Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/Archive 6

Gibbon image
File:Hylobates lar sitting on a stump over water.jpg. I just found this on flickr and added it to commons. Someone may wish to add it to articles. The flickr user has many nice images of animals that others may have time to view and upload. The watermark is easy to remove if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please remove it if it is easy for you to do so. That's a great picture, but we don't want watermarks on images on articles. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. It may take a while for the new image to show. I think commons is having purging issues. --Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've created a recent changes page to see every edit made to pages under the WikiProject Primates banner. Will help catch vandalism/unhelpful edits on pages that are watched by few people. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of primates by population error
This page puts the eastern gorilla population at 680 which is only the population of one subspecies according to the sited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.98.211 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good spot, I've updated the article accordingly. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy slow loris for GAN
It's around time that pygmy slow loris had the final push towards GA/FA, it's looked pretty good for the last year but I think just needs a few last tweaks to pass a GAN. Sasata, Maky, and Ucucha are the main contributors to the article so it'd be great if one/all of you nominate the article, and I don't mind doing any work to help it along. I'm just going through page numbers, refs, and a bit of copyediting. I'll post things on Talk:Pygmy slow loris that I can't give page numbers for or don't understand. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to nominate it once we fill in the missing page numbers. Feel free to copy edit all you want. –  Maky  « talk » 00:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably not have much time to help in the near future, but would be glad to answer any specific questions. Ucucha (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to papers from International Journal of Primatology or Folia Primatologica? I need to get the final couple of page numbers for the pygmy slow loris article. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merges
I've proposed four mergers of subspecies into articles where I believe the subspecies are non-notable and don't have enough specific information to warrant a separate article. Please join the discussions: Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Eastern black-and-white colobus → mantled guereza (Discuss)
 * Peters's Angola colobus → Angola colobus (Discuss)
 * Feline night monkey → Azara's night monkey (Discuss)
 * Alouatta coibensis coibensis → Coiba Island howler (Discuss)
 * Chlorocebus pygerythrus pygerythrus → vervet monkey (Discuss)
 * Support—Unless there is something critical going on with these subspecies that's getting a lot of attention, they should be merged. – Maky  « talk » 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Classification of Gorillas
On the Wiki Page for Primates there is a flow chart for Primates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate.) This chart marks a seperation between the subfamily Homininae (Chimps and Humans) and the subfamily Gorillinae (Gorillas). However, on the page for Hominidae it classisfies all three genera (Homo, Gorilla, Pan) under the subfamily Homininae, not making mention of the subfamily of Gorillinae. Which is correct?

I am aware that in any case all fall under the family Hominoidea, along with Oranutangs and Gibbons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.84 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal
I just wanted to alert you that there is a WikiProject proposal about something related to you project. Here is the link. WikiProject Council/Proposals/Humanity buffbills7701 21:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

tapetum lucidum in Lemuridae
The Lemuridae page has the sentence below, which is unclear, and I think incorrect. According to Fleagle's Primate Adaptation & Evolution, 3rd edition, p 19, lemurs have a tapetum lucidum.

I think the following sentence should be revised to say that lemurs have a tapetum lucidum.

"Unlike most other lemurs, all but one species of lemurid (the Ring-tailed Lemur) lack a tapetum lucidum,[3] a reflective layer in the eye that improves night vision."

KitC3 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/05
Draft:SK 847. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/05
Draft:Scladina. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at talk:Neanderthal extinction hypotheses
There's a move discussion for Neanderthal extinction hypotheses → Neanderthal extinction, where I'd like to have more input. --Cold Season (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Primates of Bolivia
There is a user who seems to use several usernames (most recently User:Webbotwilll, previously apparently User:Josephtoom and User:Josetoom) who has been adding Bolivia to the range of several primate and parrot species without sourcing. Some, like Madidi titi and white-nosed saki seem plausible. Others, such as tufted capuchin and Juruá red howler seem less likely. But can others take a look? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Question about parentage and related projects
First, I could barely find the parentage and related projects box, as it is tiny despite its prominent placement. Secondly, how do Cetaceans, Birds, and Cats warrant mention as "Related", but very pertinent projects such as WikiProject Anthropology or WikiProject Evolutionary biology are omitted? The field of physical anthropology alone demands robust cross-communication between primates and anthropology. Cheers.
 * I'm not sure who made that list, but please correct it. – Maky  « talk » 07:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done!--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Primitive" language
I have gone through as many articles as possible correcting the usage of the terms "prosimian" and "lesser ape" so that they use more modern terminology. In the case of "prosimian", I had to consider the sources and what they were comparing, and in nearly all cases, they were simply talking about extant strepsirrhines or just strepsirrhines in general. With "lesser ape", I was able to easily substitute "gibbon" instead. The use of "great ape" could also use updating to "hominid ape" (which might eliminate the debate over whether or not to add "and humans"), but like "prosimian", it may often go against sources. I know that going against sources can be a big no-no, but I think being unbiased, scientifically accurate, consistent, and professional trump the common names used in both non-academic and (increasingly dated) academic literature. (After writing so many lemur articles where every sources may say the same thing, but with different terminology—which was often wrong, I'm kind of used to having to find the best language that works across many related articles.) Anyway, we don't name our articles "Great ape" or "Lesser ape" despite the wide use in the literature, so using perfectly viable (and more appropriate) alternatives should fall within the scope of our responsibility to paraphrase our sources.

