Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Ddum5347's disruptive edits

The editor Ddum5347 is making controversial edits everywhere in animal articles without bothering to discuss them first, leaving a trail of edit-warring and other disruption. It has been pointed out to them plenty of times on article talk pages (a selection:[1][2][3][4]), as well as on their own talk page, which they just blanked in response. They prefer edit warring instead of discussing, and it seems many other editors are getting tired of their antics. Is there something that can be done? At the very least, their edits need to be scrutinised so the worst damage can be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

They reverted an edit of mine at Puerto Rican crow where I moved a period in accordance with MOS:PUNCTREF. I wasn't going to waste my time reinstating it (a bot would take care of it eventually), but since we're discussing their edits, add that they revert against MOS. Plantdrew (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is something that can be done. For breaches of the 3-revert rule an editor should be reported immediately at WP:AN3. For ongoing behaviour an editor may be reported at WP:ANI. You have gathered enough evidence to raise this matter as a legitimate issue at WP:ANI to seek opinions from other WP editors. Note that administrators rarely get involved in ANI despite its name - it is usually opinions/discussion from senior WP editors, until the topic appears to reveal itself to be something more serious and something needs to be enacted. The ongoing blanking of their Talk page reveals a series of warnings and a systemic issue. (Personally from a WPDOGS Recent Edits Patroller perspective, I have found this editor to have made some much needed and appreciated edits, and also some ill-considered edits.) William Harris (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
editor craigthebirder has given up maintaining all the North American bird lists as of yesterday because of Ddum5347's edits. Some of his edits are good, many others not....pvmoutside....
Yes, this is the type of thing that happens - good and diligent editors withdraw their interest and their service with the result being a lesser encyclopedia. The choice is to either withdraw or to do battle - Forth Eorlingas! William Harris (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging craigthebirder in case they want to continue maintaining the list after this is resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Good to get some more views here, yeah, if they are also doing good edits, it might not be as black and white, and they can hopefully be brought into the fold so to speak, but the fact that they don't engage here indicates they prefer going solo with little regard to other opinions or conventions. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Part of the issue is a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, part of the issue is considering themselves to be a "reformer" and disregarding earlier sources as being out of date (which they are not), and part of it is that they keep pushing the boundaries because it works for them. Until the day it doesn't. William Harris (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
William Harris, I would counter that little of the issue is "lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies". Ddum5347 has been repeatedly notified as to the policies s/he is violating, and responds by repeatedly blanking his/her page. I'd say that indicates little or no evidence of "good faith". MeegsC (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems like they're in no way backing down. I haven't reported anyone at ANI before, do others here think it is warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Appealing directly to them has done nothing. Even pinging them to this conversation hasn't resulted in any engagement. Perhaps a more "official" venue's ruling would help to resolve things. MeegsC (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. FunkMonk's initial list of just four pages is indeed a very small selection! Despite multiple reminders to read some basics in MOS and CITEHOW, s/he does not bother at all to follow this advice. On the other hand, some of their maintenance edits in the Lists of mammals of [countries] are ok, though with quite a few almost edit wars as well; pushing boundaries, as William Harris wrote, like a cantankerous stubborn kid :):). Imo, ANI should be the very last resort. So for now, I opt to watch and scrutinise their edits, perhaps for a month, before taking them to ANI if s/he doesn't change mind and behaviour. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree we should wait it out. And if anyone is willing to help compile a list of diffs by that time, that would be most welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree to the option of waiting it out, as this has been noted behavior since they started their account back in august, with the first non-teahouse edit to their talk page being a warning about disruptive page moves see this diff. This is not behavior that is likely to change. and there has already been one block given due to this type of editing, plus a temporary topic ban back in December.--Kevmin § 23:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

so although I admit Ddum5347 does write some good edits/updates, he/she also makes some articles more inaccurate. My biggest problem is the refusal to discuss edits and the authoritarian attitude which I know alienated at least one editor into giving up maintaining many articles. I'll even defer his/her deletion of comments on his/her talk page. Maybe he/she doesn't realize its a good idea to keep them there. But the alienation, authoritative attitude, and the note he/she has been temporarily banned twice is enough for me for the permanent ban..Pvmoutside (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I do very well understand your points! S/he rarely contributes new content to pages, but mostly revises content for the worse. And if we need to spend more time battling, i.e. checking and undoing their edits, than contributing, it may be appropriate to not bear up much longer. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a temporary block is already in place:[5] Then we can figure out what to do if it continues after it expires. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
looks like the block is for 72 hours, but she/he's already asking about the exit warring wondering what he/she did and how long the temporary block lasts.....not a good response....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, s/he was blocked for the edit war with me at sand cat. But perhaps also for a different reason? I decided to battle their petty amendments and earned myself a warning. So I think we should all watch their edits and support each other if and when reverts are appropriate, after this block expires. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You probably don't want the editor permanently banned, you most likely want ANI to impose a WP:TBAN on all animal-related topics for 12 months. With some editors this helps clarify their thinking and with others they simply leave WP. William Harris (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Super idea !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Then all that needs to be done is to provide proof of a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive edits, and then to launch a proposal at ANI seeking a Tban. There is possibly 5-7 votes in favour just on this page. William Harris (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Being blocked from all animal articles for a year for an editor solely interested in editing animal related articles is pretty much equivalent to a block. Dddum is a net negative for the encyclopedia, and I would be happy to see them get the boot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it just me, or is there basically no to little difference in Ddum's behaviour since the ANI? They still do tonnes of edit warring, reckless edits without discussion, and leaving few if any edit summaries. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
No, not only you. They reverted this despite explanation 3x within just 16 min. And I had a few more 'reverted alerts' in the past couple of days. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Bhagya, I linked the IUCN assessment of the clade you mentioned, which proves you wrong, and you still ignore it. And as for you, FunkMonk, what edit warring have I done? I leave edit summaries for basically every edit now. And do I really have to discuss things with people for EVERY edit? Ddum5347 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I have also not noticed a difference, and they edit so quickly that it is hard to keep up with what they are changing. While they may be leaving edit summaries, those summaries are rarely helpful and in some cases are basically just them talking to someone. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking through your contributions Silvertiger, I could say the exact same about you. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ddum5347: Actually, SilverTiger12 is absolutely right. You have recently added a citation needed tag to a good article (Beaver) that is about to be promoted to FA, without even looking if it is sourced in the body (here is the diff of my revert [6].
I have made an additional edit to the page section. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the reason is, at this point you shouldn't be edit-warring about anything if you want to prove yourself. And you shouldn't really make major edits without discussing them first, but you are still drive-by editing left and right. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In the pre-ANI discussion, I wrote I also see that s/he is rather slow in learning and changing attitude and therefore opted to give them time until end of Feb. But what has changed since then? Lets take a look at 3 examples:

Whatever their reason – slow learning capability, short memory or mischievous trolling – the outcome is as disruptive as before the ANI. What are your experiences? – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest BhagyaMani, I don't see a problem with the Gaur article you linked to. The other editor kept reintalling "largest of the wild cattles", which isn't even good English! "largest extant bovid", with bovid linked to the appropriate article, seems perfectly fine to me. What am I missing? MeegsC (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The point is that s/he kept on reverting, but did not at all bother to take this to the resp. talk page and show willingness to find consensus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Neither did your friend Manwë986. There were two people edit warring there. Have I missed where you've warned the other user? I wonder whether you're now not being a bit over-the-top when it comes to any edit Ddum is making. Why was his/her change reverted by Manwë986 in the first place? What was wrong with the edit? How did it vandalise the article (which is the only time you're supposed to revert rather than undoing)? MeegsC (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Manwë986 is not 'my friend', and I did NOT mean to discuss content here, but behaviour. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This is exactly how I feel. BhagyaMani has been revert-happy on basically all my edits, just look at my contributions and compare them to his. I hope it's not WP:HOUNDING. Ddum5347 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Gaur has been on my watchlist since March 2011 with 150 edits 12,652 bytes added in those years. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant, this happens on every article you and I frequent. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Relevant, and stop making this about BhagyaMani- Ddum, you've been making numerous drive-by edits and your behavior has failed to improve one iota. Just because you've been editing a bunch of articles that are on his watchlist doesn't mean he is hounding you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to offer a counter to Ddum's behavior, on the bird side anyway, (s)he seems to be cooperating, at least recently. There is occasion where Ddum will make an edit someone doesn't like, and either a good discussion will ensue, or Ddum will revert the edit....Pvmoutside (talk)⁓

I have blocked Ddum5347 for 2 weeks for edit-warring on Gaur. - Donald Albury 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to learn that you are watching them !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Your behavior in this matter was not very good. You and Manwë986 were edit warring, as well, although neither of you exceeded two reverts. There was no attempt by any party to discuss the edits on the talk page. You, in particular, were being very combative in your edit summaries. I would advise both you and Manwë986 to not revert Ddum's last edit, but let another, uninvolved, editor assess the best wording. Opening a discussion on the talk page would be one way to deal with it. - Donald Albury 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Proposal

Since their account creation in August last year, Ddum5347 has extensively edited animal (mostly bird and mammal) related articles. While some of their edits are constructive, a large proportion of them are controversial, and are not considered improvements by other editors. Most edits lack edit summaries. When their edits are opposed by other editors they do not attempt to engage in dialogue to try to reach concensus, but instead engage in edit warring to impose their preferred view, for which they have been blocked several times. Ddum has made no attempt to engage with the issues other editors have had with their behaviour and warnings on their talkpage are ignored and periodically blanked (see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Ignoring the blankings, Ddum has received over two dozen notices for problematic edits and edit warring over the less than the year the account has existed. I and many other editors of animal related articles find their editing disruptive and their behavior not compatible with the collaborative nature of encyclopedic editing, see these discussions at WikiProject Animals and Wikiproject Birds for previous discussions on the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs

(add relevant diffs with context here)

