Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 10

MOS animals?
Is there a standard manual of style for the layout of animal articles? (eg anatomy/morphology, biology, 'interactions with humans' etc?) I ask because of a discussion at WikiProject animal anatomy regarding organising and structuring Wikipedia's coverage of animal-related sexual reproduction articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is one; individual animals have their own projects, (birds, dog, cats, horses, mammals, etc...) and sometimes there is a local consensus for a particular style, but nothing overall. Montanabw (talk)  02:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would be very much in favour of an animal-wide MOS with standardised order of headings for sections, etc. Of course these could not be set in stone, but I dislike the enormous differences we see at the moment between, for example, articles which start with massive amount of taxonomy on extinct related species, to, stubs which people seem to have uploaded for no other reason than to say they have started the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a template for plant articles at WikiProject Plants/Template which may be of interest for the order of sections (unfortunately there's been far too much instruction creep in the details). I strongly endorse putting Description before Taxonomy/Systematics. It's very off-putting to most readers to start with highly technical stuff about taxonomy, however logical it may seem to specialists in the area. They want to know what the organism they're reading about actually is, not what its scientific nomenclature and classification are. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are different standards that I know of. For example, articles about dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles have different order and differently named sections. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to see more discussion about an animal MOS, and I thank Tom for bringing this up. There needs to be a balance between laissez faire freedom and bureaucratic instruction creep, and at least a central place where we can look at different options. At present things are too far inclined to the former, and individual editors are left rolling their own ideas in isolation and without feedback, such as here. There is a large spread of, often almost inactive, animal projects and very little or no central discussion on matters which are common to most of these projects. For example, the Fish article is overdue for restructuring, and it would be helpful to have some general thought-through guidelines and suggestions to refer to. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering whether we will need to have several sets of guidelines according to the level of taxonomy, for example, MOS might be different for articles discussing an Order of animals, Genus, or Species, We may also need to consider the relation of the animal to humans.  For example, a MOS for wild animals will not be the same as laboratory animals, or livestock (even though it might be the same species!).  Is there any merit in the idea of us suggesting exemplar articles which have a contents box that we think is a particularly good one (ignoring the actual content within the article)?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good way to go, finding some example articles. A TOC doesn't need to be entirely prescriptive. For example, in my primary area of editing, we use the medical manual of style. This recommends a general layout but not all subsections must be included, and sometimes there are a few options for headings. From my perspective as a reader and editor, having a standard table of contents is very useful. Having a standard TOC outlined in a manual of style:
 * Gives a clearer, standard overview, increasing accessibility
 * Removes a massive time drain, as editors on 1,000+ articles will not have to spend time individually thinking, tweaking and discussing what headings are 'best' or 'most appropriate' for each individual article
 * Allows a standardised 'best practice', something alluded to above.
 * Makes linking between articles a heck of a lot easier, as there are a set of predictable headings
 * Gives a good outline to editors of what sections an article needs to be 'complete'/GA/FA status
 * I do hope this discussion continues. There is no reason in my mind that different kinds of domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses) need to have separate style guidelines, but as per the comments above it may indeed be the case that some animals do need some tailoring of the layout -- and there's no reason that this can't be included in MOS, ie. something like "this is a recommended structure, but may not suite all animals (eg. animal name)".--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a loose outline at WikiProject_Arthropods that simply lays out the ideal points to include: Description, Distribution,  Ecology/behaviour, Importance to humans (e.g. economic or cultural impacts), and Taxonomic history. A similar outline is at WikiProject_Insects. Second, for many invertebrate articles, I think a good idea would be to focus more effort on the genus than the species article, as a profusion of species stubs with no cohesive genus description obscures comprehensive coverage, and the species of a genus are often all rather similar. Of course, individual species with a great deal of research or popular interest can certainly be expanded, but for obscure groups, the genus is often the operational taxon in literature. For example, I wrote Hiltonius and Tylobolus to cover all species in one article, and I've debated making the species links redirects with potential, rather than stubs like "X is a species in the genus Y that lives in Z, named by Jones in 1860",.--Animalparty-- (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I mentioned earlier that we might need different MOS for domestic animals is that often the domestic form is considerably different from the wild form, although they are the same species. For example, the egg laying chicken (Gallus domesticus) usually lives for 62 weeks, lays 306 eggs/year and performs a wide range of abnormal behaviour.  The broiler chicken (Gallus domesticus) lives for 6 weeks, never lays eggs and  behaves like a chick.   The red junglefowl (Gallus domesticus) lives for several years, lays ??? eggs and does not perform abnormal behaviours when living freely in the wild.  A domestic or livestock MOS would consider areas such as aspects of the industry, differences from the ancestral precurser, etc__DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one size will not fit all, but having a series of default, suggested layouts would probably be helpful. A large number of our animal articles are missing key information, and one reason so much of it is missing is that we're not suggesting what should be included. Many of these articles are mostly or entirely written by a single editor, so unless they think to cover every encyclopedic base, it will not be covered for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see both sides; on one hand, there is an advantage to standardization. On the other, we have wild and domesticated animals, breeds within many domesticated species (and the headaches I've had trying to explain the difference between a breed and a species to some people, to say nothing about the OR about landrace stuff...) Sometimes a style guide can be a straightjacket when one size doesn't fit all. Montanabw (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Then let's make it clear that the MOS is to be used as a general guide and that it should not be used inappropriately as a straightjacket. When genuine exceptions occur they should override the MOS. Exceptions won't be uncommon, for example, if you look at the TOC of articles such as Salmon or Billfish you will see sections that could never be anticipated by a general MOS. Exceptions like those should be honoured, but that doesn't take away from the general utility of a well thought-out MOS if it works as a guide more often than not. Some projects might want to make local modifications to the MOS. For example, the fish project might want to allow for sections covering fisheries and sustainability. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I too would be against "forcing" people to include particular sections or information, but providing sensible guielines would be advantageous. For example, IMHO "Behaviour" is a necessary part of almost every animal article...if there is a heading "Physiology", then there should be one on "Behaviour".  However, I have just taken a quick tour of the 7 recognised Classes of vertebrates. (sorry invertebrate people)
 * Agnatha does not contain a "Behaviour" section.
 * Chondrichthyes does not contain a "Behaviour" section.
 * Osteichthyes does not contain a "Behaviour" section.
 * Amphibian contains sections on "Feeding and diet", "Vocalisations", "Territorial behaviour" and "Defence mechanisms"
 * Reptile contains a section "Defence mechanisms"
 * Bird contains an extensive section on "Behaviour" (YEAH!)
