Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

While The Arbiter is away

G'day everyone, I have been asked by The Arbiter while he is away to help out here with general maintenance and to give assistance if required. I know the project pretty much runs itself but if anyone needs a hand please dont hesitate to ask. I have been and will continue to assess the 80+ articles for WP:Mammals so if anyone finds that I have made a mistake please let me know and I will correct it asap (I am only human). Cheers ZooPro 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Prehistoric mammals

A new portal has appeared, Portal:Prehistoric mammals

65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What an un-thought out idea, The user who created a WikiProject, Portal and a number of templates that serve no purpose what so ever. I stronly recommend they be deleted as a pure waste of server space. Please consider joining WikiProject Mammals and help with those pages instead of creating wikiprojects and portals that serve no purpose. ZooPro 14:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not create this thing. IP editors indeed cannot create such pages at all. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My error I was aiming it at the user who created the mess. ZooPro 07:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be such a project or portal, but these pages were created without any discussion by one user, so are not really a WikiProject. —innotata 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem with this in its current form is that the Portal reads more like a Project page, including, for example, a list of project tasks, rather than an overview of the subject in the way that (for example) Portal:Mammals provides. Although I don't see anything wrong with a WikiProject on the subject, the portal page seems to have been created prematurely. I'd wait until the project itself has built up more steam, and merge the information currently at the portal into the project page, where it belongs. As Innotata says, a list of all the people currently involved in the project is also a must for the project page, or it does look like its just one person doing his own thing without discussion with other users. I'm not against the project - we have WP:Rodent (among others) as a sub group within this one, so this isn't an obviously bad idea. But I do think it needs to demonstrate some more existing support from a number of editors, and that the portal page, in particular needs to be better thought out.Anaxial (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are supposed to have support before creation... hence why there's a WP:COUNCIL where proposals for wikiprojects are vetted. I suspect the wikiproject "prehistoric mammals" would be easily deletable at WP:MFD due to not being properly proposed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at MfD/WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals. ZooPro 08:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Prehistoric Mammals are highly underdeveloped. Not a single user seems to think that the subject matter means anything at all. The matter had all ready been mentioned at Portal:Paleontology, but nobody cared in the slightest. Obscure dinosaurs that nobody knows anything about had better articles than extinct mammals we have huge amounts of information on. And it's no wonder that nothing has been done, since when somebody tries to help, they are sorely rebuked. I can't fix this all by myself. I just needed something to advertise how underdeveloped this subject is. The portal was the best thing I could think of. Pinguinus (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your point while strongly disagreeing with the idea that prehistoric mammals should have a separate portal from the regular mammal portal. Why not just add more prehistoric mammal content to it? Abyssal (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this subject. By myself, I couldn't add hardly anything to this subject matter. I would just like to attract people who are experts and persuade them to contribute. At the time of the portals creation, I thought a portal would be perfect for this goal. I now realize this is wrong. How do I attract other users, then? Pinguinus (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the best approach is to propose the creation of a task force either here at WP:Mammals or at WP:Palaeontology (or both). If the task force does well, then I can't see anyone objecting to it expanding into a full-blown wikiproject in due course. WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals might also be able to help. Anaxial (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done ZooPro 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Coyote article dispute

Me and another editor have been having a content (now apparently a sourcing) dispute that I have been waiting for input on at the talk page, but no one else has chimed in. I don't want to continue to revert and engage in edit warring. If someone or better a few editors could please look at the content in dispute that would be wonderful. Beach drifter (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Was this dealt with? Did it have a conclusion? ZooPro 12:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

appearance of scientific names in lead of species articles listed at their common names

I've created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Consensus_how_scientific_names_are_displayed_in_the_lead_of_species_articles_listed_under_common_names to get an idea of whether we should streamline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats got to be the longest title I have ever seen :P ZooPro 12:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

List of fatal bear attacks in North America

This list has been expanded quite a bit over the past year or so, and with all the references, the page load is pretty sluggish now. I'm curious how others feel about trying to split it up. I figure some options are to distinguish between attacks involving "wild" vs "captive". Also it could be split up by every fifty years or some other time criterion. Or, perhaps splitting it up is not necessary. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Colugo ID

Does anyone know how to tell apart the two living colugo species? This picture hasn't been identified, and it is a pretty good image. As I wrote on Commons, I think the white shoulder patch suggests Sunda colugo rather than Philippine colugo, but I'm not sure whether that's really diagnostic. Few sources seem to talk about differences in external morphology between the two species, though I was easily able to ID a colugo skeleton on the basis of my sources. Ucucha 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to put a decision...

