention suborder Strepsirrhini, and for the main pages (Lorisiformes, Galago, and Lorisidae) use the "See text" approach, with a brief duplicated paragraph of explanation... again, until someone gets around to rewriting the articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Primate evolution

I know it's a lot to ask, only because I've done it for lemurs, but I sincerely feel that the section on primate evolution on our FA Primate page could be expanded greatly. In fact, I feel that like the lemurs, primates in general deserve their own Primate evolutionary history page. Is there anyone out there with the courage to tackle this beast? I don't have time due to all the lemur pages I'm trying to get to. However, if no one's up for it, I may try to set time aside for it starting in a year or two. Anyway, it's a fascinating topic that could easily fill an entire full-length article. I can even email some of the articles (references and PDF files) if someone needs the sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Vervet Monkey and Vervet monkey foundation

Is the capitalisation correct at Vervet Monkey? If so, then it must be wrong at Vervet monkey foundation, right? Could someone who knows whether the V and M need to be capitalised please move the article that is currently misnamed? Thanks. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

New citation templates for Lemurs of Madagascar

The field guide, Lemurs of Madagascar, now has a citation template similar to that of {{MSW3 Groves}}. They include:

• {{LoM2}} – the primary template for the 2nd edition
• {{LoM2 Harvnb}} – a supplemental template for use if different pages are cited multiple times in the same article (for use with {{LoM2}} only)
• {{LoM1}} – the primary template for the 1st edition
• {{LoM1 Harvnb}} – a supplemental template for use if different pages are cited multiple times in the same article (for use with {{LoM1}} only)

All templates have documentation pages to explain their usage. Please use these for consistency if these sources are used in your primate articles. I will go around and add these templates to all the lemur articles very soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the banner template

Would anyone be opposed to me renaming our banner template from {{PrimateTalk}} to {{WPPrimates}} so that we follow what seems to be a more standard naming convention? (There is already a redirect at {{WikiProject Primates}}, one of the other naming conventions I've noticed.) Obviously the move will leave a redirect at the current location, so there won't be an immediate need to run around fixing talk page banners. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that, although my old head will probably still use {{PrimateTalk}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move done. If it breaks anything, let me know. I may go on to set up a "book class" for the project next. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Book class established for WP:PRIMATE

I have created a custom class mask for this project, which now allows for the "Book class", as well as several others (Image, Category, Disambig, Project, Portal, and Template). I have even created WP:PRIMATE's first book: Book:Lemurs

I currently have a discussion going that should help sort out ways to organize and define books for clades of organisms, such as primates, lemurs, New World monkeys, apes, etc. Feel free to join the discussion. Once I have an organizational structure that works, I will finish creating the lemur books and may move on to create other primate books. If anyone wants to get involved, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bunch of trivial articles

Seen a few of these for the first time: Gorillas in comics, Gorillas in popular culture, Orangutans in popular culture, List of fictional chimpanzees. They should really be merged into List of notable apes or List of fictional apes. Jack (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you haven't done them by tonight, I'll do the mashup. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've incorporated all of Gorillas in comics into fictional apes and some of Orangutans in popular culture. Haven't got any more time today to finish but you should give it a shot tonight. Jack (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I turned Gorillas in comics into a redir to List of fictional apes. Is this our goal, or are we just populating the latter two with the former. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hrm.... I'm going to reverse that. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Orangutans in popular culture is done.

List of fictional chimpanzees was a mess. I've turned it into a redirect, as it was before February 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

GA noms

I just nominated seven articles from our B-class list for GA nomination. I don't expect all will pass GAN, but the input from the assessment will be helpful. I also think these could be worked quickly for GAN, and will start on them tomorrow: Red-bellied Lemur, Rhesus Macaque and Philippine Tarsier (rework to restore GA). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that you nominated Golden-crowned Sifaka. I'll review the lemur articles in a moment. Alternatively, would you rather I clean them up (by also adding additional information and more sources) for effortless GA pass? (I'm not sure who would technically get the GA credit since they were largely written by User:Mdits and User:Covalent respectively, both inactive users.) In the case of the Red-bellied Lemur, I suspect a lot more work will be involved. Oh well... so much for spending all day on the Subfossil lemur article... But at least we can get two more lemur GAs instead of just one.