 * Mammal does not have a section on "Behaviour" but (rather bizzarely) under the heading "Physiology" it discusses

6.1 Endothermy 6.2 Intelligence 6.3 Social structure 6.4 Locomotion 6.5 Feeding
 * It may be of interest that only Amphibian and Bird (the 2 articles that discuss behaviour) are featured articles.
 * To help this discussion along, perhaps we should decide a level of taxonomy for which we might develop a MOS/guidelines.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we can start with developing a MOS at the species level, and then see if we can find some useful guidelines as we move up the taxon? Maybe there also needs to be some discussion about the way certain topics spread across different disciplines. For example, animal reproduction has anatomical, physiological and behavioural (ethological) components. There is the start of a discussion about this at WT:ANAN, but the scope of the discussion is larger than the scope of the animal anatomy project. Should that discussion be continued here? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good place to start, and I agree nonbinding is best. There are certainly some common areas eg Anatomy / Physiology / Behaviour / Distribution / Interactions with Humans / History and Taxonomy... not necessarily using these exact words, but certainly these provide room for further discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that there is some variation and I have worked on bird, dino, mammal, plant and fungus articles, have been involved in discussions before. We've tried to standardise as much as possible yet give room to add or subtract sections/subsections where warranted. So for instance:
 * Making Distribution and habitat default heading (instead of range or them separately) - to standardise
 * Using Description as default (instead of appearance or identification (we're not a guidebook!).) - and removing the redundant and cumbersome adjective Physical - , which was often stuck in front.
 * Using the above instead of anatomy and morphology unless there is a detailed discussion of anatomy. Ditto physiology
 * Using breeding instead of reproduction (more accessible)
 * Using feeding instead of diet (more inclusive)


 * Usually starting with a taxonomy section - history and definition important first up, but mainly as I wanna slot photos in the description section and further down the page is good as it avoids the taxobox....


 * More thoughts will come to mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Casliber's view on the taxonomy/classification sections coming first, but this has been criticised in some places, when these are long, and perhaps not accessible enough. Some even prefer to place it at the end of an article... As for description, some still insist on calling it "morphology". FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most times morphology is used, the plainer and more accessible description is perfectly adequate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts. Firstly - and apologies to taxonomists - I believe taxonomy should be left to the end.  I really believe that the vast majority of readers when they open a page and are immediately faced with taxonomy, they scroll through it. I think that sufficiant taxonomy is usually included in the taxo box to suit the needs of the average reader. If we are to develop some sort of standardisation with Taxonomy at the end, specialised readers would become aware of this positioning and scroll through all the non-taxonomy stuff.
 * To my mind, the term "breeding" implies human intervention. Surely "Reproduction" is accessible.
 * "Feeding" is the actual behaviour. A section on "diet" usually includes what the animal eats, and how it gets this.
 * The sections suggested in the post above this one do not include "Behaviour" or "Ecology and behaviour". Sorry to keep banging on about this!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On taxonomy/classification placement: 1: It is important to put the animal "in its place" at the start, which gives context to the sections that follow. This purpose is nullified if it comes at the end, and the taxobox really isn't enough, as none of the names and ranks used are explained. 2: Most books and scientific articles about animal species and groups begin with classification chapters/sections, for the reasons mentioned in 1, a well established precedent. 3: I don't think we should underestimate the reader. They're here to learn, and if they don't want taxonomy first anyway, it is more than easy to skip. Also, I'm not sure it is a "fact" that most readers would necessarily not want taxonomy first. It is a bit more complicated for dinosaur (and other prehistoric animal) articles, as they often have a separate "history of discovery" section, that does not always correspond exactly with "taxonomy/classification". FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * only reason I didn't mentjon behaviour is that I was just going through some cases where different words are used. Behaviour is a no brainer as an inclusion. Agree with funkmonk that we need what is in essence a definition up front. Thing is, all FAs will have a lead that gives a whole summary right from the get-go, so not as if we are "missing" anything. HAving feeding and diet separate makes for too many small sections. Ditto distribution and habitat. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on all points with FunkMonk regarding the taxonomy/classification sections. Furthermore, the lemur articles I write typically include an Etymology section, giving the origin of the common and scientific names... which, admittedly, could be (and sometimes is) consolidated into the Taxonomy section in most cases.  I also use an "Evolutionary history" section to explain what is known from either the fossil record or genetics.  This is distinguished from taxonomy because often the taxonomic history has more to do with naming disputes and mistaken affinities (pre-Darwin) than with evolution per se.  For higher rankings, such as the article Lemur, I was able to write entire articles on both taxonomy *and* evolutionary history.  For the species level this will rarely happen.  However, the aye-aye may prove to be one such case (when I get around to writing it).  Therefore we need to consider monotypic species and how they will span multiple "templates", for both species and higher level taxonomic rankings.  –  Maky  « talk » 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot.... And then you have the issue of articles about groups of animals that do not fit into taxonomic groups, such as Subfossil lemur, as well as paraphyletic groups, such as Monkey... although these should follow articles on comparable taxonomic levels. Still, the first example is probably the most tricky because it is a label for a bunch of animals that have never been mistakenly assumed to belong to a single taxonomic group, even though they were all types of lemurs.  –  Maky  « talk » 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence some 'recommended' nonbinding guidelines. Great, it seems like everyone so far is in agreement that 'taxonomy' should be at or near the end. From my experience with guidelines for anatomical articles, we represent the etymology of the term (also generally a convoluted history of spelling mistakes and translations etc.) as a subsection to the 'history' section, as discussion of taxonomy/etymology is generally a historical explanation of why something is classified as it is currently. I also agree that 'description' is much more accessible than 'morphology'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that everyone was agreeing about moving "Taxonomy" to the end. FonkMonk and I were disagreeing.  –  Maky  « talk » 21:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. I don't often write about animals, but have found that, as with plants, it's often necessary to discuss some aspects of taxonomy early on. For example, where there are subdivisions of a taxon (e.g. subspecies of a species), it's almost always necessary to include these in the "Distribution and habitat" section, so the divisions of the taxon need to be mentioned first. The same often applies to "Ecology". So a general guideline order can't, it seems to me, put "Taxonomy" at the end. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Casliber disagreed as well. That makes four so far. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed Casliber. The way I think of it, an animal article needs to have a very basic approach by answering these questions (in order): 1) What is it?  (e.g. classification, evolution, etymology)  2) Where is it found?  3) What does it look like?  4) How does it behave?  5) How does it interact with humans? (e.g. - Do humans adversely affect its chances of survival?)  This also happens to parallel how I write a lead.  –  Maky  « talk » 21:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Casliber as well, modulo the concern that some taxonomy sections can get huge and geeky.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

