Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 10

Pedals the bear
There is currently a discussion if an article about Pedals the bear is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. See: Articles for deletion/Pedals the Bear. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Humans section in Mammal article
Should there be a section dealing specifically with humans in the Mammal article? Discuss on the talk page.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

articles containing the expression "lower mammals"
Several articles contain the expression "lower mammals" -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search="lower+mammals"

I think that this expression is anthropocentric and vague, and that we should substitute some other expression(s) in these articles.

-- 179.210.201.86 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue restricted to mammals. The problem is that biologists know that "lower" in such a context means "earlier branching" and hence "possessing more plesiomorphic characters", but non-specialists are prone to interpret it to mean "lesser", "less evolved", "less complicated", "inferior", etc., none of which are correct. Given that reliable sources do use such terms, it feels a bit like WP:OR to avoid them completely, but it's good practice to insert quote marks: "lower" mammals rather than lower mammals. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to at least explain what such terms mean in brackets, whenever they are mentioned. There is a similar problem with using "advanced" and "primitive" for taxa; today, most biologists would say derived and basal instead, but not all do this, and the terms are certainly used in sources that are only a few years old. So those need explanation in articles too. FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it just be easier to wikilink it to basal?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm never in favour of making readers look at other articles just for a gloss, and anyway Basal (phylogenetics) doesn't really cover the issue here, which I think is plesiomorphic vs. apomorphic characters. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the instances, it's not being used for basal (I was expecting a sense such as non-placental, or non-(crown)mammalian mammaliform and mammaliamorph, but most of the uses seem to be for non-human, or non-primate, and in the context of derived human traits - often the loss of an anatomical feature). I'd say that we try to get rid of it. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I edit articles on animal cognition and many other editors use "lower" to mean less complex cognitive capacities. I am also in favour of getting rid of it. DrChrissy (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be replaced where possible. Even though it's used in some literature, we should aim to avoid terms that may mislead those who haven't previously read up on the subject when alternatives without drawbacks are available. CMD (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated
Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mammal PR
I've nominated Mammal for Peer review, I invite anyone to leave comments (and start the review) here.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk

I've nominated Mammal for Peer review (again), and this time I'm trying to get it to FA. Comments welcome  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look :) Zoo  Pro  12:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * whenever you're ready, I'll be waiting  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Eumops floridanus?
Hi, I recently added a lot of content and some pictures to the Florida bonneted bat page, and my hope is that it can move beyond start level! Hopefully someone can look at it (by the way, I'm new here, so please let me know if I'm going about things the wrong way). Enwebb (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job. The article is much improved. I think it qualifies as B class, though it could be expanded further. One thing I notice missing is threats to the survival of the species (e.g. habitat loss). Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is called the "most critically endangered bat" if it's vulnerable?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. In 2008, the IUCN had it listed as critically endangered, but the 2016 status revision was due to uncertainty of the data. Essentially, there is no accurate population estimate, and therefore it doesn't meet the criteria of less than 2,500 mature individuals to meet the IUCN standard for "endangered." As far as the assertion that it's one of the most critically-endangered mammals in North America, that came from the 2004 Timm & Genoways paper that reclassified the bonneted bat as a distinct species. I could explain that better in the Conservation section, perhaps? Enwebb (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll add that into the Conservation section. Enwebb (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

April the giraffe
Page watchers are invited to assist with the expansion of the newly created stub, April (giraffe). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bats Sub-project
Hi!

I am planning to create a sub-group for bats on the wikiproject Mammals, as it has been done for Weasels and others. If there are no objections, I will update the Wikiproject Mammals page to add the sub-group, and will create the wikiproject Bats page.

Feel free to join!

