Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 9

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals WikiProject Animals/Archive 9 is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Thanks, Hafspajen! Great ideas! Now to select... one thing I would consider of #1 importance is simply that the image looks good at the very small size used by the portal template. For example, in the above images, I think the mouse or the bright red parrot would look good. Perhaps we could narrow down the above list to perhaps 10 images, then shrink those to the size they will be seen, from there discuss? Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - great selection! I think we also need to remember that the small size means the background should not be cluttered, and the long, thin orientation should be considered. With these in mind, of the selection above, I like the Fox, Mouse, and Mole.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My, forgot to put captions on them... Might make discussion bit more to the point. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

{{:::[/Very nosily butts in] As it looks like there are quite a few nice images to use on the Animals Portal, why not consider auto rotating them - a bit like Matty did with my archive box images? I think he does it on the Channel Islands Portal he set up as well? [closes door quietly behind me on the way back out]. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is autorotate? Now there are quite a lot of nice pic I put at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Hafspajen (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It was all the nice pics I saw on that nominees link that made me think of it. What I mean is the same trick that Matty used to make the images displayed in my talk page archive box change automatically between the five/six that I pick out. The Portal could have a selection of images that change. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, NOW I understand what you mean. How many images can an autorotate rotate? Can it rotate, like multiple images? Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It would just depend on how many it's set up for. As I say mine just rotates between five or six and I change the selection used every so often. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the tricky question is, can it rotate multiple images? But then one can make a collage too, no? Like Crisco could do some, and then we could rotate them. Splendid idea! Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• For a portal? You may want to check how P:ID does things. Images rotate automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Can you make image collages rotate? Hafspajen (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Move this discussion from my page here, hope Sagaciousphil, and Crisco 1492, it's OK. Hafspajen (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we ping @Writ Keeper: to see if rotating these images is feasible for a portal image? And given the small size, is it desirable? We still need to narrow the selection down a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just a matter of making a collage, uploading it, and using it as a standard image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• May I move your comment to the hot spot? Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Portal Indonesia, P:ID has rotating images. Sagaciousphil has on her archive box rotating images. You go there, one image of a lovely lady. You go away and then you go back, another image this time. It changes all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, but that's the portal page itself, right?, not the teeny-tiny little Portal box we are discussing here, is it? I'm not oppoised to the idea of rotating, say five images or so, I just don't know if it's technologically doable for this template Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Matty would do that, I think. if we ask nicely. Please, Matty.007 - (ping)? Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The teeny-tiny portal box is so small that it conveys almost no information - it is actually difficult to see it is a pig! If this image was to rotate on a regular basis, I feel this would be confusing for readers. If the image is larger, say parhaps on the portal page, then I think it's a great idea to show off several rotating wonderful pictures of animals. Just my thoughts. __DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is that pig? Hafspajen (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me a ping at the weekend and I'll have a look (it may end up a bit messy, it was a bit of trial and error with SagaciousPhil's). Thanks, Matty.007 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the pig__DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God. Hafspajen (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is tiny isn't it! How do we get the size increased...it really is not practical at the moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

.Matty will know how, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked Mr Stradivarius about testing images and linking to a separate image so that a cropped could be used for the portal image. See Template talk:Portal#Testing images and link= Essentially nope and nope. May be difficult to have a rotating image? Jim1138 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

.Well, user Matty.007 succeded once. Made some 5 images rotate on an archive box. (ping)Hafspajen (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)?

OK, I am just taking a Wikibreak at the minute, but hopefully I will be able to start having a look this weekend or before. What pictures do you want? Thanks, Matty.007 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear animal experts: This is a new submission at Afc. Is this a notable subject, and are the references reliable? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid species, and not apparently duplicated by an existing article. Abdopus aculeatus is currently a circular redirect to Abdopus and never had original content. The references are reliable. Note: The article's Taxobox mistakenly lists the common name (algae octopus) as a synonym. The correct synonym is Octopus aculeatus, as the genus Abdopus was only proposed in 2001, per WoRMS. It's a bit surprising such an interesting species hasn't had an article yet, but aside from minor cleanup it's a good Start to C class article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it is now at Abdopus aculeatus. Any biology-type fixes will need to be made by someone from this project, since I know nothing about it. Thanks for taking the time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are currently three articles and a list regarding cave-dwelling animals: Subterranean fauna, Troglofauna, Stygofauna and List of troglobites (to which Troglobite currently redirects). I'm not sure the concepts are necessarily distinct enough to warrant this separation: please see the discussion on Talk:Troglofauna. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