I think it should also be explicitly noted that they ignore repeated warnings and blank their talk pages, which shows they have no interest in cooperation or conensus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it should also mention that they seldom use edit summaries and almost never engage on article or project talk pages. MeegsC (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Implemented both Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Since "animal" is often interpreted as "mammal", I'd like bird articles specifically included. Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have never gotten the impression that "animal" has ever specifically refers to mammals, but probably worth noting that mammals and birds are the main focus of their editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You may want to change the "his" in your draft to something more gender-neutral—unless you know for sure that "his" is appropriate. MeegsC (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
90% of Wikipedia editors are male, male is therefore the default assumed gender.I doubt such a belligerent editor would be a woman regardless. I will change it to "they" for consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Quite a few animal-focused editors are female, for the record. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I think for balance we should say (s)he also makes some reasonable edits. The problem is that these are mixed with poor ones and that there is a complete unwillingness to engage in discussion or follow advice. I would prefer to find a way of changing the behaviour as this isn't someone intent on vandalism but some who wants to contribute. It might be worth considering why. When new to Wikipedia those template-mediated warnings can seem very harsh and unfriendly, which could set someone off on the wrong foot. But after many months you'd hope they'd settle in. I'd like to think there was an alternative to a ban or putting up with persistent disruptive edits. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
People like this never change, the sooner they get the boot the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment as I have not been involved in this I will just comment. I have seen other editors like this in the past and it spiral out of control. One in particular I can think of is now indefinitely banned here, on WS and on Meta. I am not suggesting that should be the course of action here, just that left unchecked it can go in that direction. The person needs to be made fully aware of the collaborative approach in editing Wikimedia sites. I do not think they cannot change their ways, I think approaching them now could produce a productive editor and is worth trying. It also may not work. However, you have to try. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that s/he is not a vandalist but eager to edit here. I also see that s/he is rather slow in learning and changing attitude, e.g. only after 3 reminders by 2 people she stopped using words that I only put in toilet. Maybe this 3rd edit warring block is the final lesson s/he needs to comprehend and change. Lets find out : if s/he returns at all, lets watch them closely for at least a week or until end of Feb. And then decide whether the course proposed above is still necessary. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that Ddum is a vandal, but that's a very low bar. Instead they are engaging in disruptive editing. My work in contentious and fringe topics has made me extremely cynical towards stubborn editors who refuse to agree to concensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What is the proposed action? I see reasoning for taking some action but no explicit statement on what it should be. I assume for most people it is a permanent ban, but a temporary ban followed by a final attempt at engagement would be consistent with many comments. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
An ANI thread will force Ddum to actually respond to concerns about their behaviour (I don't intend on sending it live until they are unblocked), which will either give them enough WP:ROPE to hang themselves or they will engage constructively. Many ANI threads do not start out with a proposed sanction, and I think it is up to the administrators or the wider community to decide what the appropriate sanctions are here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I am hopeful that an ANI thread will remove any need for a permanent ban; I certainly don't want to permanently ban someone who might, with some stronger urging, become a valued contributor. The editor is clearly someone who is passionate about animals. Hopefully, an ANI will help to convert them into someone more willing to work within the community. MeegsC (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. If the discussion should move in the direction of a Tban, perhaps we should guide it towards a 3-month trial. If there is a positive response after that time then that would be good, else we go back to ANI and seek a longer period Tban. William Harris (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care what the time frame is. I'll leave the time frame decision to others. Hopefully 3 months, 6 months, or a year will get the editor talking. If not, no time frame will work. If we impose a year, we can always explain to him/her it can always be reversed with positive conversation...Pvmoutside (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I refer you all to the latest at User talk:Ddum5347 - this does not bode well. William Harris (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For those curious: Ddum has had their block extended for two weeks for editing logged out as an IP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
On 3 February User:Hemiauchenia suggests letting the (then one week) block expire to allow him/her to either gather enough rope or engage constructively. He/she just proved his/her utter disdain for Wikipedia norms. I quote from WP:ROPE, "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever." Craigthebirder (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Refer to JPG's lastest comment on that talk page - I believe the hangman is poised on the lever. William Harris (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
And again. William Harris (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is incredible, continuing right where they left off... FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
When I checked a few hours ago, I already thought : done dusted. Too early apparently. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody want me to deploy the ANI thread, or is it too early? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's time. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Without encroaching on the rights of other editors, it would appear that JPG has this individual on a watch list; a very closely-watched list. (And no doubt there is some admin talk behind the scenes similar to the above most-recent comments.) An opposing view might be that an ANI action from members of the Wikipedia community is all that the admins require to bring this matter to a final conclusion. William Harris (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
then lets talk to an admin. JPG is perhaps aware of this talk and thread, as I had notified them on 1 Feb. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just bring it up at ANI. The lack of communication and lack of consensus seeking seems to be the main problem. Talking about it here won't do any good. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia - are you going to file the ANI? If not, please say so, so someone else can. Ddum5347 has resumed the practices that led to this string of comments. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Craigthebirder: Just in case the ping didn't go through, it is done, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_and_disruptive_editing_by_Ddum5347. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
And so it begins.........thanks User:Hemiauchenia. William Harris (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is a habit of the user but they added a CN tag to Beaver (a FAC) even though it is sourced in the body, adding it without even trying to find a source (diff: [7]). I don't really like to get caught in these kinds of discussions but if they are meant to improve Wikipedia then I am glad to intervene here and there. Wretchskull (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Our contributor is now blocked for a further 2 weeks for edit warring. William Harris (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Now blocked indefinitely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
There wasn't much of an attempt to modify their behaviour, so probably for the better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion on his talk page about unblocking him with a no-revert restriction. - Donald Albury 21:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Am also following up. Reverting was their speciality : in 13 years, I didn't get as many revert alerts as during their tenure; and never in such short intervals: once 5 within 2 hours on the first day after their block expired. But I bet I'm not the only one. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Or yelp -- :)? Probably took me longer to control their first round of edits popping up on my watchlist than for them to place them in their usual rush. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
And now indefinitely, after violating the 0RR agreed to previously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Animal social hierarchy articles - merge?

There are (at least) three articles on animal social hierarchy, namely Dominance, Dominance hierarchy, and Pecking order. The Pecking order article is mainly about birds, but there is a strong overlap (WP:FORK?) between the articles. There are others like Alpha (ethology) which are closely related, indeed strongly overlapping in concept also, though that article is 90% a list and could easily be converted to List of alpha species or similar.