Fulup56 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the point? Are there even enough specialised editors for that? In my opinion, having projects that specialised doesn't add anything other than clutter on the talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. At the least it should be shown that there are a reasonable number of active editors (10 or more??). I'd also argue for the reverse: subprojects that now have few active editors need to be merged back into more general ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As you both underline the need of specialised editors, I will develop the idea. The idea is to involve all the bat groups in UK (thousand of people), as well as all organisations working on bat conservation in the world (EU+North America mainly targeted). So we will have many people able to add information and improve the content of the article on bats (in English, but also in other languages). However, it is true than most of them are actually not using Wikipedia, and may need support for improving articles. This sub-group would help them to integrate wikipedia more easily, underlining article in need of improvement, template for article, etc...It will be easier to have such sub-group to refer to than the general mammals wiki-project. Concerning the sustainability of the sub-group, I would like to underline that many of the NGOs actually working on bats are active on internet (website, social media, etc.) and they could integrate the edition of wikipedia pages in their task without doubts. Fulup56 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then a WP:Task force under the mammal-project would be a better start, at least until there are more bat-specific regulars, if that ever happens. But reading your first post again, that seems to be what you proposed already (seems work groups and task forces are the same). FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was exactly my idea. Sorry for confusing with the terminology. Thanks!Fulup56 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge May 2017 is "Mammals"
See commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - May - Mammals. It starts in few days. It is going to be difficult, because pets and animals in zoo are excluded, but we hope to get enough new nice images. Please take a look. It is porbably going to last two month, not just one.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on Hedgehog
Hello. For those interested in looking, there is an edit request over at the Hedgehog article that could use an evaluation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Marine mammal PR
I nominated Marine mammal for PR in case anyone's interested. I'm planning on getting it to FA  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Help requested: Mistakenly created wikipedia entry (Ailuropoda minor / Dwarf panda) ?
Hi, Wikipedians of WikiProject Mammals!

I was looking at the wikipedia entry Dwarf panda, which claims to be about the species Ailuropoda minor Pei, 1962. However, the only source in the article as of now is a press release for Jin et al 2007, and neither Jin et al. 2007 nor the press release mention "Ailuropoda minor"; both only mention Ailuropoda microta, which has its own wikipedia article. The taxonbox in Dwarf panda claims the binomial authority for Ailuropoda minor is Pei, 1962, but I can only find a Pei, 1962 that's the binomial authority for Ailuropoda microta. This paper, "Quaternary Mammals From the Liucheng Gigantopithecus Cave and Other Caves of Kwangsi" only names A. microta.

In the talk page for the genus Talk:Ailuropoda, (under the name "Mr. Fink") writes that he could not find any mention of A. minor, and neither can I.

To me, it seems like Dwarf panda / Ailuropoda minor and Ailuropoda microta should not be separate articles, despite the hat note on each of those pages warning the reader to not mistake one for the other.

However, in the edit history for Dwarf panda, wrote in an edit un-redirecting Dwarf panda to Ailuropoda microta that "Ailuropoda minor and Ailuropoda microta are two separated species which lived in different geologic period.)"

I'm a bit out of my element, so any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sea mink GA
I've nominated sea mink for GA. Feel free to start the review, thanks  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Arctocephalus forsteri requested move discussion
I've set up a RM discussion on the talk page for what you may know as New Zealand fur seal. Some controversy about whether to use scientific name or use common name. Please feel free to comment.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sirenia for GA
I just nominated Sirenia for GA, start the review if you're interested. Or don't, I can't force you, it'd just be nice. Thanks. Also sea mink's at FA if you're interested in that instead  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are a credit to the project, D. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal--Chuuk flying fox and Mortlock flying fox
Hi! I'm proposing that Chuuk flying fox is merged with Mortlock flying fox. This study was published in 2013 that stated that they are two subspecies of the same species, Pteropus pelagicus. This study has been cited by the Smithsonian Institute, and neither of these common name or their current, wiki-listed scientific names have a current evaluation by the IUCN, despite previous evaluations. This suggests to me that the IUCN also accepts this study, as they do not evaluate subspecies. The discussion is here. Enwebb (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

MSW4 to be released soon?
Based on the 2015 Annual Report for the Checklist Committee of the Mammal Society, which is charged with compiling and updating MSW here: "(4) We are currently under contract with Johns Hopkins Press for the 4th edition of MSW, which will be edited by Reeder and Helgen. An editable version of the database has been created for the authors, which will ultimately result in more efficient and frequent website updates. We anticipate publication in 2017."