I was going to place a note concerning the outcome of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Consensus_how_scientific_names_are_displayed_in_the_lead_of_species_articles_listed_under_common_names on the wikiproject page but was unsure where to put it. On wikiproject birds there is a style guide to achieve some uniformity in writing. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles, which the mammals wikiproject lacks. Might be a good idea to see whether most of the bird parameters apply here or not and discuss? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

e.g. a note on capitalisation and the last discussion etc. might be a good start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT seems to be explicit in saying that the material that is sourced is what the editor has analysed and the in-line citation should not be given as only where the source gained information from. However, there is a different interpenetration to this at by an outreach project that are transcribing material from ARKive, and they have been transcribing material from ARKive and using the the sources within ARKive as the in-line references. Some of the articles affected are Giant Armadillo, South Asian River Dolphin, Wisent, and Bornean orangutan. Contributions to advance the discussion at welcome at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/ARKive#WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT_when_writing_in-line_citations. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

use of symbols

There is a discussion going on where people are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

External links: Smithsonian's North American Mammals

An editor is adding links to many mammal species articles, such as this one to American black bear. I don't think these are terribly useful, and I'm having trouble engaging the editor about them. WP:LINKSTOAVOID says we should avoid links to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think these articles being linked to are essentially the kind of articles we are building, so to me they fail this item. They might make great references, but I don't think they make good external links. Any thoughts? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed these too, and agree that they aren't terribly useful, though the editor is obviously acting in good faith. They might be useful for lower quality article, although in general that doesn't seem to be where they're being posted. But I'd wait a bit longer to see how the discussion with the editor pans out, myself. Anaxial (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the links are to pictures taken by cameras that were automatically triggered in the wild. Consequently the pictures are very poor. Often (in the case of the black bear) you can't even see the faces of the animals. I think many if not most of these links are not useful. I just reverted several. Many more need to be reviewed and judged and deleted if wanting. Dger (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurasiathere taxonomy

I'm hoping this might be the best place to discuss this, as it affects a number of different articles. I notice that there are two significantly different versions of the top-level taxonomy of the laurasiatheres, as regards how the ungulates and carnivores are resolved. One version, uniting the carnivores and the perissodactyls as the "Pegasoferae", appears here, the other here, and essentially reinstates a "true ungulates" clade (seemingly not named). Of course, it's entirely possible that there's no real scientific consensus between the two hypotheses, but if that's the case it should be stated directly, contrasting the two, as opposed to using one source in some places, and another in others, thereby creating inconsistency between different articles. 84.203.34.52 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

From e.g. doi:10.1093/molbev/msn104, it looks like the basal radiation of laurasiatheres was very fast, perhaps quasi-instantaneous, which means it may be futile to search for interordinal clades among laurasiatheres. From a quick review, it seems the only well-supported clades are Carnivora + Pholidota (Ferae) and Chiroptera + Ferae + Perissodactyla + Cetartiodactyla (Scrotifera, although we have an article claiming this clade is called Ferungulata). Various analysis have supported Ferae + Perissodactyla (Zooamata), Ferae + Perissodactyla + Cetartiodactyla (Fereuungulata), Perissodactyla + Cetartiodactyla (Euungulata), Chiroptera + Ferae + Perissodactyla (Pegasoferae), and some other variants. Wikipedia shouldn't be choosing any one of these clades as the preferred taxonomy. Ucucha (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my suspicion. It's clear, then, that the laurasiatheria and ungulate pages should each mention both possibilities. Makes it somewhat more awkward in the cases of pages that are only aluding to one or other cladogram in passing. 84.203.34.52 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Laurasiatheria and Template talk:Laurasiatheria Cladogram for further discussion, specifically regarding deprecation of Pegasoferae. -- Limulus (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WT:TOL#The biggest clades of them all...which ones belong on Wikipedia?

Please see the link above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.

We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species.

Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Island fox

I have nominated Island fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bottlenose Dolphin for FA Status

I have nominated Bottlenose dolphin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....

Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Tokunoshima spiny rat

Today, someone created an article about this rat, called Tokudaia tokunoshimensis. It's an endangered rat, too. But I didn't find it listed on the Missing Mammals page. Just wanted the project members to know the article now exists. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing the taxonomy of cats, redux

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 6#Changing the taxonomy of cats needs revisiting. Two years have passed since the taxonomic changes were proposed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Eastern or Western Quoll

Re: File:Dasyurus geoffroii -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park-8a.jpg. This image description has recently been changed from Western Quoll to Eastern Quoll on Commons. Image for identification please. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this is my mistake that I just realised I meant to identify the image as a tiger quoll not an eastern quoll (its very early in the morning in Australia), No zoo or wildlife park houses Western Quolls in Australia and billabong koala park only houses eastern quolls and tiger qoulls. I will fix this. ZooPro 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Dasyurus maculatus -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park, New South Wales, Australia-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Dasyurus geoffroii -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park-8b.jpg. From the white spots in its fur, I think that this is the same individual animal. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, I would move it myself but I dont have file move rights on commons. Thanks for the logo size fix on Billabong article I did intend on fixing it and expanding the article just got caught up in real life stuff. ZooPro 00:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiger quoll moved to File:Dasyurus maculatus -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park, New South Wales, Australia-8b.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wapiti

The current article entitled "Elk" should be corrected and renamed as "Wapiti" according to the World List of Mammalian Species by Corbet and Hill. Also according to British dictionaries "elk" is the equivalent of North American "moose" (Alces alces), while "wapiti" is more closely related to "red deer" (Cervus elaphus).Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That World List should not necessarily be followed, both because it is years out of date and because it (I assume) uses British names throughout, whereas we should use American and Canadian forms for North American animals such as Cervus canadensis, which is more commonly known as the "elk" in North America. Ucucha (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've worked around Elk for decades and no one in the states ever calls the Elk a wapiti...MONGO 18:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Species involved with the evolution of mammals (Thrinaxodon), tetrapods (Tiktaalik roseae), cetaceans (Ambulocetus) make up a large amount of the article. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No article for Neumann's Gazelle

It looks like we have no article for Gazella erlangeri (Neumann's Gazelle or Erlanger’s Gazelle). This may be the last remaining redlink for a large mammal species on Wikipedia. If anyone wants to claim it, here are some sources:

There's also a stub on the Spanish Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazella_erlangeri Kaldari (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I will give it a shot :) ZooPro 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kaldari I got very side tracked by real world zoo issues, Some massive flooding at one of our zoo's. ZooPro 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Description validity

Does anyone know about the validity of Petaurista mechukaensis - the article cites the author and mentions a periodical that is associated with the same taxon author. Does not seem like a great place to describe a new mammal species. Shyamal (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of it on Google Scholar. Maybe Ucucha would know for certain. – Maky ^« talk » 04:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

+ add Petaurista mishmiensis also created by the same Wiki author and cites the same "taxon authority". Shyamal (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked the author's page but all references to the squirrels are in a "newsletter" or "journal" that are not peer-reviewed and are therefore not appropriate as sources. These references appear to be in the category of personal research. Other pages have been modified to recognize these two species: including Flying squirrels and Petaurista. They should be reverted until the species are reliably accepted. Mammal Species of the World does not recognize them. Dger (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World does not currently recognize any species described after 2005, because that was when the book was published. Whether these two species were described in a way that satisfies the criteria of the ICZN is not clear to me, but I agree that for Wiki purposes we should wait for some reputable sources. Ucucha (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears that a description (P. nigra) was published - one of which is on http://anwaruddinchoudhury.hpage.com/ - and the holotype skin is deposited with the Zoological Survey of India. Have to examine the literature further though. Shyamal (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Desert rat"

Could someone with rodent expertise take a look at Desert rat, and verify that it looks accurate (from a mammalogical perspective at least)? I'm slightly puzzled by the entry "an old name for the Sumal", which redirects to a place in Romania, presumably erroneously. Does anyone know of a mammal called the Sumal? If not, what could this line refer to? Also, are the gerbils the only rodents referred to as desert rates? Do other desert mammals sometimes attract this nickname? SP-KP (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been unable to find any animal called "sumal"; the word doesn't occur in the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps it's old vandalism.

