Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Animals: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 17 August 2014 editStfg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,656 editsm →Definite article or not: moved comment by Chuck Entz so as not to be embedded in another editor's comment; indented to suit; will advise editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:58, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,056 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 14) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Animals|class=project|importance=na}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-07-19/WikiProject report|writer=]]]||day=19|month=July|year=2010}}
{{WikiProject Animals}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-07-19/WikiProject report|writer=]]]||day=19|month=July|year=2010}}
{{Shortcut|WT:ANIMALS}} {{Shortcut|WT:ANIMALS}}
{{Archive box|1=] (September 2007 – May 2008) {{Archive box|1=] (September 2007 – May 2008)
<br>] (June 2008 – September 2009) <br/>] (June 2008 – September 2009)
<br>] (September 2009 – November 2009) <br/>] (September 2009 – November 2009)
<br>] (December 2009) <br/>] (December 2009)
<br>] (January 2010 – July 2010) <br/>] (January 2010 – July 2010)
<br>] (August 2010 – December 2010) <br/>] (August 2010 – December 2010)
<br>] (December 2010 – July 2011) <br/>] (December 2010 – July 2011)
<br>] (July 2011 - ) <br/>] (July 2011 - August 2014)
<br/>] (September 2014 - )
|search=yes |search=yes
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8 |counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d) |algo = old(180d)
Line 21: Line 25:
}} }}


== Policy discussions relating to species notability ==
== Planning on creating an article titled List of species that possibly went extinct in the 16th century. Would anyone like to contribute? ==
This WikiProject is likely to be interested in the following discussions: ] and ]. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I intend to make the 16th century section of the Timeline of Extinctions so full to the point where it needs to break away and become its own article:

]

I will then put a link to the new article within the 16th century section of the current article. Would anyone like to contribute to this? Let me know here! Cheers. ] (]) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

:By "possibly went extinct" does this mean there is uncertainty as to whether the species are extinct, or just ''when'' they went extinct? Do you have a single source in mind or many? I'm only asking because to indicate uncertainty or speculation in the title of an article seems a bit misguided, and any entries should of course derive from reliable sources. Any idea of how many individual entries would be on the new list? ] (]) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! Late replying here. To answer your question Animalparty, is it more along the lines of "when they went extinct". One of the species that I am planning on including in my article is of course the ], which is rumored to have gone extinct in the early-mid 16th century. :)

And yes, I do have sources for this article of course and I will be sure to add/cite them. Cheers! ] (]) 12:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
:I'm curious whether you've started this? '']]]'' 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

==Animal portal image issues==
While I find the ] quite cute, it seems that others do not. . I detest this type of action and don't like giving the impression of submission. But then, why go out of one's way to annoy and antagonize? Would it be possible to replace the image with another? Perhaps not so mammal-centric? Thanks ] (]) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
:Any photo chosen to represent "Animals" almost has to be arbitrary, so I'm fine with a change. If changing the photo to a ] will prevent (or at least minimize) future abuse, all the better. The reasons for repeated vandalism and/or objections should be discussed on the image's Talk page (which apparently has been deleted several times due to vandalism). To be honest, I've never noticed the photo (a tiny thumbnail on the Animal Portal button) until now. ] (]) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
::I imagine it won't slow that type of thing down. Some seem to look for trouble. The sow pic choice could be construed a deliberate attempt to inflame. It took me awhile to figure out where all the links in the photo's use list went to and why ] would have that image on its page. A possible extended list of what to avoid: ]. Is there a way to randomly load one of a set of images? That could be fun. ] (]) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd agree that the "unclean" animal issue is probably a dramafest to be avoided here. The image is cute, but seeing as how the project template shows an elephant, probably best to make the portal contain some cute fuzzy zoo animal too, maybe a panda or something. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

::::I can't figure out where the image is "living" and how to change it; seems a request has to be put in and it is done by an admin? Perhaps we could all agree on a new image and then make a request? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I or another, can put in a request on ] to have the template changed here: ], but an animal needs to be agreed upon. My current favorite is the ], a ] tool-using species with remarkable intelligence. ] or a crop of ]. Maybe stay away from mammals which have a tiny fraction of species? (forgot to sign) ] (]) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Technical advice moved here from my talk:
<blockquote>::Looks like it lives at ]. You'll need an admin or template editor to change it, but once y'all decide on a good replacement image, just have them change the line <code> = "Sow with piglet.jpg",</code> to whatever the name of the image is (minus the "File:", obviously). It's line 97 in the code. ]&nbsp;]] 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</blockquote>

:::::::Working with domestic animals, I thought it was great to see a picture of a pig. Having farm animals in such prominent positions reminds us that they ARE animals, and not just sources of food or fur. There are a zillion of possible nominees out there. Almost every animal has a cute and cuddly aspect which can be photographed, or some other interesting/eye catching feature. However, I would suggest that whatever animal is chosen, it is immediately recognisable INTERNATIONALLY (Honey badgers are damn cute, but perhaps not that recognizable). I quite like those extreme close-up images of cattle.__] (]) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Would it be possible to quickly select a temporary animal mascot to resolve the original issue? Thanks ] (]) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::*Just go for it. We will protest afterwards, but something will happen, no? {{smiley}}] (]) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Done. See ] ] (]) 07:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