I note that the duplicate copy of the database mounted at the Smithsonian website has been removed recently, so that now only the Bucknell website remains. Bucknell recently deployed a new web interface, so I assume that the new "author editable" database will be deployed behind this new webface. William Harris •  (talk) •  09:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like the ASM has forked their efforts on mammalian species. The checklist committee no longer deals with Mammal Species of the World and MSW4 is being handled by John Hopkins Press (with pretty much the same people). The Checklist Committee is now the Mammal Biodiversity Committee and have launched their own database at mammaldiversity.org. The beta version went live in July. The taxonomy has been updated, but few entries are complete. You can see what they plan in the sand cat entry.


 * As for taxonomic updates, they use the revised Felidae taxonomy recently proposed by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group (including the new subspecies). The species listed for Canis have been updated from MSW3, with the Ethiopian wolf, red wolf and African golden wolf given as separate species (but not the domestic dog). I assume that MSW4 will follow the same taxonomy, as both are ASM projects, so tentatively I would consider this a preview.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

List of fruit bats
I created the article list of fruit bats (the name's fine I think) about a week ago and've nominated it for FLC. Feel free to comment if you'd like, thanks  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I noticed that you listed the family, Pteropodidae, but when you were listing the subfamilies, you listed the subfamily as Pteropodidae instead of Pteropodinae a couple of times. Is there a reason for that? I'm sure that Pteropodinae just redirects to Pteropodidae but it might be good to list it out that way for congruence. Enwebb (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Spooky bats for October
In case anyone is interested, the October goals for the bats task force are "spooky bats"! Articles selected for improvement include Beelzebub's tube-nosed bat, lesser ghost bat, little goblin bat, demonic tube-nosed fruit bat, and Egyptian tomb bat. All are pretty much stub quality, and the goal is to elevate them to "C-class" or higher. Help is welcome! Enwebb (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Size Charts
Hi, I don't know if this has been discussed before; over at WikiProject Dinosaurs size charts are all the rage and I'm currently drawing some vector mammals for potential comparisons to dinosaurs. I've illustrated a Male + Female Giraffe, Elephant, White Rhino and Polar Bear so far. Here is a link that shows the silhouettes as an example (in this diagram they're going to be scaled to the largest individuals) ; each can be split off into their own diagram. I haven't seen many of the Mammal articles use size charts, maybe there is a reason for that? Would you guys be interested in size charts for these animals? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost all whale articles have size diagrams, as far as I've seen... FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Bat at GA
LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap, and I all got together to try and get Bat up to FA. We're at GA right now if you'd like to start the review. I'd also like to use this moment to shamelessly advertise Megalodon which is at FA and in no way related to this WikiProject  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Mammutidae
The taxonomic hierarchy for Mammutidae shown at Template:Taxonomy/Mammutidae can't be correct: the suborder Mammutida has the suborder Elephantiformes above it. I don't know enough about the taxonomy of this group to fix this – can someone do it? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be correct if we ignore arbitrary Linnean ranks, and it seems Mammutida is simply a redundant rank with the same content as Mammutidae anyway. Not that I know much about the actual higher level classification of Mammutidae. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The suborder Elephantiformes is anomalous. It should be below Elephantimorpha. Either way it probably shouldn't be a suborder as the -morpha and -formes taxa are generally added to include extinct groups that the traditional taxons didn't cover.  The article on Elephantiformes has Elephantimorpha as a subgroup, but this must be wrong. I'll have a look tomorrow if someone else doesn't fix it beforehand.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Never make assumptions about taxonomic names. I thought it was a mammal convention that the -formes and -morpha taxan were successive outer taxa from the traditional orders. For instance, Carnivoramorpha includes Viverrivdae and Carnivoriformes, with the latter including miacides and crown Carnivora. The taxonomy of Proboscidea inverts the hierarchy with the order Proboscidea including stem groups and Elephantiformes, which in turn include Phiomiidae, Palaeomastodontidae, and Elephantimorpha, with Elephantimorpha including Mammutida (mastodons) and Elephantida (elephants, mammoths, etc).
 * The hierarchy in the taxonomy template is correct. I've change the rank of Mammutida to clade. It's above the superfamilies and below Elephantimorpha within suborder Elephantiformes.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for sorting this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and biological terms that are also common words
There's a dispute at at Cat about linking to fur in the lead of the article. There's long been a link there, on the basis that fur is a biological characteristic of the species, along with it being a carnivore, etc. This was removed recently on the basis that it's WP:OVERLINKing. I restored it with an edit summary of "Not overlinking in this context; we mean the biological topic fur; if this were an article about carpet, no link, because the fur article isn't about 'that which is fuzzy' in general" (not the most serious thing to say, but what I think is a correct assessment). This was WP:IDONTLIKEIT-reverted again ("not needed"), and I restored it again, but this is turning into a revert war. I'd rather have some general mammal editors' input on whether to preserve the link or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * put simply, keep the link  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be either way: fur, like warm-bloodedness (homoiothermy) and having a 4-chambered heart and mammary glands, is a distinguishing characteristic of mammals - so yes, it is a technical aspect and worth linking, but since cat is just one of thousands of mammals, it would be right to link it in mammal and not mention it at all in any mammalian species article. If you're not linking homoiothermy then why link fur, might be the answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to make peramelian redirect to Peramelemorphia?
Do we want to make peramelian redirect to Peramelemorphia? -- 189.122.198.138 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A redirect to Peramelidae would probably be more appropriate. I don't think bilbies (family Thylacomyidae) would be considered peramelians.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We should split the articles Manidae and Pholidota. (e.g. Pangolins)
We should split the articles Manidae and Pholidota.