While I find the File:Sow with piglet.jpg quite cute, it seems that others do not. image edit history. I detest this type of action and don't like giving the impression of submission. But then, why go out of one's way to annoy and antagonize? Would it be possible to replace the image with another? Perhaps not so mammal-centric? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Any photo chosen to represent "Animals" almost has to be arbitrary, so I'm fine with a change. If changing the photo to a non-taboo species will prevent (or at least minimize) future abuse, all the better. The reasons for repeated vandalism and/or objections should be discussed on the image's Talk page (which apparently has been deleted several times due to vandalism). To be honest, I've never noticed the photo (a tiny thumbnail on the Animal Portal button) until now. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine it won't slow that type of thing down. Some seem to look for trouble. The sow pic choice could be construed a deliberate attempt to inflame. It took me awhile to figure out where all the links in the photo's use list went to and why moose would have that image on its page. A possible extended list of what to avoid: Unclean animal. Is there a way to randomly load one of a set of images? That could be fun. Jim1138 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that the "unclean" animal issue is probably a dramafest to be avoided here. The image is cute, but seeing as how the project template shows an elephant, probably best to make the portal contain some cute fuzzy zoo animal too, maybe a panda or something. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out where the image is "living" and how to change it; seems a request has to be put in and it is done by an admin? Perhaps we could all agree on a new image and then make a request? Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I or another, can put in a request on Template talk:Portal to have the template changed here: Module:Portal/images/a, but an animal needs to be agreed upon. My current favorite is the honey badger, a wp:bold tool-using species with remarkable intelligence. File:Honey badger.jpg or a crop of File:Prague ZOO - Mellivora capensis 3.jpg. Maybe stay away from mammals which have a tiny fraction of species? (forgot to sign) Jim1138 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical advice moved here from my talk:

::Looks like it lives at Module:Portal/images/a. You'll need an admin or template editor to change it, but once y'all decide on a good replacement image, just have them change the line ["animals"] = "Sow with piglet.jpg", to whatever the name of the image is (minus the "File:", obviously). It's line 97 in the code. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Working with domestic animals, I thought it was great to see a picture of a pig. Having farm animals in such prominent positions reminds us that they ARE animals, and not just sources of food or fur. There are a zillion of possible nominees out there. Almost every animal has a cute and cuddly aspect which can be photographed, or some other interesting/eye catching feature. However, I would suggest that whatever animal is chosen, it is immediately recognisable INTERNATIONALLY (Honey badgers are damn cute, but perhaps not that recognizable). I quite like those extreme close-up images of cattle.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to quickly select a temporary animal mascot to resolve the original issue? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just go for it. We will protest afterwards, but something will happen, no? Hafspajen (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. See below Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Easier to park thumbs here, look for images that look good at small size! Noms so far have been moved in. Add your favs here! Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember, the portal image size is 32x20 pixels. I created a hidden scaled gallery of the same images. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That was really different at this size. It really leaves only a few pictures left. Weird how things can change, the ones I was not really believing in are clear and looking good, like the Caribou and Swan II and Akhal-teke stallion II. And the racoon and the butterfly is clear and visible at this size. Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am mistaken about the portal image size. I measured several all as 32x20 and assumed that was fixed. I found another that was 32x25. I have not found the code that defines the actual size. I resized the gallery to 32x25 which may not be correct either. Need to find the true size. Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that it changed much, Jim. Looks quite small too me either way, and still....Hafspajen (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Could change it to a 1x1 pixel image. Would simplify the discussion. Would reduce it to 2²⁴ possible images. Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the portal image be an existing image used as-is or cropped? Show the entire animal or a portion such as the head, face, eye? It seems that many think of "animal" as a mammal. Should a non-mammal be selected to jog people's thinking. Given the tiny portal image, does this really matter? Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What if Matty can fix a rotating image ? You can have like 5 images rotating. Than you can chose a bird, a fish, a butterfly, a mamal and turtle.. well different animals. Hafspajen (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Scaled animals gallery
• 
  Honey badger
• 
  Raccoon
• 
  Blue morpho butterfly
• 
  Swan II
• 
  Caribou
• 
  Red-eyed Tree Frog
• 
  Akhal-Teke stallion
• 
  Fox
• 
  Brown bear fishing
• 
  White dove
• 
  Wisent, if cropped
• 
  Mandarin.duck
• 
  Otter swim under water
• 
  Polar bear swimming
• 
  Akhal-teke stallion II
• 
  Bumble bee
• 
  Clown anemonefish
• 
  European Bee-eaters
• 
  European hedgehog
• 
  Zebra II
• 
  Paradise fish
• 
  Puffer fish -if cropped
• 
  White Stork
• 
  Impala
• 
  Ara red
• 
  Squirrel
• 
  Common Kingfisher
• 
  Basking shark
• 
  cow 2
• 
  sheep 1
• 
  sheep 2
• 
  sheep 3
• 
  hen 1
• 
  pig 1
• 
  pig 2
• 
  pig 3