coming a day late to this, agree with Dr Chrissy and some others, that taxonomy can't come first: this isn't an encyclopedia for biologists, it's an encyclopedia for everyone - we need to tell people what the thing is that we are talking about, before we can put it in context or differentiate it from other things. Starting an animal species page with taxonomy is like starting a page about a building by describing either the engineering theory behind its superstructure, or by contrasting its architectural style with other styles (either metaphor will do). But the reader would still be scratching their head, thinking "yeah, but what are we talking about? what does it look like?" In species articles, i'm happy with taxonomy being section 2, but not section 1. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If non-binding is the goal (I agree it should be), avoid labeling with Guideline, or it will likely be taken as binding, no matter what it says about being non-binding. WP just seems to work that way. I also agree starting with species and working both in the direction of higher taxa and sub-specific classifications, after that one is well-developed, is a sound idea. I agree with Montanabw that it will likely get complicated when it comes to breeds. For one thing, some breeds are raised solely for appearance, others for meat quality, others for behavior, others for conformity to standardized physiology for lab use, etc., etc., and most for more than one reason, while the relative importance of these things varies. In the Australian Pit Game fowl, for example, appearance borders on irrelevant compared to other breeds of chicken. With domesticates of all sorts, the importance to and history with humans is more important than for other species (some have essentially no relation to humans at all, other than we've observed them, and meta-societal effects like global pollution levels may affect their environment). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NB: I can live with taxonomy/naming as second section but not any lower. In fact, we did this with Banksia articles as it was 's preference....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of taxonomy as the second section. Describe the physical characteristics, then the organism's place in a larger scheme and definition. I believe this already is the usual organisation in bird articles. &mdash;innotata 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most bird articles I've reviewed (and written) actually had taxonomy first... I think it is the case for most bird FAs actually. It seems the opinions are almost evenly split, so perhaps it should just be optional. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes i think optional is probably OK in general at a MOS, but i would suggest not at FA, where the articles are supposed to be the best possible. There, I would prefer we focus on what the best way to do it is, rather than how it is usually done. I still cannot understand how it is possible, in an encyclopedia for general readers, to argue that the description of a thing's scientific classificatory status should precede an explanation to the reader of what the thing is! I'm just lost for words as to how to explain how fundamental this is for a non-scientific readership. Oh well. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I and others explained that at length earlier in this section, many experienced FAC writers/reviewers agreed. So it certainly isn't as clear cut as you suggest. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible sections
Here is a rough attempt at listing some sections that could be relevant to the MOS of a wild animal taxon. Feel free to change anything here and add your comments. A separate MOS may be better for domestic and farm animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to use Description when writing about a single organism but Characteristics when writing about a higher-level taxon and mentioning how it differs from other taxa. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm not a big fan of arbitrarily breaking up the taxonomy section. Rather have the unified placement optional. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with FunkMonk, and Cwmhiraeth, here. &mdash;innotata 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cross disciplinary topics
Ideally the topics an animal article is divided into are mutually exclusive. In practice topics are rarely so obliging, and tend to bleed into other. Two difficult examples are animal locomotion and animal reproduction. A discussion was recently started here for animal reproduction, and perhaps the discussion could continue here. In the above table, should locomotion and reproduction be stand alone topics, since any substantial discussion of either will include anatomy, physiology and behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Evolution for species articles is generally pretty short and slots nicely into taxonomy. Especially important as we use cladistics just about all the time now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could 'conservation' be slotted into, eg., ecology? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Tom, but I think there is a fundamental difference between ecology and conservation. As the Encyclopædia Britannica article on conservation puts it:
 * "Conservation is a crisis discipline, one demanded by the unusual rates of loss; it is also a mission-driven one. By analogy, ecology and conservation have the same relationship as physiology and medicine. Human physiology studies the workings of the human body, whereas medicine is mission-oriented and aims to understand what goes wrong and how to treat it." --Epipelagic (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the distinction you have in mind that makes distribution preferable to range? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * TBH I don't have a strong preference, but when we asked around before, folks preferred distribution so I began standardising after that. I just don't think we should have both. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well range is a much simpler word, so unless there is some rational for preferring distribution, shouldn't we use range? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah not sure on that one. Must revisit the exact definitions and think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reproduction and locomotion should be seperate. Of course locomotion is usually involved in reproduction, but when I think of locomotion, I think of e.g. the different gaits of horses, the flying of fish, the bipedalism of penguins....every-day modes of getting about.  Regarding range and distribution - I prefer "distribution" as we sometimes use the word "range" as a verb (e.g. various animals range over the mountains) or as a noun (e.g. the range of the lion is 200 sq km).  To my mind, the word "distribution" overcomes this possible confusion.  "Intelligence" I think should be dropped.  If we include this, people will think they MUST include something, no matter how badly researched it is.  I suspect we will get a load of citations of headline-seeking newspaper reports telling us that goldfish have got a memory of only 8 minutes.  Of course these will be verifiable because they are secondary source from a reputable newspaper/magazine, but many of them will be nonsense and may take considerable effort to have them removed.  Maybe we could encourage editors to include well researched information on intelligence, but there is remarkably little scientifically-robust information on this except for a few species.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on favouring "distribution" over "range". You didn't specifically say this, but "range" often brings to mind the geographic scope of an individual or group of animals, rather than a species. However, I don't think this is a big deal; the words are synonyms and both work. &mdash;innotata 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When I asked whether locomotion and reproduction should be stand alone topics, I didn't mean they could be one topic. I was raising the possibility that because these topics also include anatomy and physiology, each could have its own section rather than being a subsection of behaviour. (I prefer leaving them as a subsection of behaviour). --Epipelagic (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree intelligence would be seldom used (corvids, elephants..primates....). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think DrChrissy makes some good points. As stated reproduction and locomotion should be separate, as the lay meanings are separate, similarly to me as a lay reader 'distribution' is clearer if you are referring to what areas an animal exists in, and with regard to 'intelligence' I think perhaps you could just lump that under something like 'examples of optional headings', if you include it at all. As stated, if you include it, then there's the risk that down the track every article will have some sort of mention about it, but frankly it can be include in the section itself, rather than as a subsection. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have locomotion and reproduction separate from each other but subsections of behaviour. Our articles look more professional with a a mix of level 2 headings and level 3 subheadings, plus it helps categorise the material better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

How about keeping current practice as far as cross-disciplinary topics, i.e., specifically saying people can be flexible when not that much information exists on a topic. &mdash;innotata 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

History section
In response to some of the comments above, eg 's about "extended taxonomy" and "discovery", 's about "history of evolution", I think we could perhaps have a 'history' section? It's a pretty standard section in many articles. Not sure if the last subsection 'role in history' should be split off from the 'humans' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make much sense for organism articles in the same way it does for more typical human topics, since it's muddling up human history and evolutionary history. Your example starts with human history, then moves into evolutionary history, and jumps back to human history. It would be the same for geology; you'd want to separate how rocks got to be where they are from the history of their use. I'd split this up three ways: taxonomy, evolution/systematics (these two are very closely related, and can be put together when there's less information), and role in history, which can be put in the human relations section. &mdash;innotata 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Extinction daggers in taxoboxes?