How many social hierarchy articles do people feel we should have, and if more than one, then which? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Dominance hierarchy has the most inclusive and understandable title. And I agree, all the others could be merged there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

An evaluation for on a stub article

Hi, I’m a student and new to a wikipedia editing. Currently, I’m working in a stub article called List of mammalian gestation durations. Any feedback would greatly appreciated, thanks for your time. ToastedPeanutButter (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject

Cannibalism 57,124 1,904 Start High--Coin945 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Help evaluate article on Gabon Talapoin

Hi I'm a university student editing an article on the Gabon Talapoin and I would appreciate it if anyone could take a look at the article in a few weeks time. Thank you! NoEsPu102 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The article has been expanded and any feedback or ideas would be appreciated! I will continue to work on it in the meantime NoEsPu102 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I've been working on this article Gabon Talapoin for the past semester and I think it could be deserving of a B class. Would really appreciate it if it could be assessed and thank you for taking the time to do so! NoEsPu102 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Help Evaluate My Article

Hi! I'm a university student and I'm working on the article "Anisakis Simplex" for one of my university courses. I would really appreciate it if my article could be reviewed and evaluated once I've finished writing it in a month or so. Thanks! Naksuum90 (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, my article on Anisakis simplex is ready now. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and re-evaluate its placement on the quality scale. Thanks so much --Naksuum90 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note of discussion at Wikiproject Mammals

Members may be interest in commenting on a current discussion about the time frame to be used for including extinct species on lists of mammals by location. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

  • 229 (rank) Zooid 7,418 (total) 239 (daily) Stub Low --- now Start
  • 256 Micro-animal 6,241 201 Stub Low --- is this a dab or a dicdef? It's not even a technical term. Probably says all it needs to.
  • 269 Pasture 5,979 192 Stub Unknown --- now Start, but not part of this WikiProject
  • 314 Deepstaria enigmatica 4,822 155 Stub Low --- probably correctly rated, a rarely-seen species
  • 318 Penis fencing 4,757 153 Stub Low --- now Start; we can guess why this gets so many viewings
  • 322 Ice worm 4,733 152 Stub Low --- now Start, just about (well-cited, some detail)
  • 373 Stygiomedusa 3,794 122 Stub Low --- probably just still a stub, some detail, reasonably cited, a rarely-seen group
  • 377 Nephrozoa 3,733 120 Stub Mid --- now Start
  • 392 Will to live 3,612 116 Stub Low --- now Start, but not part of this WikiProject
  • 428 Dander 3,264 105 Stub Low --- probably correctly rated, but almost a dicdef at the moment

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Coin945 The idea of such a list is a good one, though it should certainly be wikilinked and italicised (I've done that for you); its value would be enhanced by checking the ratings first, as most of them were outdated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

request for suggestions for article names - I wish to split Human–animal breastfeeding

I have written a brief note at Talk:Human-animal breastfeeding. Would anyone care to offer ideas there? Many thanks. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of first sentence of lead of Animal

There is an ongoing discussion about the wording of the first sentence of the lead section of the article "Animal" at Talk:Animal#What are animals (changes to lede)?. Project members are invited to contribute their opinions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reticularia

Can anyone help with the fossil Reticularia listed on these 11 pages? The links point to DAB page Reticularia. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a brachiopod unknown to any Wikipedia or to Wikispecies (species:Reticularia); see this entry in mindat.org; described in 1844, possibly by Frederick McCoy. The qualifier (brachiopod) would seem suitable if the name is valid. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a paleozoic fossil brachiopod genus described by M'Coy; I've added that to the disambiguation page. It'd be nice if somebody would create at least a stub for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've redlinked those 11 entries as Reticularia (brachiopod). Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
(I had thought of posting at WP:WikiProject Bivalves, but was worried that they might disdain creatures whose shells hinge in the wrong direction...) Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

CFD: Category:Notable taxidermy

Category:Notable taxidermy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for discussion. Please see discussion here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia'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 talk 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Animals

I nominated some prehistoric animals for Level 5 Vital article listing. There are also some outstanding nominations also on living animals. Would appreciate your participation in the nominations. starship.paint (exalt) 02:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Domesticated species/subspecies should not be given a conservation label of "domesticated"

The IUCN Red List does not recognize "domesticated" as a conservation category as seen here. I tried removing that label from the articles on domesticated species/subspecies but Justlettersandnumbers insists I given reliable sources but the burden of proof should be on them. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Dennis the mennis explain yourself as well. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that label, actually. We aren't restricted to IUCN codes in that field; e.g., if the status requires explanation, you will see "See text" in there. Noting domesticated status somewhere in the box makes sense and may just as well happen in that location. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes we are restricted to the IUCN, or if there is other conservation organizations. Domestication is not a conservation category anymore than being wild is. If you can't name any conservation organizations that use it as such then it is OR. LittleJerry (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that 'DOM' is not a conservation status and therefore think it NOT necessary to add these letters in the taxobox, the more so as in every lede's first sentence is explained that XY is domesticated. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to mention domesticated in the taxobox. The taxobox is an infobox (just with a peculiar history) and the purpose of infoboxes is to summarise information contained in the article. Domesticated status is an important element about these animals, so its odd to exclude this. Much of the information in the lede sentence(s) is included in the infobox as both serve the same purpose, providing a summary of important information. While the conservation agencies don't have a domesticated status, they do implicitly recognise the status by assessing the status of their wild relatives separately. And there is no problem over the issue of the information being "verifiable" (the Wikipedia requirement). —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
"Domesticated" is important enough to include in a taxobox. It gets rid of the necessity to highlight this in the article. J0ngM0ng (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Zoo

Hello, WikiProject Animals members, I am reviving WikiProject Zoo as I feel many of the zoo articles are lackluster. If anyone is interested in helping out, please do so. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to allow status=EX to insert † in the taxobox

Please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#RfC: allow status=EX to insert † in the taxobox. This would affect animal species taxoboxes like the one currently at Sturdee's pipistrelle. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that this has been implemented. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to handling of default taxobox name in Subspeciesbox

There was an inconsistency in how {{Speciesbox}} and {{Subspeciesbox}} set the name of the taxobox by default (i.e. when |name= was absent). I've revised {{Subspeciesbox}} to follow {{Speciesbox}}, i.e. to use the page name as the default (previously it used the trinomial). This means that at Dingo, for example, it's no longer necessary to put |name=Dingo. Most articles using {{Subspeciesbox}} will not have changed taxoboxes, because editors have usually specified the name parameter when the article is not at the scientific name. This is now redundant, but does no harm. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific name or common name?

