Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 14

973: 1551:), so it would make sense to have an article on the extant subspecies. However, I wonder how easy it would be to separate the information on the species and subspecies. I also have a problem with the names Indonesian Javan rhino and Vietnamese Javan rhino. I doubt these were ever common names used for the animals. They seem more adjectival qualifications for extinct mainland rhinos that are now assigned to the Javan rhino species (i.e. Javan rhinos in Vietnam and Indonesia). If they weren't extinct outside Java, this rhino would have a different name (e.g. Lesser one-horned rhino). 1816: 1309: 31: 2243:"In 2023, wolves have been detected across all EU Member States except Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, and there are breeding packs in 23 countries. In this analysis, about 20,300 wolves have been estimated in 2023 across the EU, a figure slightly higher than the 19,400 wolves estimated by Boitani et al. (2022) and significantly higher than the 11,193 wolves estimated in 2012. Overall, the number of wolves in the EU is increasing." 231: 558: 251: 2274: 1877: 1846: 1787: 1756: 1725: 1684: 1653: 1371: 688: 2588:

Looks like all of the additions don't meet the current standard for being added to their family/order lists (e.g. IUCN and ASM agree on a change from MSW3), though I need to check the non de novo species as well as double-check the moonrats. (I did catch the IUCN updates last month). If I'm wrong and

2575:

species are the easiest to deal with, as they generally don't have any impact on other articles, other than adding them to lists, so I looked for those, first. Splits and lumps are the more difficult changes to deal with, as the existing articles will need a fine attention to details. Moves from one

1036:

You can modify the Petscan search to exclude articles with other specified WikiProject banners; I went with bears for the example because I'm confident those won't be tagged for cats/dogs/horses (but individual bears might be tagged for a project with a geographic focus). If Petscan is being used to

3253:

I've went ahead and made edits. If no taxonomic authority supports NA grizzly bear synonymy, and since Miller et al. 2006 does not perform an explicit taxonomic revision, I would argue it is misleading to present the synonymy as a done deal. Better to explain that things are uncertain at the moment

1533:

discusses recent genetic analyses and concluded there are only three subspecies. It doesn't mention the Chobe black rhino. Given it is extinct or has "only one surviving specimen in Botswana", it seems unlikely that there will be enough material for a substantial article, even if the subspecies is

1443:

in Google searches (for the scientific name as well as "hairy-nosed" and "bristle-faced") uses "bristle-faced free-tailed bat" as a header and "hairy-nosed freetail bat" in running text ("hairynose" would be a parallel construction to "freetail"; using an -ed adjective for one term, but not another

2022:

to species status. The study includes an analysis of mitochondial and nuclear DNA and used morphological and biographical considerations as part of their decision. In part, it confirms earlier studies so is likely to be accepted. It also discusses the conservation and green status, so there may be

861:

I've added WikiProject Mammal banners to newly-created articles I've come across on individual animals and breeds that don't fall under any existing subproject, but I don't think anybody has made a systematic effort to tag all possibly relevant individuals and breeds for WikiProject Mammals. There

855:

My inclination is to not add WikiProject Mammal banners to individual animals (or breeds) that could fall under a subproject (cats, dogs, equines, cetaceans, primates, rodents, bats). I think most of the editors who participate in WikiProject Dogs are interested in canids in general, so the wolves

177:

Given the information present, the two articles shouldn't be merged at all. The present situation at the species article was a result of an incomplete split in Sep 2021, where the information on extinct species and related genera remained untouched in the species article. I have now edited both

2069:

Arlo Hinckley, Miguel Camacho-Sanchez, Marcus A H Chua, Manuel Ruedi, Darrin Lunde, Jesús E Maldonado, Hasmahzaiti Omar, Jennifer A Leonard, Melissa T R Hawkins, An integrative taxonomic revision of lesser gymnures (Eulipotyphla: Hylomys) reveals five new species and emerging patterns of local

1596:

I would say that they are slightly beyond stubs, so acceptable as the status quo. However, I don't think they are that useful as they are or have much scope for future expansion, so I'd oppose their creation if they didn't already exist. A merger with appropriate expansion of the taxonomy and

1438:

So "freetail bat" vs. "free-tailed bat" (vs. "freetail-bat" as IUCN has it) is one issue, and "bristle-faced" vs "hairy-nosed" is another. This species was only described in 2008, which I don't think is necessarily enough time for a single vernacular name to have become well-established. One

3199:

suggested that previous subspecies definitions of non-ABC Islands bears didn't line up with mtDNA, but made no specific synonymizations. I'm not aware of other recent works that explicitly support lumping of North American bear subspecies (but please link them if you know of any).