See Template_talk:Portal#Image_edit_request_13_March_2014_-_portal:animals. Per @Hafspajen: above, image change request is File:CygneVaires.jpg. An alternative is File:Caribou_from_Wagon_Trails.jpg. This request is to speedily resolve the unclean animal issue. This can be readily changed again, presumably once consensus is reached. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The portal animal is now/currently this Caribou image: Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OMG! I have just seen the Unclean animal issue! I missed it before. Shouldn't the editor/s be treated like any other vandal? Is this issue a genuine one relating to images rather than eating or touching some animals. Whilst I approve of a speedy resolution for this current portal image, this issue needs to be resolved for the future or we will be allowing a precedent for future disruptive edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The portal image thing was discussed about a month ago and we just now got around to changing it; I don't know when the pig showed up as the previous portal image, but it seemed reasonable to avoid controversy and change it. As for vandals, it seems that you can't change portal images now without going through the admins, so hope no future problems.

The vandalism issue was quickly resolved (more than once) with blocks and page protection. It took me awhile to figure out why that image was targeted as I was unaware of its use as the portal image. My concern is that some might believe we were deliberately using that image to insult, intimidate, antagonize, humiliate, etc. Jim1138 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If we use another farm animal, will it be vandalized by 10¹⁵? ;=) Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But if the portal image is protected by admins, shouldn't that prevent vandalism if we were to choose a farm animal (I really would not suggest this just to be provocative - I stated my support for farm animals well before I knew this was an issue). By the way, the list of Unclean animals is quite extensive and includes several of our suggested nominees such as Bats, Mice, Mole, Owl, Snail and Tortoise...although I suspect you have already seen this.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was the Wikipedia image copy itself: File:Sow with piglet.jpg history. Edit summary: photo changed because previous one was totally disrespectful for this topic Not sure if it affected the portal image. The page protection expires Mar 21st. Also, just looked at the Commons image and found/removed vandalism (not apparently religious in nature). I imagine that appropriate protections would prevent any vandalism.

I am not familiar with the levels of "unclean". I would imagine, given history, that Genus Sus tops the list. I have one Pakistani friend who is very uncomfortable around large dogs. Other than that, I don't know. Jim1138 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My primary concern is to not be unnecessarily offensive. Jim1138 (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138. I too do not want to cause unnecessary offense. I do not agree with the change in the portal from using the image of a pig because of the threat of vandalism, however, there has not been consensus on this so I have not requested the image be reverted. My concern is that we do not appear to know whether images of some (unclean) animals really are dis-respectful. Is the protest from a group of people or just an individual? I wonder why individual pages of animals have not been attacked (or maybe they have but I have not seen it).__DrChrissy (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, essentially, not much vandalism. File:Sow with piglet.jpg has been vandalized by five different IPs/accounts. The first two seem unrelated to religion, the third was a blanking from the UK who seemed to be on a non-religion vandalism spree. The fourth and fifth (first and second accounts) were on the same day perhaps by the same individual. The first account did a couple of experiments, added File:Allah-green.svg then blanked the page was reverted then blocked. The second account blanked the page on the first instance, was reverted then added File:Allah1.png was reverted and blocked. The final and only edit summary was "photo changed because previous one was totally disrespectful for this topic" which led me to believe it was the animal portal image as opposed to accessing the image from the article. File talk:Sow with piglet.jpg has been deleted four times, the first two for general vandalism, the third G1-patent nonsense, the fourth as a test page. The commons page had been vandalized twice, both not related to religion; the talk page no vandalism.

If you click on the text, you get the portal page. If you click on the image, you get the large photo of the portal image. Perhaps a shock. I asked an Atheist Persian friend who has no pork issues. She thinks most would not have an issue. Might be a click=touch issue as touching a pig is often revolting, though doesn't know. She thinks that some *might* think that the use of a pig would thought of as an intentional affront. BTW: I used Hafspajen's recommendation of Swan II and Caribou rather than my preference of Honey Badger. Given Swan II & Caribou, Caribou was selected over Swan II by the admin: "Wouldn't the swan be more appropriate for Portal:Birds?.