There is some inconsistencies regarding if the article title should be the scientific name or the more informal common name most often used to describe an individual species. Is there a formal preference? If there is, should the titles of articles be changed? --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It actually varies from project to project. For the paleo and dino wikiprojects, it is almost also the scientific name. Same for much of the invertebrates and microbes and such. Only those animals where the vernacular name is actually the common name (i.e. tiger, lion, elephant, robin) should the vernacular be used. If the species is obscure, it is more likely to be better known by the scientific name.
Additionally, if the vernacular name is nonspecific- applies to multiple species, etc.- then it should be a disambig, with the species at scientific names. And in a few cases, species with difficult vernacular names are placed at the scientific name (i.e. Panthera pardus tulliana, a subspecies with sadly controversial vernacular names).
But in short, don't move articles if you don't know, ask at the most local wikiproject and get consensus. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Adding to the above, the common name in Wikipediaese is the name most widely (commonly) used rather than another word for vernacular (common) name. Most extinct species are known by their scientific name so an article on Tyrannosaurus is following the Wikipedia common name convention. Often an animal is known by several vernacular names and none is clearly most commonly used name. Or the vernacular name may be used for more than one animal. In these cases the scientific name is an unambiguous and neutral name for the title. See WP:FAUNA. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
There are some notable exceptions among prehistoric animals, such as many species of mammoth and others. So I guess it depends on the specific case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, I do appreciate how all of these animal names are listed down since 1757-preasent.

But because I am autistic, I can't understand their scientific or in this case, Latin, names. I would most like like to see and know all of their names listed down, with their common names only.

For example, if you see these lists of the certain animals described. And because most of them are listed down in scientific names, I would want a whole list of common names for each creature from every genus.

Insects described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Beetles described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Butterflies described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Moths described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Amphibians described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Crustaceans described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Fish described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Molluscs described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Bivalves described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Cephalopods described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Chitons described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Gastropods described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names.

Nematodes described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Reptiles described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Spiders described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

Starfish described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

It's just so that since I am working on some kind of article of Noah's Ark. So I was wondering that I would like to see all of these names listed down from all of these species described from the 18th to 20th centuries. And even if you do put their scientific or Latin names, at least have any who have common names be replaced with their common names.

Conthauberger (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)ConthaubergerConthauberger (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ Conthauberger
@Conthauberger: what your asking there is impossible for many groups, particularly of the spread you are asking. Most animals actually do not have a common name, they are only known from their scientific names. Only larger, usually mammals birds fish etc, that have been obvious have common names. When we describe species, and I have described a number, we do not propose common names, these come in through general usage. For animals that are less observable they may never get one, at least not one thats unique. There may be collective common names but these often refer to many species not one. The scientific names are actually no different to a common name, they are words, they are not always latin, they may be many languages, they are in the latin alphabet. Which is the alphabet english uses. Common names are also regional, they differ from place to place, they also have language impacts, the turtle Hydromedusa maximilliani is called the Cágado pescoço de cobra in Brazil, where it occurs, yet here on wikipedia it is called the Argentinian Snake-necked turtle. Which name is correct? I would argue that as the turtle occurs in Brazil it should be the Portuguese common name that sticks. Another one is say Elseya novaehuineae, called the New Guinea Snapping Turtle, yet it does not occur in New Guinea, its from Indonesia, so does this make sense? Your lists above include many thousands of species, and I could garuntee most do not have any common name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of described animal species don't have an English name, and even if they do, these are often used for more than one species. Very few spiders have English names, for example – and there's no reason why they would do because they are known only by specialists, like the 4,700 or so mostly very small "money spiders" (family Linyphiidae). Spiders kept as pets, like tarantulas, do have English names, but even these are not used consistently. "Mexican red knee tarantula" is used for at least three species of Brachypelma for example – one of which has now been (re)named "Mexican flame knee tarantula".
Another very important point is that except in well known groups, like birds and mammals, the scientific name is the common name (i.e. the one most commonly used). Thus I got about 11,000 Google hits for "Mexican flame knee" but 48,900 for "Brachypelma auratum". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but when i create reptile articles, if there is an english name for it, i create a redirect for the english name to the scientific name. The reptile database is usually accurate. Some animal databases may not, FYI. Birds all usually have common names, so their pages are all listed as such....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
For context's sake, Conthauberger rose the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects as well, with essentially the same response (This is what led me here). They also made a similar request at Category talk:Animals by year of formal description and here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. The latter two posts did not get any reply. Etriusus 03:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Zoologists with author abbreviations

Category:Zoologists with author abbreviations -- what is this category? I see It is also auto-populated by the {{Zoologist}} template, but that template was deleted: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Template:Zoologist. I don't really think of zoologists as having a "standard" unique abbreviation the way botanists do (hence the template being deleted), so should this category be renamed to something like Category:Taxon authorities of animals? Not sure if this is the right place to ask, thanks for any comments! Umimmak (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Category:Zoologists with author abbreviations is obviously wrongly title. Maybe Category:Authors of animal taxon names is better?

Relevant discussion

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Edit taxonomy § Pencil icon, 2022 on a proposal to change the "edit taxonomy" icon from the current to . Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Micro-animal and Microfauna

Articles of interest to this project—Micro-animal and Microfauna—have been proposed for merging with each other. If you are interested, please participate in the discussion here. Thank you. 93 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Animals in LGBT culture

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Species question

Am doing my normal thing of just clicking on "random article" and seeing where it takes me - and it took me to Horatocera. This says that it is a genus of beetles described by Lewis in 1895. A search online for further sources to add to the article turned up this which says:

"The single type specimen of Horatocera niponica var. galloisi Pic, 1932 syn. nov. represents only a colour variation of Simianus niponicus (Lewis, 1895). According to previously published synonymy of the genus Horatocera Lewis, 1895 with the genus Simianus Blanchard, 1853, fol|owing taxa are introduced in new generic combinations: Simianus niponicas (Lewis, 1895) comb. nov., S. oshimanus (Nakane, 1973) comb. nov., and S' rubricollis (Pic, 191ó) comb. nov. Homoeorhipis mesomelaena Fairmaire, 1887 is designated as the type species ofthe genus Homoeorhrpri Fairmaire, 1887."