Extinction daggers are not applied consistently across articles, and there even seems to be disagreement over whether they should only be used for recently extinct taxa, and not prehistoric ones. The daggers also don't link to anything, and some readers seem to be confused by them, not knowing what they mean. Also, in the automatic taxoboxes, extinction daggers become part of the taxon name links for some reason (see for example Paraceratherium), which is not optimal. So how exactly are we going to use these things? Should we even use them? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have specific arguments against extinction daggers? I rather like their use, though I think they should always be accompanied with the key: † denotes extinct . Perhaps the daggers could be linked, † --Epipelagic (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Linking would be good. Maybe request it as a function of the Taxobox template?  Personally, I favor using the daggers for all extinct species, and at a minimum, recently extinct species.  I usually use it at any taxonomic level to show when entire branches of the evolutionary tree have been lost. –  Maky  « talk » 04:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic, I don't have specific arguments against them, I just think they're applied too inconsistently. We need some guidelines for their use, and for them to be more understandable, with links or such. And by the way, I don't think the text "† denotes extinct" is used on any other page than the one I linked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I used the key " † = group is extinct " several times in this article. The extinction dagger isn't useful in articles that have no extinct taxa, nor is it useful in articles where all taxa are extinct. But it is useful in articles which have both. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion should occur at a higher level project like Tree of Life with nods to other major taxa (Plants, fungi, Paleo, etc) so they can weigh in. It sometimes seems superfluous to have multiple daggers in a taxobox when dealing with totally extinct groups: If a higher clade is extinct it would follow that all subordinate taxa are as well, but maybe this isn't readily apparent to all. --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Made new discussion, please comment there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Extinction_daggers_in_taxoboxes FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas's pygmy jerboa vs. Baluchistan pygmy jerboa
I am afraid that (Thomas's pygmy jerboa / Baluchistan pygmy jerboa) is one species. MSW and ITIS show it as Salpingotus thomasi, and only IUCN describes as Salpingotulus michaelis (Fitzgibbon, 1966) with synonym Salpingotus thomasi Vinogradov, 1928. Jacek555 (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears unresolved but favoring two species. ITIS actually lists both species under Salpingotus while MSW has Salpingotus thomasi as well as Salpingotulus michaelis (note spelling), referencing papers from the 1970s on the status of both species. S. thomasi is apparently only known from the type specimen, which may preclude rigorous analysis. IUCN lists them as synonyms without justification, but the sources in the Bibliography likely touch upon the issue. Pending a thorough literature review and discussion of both species, I think it's premature to assume they are synonymous, although the controversy can certainly be mentioned. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Genus names with parenthetical disambiguation
There seems to be disparity across animal article titles when the genus is a disambiguation title and there is no common name (e.g. Larisa (genus), Adela (moth)), and Carnarvonia (fossil)). Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) for discussion of whether a new naming guideline should inform animal titles. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Animal anatomy
Template:Animal anatomy has a very narrow focus, with sections almost entirely on systems and organs of mammals. Animal/vertebrate/mammal/human confusion seems evident. It ought to be broadened to cover other animal body plans; history (comparative anatomists, books); probably embryology as well. Or we could rename it "Mammal anatomical structures" to reflect its contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a newly formed Animal anatomy project. Would not this discussion be more appropriate on the talk page there? --Epipelagic (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it would. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Caridina Cantonensis sp. Crystal Red
Dear animal experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. A fair amount of work has been put into it, but it is unsourced. Is the material useful enough that it should be made into a redirect in case someone wants to improve it later? If so, what should the redirect be called, and to what should ti be redirected? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As a species, Caridina cantonensis is itself certainly notable, and there is an existing redirect of that name (pointing only to the parent genus Caridina). The draft article contains almost nothing that can be saved, but you could copy anything that looks reasonably like solid biology (as opposed to pet shop talk) into the redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chiswick Chap. Although I know almost nothing about biology, I became interested and did some research. I changed the draft into a more general one about Bee shrimp (Caridina cantonensis) and moved it into the encyclopedia.  I changed the species redirect to point to it. I took away the "how-to" aspects of the original draft, but I couldn't remove all of the text about aquariums because that appears to be the main notability of these little shrimp - they are cute!  However, I may have inadvertently used terms incorrectly out of ignorance, so I hope that you or one of the other animal experts here will glance over it and fix up anything that makes you wince. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Higher vertebrates"
The first two comments that follow are from a user talk page thread and have been moved here for further discussion --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, just wondering about the recent series of edits with the term "higher vertebrates". I definitely like re-directing it to Amniotes, and using it in quotes, but using it within articles seems a bit, well, 19th century, with a strong flavor of "scala naturae" on top. I poked around, and it is still used in scientific papers (which I disapprove of), but since we can use a better term, I think we probably should (aside from direct quotes of old sources). HCA (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be good to have some discussion about this. I haven't introduced the term anywhere apart from on Amniote itself, merely linked it where it already exists on Wikipedia. The issue needs to be acknowledged and handled in an upfront way. Perhaps there could be an account of the history and archaic nature of the term in the article on amniotes. Or perhaps there could be an article called "Higher vertebrates". There are parallels with some recent discussions about the use of the term "primitive fish", and perhaps that could be revisited as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could redirect it to Great chain of being ... (only kidding). Of course the Amniotes clade is a far more satisfactory entity than '"Higher vertebrates"', just a little unfamiliar to our readers, but then isn't our job "to inform, educate and entertain"? Talk of higher and lower really won't do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you saying references to higher and lower vertebrates should be removed from Wikipedia, and we should pretend the issue/confusion is not there? Is there not a case for an approach that educates? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Related to this, I brought up this point at WP:PRIMATE: "Primitive" language. Needless to say, this problem is particularly bad in discussions about primates. –  Maky  « talk » 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to also point out that I have taken an educational approach in dealing with the issue for primates (rather than simply substituting terms. See the article Strepsirrhini for an example.  I feel the best approach is to use appropriate, modern terminology in articles loosely pertaining to the topic, and save the educational discussion of historical terminology for the articles covering the main topic. –  Maky  « talk » 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, we are free to describe what people once meant by "higher" and "lower" in articles on the history of evolutionary thought, and in those places we absolutely must relate the chain of being to the terms used by early zoologists. But in articles on particular taxa we should avoid any such implications. We don't pretend anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should note the history of these terms, but not use them as if they're current. We shouldn't describe anything as a "higher vertebrate" on its own page, but if we're quoting an older source (or a very few recent papers that erroneously use it) we should link to something explaining the term. HCA (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I feel quotes are rarely needed in scientific articles. (I mostly use them in entertainment articles.) Most academic matter can be paraphrased and such archaic terms can be replaced. But as I pointed out, we need to be careful to make sure we understand the context of the terminology. For example, "prosimian" can mean strepsirrhines and tarsiers or just strepsirrhines (if tarsiers aren't considered), and even the term "strepsirrhine" may mean only extant strepsirrhines, snubbing a huge diversity of extinct adapiforms which don't share their key traits. Also, "prosimian" is still a functional word, but only in the right context, e.g. when comparing similar behavioral ecology of all non-simian primates. I can't think of any other examples outside of primatology off-hand, but please be mindful of it. – Maky  « talk » 17:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * such archaic terms can be replaced, sure, so long as it's not deciding what is "archaic", but rather what reliable secondary sources say is "archaic". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

English variant for animal articles?
