Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Homo floresiensis for Featured article review

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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Nomascus [sub]species?

Hi all.

I've just created Southern White-cheeked Gibbon (because it seemed like a nice change), and the literature seems to be somewhat divided over whether it's an individual species, a subspecies of the Northern White-cheeked Gibbon, ditto of the Yellow-cheeked Gibbon, or a hybrid of the two. Our own content is a bit divided - the general articles on gibbon & Nomascus treat them as seperate species, but the Wikispecies page calls it a subspecies.

Any ideas on which it should be? I've not much experience of interpreting taxonomy arguments... Shimgray | talk | 12:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

MSW3, which is normally the default authority, has this as a separate species, so unless there is a subsequent authoritative classification as a subspecies, I think it is proper to keep this as a species. The article ought to reference the controvery though. Rlendog (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The article does a good job of handling the matter. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both - the main problem I had was knowing which ones ought to win out! I'll have a hack at expanding it this evening. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Add your primary primate interest(s) to the participant list

I've changed the participant list for this project into a vertical list. I think it would be beneficial to add a brief note on the subjects in which you have expertise, or in which you are most interested. This is to inform others who might want/need help on an article. Click here to edit your blurb. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis and Vernix caseosa

I've just tagged the AAH article for the project. Also, if anyone knows much about/ has good sources for Vernix caseosa, please expand it - currently AAH junk makes up about a quarter of the length of that stubby article. It is said to be used as an argument for AAH, but there is no discussion of the opposite view. Aleta Sing 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of fossil primates

I've created a list of fossil primates with some help from Vasconicus (talk · contribs). I may have made some mistakes cause it's a long list and my eyes are tired now! Hopefully each section could have a little information about the nature of the discoveries within the family/subfamily/tribe etc. Could be quite an interesting article. I know UtherSRG (talk · contribs) has tried to dissuade the creation of a fossil primate article before, but this list is verifiable and seemingly quite complete, it has the potential to be a very useful resource in understanding extinct primate relations. Jack (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

homo rudolfensis

this might help people that want to add more information to the homo rudolfensis article71.232.93.212 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Primates project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr.Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting stats not yet made the popular page yet is Darwinius masillae, which had 134,400 views, yesterday! Human gets an average of 7000 per day and only gets 211,000 hits per month, and that is our most popular page (stats don't include redirects to each page). Nothing like a bit of mainstream news coverage to boost the page views! Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rooneyia

Hi, can someone improve this stub I've created? Bearian (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reasons for having separate species (Rooneyia viejaensis) and genus (Rooneyia) articles? Isn't the genus monotypic? 212.10.78.34 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you are right. Should they be merged? Bearian (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they should be merged. Even a non-monotypic fossil genus should have the species information there if the information on the species is very scant (like Gigantopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I'm not sure if I already mentioned this earlier. I've created the portal Primates and any contributions are greatly appreciated. ZooFari 21:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll try to contribute when I get a chance. –Visionholder (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

I have gone through and done at least a rough assessment for every unassessed WP:Primate article. Feel free to make corrections if you feel I have improperly assessed an article. –Visionholder (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you know?

I've mentioned Portal:Primates, and so far it is doing well :-) I'd like to request members of this project to gather around facts for the Did you know? section of the portal. They need to be entertaining, interesting, and shocking fun facts. Be sure that those facts have reliable sources. I'm looking for atleast 25 facts for now. You can list them here in bullets. Thank you, any help is appreciated. ZooFari 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are 4 the DYKs I've earned over the last year. As I keep re-writing lemur pages and earning more, I will keep adding them to the portal. –Visionholder (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will add these as soon as I create an inclusion page, where anyone can add additional DYKs. ZooFari 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You could have a look round here for primate DYKs, not sure how you'd find the actual fact though? Might not be that useful really... Maybe if you get in contact with him. Jack (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More taxonomy authority issues

Per this article, it appears there are 2 more mouse lemur species. Unlike the article referenced by List of lemur species, Groves name is not on the paper, but both papers have Russell Mittermeier's name on them. I've created two new pages for the new species (Arnhold's Mouse Lemur and Morgot Marsh's Mouse Lemur), following in line with what had previously been done for Lokobe Mouse Lemur. I have also proposed a merger between Claire's Mouse Lemur and Lokobe Mouse Lemur per information found in the first article mentioned.

The question is this: I know MSW3 is our ultimate authority, but a new version will not be coming out for at least another 5 years. (I've spoken with the editor of MSW3 about this.) Since new primate species are being classified all the time (mostly for conservation reasons, depending upon which species concept is used), and since the subsequent articles are going to be created following such publications, how should we mark these articles or the species themselves when appended to a list of Groves-/MSW3-approved species? Personally, I have added a footnote to Mouse lemur to handle the situation, but is this how I should handle it on a Featured List like List of lemur species? Mittermeier is considered an authority in some circles. Should his name on a paper be considered a form of consent from a secondary authority until a new edition of MSW3 hits the shelves?

I'm sorry if this question has already been answered, and I'm just being too impatient/tired to search through the current page or archives. (I didn't see anything definitive from a quick read of the text above.)

Anyone? Anyone? UtherSRG? Err... Bueller?  ;-)   –Visionholder (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good news

Okay, the portal is now officially ready. All necessary contents are included, and as always, it can use even more improvement. Add {{portal|Primates}} to all topics, which displays this:

I hope that's a good choice of image. Also, would you like the template added to the talk banner template like other WikiProjects? ZooFari 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Monkey is in the Spotlight

Monkey has been chosen by Wikipedia:Spotlight as the collaboration for the next 5 days. You can join in the conversation here on the IRC channel (opens in new browser window). The article is top importance under WP:PRIM yet it is only start class. This will be a good opportunity to improve the article. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Human lead image

Since this is one of the WikiProjects overseeing the article Human, and discussion on Talk:Human has stagnated for the moment, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion on a proposed switch to a more neutral, consistent, visually informative, and anatomically and culturally accurate image (preferably a photograph) for the lead section of the article.