I don't feel I know enough about this subject field to say anything about this, but it does seem to be saying that Horatocera is not actually a proper genus, is that correct? FOARP (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP: Looks like it. The Callirhipidae article cites Hajek (2011),[1] which says that Horatocera is a junior subjective synonym of Simianus (syn. nov. Emden 1931)
Unless there is something new, Horatocera should be redirect to Simianus. However, I note the species list at the latter doesn't include the two species listed under Horatocera. The list also misses some of the other species listed in the citation used (Hajek, 2011). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Hajek, J. (2011). "World catalogue of the family Callirhipidae (Coleoptera: Elateriformia), with nomenclatural notes". Zootaxa. 2914: 1–66.

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

Hello,
Please note that Turkey (bird), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia'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 talk 00:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Taxonomic changes by 67.161.6.243

67.161.6.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a rash of taxonomic edits lately to many different articles. I have concerns about their editing, because some of their edits that they were making seem like vandalism. On Caprinae, they were making edits that attributed the two species of tur, the West Caucasian tur and East Caucasian tur to the genus Brachyceros, which as far as I can tell does not exist, the term is only used as a subspecies to refer to Aurochs. They were also attributing the Markhor to the genus Aegoceros, which appears to at least exist as a genus but appears to be deprecated, and I can find only one source refering to the combination Aegoceros falconeri, which states that it is a junior synyonym from 1839. Given this, the dozens of other edits they have made to animal taxonomy articles really need to be checked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Should 'Taxa named by <zoologist>' added as a category for the zoologist?

Lately I've been adding species to categories based on who named them. I noticed two different styles regarding the categories and the zoologists. In some cases, the zoologist is added to the taxa named by them category, for example René Léon Bourret. In other cases they're not in the category, for example Arthur Adams (zoologist) & Category:Taxa named by Arthur Adams (zoologist). Sometimes the category is added to a "see also" section of the zoologist, for example Jacques Daget. Which style should be followed? --Rusentaja (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the description at Category:Taxa named by Arthur Adams (zoologist) says "Taxa named by Arthur Adams..." As he isn't a taxon named by himself, I would say the article about him definitely shouldn't be in the category. How could a category that included both taxa and a zoologist be described? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it ok to take the zoologists themselves out of the taxa categories and then creating an additional 'see also' section to their articles that has link to the taxa category? --Rusentaja (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Definitely in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge Lancelet and Cephalochordate?

Should we merge Cephalochordate into Lancelet? The latter is much better developed and covers extinct Cephalochordata as well as the extant Lancelets. Fences&Windows 06:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a merger as they do have different scope. Not all cephalochordates are lancelets, so a short article on the former makes sense, but one good article is better than two conflicting ones.
Either way, the lancelet article needs some changes. According to the lede and taxobox the lancelets are Order Amphioxiformes. The Physiology and Taxonomy section treats lancelets as Order Branchiostomiformes, but its not clear what source is used for the listing. ITIS uses Amphioxiformes and doesn't recognise genus Asymmetron. WoRMS recognises the genus but doesn't use an order and has a single family Branchiostomatidae in class Leptocardii. WoRMS also considers Amphioxus as a synonym of Branchiostoma which suggests Branchiostomiformes has priority. WoRMS is probably a better source than ITIS, but perhaps there is something better. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about boldfacing of the scientific names of organisms

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#RfC on boldfacing of scientific names in articles about organisms. The discussion should take place there, not here, in order to keep the discussion centralized. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Help with table formatting in featured article

Hi all, I brought Gigantorhynchus up to featured article, but I wonder if this new format is better or worse. Any opinions/advice welcome!

  • Old format: [8] has a small table for each species
  • New format: Gigantorhynchus has merged the tables into 2 giant tables, and added a table summarizing the number of hooks.

Thanks for your input! Mattximus (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The Photo Ark

I wrote a page for The Photo Ark and keep it updated with new info, including a section "Progress," which captures the large milestones of the project. (I also note this on each of the milestone-animal's articles)

Along comes an editor who decides without discussion that the Progress info "is relative trivia and indiscrimnate info. Wikipedia is not a vessel to promote everything Nat Geo posts, no matter how neat the content." and takes it upon themselves to delete the entire section.

This was done a while ago, but I noticed it just recently. I restored the section, and even updated it. Please add this page to your watchlists and chime in if this becomes a battle, whichever way you think it should go. Rp2006 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Animal tasks edit request

WikiProject members, please note this edit request regarding {{Animal tasks}}. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Biology: Birds

  1. American goldfinch
  2. Bald eagle
  3. Barn swallow
  4. Bird
  5. Black vulture
  6. California condor
  7. Common raven
  8. Flight feather
  9. Kākāpō
  10. Mourning dove
  11. Peregrine falcon
  12. Red-tailed black cockatoo
  13. Red-winged fairywren
  14. Splendid fairywren
  15. Superb fairywren
  16. Turkey vulture
  17. Variegated fairywren

Biology: Dinosaurs

  1. Acrocanthosaurus
  2. Albertosaurus
  3. Allosaurus
  4. Archaeopteryx
  5. Compsognathus
  6. Daspletosaurus
  7. Deinonychus
  8. Dinosaur
  9. Diplodocus
  10. Iguanodon
  11. Lambeosaurus
  12. Majungasaurus
  13. Massospondylus
  14. Parasaurolophus
  15. Stegosaurus
  16. Styracosaurus
  17. Thescelosaurus
  18. Triceratops
  19. Velociraptor