Google Scholar ([1] shows that "desert rat" has been used for kangaroo rats (Dipodomys), multimammate rats (Mastomys natalensis), gerbils (Meriones among others), and another African murine (Zelotomys). Ucucha (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the anon IP edit that changed "gerbil" to "Sumal": [2], and this IP's only other edit, also at the same article: [3], so I think we can assume you're correct to have deleted it. Thanks for the research on the other species. SP-KP (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Muntiacinae and Cervinae

Hello,

The article muntjac states that the subfamily of the genus Muntiacus is Cervinae, while Indian muntjac says that it is Muntiacinae. Which one is correct, or are there two genera with the same name?

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems both are valid; see [4]. Which one are we going to go with, though? It is now inconsistent across articles. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See my reply at WT:TOL. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pocket pets and lagomorphs

Hello, since the pocket pet group seems inactive, and the rodent work-group has split off, I'm proposing turning the pocket pet group into a lagomorph work group. I am putting some comments on the work that I think needs doing on that talk page Halon8 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size

This bot-created list has not been maintained for over 4 years, so it is seriously out-of-date. I've nominated it for deletion, unless anyone can justify keeping it, and finding a way of resurrecting the bot. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Right whale

I have nominated Right whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Albacore (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of common English names

The last editor has changed all "initial caps" case English names to lower case in the article Steenbok. Is this the definitive decision of the Project? (Sorry, I have not been contributing much for some time, so may well be out of touch)—GRM (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the current consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovid identification

I just shot this photo at Mesker Park Zoo and Botanic Garden and I'm having troubles matching the bovid in the photo with one of these names. Anyone good at bovid identification? All I know is this is likely an Asian bovid, and it's rather small (guesstimate: between 1.5-3 ft shoulder height). There's a male Indian Peafowl in the background for scale. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a takin to me, although that's not an animal on the list provided by the zoo. But then, the only bovids on that are domestic goat, the sitatunga, greater kudu, and klipspringer, and it's clearly not any of those. Anaxial (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the list is out of date by 12 months. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Southern Brown Bandicoot

The link to Stirling in the Adelaide Hills is to Stirling in Scotland. Could somebody fix this, please, as I don't currently know how to embed links so I can't, yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.92.45 (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Frickeg (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

GAR

North American river otter has been nominated for GA reassessment here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tammar sudden death syndrome

I am concerned by the merging of "Tammar sudden death syndrome" into "Tammar wallaby". Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Species not listed by IUCN

Dear all
I am currently adding range maps to some bat species and am also planning on expanding some of the articles (although I'm not a native speaker, hope this would still be ok). That's when I found for example species listed under the genus Carollia not to appear in the list of IUCN. What is the general consensus on species recognition? Considering that many articles especially on bats are stubs, I would personally recommend to only list species that are recognized by authorities such as the IUCN.
Best wishes,
Felineora (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand IUCN list, it is mainly for keeping track of species at risk and especially species at risk that are being studied. I don't think its intention was to be a list of all animal species. For another reputable list try the Mammal Species of the World. I looked at both for the genus Carollia but they had the same list of six species. Nevertheless, the two lists don't always agree. Both lists are always somewhat out-of-date. The IUCN list gets updated more frequently. Dger (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We should try to follow the consensus of recent taxonomic literature; the IUCN may be out of date or idiosyncratic. In the case of Carollia, it appears that the IUCN (for whatever reason) is not listing some recently described species. However, the list in our article is too long, as Carollia colombiana is no longer considered valid (references in User:Ucucha/List of mammals/Chiroptera). Ucucha (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Dger and Ucucha, as regards the IUCN not being definitive (I believe it's due for an update next year, incidentally, so we might see some new species added to it then). If the species is attested in reliable sources, then I think we're okay to include it, even if it's not in certain specific sources, such as the IUCN or MSW3. Granted, there may be some room for debate as to what constitutes reliable in this context, and the IUCN isn't a bad place to start, at least for mammals, but we will need some flexibility to reflect new discoveries. For instance, I added Euroscaptor subanura last month, but this species has obviously yet to percolate through to the Red List, etc. Anaxial (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fox to identify

I took this picture of a fox in Mato Grosso, northeast of Nobres. It was struck by a vehicle. Is Lycalopex vetulus correct or is it something else? --Leyo 15:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That does look about right. I've only come across crab-eating foxes in MG but I don't think this is one. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Descent of the ferret

