Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Category:Rodent stubs: please review

You may have noticed that User:Polbot's been creating a metric shedload of organism stubs, including many rodents. As a result, Category:Rodent stubs became considerably oversized -- twice over, in fact. I've tried to bash these into some sort of shape: see the various new subcats, and the discussion at WP:WSS/P. I've no idea whether the Latin or common names are preferable for most of these, so please give some consideration to that issue. There's possibly scope for yet more stub type: the parent could be reduced with one family that's about on the cusp of the usual creation threshold (Dipodidae), and probably further if higher taxons were used (such as the Hystricognathi). As the main category's down to manageable proportions, I thought I'd leave such more arguable cases for the time being. Alai 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bat stubs subtypes

And not so very differently, the bats: subtypes proposed. Alai 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation debate at main WP:MOS

There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text. As the outcome may affect your project, if anyone would like to contribute to the debate, with either view, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals. Thanks for your time. Owain.davies 10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is looking strongly like the rules are going to be changed in favour of no-caps (fexcept for birds). Since mammal articles are likely to be heavily impacted I'd suggest WP:MAMMAL at least have a look lest the changes be made without input. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I support the change. Common names are common; but, as several minor edit skirmishes have shown, not necessarily universally accepted. I think the best option would to have articles listed under the scientific name, with the list of common names in the opening of the article. As to establishing a "standard list of common names," that's like trying to enforce proper grammar on the practice of insults. It also eliminates the immediate evolutionary connection with other member of a particular genus, etc. We shouldn't support common names, and therefore should not capitalize them thus providing some legitimacy. Creationists, for example, traditionally love common names--they don't want to give the overwhelmingly obvious fact of evolution any more credit then it already has in the public mind. Also, listing the common names second allows more than one to be fully acknowledged--this prevent any local or cultural name for an animal from being ignored or downplayed. Just some of my thoughts. TeamZissou 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tamaraw article up for review

Hi guys, can you help us with this article. We are planning on making this GA or FA soon.--Lenticel (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Content wise the article seems ok but we don't have enough images as of now--Lenticel (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Migratory animals

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! We are disambiguating [[migration]], and we find an excellent article on [[bird migration]], but it appears there is no article at all on non-bird animal migration. There are three redirects ([[Animal Migration]], [[Migration of animals]], [[Animal migration]]) but no article. Would someone here like to write an article on [[mammal migration]]?— Randall Bart (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. JKNS$$ 2311 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Insectivora and Xenarthra

This arcticle states Insectivora as a mammal order, but it is now obselete and has been divided into Afrosoricida(Tenrecs, Otter Shrews, and Golden moles), Erinaceidae(Hedgehogs, Gynmures, and Moonrats), and Soricomorpha(Shrews, moles, Solenodons, and the extinct West Indies Shrews). This arcticle needs to be changed.

Xenathra, like insectivora, is now obselete, yet this arcticle states it as an order. It should be devided into Pilosa(Anteaters and sloths) and Cingulata(Armadillos). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.45.62 (talk • contribs).

The Insectivora article already states that it is obsolete been replaced. Xenarthra is still a valid superorder, containing the orders Pilosa and Cingulata. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

African Wild Dog -> African Hunting Dog

I would like to change the name of African Wild Dog to African Hunting Dog. I have read in several places that this is the prefered name nowdays. I guess it makes them sound nicer and also avoids confusion with feral domestic dogs. Would anyone object? Steve Dufour 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a name change. It seems that the original name is still more widely used, although some of the people working for their conservation have expressed dislike for it. Steve Dufour 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the name will not be changed here on WP. I started an article about the controversy, however: African Wild Dog name controversy. Steve Dufour 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish I'd seen this earlier. I'll check MSW3 tonight to see what it says the correct common name is. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It says African wild dog. --Aranae 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I'd have to oppose the move. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like African wild dog is still the most common name. BTW what is MSW3? Steve Dufour 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wilson and Reeder's (2005) Mammal Species of the World volume 3. --Aranae 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've noticed that it is African Wild Dog as well. I would object to changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKNS$$ 2311 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created articles creating category confusion