Other terms we should work towards eradicating within our project and Wikipedia in general are "primitive" (→ plesiomorphic or ancestral), "advanced" (→ apomorphic or derived), and statements like "less evolved" or "more evolved". Of course, discussion of the history of these terms and phrases is perfectly appropriate and strongly encouraged where needed. However, the continued use of this wording to describe evolution and our primate relatives reflects badly on Wikipedia's scientific writing. In my opinion, the only "lesser" or "primitive" primates are the ones that continue to use this terminology when our understanding of evolution outmoded this way of thinking decades ago. Let's all step out of the 18th century and into the 21st century (myself included). – Maky  « talk » 07:27, 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)

Suborder in all primate taxa taxoboxes
I am proposing at WP:Animals that all primate taxa articles include the suborder so that the divide between strepsirrhine and haplorhine primates is more visible to readers. Please comment there. – Maky  « talk » 08:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC that may affect this project
There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Homunculus"
The usage and primary topic of " Homunculus " is under discussion, see Talk:Homunculus patagonicus -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Patasola"
The usage and primary topic of Patasola is under discussion, see talk:Patasola magdalenae -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Homo Devisovans
I was doing a research project for my son and was describing to him what being a human meant through taxonomy. I described to him that we are Eukaryota animalia chordate mammal primate hominidae homo sapiens and what each of those words meant in classification requirements and characteristics. When I went to talk about various other members of the genus homo, I discovered that there is no page for Homo Denisovans, even though the species is referenced on the Homo genus page. I would like it if one of your qualified contributors could research the species and post it. Thank you for your consideration. Justhereforthelulz3399 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)justhereforthelulz3399

Ape listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ape to be moved to Hominoidea. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Homo naledi
Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Homo_naledi. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

minimum diameter tree for chimp bedmaking
the article on bedmaking indicates that chimps use only trees with a minimum sixteen foot diameter. it seems to me that this can't possibly be correct. what am I misunderstanding here? Mak6nt5r (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Mak6nt5r (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Monkey test" and "monkey testing"
The usage and topic of and  is under discussion, see talk:monkey test -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 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: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (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 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pliopithecoidea etc
I've just narrowed the category on three catarrhine family articles from Ape to Prehistoric ape. However it looks as if there's some inconsistency is how non-hominoid, non-cercopithecoid, catarrhines are treated in Wikipedia. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2017 (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  07:51, 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 Primates is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 75.7% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

species move
There is a proposal to move Common chimpanzee to chimpanzee at Talk:Common_chimpanzee, the notice here is because the animal occurs within the project scope (although, as the subproject includes the human species, it is perhaps a minor concern). cygnis insignis 17:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Updating our primary source for primate taxonomy
For many years we have used Colin Groves' chapter in the 2005 Mammal Species of the World as our primary taxonomy source for primate articles. In absence of evidence of subsequent new information, we used Groves' classification for our articles, and created species articles that conformed with his taxonomy. That has served us well, but it is now almost 15 years old and is urgent need of replacement. In 2013, Mittermeier, Rylands and other primatologists published the primate volume of Handbook of the Mammals of the World, which contains many additional species. This revised classification seems to have wide acceptance. The 2016 All the World's Primates, edited by Rowe and Myers with contributions from many primatologists is mostly consistent with Handbook of the Mammals of the World. IUCN has picked up many of the new species. Taxonomy used by recent research articles also seem to be mostly consistent with Handbook of the Mammals of the World. For example, I have seen several such articles refer to the white-faced capuchin monkey that lives in Central America as Cebus imitator and they all seem to restrict Cebus capucinus, which used to apply to all white-faced capuchins, to the white-faced capuchins of Colombia and Ecuador (and the easternmost portion of Panama). In his chapter of the 2016 An introduction to Primate Conservation, Groves himself explicitly acknowledged the need to expand the number of accepted species beyond what he had recognized in 2005, and explicitly recognizing almost all the new red colobus and sportive lemur species listed in Handbook of the Mammals of the World.

We have always had a mechanism to update Groves 2005 work for updated research, especially as evidence emerged that that research had become widely accepted. For example, when Mittermeier published this article on lemur diversity, we reflected its updated findings. And when Lynch Alfaro published this article splitting Cebus and Sapajus, we reflected that once we had evidence that the new classification was being used. But we have fallen way behind in recent years.