Currently the articles European polecat and Ferret blatantly contradict each other: Ferret claims that the ancestry issue is still not resolved (and that the original motive for domestication is still unclear), while European polecat claims that the long suspected contribution of the steppe polecat has been disproved and the European polecat has been established (based on morphological, cytological and molecular studies) as the sole ancestor (and that the ferret was originally domesticated for hunting vermin), both with sources. One would think (as an uninvolved lay observer) that the view described on European polecat would take precedence, and it also seems to describe a current consensus in the field, given that it is sourced to an authoritive handbook, which is also more recent than any of the sources cited in Ferret (which are, however, more specialised). Talk:Ferret reveals that there were previous attempts to resolve the problem, but they were resisted by an editor of Ferret, who did not accept the handbook as source for the European-polecat-only view, and even opposed the mere inclusion of the view, for reasons that are not clear to me from the discussion. Could somebody more knowledgeable than me get involved there? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Temporal range

I am having a hard time finding data (Fossil range) for the temporal range template in the taxobox for species: Petaurus breviceps (sugar glider). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If I am reading this:[5] right, the temporal range would be 'Pleistocene to Recent'; if I am reading this wrong, please let me know! ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That appears correct. [6] mentions some Pleistocene records too; more may have been found since 1973. I wouldn't trust the PaleoDB very much. Ucucha (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the most I could "dig up" was somewhere between 3-7 samples (probable data overlap) from reliably datable strata - including your Smith 1973. Seems like not enough to specify any reliable 'Temporal range'. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If there is one reliable record from the Pleistocene (and there is), its temporal range started in the Pleistocene. Ucucha (talk)

This is not my field, but it seems that simply means "at the latest"; what if nobody has bothered to look in earlier strata? Since I can't find a source for something like: "The temporal range for this species is...", or at least "fossil records indicate...", then I'm reluctant to include the range graph in the taxobox, per 'WP:OR' - all I'm finding is "specimen found here" and "specimen found there". Btw, sorry that my 1st link didn't go where I thought it would, must be in some sort of frame. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did find: "Maximum range based only on fossils: base of the Pleistocene to the top of the Holocene or 2.588 to 0.000 Ma" from PaleoDB. 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"m1" = "mammal" in Barbatodon?

Barbatodon says:

Barbatodon is a mammal genus from the Upper Cretaceous period.

a member of the extinct order of Multituberculata. It is within the suborder of Cimolodonta, and the family Kogaionidae.

All clear so far -

Then

"Based on comparisons with the m1s from Vãlioara, the holotype of Barbatodon is regarded as a kogaionid m1"

m1 = "mammal"? multituberculate? Martian? Could somebody please edit Barbatodon to clarify this?

- 186.221.135.185 (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

m1 means the lower first molar. --Aranae (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Editing Barbatodon. -- 186.221.135.185 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ferret phylogeny dispute

Could someone take a look at Talk:Ferret#Decendence? Thanks! 208.87.217.46 (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller? 208.87.217.46 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ungulates

Hi I just did a major revision to the ungulate article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate) because it was long over due for some serious revisions. If anyone wants to contribute making it better, let me know!--4444hhhh (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerus rutilus or Xerus inauris

Can anyone identify them? --Leyo 15:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals

Hi guys. I came across WP:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals which was created two years ago but never seem to really take off, given the existence of this project, WikiProject Palaeontology and WikiProject Extinction. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals came to the conclusion in 2011 that it should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I think the time has come for it to be either just deleted or at best made into a taskforce either here or at WP Extinction. That's not a comment in any way on the importance of prehistoric animals, just that this particular WikiProject has not proved the best way to improve their articles. Thoughts? Le Deluge (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it should just be redirected to the paleo project. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A redirect to WikiProject Paleo sounds like a good idea. I don't know if there's even enough editors writing about prehistoric mammals (besides more recently extinct mammals like mammoths) for a task force. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the project and its history, it seems there has been no activity on the Project page since April '11. The project seems to have only one member, who hasn't made any edits to articles about prehistoric mammals in that time, either. (No criticism intended; he has been active elsewhere). So, essentially, it's dead, and anyone coming to it wanting to help out would probably benefit far more from a redirect to somewhere active. So I'd be in favour of such a redirect (Palaeo seems best), without prejudice to re-establishing the project or doing something more with it, should interest develop again in the future. Anaxial (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we have about four or five people (including me) who focus (sporadically) on extinct mammal articles. And the paleo project is surely enough if we want to communicate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the comments here already about folding it into WP:Paleo. As one of the folks who will occasionally whip up a paleo-mammal article (Im mostly a paleo-insect and paleo-plant guy) I am much more inclined to tag my pages with the WP:Paleontology banner then with WP:Paleo-mammals or for that manner WP:Extinction. --Kev min § 02:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So, can we redirect it now? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think so FunkMonk. Regards ZooPro 12:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sumatran rhinoceros TFA