I'm sure many of you have noticed that a bot has been creating articles filling in the sizeable gaps in our wikiproject at the species and genus levels. This has been done using data on the IUCN website. That taxonomy is generally based on Mammal Species of the World volume 2 (1993). In other words it is about 12 years behind compared to the starting taxonomy that humans are actually using in our articles (MSW3 - 2005). I don't think that's really a big problem in itself and have been slowly updating its work and other small errors it is making (not bolding species names in taxobox, ignoring parentheses in authorities, etc.). A month later and I'm on the C's in superfamily Muroidea. I'll get there eventually.

My problem is that by creating all these thousands of new articles it is attracting the attention of general editors outside of our wikiproject as certain categories and stubcategories are becoming so bloated that cat- and stubwatchers are now restructuring the articles based on this outdated taxonomy. Also, the bot is apparently requesting the creation of new categories that are duplicates of categories that already exist. For example, a family-level category may take the format of "category:common name" "category:[taxon]-idae" "category:[taxon]-ids" or "category:[taxon]-ids [noun (such as 'rodents')]" Then a merge is proposed, things go up for Cfd and it's almost random how the eventual vote will go. In many cases the votes are based on looking things up in these bot-created articles or categories. It would be really nice if we had a general decision agreed upon by human editors of the wikiproject that we could point to and apply.

I propose that categories be named as follows:

  1. Common name of group if one exists. Examples are Category:Old World monkeys or Category:Hamsters. Places like Walker's Mammals of the World or Macdonald's Encyclopedia of Mammals are likely to have this.
  2. For taxa above the genus: common name of group formed by adjective form followed by broader name if such usage is commonplace for group of interest. For example, you'll see the term "muroid rodents" or "hystricognath rodents" as commonly used names for Muroidea and Hystricognathi respectively. I'd actually apply this across rodents that lack a straightforward common name (i.e. Category:Deomyine rodents, Category:Nesomyid rodents). Other possibilities might be a future Category:Pitheciid monkeys, or Category:Mylodontid sloths. I think there's value in using that noun as it provides some information as to what a "deomyine" or a "mylodontid" is.
  3. For taxa above the genus where a broader group common name is not regularly used: plural noun form (e.g. "-ids"). No one ever really says "procyonid carnivorans". Examples are Category:Procyonids or Category:Viverrids.
  4. For genera where a straightforward common name does not exist: "Category:Genus name". Examples are Category:Microtus or Category:Suncus.

I expect that there will be discussion and this may likely not be adopted as is, but if adopted the -idae form for a category would not be used. For example Category:Soricidae will be deleted and only Category:Shrews will exist (based on #1), Category:Dipodidae would be replaced with Category:Dipodid rodents (based on #2), and Category:Leporidae would be replaced with Category:Leporids (based on #3).