I do not consider this to be appeasement nor compromise. Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I do understand you both. Considering all this it was probably wise to change this picture, not to cause unnecessary offense. But I do understand Dr. Chrissy what is worrying about too . Hafspajen (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Might have religious reasons, you know. The Jews and the Muslims don't eat pork. Not kosher and not halal food. Some vegans can also be militant. (Veganism) Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC

Hi Hafspajen. I have lectured at university level on methods of religious slaughter and animal husbandry. I understand, and I am sympathetic to, (some) of these beliefs/practices, however, it seems that what we have here is someone who is stating that images of some animals are "dis-respectful". I have not encountered this concern before, apart from knowing that some religions ban images of animals on their clothing, especially during prayers. If these images are a legitimate concern - where does it end on wikipedia in terms of images that are used in animal-related articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

' In that case my comment was useless. About your concern, yes, one can replace 1 picture, but not delete encyclopedic knowledge or content or remove or rewrite. That is not possible. This is about knowledge, not about chosing what you like. Things exists even if you don't like them. We can't go on conforming to this kind of requests way to far. I don't like tomatoes, but I am not deleting tomato articles. Hafspajen (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! I really hate carrots! ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hafspajen (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one Wikipedia precedent to images which are possibly disrespectful. see File talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png/Archive3__DrChrissy (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I favored replacing the pig, as it is kind of a controversial animal to Muslim and Jewish traditions; I filed it under "who needs the drama?" Certainly everyone can point to someone with a beef )pun intended) against almost any classification of animal, but the pork thing is such a big deal to billions of people, figured it was easy enough to just pick anything else. (I still like the red parrot...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim1138 raises a good point that touching an animal image (touchscreens on tablets, phones) may be problematic for some. Is this a general issue which should receive a wider audience, or is it a case of "let (dirty) sleeping dogs lie"?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My read on this is that having an animal that everyone knows is offensive to Muslims symbolizing the whole animal portal looked too much like a deliberate symbolic snub. I don't think it's a matter of whether such images are inherently all that disrespectful, but only the fact of choosing it as our symbol.

Just remember that this isn't about content, it's about what image shows on the link to the portal- strictly an aesthetic/symbolic thing. We can afford to change the appearance of the thumbnail as long as we don't change the content it links to. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Matty asked if there is a need to fix those images, that it will show several images, like Honey bagder at one time, later caribou, than parrot and next a sheep, well whatever you chose. What do you think? Hafspajen (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I will set up 5 pictures or so, then you can copy the format and add as many as you want (presuming I can get the thing to work). Thanks, Matty.007 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I like the red parrot. Montanabw^(talk) 00:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Like that caribou, also the honey badger. Hafspajen (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The template is under discussion at TfD, expert biological input is welcome. A similar issue is present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Many thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a dispute over whether recent new additions at copper shark should be retained. I would appreciate input from other editors on this issue. Thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:27, 16 April 2014

Thank you for that unsigned comment linking me to this request, Snowmanradio. You will see that I reported my action on my talk page where JohnCD had written "Any suggestions for other WikiProjects to ask?". JohnCD subsequently approved the action I had taken on approaching other WikiProjects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, copying this here was a helpful act by Cwmhiraeth, for which I have thanked her. Links to archived AN/I thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear animal experts: Would it be appropriate to add some information from the above old Afc submission to the existing article Pinky (dolphin), and, if so, is there someone at this project that would be able to do it? The submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft if no one takes an interest in it. I know nothing of biology myself, so I can't do it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone add a taxbox to Cladorhiza concrescens and Cladorhiza caillieti? Many thanks. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Done! --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear animal experts: This Afc submission was about to be deleted as a stale draft. There is already an article Little pied bat, and Chalinolobus picatus is a redirect to it. The Afc submission is much more extensive. The content can be moved to the mainspace article, and the attribution can be saved in the redirecct. Alternatively, the draft can be moved to Chalinolobus picatus, replacing the current contentless redirect, and the current tiny article can become the redirect. Which of these should be done, or is something different more appropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

By all means, the stub should be replaced with the AfC. Chalinolobus picatus is synonymous with Little pied bat. The treatment of the species at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chalinolobus picatus is much more welcome than the stub currently at Little pied bat, and should replace it entirely. The creator may not have known the stub article existed, or how may have been unsure on how to contribute to an existing article. I don't think any harm is done in replacing the entire stub with the extensive AfC: the stub is basically the first sentence of the AfC. Per WP:NCFAUNA, the AfC content should be titled Little pied bat, with Chalinolobus picatus as a redirect.--Animalparty-- (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will work on this soon. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Mama meta modal (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

Do not hesitate to come and give your opinion. It would be so logic to apply the (same) usual naming rules to all animals, including birds... Click here to go to the talk.
Mama meta modal (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.

Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move for details.

Mama meta modal (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Move review for species pages at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names.

Mama meta modal (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation.

H. H. Wander Strata (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

The person messing with the "Sow with piglet" image was not offended by the image as such, but with this opprobrious piece of vandalism. They simply did not know how to revert it when they saw it in the article Six Kalimas, but they had a good attempt.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Oh well, we swapped out the pig anyway, as that was where the discussion went, so end of both stories. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup indeed, wow.... oh well I guess problem solved by rational and level headed members :) ZooPro 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an IP user (129.62.69.239 and 129.62.228.222) who keeps changing the name of the subphylum of Tunicate in the taxobox from Tunicata to Urochordata (but not the rest of the text, which now disagrees with the taxobox). Tunicata is the accepted name according to WoRMS with Urochordata being a junior synonym, and WoRMS is the source used in the taxobox. Any views as to which name should be used? I don't want to get into an edit conflict with the IP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I know squat about taxonomy, but I'll trot over and revert as needed until someone comes up with a source to conclude the dispute. If you can present best evidence and most recent sources on this stuff. Maybe also try wikiproject biology, they may have more taxonomy sorts there? Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This matter is now being discussed on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

On 12th May I expanded the Northern birch mouse article from a brief stub to a prose size of 2775 B (492 words). On 17th May, an IP has further expanded it to 6570 B (1053 words). Nothing wrong with that, I don't own the article. The new material has been added in one big addition and does not integrate well with what was there previously. I would be glad if someone else could have a look at it, especially the new referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I intend to make the 16th century section of the Timeline of Extinctions so full to the point where it needs to break away and become its own article:

List_of_species_that_possibly_went_extinct_in_the_16th_century

I will then put a link to the new article within the 16th century section of the current article. Would anyone like to contribute to this? Let me know here! Cheers. Kirby (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

By "possibly went extinct" does this mean there is uncertainty as to whether the species are extinct, or just when they went extinct? Do you have a single source in mind or many? I'm only asking because to indicate uncertainty or speculation in the title of an article seems a bit misguided, and any entries should of course derive from reliable sources. Any idea of how many individual entries would be on the new list? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! Late replying here. To answer your question Animalparty, is it more along the lines of "when they went extinct". One of the species that I am planning on including in my article is of course the Megatherium, which is rumored to have gone extinct in the early-mid 16th century. :)

And yes, I do have sources for this article of course and I will be sure to add/cite them. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious whether you've started this? Brambleclawx 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this question which I am sure has been successfully addressed hundreds of times before. There is a higher level article elephant. There are only two subordinate articles Asian elephant and African elephant. How much material should be duplicated? I think the answer is "as little as possible." So the African elephant article contains the specific amount that species eats. Then goes on about the table manner of elephants generally, which IMO seems inappropriate in that article. I think it should go into the higher level article.

African elephant correctly does not mention that the animal is a herbivore. This is addressed in the higher level article. I've commented in the elephant article that someone should "address" the organizational concerns. Not entirely sure what those are, but I assume "avoid duplication" is one goal. Right? Student7 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