And by the way... I don't recommend nominating the Aye-aye article. I'm planning to completely re-write it given the huge amount of information it is missing. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've decided to attempt some massive clean-up of both lemur articles. I'll post back when I'm done. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just failed gorilla and Jane Goodall as they don't meet the GA criteria. Both have {{citation needed}} templates and as such could easily have been quick-failed without a review. I have reviewed them (the Jane Goodall one in more detail) but given the fact that there is currently a backlog at GAN, it would perhaps be better to take them to peer review as that seems to be what you're looking for. You'd hopefully get more input there as more than one person may review as opposed to GAN, where someone can fail them for one or two issues and not really look at the rest of the article.--BelovedFreak 16:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also coming to the conclusion that some of these noms were premature. Even though it was said that Red-bellied Lemur was nominated, it was not... and I'm glad. I've done a quick re-assess and it's barely even C-class. Golden-crowned Sifaka may very well be worth of a GAC run, despite one unsourced statement that I'm trying to find a source for. I'll know more soon once I finish going through it section by section. For now, at least, the refs are cleaned up. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review at WP:PRIM is mostly broken, 'cos there aren't enough of us working it, so I skipped that and went to GAN. the three articles I listed above I was holding in reserve to clean up for GAN; I hadn't said I'd submitted them. And yeah, they were all probably premature; I had scanned through the B-class articles and picked the most promising ones so that I could get a better idea of what's what. I have a bit of backlog to review on my watchlist before I'm fully "up-and-running" today... - UtherSRG (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also general peer review. I started to review one at Talk:Darwinius/GA1. But there is a big backlog at GAN, and really you should make sure all articles meet the GA criteria before you nominate them. Ucucha 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New reference template: {{MSW3 Primates}}

It looks like WolfmanSF has created a new MSW3 template for use on Primate pages to replace {{MSW3 Groves}} called {{MSW3 Primates}}. What does everyone think? Personally, I don't think I can use it on some of the lemur pages because (at this point) unlike the Groves template, it doesn't offer the heading parameter I added. As a consequence, articles with multiple references to MSW3 would appear indistinguishable in the references section. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious - what are examples of articles with multiple references to MSW3? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost is List of lemur species, which cites MSW3 for each individual species. (IDs are linked to each specific MSW3 database page.) Lemur evolutionary history uses 13 different references with MSW3. When I get around to writing articles on lemur families and genera, I wouldn't be surprised if I do the same, especially if I have to explain their taxonomic histories. I can't think of any off-hand, but species pages could also do the same if taxonomic histories are complicated enough (due to species splits). – VisionHolder « talk » 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As an exercise, I have added an option for a user-supplied heading in the {{MSW3 Primates}} template, to make it more similar to the {{MSW3 Groves}} template. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have limited time to look at it now, but at a glance, it looks pretty good. I will try it out tomorrow when I don't have a 16-hour work day. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I'm happy with using either template, as long as no one gives me troubles during an FAC. If I could make one last request: it would be nice to offer the "ref=harv" parameter I set up on {{LoM2}} (for use with {{LoM2 Harvnb}}). If you look at how I organize references on Lemur, you'll see that I prefer to list all book references, and then offer a short citation in the list that links to the full book citation. All you'd need to do is add the parameter "ref =". I could either manually do what {{LoM2 Harvnb}} does, or I could make my own template. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, if I understood your request correctly; if not, feel free to revise it. Also, you might like to make the appropriate changes in the documentation. I'm curious, though - why haven't you done the same with {{MSW3 Groves}}? WolfmanSF (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It was on my long, long list of things to do. Honestly, I was getting very close to doing it, but then you created the new template, so I've held off, waiting to see how everyone reacted to the new templates and how all of this played out. Thanks for the addition. Keep up the good work. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New list

Last night I created a new top priority list called IUCN Top 25 Most Endangered Primates based on the biannual IUCN report. When I get home from work tonight, I plan to write up a bunch of descriptive text and try to submit it for DYK. Next, I will try to make a run for FLC. Feel free to link to the list from the articles for the species on the list. I've already updated Primate and added the link to the Silky Sifaka articles. I'll probably do the rest of the lemurs either at work or when I get home. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also created a new navigation template, {{IUCN Top 25 Most Endangered Primates nav‎}}, which I am adding to each of the species pages. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All the species that have articles have been linked, and the navigational template has also been added. I have a discussion going at WT:FLC regarding the proper name of the list, so any feedback from this group would be appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Madagascar get it's own section in the infobox or be incorporated into the Africa section? I know your love for the island (and lemurs) but other countries home the same number of species in the list (Vietnam) but do not receive preferential treatment. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The structure follows the publication's structure. According to "The 25 Most Endangered Primates", Madagascar is listed separately from Africa. Check it out for yourself. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And that is reasonable, since Madagascar (unlike Vietnam) has a primate fauna that is totally different from the rest of the continent. It's, in effect, a continent. Ucucha 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha. I was avoiding an explanation because I thought it would be too lengthy, but you stated it quite succicntly. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Jack (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Primate id