===Nominees===
Easier to park thumbs here, look for images that look good at small size! Noms so far have been moved in. Add your favs here! ]<sup>]</sup> 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:Remember, the portal image size is <s>32x20</s> pixels. I created a hidden scaled gallery of the same images. ] (]) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::That was really different at this size. It really leaves only a few pictures left. Weird how things can change, the ones I was not really believing in are clear and looking good, like the Caribou and Swan II and Akhal-teke stallion II. And the racoon and the butterfly is clear and visible at this size. ] (]) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I am mistaken about the portal image size. I measured several all as 32x20 and assumed that was fixed. I found another that was 32x25. I have not found the code that defines the actual size. I resized the gallery to 32x25 which may not be correct either. Need to find the true size. ] (]) 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::Not that it changed much, Jim. Looks quite small too me either way, and still...{{smiley}}.] (]) 09:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Could change it to a 1x1 pixel image. Would simplify the discussion. Would reduce it to 2<sup>24</sup> possible images. {{P|8}} ] (]) 10:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Should the portal image be an existing image used as-is or cropped? Show the entire animal or a portion such as the head, face, eye? It seems that many think of "animal" as a mammal. Should a non-mammal be selected to jog people's thinking. Given the tiny portal image, does this really matter? ] (]) 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::What if Matty can fix a rotating image ? You can have like 5 images rotating. Than you can chose a bird, a fish, a butterfly, a mamal and turtle.. well different animals. ] (]) 10:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
<gallery caption="Scaled animals gallery" widths="32px" heights="25px">

File:Honey badger.jpg|Honey badger
File:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg|Raccoon
File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg|Blue morpho butterfly
File:CygneVaires.jpg|Swan II
File:Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg|Caribou
File:Red-eyed Tree Frog - Litoria chloris edit1.jpg|Red-eyed Tree Frog



File:Murgab112.jpg|] stallion
File:Vulpes vulpes laying in snow.jpg|Fox


File:Brown bear fishing, Kodiak NWR.jpg|Brown bear fishing



File:Fantail(white self).jpg|White dove


File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).jpg|Wisent, if cropped

File:Mandarin.duck.arp.jpg|Mandarin.duck
File:Otter 5 (3308782493).jpg|Otter swim under water


File:Polar bear swimming in zoo.jpg|Polar bear swimming
File:AT Tokhtamysh.jpg|Akhal-teke stallion II
File:Apinae Bombus pascuorum.jpg|Bumble bee
File:Amphiprion ocellaris (Clown anemonefish) PNG by Nick Hobgood.jpg|Clown anemonefish

File:Şahlûr-33.jpg|European Bee-eaters












File:Erinaceus europaeus in Avesta 07.jpg|European hedgehog

File:Zebras in Tanzania 4071 Nevit.jpg|Zebra II



File:Macropodus opercularis - front (aka).jpg|Paradise fish


File:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg|Puffer fish -if cropped

File:White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) (5).jpg|White Stork
File:Female impala headshot.jpg|Impala

File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg|Ara red




File:Squirrel posing.jpg|Squirrel

File:Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis.jpg|Common Kingfisher


File:Cetorhinus maximus by greg skomal.JPG|Basking shark



File:Vache montbéliarde jurassienne.JPG|cow 2

File:Krummhörn, Deich, 2010-06 CN-03.jpg|sheep 1
File:Kuwaiti sheep.jpg|sheep 2
File:Ovis orientalis aries 'Skudde' - head (aka).jpg|sheep 3

File:Beautiful Roo by sejr.jpg|hen 1


File:Pig USDA01c0116.jpg|pig 1
File:Gloucester Old Spot Boar, England.jpg|pig 2
File:Sus scrofa f. domestica.jpg|pig 3
</gallery>

====Temporary image change requested====
See ]. Per {{ping|Hafspajen}} above, image change request is ]. An alternative is ]. This request is to speedily resolve the ] issue. This can be readily changed again, presumably once consensus is reached. Thank you ] (]) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:The portal animal is now/currently this Caribou image: ] ] (]) 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)]]
::OMG! I have just seen the ] issue! I missed it before. Shouldn't the editor/s be treated like any other vandal? Is this issue a genuine one relating to images rather than eating or touching some animals. Whilst I approve of a speedy resolution for this current portal image, this issue needs to be resolved for the future or we will be allowing a precedent for future disruptive edits.__] (]) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::The portal image thing was discussed about a month ago and we just now got around to changing it; I don't know when the pig showed up as the previous portal image, but it seemed reasonable to avoid controversy and change it. As for vandals, it seems that you can't change portal images now without going through the admins, so hope no future problems.