My main point is that I think we need to use a more recent work as our primary taxonomy source. The contenders that I am aware of are Handbook of the Mammals of the World and All the World's Primates, although there may be others. Unfortunately, the sources all differ at least slightly. It would be nice if all sources perfectly aligned, but of course that has never been the case. For example, Rowe's earlier book, A Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates, was not entirely consistent with Groves. Nor was IUCN. I would recommend Handbook of the Mammals of the World as our primary source, due to the prominence of its contributors and the fact that the other volumes in the set could be applied to other mammal orders. It is also consistent with ITIS. But I would not have a problem with a consensus to use All the World's Primates, which is more recent.

I have begun to address this with two groups that shouldn't be controversial. I updated the gracile capuchin monkey species for those listed in Handbook of the Mammals of the World (which is almost entirely consistent with All the World's Primates; I noted the one inconsistency in the text of the relevant article). Since that revision is based on Boubli's 2012 paper that seems to be widely accepted, that should not be controversial. I also updated the red colobus species. That too should not be controversial since All the World's Primates matches the 17 species listed in Handbook of the Mammals of the World, and Groves explicitly recognized 8 of the 9 additional species recognized by Handbook of the Mammals of the World over those he had recognized in Mammal Species of the World in his chapter in An introduction to Primate Conservation.

One issue I am running into that I would like to get feedback on and for which I think we should try to find a consensus is the issue of common names. One benefit of Groves was that we had a consensus that the common name to be used as the title for the Wikipedia article of any species should be the common name provided by Groves. With taxonomy revisions, this becomes less clear cut, and I want to be conservative here because I know that article titles can be a sensitive topic. For newly recognized species the most logical approach to me seems to be to use the common name used by the source we agree should be our new primary taxonomy source. I have been going with the titles in Handbook of the Mammals of the World, but if we decide that, say, All the World's Primates should be our source, it would be easy enough to change where they disagree (of course, I am setting up redirects from the name used by All the World's Primates, which of course we could easily reverse if necessary).

But it is less clear what to do with taxa that were already included by Groves. If the taxonomy has not changed since 2005, but Handbook of the Mammals of the World just uses a different common name than Groves did, then for now I am leaving the article title alone. Eventually we probably should move to the common name of our main source but that is not an urgent issue. But in some cases a change is necessary. For example, Groves treated Cebus capucinus as the white-headed capuchin, ranging from Honduras to Ecuador. Boubli's work restricted C. capucinus to the white-headed (or white-faced) capuchins of Colombia and Ecuador and raised C. imitator for the Central American white-headed or white-faced capuchins. I also found a source that essentially all research on C. capucinus under the old taxonomy actually related to C. imitator. So it was clear that the old white-headed capuchin needed to be moved to the new C. imitator article, for which Handbook of the Mammals of the World gives the common name Panamanian white-faced capuchin. It was also clear that, given the range restriction, simply calling C. capucinus under the new taxonomy "white-headed capuchin" would not make sense, so I used the common name used by both Handbook of the Mammals of the World and All the World's Primates, Colombian white-faced capuchin.

But the situation is not always that straightforward. An example that needs to be addressed is the white-fronted capuchin, C. albifrons. Several new species have been split out of what had formerly been described as C. albifrons, almost all with common names that are some sort of white-fronted capuchin - for example, varied white-fronted capuchin or Santa Marta white-fronted capuchin. C. albifrons has now been restricted to a species whose common name seems uncontroversial - Handbook of the Mammals of the World, All the World's Primates and IUCN all refer to it as Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin. But the current white-fronted capuchin article contains a lot of information, and it is not entirely clear to me which refers specifically to the taxon now regarded as C. albifrons and which refers to what are now regarded as separate species. One solution would be to move the current white-fronted capuchin article to Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin and do our best to retain information pertaining to Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin and move information pertaining to newly recognized species to those articles. Another solution, which may be preferable, would be to retain white-fronted capuchin as a catch-all article, covering all the species that used to fall within C. albifrons, but that article would no longer represent a taxon, and instead a separate article on Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin, C. albifrons, could be created to cover the taxon.