These areas can be tricky. It is difficult to have no overlap at all. Will take a look a bit later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well for a start there are more than two daughter articles - there are two species of African elephant - African bush elephant and African forest elephant. The overall elephant article provides a nice summary which briefly touches on the differences betwen African and Asian elephants. The daughter articles would then contain more research on the individual species, and might at times need to summarise certain aspects of general elephant behaviour to make their feeding sections flow better. Agree we should keep overlap small but none is impractical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we have a similar situation with zebra, where there are many subspecies of zebras. My take is to do the "parent" article as well as possible, to GA-level, ideally, and then the "child" - subspecies articles should be comprehensive about the things unique to that subspecies (habitat, etc.) but summarize the generic "elephant" things. Does that offer any help? Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I can understand that duplication should be avoided, I can not help but feel the average reader would absolutely want to know from reading the African elephant that this species is a herbivore. I would not expect to have to go to a "parent" article to read this. I'm afraid this is in contrast to the position stated above by User:Student7, but we are both entitled to our opinion and I respect yours. I suspect this is the problem here - it is all a matter of opinion. Could we perhaps construct guidelines for such "parent" pages. For example, recommending inclusion of comparison tables of length, weight, colouration, etc, paragraphs explaining striking differences between (sub)species, e.g. a parent Kangaroo article could note the striking difference in lifestyle of the Tree-kangaroo compared to the terrestrial 'roo. Perhaps these sorts of guidelines already exist?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with basic summaries of these things, at least as far as explaining how one subspecies differs from another. i'd like to see what edits are actually proposed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no chance of avoiding some duplicity - there is an article, Animal, with various links to articles going "down" the taxonomic scale. Unavoidably, there is duplicity. I would suggest that for the average reader, their entry point (i.e. what they enter into the Search) is likely to be at the species level, or a collective article. I feel the species article should be self-contained, or the sub-species level where this is appropriate.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you and I have a significant disagreement on this. Student7 hasn't returned to comment, and I guess anyone who actually cares can watchlist the elephant articles and see if there are any problematic edits. Much as I like elephants, I do have other fish to fry (if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors!) Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd need a bloody big frying pan to mix those metaphors!  ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion because I have been working on the article Wildebeest with a view to GA nomination, and Sainsf has already brought Blue wildebeest and Black wildebeest to GA. One problem is that the wildebeest article contains more about blue wildebeest migration than does the species article (the black wildebeest does not migrate). I consider that each article should be considered individually and the reader should not need to click through to find out basic information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. I was unaware of this difference in migratory behaviour prior to the message above. So, as an uninformed reader, I would have liked the Parent page to contain a statement that the blue wildebeest migrates (perhaps with minimal additional information such as the distance or the the season in which it occurs) but the black wildebeest does not migrate. Details of the migration should then be on the Blue wildebeest article.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have become part of a much larger discussion. May be of interest to project members here: Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested moves. Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Sauropsida be at Sauropsid, for the sake of consistency with Synapsid, Anapsid and Diapsid, and Theropoda at Theropod, for consistency with Tetrapod etc.? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd take it up at the talk page of the articles in question. Montanabw^(talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can have "List of organisms with possessives of personal names" or "Category:Organisms with possessives of personal names" or (preferably) both. How many names of organisms contain possessives of personal names? (See also "List of organisms named after famous people".)
—Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My question is: why? What is the use, or intended purpose, of such a list or category? What new information would be gained? I may be misunderstanding the scope or purpose of the proposal, but it seems somewhat arbitrary and trivial, akin to "List of organisms with 7 letters in their names". For comparison, List of organisms named after famous people, while arguably trivial, ties together information on species, namesakes, and notes on why the name was chosen, which sheds new light on the etymology. Would your proposed list for example tie Say's Phoebe to Thomas Say? Furthermore, why emphasize possessives, which would presumably omit names such as Blackburnian warbler, named after Anna Blackburne? I'm assuming the scope is limited to common names (of which some species have many), but such specificity is not found in the title. If you haven't already, you might want to review WP:STANDALONE, MOS:LIST, and WP:LISTCRUFT for guidelines on lists, and WP:OVERCAT (especially WP:TRIVIALCAT) for guidelines on categories. If there is previous or contemporary discussion of this proposal on other talk pages, a link would be useful. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Animalparty. As a list, this wouldn't be much of a topic (especially if it was exclusive to possessives; also it would have too many entries for a Wikipedia list). I can see a category for all animals named after people though; some problems are that many species have multiple common names, and some species are only named after someone in their scientific name and it's be odd to exclude them. —innotata 03:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. The list could connect personal names with animal names, and a somewhat different list (List of organismic common names based on personal names) could include both possessives of personal names and adjectival forms of personal names, differentiating them in one or more sortable wikitables. (An adjectival name like "Virginic warbler" might have been useful for disambiguating "Virginia warbler".) The proposed list and category would interest me, but I accept that they are not considered by everyone to be useful.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

When referring to an animal species by its common name and the common name starts with the possessive form of a person's name, should it say: "The Smith's longspur is ..." or "Smith's longspur is ...". I've seen it both ways and I'm not sure which is correct. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Without the article is correct. If you want to be sure, see possessive determiner. So, "Smith's longspur (Longspurius smithi) is a …" —innotata 22:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also wondered about this. I note what Innotata says about the possessive determiner but in this case it is not that the longspur belongs to Smith. I would suggest it should be "The Smith's longspur is ..." in the same way one might say "The common longspur is ...", but differentiating it from "Smith's house is ...". It does look awkward though! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Grammatically, a possessive is a possessive, and it belongs to Smith. It sounds awkward to add the article, because it isn't natural in English, viz it isn't grammatical. —innotata 06:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tony1:, can you weigh in here? The opinion of a professional copyeditor would be appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a pointer to this question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors in hopes of more clarification. SchreiberBike talk 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for pinging the GOCE (experts, no; dedicated volunteers, yes :-)). As a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor (no professional copyediting experience, and more familiar with our Manual of Style than other style guides), I agree with the consensus that adding "the" clunks up the prose. All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) "Smith's" has the form of a possessive, but in the species name it doesn't function as a possessive. Rather, the species name is simply a fixed phrase. One can after all speak of "a Smith's longspur", but even if Smith owns several houses, you can't speak of "a Smith's house". So I think Cwmhiraeth is right, and the definite article is correct here. It does feel rather stilted, though. --Stfg (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another copy editor's opinion: I would always (I wanted to say "definitely", but I spared you that one) add "The" before the common name of an animal. Examples: "The giraffe is an animal with a long neck." "The peregrine falcon is a bird that flies very fast." "The Willamette daisy is a flower with white petals." "The Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) is a jay native to western North America, closely related to the blue jay found in the rest of the continent." This last one is from Steller's jay.