::::The vandalism issue was quickly resolved (more than once) with blocks and page protection. It took me awhile to figure out why that image was targeted as I was unaware of its use as the portal image. My concern is that some might believe we were deliberately using that image to insult, intimidate, antagonize, humiliate, etc. ] (]) 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::If we use another farm animal, will it be vandalized by 10<sup>15</sup>? ;=) ] (]) 05:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the explanation. But if the portal image is protected by admins, shouldn't that prevent vandalism if we were to choose a farm animal (I really would not suggest this just to be provocative - I stated my support for farm animals well before I knew this was an issue). By the way, the list of ] is quite extensive and includes several of our suggested nominees such as Bats, Mice, Mole, Owl, Snail and Tortoise...although I suspect you have already seen this.__] (]) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It was the Misplaced Pages image copy itself: ] . Edit summary: ''photo changed because previous one was totally disrespectful for this topic'' Not sure if it affected the portal image. The page protection expires Mar 21st. Also, just looked at the and found/removed vandalism (not apparently religious in nature). I imagine that appropriate protections would prevent any vandalism.
:::::::I am not familiar with the levels of "unclean". I would imagine, given history, that Genus ] tops the list. I have one Pakistani friend who is very uncomfortable around large dogs. Other than that, I don't know. ] (]) 03:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My primary concern is to not be unnecessarily offensive. ] (]) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Hi Jim1138. I too do not want to cause unnecessary offense. I do not agree with the change in the portal from using the image of a pig because of the threat of vandalism, however, there has not been consensus on this so I have not requested the image be reverted. My concern is that we do not appear to know whether images of some (unclean) animals really are dis-respectful. Is the protest from a group of people or just an individual? I wonder why individual pages of animals have not been attacked (or maybe they have but I have not seen it).__] (]) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Hi {{@|DrChrissy}}, essentially, not much vandalism. ] has been vandalized by five different IPs/accounts. The first two seem unrelated to religion, the third was a blanking from the UK who seemed to be on a non-religion vandalism spree. The fourth and fifth (first and second accounts) were on the same day perhaps by the same individual. The first account did a couple of experiments, added ] then blanked the page was reverted then blocked. The second account blanked the page on the first instance, was reverted then added ] was reverted and blocked. The final and only edit summary was "photo changed because previous one was totally disrespectful for this topic" which led me to believe it was the animal portal image as opposed to accessing the image from the article. ] has been deleted four times, the first two for general vandalism, the third G1-patent nonsense, the fourth as a test page. The commons page had been vandalized twice, both not related to religion; the talk page no vandalism.
::::::::: If you click on the text, you get the portal page. If you click on the image, you get the large photo of the portal image. Perhaps a shock. I asked an Atheist Persian friend who has no pork issues. She thinks most would not have an issue. Might be a click=touch issue as touching a pig is often revolting, though doesn't know. She thinks that some *might* think that the use of a pig would thought of as an intentional affront. BTW: I used Hafspajen's recommendation of Swan II and Caribou rather than my preference of ]. Given Swan II & Caribou, Caribou was selected over Swan II by the admin: "Wouldn't the swan be more appropriate for Portal:Birds?.
:::::::::I do not consider this to be appeasement nor compromise. ] (]) 09:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::Well I do understand you both. Considering all this it was probably wise to change this picture, not to cause unnecessary offense. But I do understand Dr. Chrissy what is worrying about too . ] (]) 12:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Might have religious reasons, you know. The Jews and the Muslims don't eat pork. Not ] and not ] food. Some vegans can also be militant. (]) ] (]) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC
:::::Hi Hafspajen. I have lectured at university level on methods of religious slaughter and animal husbandry. I understand, and I am sympathetic to, (some) of these beliefs/practices, however, it seems that what we have here is someone who is stating that images of some animals are "dis-respectful". I have not encountered this concern before, apart from knowing that some religions ban images of animals on their clothing, especially during prayers. If these images are a legitimate concern - where does it end on wikipedia in terms of images that are used in animal-related articles.__] (]) 02:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::' In that case my comment was useless. About your concern, yes, one can replace 1 picture, but not delete encyclopedic knowledge or content or remove or rewrite. That is not possible. This is about knowledge, not about chosing what you like. Things exists even if you don't like them. We can't go on conforming to this kind of requests way to far. I don't like tomatoes, but I am not deleting tomato articles. ] (]) 02:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Agreed! I really hate carrots! ;-) __] (]) 02:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::*{{smiley}} ] (]) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::There is at least one Misplaced Pages precedent to images which are possibly disrespectful. see ]__] (]) 03:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::I favored replacing the pig, as it is kind of a controversial animal to Muslim and Jewish traditions; I filed it under "who needs the drama?" Certainly everyone can point to someone with a beef )pun intended) against almost any classification of animal, but the pork thing is such a big deal to billions of people, figured it was easy enough to just pick anything else. (I still like the red parrot...) ]<sup>]</sup> 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Jim1138 raises a good point that touching an animal image (touchscreens on tablets, phones) may be problematic for some. Is this a general issue which should receive a wider audience, or is it a case of "let (dirty) sleeping dogs lie"?__] (]) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::: My read on this is that having an animal that everyone knows is offensive to Muslims symbolizing the whole animal portal looked too much like a deliberate symbolic snub. I don't think it's a matter of whether such images are inherently all that disrespectful, but only the fact of choosing it as our symbol.
:::: Just remember that this isn't about content, it's about what image shows on the link to the portal- strictly an aesthetic/symbolic thing. We can afford to change the appearance of the thumbnail as long as we don't change the content it links to. ] (]) 08:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::Matty asked if there is a need to fix those images, that it will show several images, like Honey bagder at one time, later caribou, than parrot and next a sheep, well whatever you chose. What do you think? ] (]) 20:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Just to note, I will set up 5 pictures or so, then you can copy the format and add as many as you want (presuming I can get the thing to work). Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

====Preliminary polling====
*I like the red parrot. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
* Like that caribou, also the honey badger. ] (]) 13:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

==Full size==
{{collapse top|Regular thumbnail versions of possible images}}
19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)] (]) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
<gallery>

File:Honey badger.jpg|Honey badger
File:Prague ZOO - Mellivora capensis 3.jpg|if cropped
File:Red-eyed Tree Frog - Litoria chloris edit1.jpg|Red-eyed Tree Frog
File:Dalmatian b 01.jpg|Dalmatian
File:Arctocephalus pusillus.jpg|South African Fur Seal
File:Otter 1 (8148848112).jpg|Otter portrait