Sumatran rhinoceros will be WP:TFA on April 15th. It was reviewed as a FA in 2008 and as such requires a good deal of cleanup before its in a decent state for the Main Page. The blurb looks alright but the lead is a mess, so many numbers, and contains information not covered in the body. It'd be great for more people to have a look over it. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Afro-asiatic Camelid Range.jpg

File:Afro-asiatic Camelid Range.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent change from Canis lupus rufus to Canis rufus rufus

If you would, please do comment on the recent move from Canis lupus rufus to Canis rufus and what it means for other articles such as Canis rufus rufus Chrisrus (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Some authors retain Canis rufus as distinct species, like IUCN and Chambers et al. [Chambers SM, Fain SR, Fazio B, Amaral M (2012). "An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses". North American Fauna 77: 1–67.]. Burmeister (talk) 13:02, 4 July 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. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Humanity buff bills 7701 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

List of species?

What to do about this article? Ostensibly a list of mammal genera, it has recently been edited extensively by Connor.burgin (talk · contribs), apparently in an attempt to turn it into a complete list of mammalian species. This follows similar past efforts by this user, all of which were eventually deleted (see List of Every Mammal, Classification of all Living Mammals and this edit). Surely there's no point to such a massive list when the same can be (and is) accomplished with many smaller lists for each order/family/etc. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I say revert his efforts and nudge him gently to reform his ways. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have a list already created and am having trouble editing it with my computer, it is to large for me to finish just yet. Once I come up with a better comuputer I will finish it. Thank you mgiganteus1 for bringing this to my attention. I would also like to say that there is not an exact list like this one anywhere else on wikipedia and that all the other lists are scattered and sometimes hard to interpret (many are no longer complete and it is a lot of work to go to each individual page and add them because I don't always know which species are missing). Making one big list is the easiest way of doing so and once I am finished it should help anybody looking for the complete list all in one. It has taken me 4 years to complete this list and I have decided to add it to wikipedia for others to use and see. I also originally created "List of mammal genera" as an intended list of all the mammals, it has just been hard because all my past efforts where deleted before I could even get started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor.burgin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There has clearly been a dispute over whether such as list is useful. My suggestion is to place it in your userspace, say User:Connon.burgin/Mammallist, where it will not be deleted before you can get started and where other editors can look over it and add their comments. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted to the most recent edit where it was just a list of genera. Connon, you can grab the version from just before my edit to pull that into your userspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Olingos and Olinguito

With the announcement today of the new species and the review of the genus in the same article, I plan to make the following changes:

~~Move Olingo to Bassaricyon, and update to indicate the 4 species and 6 subspecies as per the ZooKeys article... or perhaps rewrite this article and make a new genus article.~~ (I wish he'd named it Little olingo instead of olinguito... but I'll create that article as a redirect anyway...) Replace the redirect at Bassaricyon with a small article describing the genus and the recent changes by Helgen.
Move Bushy-tailed olingo to Northern olingo, and rewrite to include B. richardsoni, B. lasius, and B. pauli
Redirect Harris's olingo and Chiriqui olingo to Northern olingo
Move Allen's olingo to Eastern lowland olingo, and rewrite to include B. beddardi and B. medius siccatus
Redirect Beddard's olingo to Eastern lowland olingo
Create Western lowland olingo (B. medius and ssp)
Update related pages and templates as needed: {{Carnivora}}, List_of_placental_mammals_in_Order_Carnivora, Procyonidae, List of mammals of Brazil, etc.