Currently both Manidae and Pholidota redirect to Pangolin. Manidae is a family: "pangolins". (Per the article) Pholidota is an order: "ORDER PHOLIDOTA 'sensu lato' (Pholidotamorpha)" - with something like 50 non-pangolin clades listed in the article.

IMHO there's certainly enough difference between the terms Manidae and Pholidota to justify making them separate articles. (Presumably Manidae should redirect to Pangolin, as currently.)

Thoughts?

-- 189.122.198.138 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. the list in the pangolin article includes many groups that are not pangolins and seems orphaned at the end of the article. The exact scope of Pholidota seems to be in flux. A lot of extinct groups can be included in Pholidota or put in Pholidotamorpha, which is an alternatve for a higher taxon article. There is even the possiblility that creodonts would be part of the broader group as a sistergroup to the Carnivoramorpha. However, there is not much apart from the list that would be the basis of a new article. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

21st endemic mammal of Sri Lanka?
Folks, back in 2009 I wrote the article, List of endemic mammals of Sri Lanka. Back then we had 16 endemic mammals in the island.

<ol> <li>Red slender loris </li> <li>Toque macaque</li> <li>Purple-faced langur</li> <li>Layard's palm squirrel</li> <li>Mayor's mouse</li> <li>Ceylon spiny mouse </li> <li>Nillu rat</li> <li>Ohiya rat</li> <li>Nolthenius's long-tailed climbing mouse</li> <li>Sri Lankan long-tailed shrew</li> <li>Pearson's long-clawed shrew</li> <li>Jungle shrew</li> <li>Sri Lankan shrew </li> <li>Golden palm civet</li> <li>Sri Lankan spotted chevrotain</li> <li>Yellow-striped chevrotain</li> </ol> Citation:

Taxonomic revisions since then;
 * Sinharaja shrew described as a new species. Tally 17.
 * Funambulus obscurus was split from Funambulus sublineatus. #18
 * Golden palm civet was spitted into three species; 1. Paradoxurus aureus 2. Paradoxurus montanus 3. Paradoxurus stenocephalus. Tally 20.