File:Penguins Edinburgh Zoo 2004 SMC.jpg|Penguins
File:Murgab112.jpg|] stallion
File:Vulpes vulpes laying in snow.jpg|Fox
File:Apodemus sylvaticus bosmuis.jpg|Apodemus sylvaticus bosmuis
File:Nycticebus coucang 002.jpg| Slow Loris
File:Brown bear fishing, Kodiak NWR.jpg|Brown bear fishing


File:"Cinnamon" Black Bear.jpg|Kodiak bear
File:Fantail(white self).jpg|White dove
File:Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg|Caribou
File:Peacock J1.jpg |Peacock, profile
File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).jpg|Wisent, if cropped
File:Peacock (6964635758).jpg|Peacock

File:Head Peacock.jpg|Peacock head
File:Mandarin.duck.arp.jpg|Mandarin.duck
File:Otter 5 (3308782493).jpg|Otter swim under water
File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg|Blue morpho butterfly
File:Mandarinente männlich.JPG|Mandarin duck II
File:Polar bear swimming in zoo.jpg|Polar bear swimming

File:Ara ararauna Luc Viatour.jpg|Ara
File:AT Tokhtamysh.jpg|Akhal-teke stallion II
File:Apinae Bombus pascuorum.jpg|Bumble bee
File:Amphiprion ocellaris (Clown anemonefish) PNG by Nick Hobgood.jpg|Clown anemonefish
File:Waternimfen.JPG|3 dogs
File:Şahlûr-33.jpg|European Bee-eaters

File:Tibetan Mastiff 001.jpg|Tibetan Mastiff
File:Chelonia mydas is going for the air edit.jpg|Green turtle
File:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg|Red Squirrel
File:Marmota flaviventris (Yellow Bellied Marmot), Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg| Marmot
File:Coral Outcrop Flynn Reef.jpg|Corals form the Great Barrier Reef
File:Tagpfauenauge.jpg|Peacock butterfly

File:James's Flamingo mating ritual.jpg|James's Flamingo mating ritual
File:Total internal reflection of Chelonia mydas .jpg|Green turtle II
File:MC Rotfeuerfisch.jpg|Lionfish
File:Bergamasco shepherd dog - merle female cropped.jpg|] shepherd dog
File:Zebras in Tanzania 0494 Nevit.jpg| Zebra I
File:Lightmatter panda.jpg| Panda

File:Emperor-cold hg.jpg|Emperor Penguin
File:African Bush Elephant.jpg|African Bush Elephant
File:Galago senegalensis.jpg|Galago bush baby
File:Bubo bubo winter 1.jpg|Bubo bubo Owl
File:Arabian horse5.jpg|Arabian horse
File:Springbok pronk.jpg|Springbok

File:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg|Raccoon
File:Erinaceus europaeus in Avesta 07.jpg|European hedgehog
File:Three Zebras (Imagicity 281).jpg|Three Zebras
File:Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 2 Richard Bartz.jpg|Swan
File:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg|Giant Grouper
File:Zebras in Tanzania 4071 Nevit.jpg|Zebra II

File:Kissing Prairie dog.JPG|Kissing Prairie dog
File:Synchiropus splendidus 2 Luc Viatour.jpg|Mandarinfish
File:Zebras in Tanzania 0870 cropped Nevit.jpg |Zebra III
File:Bufo bufo couple during migration(2005).jpg|]
File:Macropodus opercularis - front (aka).jpg|Paradise fish
File:Koala climbing tree.jpg|Koala

File:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg|Puffer fish -if cropped
File:MC KleinerPanda.jpg|Red panda
File:White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) (5).jpg|White Stork
File:Female impala headshot.jpg|Impala
File:Common clownfish.jpg|Common clownfish
File:Brown Hare444.jpg|Brown Hare

File:Cervus elaphus Luc Viatour 4.jpg| Red deer I
File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg|Ara red
File:Talpa europaea MHNT Tete.jpg|Mole
File:Carduelis tristis male 2011.jpg|Carduelis tristis male
File:Schlammspringer Periophthalmus sp.jpg|Mudskipper
File:Rubber Duck.jpg|Rubber Duck

File:Saguinus oedipus qtl1.jpg|Cottontop Tamarin
File:Hippopotamus at St.Lucia.jpg|:Hippopotamus
File:Squirrel posing.jpg|Squirrel
File:Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) closeup eating.jpg|Gorilla
File:Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis.jpg|Common Kingfisher
File:Papilio demoleus ALT by kadavoor.jpg|Lemon Butterfly

File:Cetorhinus maximus by greg skomal.JPG|Basking shark
File:Red deer stag 2009 denmark.jpg|Red deer II
File:CygneVaires.jpg|Swan II
File:Low Nest (4607259645).jpg|Is an egg an animal?
</gallery>

<gallery>

File:Jersey cattle in Jersey.jpg|cow 1
File:Vache montbéliarde jurassienne.JPG|cow 2

File:Krummhörn, Deich, 2010-06 CN-03.jpg|sheep 1
File:Kuwaiti sheep.jpg|sheep 2
File:Ovis orientalis aries 'Skudde' - head (aka).jpg|sheep 3