UtherSRG (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to rename the genus. That they give the new species a cute new name doesn't change the fact that the genus has been known as "olingos" for a long time; even the title of the article equates Bassaricyon with the olingos. Ucucha (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in the common tongue, "olingo" now seems refers to all the species in the genus except the new guy. Perhaps it's just too soon to tell. Ok, #1 I'll hold off on (except the little redirect I made. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Until yesterday all Bassaricyon were commonly known as olingos which is why the two words have commonly been used interchangeably. As of yesterday there is a Bassaricyon which is not an olingo. It seems to me that there should now be an brief article at Bassaricyon stating that it is a genus with three (five?) species of olingo and the olinguito. That is a change that makes sense to me now, for the rest of the renaming and rewriting it might be best to wait for a larger variety of reliable sources to chime in (which I'm sure will happen in short order). –Wine Guy~Talk 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Four species (northern, eastern lowland, western lowland, and olinguito). I've updated my #1 above. I have quick rewrites in my user space for folks to work on: User:UtherSRG/Northern olingo, User:UtherSRG/Eastern lowland olingo, User:UtherSRG/Western lowland olingo. I've reviewed the ZooKeys article and have noticed for some time the near pleas of other authors that the genus was in desperate need of review. I believe this change will easily hold up to further review and that we should get these articles prepped and, when we like them, make the above moves. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made the moves and edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rabbits

I'd like to revive this idea, is anyone game? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Japanese serow?

I've recently greatly expanded Japanese serow. I'm nothing like an animal expert, though, and I think it's unlikely I haven't botched terminology or something. Could someone who knows their stuff please take a look at it? Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked through and revised the Taxonomy section of the Japanese serow page, and I do no a thing or two about the Japanese Serow along with other mammals, if you were worried that someone who didn't had edited the page. Although I'm trying to add a book citation and I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor.burgin (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomic classification of two species of fruit bat

I've started a discussion at Talk:Dark tube-nosed fruit bat regarding some differing sources on the classification of two species of fruit bat. As I note there, I suspect there was a re-working of the phylogeny but I can't seem to find it. If anyone wants to dig through the literature or has insight to this, clarifying it in the article would be appreciated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:51, 31 December 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 tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs: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) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

An invitation

Hello,
Please note that Rare breed (agriculture), which is within your project's scope, is This week's article for improvement (until Sunday the 16th inclusively). A few Wikipedians are collaborating on the article, but we could use more detailed content on rare breeds of pigs, rabbits, cattle, goats, donkeys, and other mammals! Anyone who sees this message is welcome to join our efforts. No need to be an expert. Any edit that helps improve the article is welcome!
Thank you,
Madalibi (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC), on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for comments on merging stubs

I'm proposing to merge 3-4 stubs on molar cusps: Protocone, Metacone, Hypocone, and (perhaps) Paracone (tooth). These 4 cusps are important in mammalian taxonomy and paleontology, but are defined primarily by their relative locations, so I think having a centralized coverage that briefly defines each will better serve readers. Please see discussion at Talk:Protocone. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed to classify some articles

After some heavy work a while ago to rescue and clean up Template:Murinae, I finally, today, got around to splitting it into more manageable chunks. A navbox this size cannot really serve as a genuine navbox (per WP:NAV), but it can serve a useful function as a reference page. Thus it should only be transcluded on one or two pages, usually the main article and/or a list article for the topic.

The following pages transclude {{Murinae}} but are not linked by it:

Could a helpful member of the project please classify these articles and enter them in the appropriate section in the correct subtemplate of {{Murinae}}, which should then replace {{Murinae}} on the relevant page above? Many thanks.

--NSH002 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done for numbers two to six above, since they were all already in the appropriate subtemplates (as broken links or redirects). Not sure what's best for Laboratory mouse, since it obviously isn't a species. I've put the appropriate subtemplate on its page, but it won't currently appear in the appropriate section of that subtemplate, since there isn't one. Anaxial (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the quick response! (not surprised about the lab mouse ...) --NSH002 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed "Collaboration of the month" for Mammal and Eutheria

Hi all. I'm amazed that Mammal and Eutheria (Placentalia inclusive), perhaps the two most broadly overarching articles to this project (and likely to be especially useful to nonspecialist readers), are quite lacking in basic coverage of what exactly a mammal or placental mammal is. Yes, they both cover heavily the evolution, classification, and paleontology, but are very scant in the biology and "neontology" of living mammals/placentals (anatomy, physiology, reproduction, etc), and a sentence or empty header with See also: or Main article:____ seems unnecessarily skeletal. I'd like to propose a month-long or longer drive to improve both articles, expanding coverage while still redirecting to subtopics where appropriate. Maybe something akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration could be displayed in the respective article talk pages and a notice at WP:WikiProject Animals as well? A specific goal could be to bring Mammal to GA status and Eutheria (placental inclusive) to B class. Thoughts? --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Parent-child project tagging?