Biology: Fish

  1. Ocean sunfish
  2. Oceanic whitetip shark

Biology: Mammals

  1. Beagle
  2. Blue whale
  3. Bobcat
  4. Cougar
  5. Elk
  6. Hippopotamus
  7. Humpback whale
  8. Javan rhinoceros
  9. Knut (polar bear)
  10. Platypus
  11. Pygmy hippopotamus
  12. Thylacine

Biology: Reptile

  1. Olm

Hunting success

Hi everybody, can you please assess this article and give it a grade. 20 upper (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Lion attacks

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Lion attacks? @Jimfbleak and FunkMonk: if either of you are able to access any of the (considerable numnber of) offline sources to do a copyvio/too-close-paraphrasing check, that would really advance the effort. It appears that some citations were later retrofitted, and some sources are too old to be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I don't have any uni-type access to sources, so can't help on this. However, I see Barn swallow in the list above, one of mine, should be OK, but I'll take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I've previously marked as satisfactory at the review page, now commented on article talk too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Animal article content template

For plant articles there is a template that provides a standardised scope for the order and content, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. It specifies that for many plants information is lacking to apply the full template, and the may be good reasons to deviate from the template in specific cases. Would a standard scope for animal articles by useful as well? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with larvaceans!

I've been working on Larvacean and related articles (for which Wikipedia coverage is unfortunately very poor, espcially compared to the amount of sources about these creatures)!

The article name has been a little bit problematic. The common name is larvacean, but the scientific name is Appendicularia, with Larvacea being a junior synonym. While the page was originally at Larvacea, contradicting the lead sentence, it has been recently moved to the common name (Larvacean).

Appendicularia is where it gets a little more problematic. A plant genus also bears this name, as well as an animal genus in the class Appendicularia itself! The page has been remade into a disambiguation page, with the common name used as natural disambiguation for the class, but this was a few days before the page's name itself was moved (from Larvacea to Larvacean). In the meanwhile, a lot of articles with links to Appendicularia were disambiguated with DisamAssist and made to point to Larvacea, creating a clunky situation where piped links point to a redirect through a junior synonym.

I've fixed a few of these links when I found them, but is there a way to automate the process? (changing [[Larvacea|Appendicularia]] to [[Larvacean|Appendicularia]])

PS: If anyone wants to help with larvaceans, tunicates or even non-vertebrate chordates in general, I'd be down to create a task force for it! Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling all nematode taxonomists

In the course of a humdinger of a cleanup operation, I came across the article Pinworm (parasite). Second in the species list in the infobox is Enterobius atelis, which doesn't seem to appear in the cited reference, and in the NCBI taxonomy browser it appears to be Trypanoxyuris atelis instead. According to Hugot et al. (1996) and Solórzano-García et al. (2015), T. atelis was originally placed in the genus Enterobius back in 1929 and the classification has changed at least twice in the interim. I'm a theoretical physicist and shouldn't be the one who sorts this out. Any suggestions? XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Socks (cat) naming ambiguity

An editor has requested that Socks (cat) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fossorials!

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have just created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Fossorials. If you can, please join, as we are in desperate need of members! Fossorials are animals that spend much of their time underground, so if you are interested, please join!

Thank you, UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Man-eater#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Man-eater#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at List of wealthiest animals

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of wealthiest animals#Disputed worth, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (chat!) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

review of coverage of animal sounds

I quite like listening to Audio content iconaudio in Wikipedia articles, so I thought I'd take a look at how our coverage of the audible side of Animalia is doing. Putting it here since the media wikiproject is inactive. — Arlo James Barnes 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

current status

  • list of animal sounds  List — de-facto main page for the topic, unfortunately has an unintuitive organisation; see also list of onomatopoeias § Animal and bird noises List
  • vertebrates
  • inverts

suggestion for reorganisation (will continue to revise)

discussion

There are quite a few other pages in category:animal sounds —   Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the ones you highlighted. I'll take a look at the some of the others tomorrow. — Arlo James Barnes 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fancy group names & misinformation from reliable sources

Some species or groups of animals have commonly accepted group names. Think of a "flock" of birds or a "pack" of wolves. Others, like a "murder" of crows or a "clowder" of cats are less well known, but firmly supported by major dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary. However, I'm dealing with a problem involving unsupported and even fake group names circulating on the internet that are now finding their way into "reliable" sources. Allow me to explain. And sorry in advance for the length of the post.

The group that concerns me is lemurs. Years ago, I was a major editor here, writing extensively about lemurs and their relatives, taking my work all the way to FA status. Having not only collected vasts amounts of information about them for the Wiki articles, I also worked with lemurs professionally, both in research and as a zookeeper. Therefore, I knew it was commonly accepted that a group of lemurs was called a "troop," just like all other primates. However, none of my copious sources explicitly came out and said this basic fact. After all, most lemur species don't live in large groups. Without a source explicitly stating it, I was unable to include this detail into the Lemur or Ring-tailed lemur articles. Yet there are many published works that use the term "troop," not only in their title, but also in their text. On Google Scholar, there are zero results that show "conspiracy" used for lemurs. But again, without someone explicitly stating that "a group of lemurs is called a 'troop,'" I was unable to include the information.

In the years since, the internet and social media have done what they do best: spread misinformation. A new term for a group of lemurs, a "conspiracy," has started to dominate popular culture. There are now dozens of blogs and other informal (but fancy looking) websites that make it look official that a group of lemurs is called a conspiracy. All of them feed on each other, parroting one another's term use and explanations without due diligence.