File:Beautiful Roo by sejr.jpg|hen 1
File:Female pair.jpg|hen 2
File:Chart perski 0002.jpg|] is not seen as unclean
File:Zari the Saluki.jpg|Saluki II
</gallery>
<!--hide the pigs, it's a pig image that caused all this trouble in the first place
File:Pig USDA01c0116.jpg|pig 1
File:Gloucester Old Spot Boar, England.jpg|pig 2
File:Sus scrofa f. domestica.jpg|pig 3
-->
{{collapse bottom}}
===Image discussion===
Thanks, Hafspajen! Great ideas! Now to select... one thing I would consider of #1 importance is simply that the image looks good at the very small size used by the portal template. For example, in the above images, I think the mouse or the bright red parrot would look good. Perhaps we could narrow down the above list to perhaps 10 images, then shrink those to the size they will be seen, from there discuss? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree - great selection! I think we also need to remember that the small size means the background should not be cluttered, and the long, thin orientation should be considered. With these in mind, of the selection above, I like the Fox, Mouse, and Mole.__] (]) 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::My, forgot to put captions on them... Might make discussion bit more to the point. ] (]) 18:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion Rotating images?===
{{:::'''' As it looks like there are quite a few nice images to use on the Animals Portal, why not consider auto rotating them - a bit like Matty did with my archive box images? I think he does it on the Channel Islands Portal he set up as well? ''''. ] - ] 15:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::What is autorotate? Now there are quite a lot of nice pic I put at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Animals. ] (]) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::It was all the nice pics I saw on that nominees link that made me think of it. What I mean is the same trick that Matty used to make the images displayed in my talk page archive box change automatically between the five/six that I pick out. The Portal could have a selection of images that change. ] - ] 15:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Ah, NOW I understand what you mean. How many images can an autorotate rotate? Can it rotate, like multiple images? ] (]) 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::::It would just depend on how many it's set up for. As I say mine just rotates between five or six and I change the selection used every so often. ] - ] 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Now the tricky question is, can it rotate multiple images? But then one can make a collage too, no? Like Crisco could do some, and then we could rotate them. Splendid idea! ] (]) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::*For a portal? You may want to check how ] does things. Images rotate automatically.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 16:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Mmm. Can you make image collages rotate? ] (]) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)}}

] (]) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)]]
]
::Move this discussion from my page here, hope {{U|Sagaciousphil}}, and {{U|Crisco 1492}}, it's OK. ] (]) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Can we ping {{ping|Writ Keeper}} to see if rotating these images is feasible for a portal image? And given the small size, is it desirable? We still need to narrow the selection down a bit. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


:::*Just a matter of making a collage, uploading it, and using it as a standard image.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
::*May I move your comment to the hot spot? ] (]) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::*Sure.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::*The Portal Indonesia, ] has rotating images. {{U|Sagaciousphil}} has on her archive box rotating images. You go there, one image of a lovely lady. You go away and then you go back, another image this time. It changes all the time. ] (]) 23:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*Yeah, but that's the portal page itself, right?, not the teeny-tiny little Portal box we are discussing here, is it? I'm not oppoised to the idea of rotating, say five images or so, I just don't know if it's technologically doable for this template ]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Matty would do that, I think. if we ask nicely. Please, {{U|Matty.007}} - (ping)? ] (]) 15:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::The teeny-tiny portal box is so small that it conveys almost no information - it is actually difficult to see it is a pig! If this image was to rotate on a regular basis, I feel this would be confusing for readers. If the image is larger, say parhaps on the portal page, then I think it's a great idea to show off several rotating wonderful pictures of animals. Just my thoughts. __] (]) 23:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::Where is that pig? ] (]) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Give me a ping at the weekend and I'll have a look (it may end up a bit messy, it was a bit of trial and error with SagaciousPhil's). Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
{{-}}
::::Here is the pig__] (]) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC) {{WikiProject Animals}}
:::Oh my God. ] (]) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::::It is tiny isn't it! How do we get the size increased...it really is not practical at the moment.__] (]) 00:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::.Matty will know how, I think. ] (]) 01:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I asked Mr Stradivarius about testing images and linking to a separate image so that a cropped could be used for the portal image. See ] Essentially nope and nope. May be difficult to have a rotating image? ] (]) 05:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:.Well, user {{U|Matty.007}} succeded once. Made some 5 images rotate on an archive box. (ping)] (]) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)?
::OK, I am just taking a Wikibreak at the minute, but hopefully I will be able to start having a look this weekend or before. What pictures do you want? Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

== Popular pages tool update ==


As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to ]. 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 ], will become available over the next few weeks at ]. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The ] 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 ] (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. ] 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 ] or contact me on my talk page. ] (]) (for <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span>) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

== Bird article name (capitalisation) ==

There is a move discussion in progress on ] about four articles related to birds species. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. ] (]) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
: Do not hesitate to come and give your opinion. It would be so logic to apply the (same) usual naming rules to all animals, including birds... ]. <br/>] (]) 17:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

=== Request for comments ===

There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: ].

Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. ] (]) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

=== Consensus ===

The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see ] for details.

] (]) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
:Move review for species pages at ]. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

=== New discussion ===

The important discussion started on ] and ] now moved to ''']'''.