How ever the same author say the number is 21 now in

I count only 20. What I am missing here? Any help to solve this puzzle is much appreciated. Cheers-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 06:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * well since Funambulus sublineatus is species number 18, and then we have 3 more species to add (Paradoxurus aureus, Paradoxurus montanus, Paradoxurus stenocephalus), and 18+3=21, I’m gonna say we’re good here <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Dunkleosteus77 No, because splitting a species into three only adds two more species (not 3 more). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Giant Squirrel (Ratufa macroura)? Edit: ignore that. It is found is southern India as the grizzled giant squirrel.<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community. Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa
There is a proposal to change the guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Please join in the discussion there. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomic issue on a draft article
I was reviewing Draft:Rhinolophus monticolus and ran into a bit of a taxonomic puzzle I have not come across before. The problem is not with the article, but rather the validity of the name proposed in the literature. The article is about Rhinolophus monticolus Soisook et al 2016, however GBIF and ITIS list Rhinolophus monticolus Andersen 1905 as an invalid name for Rhinolophus lepidus monticolus Andersen 1905. I have not found Andersen's original publication, and Soisook et al does not mention this subspecies, although they do discuss other subspecies of Rhinolophus lepidus. It is not clear to me if they were aware of the prior name use, and I am not sure if their proposed name is invalid due to prior use. This is obviously an "off Wiki" problem, but I was hoping someone with better taxonomic chops could try to untangle what to do. Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh, and when I went to comment on the submitter's talk, I found the submitter of the draft article was blocked for being an abusive sock. So... hmm... --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think it worth pursuing, I think this is the original article: Andersen K. 1905: On some bats of the genus Rhinolophus, with remarks on their mutual affinities, and descriptions of twenty-six new forms. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1905 (2): 75–145. It is online at the biodiversity library. Andersen describes it as a species of the R. lepidus species group (p124). <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition the draft looks similar to the Italian wikipedia article on Rhinolophus_monticolus. It looks like it is a legitimate new species description and that the authors were probably unaware of the prior name and description. I suspect it is an invalid name, though. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Do you think the article should be created under the name Rhinolophus monticolus, with a DAB note at the top? --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rhinolophus monticolus has an entry in the beta version of the new ASM database, which as the ASM supervise MSW could be an indicator that it will be in MSW4. So I think the new species claim is legitimate, with a question over whether the bionomial name will be accepted. So a stub article would be appropriate. It will need to use the proposed binomial as there isn't a common name. I've seen a tag that could point to the Italian Wikipedia article and has a message saying it has material that could help improve the article, but I can't remember its name. The draft article looks like it might be a translation. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ursus (genus)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ursus (genus). Simranpreet singh (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA nomination of Indian flying fox
Hi all, the Indian flying fox is up for GA review. As one of the authors of this revamp, I welcome any feedback as to how to improve this article further. Thanks! Enwebb (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of taking it soon, but note that the intro is too short, it should summarise the entire article, and galleries are discouraged, the images should be incorporated into the article. Also, I think you could make a better selection of images. I'm sure the text can be expanded as well, it seems on the short side. The many synonyms warrant explanation, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will expand the lead and change how images are incorporated. As far as expansion of the text goes, I'd be happy to expand on specific areas that are deemed deficient such as taxonomy, but in terms of general length, it greatly exceeds all of the bat articles that are currently GA except for the common vampire bat, which it only slightly surpasses (GA bat articles here). Enwebb (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No description of the teeth and claws? The skeleton? Is the tail long or short? I'm sure there must be stuff out there. Also, why is its maximum age listed under description? Could be nice with more images as well. Also note that most of those other bat GAs were promoted ages ago, so they may not be the most up to date examples. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the specific examples of areas that you are pointing out that could be expanded (taxonomy and now description). That is more helpful to me that just saying the text can be expanded. There is no length requirement for a GA, only that 1) it addresses the main aspects of the topic and 2) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Enwebb (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your note’s gonna need a reference, ref no. 2 is cited as a website but it’s actually a journal, and ADW (animal diversity web) is not considered a reliable source. Other than those, good job <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback, I'll be sure to fix those problems! Enwebb (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force
Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Mammals. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jameboy (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal of solitary fruit-eating bat
There is a discussion here on if the solitary fruit-eating bat should be merged to Thomas's fruit-eating bat. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Thanks. Enwebb (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion is now closed. Enwebb (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes
There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Mammals is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 41.0% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone good at making photo montages?
Hi all, I've been improving the Pteropus article, and I think a photo montage would be good for the taxobox. I really like the one on the bat article. Anyone willing and able to make a flying fox montage? Thanks. Enwebb (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which images would you want included, ? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffusing bats/rodents/mammals described-in-century container categories
The following are all supposed to be container categories, but currently contain a non-trivial number of articles. Would someone be willing to diffuse their contents into the correct  category? I would prioritize the bats & rodents century-cats, since these are unwanted, and the associated year-cats don't exist (nor should they due to WP:SMALLCAT & the recent WT:TREE RFC). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bats
 * (originally 8)
 * (originally 17)
 * (originally 22)
 * Rodents
 * (originally 27)
 * (originally 54)
 * (originally 36)
 * Mammals
 * (originally 35)
 * (originally 102)
 * (originally 100)
 * (originally 40)
 * I just realized that some/most/all? of these could already be in their correct  category, so this might be easier than I thought...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The mammal categories are done, the number shown is just subcategories. Pagliaccious (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rodent categories done too. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you!  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment - Lion subpages
Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Northern lion and Panthera leo leo
Okay, I have gone and proposed a merger of these two articles, discuss at Talk:Northern_lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