Note that many of these have been, are, or will be on CFD (and how inconsistent the decisions there have been). Hopefully we can develop a guideline (even a flexible one) to point to when they pop up there. --Aranae 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, however, I believe the difference between #2 and #3 may be somewhat arbitrary. For example, "leporid lagomorphs", however ridiculous it may sound, is actually used in a few scientific publications, while "deomyine rodents" seems to be used mainly (though not exclusively) on Wikipedia clones. Always using #3 may be an alternative, though I prefer simply using the scientific name (so, Category:Deomyinae, Category:Nesomyidae, Category:Leporidae, etc.), since that avoids the use of a rare or very rare name.
Another question is the categories, regardless of their names, we want to use. I would propose to always use categories for orders and families and add categories for other taxa (suborders, superfamilies, subfamilies, and the like) when they are in wide use (for example, the superfamily Muroidea) or when the parent category becomes unmanageably large (which, for example, might happen in families like Soricidae, Vespertilionidae, Muridae, and Cricetidae). Genus categories may also be added when parent categories become too large, but preferably only for large genera (i.e., categories for genera like Pteropus, Crocidura or Microtus are OK, but categories for small genera as in Category:Spalacidae should not be used). Categories for informal taxa, such as Category New World rats and mice, should never be used. [Note that this would get rid of, for example, Category:Monkeys - Ucucha 06:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]
Of course, this is just a first proposal, and I hope it will be improved further. Ucucha 06:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, consistency is good. On the other, having categories sized properly to the number of articles is also good. On the third hand, making categories reasonably user-friendly is good. I don't think we can fully reconcile all of the different hands. Categories that are under the auspices of an active WikiProject should not get touched (says he who is most active in the Primates WikiProject). Categories should have a reasonable number of member articles. Categories should have recognizable names, when possible. Categories and subcategories should be organized in a logical manner. CFD should be following these guidelines. It should not be allowing the deletion of categories under the auspices of an active WikiProject, and certainly not without consultation of that project. Aranae's list seems fine to me. Yes the difference between #2 and #3 is somewhat arbitrary, and so using the general guidelines I described above should be used to help guide the decision. I'm fine with removing informal names (such as Category:Monkeys, which I helped to erect in the first place), as long as the resulting category and subcategory structure still follows the guidelines above. Getting rid of Category:Monkeys, for example, would elevate Category:Old World monkeys and Category:New World monkeys to the position Category:Monkeys now holds in the Category:Primates category tree. But this doesn't work, because Category:Monkeys contains both the formal Old and New World monkey categories, as well as more informal subcategories and articles that should rightly be in a "monkeys" category, which would be less appropriately filed under the more general Category:Primates. We'll have to be careful looking at the category and its contents when making these kind of decisions. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Things should be flexible and these decisions should be generated by consensus. I'm not looking to change older human-driven decisions (though they are always up for re-evaluation), but instead challenge the decisions that have come out of automation. Right now the decisions about what to do with these new categories are being evaluated one by one at CFD and it would be far more efficient to come to a decision for all of them in one place as opposed to waiting for them to trickle to CFD one by one with really inconsistent outcomes. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples

The following are lists of recently created categories that may need revision and might make their way to CFD. Perhaps we can discuss them by section and by individual entry. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New categories equivalent to existing categories

These are recently constructed categories that correspond to a category that existed prior to their creation. Most are either bot-created or are the results of a bot request. New categories are listed first. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Chipmunks. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Marmots. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Dipodid rodents or Category:Dipodids. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Fossorial muroids or move to Category:Spalacids. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, I prefer Category:Spalacids. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Mouse-like hamsters. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, can remain in Category:Muroid rodents. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems appropriate to me. --Aranae 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Anomalures. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Cavies. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Category:Caviids; I don't think Hydrochoerus can really be called a "cavy". Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Move to Category:Caviids. --Aranae 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Leporids or Category:Rabbits and hares. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, I prefer Category:Rabbits and hares. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Rabbits and hares would be preferred. I don't believe most laypersons would be familiar with either Category:Leporidae or Category:Leporids. Kaldari 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Shrews. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Erinaceomorphs. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Fruit bats. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Euplerids. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Mongooses. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Mustelids. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Skunks. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Bovids. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Deer. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Pigs. --Aranae 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --Aranae 05:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Family level categories