Since the function of a lead image is to provide an informative example of the article's subject, not to symbolically represent the subject's "essence", we are neither required nor permitted by Wikipedia policy to employ a stylized, idealized drawing (particularly one which censors the primary sex-organ of the female in deference to "puritanical" or "Victorian" sensibilities, as Sagan describes it) to metaphorically 'represent' this important species. I have therefore suggested several alternatives consonant with Wikipedia policy, of which the simplest and least controversial seems to be File:Akha cropped.png. It's not perfect, but I think it's adequate. I welcome your opinions on Talk:Human. -Silence (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infraorder Chiromyiformes—Aye-aye re-classification

Before I make the changes, I wanted to leave this up for comment for WP:PRIMATE. Colin Groves proposed the creation of infraorder Chiromyiformes for the Aye-aye in 1989 and upheld it in 2005 in the Primates section of MSW3, contradicting studies by Yoder (1996) and others that showed the Aye-aye formed a basal group to all other Lemuriformes. Since the 2005 publication of MSW3, I cannot find a major lemur book or publication that acknowledges Chiromyiformes. Instead, everything seems to suggest that there are five families within Lemuriformes, not four. The publications include Lemurs of Madagascar (Mittermeier, et al., 2006), Mammals of Madagascar (Garbutt, 2007), Primate Anatomy (3rd edition, Ankel-Simons, 2007), and even the "Lemur Diversity in Madagascar" paper (Mittermeier, Groves, et al., 2008) which this project supports as a taxonomy reference. That paper specifically states: "We recognize a total of 5 families, 15 genera, and 99 species and subspecies... The living primates of Madagascar comprise 5 families: Cheirogaleidae, Lemuridae, Lepilemuridae, Indriidae, and Daubentoniidae."

I have not been able (yet) to discern whether Chiromyiformes got demoted from an infraorder to a superfamily, or if family Daubentoniidae got placed within one of the other superfamilies (doubtful!). I plan to pose the question at the Duke Lemur Center sometime this week when I go in to volunteer. Regardless, it now seems that family Daubentoniidae now resides within infraorder Lemuriformes. Any objections to a these fixes before I make them? –Visionholder (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your quote does not say that Daubentoniidae belongs to Lemuriformes, so I am not convinced. When Daubentonia is basal to the other lemurs (which apparently is well-supported according to your sources), it becomes a matter of taste whether or not to recognize Chiromyiformes as an infraorder separate from Lemuriformes, as both infraorders will be monophyletic anyway. Chiromyiformes of course cannot be a superfamily; that would be Daubentonioidea. Ucucha 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right about the superfamily name. I wasn't thinking about normal naming conventions. But all of the sources use "lemurs" and "lemuriform primates" interchangeably. So if there are 5 families of "lemurs" or "lemuriform primates", that would mean that Daubentoniidae has been moved into Lemuriformes. It's either that or we need to discontinue the Lemuriformes redirect and create a page separately from Lemur. In fact, this creates a real problem with the Lemur re-write I'm working on, because now we're talking about 2 of the 3 infraorders within Strepsirrhini, not 1. I'd have to use a {{Paraphyletic group}} instead of the normal taxobox, even though the lemur clade is monophyletic. –Visionholder (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And more, I just looked more closely at the Primate Anatomy book mentioned above, and the author lists the taxonomy hierarchically, clearly putting family Daubentoniidae within infraorder Lemuriformes, but also removing superfamily Cheirogaleoidea and placing all 5 lemur families under superfamily Lemuroidea. (This also matches what I'm reading, since there is little confidence about the relationships between the 5 families and everything seems up in the air... except that all 5 lemur families form a clade.) I know this book is not considered a taxonomic authority, but it's the most clear-cut taxonomy (at the infraorder, superfamily, and family levels) that I can find that reconciles what I see in the literature. I'm not suggesting that this book be considered a taxonomic authority. I'm just noting that people already seem to be going by this taxonomy in the literature. I still prefer to go by the "Lemur Diversity in Madagascar" paper, but its taxonomy table only starts at the family level, with the caption starting: "Lemur taxa recognized in this paper..." –Visionholder (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither Lemurs of Madagascar (2006) nor Lemur Diversity in Madagascar (2008) mention infraorder Chiromyiformes as far as I can tell. And both of these sources, which post-date Groves (2005) include such lemur authorities as Mittermeier and Louis. Lemur Diversity is even more telling, since Groves himself co-authored it. If infraorder Chiromyiformes has gained acceptance, I would expect that source to note that. The fact that it doesn't (unless I missed it) tells me that infraorder Chiromyiformes has not gained acceptance within the primatologist community. Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, this raises another critical issue: since no major sources list superfamilies with infraorder Lemuriformes (except superfamily Lemuroidea, which contained all 5 families, listed in 1 non-authoritative source), should we remove/redirect superfamily Cheirogaleoidea and/or superfamily Lemuroidea? Again, since the "Lemur Diversity" paper didn't offer anything definitive, I favor dropping both until a new authority is published. Again, once I have enough of a concensus here at WP:PRIMATE, I will make these changes. –Visionholder (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I still think you need to come up with better sources. MSW 3, which recognizes Chiromyiformes, is considered as the most authoritative taxonomic reference here, so I think the burden of proof is on you to convince us that Chiromyiformes is no longer accepted, not the other way around. So far, you have come up with only one source which specifically recognizes Lemuriformes to include Daubentoniidae, and that source, as you say, is not taxonomically authoritative. The other sources you noted apparently don't speak specifically about the infraorders. Ucucha 11:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Better sources aren't needed, only clarity within our existing list of taxonomically authoritative papers. Aside from all the points made above, by me and Rlendog, there is this one quote from the "Lemur Diversity" paper: "...wide-ranging genetic studies of Yoder et al. (1996) and DelPero et al. (2006) indicate that Daubentonia separated long before any other branch of the Lemuriformes." It's in the word choice: "any other branch of the Lemuriformes" suggests that Daubentonia is itself a branch within Lemuriformes. If it did not suggest this, it should have been worded: "Daubentonia separated long before any of the Lemuriformes branches" or "Daubentonia separated from Lemuriformes long before it branched." –Visionholder (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That quote is indeed fine, although a more explicit quote would be better. I think there can be little doubt that you'll be able to find other papers (molecular phylogenies, for example) that include similar statements to confirm that there is indeed scientific consensus to place Daubentonia within Lemuriformes. Ucucha 17:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was trying to keep my quotes limited to the taxonomic authories listed on WP:PRIMATE. I only mentioned the "Primate Anatomy" book because it is the only recent source that lists a detailed taxonomy from order Primates down. I could cite several research papers (Yoder, 1996; DelPero, 2006; Horvath, 2008; etc.) that justify the regrouping. But we don't make these decision based on research papers, only on the authorities. And, sadly, our authorities are rather ambiguous... except that they all discuss "lemurs" in a context that includes the Aye-aye. As stated, retiring Chiromyiformes will be a much better move anyway because the upcoming Lemur article that I hope to publish within the next month will include detailed mention of the Aye-aye, since all the more recent taxonomic authorities discuss Aye-ayes as lemurs. Better to retire Chiromyiformes (which is no longer mentioned anyway) than to create separate pages for Lemuriformes and Lemurs.
I will leave this discussion open for a couple more days before I make the changes. I want to give everyone time to comment. –Visionholder (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Groves what he thinks? I've done so in the past about other taxonomic questions, but it's difficult for me to work on Wikipedia while at work these days. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried emailing Groves, but my email bounces back. (That, and in the past when my email didn't bounce, he never replied.) Again, I'm going by the latest lemur classification paper that Groves co-authored with Mittermeier and others, which (as quoted above) directly implies that Daubentoniidae is one of five extant families within Lemuriformes. Furthermore, as much as we all respect Groves here on Wiki, that respect is not universal in the anthropological community. Furthermore, the fact that every lemur publication that I have found from the past 4 years has ignored Groves' Aye-aye classification speaks to the level of disagreement.
I wish taxonomy wasn't the mess that it's become. Our taxonomic system bares its pre-Darwinian legacy in its many short-comings. I know of well-published researchers that simply ignore the taxonomic squabble in favor of phylogenetic trees. Ultimately, taxonomy comes down to opinion, especially when you try to cram a complex phylogenetic tree into an inflexible, flat classification system.
Anyway, on another note, there appears to be good news on the front of taxonomic authority publications. I just heard from Stephen Nash (illustrator of "Lemurs of Madagascar") that the new 3rd edition may be published in September! Very exciting! Hopefully it might put to rest some of these classification issues. –Visionholder (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheirogaleoidea & Lemuroidea