Hi, Could anyone help in id'ing File:Grooming monkeys.jpg? Alternate views here and [1]. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an Olive Baboon to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rhesus Macaque#Distribution_of_subspecies_and_populations

This needs rewriting. There are mentions of sanctijohannis but no actual definition of it. (I'm guessing that it's the same as brevicauda, but I don't have access to all the references given.) It also overweights the Chinese taxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. Apparently sanctijohannis is mentioned in ref #5 (a freely available PDF linked to in the ref) and provides the details listed. However, primate taxonomy is a beast, and unfortunately for all the non-lemur primates, they do not have a dedicated, regularly published volume like the book Lemurs of Madagascar (LoM) to act as a relatively up-to-date taxonomic authority. The best thing we have to go by is Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) from 2005 and the material published by the IUCN, such as the IUCN Red List. Often these contradict each other, and sometimes multiple IUCN documents published the same year will disagree on taxonomy. Fortunately, this is not the case here. According to these two references—the IUCN and MSW3—Macaca mulatta is now monotypic, and all of those names should be listed as synonyms in the taxobox (although details in the text is a good thing, also). Also the IUCN and MSW list sanctijohannis as sancti-johannis whereas ref #5 from the article uses sanctijohannis. Do you mind making the changes with these sources? (Personally, I'm a little busy this week.) Unfortunately, most of the primate articles are in a similar state of disrepair. Feel free to hop in and help. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Names capitalized

I have learned in my English lectures in highschool (Germany) that in English, cats, dogs, millipedes and all other animals in English language begin with a lower-case letter. Alle animals except those for primates in the Wikipedia project? Why? Are primates not animals in the sense of that rule? Or are there differences between British and American English? --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is quite a contentious topic (unfortunately); in the talk pages of some of the animal WikiProjects and on some article talk pages, you'll find long discussions of this issue. It's not really a British—American difference; rather, it seems sentence case is usually used in running prose and title case in headings and in lists and field guide-type books—and more generally in certain groups, including birds and primates. Ucucha 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It tends to provoke corrections by users from capitals to lower case in running texts, and the workload for the team to revert these corrections. I am asking myself, if the issue would be solved the other way - lower case consistently for all animals including primates in running texts - would this then provoke unsolicited corrections too?

For understanding: in contrast to Borneo Orangutans, humans are not a species of primates, or do I have to write Humans? --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with the sources—if they use sentence case, so should we; if they use title case, so should we. For rodents, sentence case appears to be more common; for primates, it may be the other way around, but I'm not sure. In any case, I'm not sure the hassle changing the convention for primates would be worth it. And you're certainly right that the title case convention can lead to some absurd results. Ucucha 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet understood the system. Are only the names of species in singular upper-case, or also in plural, or also the primate names above the species level, is it the Common Chimpanzee, the Common chimpanzees, the chimpanzee, the chimpanzees? Is this correct? Maybe the best solution is if I write consistently all names in lower-case, and somebody else can correct it afterwards. You may take a look at Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and see if I used the correct style. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Only species names are in title case, even when they are plural: e.g., I saw a Common Chimpanzee; I saw two Common Chimpanzees; Common Chimpanzees and Bonobos are all chimpanzees. You should be consistent within an article, though, so Blumenbach should either use "Platypus" or "common chimpanzee". Ucucha 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mico rondoni

The undescribed species mentioned in the final sentence of the taxonomic section in Mico has now been formally described here (open access; click download PDF or View HTML for the complete article). Just in case it has been missed, as I don't know if you prefer to wait on other authorities before including it. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I have begun an article on the species Rondon's Marmoset. By all means jump in if you would like. Rlendog (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhinopithecus strykeri

The discovery of the Myanmar Snub-nosed Monkey has been proposed for inclusion on the front page: informed updates to the nascent article or input at the discussion over inclusion would be welcome. Thanks Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, there is a disagreement on whether or not to use "sp. nov." within the article. Thoughts on this matter on that talk page would be appreciated. LadyofShalott 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Primate articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Primate articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)