The worst and most troubling offender is the BBC, which published an an article that not only backed up these claims, but also parroted some of the websites by claiming that the term originates from a book called "The Book of Hawking, Hunting and Blasing of Arms" from 1486, also known as Book of Saint Albans. The obvious problem is that lemurs were not known to Europeans back then, and they weren't even named "lemurs" until 1758, when they were formally described by Carl Linnaeus. I wrote to the BBC recently asking for a correction, but because the article is older than 30 days, their policy is to let the misinformation that they published remain online. This allows it to be used as a reference on Wikipedia since the BBC is considered a reliable source. In fact, it has already been used at least once as a bloated footnote for the relevant and mostly unsourced article Collective noun.

This problem with the lemur group name is widening. Search "group of lemurs is called" on any major search engine, and they will all return "conspiracy" in large, bold letters. Yet from what I can tell after hours of combing the web, the name might have started with a 2007 Reddit post or shortly before. In the years that followed, it spread like wildfire on social media and through blogs.

I would like to address this in the lemur articles, and I think wider action should be taken as a part of this project. I've tackled a problem like this before when another respected Wikipedia editor and I worked with Colin Groves to publish an article with lemur etymologies. In it, we debunked decades of speculation about the origin of the term "lemur." At the time, we found the primary source (in Latin, by Linnaeus) that contradicted all the sources that came after. However, since Wiki doesn't allow us to use primary sources to override decades of published, reliable secondary sources—despite their obvious errors—I needed a peer-reviewed, reliable secondary source. But for today's case with "conspiracy," I don't have the means to do this. A simple group name won't merit a published rebuttal.

While I'm still filing complaints with the BBC over their article, I have little hope of having it corrected. I can, however, cite Merriam-Webster, which does define a "troop" as a "a flock of mammals or birds." In other words, it's a general term. However, I feel I'll be powerless to stop someone else from hopping on and adding "conspiracy" with a citation pointed at the BBC (like search engines). Edit wars will inevitably ensue.

What can we do, not just for the lemur articles, but also for other animal group names that were probably included in this mess of misinformation based on some jokester's whim from pre-2007? Is there any way we can ban that single "reliable" BBC source?

Personally, I have issues with its reliability from a second standpoint: it's practically a children's article. Its "Newsround" section is included with others such as "Games" and "Puzzles." Over-simplified (and factually incorrect) children's material shouldn't be used as a sole reliable source for academic Wikipedia articles.

Other thoughts?

Sorry for the long post. I like to be thorough and clear. —Maky (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I was recently in a conversation about raccoons, when the topic of a collective noun for them came up. I searched Google for "name for a group of racoons", and Google suggested brace/gaze/smack/committee/nursery/troop. The first webpage result was a wildlife control blog that stated that the internet will tell you that "nursery" or "gaze" are terms. The blog post went on to mention the Book of Saint Albans, and notes that raccoons wouldn't be mentioned in the book. There are a lot of dubious collective nouns for various animals. The Book of Saint Albans may provide a baseline for some "real" (albeit fanciful and actually little-used) collective nouns for some animals. The Internet (circa 2007 or any other date) is only going to spew out more fanciful and little-used collective nouns. Plantdrew (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem... a very broad problem. The BBC article mentioned above lists wildebeests, giraffes, and others that couldn't have been known to Europeans in the 15th century. I'm glad others have seen this issue, too. The question is, how do we deal with it? Again, for the lemur articles, I can add a general reference to Merriam-Webster, but that's tenuous since it doesn't mention lemurs. I could pick a random research article that talks about lemur "troops," even if it doesn't say explicitly that "troop" is the correct word, but that won't stop someone from adding "conspiracy" and pointing to that horrible BBC article. It might help if someone could fix up the Collective noun article, but finding sources might be a pain. Once again, so many sources point to the Book of Saint Albans, but we can't debunk that because it would be original research. —Maky (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There comes a point where a word is used widely and it become part of the language. This might be a case.
I did a Google search with a restricted date range. There is nothing before 2008 (1990-2008). The earliest result I could find was a result on slideshare dated August 2008. However this contains an advertisement for a book published in 2023 so not a use of the term. The first result for the collective noun is in 2011 (search), which picks up an article on BuzzFeed, 36 Bizarre Group Names For Animals, which just has a few selected examples with no sourcing. In the years that follow it becomes more widespread, well before the article on CBBC.
The book I mentioned in the ad is called A Conspiracy of Lemurs, which is an autobiography by the woman who set up the Lemur Conservation Foundation, and she uses the term as a collective noun in this interview. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no control over this; we simply add what the sources say, even if they are factually incorrect. The term's debunking will take time. We can wait for more reliable secondary sources to disprove the term in the interim. To put it succinctly, nothing can be done. When something lacks credible sources, we shouldn't include it, in my opinion. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 11:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It is not a good solution, but I think it is better than any alternative.
In the Bronx Zoo article, I'm quite sure there is false information, but false information is what was reported by the supposedly reliable sources (probably because it made a more attention getting headline). See Talk:Bronx Zoo/Archive 1#Snouted cobra vs Egyptian cobra. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think most of these "group terms" are silly and virtually nobody uses them in reality. I would ignore them as much as I can. I am pleasantly surprised that our Wikipedia articles reflect that reality (List of animal names#Usage of collective nouns; Collective noun#Terms of venery).
As others have said, at Wikipedia we should be concerned with verifiability, not truth, so we can't necessarily ignore a "reliable" source such as the BBC. However, we also have a concept of undue weight. I would point to the references in List of animal names#Usage of collective nouns as establishing that terms like "a conspiracy of lemurs" have little real-world importance, and it would be undue weight to discuss them unless they are routinely used in sources that are specifically concerned with lemurs. Ucucha (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals/Archive_13&oldid=1259717957"