] (]) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
: The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with ].
: ] (]) 23:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

== ] ==

Dear animal experts: This is a new submission at Afc. Is this a notable subject, and are the references reliable? &mdash;] (]) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
:It's a valid species, and not apparently duplicated by an existing article. ] is currently a circular redirect to ] and never had original content. The references are reliable. Note: The article's Taxobox mistakenly lists the common name (algae octopus) as a synonym. The correct synonym is ''Octopus aculeatus'', as the genus ''Abdopus'' was only proposed in 2001, per . It's a bit surprising such an interesting species hasn't had an article yet, but aside from minor cleanup it's a good Start to C class article. ] (]) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, it is now at ]. Any biology-type fixes will need to be made by someone from this project, since I know nothing about it. Thanks for taking the time to check this out. &mdash;] (]) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

== Request for comments on ], ], and ] ==

There are currently three articles and a list regarding cave-dwelling animals: ], ], ] and ] (to which ] currently redirects). I'm not sure the concepts are necessarily distinct enough to warrant this separation: please see the discussion on ]. Cheers, ] (]) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

== Content dispute at copper shark ==

There's a dispute over whether at ] should be retained. I would appreciate input from other editors on this issue. Thanks. -- ] (]) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

== Request for article reviewers ==
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author {{user|Cwmhiraeth}}. The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at ]. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start ]. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated ]. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. ] (]) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) <small> unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:27, 16 April 2014</small>
:Thank you for that unsigned comment linking me to this request, Snowmanradio. You will see that I reported my action where JohnCD had written "Any suggestions for other WikiProjects to ask?". JohnCD subsequently approved the action I had taken on approaching other WikiProjects. ] (]) 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, copying this here was a helpful act by Cwmhiraeth, for which I have thanked her. Links to archived AN/I thread updated. ] (]) 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


==Portal image: Storm in a teacup==
The person messing with the "Sow with piglet" image was not offended by the image as such, but with opprobrious piece of vandalism. They simply did not know how to revert it when they saw it in the article ], but they had a good attempt.

All the best, '']&nbsp;]'', <small>21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br />

:Oh well, we swapped out the pig anyway, as that was where the discussion went, so end of both stories. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
::Storm in a teacup indeed, wow.... oh well I guess problem solved by rational and level headed members :) ]] 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

== Taxobox needed for ] and ] ==

Could someone add a taxbox to ] and ]? Many thanks. <font face="Times">'''] (] • ])'''</font > 14:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:Done! ] (]) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dear animal experts: Would it be appropriate to add some information from the above old Afc submission to the existing article ], and, if so, is there someone at this project that would be able to do it? The submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft if no one takes an interest in it. I know nothing of biology myself, so I can't do it. &mdash;] (]) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dear animal experts: This Afc submission was about to be deleted as a stale draft. There is already an article ], and ] is a redirect to it. The Afc submission is much more extensive. The content can be moved to the mainspace article, and the attribution can be saved in the redirecct. Alternatively, the draft can be moved to Chalinolobus picatus, replacing the current contentless redirect, and the current tiny article can become the redirect. Which of these should be done, or is something different more appropriate? &mdash;] (]) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
:By all means, the stub should be replaced with the AfC. ''Chalinolobus picatus'' is synonymous with Little pied bat. The treatment of the species at ] is much more welcome than the stub currently at ], and should replace it entirely. The creator may not have known the stub article existed, or how may have been unsure on how to contribute to an existing article. I don't think any harm is done in replacing the entire stub with the extensive AfC: the stub is basically the first sentence of the AfC. Per ], the AfC content should be titled ], with '']'' as a redirect.] (]) 01:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, I will work on this soon. &mdash;] (]) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

==Tunicate==
There is an IP user (129.62.69.239 and 129.62.228.222) who keeps changing the name of the subphylum of ] in the taxobox from Tunicata to Urochordata (but not the rest of the text, which now disagrees with the taxobox). Tunicata is the accepted name according to WoRMS with Urochordata being a junior synonym, and WoRMS is the source used in the taxobox. Any views as to which name should be used? I don't want to get into an edit conflict with the IP. ] (]) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:I know squat about taxonomy, but I'll trot over and revert as needed until someone comes up with a source to conclude the dispute. If you can present best evidence and most recent sources on this stuff. Maybe also try wikiproject biology, they may have more taxonomy sorts there? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

::This matter is now being discussed on the . ] (]) 05:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
==Northern birch mouse==
On 12th May I expanded the ] article from a brief stub to a prose size of 2775 B (492 words). On 17th May, an IP has further expanded it to 6570 B (1053 words). Nothing wrong with that, I don't own the article. The new material has been added in one big addition and does not integrate well with what was there previously. I would be glad if someone else could have a look at it, especially the new referencing. ] (]) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

== Leaflet For Wikiproject Animals At Wikimania 2014 ==

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
<br>
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
<br>
For more information, click the link below.
<br>
''''
<br>
] (]) 15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

==Organization of several articles about similar animals==
Not sure where to put this question which I am sure has been successfully addressed hundreds of times before. There is a higher level article ]. There are only two subordinate articles ] and ]. How much material should be duplicated? I think the answer is "as little as possible." So the African elephant article contains the specific amount that species eats. Then goes on about the table manner of elephants generally, which IMO seems inappropriate in that article. I think it should go into the higher level article.

] correctly does not mention that the animal is a herbivore. This is addressed in the higher level article. I've commented in the ] article that someone should "address" the organizational concerns. Not entirely sure what those are, but I assume "avoid duplication" is one goal. Right? ] (]) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
:These areas can be tricky. It is difficult to have no overlap at all. Will take a look a bit later today. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
:Well for a start there are more than two daughter articles - there are two species of African elephant - ] and ]. The overall ] article provides a nice summary which briefly touches on the differences betwen African and Asian elephants. The daughter articles would then contain more research on the individual species, and ''might'' at times need to summarise certain aspects of ''general'' elephant behaviour to make their feeding sections flow better. Agree we should keep overlap small but none is impractical. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