I doubt this will be a unique situation as we go through updating the primate taxonomy. For example, the Central African red colobus, Piliocolobus foai, and western red colobus, P. badius, have also been split, and Handbook of Mammals of the World and All the World's Primates use a different common name, Foa's red colobus and bay red colobus, respectively, for the newly restricted species. But here at least the situation may be more straightforward since the restricted common name does not seem to be disputed and at least the P. foai article we currently have is far less detailed than our current white-fronted capuchin article, with the western red colobus article somewhere in between. But we may find situations that are even more complex than the white-fronted capuchin, so it would be good to develop a consensus for how to handle the various situations that may arise. Rlendog (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we are long overdue for a broad revisit to primary source basis, as well as our use of common names. First, I think both sources you suggest would be fine, if the other one didn't exist. Given that, I think it might be best if we tried to align more to ITIS and IUCN, as they've already been adapting to the changing taxonomies. Since we are a tertiary source, it would make sense to base any decisions on what the secondary sources have already decided, citing both of the primary sources as well in the discussion. Second, if we move away from using common names for article titles, and move to the binomials, we will be even more aligned with the primary and secondary sources. We can then have disambiguation pages that describe some of the name overlaps in brief, with fuller discussions in the genus level articles. For instance 'white-fronted capuchin' could be a disambiguation to all of the new species with that name and have a brief discussion on how that happened, while 'Cebus' could have a more in depth discussion of the species split. Kosher? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with you. I am not sure IUCN works as a taxonomic reference, since their focus is on conservation and may not get to updating a species page until an analysis is done.  As an example, I looked for C. capucinus and they don't seem to have one.  They do have 2 separate pages for each of the subspecies C. capucinus capucinus and C. capucinus curtus, but none for the species and it clear from the ranges given that they don't include C. imitator within C. capucinus, but they don't seem to have a page for C. imitator yet.  That said I think it is useful as a backup source.  I do like the idea of using ITIS, especially since it is most likely to be kept up to date and is easily available online.  My only concern is that as essentially a North American enterprise, would it have widespread acceptance to editors in other locations.  The other issue with ITIS is that it gives multiple common names, which doesn't help with article titling.  That said, since ITIS seems to be aligned with the Handbook for now, we could use the common names from the Handbook as the article titles (until taxonomic updates occur, and then we will need to make judgements if ITIS provides multiple common names for new taxa).  Of course, using binomials for species names would alleviate this issue, but I don't expect to get a consensus for that anytime soon, and I would be concerned that it may make Wikipedia articles less accessible (or at least seem less accessible) to non-specialist readers. Rlendog (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Everyone involved in the Mammals Project should read the analysis above. MSW3 is an excellent standard, but is 15 years out of date. MSW4 doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Many Wikipedia sections dealing with mammalian orders and families have moved on and use more recent sources (e.g. the IUCN Specialist Cat Group for Felidae), but there is no consensus on source across the broader mammalian project. This might be difficult to schieve, but needs to be discussed somewhere.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Where to start dissecting this beast....
 * Everything above brings back so many memories from when I worked on the lemur articles years ago. Even seven or eight years ago, MSW3 was too out-dated, so I was forced to use Lemurs of Madagascar by Mittermeier 'et al'. I think the key there is to find the best source that's most likely to be kept up-to-date. Good luck with that. Just keep in mind that any secondary source will lag on updating many parts of what it covers. Updates require interest and dedication from specialized researchers, and some families or genera get far more attention than others. That's not to say there isn't research in other areas, so any editor that comes along wanting to write about them will get hung up with an out-dated, broad secondary or tertiary source while sitting in a potential pile a good primary sources that no one else is paying attention to. Oh the politics of research...
 * Even though it wasn't brought up, I would like to touch upon higher level taxonomy. Though I haven't kept up on the current literature, I do remember that a lot of secondary sources simply avoided discussing it. After all phylogenetics has pretty much broken Linnean taxonomy. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia nests species, this issue is bound to come up. What I want to see is an effort to balance the study of living species with the study of fossil species. Primates is a classic example. Having spoken at length with both paleoanthropologists and primatologists, I've learned that both fields rarely communicate and often operate more on assumptions and 20-year-old education. Primatologists especially know little or nothing about fossil species besides what they learned in the first week or two of Anthropology 101. Consequently, groups like strepsirrhines get flattened into classifications that don't allow for their rich fossil history. In some cases, the two fields use very different nomenclature. Therefore, since Wikipedia does not restrict itself to living species, we should err on the side of inclusivity and favor the higher level taxonomy used in paleontology should the need arise.
 * Regarding common names, my vote is to use the same common name used by the preferred reference, and secondarily use Google to look at the name usage over time. If over the years another name has risen in popularity, then it may be time to shift if newer sources also favor it. As for names that get split and recycled... yeah... Let's not talk about reasons why Wikipedia needs people like us who can work full-time on these articles. I've gone through this with slow lorises. It requires near-expert knowledge, access to all the sources, including new ones, and a lot of time and effort. I just don't have time for that any more, sadly.
 * To be honest, I'm starting to favor the use of binomial names. I know it's less accessible, but with all the juggling going on lately thanks to the upheavals caused by genomic sequencing I think it's time that people start using these universal binomial names, which are also found on every zoo sign that they read. Unlike many specialists, I don't see ordinary people as inherently stupid and incapable of learning and adapting. They do, and I've watched it unfold at zoos quite a bit over the past 10 years since I started writing about lemurs. Visitors used to approach the enclosures and say that lemurs are either monkeys or marsupials. Since writing the (admittedly) technical lemur articles, I've seen a shift. Now I see more and more people correcting each other, saying, "No, they're not monkeys." Some even recite some of the most interesting facts I once wrote here on Wikipedia. Facts, mind you, that specialists at the Duke Lemur Center used to say that ordinary people were too stupid to understand or appreciate. Even zoos have been updating their lemur signage lately, finally shedding many of the myths that I dispelled in the articles. So even though it's not supposed to, Wikipedia shapes public perception, and it regularly makes uncommon views popular. It educates, as it should. It raises the bar. But with that said, if it refuses to raise the bar and waits for some other field or source to do it instead, then Wikipedia effectively holds the bar down. It reinforces out-dated and condescending notions. And if you think that the experts who are supposed to define our knowledge sit above Wikipedia and the public, I beg to differ. Many also use Google (and therefore Wikipedia) to fill in the fuzzy borders of their knowledge of their own field. Even my articles of lemur taxonomy are leaking into academic circles.
 * Anyway, sorry I've been gone so long. I'd apologize for the non-traditional reply, but you know me... – Maky  « talk » 09:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you Maky. I think binomial names would work as well, but I don't think the primate project should move on that without a broader consensus - at least at Tree of Life, or possibly even Wikipedia-wide.  As far as a source most likely to be kept up to date, ITIS may be the best since it is a website that can be updated without republishing a book, and can reflect information from various sources as such sources get published.  There are holes in ITIS (though not sure that would be in the primate section), and even if ITIS is our primary source that does not preclude us from front-running them if a new paper gets published and is being accepted by primatologists before ITIS updates - that would be similar to what we did when the Lemur paper got published, even though it was different from MSW.  As ITIS does get updated we may have to deal with some surprises (e.g., the paper described 7 new species but ITIS ultimately only accepts 6) but I think we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis. [PS - I realize you are busy, but any interest in working together to try to get Verreaux's sifaka up to GA anytime soon?] Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention - Good point about fossil species. We definitely can play a role there.  I don't think ITIS addresses fossil species, and I know the references I originally recommended do not (nor does MSW3).  So we would still need to address fossil species in some way, but that would need a different source (and I suspect that would be less controversial in general, although WikiProject Palaeontology may have thoughts on that). Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't have the time or energy. I'm no longer underemployed or unemployed, and much of my time is now filled with the job I hate. I'm also regularly visiting a little old lemur (Obi, from my talk page) to help curb his loneliness, and I plan to write a book about him after he passes. And I've been asked by two small-time producers to write a script for a potential documentary about the lemur and me. Honestly though, my motivation is pretty low. People in the zoo industry used my work on Wikipedia to damage and ultimately sink my career. Others in academics tried to claim the articles I wrote as theirs, while claiming that I merely helped. I've recently tried helping Erik Patel with a re-write of the article for the Lemur Conservation Foundation, but just couldn't bring myself to do it. Someday I would like to return to Wikipedia, but with longer and longer work hours and no hopes of ever retiring, I don't know if that will ever happen. If only Wikipedia could employ a few of us to write and monitor articles full-time... – Maky  « talk » 00:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