I can't think of a situation in which it would be reasonable to say "Giraffe is an animal with a long neck" or "Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) is a jay native to western North America."

Other classes of objects do not behave this way, strangely enough. "Bell's palsy is a form of facial paralysis." "Sturgeon's law is an adage commonly cited as 'ninety percent of everything is crap.' " I don't know if there is an underlying rule here (i.e. For names of species and maybe some other stuff, use "the" before the name of the thing; for theorems, diseases, and maybe some other stuff, do not use "the".), but it's an interesting question. (Now that I read Stfg's response above, maybe the rule is: If you can substitute "A" for "The" and still have a valid sentence with roughly the same meaning, you need to use "The". Hmmm.)

As Stfg said so eloquently above, I think that "Steller's jay is..." looks right because it follows the pattern of "Sturgeon's Law is...", but I think that is a spurious association that is leading you astray.

Here is one link to guidance on when to use the definite article: [1]. I found others, but they were not helpful on this particular point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason you don't say "the Bell's palsy" is because there's only one. "Stellar's jay" could refer to the species, or it could refer to an individual of the species. You don't normally say "I just saw a Bell's palsy". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere I found a rule to the effect that we use the definite article like this if and only if the noun is countable, so I agree with you, Jonesey95, that trying the indefinite article would be a good test. --Stfg (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not convinced. Not using the definite article is certainly quite traditional, and looking at examples on websites it looks like both styles are pretty commonly used. (Maybe we can say both are OK??) —innotata 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, @Innotata:, can you provide links to pages that show no definite article? The only ones I saw on a quick search had no definite articles for any species, possessive or otherwise! MeegsC (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I assumed everybody did this, based on old books…I guess usage today is more or less evenly mixed, even in zoological publications, and a lot of people omit all the definite articles. Try searching "smith's longspur" or "grace's warbler" on Google Books and you'll see what I mean. —innotata 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This can become complicated in a court case: "Five (of) Przewalski's horses were found on Anderssen's property." I recommend that professional associations of zoologists make a decision to remove 's from the name of every such animal: "Five Przewalski horses were found on Anderssen's property." (How many names of animals contain possessives of personal names?)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) and 18:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Court cases are a pretty specific problem…a lot more people than lawyers use vernacular names, so they should switch to scientific names! More seriously, our place is just to follow common usage. To answer your question, quite a lot. Somewhere in the ballpark of 500 bird species, for example. And animal (contra plant) names pretty much always use possessives when commemorating someone. —innotata 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To say nothing of the fact that Wavelength's idea would make many of the current possessive names pretty nonsensical. What would "Say Phoebe" or "Grace Warbler" signify, for example? And since Virginia's Warbler isn't (typically) found in Virginia, why call it "Virginia Warbler"? I agree with Innotata; if it gets complicated in court cases (and I seriously doubt it does), use the scientific name — no confusion there! MeegsC (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The names "Norway rat" and "guinea pig" are misnomers.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So you want to encourage zoologists to create more misnomers? What's the point in that?! :) MeegsC (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This subthread is quite far off topic. It isn't the role of an encyclopedia to tell other groups to change their ways, and neither the legal profession nor "professional associations of zoologists" would listen to us if we did. The issues for us are common names, standard English syntax and clear writing. --Stfg (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary: My summary of the above is that there is no consensus to include or not include the definite article (the) in the names of species starting with a possessive name like Przewalski's horse, therefore either are acceptable in Wikipedia. Good enough? SchreiberBike talk 21:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Stfg (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. I'm pretty sure no article for possessives is traditional, but then there's actual usage these days… —innotata 23:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You might find old sources with "the", but I'm pretty sure I agree that "clunking up the prose" with "the", as Miniapolis puts it, above, is better avoided. Tony (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Principle of the First Reviser into International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of the First Reviser. Discuss at Talk:International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature#Proposed_merge_with_Principle_of_the_First_Reviser Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear zoology experts: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this the right WikiProject to report, and is the draft acceptable? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting. I don't know enough about the topic (or the math) to say if it's good to go or not. You may want to cross-post with the Evolution or evolutionary biology folks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The ICZN ch.11 suggests listing the authors who place a species in a new genus following the original authority (the original authority placed in parentheses, of course). Apparently, some Wikipedia articles simply list the recombining authors, without parentheses (confusingly suggesting that they might have redescribed the species under the same name), as at great auk, until I just changed it[2]. (Side note: Mammals have their own format, making use of colons, that we have in many articles, but nobody apart from mammalogists uses it in modern literature.)