This is a cross-posted message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council:

I have a dispute with another user who is dual=tagging articles tagged by WikiProject equine with WikiProject Mammals as well. I have always understood that rarely is there a need to double-tag "parent" and "child" wikiprojects. The other user feels differently. See conversation here. If I'm wrong on this, I'll back off, but my understanding is that double-tagging is a colossal waste of time. Please advise. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would only do this for species not breeds of equine, if even then. For breeds and landraces of domestics, it's overkill. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We agree. Actually, over at the council, they came up with a solution that would allow tagging in the project box, but as Plantdrew appears to have dropped the stick, it may be a moot point now. I'm in "let sleeping dogs (of any breed) lie." Montanabw ^(talk) 03:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Of interest

Issue at ANI that may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rodent FAC

Rodent is currently at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodent/archive1. It would be a pity if it failed there through lack of interest. If anyone feels like reviewing or commenting on the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Article: Fox - Educational Assignment for Cornell University: Online Communities - Request for Help

Hello Wikipedians, my name is Sarah and I am part of a group of students who are working to fix the article on foxes. This is for our class Online Communities at Cornell University. We aim to make the C-Class article a B-Class or even better! We are working to expand the fox's characteristic section (adding more anatomy and behavior); revamp the conservation section; and add an "urban foxes" section (foxes in urban settings and their impact on humans/pets). We are new to Wikipedia editing and would love some help, guidance, and/or support! Anything from suggestions on new sections or sections to edit to coding/grammar issues will be greatly appreciated!

If you're curious about our assignment here it is: Online Communities Assignment

Hope to hear from you soon! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 20:28, 25 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)

WikiProject Anatomy

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

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Mammals articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notice

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Razorback#Requested move November 2014, which aims to clear up the perpetual Wikipedia confusion between the wild pig or wild boar (article: Wild boar), and feral domesticated pigs (proposed article name Feral pig, presently at Razorback). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Icon

I think the icon of this WikiProject should be replaced with something cleaner, such as (but not necessarily) this image. Does anyone oppose changing the icon? JKDw (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what we have is fine and I'm not a fan of the circus it would entail to change it. I've been through one of those for WP:Animals. Long, drawn out and a pain. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is fine but it could be better. I realise I'm being pedantic. I'm surprised; the icon of WP:Tree of life was recently changed, quickly and painlessly. JKDw (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that this could devolve into an issue regarding which mammalian clade you favor. Being a strepsirrhine person, I'm instinctually inclined to favor their pics. Though moles are no more or less a good example of mammals, maybe we should favor a member of the most populous order, Rodentia. I'll be the first to admit that this is a sticky issue, based on solely on opinion and bias, but given both of our biases, I'm inclined to favor the (so far) most successful mammals to date. – Maky ^« talk » 09:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in moles. I chose that image as an example because of its quality and simplicity, relative to the current icon. I was also thinking that a rodent might be the most justified choice. JKDw (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Though this might be an excellent picture, I feel a high quality picture with a natural background (again, favoring rodents) would be ideal. And, in all honesty, I would favor a slightly lower quality photo of a rodent in its natural environment. (After all, the icon will be of reduced quality due to it's size, so quality on this scale will not be an issue.) Anyway, I'm glad we agree on what you said above. Hopefully other editors will share our views. – Maky ^« talk » 11:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I oppose the whole thing. If I were to weigh in, I'd say that we ought to encourage involvement with a good photo of some sort of charismatic megafauna like an elephant, or at least something really cute and fuzzy-looking like a baby panda. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing mammals

The English Wikipedia now covers all species of mammals. Flamthonas FIrearrow (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Marine Mammal WikiSprint

Hi All,

I am the Education Committee Chair for the Society for Marine Mammalogy, we are hosting a "WikiSprint" which is a week long editathon starting on January 19th for all articles related to marine mammals. Please considering enrolling on our WikiEducation Course Page

ShaneGero (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)