These are categories that are in the format [stem]-idae. This may be objectionable if we want to name categories based on common name for the group or in the plural [stem]-ids format. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Category:Pocket gophers". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to Category:Heteromyids. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would vote to move. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Gundis". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Old World porcupines". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Blesmols". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:New World porcupines". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Octodonts. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Hutias". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Giant hutias". --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to Category:Chinchillids. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would vote to move. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to Category:Dasyproctids. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Agoutis and acouchis. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Moles. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Tetatively agree. Are desmans different enough to worry about? --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd think they're just moles with a different common name. But, of course, a Category:Moles and desmans may also be possible. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This= Category:Myzopoda - monotypic family. Upmerge into Category:Bats. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly monotypic, since a second species has been discovered recently, but still not enough for a separate category. Upmerge (and also delete Category:Myzopoda). Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only 2 spp in family. Upmerge into Category:Bats. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Old World leaf-nosed bats. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Megadermatids. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree (or maybe upmerge?). Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Mastiff bats. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer Category:Free-tailed bats. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I now see that that's the name of the family article. Agree. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Mormoopids. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Funnel-eared bats or upmerge (8 spp.). --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently (according to Tejedor) 11 spp. in 3 genera (and two fossil genera, each with one species). I think it might be enough for a separate category. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:New World leaf-nosed bats. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Ucucha 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Category:Chevrotains. Ucucha 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --Aranae 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Genus categories containing 5 or fewer articles

These are categories at the genus-level and currently contain 5 or fewer articles. They may be candidates for deletion and upmerging. Alternatively, they may have some potential for growth and/or be useful. I suggest they be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Anomalures. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Anomalures. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Anomalures. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Anomalures. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Gundis. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Gundis. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Gundis. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Gundis. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Old World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Old World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Old World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Blesmols. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:New World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:New World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:New World porcupines. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Octodontids. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No longer recognized, is a synonym of Proechimys. Delete. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No longer recognized, is a synonym of Mogera. Delete. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one species. Delete and upmerge. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Category:Gazelles" and fill. --Aranae 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that several gazelles are currently placed in different genera (Nanger, for example). A category for the subfamily Antilopinae might be preferable. Ucucha 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What next?

Now that time has passed and a grand total of two people have waded in on the specifics, what comes next? Does this trickle to CFD one at a time? Do we send all of this over there at once? --Aranae 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Just do it. I agree with the proposals here, and thought y'all were going to go ahead and implement. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you should go ahead and implement the agreed upon changes. The specifics are too technical to accommodate any kind of community-wide discussion. If you need an admin to help out with the deletions, let me know. Kaldari 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of having this or parts of this automated? --Aranae 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? :) Kaldari 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for an Agriculture or Livestock Project

I've just suggested a Proposed project "Agriculture" with a possible alternative (or descendant, I suppose) "Livestock". Obviously, although agriculturally significant birds would be a large area, the vast majority of livestock would be mammals, so I would appreciate commentary, preferably at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture --Doug.Talk 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done In case anyone didn't notice, Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture is up and going strong.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Yes, very probably a hoax. Ucucha 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible task forces?

I think the content related to several kinds of mammals might be significantly improved if they had specific work groups or task forces assigned to working on that particular "family" or other qualifier. Would the members of this project perhaps be amenable to adjusting the project banner to include assessment parameters and possibly additional information regarding specific task forces? I note that there are already several proposals for new groups on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page for such groups, and think that they might best be facilitated by this project perhaps taking a more active role, at least as a parent project, in the development and management of such content. John Carter 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Separate: 1) "WILD" Asian Water Buffalo from 2) "Domestic Asian Water Buffalo"

Please create a separate article for:

The actual common full name for it is "Wild Asian Water Buffalo", it is endangered (and it is little known outside wildlife circles), see IUCN Red List, while Domestic Asian Water Buffalo selectively bred for thousands of years is very famous and numbers in millions and has various livestock breeds. There are many breeds of domestic water buffalo.

Reference

Atulsnischal 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wild Asian Water Buffalo

Please develop this article whenever you all can find time, Thanks Atulsnischal 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub needing serious work

The article on the Dzo (yak-cow hybrid) needs alot of work. It doesn't even have a scientific categorization. VanTucky Talk 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals are placed in the cervidae category because they are all related species which all belong to the animal kingdom, chordate phylum, classified as mammals, and in the artiodactyla order. they all also have antlers.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_2&oldid=1149001882"