I was a about to expand Columbian mammoth, but ran into a problem. Since this species is mainly known from North America, should US spelling be used, per? Is there a guideline about animal species and their country of "origin"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's about all the guidelines there are, barring the general rule that we should stick with the variant in which an article was first written unless there are very strong reasons not to do so. If the article was about the American bald eagle, say, clearly an iconic bird with "strong national ties", then even a Brit like me would at once try to write color etc as best I could. With a mammoth the ties are evidently more doubtful, and I'd use Brit if it were a new article, or whatever variant was already in use if not. My tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, then I should be safe, half of the text that is already there was written by myself, and I can't find any specifically American phrases in the remaining text... Also, the species was scientifically described by a Scotsman, Hugh Falconer... FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I am writing about a species endemic to the United States, I try to write in American English, but as my spell-checker is set to British English, I am liable to make errors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the animal so described lives or lived in North America, then US English is generally appropriate. Unless the finds were in Canada, in which case one could make a good argument for UK English. Most animal articles do override the "who got there first" general rule if they are "from" a place where the other lingo is used.  (We changed Gypsy horse from US to UK English for that reason, for example...)  Montanabw (talk)  23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'd suggest that the claim "Most animal articles do override..." is too strong. When a Horse mussel comes mainly from South Africa, would you honestly suggest that the South African variant of English must be used? I don't think so. The Gypsy horse is a domesticated animal with, inevitably, strong association to a particular group of people and a part of the world, so there is a good case for a judgement to be made about whether that is enough to override the general rule: for some domesticated animals it is likely to be the case (Shetland pony, perhaps). For a million other animal species (living and fossil), there is very rarely a case to be made for enforcing a variety of English. The connection must be "strong" and "national" - just coming from a place may not be enough to forge such a human connection. Geography alone is not enough to meet the criterion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken in differentiating breeds and species. That said, I'd suggest a species clearly originating in a particular area could trump the "first editor" rule.   Montanabw (talk)  04:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for being gracious. So the Shetland wren should be in ... well, what? Shetland dialect (influenced by Norse)? Scots? British English? It might not be easy. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR does not require us to devolve to the point of ridiculousness... there ARE, after all, other language wikis.  Montanabw (talk)  00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point entirely, that was a bit of a rhetorical flourish above (tone of voice is never easy in writing). I believe we should very rarely select a variant of English for a species; a strong connection to a nation, not just a place, is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Images of "abnormal" animals
I have recently been involved in discussion on the Cat article about the inclusion of an image of an abnormal cat. The image is of a cat with heterochromia. The different coloured eyes of the white cat make this a striking image, however, the article is already close to being overpopulated with images and this image was in the "Senses" section with no explanation of the image in the text or a note that the animal has a genetic trait for this condition. The question I would like to raise is whether images of abnormalities should be placed in the main body of animal articles or whether this limited space should include only images of what would be considered "normal" so that we do not mislead readers? Perhaps there should be a "Health" section to place and discuss such images? In this particular case, there is an entire article Cat health, however, this will not be the case for all animals and I am looking for a general approach to animal articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally, I reserve such images for special subarticles such as Cat health or maybe a cat breeding article. But I understand your concern for the general issue, especially for less popular species. I would say that for less common animals, the images could go in a more general article about animal health, genetics, or related topic.  And when I say "animal", it can be as broad as that, or more specific to an order, family, etc.  For example, I hope to write subarticles for Lemur someday, and that could cover a host of lemur topics and images that don't belong in obscure species or genera articles. –  Maky  « talk » 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This comes up every so often in reptile articles, mostly with species with many popular "morphs" in the pet trade (albino, axanthic, leucistic, etc.). I've generally gone with the principle that "abnormal" individuals should never be in the taxobox (leaving it blank is preferable), and if they appear on the page, must be clearly labeled as distinct (e.g. "An albino corn snake eating a rat.")  However, "normal"/wild-type individuals should be preferred whenever possible (outside of sections specifically about the abnormality in question). HCA (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And the real issue in the cat article is that the controversial image is also that of an adorable white kitten. So of course poor DrChrissy is trying to hold back the tide... Montanabw (talk)  07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with all the above. And the cat article is seriously overloaded with images - it starts fine, but scroll down ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomic ranks in taxoboxes (exception for Primates)
Generally, the rule is that only the main taxonomic ranks are used in taxoboxes, with sublevels and the like being used only near the level of the taxon discussed in the article. For example, suborder may be used if discussing a family, but is not necessary for a genus or species article. Personally, I'm of the opinion that in *most* cases this rule is very appropriate. However, with the academic attention on primates (as the order containing ourselves), I'm personally in favor of making an exception for Primates. The order Primates is divided two (or sometimes three) ways. The divide is quite distinct, and the emphasis on that divide is ubiquitous in the literature. However, most ordinary people do not know that a lemur or loris is not a "monkey", and are surprised to learn of the major divide within order Primates. For this reason, I feel that *all* primate taxa articles should note the suborder. Again, this is reflected in the literature by the persistent emphasis on the strepsirrhine/haplorhine or prosimian/simian divide.