So, sounds like so far the consensus is yes, let's do this. We each have some slightly different ideas on the details, but no one is far from anyone else, other than common vice binomial. It might be helpful to have a list of what all the changes would be. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like ITIS would be the best primary source. I did find one discrepancy between ITIS and the articles I was working on based on the Handbook.  It was an odd one since all the other recent sources seem to agree.  Handbook, All the World's Primates and Groves' chapter in An introduction to Primate Conservation all have Temminck's red colobus as a species, Piliocolobus temminckii, as does another recent book I have Primates of Western Africa published by Conservation International.  But that is the one "new" red colobus species ITIS lists as invalid, classifying it as a subspecies of P. badius''.  It's not a big deal - I can restore the article as a subspecies and still note that the status is disputed, but I found that odd.Rlendog (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Overall, it seems like we are gravitating to ITIS as the primary source. I don't know that we really had much discussion on common names, but maybe the best approach would be that if ITIS lists a single common name, use that.  If it lists multiple common names, then use the name in Handbook.  If Handbook doesn't recognize the species, use All the World's Primates.  If neither address that species, revert to MSW3.  If we are still stuck, which is unlikely, I guess we need to use some judgment (maybe go back to the paper that 1st recognized the species) or maybe use that as an excuse to use the binomial.  As for the white-fronted capuchin article, I think that will need to become an article covering the general concept of white-fronted capuchins, with a new article created for C. albifrons (Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin), but I'll hold off a few more days to see if any discussion emerges on the  white-fronted capuchin talk page. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Rlendog asked me to contribute, so here are a few of my thoughts:


 * Ideally, every taxonomic decision should be made on the weight of the evidence, so species should be split if that's the way the evidence points and merged if the evidence indicates they're the same. But I recognize that for Wikipedia, it is not generally practical to do that, and it risks going into original research. If so, the sources Rlendog proposes seem reasonable, especially HMW.


 * I'm not as excited about ITIS. I don't have a good sense of who updates it and how often or why it is updated. I randomly checked some more exciting mammals, and it turns out they still don't have the genus Tanyuromys, which was named back in 2012. There are some comments explaining the classification, but it sounds like those are just lifted from MSW 3.