African lion nominated for deletion
See Articles for deletion/African lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion into Panthera leo melanochaita
I have also suggested Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion be merged into Panthera leo melanochaita  - see Talk:Panthera_leo_melanochaita Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability lines
Why is Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar its own article if there are only four animals here? Does the same rationale apply to other places of the Mesozoic? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a much broader Mammals of the Mesozoic article? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Especially when there was no "Madagascar" during the Mesozoic. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I nominated it for deletion if anyone else wants to join the discussion <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of names of standardized breeds
Please see Village pump (policy).

This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by MOS:LIFE (on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up MOS:ORGANISMS in draft proposal state for 6 years. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Rfc on new classification scheme
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Last remaining manual taxoboxes in WikiProject Primates
Looping ya'll in on this, as I'm not getting much discussion so far. I'd appreciate some input on these taxonomies. Thanks. --Nessie (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates

Paraphyletic group box for Monkey
There is a discussion underway over whether the monkey article should include a paraphyletic group box. The discussion is at Talk:Monkey/Archive 1. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of several Mammal Portals for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether several mammal-related portals are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The pages will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pigs (it's a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Odd-toed ungulates for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Odd-toed ungulates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Odd-toed ungulates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes at Monkey
Please see Talk:Monkey/Archive 1 re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey&type=revision&diff=889734618&oldid=889633544 this reversion] I made. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Article templates
There is a series of templates that appear in some articles, there is some detail at WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/doc. There are several concerns arising from the use of these templates, identified by those who express caution about this type of content and transclusion, and my preference is open a discussion at MfD with an aim to see them deleted. They might be 'fixed', but there are several obvious barriers, that focus is better turned expansion and meaningful links between articles. Is there an overwhelming reason not to do this? cygnis insignis 14:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is proposing that they are deleted and where? Navigation templates have long being part of Wikipedia, although it seems that there is an ongoing attempt to eliminate them. I personally don't tend to use the navigation templates very often, but acknowledge that some people like them. The main problem I think is that some are too large. The breakdown to family templates in Chiroptera and Rodents seems appropriate, while Carnivora and especially Artiodactyla could do with splitting. I note that Cetaceans are not included either in the Artiodactyla template or as a separate link to Cetacea in the main Mammals order template. They probably got lost in an attempt to uppdate from MSW3. 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec, reply to above] I'm proposing a discussion now, and not aware of any other on specific templates (or sets of). I did invite comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree of Life/Archive_43. I'm not inclined to fix something that may be created or deleted on a whim, and don't see an easy way to do it, they are effectively locked to MSW3 or the [implied] ref is wrong. Opening an MfD would compel those who favour them to act, this seems a more poolite means of gauging their desirability against the pros and cons of preserving the template set. My preference is to delete and instead improvements be made to taxonomic arrangements in article space, which is the unobjectionable priority [imo, obvi]. cygnis insignis 16:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Other obsolete MSW3 orders have also been orphaned, e.g. Erinaceomorpha, Soricomorpha. These omissions mean the intent of this navigation template system currently fails. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the navigation templates are a maintenance burden--they take a lot of upkeep, especially when trying to salvage templates that have gone unedited for several years, as the case was with many bat templates. Maybe they make sense when taxonomy is stable, but I also think that the lack of space for references and alternate taxonomies is undesirable. I don't think they add a lot of tangible value to the reader. Enwebb (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Skunks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Skunks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Skunks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

question about armadillo
hi, i have just left a question about the identity of an armadillo at Talk:Armadillo, if anyone can help? thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Question
Should all pages about mammals not under the scope of a sub-wikiproject have the wikiproject mammals template added to their talk page? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm kind of new. Iamnotabunny (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, they should. As well as articles about mammalogists and the like.  Some editors, in the cases of subprojects (WikiProject Primates, WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force, WikiProject Equine, WikiProject Dogs, WikiProject Cetaceans, and WikiProject Cats), will also tag WP Mammals but this is not really necessary.  You may also want to tag WikiProject Palaeontology or WikiProject Marine life as needed, as well as a country or regional WikiProject for taxa endemic to certain locations.  --Nessie (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Iamnotabunny (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

nav box consequence
As an example for consideration of nav boxes, which I believe should be removed from all articles with a taxobox. A quasi official site called Atlas of Living Australia decided to mirror our articles in their overview page of species. The species article I am working one appears as an old version at this bie.ala.org entry, I presume with the expectation that everything in our article is about the species only, so includes the content of the Template:Hipposideridae. Arguably this is not our concern, I think it is. The support for these is getting thinner on the ground, creators who like the convenience of every other relation appearing the article and the unfortunate editor who dutifully updates them [somehow] because they have been added to every article that they link and presumably have the consent of the community (rather than lack of resistance to those who fancied making that contribution and usually abandoned thereafter).

The consensus was they were harmless and ignorable, or [strangely] substituted for the lack of content in the stubs they linked, but few would also bother to argue directly they should be kept. What is the consensus at this stage? cygnis insignis 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone have "Philippine Birds & Mammals" (1977)?
I already put a post at resource request, but thought I might try my luck here as well due to subject matter. Anyone have access to this text?



I'm looking for the pages on Acerodon jubatus starting at page 217, so probably just 217 and 218. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * are you near any of these libraries? Or can do an interlibrary loan to any? I could request it lent to my local library, but it would take a week or so.  --Nessie (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd actually never thought of interlibrary loan! One is headed my way now, thanks! Enwebb (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hth. If that didn't work, sometimes you can call one of the libraries and they'll scan the pages for you too. Cheers.  --Nessie (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Mammals invitation template
Hi all, I looked around for an invitation template specific to WP:MAMMALS but couldn't find one. Therefore, I made one. If you see new/newish editors making good faith mammal edits, you could invite them to the project with Template:Mammals invite ( paste ~ ). Enwebb (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species
See Featured list removal candidates/List of cetacean species/archive1 about the possible removal of List of cetacean species from Featured List status. --Nessie (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)