There is precedence for this, as UtherSRG has pointed out: Infraclass Marsupialia is listed for all marsupials. I would like some consensus on this since I write extensively about strepsirrhine primates. – Maky  « talk » 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Taxoboxes are meant to help readers navigate articles and understand the 'position' of a taxon within larger groups. Keeping them as uncluttered as possible helps in this respect. I think that "recognizability" is a key issue here. "Marsupials", for example, are a well known group of mammals, so including this level in a taxobox is sensible: it's a useful group to read more about, and it helps to place an animal like a koala. On the other hand, I don't see the point of including Suborder Vombatiformes in the koala taxobox. This information may or may not be useful to zoologists and mammalologists, but I doubt it's of sufficient use to ordinary readers to be worth putting in the taxobox.
 * So, yes, I agree with Maky that subdivisions within primates are worthwhile, at least when these correspond to groups with well-known common names, precisely because as humans we are more interested in taxonomic divisions close to us. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with the proposal. An exception for primates makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The case for primates sounds reasonable, but making any exception raises an alarm - which other groups may also need exceptional treatment? I have no idea, but there will surely be some. The implication is that we should proceed carefully and with common sense on a case-by-case basis. What we can say for general guidance is that clutter should be avoided: for instance, we don't want 17 "unranked" clade names in every taxobox. On the other hand, where a major clade clarifies, simplifies and corrects the taxonomy then it's sensible to use it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm *not* requesting to completely relax the rule, just for a specific exception. Because we are primates and because in the literature there is a clear distinction between strepsirrhine and haplorhine primates, I feel those suborders should be given in all primate taxa articles.  This discussion is not intended to apply to anything outside of primates or for any other rank below suborder for primates.  I only mentioned marsupials as a comparable case for precedence.  Any other exceptions should be discussed here as well.  Thank you for the feedback so far. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 17:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, I want to briefly explain my own philosophical stance on this. Personally, I would prefer that we *not* include the suborder for primates. I feel that the constant emphasis on this strepsirrhine/haplorhine distinction smells too much of the scala naturae mentality (viewing strepsirrhines as "primitive" and "less evolved"), and deemphasizes the fact that strepsirrhine primates are close relatives. However, my reasons for this recommendation (as given above) still stand. My only consolation is that it provides readers with a chance to learn about the other half of our primate family tree.  I just wanted to note, for the record, that I'm not trying to push an agenda to emphasize strepsirrhine primates. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While I'm not convinced that adding suborder for all primate species is worth the effort, don't let me stop you. On a case-by-case basis there are certainly situations where including in minor Linnaean ranks or clades in the taxobox may be highly informative and worthwhile. If you are really interested in adding suborder to primate species taxoboxes, maybe consider converting them to use Automatic taxobox? I really don't know how to use automatic taxoboxes myself, but I believe that using them would make it very simple to switch between displaying or hiding suborders across a large number of subsidiary pages.


 * I do think it would be worthwhile to include the classification from order down to family in the taxobox at primate. And Daubentoniidae, Hylobatidae and Hominidae lack ranks between order and family; including additional ranks would be appropriate under the current rule, and the other primate families already include these ranks. As a very special case, it might be good to include more ranks at Homo sapiens; a detailed, comprehensive scientific classification of this species is likely to be of high interest (although I'm not sure where to draw the line on what ranks/clades to include in that taxobox; is it worth including opisthokont)? Plantdrew (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to be thus persuaded. Here's another case, which might be even more work (unless someone knows how to make a bot to do the job, it does feel like something that could be automated (broad hint to any techie listening)). It's that all the dragonflies and damselflies - Anotogaster for instance - are classified simply by family (like Cordulegastridae, which yer average reader ain't heard of) and then Order, Odonata, leaving out what is by a taxonomic quirk a Suborder, Anisoptera (dragonflies) or Zygoptera (damselflies) - which is surely the one bit of taxonomic help they could have done with. (Well, it might have been easier and more helpful to tell them (Class) Insecta rather than (Subphylum) Hexapoda, too, but I won't go there.) I do sometimes get the feeling that someone has deliberately been filling up the taxoboxen to make 'em as tricky as possible... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding odonate suborders seems reasonable. "Dragonflies and damselflies" illustrates why. In cases where the common name of a major Linnaean rank is a compound of two names ("foos and bars") that the average person might recognize, AND the individual names in the compound each correspond to a minor taxonomic rank, adding the minor rank to the taxoboxes is worth considering. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Automatic taxobox is probably a good thing to switch to, but like you, I'm mostly unfamiliar with how to set it up. After another day or two of discussion here, I will probably post a request for assistance/guidance or just try to figure it out myself.  But you're right—that may be the best way to handle the taxoboxes in order Primates.  I think I hesitated in the past due to the footnotes needed for some primate taxa. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm always very willing to help with using the automated taxobox system. Do read Template:Automatic_taxobox/doc/intro before you try to use it, if you haven't done so before. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've looked it over and only have a few small questions. I'll definitely be in touch within a day or two. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the main topic, or perhaps broadening it a little... The standard is to not include minor taxa except between the subject of the article and the next higher major taxon. Marsupials are granted an exception, and it seems there's reasonable consensus for listing suborder on primate articles, and looks to be a growing concensus on "dragonflies and damselflies" as well. Can we formulate some wording that might guide editors of other articles in deciding on the need there? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'd rather see it done on a case-by-case basis, using discussions like the one we've had here. If we give people guidelines, it will be abused.  (In my recent experience, the term "guideline" on Wikipedia gets translated into "a suggestion that I don't have to follow if I don't want to"... or at least that's how most of the discussions go unless the case gets brought up at FAC.)  This entire standard is a guideline, but I think that leaving it up to individual discretion is not as desirable as a case-by-case discussion and consensus.  As for wording, I would suggest giving examples of the exceptions and direct editors to discuss their ideas for an exception on this talk page (and to link to the discussion on other relevant talk pages). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm bueno with that. I just wanted some clarification. I think we're doing well with keeping the slippery slope from becoming a steep incline. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The particular change here, adding strepsirrhine/haplorhine to taxoboxes, seems a little odd to me. I get adding "always visible" to clades like Marsupialia/Dinosauria where it's a well-known thing that is in everyone's mind. But these seem a bit arcane for that. I have no strong opinion, but if listing 10s of items in the taxoboxes bothers people this might be something to leave out. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the two reasons for this are that the literature ubiquitously makes the distinction between these two types of primates and that this involves our own order, Primates. Interestingly, you've been making the case to always display the superfamilies Lemuroidea and Lorisoidea.  In fact, I just returned to this conversation to inquire about how people would feel about this—not only about those superfamilies, but a similar major division on the haplorhine side: parvorders Catarrhini (Old World monkeys & apes) & Platyrrhini (New World monkeys).  Again, the same arguments can be made; however, this may be getting carried away. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 18:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "literature ubiquitously makes the distinction" doesn't usually cause us to add minor ranks, as far as I know. There does seem to be a widespread desire to keep taxoboxes small, so we usually only add minor ranks if they are (I'm going to handwave a bit here:) {really well-known groups to help readers quickly identify that a kangaroo is a marsupial (or whatever)}.  Marsupialia, Dinosauria, etc are examples of such taxa.  We also sometimes add minor ranks that are in-between the subject of the article and the next higher major rank, but that is not what we're talking about here.  So, with that criteria, we probably wouldn't add Haplorhini/Strepsirrhini.  I'm actually not trying to make the case that we should always display Lemuroidea, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was pushing for that.  I am not.  I don't have much opinion either way.  And I don't think we should always display Lorisoidea, I have no idea why you'd say I was making the case for that.  However, I'll just note that always displaying Lemuroidea seems more consistent with other taxoboxes than always displaying Haplorhini/Strepsirrhini.  In other words, if we were going to start adding higher minor ranks, I'd think we'd do Lemuroidea before Strepsirrhini. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I'm off here, I'm no primatologist. I don't mean to come off too strong, I'm just trying to convey that from my point of view these are not the significant groupings when one thinks of primates (like "marsupial" is a significant grouping of mammals, e.g.): it seems reasonable to leave these terms off of most monkey species articles and only talk about them on the articles for higher-level taxa.  BTW Template:Taxobox/doc is the closest thing to a relevant guideline that I can find. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I now understand where you're coming from. Yes, the general public is more familiar with "lemurs", as well as "monkeys" and "apes" (though they often confuse lemurs and apes for monkeys because "monkey" seems to be used synonymously with "primate").  For this, we can thank the entertainment industry and the lackluster education performed at zoos, which is rife with misinformation and outdated views.  The reason why "haplorhine" and "strepsirrhine" are less familiar terms is because most forms of education are still hung up on an outdated taxonomy ("prosimian" and "simian") and unwittingly embrace antiquated views that stem from the Great chain of being.  Not only that, facilities like the Duke Lemur Center still embrace the outdated terminology because they feel the general public is "too stupid to understand" (and, yes, that's a quote from their staff)... because it's easier to explain the meaning of "prosimian" (pre-monkey) than "Strepsirrhini". However, despite the poorly handled eduction about the order Primates, the sharp divide is emphasized strongly in the literature, at zoos, and in people's minds.  In fact, a lot of people think lemurs are marsupials because they've heard over and over their they are "primitive" animals.
 * So in short, yes, you're right—strepsirrhine and haplorhine are not common terms for the general public, but the concept behind them (the sharp divide within our order) is commonly noticed and noted... though many of the experts horribly fumble our education of it. Unlike zoos and lemur research centers, I feel the public can learn, and I feel Wikipedia shouldn't be about dumbing things down because people are "too stupid anyway".  We can all see that lemurs and lorises are radically different from monkeys and apes (even if we mix up the terms), and we all know that the divide is a sharp and ancient one (even if we think of it as though we live in the 1700s/1800s).  I say we should let Wikipedia do its job and allow people to explore two unfamiliar terms for the obvious relationships we're all aware of, regardless of whether they come searching on the word "monkey", "slow loris", or "capuchin".  Always displaying ranks like Lemuroidea will only identify some primates and leave others (like Lorisoidea) less clear.
 * P.S. – Probably the only reason people know the word "marsupial" is because textbooks and zoos persistently refer to them as "primitive" or "lesser evolved" mammals. If they didn't, most of us would recognize animals like "kangaroo" or "koala" because they are cute and from Australia, probably not even realizing that they're related.  In their case (and unlike primates), the terminology has been consistent and widely used. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Rfc
There is an Rfc ongoing at Talk:Lloviu virus about monotypic taxa. It's a virus article, but the discussion involves animal articles, so more opinions from this project are welcome. ComfyKem (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS and GLAM/ARKive questions
Two questions. First, I noticed the above talk of a Manuel of Style for the project but didn't see an outcome. There is an article template link on the main project page but it doesn't match the discussion and hasn't been updated since 2009. What is the status of this, particularly the headings for articles?

Second, I followed a link from a project banner to-do, I think, to the GLAM/ARKive page. It listed several text related to animals that should be incorporated into articles. I know this project goes back to 2011,2012?, but many were still listed as undone. Is this still active and does this work still need to be done? Probing Mind (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the MOS stuff kind of died; there has been a lot of drama about this last year, and apparently the outcome was "experts are the enemy and wikiproject local consensus is also crap." No one has any energy left for the ongoing drama created by others who can't be arsed to actually create content. As far as GLAM/ARK - anyone who wants to help can be as bold as they wish!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aposematic genera
I want to initiate discussion of Category:Aposematic genera, recently created by User:Pigsonthewing. My initial thoughts are that while species may exhibit aposematic coloration, and thus possibly be appropriately placed in Category:Aposematic species, genera, being essentially convenient, arbitrarily defined groups of species, may not be defined by the traits of its constituent taxa, as explained in WP:CATDEF and WP:DEFINING. Thus, it may in practice be difficult to apply and maintain this category: does a genus with 99 aposematic species and one cryptic merit inclusion? What about 50/50? Will we need to recategorize genera if a non-aposematic species is added, described, or transferred (taxonomic revisions are not rare)? What about genera with some species lacking articles (making it harder to verify membership). I realize that some genera (including monotypic and small but familiar genera) are easily ascertainable as having only aposematic species, and some may even be in part defined by such, but I feel that genera and higher taxa should, in general, only be categorized by intrinsic properties of the rank (e.g. "Mammal genera", "Monotypic genera" "Genera named by Linnaeus", etc), rather than inherited properties from some or all members (e.g. "Striped genera", "Edible genera"). I'm interested to hear ways the category might be clarified or otherwise improved, or if it should be deleted. Addendum- I have similar concerns about the utility of Category:Aposematic animals, which is even broader in scope: it currently contains a variety of taxonomic ranks, from order (e.g. Salamander) to species. Another potential problem arising from any aposematic category is subjectivity, or editor opinion of what constitutes aposematism: might the peacock-pheasant display actually be an example of Deimatic behaviour? Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So species is the only reality? I could live with that, tho' it might be inconvenient. Probably User:Pigsonthewing has been sensible in permitting higher groupings, and implicitly ignoring (rare) exceptions. We should probably be happy with treating bees and wasps as aposematic, even though only the females sting!