So far, the limited concensus appears to show approval to move Daubentoniidae (Aye-ayes) into infraorder Lemuriformes. (See section above.) The more challenging detail that also needs to be addressed involves the fates of the superfamilies Cheirogaleoidea and Lemuroidea. As with infraorder Chiromyiformes, none of the post-MSW3 authorities make mention of these superfamilies. Worse yet, nothing about these superfamilies can be directly inferred from their discussions of taxonomy. As in the previous discussion on the Daubentoniidae move, "Primate Anatomy" (3rd ed.) (a non-authority) is the only recent source to give a taxonomy involving infraorders and superfamilies. It places all 5 lemur families (including Daubentoniidae) into Lemuroidea. Although all the other sources I have do not make mention of the superfamilies, I feel their silence speaks to the assumption that they all share the same superfamily (for now), otherwise something would have been said to make that distinction. (Splitting 5 families of lemurs into 2 or more superfamilies is a big deal and would merit at least some mention.)

Cladistically, and going by the relationships between the lemur families given in the most recent literature (including the topics of molecular phylogenetics), Daubentoniidae is basal to all other lemuriform families. (In fact, in Horvath, et al. (2008), the phylogram depicting relationships among the lemur families lends no support to the existence of a 2- or even 3-superfamily separation using the superfamily names we have now.) This would suggest that Daubentoniidae belongs in its own superfamily, possibly Daubentonioidea. However, I'm sure all of us would oppose the independent creation of a new superfamily without any mention in any authority or source, per WP:NOR. Therefore, I'm considering the academic literature to be a dead-end.

In terms of Wiki content, both Cheirogaleoidea and Lemuroidea mostly contain lists of lemur species, which are redundant when you consider the extisting Featured List: List of lemur species. Cheirogaleoidea, the superfamily I suggest converting into a redirect back to Lemur, has the most content and needs to be integrated into the Lemur article, both current and new (which I'm currently writing offline). Cheirogaleoidea is a redirect to Cheirogaleidae, and can remain as is. Lemuroidea, on the other hand, has minimal content aside from its species list, and I propose that it be converted into a redirect to Lemur, just as Lemuriformes redirects to Lemur. On the Lemur page, I suggest either omitting the mention of superfamilies until a new taxonomic authority is published or listing superfamily Lemuroidea under infraorder Lemuriformes in the taxobox on the Lemur article. (I personally favor the former over the latter.)

Unfortunately this does need to be addressed because Daubentoniidae cannot be moved into infraorder Lemuriformes without also being assigned to a superfamily since all the other families are assigned to one of the two. Again, I prefer to follow the lead of our latest taxonomic authorities and simply remove the mention of superfamilies when discussing the 5 lemuriform families.