This came up (not the first time) at the Mariana mallard article (talk). FunkMonk asked me to move this discussion somewhere more public. His argument is that listing recombination author without the original author is fine, since the original author is specified somewhere in the taxobox. He also says that because this is done widely, so it's not worthwhile to change this. First, I doubt this is a widespread issue; most lists of zoological synonyms on Wikipedia don't list authorities, or only give the original authors. As for whether we should allow this, I think regardless of widespread it is we need to fix it, because of the potential for confusion and because it isn't according to the ICZN. I would also note that the ICZN doesn't have anything to say about people who reclassify a taxon as a subspecies as at the Mariana mallard article, but clearly listing only the reclassifying author is confusing, and not in accordance with the ICZN, and whatever citation of authorities we use at that article we should give the original authority.

Thoughts on what should be done? —innotata 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I do not support removing recombination synonyms, but I can support adding original author before recombination author, if this is added consistently across articles, not randomly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. I'm not sure what you mean by applying this consistently, though. I think that if Wikipedia articles have any problem that just needs to be fixed, you fix it where you find the problem; if I want to fix it in the articles where I've noticed it, I shouldn't feel obliged to seek out every instance of the issue! —innotata 20:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The ICZN in chapter 11 seems very clear to me. Recommendation 51A: "The original author and date of a name should be cited at least once in each work dealing with the taxon denoted by that name." Recommendation 51G says "If it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to another genus, the name of the person forming the new combination should follow the parentheses that enclose the name of the author of the species-group name (and the date, if cited)". Thus the original author should always be cited; the transferring author may be cited.

(This is different from the IC(B)N, where both original and transferring authors should always be cited.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the usage of several article names is up for discussion, see Talk:Anglo-Nubian -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

also Talk:Flemish_Giant -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

and Talk:American Sable -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

as well as Talk:Asturian Mountain -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ditto Talk:Dutch Landrace -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, there are over 60 articles with move recommendations, though some have no closed. See the full list (I think, may yet be more) here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Multiple_move_requests. Animal project members may also be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_-_Animal_breeds_in_lower_case. Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Animal anatomy and many of the subcategories are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear zoology experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have enough coverage in sources (to meet WP:GNG). I'm not sure how to evaluate computer programs though. Also, it's slightly promotional. —innotata 04:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's salvagable if the promo tone is reduced and perhaps a bit of cleanup occurs. That said, The Little Red Hen can do it, as I am not particularly motivated to do so. (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, animal experts! This draft article has been up for review at AfC for some time. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It needs work, but it's a useful concept that can probably be expanded to a medium sized article on genetic causes, occurrence of the trait, etc. I say let it free so that others can improve and expand it, and if it fails to be expanded it can be merged with Horn (anatomy). You should also notify the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture for their input. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Animalparty. I found quite a few Google Book references, so I did some copyediting, added some general information and sources, organized it by type of animal, accepted it and notified WikiProject Agriculture as you suggested. Now we wait to see if it attracts the attention of a willing and expert editor... —Anne Delong (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is going on at WikiProject Animal Anatomy about how to organise and structure articles related to sexual reproduction in animals. That discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. In order to keep the discussion centralised, please reply there (yes, in retrospect I should have posted here). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On this task list page there is a request for an article on the Gobi Desert toad. I thought I would create such an article but I could not find a scientific name for it. So, does this toad exist? While searching for it on Google I found "Images for Gobi Desert toad" included many images of a lizard, the toad-headed agama Phrynocephalus versicolor, so I created an article for that instead. If the Gobi Desert toad does not exist, perhaps mention of it should be removed from the task list page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that could be about. Keep in mind that anything posted or requested on Wikipedia may be complete bunk. I don't know who or what maintains the Animal tasks template, but by all means, remove and/or update the list. Thanks for starting the P. versicolor article btw.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pseudepidalea raddei occurs in the Gobi Desert according to the IUCN Red List entry (see under Habitat and Ecology). Could this be what is meant? Probably not. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)