::Indeed, we have a similar situation with ], where there are many subspecies of zebras. My take is to do the "parent" article as well as possible, to GA-level, ideally, and then the "child" - subspecies articles should be comprehensive about the things unique to that subspecies (habitat, etc.) but summarize the generic "elephant" things. Does that offer any help? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Whilst I can understand that duplication should be avoided, I can not help but feel the average reader would absolutely want to know from reading the ] that this species is a herbivore. I would not expect to have to go to a "parent" article to read this. I'm afraid this is in contrast to the position stated above by User:Student7, but we are both entitled to our opinion and I respect yours. I suspect this is the problem here - it is all a matter of opinion. Could we perhaps construct guidelines for such "parent" pages. For example, recommending inclusion of comparison tables of length, weight, colouration, etc, paragraphs explaining striking differences between (sub)species, e.g. a parent ] article could note the striking difference in lifestyle of the ] compared to the terrestrial 'roo. Perhaps these sorts of guidelines already exist?__] (]) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

::::I see no problem with basic summaries of these things, at least as far as explaining how one subspecies differs from another. i'd like to see what edits are actually proposed. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::I think there is no chance of avoiding some duplicity - there is an article, ], with various links to articles going "down" the taxonomic scale. Unavoidably, there is duplicity. I would suggest that for the average reader, their entry point (i.e. what they enter into the Search) is likely to be at the species level, or a collective article. I feel the species article should be self-contained, or the sub-species level where this is appropriate.__] (]) 10:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, I don't think you and I have a significant disagreement on this. Student7 hasn't returned to comment, and I guess anyone who actually cares can watchlist the elephant articles and see if there are any problematic edits. Much as I like elephants, I do have other fish to fry (if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors!) ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::::You'd need a bloody big frying pan to mix those metaphors! ;-) __] (]) 09:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I have been following this discussion because I have been working on the article ] with a view to GA nomination, and ] has already brought ] and ] to GA. One problem is that the wildebeest article contains more about blue wildebeest migration than does the species article (the black wildebeest does not migrate). I consider that each article should be considered individually and the reader should not need to click through to find out basic information. ] (]) 10:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, I would agree with that. I was unaware of this difference in migratory behaviour prior to the message above. So, as an uninformed reader, I would have liked the Parent page to contain a statement that the blue wildebeest migrates (perhaps with minimal additional information such as the distance or the the season in which it occurs) but the black wildebeest does not migrate. Details of the migration should then be on the ] article.__] (]) 09:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

== Expert input required on ] ==

The template is ], expert biological input is welcome. A similar issue is present at ]. Many thanks! --]] 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

== Note of RM discussion ==

Seems to have become part of a much larger discussion. May be of interest to project members here: ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

== Leaflet For Wikiproject Animals At Wikimania 2014 (updated version) ==

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

]
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
<br><br>
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
<br><br>
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
<br><br>
''''
<br>
] (]) 13:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

== WikiProject Poultry ==

{{divbox|grey|]|'''WikiProject Poultry''' has been launched and can be found at ''']'''. Check it out, and if interested, feel free to join the project. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}}

== Sauropsid(a) and Theropod(a) ==

Shouldn't ] be at ], for the sake of consistency with ], ] and ], and ] at ], for consistency with ] etc.? --] (]) 02:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

:I'd take it up at the talk page of the articles in question. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


== Definite article or not == == Taxonomy used in WikiProject Fishes ==


I have put forward a proposal to change the taxonomic authorities used by ] the proposal is at ]. ] (]) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
When referring to an animal species by its common name and the common name starts with the possessive form of a person's name, should it say: "The '''Smith's longspur''' is ..." or "'''Smith's longspur''' is ...". I've seen it both ways and I'm not sure which is correct. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
:Without the article is correct. If you want to be sure, see ]. So, "'''Smith's longspur''' (''Longspurius smithi'') is a …" &mdash;] 22:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
::I have also wondered about this. I note what Innotata says about the possessive determiner but in this case it is not that the longspur belongs to Smith. I would suggest it should be "The '''Smith's longspur''' is ..." in the same way one might say "The '''common longspur''' is ...", but differentiating it from "'''Smith's house''' is ...". It does look awkward though! ] (]) 05:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Grammatically, a possessive is a possessive, and it belongs to Smith. It sounds awkward to add the article, because it isn't natural in English, viz it isn't grammatical. &mdash;] 06:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Tony1}}, can you weigh in here? The opinion of a professional copyeditor would be appreciated! ] (]) 12:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I've posted a pointer to this question over at ] in hopes of more clarification. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od2}}Thanks for pinging the GOCE (experts, no; dedicated volunteers, yes :-)). As a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor (no professional copyediting experience, and more familiar with our ] than other style guides), I agree with the consensus that adding "the" clunks up the prose. All the best, ]] 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
* (ec) "Smith's" has the ''form'' of a possessive, but in the species name it doesn't ''function'' as a possessive. Rather, the species name is simply a fixed phrase. One can after all speak of "a Smith's longspur", but even if Smith owns several houses, you can't speak of "a Smith's house". So I think {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} is right, and the definite article is correct here. It does feel rather stilted, though. --] (]) 23:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:: (edit conflict) Another copy editor's opinion: I would always (I wanted to say "definitely", but I spared you that one) add "The" before the common name of an animal. Examples: "The giraffe is an animal with a long neck." "The peregrine falcon is a bird that flies very fast." "The Willamette daisy is a flower with white petals." "The Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) is a jay native to western North America, closely related to the blue jay found in the rest of the continent." This last one is from ].


==] has been nominated for discussion==
::I can't think of a situation in which it would be reasonable to say "Giraffe is an animal with a long neck" or "Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) is a jay native to western North America."


