Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Proposed move of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta

Please comments at Talk:Bryozoa#Proposed_move_to_Ectoprocta. --Philcha (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Save a snakes featured list?

Can someone address the remaining issues at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago/archive1? It's so close to being a keep that it would be a pity to see its star lost. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wildlife by country

I'm struggling to see how this category's entries differ from Category:Fauna by country. The articles included seem to be just lists of fauna, though some have a pretense of listing flora as well. Where both fauna and wildlife articles exist, they seem to be forks that should be merged, as with Wildlife of India and Fauna of India. Is "wildlife" used here to mean biota, in which case it's supposed to be a parent to the fauna articles? If so, they need to be better integrated and developed, and in some cases redundant material moved or summarized. If not, they should be renamed, or merged where a duplicate fauna article already exists. Thoughts? Postdlf (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New cat Category:Animal reintroduction

I was looking at Reintroduction of wolves and similar articles, and I realised that there were a lot of related articles but no category to link them. So I created Category:Animal reintroduction. I'm totally open to changing the name, or better tying it into the overall category trees. Suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with it, my apologies as i have just re-joined the project and am attempting to discover if is still active. Zoo Pro 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaetopterus edit request

Can someone with knowledge of marine worms edit this article for clarity and prose? I got a really nice picture and would like to get it on the main page for DYK after adding the details of its feeding system and bioluminescence. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Arthropods WP:ARTH could better help you. Zoo Pro 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You may consider requesting User:Stemonitis - I found him making knowledgeable edits about crustaceans and other marine creatures.

Adopt a leper

Hi. Some identification and photographic critique would be appreciated on the lepidoptera, bee and beetle photos I uploaded. In particular could you please comment on the quality or necessity of the photos? Our articles on these particular animals seem to have enough photos as is so I do not unnecessarily want to upload full-res versions. Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#UFO identification. Thanks! Zunaid 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think someone from the WikiProject Arthropods WP:ARTH would be better suited. Zoo Pro 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Unrated Article is now Rated

I have just finished rating every WikiProject Animals article that needed to be rated, i have also completed half of the WikiProject Mammals articles. Please kill me now. Zoo Pro 14:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone find this individual a 12-step program or something! Call out the cavalry -- or the nice men in the white coats! Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Men in white coats sounds nice, i want a window view though.Zoo Pro 04:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New Logo / Banner

any thoughts on a new logo or banner? Zoo Pro 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Animals fullquality.jpg seems promising, if a bit limited; and of course, we mustn't ignore File:Animaldiversity.jpg. For a userbox, we could do something like:

This user is a member of WikiProject Animals.
Join now!

It will randomly display an animal featured picture from ten I have selected. This selection is very limited; I could include literally dozens. Enjoy. Intelligentsium 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, yes i like the changing pics keeps it interesting.Zoo Pro 01:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Its seems to be skewed a bit towards the frog. Intelligentsium 02:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to put "Join Now" on the bottom so its seperate??Zoo Pro 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion; please review it and comment before changing. Intelligentsium 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Neuroscience

That project is only directed at Humans, has no animal related information. It should be removed as a related project, it would be the same as having something like WikiProject Blood as a related project. Yes Animals and Humans both have nerves (as we are one in the same) however i dont feel it fits with this project. Any thoughts?? Zoo Pro 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mokele Just wondering if this was actually what you intended to say in your summary??

"Mokele (talk | contribs) (→WikiProject family tree: Re-adding Neuroscience - definitely applicable and relevant. After all, only animals have nerves.) [rollback]"

I will assume thats meant to be Also???? Zoo Pro 13:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

From the WP: Neuroscience scope page: "This project's approach is to cover the brain from a cross-species, multidisciplinary perspective. This should provide detailed information about the distinct differences between species, and explain some possible evolutionary/ecological reasons for such differences." Clearly it has a large comparative component, and most actual neuroscience research is done on animals (in part because humans make too much fuss when you stick needles in their brains). As for the edit summary, I did mean "only" - nerves are unique to animals (though sponges lack them), thus studying nerves necessitates studying animals. Mokele (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bug on the portal?

Could someone take a look at Portal:Animals/WikiProjects? It looks fine to me, displaying all the projects on the main animal project page below animals that I inserted. However, looking from a different computer, I see nothing after arthropods. Is this a widespread issue, or only on that one computer? Intelligentsium 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine, no issues. All is there. Zoo Pro 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed!

I am working on a project with my AP Biology class. Our assignment is to take a stub article and transform it into a FA. My group is actively working on perfecting the pudu deer article, and I noticed this project organization has pudu deer on its list of articles to improve. We would greatly appreciate additions/critiques to the article. Thanks! Lisa Anne893 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Zoo Pro 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add featured picture stars to taxoboxes

There is a proposal at the Village Pump[2] to add featured picture stars to featured pictures in article space (below the featured picture, in its caption box, or image caption box in the case of taxoboxes with featured pictures.

The discussion includes asking the question whether they should be added to all featured pictures in articles including in taxoboxes, added just to featured pictures in caption boxes only and not to featured pictures in taxoboxes, or not added at all. Currently to find out if an image is a featured picture the user has to click on the image and its file page indicates with a star in the upper right hand corner that it is a featured picture.

To join the discussion and express your opinion go to the Village Pump. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two groups called Ctenophora

Ctenophore describes comb jellies, whose scientific name is "Ctenophora" - but Ctenophora describes a group of insects! It seems that naming conflicts were quite common before faxes. How to resolve? --Philcha (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Phylum has precedence over the Genus and the Phylum article is much more extensive in its content so it should righfully have its article name "Ctenophora", Maybe a disambiguation page is needed, and a rename is in order, any suggestions on what we should rename the true crane flies as?. Zoo Pro 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind, lets delete the insect article and merge it into Crane fly im sure i can work it as a collapsable list, the article really has no notability anyway, everything is red linked and no discussion page. Zoo Pro 11:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Go with the obvious, imo. Ctenophora and Ctenophora (genus). I think I saw this discussed somewhere before, though. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats a better idea :) .Zoo Pro 12:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem fixed, see

The old article name Ctenophora now redirects to the disambiguation page were either of the above articles can be selected. Zoo Pro 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not my preference, as I'd like one of them to be the primary article, preferably the phylum. I hate unnecessary redirects and clicks. It's nice when some % of users get immediate grat. But I can live with it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes in hindsight having a primary article may have been the better option however this will have to do for now. Zoo Pro 00:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward case for have the phylum located at Ctenophora with a hatnote directing readers to the genus article. One of the topics is very prominent and the other is extremely obscure. There are almost 200 links to the phylum (and probably all of the 275 going to the dab). In contrast, no content links to the genus (only this talk page and the dab page). --JamesAM (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to see it changed to this way, as I agree with James. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of sorting this out. While being bold is good, sometimes there is need for discussion before acting. Cheers, Intelligentsium 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

All sorted out. Intelligentsium 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)