For those feeling this is too much of a can of worms and feel that maybe we shouldn't move Daubentoniidae for these reasons, please note the implications given in the previous discussion. In short, there need to be some structural changes if Wiki's lemur pages are to conform with the lemur literature of the last 10–20 years. To summarize, this is what I'm suggesting:

  1. Change the taxobox and classification on Aye-aye, placing it under infraorder Lemuriformes (see previous discussion topic)
  2. Change the classification and taxobox on Lemur to list 5 families (and no superfamilies)
  3. Merge Cheirogaleoidea into Lemur and make it a redirect to Lemur No change to Cheirogaleoidea redirect per Ucucha's correction
  4. Merge Lemuroidea into Lemur and make it a redirect to Lemur (after the Lemur re-write is complete, hopefully in Sept.)

(The reason for not proposing formal merger requests has to do with the difficulty in timing the Lemur re-write. Once the re-write is complete, "merging" will be a moot point. The new article will certainly contain everything currently presented on the two superfamily pages Lemuroidea page and lots more, but with references this time. Once the re-write is complete and published on Wiki, I will start the formal merger discussion process for the two superfamilies Lemuroidea.)

Sorry for the lengthy discussion. I am putting a lot of effort into this re-write and re-organization, so I need everyone to understand where I'm coming from... and where I'm going. –Visionholder (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond in some more detail when I have time, but just as a quick note: the Cheirogaleoidea article does not currently exist, as it is a redirect to Cheirogaleidae, which is correct as Cheirogaleidae is the only family in the superfamily. You don't need to change anything there. Ucucha 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. Yet another example of why I should not write on talk pages at 1am. I have adjusted my recommendation in the text above. Thank you for pointing it out.
Also, I should point out that Lorisidae and Lorisiformes do not use superfamilies between infraorders and families. Since MSW3 does not list any superfamilies under Lorisiformes, none are used on Wiki. Likewise, since the more recent taxonomic authorities (post-MSW3) do not list superfamlies for Lemuriformes, I feel they should be omitted. –Visionholder (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick correction. I very much appreciate the antention you devote to lemurs and I hope you'll succeed in getting as much of the articles as possible at a high level of quality. It is important that all this is done carefully, so I'll try to give some help by commenting on the taxonomic issues.
I don't think your Lorisiformes example is very relevant; there are only two families in the infraorder, so the creation of two superfamilies wouldn't make much sense.
It's difficult to get the higher-level taxonomy of the lemurs correctly when, as your examples seem to imply, there are few formal classifications and systematic recommendations are made implicitly. I believe that, in general, we should not always wait for taxonomic 'authorities' to make a particular change before carrying it out: we should follow changes which are well-accepted and well-supported in the relevant systematic literature.
There are some good recent papers (Roos et al., 2004, PNAS 101:10650-10654; DelPero et al., 2006, Folia Primatologica 77:434) about lemur phylogeny, but as you said, they can't quite resolve the relations among lemurs. Interestingly, the latter paper appears to imply that they are including all lemurs in Lemuroidea.
I think your recommendations are the right things to do. They imply that we are recognizing the following taxonomy:
  • Order Primates
    • (Suborder Haplorhini)
    • Suborder Strepsirhini
      • (Infraorder Lorisiformes)
      • Infraorder Lemuriformes
        • Family Daubentoniidae
        • Family Cheirogaleidae
        • Family Indriidae
        • Family Lepilemuridae
        • Family Lemuridae
That would seem to be the right thing to do with the current state of phylogenetics for the group, especially as nobody seems to have a clue as to where the extinct families fit in. I think you should include a discussion of the relations among lemur phylogenies in your article, including (among other things) the apparently well-accepted basal position of Daubentoniidae and the unresolved relations among the other families. Ucucha 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The taxonomy you listed is exactly what I was thinking and would compliment all the text I've been accumulating. As for the extinct taxa, they seem to be placing them in their own families within infraorder Lemuriformes. (See List of lemur species) As for the upcoming Lemur article, it will contain all that you requested and much, much more. In fact, I'm still not sure if it will one article, or if it will be split across several articles, such as Lemur evolution, Lemur research, Lemur anatomy, and/or Lemur ecology. –Visionholder (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You have all seen Karanth et al. (2005. PNAS 102:5090 –5095), right? This is the genetic study that incorporated DNA from the extinct families. They weren't successful in obtaining sequence from the Archaeolemuridae, but when the Megaladapidae and Palaeopropithecidae are included, Daubentoniidae is still basal. Both extinct families are also probably lemuroids (based on our current article classification), although the statistical support for that is weaker. --Aranae (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing it out! I found a copy here, and will incorporate its findings into the new Lemur page. So many articles and books, yet so little time... –Visionholder (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about extinction taxoboxes for early hominins

I recently reverted a series of edits to the early hominin species pages such as H. Ergaster, H. Heidelbergensis, wherein a user added the extinction level taxobox. I vaguely recall a discussion regarding using that box on pages of obviously extinct species; consensus seemed to be that it was unnecessary. This might have been on a dinosaur page, I watch some of those as well, so I'm not sure if it was discussed on any early human page. Thoughts? Auntie E. 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems right to me, to be honest - I'm not sure quite where we'd put the threshold of it being appropriate to display, but probably somewhere above these cases. Shimgray | talk | 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Auntie E: Yes, there have been discussions on this in the past, and the general consensus was that extinction level didn't make any sense except when dealing with historical extinctions (which vary somewhat depending on taxon, but the year 1500 A.D./C.E. is a commonly used border). Furthermore, including the normal "extinct" in the taxobox would also be directly wrong for e.g. H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis (note lower case for species name) and dinosaurs, as it uses the IUCN category. IUCN only lists historically extinct species, and therefore includes none of the just mentioned examples. 212.10.94.74 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proboscis Monkey check needede

Someone has been "nice" enough to change Proboscis Monkey to the nonsense Nasosus Machedonus thoughout its article. The specific edit is now too old to allow easy revert and I don't have the time right now, so just passing on the word. 212.10.94.74 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is really bad. I reverted it now. It's a shame it could go unnoticed for so long. Thanks for noting. Ucucha 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for input on Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis

The pages Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis have both recently come under heavy and persistent dispute due to two users who insist on promoting their version of Aquatic ape hypothesis and expunging as much criticism of the idea as possible. At the moment, it's just me and one other user fending them off, so any help would be greatly appreciated (especially since I'm off to the SICB meeting on Sunday and the other user seems to be gone for Xmas). Mokele (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI... I just protected AAH for two weeks because of what looks to me like a slow-motion edit war. LadyofShalott 16:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Spider monkey

Can somebody please explain spider monkey taxonomy and Wikipedia's policy on taxonomy and the like to Belugaboy535136 (talk · contribs)? See User talk:Innotata#Black Spider Monkey and User talk:Belugaboy535136#Black spider monkey. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This was part of a larger issue that has been dealt with and brought to the admin's noticeboard. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Monkey for identification

monkey in Costa Rica for identification prior to upload to commons. Some other monkeys in the flickr photostream too. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Most likely a Mantled Howler (Alouatta palliata). I can't completely rule out Geoffroy's Spider Monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), which usually is not as black but is rather variable in terms of coloration, but it looks a lot more like the howler. Sources: Emmons and Feer's Neotropical Rainforest Mammals and the articles on Costa Rica monkeys written here by Rlendog. Ucucha 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP Primates request

Hello primates :). I'm currently working on the Portal:Primates and I was wondering if you guys mind dropping new articles on this page? I would like to collect new resources coming out from the WikiProject to promote and show cast on the portal. Most of this information will be used for the Did you know section. Thanks, feel free to comment. --ZooFari 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, ZooFari! I've got about 8 lemur pages (including the new Lemur article) cooking up, which I hope to publish in the next month. They will be full length, professional, and ready to make a quick run towards both GA and FA. I'll be sure to post them when they're up. – VisionHolder (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

 Done --ZooFari 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Major re-cat of prosimians

As part of the upcoming Lemur article re-write, I have gone through and fixed up Category:Prosimians. Three new categories were created: Category:Lemurs, Category:Lorids, and Category:Tarsiers. Additionally, all pages under Category:Prosimians have been re-categorized appropriately, and all over-categorizing on lemur articles has been fixed. (If there are questions about why I removed a category from a lemur page, first look and see what categories Category:Lemurs belongs to.) I have also updated the project page to reflect the new changes to primate categories. I am curious to know what people think about creating categories for the suborders Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. Anyway... any questions or concerns, just drop a note here. –Visionholder (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems weird to have Category:Lorids for the Lorisiformes; surely "lorids" would refer to the family Loridae?
I see little reason to retain the Category:Prosimians. It's an obsolete taxon. I don't think separate subcategories for Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini; everything can just go directly under Category:Primates. We shouldn't try to reflect all taxonomic ranks in the category tree, as that only makes it hard to navigate. Ucucha 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, the category should have been called "Lorisiforms." I'll put in a rename request shortly.
So let's talk about how exactly Category:Primates should be organized. I'll go in and re-cat every page today if we can settle upon a structure. Most of the 1st-tier categories seem fine, except for Category:Prosimians. Do you suggest moving Category:Lemurs, Category:Tarsiers, and Category:Lorids (soon to be Lorisiforms) out into Primates? Personally, I wonder if a subcategory for "Primates in pop culture" should be created so all the "fictional" and "famous" categories could be moved out of the other various subcategories and into it instead.
The next level down, however, seems like a mess. There are some obvious errors, such as Category:Prehistoric orangutans listed under Category:Early hominids instead of Category:Prehistoric apes. Also, how should we rename/reorganize Category:Prehistoric prosimians? If anyone has suggestions and a consensus can be reached, I'll gladly go through a re-cat everything as needed. –Visionholder (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right about the dead orangs, but I don't understand either why Category:Humans and Category:Early hominids are not subcategories of Category:Apes. Why we need Category:Monkeys is unclear to me—cercopithecids and platyrrhines don't have a lot in common except that they are called "monkeys" in English.
For the prehistoric prosimians, you could perhaps make a separate category for prehistoric lemurs, adapiforms, and omomyids, and drop the rest in Category:Prehistoric primates.
When I comment on something like this, I rather tend to list all kinds of tenuously related things I think are wrong with the current categorization. That's probably clear from my comments here, and I didn't even mention that I think it's lame to categorize animals on the basis of being "prehistoric". But there's not a lot I'd be able to do about that short of overhauling everything. Ucucha 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with overhauling everything. And I also agree that the "prehistoric" categories are problematic. That's why I stopped short of cleaning up the subfossil lemur articles, aside from adding them to Category:Lemurs. And you're right — humans and early hominids should be moved to apes. Are you up for discussing how the overhaul should go? I'll start a new topic if so. –Visionholder (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scheme

This would seem reasonable to me:

Ucucha 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally support the system you've proposed, although I do have a few questions, and I would appreciate feedback from other members of the project.
I'm not sure how you intend the Special-purpose subcategories, so if you could explain, that would help. Do you just intend them as regular subcategories within Category:Primates? Also, if we're going to subdivide New World monkeys, should we do the same for Old World monkeys and/or lemurs? And if we do it for lemurs what do we do about lemur families with very small membership, such as Daubentoniidae or some of the extinct families (see List of lemur species)? And within Category:Homo, do you intend fossil hominids to be placed here? (I just want to be clear on that.) I also assume Category:Monkeys of Costa Rica should be depopulated and marked for deletion? I'll have to sleep on Category:Primates by age, as well as the Category:Orangutans vs. Category:Ponginae issue. Anyway, it's late and I just wasted my night mucking around with taxes. Off to bed for now. I'll get to work later today once we iron out the last details. –Visionholder (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Homo should include everything placed in Homo. Perhaps it'd be better to have a cat for Hominina too. Ucucha 14:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, having a Category:Hominina would be a good idea. As for sub-categorizing Lemurs (129 article), OW (163 articles), and NW (194 articles), the page counts are nearly similar and there are no general guidelines for when a category is too large. My personal opinion is that they are not too large — none flow over the 200 article limit to require a second page. However, given the purpose of categories is to help the reader find related articles (per WP:CAT) I think there are two issues here. 1) We should avoid using taxonomic names and use common names (night monkeys instead of Aotidae, for example) for our categories and subcategories where possible. 2) Once you get to the family level, things get questionable. If someone's looking at a Peruvian Night Monkey, are they more likely to want to find more night monkey articles, or would they be more likely to be interested in other New World monkeys? For lemurs, families may not even be the best way to break it down since many named groups exist more at the genus level than the family level (e.g. mouse lemurs, ruffed lemurs, sifaka, etc.). Given the purpose of categories and how I can see them being used by the readers, my recommendation is to try to use common names for the categories and not necessarily stick to either a family- or genus-level approach. For this reason, I make keep Category:Lorids and also create Category:Galagos for the bush babies, as well as Category:Pottos and Category:Lorises as subcategories for Lorids. There is a second reason for sub-categorizing lorids, which leads into the next topic...
Regional categorization would be very useful, which Category:Lemurs can already take advantage of because all lemurs are endemic to Madagascar. (See Category:Lemurs and its parent categories.) In the case of the lorisiforms, the Galagos, Pottos and Lorises, each group could be slapped into its respective region without fuss. However, Category:Primates by country is a bad idea, IMO. Category:Primates by region or Category:Primates by continent would be a better per WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location. We're not trying to use such subcategories to break up a large category, but trying to group primates geographically. In order to group primates by country, lists should be used, such as List of Costa Rican monkey species (instead of Category:Monkeys of Costa Rica).
I'm still chewing on Category:Primates by age and its subcategories. However, I have a tour to give at the Duke Lemur Center in just a bit. Once I get back from that, I will post my suggestions for the category structure, based on yours (of course) and my comments above. BTW... is anyone else reading this discussion? Surely Ucucha and I aren't the only active project members. Seriously, I would value any and all feedback from the group before I proceed. –Visionholder (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay... working off your proposal above, this is my recommendation for the category structure for our project. The only thing I'm really shaky on is the Category:Primates by age, due to species like Aegyptopithecus that cross epochs. Unfortunately, every alternative scheme I come up with (using time and location) gets far too complicated. We could go by periods (Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary) rather than epochs, but we might still have the same problem. I was also hoping to come up with a way to group fossil primates so that their categories could be used under one of the geographical region categories. Hmmm.... any ideas? Anyway, here's an updated scheme:

Let me know what you think! If no one has any major objections to specific sections, then I'll go ahead and get started on those. – Visionholder (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like any scheme that has a fossil-modern dichotomy: it is not very informative to include a fairly recent animal like Gigantopithecus with some of the oldest primates, such as Eosimias, in the same category Category:Fossil primates of Asia. We could drop the age there entirely and just use Category:Primates of Asia, etcetera, but I think it may actually be workable to have continent-age intersections like Category:Miocene primates of Asia
On review, I agree on dropping the orangutan category; it's just too small.
I think Category:Hominina would effectively replace Category:Early hominids. I think it is confusing to use "hominids" for a smaller group than the family Hominidae, although I know the term is sometimes used in a narrower sense. In the current situation, Category:Early hominids mainly lists individual fossils and has a subcategory, Category:Early hominine species, for the species. I think it may be more logical to have Category:Hominin fossils or something similar as a subcat of Category:Hominina to place most of the stuff that is currently in Category:Early hominids and separate them clearly from the species.
I have no problem with the gist of your subdivision of the lemur and NW and OW monkey categories. However, Wikipedia generally likes categories to have names agreeing with those of their main articles, and there are a few problems there, which I noted above. I would probably prefer not to have the subfossil lemur category, as I think it's good to separate the taxonomic categories from the others. They could just stay in the main Category:Lemurs, which also keeps small living genera like Phaner and Daubentonia. Ucucha 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I'm going to hold off on doing categories for region or age. I think we need to start a new thread for this one. All-in-all, your proposal is identical to one I was working on, but I eventually gave it up. We can talk more about it in a new thread. As for the Hominina stuff, I agree and will make the changes in the list above. Please double-check me. Regarding your other comments:
  • I suggested a subfossil lemur category because they are grouped by circumstance (recent extinction), size (all large), and because readers looking at an article on Megaladapis might want to see what other giant or subfossil lemurs are known. Yes, it breaks from taxonomy and phylogeny, but the subfossil lemurs are an area of study all to themselves.
  • Does Category:Bamboo lemurs include Prolemur? Honestly, I can't decide. Since they were only recently split off and are very closely related, I would say yes.
  • Lorisidae may be the title of the article, but it also mentions a common name for the family (in bold) as lorids. I have been using common taxon names, so I stuck with convention. Do you agree?
  • Both Category:Spider monkeys and woolly monkeys and Category:Sakis are problematic due to their inclusion of many types of named New World primates. I chose the names because the articles themselves summarize their contents in that fashion. Pitheciidae enumerates "titis, sakis and uakaris." Atelinae enumerates "howler, spider and woolly monkeys." I could do "atelines" (taken from Atelinae) and "Pitheciines" (for both Sakis and Uakaris, taken from Pitheciinae), or just "Atelinae" and "Pitheciinae." Personally I like what's in the list currently. I feel that if a specialist member of project speaks up against it someday, we can always readjust.
  • As for Category:Cultural references to non-human primates, we could do Category:Non-human primates in pop culture. Personally, I try to avoid "pop culture" references. We could just make all three of the categories in the list above subcategories of Primates and not try to nest them. What do you suggest?
Otherwise, does everything else look okay? I've already started working on Category:Monkeys, but I need to start creating categories to make more progress. Just let me know. – VisionHolder (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I may perhaps be leaning too much towards rigorous and consistent categorization instead of general usefulness. I can see how the subfossil lemur category is useful, so no strong objection against it.
  • I would rather not include Prolemur: the article bamboo lemur refers only to Hapalemur, and having a category with a different classification would only be confusing.
  • I am not sure where "lorids" comes from. It would seem inconsistent with the correct family name, Lorisidae. Also, while I see your point in using vernacular names, I don't think "lorids" is much more comprehensible to a layperson than "Lorisidae".
  • What about using "Sakis and uakaris" for all Pitheciinae?
  • I still can't see how Oliver would fall under that category. Perhaps we could just use your first suggestion, "Cultural references to non-human primates", but place "Famous primates" directly under "Primates".
These proposals have only been here for a few days; it won't do harm to wait a few more days to see if someone objects or has suggestions for improvement. Our two proposals are fairly similar, so I also agree with yours, except for the points above, which are all fairly minor and which we'll be able to sort out. Ucucha 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I was wanting to start sooner rather than later because I have free time now... which I won't have later in the week. I've only started on a few of the basic ones, besides Monkeys. Anyway, I'll sit back and give it a few days now and see what people have to say. – VisionHolder (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my scheme above to reflect the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 26. I have also marked out the Category:Primates by age and Category:Primates by geographical location because we will probably have to discuss them separately. Lastly, I've added in several of the "famous" and "fictional" categories that I had originally hoped to consolidate into Category:Famous non-human primates and Category:Fictional non-human primates respectively. Upon further review, these categories do have rather significant content and should probably stay... although I plan to submit a deletion request for Category:Fictional lemurs and tarsiers. I have kept the suggestion for the newly renamed Category:Non-human primates in popular culture and its subcategories, with the intent of double-listing all the "Famous X" and "Fictional X" categories in there as well. This will allow easier navigation for readers who are only interested in fictional or famous primates, and not force them to navigate through the more taxonomic and technical primate categories. As always, comments and suggestions are strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed Ucucha's comments on the points in the bullet list. To address them now:
  • Subfossil lemur category issue seems to be resolved.
  • Given your reasoning, I agree to exclude Prolemur from the bamboo lemurs. However, we'll probably be reverting a lot of attempts by other editors to include it. I'm guessing that Category:Bamboo lemurs (genus Hapalemur) is too long...
  • Maybe the best way out of this is to just make Category:Lorises and bushbabies, following off the "natural groups of primates" on the 3rd page of this article.
  • I'll accept the "Sakis and uakaris" suggestion. What about the Category:Spider monkeys and woolly monkeys comments?
  • I don't know what to say about the Oliver issue. I want to see famous and fictional non-human primates lumped for organizational purposes (as explained above). Maybe remove the word "popular" from the parent category? Anyway, Oliver would be listed under Category:Famous chimpanzees (subcategory), a couple categories beneath Category:Famous non-human primates. To me, this is more of an issue of containing categories to facilitate navigation of famous and fictional non-human primates (without having to deal with the more scientific articles on primates). Your thoughts?
Anyway, I have updated the scheme to reflect all of this. If this looks good or can be slightly tweaked, I will go ahead and start looking into the process for making these changes. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all of those, but would like to comment again of the culture category. I agree that an article with that stuff in it would be a good thing, but do think the category name should adequately cover all its contents. "Primates in culture" is reasonably vague, so I think it's good enough unless someone comes up with something better. Ucucha 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
One more point: we have the article at galago, so Category:Lorises and galagos would be preferable. Ucucha 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The correction has now been made. I'll now rev up for making the changes. I'll start by posting at WT:CFD. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not depopulate categories

Category:Monkeys has been nominated for deletion at CfD (see the discussion here). However, Visionholder (talk · contribs), who made the first attempt at a CFD nomination, had just depopulated the category in these edits. Please folks, don't do this: if editors believe that a category is superfluous, it should be taken to CFD for a discussion, but the discussion is pointless if the category has already been emptied. I have repopulated the category, so as not to pre-empt the outcome of the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I figured it just needed to be discussed here. Up until now, I had only used speedy deletion for categories. I wasn't familiar with this approval process. I had tried a rename previously, but it was rejected because the pages had not already been recategorized. I (mis)interpreted this to mean I had to create the new category, move everything over to it (depopulating the existing category), then mark the old one for deletion. I'm learning as I go here. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See my comment supporting BHG's support to keep cat:monkeys. While most of the rework you are doing seems reasonable, do remember that most folks looking for monkeys don't care about the taxa split between OW and NW monkeys. To them, they are all just monkeys. - 199.46.199.231 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops... that anon was me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Philippine Tarsier

Philippine Tarsier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename request: Fork-marked lemurs

Rather than add yet another entry to WP:RM, where it is likely to sit for days or weeks while people who really don't care (or know any better) glance over it, I figured I would post this here, where people who have an interest are more likely to see it. Anyway, I'm recommending the rename of Fork-crowned lemur to Fork-marked lemur, which already exists as a redirect. The latter name is used both in Lemurs of Madagascar and the most recent lemur taxonomy paper published by Mittermeier, Groves, et al. in December 2008. Most sources that I know of refer to them as "fork-marked lemurs", or just their genus, Phaner. Furthermore, I suggest also renaming all 4 species within the genus in the same fashion. Any thoughts or major objections? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, the following list of renames is suggested:
One name involves switching from a French name to an English name, which also conforms with the name used in the latest lemur taxonomy paper. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates with redlnks to Category:Prosimians

Hi Folks

As you will probably be aware, Category:Prosimians was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 6#Prosimians, in accordance with this project's wishes.