 * On the question of whether something is aposematic (honest warning) or deimatically threatening/just a Batesian mimic (bluff), the matter can be settled by experiment - feed a suitable predator on the species in question; if the predator forever after refuses to touch it (or dies), it was aposematic. So it's not just subjective: but many species have never been tested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (Philosophical tangent) There are some who hold that the species is the only "real" entity in classification (some might argue it is the population, or even individual), and there is not even agreement about what a species is. Everything above species, according to this view, are merely hypothetical, artificial opinions of how species should be grouped. An owl doesn't give one hoot about where in the tree of life scientists place it or what it should be called. Genera and families don't lay eggs, or breathe with gills, etc, rather the members of their species do. Similarly a genus or phylum doesn't evolve or go extinct, only populations do, which imparts an emergent effect on higher taxa.
 * The issues here more concern categories along the guidelines of Categorization, e.g. unambiguous and defining traits, rather than debating or proposing scenarios or experiments to prove aposematism. Some animals are clearly, commonly, and reliably described as aposematic. But some animals are clearly, commonly, and reliably described as blue and we don't have a category for blue animals. I am not yet sure if Category:Aposematic animals should be deleted or not but think it warrants discussion about what should go in it: there are surely thousands of aposematic species, and will we one day be managing dozens of subcategories, or one very large category? --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, by no means am I condemning or criticizing the contributions of Pigsonthewing, and indeed welcome his input. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the articles in Category:Aposematic genera and Category:Aposematic animals were previously in Category:Warning coloration. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Identification?


This picture is labeled as "pink tongue walrus", and categorized under "walrus heads", but its description indicates that it's an elephant seal, and in fact it's used to illustrate the article on elephant seals... although it doesn't seem particularly snouty to me? Could anyone do better at identifying it? Thanks. DS (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up: I've re-categorized the image and requested a name change to clarify and prevent mistaken identity. FYI it's a female southern elephant seal, as per the photographer's Flickr image. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Essay
There is a new essay, "Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles", you are invited to comment on. DrChrissy (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Video Task Force?
A common problem with Wikipedia seems to be that many pages lack video elements. Is there a task force working on this already? I'm planning to upload brief videos but was curious if there was a group already working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns4571a (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)
Please see Notability (breeds) for a draft of a future proposal for a notability guideline on domestic animal breeds. As your wiki-project is involved in this area, I am dropping off an invite to the discussion. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds). Thanks!  JT <sub style="color:grey;">dale Talk ~ 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Herpetoculture wikiproject
FYI, there's a proposal for a wikiproject on herpetoculture. For the discussion, see WikiProject Council/Proposals/Herpetoculture -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Animal trapping listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal trapping to be moved to Trapping. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Columbian mammoth at FAC
Columbian mammoth is currently nominated as a featured article candidate, any comments for its improvement are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Should animals be called "it"?
Has there ever been discussion, or are there guidelines, on whether animals should be referred to as "it" rather than "they"? DrChrissy (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, more guidelines. I don't think we need them, just an ear for encyclopaedic tone and plain English. On the Jane Austen-style use of "they" as a singular ("Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" Emma, talking about Harriet Smith), writers better than ourselves have been doing it for two centuries, so it's certainly good English; if you wish to avoid it, do so, but take care not to create a verbal tangle.


 * Coming back to animals, if we're speaking of a sawfly or ichneumon wasp searching for a good place to lay eggs, we may reasonably call her "she" when necessary. Anthropomorphism is plainly inappropriate in an encyclopaedia, so it is often best to use "it" or "they" rather than "he" or "she" when gender isn't involved. Even, dare I say, when "they" is singular. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought the issue that User:DrChrissy was raising is a bit different, namely what grammatical number to use when talking of the species as a whole. Just as an example, consider Blue-footed booby. The article opens "The blue-footed booby .. is ... It is easily recognizable ..." It then goes on "Males are .. raising their feet .. before the female." It's conventional to use the exact wording of the article title in the first sentence, so the singular there is essentially required. But you could perfectly well then write "They are easily recognizable .." and "The male is .. raising its [?his] feet .. before the female." I don't think it matters, although I find the switch in "Males are .. before the female" odd and would prefer either of "Males are .. before the females" or "The male is .. before the female." I certainly don't believe we need guidelines, other than the general one of trying to be locally consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To revert to your Blue-footed booby example, the first paragraph is a mish-mash of singular and plural sentences, a thing I try hard to avoid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My question is more about whether we should write "The Komodo dragon has talons which it uses for tearing at prey" or "Komodo dragons have talons which they use for tearing at prey". My preference is to avoid using "it" as this makes the animal more of a "creature" than a (potentially sentient) being.  I'm not looking for guidelines here really, just some feedback.  I was thinking of editing the Komodo dragon article to reflect this but then noticed it is a featured article so I thought I better talk about it first. DrChrissy (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of those seem quite acceptable, but alternating between them, specially in the same sentence, isn't the best! You may be right that the plural form seems a little less personal. Interesting that even a singular/plural question has many aspects to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that alternating within the same sentence or even the same paragraph is to be avoided.
 * In contexts there is a subtle difference between "the Komodo dragon" and "Komodo dragons" in that the first clearly refers to the species as a whole and the second may not. For example, if the behaviour of Komodo dragons living near people were different, you would write "Komodo dragons living near people .." and not "The Komodo dragon living near people ..". For this reason I think it's often better to use the singular form when talking about the species as a whole. But in this case, "it" does not refer to an individual animal, but to the species, so "he" or "she" would be wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When an animal is individually named, as a general rule, the animal is a "he" or "she". The species or breed as a whole is usually "it." I took a peek at the AP manual of style, and it said, "do not apply a personal pronoun to an animal unless its sex has been established or it has a name." They apply this principle to the use of "whom" or "which" as well ("He... who..." It... which..." ) And in DrChrissy's situation, I favor use of the plural; but for a Featured Article, I STRONGLY recommend taking the question for that animal to the talk page of that article also.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)