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you.
::Other classes of objects do not behave this way, strangely enough. "] is a form of facial paralysis." "] is an adage commonly cited as 'ninety percent of everything is crap.'&thinsp;" I don't know if there is an underlying rule here (i.e. For names of species and maybe some other stuff, use "the" before the name of the thing; for theorems, diseases, and maybe some other stuff, do not use "the".), but it's an interesting question. (Now that I read {{U|Stfg}}'s response above, maybe the rule is: If you can substitute "A" for "The" and still have a valid sentence with roughly the same meaning, you need to use "The". Hmmm.)


About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. ] (]) 04:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::As {{U|Stfg}} said so eloquently above, I think that "Steller's jay is..." looks right because it follows the pattern of "Sturgeon's Law is...", but I think that is a spurious association that is leading you astray.


== One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! ==
::Here is one link to guidance on when to use the definite article: . I found others, but they were not helpful on this particular point. – ] (]) 23:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


:::: The reason you don't say "the Bell's palsy" is because there's only one. "Stellar's jay" could refer to the species, or it could refer to an individual of the species. You don't normally say "I just saw a Bell's palsy". ] (]) 16:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%"
:::Somewhere I found a rule to the effect that we use the definite article like this if and only if the noun is countable, so I agree with you, {{u|Jonesey95}}, that trying the indefinite article would be a good test. --] (]) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|-
::::Not convinced. Not using the definite article is certainly quite traditional, and looking at examples on websites it looks like both styles are pretty commonly used. (Maybe we can say both are OK??) &mdash;] 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|]
:This can become complicated in a court case: "Five (of) ]s were found on Anderssen's property." I recommend that professional associations of zoologists make a decision to remove <b>'s</b> from the name of every such animal: "Five ]s were found on Anderssen's property." (How many names of animals contain possessives of personal names?)
Hello,<br>Please note that ''']''', which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the ''']'''. The article is ] to appear on Misplaced Pages's ] in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! <!-- Substituted from Template:AFI project notice --><br />
:—] (]) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) and 18:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
<sub>Delivered by <!-- mbsig --><span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <b>] <sup>]</sup></b></span><!-- mbdate --> 00:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team</sub>
::Court cases are a pretty specific problem…a lot more people than lawyers use vernacular names, so they should switch to scientific names! More seriously, our place is just to follow common usage. To answer your question, quite a lot. Somewhere in the ballpark of 500 bird species, for example. And animal (contra plant) names pretty much always use possessives when commemorating someone. &mdash;] 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|-
:::To say nothing of the fact that Wavelength's idea would make many of the current possessive names pretty nonsensical. What would "Say Phoebe" or "Grace Warbler" signify, for example? And since Virginia's Warbler isn't (typically) found in Virginia, why call it "Virginia Warbler"? I agree with Innotata; if it gets complicated in court cases (and I seriously doubt it does), use the scientific name — no confusion there! ] (]) 14:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
|}


== Seeking advice on article improvement ==
== List of organisms with possessives of personal names ==


Will somebody check out the page ]? I have pretty well exhausted the literature (minus one elusive publication). How can it be improved? Thanks! ] (]) 10:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages can have "]" or "]" or (preferably) both. How many names of organisms contain possessives of personal names? (See also "]".) <br>
—] (]) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:My question is: why? What is the use, or intended purpose, of such a list or category? What new information would be gained? I may be misunderstanding the scope or purpose of the proposal, but it seems somewhat arbitrary and trivial, akin to "List of organisms with 7 letters in their names". For comparison, ], while arguably trivial, ties together information on species, namesakes, and notes on why the name was chosen, which sheds new light on the etymology. Would your proposed list for example tie ] to ]? Furthermore, why emphasize possessives, which would presumably omit names such as ], named after ]? I'm assuming the scope is limited to common names (of which some species have many), but such specificity is not found in the title. If you haven't already, you might want to review ], ], and ] for guidelines on lists, and ] (especially ]) for guidelines on categories. If there is previous or contemporary discussion of this proposal on other talk pages, a link would be useful. All the best, ] (]) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::I mostly agree with Animalparty. As a list, this wouldn't be much of a topic (especially if it was exclusive to possessives; also it would have too many entries for a Misplaced Pages list). I can see a category for all animals named after people though; some problems are that many species have multiple common names, and some species are only named after someone in their scientific name and it's be odd to exclude them. &mdash;] 03:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:58, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Animals and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAnimals
WikiProject iconWikiProject Animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal
WikiProject Animals To-do:


 Here are some Open Tasks :
WikiProject Animals was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 19 July 2010.
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1 (September 2007 – May 2008)
Archive 2 (June 2008 – September 2009)
Archive 3 (September 2009 – November 2009)
Archive 4 (December 2009)
Archive 5 (January 2010 – July 2010)
Archive 6 (August 2010 – December 2010)
Archive 7 (December 2010 – July 2011)
Archive 8 (July 2011 - August 2014)
Archive 9 (September 2014 - )


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Policy discussions relating to species notability

This WikiProject is likely to be interested in the following discussions: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Species notability and Misplaced Pages talk:Notability#Biology. C F A 💬 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomy used in WikiProject Fishes

I have put forward a proposal to change the taxonomic authorities used by WikiProject Fishes the proposal is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fishes. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for discussion

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. HLHJ (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Entomology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Misplaced Pages's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot 00:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Seeking advice on article improvement

Will somebody check out the page Komarekiona? I have pretty well exhausted the literature (minus one elusive publication). How can it be improved? Thanks! Sbbarker19 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Animals: Difference between revisions Add topic