 * The discussions above about common names for Cebus makes me skeptical that these are real common names instead of just names somebody wrote down in a book. I would favor using the scientific name except in cases where the common name clearly is well-established. (For example, the article about Pan paniscus should clearly be titled "bonobo", but Tarsius supriatnai can just stay under its scientific name.)
 * As Maky alludes to, fossils are another difficult area. The situation for fossils is in fact even worse than for living mammals, since the most recent authoritative classification for all mammals is from 1997 (McKenna & Bell), and it doesn't even cover species. As for living primates, it would be useful if we could choose an authoritative source as the default for choosing a taxonomy, but I'm not sure there are a lot of good options.

I'm no longer contributing actively, so don't give my opinions too much weight. Ucucha (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like the comments have ceased. How about this:
 * We use ITIS as the default source for scientific names. That can be overwritten (as MSW can today) if there is evidence that a subsequent taxonomy has become accepted, which I think would address Ucucha's concerns.  Despite some benefits to Handbook, I think ITIS has a couple of advantages over the others in that (unlike IUCN) it is focused on taxonomy, and (unlike the books) it is accessible to all and most likely to be updated as new information becomes available.  And this seems to be where the consensus is.
 * For common names, I don't think we can revert to scientific names as a general rule due to Mammal consensus, so I think we should:
 * Generally use the common name in ITIS, since that would be the source for scientific names and would be accessible to all, but...
 * Where ISIS gives multiple common names, use the one (if any) that has a consensus in other up-to-date sources. For example, for Cebus albifrons ITIS lists both "white-fronted capuchin" and "Humboldt's white-fronted capuchun."  The former matches MSW3, but that is because MSW uses the old un-split taxonomy.  Other sources seem to agree on "Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin" so that would be the article title.  If the other sources all disagreed, then we would default to the scientific name, in absence of any evidence of a good common name.
 * In some cases (as Ucucha points out) ITIS can give a common name that clearly has no consensus. An example would be Cebus brunneus, which ITIS simply calls "brown capuchin."  Besides this name being problematic (as it used to be the common name for all the Sapajus species), I have not seen any other source use that.  Handbook uses "Venezuelan brown capuchin".  All the World's Primates and IUCN use "brown weeper capuchin".   South American Primates: Comparative Perspectives in the Study of Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (from 2008, edited by Paul Garber) also uses "brown weeper capuchin" (for what it regarded as a subspecies at the time).  So I would probably sat that "brown weeper capuchin" is the appropriate common name here (being close to that of the other two sources as well), but (especially if IUCN and All the World's Primates disagreed) this might also be a case here that there is no real common name for this one and that the scientific name should be used as the article title.
 * Does this work? Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to summarize what I am saying on common names a little more concisely:
 * Use ITIS as a starting point
 * If ITIS' common name is ambiguous, no common name is given or there is reason to think there is no consensus for the name given, use other sources in sync with the taxonomy to see if there is any consensus
 * If not, use the scientific name.Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to throw a wrench in, but is anyone familiar with the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD)? It is what we have swapped to at iNaturalist (previously used IUCN for mammal taxonomy), with some explicit deviations as decided upon within the iNat community, as is normal there. From one of the staff managing the MDD: "Our goals with the MDD are to (i) remove the need to wait for this delayed MSW4, (ii) democratize the process of mammal taxonomy by having the changes in the global list represent a summary of published changes in the peer-reviewed literature (vs. the more subjective decisions of single chapter authors, for example), and (iii) have this process occur in roughly real-time to track newly published literature. Our idea is that taxonomic changes have an increasing relevance to conservation policy and management decisions, and that more regular taxonomic updates are needed to reflect the best science. The last goal of being real-time is something we are not at yet, but aim to attain in the next ~year." Something to look into, or at least consider for alternative sourcing when needed. I had exported the list of spp. and common names if you want to browse quickly: ASM Mammal Diversity Database —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is possible, but I am trying to see the benefit of MDD over ITIS:
 * Do we know who maintains it?
 * Is it generally accessible? I see the list that was downloaded but when I tried to get into the website itself I couldn't figure out how to look for a particular taxon.  But maybe I am missing something.
 * I checked the monkey genera I have been working with and a couple of others, and it seems identical to ITIS on those. Also, the taxon Ucucha mentioned, Tanyuromys, seems to be missing from both ITIS and MDD.  Could ITIS be the source for this (or vice versa)?
 * ITIS seems to have an advantage in providing common names for more of these new species. While sometimes its names are quirky, usually they are in line with multiple other sources.
 * Nonetheless I have no problem using this as a backup site, especially if we think it is reliable and it gets updated more frequently than ITIS (making it good for recognizing when ITIS is out of date). Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had linked to the "About" page; here's the homepage, with a searchbar: mammaldiversity.org. It's maintained by the American Society of Mammalogists.