I have just been checking the process queue after the bots did their work, and noticed that the following templates link to Category:Prosimians:

If I spot something like this where a category has been renamed, I will update the template(s) concerned ... but in this case I know that there has been a category reorganisation, and I don't know what to do with those links. So rather than mess with something I don't understand, I thought I'd leave it be, and instead draw it to the attention of the editors who do know something about this.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us; I'm updating the links now. Ucucha 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ucucha 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoarchiving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates

This time next week, I would like to implement autoarchiving of this page. I plan to use the following code: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/Archives %(year)d
}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=no
|age=60
|bot=MiszaBot}}

This will also involve renaming the existing archives to "./Archive <year>". The settings specify that posts that have been inactive for 60 days will be archived based on their date (namely, the year). If there are any objections or suggestions on settings, please speak up. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do it. This page is getting long and stale. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the clouds have parted and God... err... UtherSRG has spoken from on high and given his blessing, I may do this tonight. He's right, though. It is badly needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Am I that authoritarian? Or does my voice have that much weight? I may wish I was a god.... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You have just been so influential, and with your mysterious disappearance, I assumed you had ascended into the clouds or something to take on more important work.  ;-) Seriously, though... it's good to have you back. When you get a moment, could you whip out your dusty ol' mop and clean up the archive mess I've created? I didn't realize the archives had to be named "Archive", not "Archives" (something I accidentally left in from some code I modified). Renaming them and deleting the extra redirects should fix the problem... I think. Sorry for the mess. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lemur taxa deprecated?

I'm looking for suggestions on how to handle the following lemur taxa, which according to the latest taxonomic authorities, appear to be unused (and deprecated?):

Other unused terms are already acting as redirects (either created that way, or converted):

Note: There may be more in this second list, but I haven't found them.

The four articles under question (at the top) are currently stubs containing lemur taxonomy and sometimes species lists, which aren't needed now that we have a List of lemur species. I would just turn them into redirects, but don't know what target is appropriate. If I point up to the parent, then the parent will need to mention that it was formerly subdivided into these taxa. But since the mentions of these taxa have disappeared, I don't have a source to show that they have been formally deprecated. Any advice from our senior editors? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not much we can do until there's something that says these go bye-bye. Although, we can mention in these articles that these taxa were used when the taxonomy was like *this*, but they don't seem to be used now that the taxonomy is *this*. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But for the sake of consistency, shouldn't we at least convert them to redirects and mention them in under their parent taxa? As it stands, some are redirects, others are not. Going the other way (adding contents to the redirects) doesn't make sense because they may not contain enough information to merit their own article. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I just got an email reply from Colin Groves, and he confirmed that Lemuroidea and Hapalemurinae are in fact dead. The relationships they implied are no longer viewed as correct. (The same can be said of Indriinae.) I know it's not a source I can quote, but I think it's safe to say that we can mention these in their parent taxa and (eventually) discuss their history there. Would you say it's safe to merge the basic content and convert them to redirects?
Awesome. :) Isn't it fun to get email from him? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is cool that he responds.  :-) Anyway, I've converted the pages to redirects and added sentences on their respective pages to (briefly) reflect the history. Longer explanations will be forthcoming... assuming I can find sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banner

I want to go around and standardize all of the talk page banners for the lemur articles (at least), but I'm not sure what we're supposed to use. For this project, we have {{PrimateTalk}} and can additionally use {{Mammal}}, but there is also the option for {{Mammal|importance=X|class=X|Primates-work-group=yes|PrimatesImp=X}} to consolidate them both. So... which is it? Do we use the combined template for the various taxa and the separate {{PrimateTalk}} for everything else (such as primatologists, primate facilities, etc.)? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think using just {{PrimateTalk}} is best. ZooPro and Ucucha have also expressed this opinion on my talk page, in reference to rodents. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently discovered a guideline on this at the WikiProject Council pages here, it says something along the line of only the most direct projects concerned should have a banner on the talk page, in this case it would be the Primates projects banner. ZooPro 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find the guideline to be all that useful in this case. In a world where projects are flat (non-hierarchical) entities, the guideline makes great sense—but not in our case. So if a mammal article falls into one of the subproject scopes, it's no longer a mammal article? That seems a little nonsensical as well as limiting for WP:Mammals. (Who knows... maybe that's more of a relief.) And if we go by the guideline, then is there any purpose for the subproject part of the mammal banner, or should it just be removed? Anyway, I'll go along with both ZooPro and Innotata and only use the Primates banner. Either way, the decision needs to be explained on both project pages for clarity. I prefer your suggestion anyway because it creates less clutter. If the consensus or guidelines change, I'll just go back and fix it again for the lemur pages. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is my belief that a mammals tag should only be given to articles who dont fall under any projects scope. If a project such as primates and rodents are willing to look after the article there would be no need for mammals to then come along and look after it aswell just an increased work load, I would only add the mammals tag to articles that are of great importance to WikiProject Mammals such as Mammal, Lion and Bear and countless others that are considered important to the Project and articles like Carnivore, Ungulate, that have no projects to look after them at all, it really is up to the person who adds the tags on the articles as to wether or not they think it falls under the scope of wikiproject mammals. It may be something we need to decide on a "Animal Projects" wide scale that way it is the same on all fronts. I like the fact that there is less clutter on the talk page also. ZooPro 07:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't articles like Lion and Cat be under WikiProject Cats only? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That was my point with the post. Currently, there is a hodgepodge of articles that either have one, both, or the combined talk banner. Should we standardize on ZooPro's opinion? Not many people seemed interested in responding to this topic initially, so it's hard to say. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, and regularly delete the mammals banner from rodent articles. Ucucha 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have given this some thought and I think if a project such as rodents or primates wants to have the article in their project then by all means replace the mammals tag with a rodent or primates tag. The article would get more attention from users who actually have an interest/knowledge in the subject as opposed to users who have only a general idea of the subject. I for one have no idea about rodents and only limited knowledge on primates, so as a member of WikiProject Mammals it would be very unlikely I would ever edit a primate or rodent article. ZooPro 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll go and remove the mammal banner from articles like Cat, then. ZooPro, you may want to list yourself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats#Participants. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dont you think I have inflicted enough pain on the WikiProjects already without annoying another one??? ZooPro 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll reply at ZooPro's page. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/Archive_3&oldid=1137368197"