 * And here is their entry for Tanyuromys aphrastus (have to scroll down), though looks like they list it as a synonym of Sigmodontomys aphrastus which is why it wasn't in my exported list of names. Hm, no results for Tanyuromys thomasleei... —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I got it. It seems very similar to ITIS.  The one exception I found, which I missed earlier, is that ITIS lists Temminck's red colobus as a full species (consistent with other sources) while ITIS still has it as a subspecies.  A benefit to MDD is that it seems to build directly from MSW3, and it also often provides the paper that resulted in the changes.  ITIS has the benefit of including subspecies, which seems to be lacking in MDD, and providing more common names (although we could always use ITIS as a 2nd source for common names and for subspecies if we use MDD as the primary taxonomic source.  I could go either way; if the others are ok with MDD I could support that.  Ideally we could actually get a consensus at the mammal project or TOL for one of these.Rlendog (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking up squirrel monkeys and found another difference bewteen MDD and ITIS. ITIS treats Saimiri macrodon as valid while MDD treats it as a synonym of S. cassiquiarensis .  MDD seems to be more in sync with the tentative recommendations of this paper (page 445), although the authors were not particularly confident.  That may be a point in MDD's favor. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looping me in, Hyperik. For context, I am another curator on iNaturalist and I have been in direct correspondence with Nate Upham and others to help incorporate the taxonomy on the MDD into iNaturalist. To add onto what Hyperik has already conveyed, the MDD - while accessible online - is still a work-in-progress. While the list of recognized taxa is complete (for Primates at least), junior synonyms and common vernaculars still need to be added to the database. However, they will be in due time and the MDD will be updated regularly (a second version is already being worked on). As Nate Upham has conveyed to me, the MDD will closely reflect primary literature as it is published. This philosophy is similar to the World Registry of Marine Species (WoRMS), which is the primary authority for many marine taxa on Wikipedia. For Primates, one of the issues I have noticed is that they currently do not recognize any taxonomic clades between order and family, even though groups such as the superfamily Lemuroidea are clearly monophyletic. - 101Animals (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the MDD since the beta version was released as it seems exactly what is needed for mammal taxonomy, an online update to MSW3. Unfortunately progress has been very slow and they seem to have limited resources (e.g. the forum is full of spam). It is organised by the sucessor to the ASM committee that used to oversee MSW3/MSW4, which gives it some authority, and even if MSW4 does appear it would be more readily updated resource. Another positive is their database can be downloaded, directly queried or accessed through an API.
 * From what I have seen, the information is based on recent taxonomy. For instance, the taxonomy of Felidae have recently been updated by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group and that has been incorporated, both the species entries and comments on latest subspecies. The newly recognised species of Canis are also there.
 * I was surprised to read above that ITIS is up to date for Primates. Their mammalian taxonomy still recognises Cetacea, Erinaceomorpha and Soricomorpha as orders (following MSW3). For the Carnivores I have looked at (Felidae, Canidae and a few others) it still follows the species in MSW3, with a few exceptions. The IUCN is more up to date for these species, but it seems the IUCN specialist groups behave diffently. As mentioned above, the Specialist Cat Group published a revised taxonomy, but there is nothing similar from the Specialist Primate Group, who still follow Groves in MSW3 for their taxonomy.
 * In short, MDD could be the mammalian resource that Wikipedia needs, but it is not ready yet. It fills a gap left by the delay of MSW4 and seems more up to date across all groups than the IUCN or ITIS. A problem with the Handbook of Mammals of the World is it is not available to all editors and some volumes are more dated than others (e.g. Carnivores is from 2009). From what I read above, HMW, supplemented by ITIS, is probably the best choice for primates at the present. I'm hopeful MDD can become a more general resource for Wikiproject Mammals, but we need to see what the second version brings.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we are getting any more comments. Since there are concerns about MDD being complete, I think we need to go with ITIS as the main source for taxonomy for now, with no restriction against using MDD where it has more updated information. As for common names, I think we would go with starting with ITIS, as our primary source for taxonomy, but where ITIS is inconclusive (e.g., gives no common name, gives multiple common names or gives a clearly idiosyncratic common names, we should look for consensus among other relevant sources (e.g., MDD, Handbook, IUCN, All the World's Primates, MSW3 if it is consistent with current taxonomy), and if there is no reasonable consensus then use the scientific name. Rlendog (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added an additional potential source - the IUCN Primate Specialist Group page, which seems to be an updated version of the Handbook of the Mammals of the World.Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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) 15:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes at Monkey
Please see Talk:Monkey/Archive 1. I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey&type=revision&diff=889734618&oldid=889633544 reverted] recent changes that I do not think were discussed and agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your revert. Rlendog (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Only four manual taxoboxes left
Currently there are only 4 articles in WikiProject Primates that are not using automated taxoboxes. Each has an issue preventing it from being upgraded.


 * 1) Anthrasimias Taxonomy/Anthrasimias - appears a junior synonym for Marcgodinotius, awaiting merge consensus
 * 2) Kenyanthropus Taxonomy/Kenyanthropus - possibly a synonym for Homo or maybe Australopithecus.
 * 3) Ugandapithecus Taxonomy/Ugandapithecus - Possibly a junior synonym for Proconsul
 * 4) Ugandapithecus major Taxonomy/Ugandapithecus - Possible junior synonym for Proconsul major. awaiting merge consensus.

Anyone with input on these taxa, please chime in so we can get these articles sorted out. --Nessie (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article at Kenyanthropus tentatively accepts the validity of the taxon. (Wikipedia more or less has to plump for one alternative when selecting article names when taxonomy is disputed.) I think that should be reflected in the taxobox, i.e. remove the references to Australopithecus from the taxobox, in which case you can switch to an automated taxobox. Mention of the debate on classification should remain in the article, and presumably there should also be mention of the taxon at Australopithecus.
 * A different issue is the existence of support among anthropologists for Kenyanthropus rudolfensis, which if accepted would make Kenyanthropus non-monotypic, and which anyway should be mentioned, so I think the article should be moved to Kenyanthropus platyops, split, or converted to a genus article (which also solves the taxobox issues) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a decent plan. Basically no taxoboxes, manual nor automated, should have more than one parent taxa listed.  Like you say, competing placements should be discussed in the body.  And it seems the taxonomy is not settled, so the article does not need merger at this time.  All I can find for the parent taxon to Kenyanthropus is only at the family level, Hominidae, though It would likely be in Hominini as that is what both Homo and Australopithecus are in, but I don't see direct placement in that tribe. --Nessie (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BioLib has it in Hominini, so went with that. Kenyanthropus is upgraded to an Automatic taxobox now.  Any opinion on the others?  --Nessie (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The main issue I see is that if you add an automatic taxobox template you have to remember to remove it if the merge goes ahead. Is that a problem? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? If say, Kenyanthropus is determined to be a synonym for Homo, then you just add Homo rudolfensis and Homo platyops to the list of species on the Homo article, and then dump Taxonomy/Kenyanthropus into  as per Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 2.  Taxonomy/Homo and Taxonomy/Australopithecus already exist, so even if you wanted to create new articles for Homo platyops/Australopithecus platyops or Homo rudolfensis/Australopithecus rudolfensis you'd just add Homo or Australopithecus into their Speciesbox and you'd be all set. --Nessie (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was meaning that I didn't see what was preventing you going ahead and implementing automated taxoboxes. (It turns out that getting rid of obsolete taxonomy templates is a bit more involved than I expected, but I don't see that it changes the situation.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing's stopping the implementation of automated taxoboxes, but switching to automated taxoboxes is a chance to double-check that we have the taxonomy right. There's no need to create taxonomy templates that might represent an outdated/minority taxonomic viewpoint and end up being unused. Over the course of 2018, I took primates from using 538 manual taxoboxes down to 83. I left the 83 because there (mostly) appeared to be some debate about the taxonomic status/placement of those taxa. But I didn't really do any research to see if possible debates had been resolved; if there was any hint of controversy, I left the manual taxobox in place. NessieVL's picking up where I left off. Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Chiming in late here, but I just noticed the awkward display of the infobox in Red Deer Cave people: I don't think †Homo "Red Deer Cave people" is a valid taxon name. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * well, it's not a described taxon. Many taxoboxes use similar styles, like commercial plant cultivars for example.  How do you want the box to look, or not? --Nessie (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose that the box be removed. cygnis insignis 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC).
 * I think removing the taxobox is appropriate in this case. I've said it before, but I don't think eliminating all manual taxoboxes is appropriate. It's better to use the flexible formatting allowed by manual taxoboxes than to try program automatic taxoboxes to handle a bunch of one-off edge cases. I think it's reasonable for Pterostylis sp. aff. alata (New England) to have a taxobox, but an automatic taxobox will mis-italicize the "epithet". +Crataegomespilus will also have italic problems with an automatic taxobox. Maybe the information presented in the taxobox of edible frog should be changed, but at present, it's not compatible with an automatic taxobox. Plant cultivars should be using Infobox cultivar, not a taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with that edge cases are best handled by manual taxoboxes. The underlying code in the automated taxobox system is already hard to modify and maintain because of its complexity. Trying to cope with more 'special' cases will just make it worse. The cost outweighs the small benefits. We should be clear that there's nothing wrong with using manual taxoboxes for non-standard taxon names. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then just to clear, it can be assumed I am in full agreement with these users (except where noted otherwise, those few times they are both wrong). My proposal should probably be separated, I suppose the first step is the bold one. cygnis insignis 20:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Some modest support, one clear oppose reverted The currently accepted notion is that removing the box requires discussion, rather than justifying its inclusion, so I dont know what to say when the response will likely be 'how useful it is' and 'readers expect it to be there' and other 'species have a box'. cygnis insignis 22:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blanket insistence on the inclusion or absence of an infobox across large ranges of articles is misguided, as is blanket insistence on Automatic taxoboxes versus customized manual templates. We are not robots, we are creative thinking beings. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:22, 13 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) 00:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)