3212:, but in the SOM acknowledged Miller et al. 2006 and highlighted that further work on grizzly bear taxonomy is needed. Personally, I think that the subspecies should be treated as separate here unless there's explicit support for lumping in the literature. What do you all think? 1525:

Subspecies are not automatically considered notable the way the project assumes for species. However, they can be given articles when there is sufficient material to split them from the species article. There are quite a few subspecies articles for the charismatic big mammals.

867:

I'm not opposed to tagging individual wolves for WikiProject Mammals (in addition to Dogs), but if individuals are considered in scope, there are a bunch of articles out there that haven't been tagged for any WikiProject (to pick one example, the individual giant panda

1510:

The Javan one should be redirected to the species article. With all other groups extinct it is the only extant sub-species, and it would take significant work to generate something specific enough that it would make sense to split it off into a sub-article.

1556:

In short, while subspecies articles could be justified, there is no value in having stub articles. If the main species articles are expanded and the subspecies sections get too large, then a split could be in order. However, this seems unlikely to happen.

3115:

links to this page if all three of the id, genus and species parameters are included as that should be a permalink. The genus+species variant without the id (option 2) is quicker with a better output, but would break if they changed the genus assignment.

2155:

and left a disambiguation in its place, and updated a bunch of templates and listicles. Whew! That was fun. XD I only tagged some of the listicles as needing an update. I may get back to them later, but I wouldn't be upset if someone else fixed them. -

1426:

There are a fair number of bat species with scientific names as titles. Many bats (and rodents) didn't have any proposed vernacular/common names prior to the publication of Mammal Species of the World. The article on the family Molossidae is titled

2789:

Yeah, so if you'd said "I have time, should I? I would have said go ahead. Please comment on yours that you support merging in the info from my proposal, since there are some additional fields I included, and some that we filled in differently. -

2551:

I note that the species list above only includes de novo new species. There are another 38 extra species due to splits and one "revalidation". There are also some lumps. The list of changes can be got from the "Diff_v1.11-v1.12.csv" file at

1410:

Most mammal species are placed at their common name, but unusually this one is not, as various common names exist. But it should be possible to go with the most widespread one, which appears to be hairy-nosed Freetail Bat. Any thoughts?

129:

If a genus has only one extant and several extinct species, it's not unprecented to have a separate article for the genus, but its also common for there only to be an article about the extant species with the genus being a redirect.

144:

Indeed. Basically, if there's enough data that is unique and distinct for multiple articles, then we probably should have multiple articles. If there isn't any available data to have multiples, then we should probably have one. -

2222:

needs a bit of actualization. However, we do not necessarily need to remove something to add more updated information. We could showcase the progress (or decreases) made by wolf populations with estimates of populations by time.

1908:

If any members have access to the handbook and are willing to share it, I would deeply appreciate it. I'm currently working on trying to improve the bat articles and I think the handbook would be a great reference to have.

2657:

I'll request on Wikidata. I was going to do one for IRNMG, but because that is an interim solution, the previous request was already denied. MDD should be permanent, so should be easier to get through. But yay, thanks! -

984:). Note that the search terms are on two different tabs, "Categories" (depth=2, categories=Individual bears) and "Templates&links" (has none of these templates=WikiProject Mammals, use talk pages instead=checked). 898:

the tag for sure as they treats mammals reintroduction (as a general example of mammalian reintroduction]]. I might make a list of some individual animals like Bao Bao, who got no WikiProjects Related tags. To see. :)

2250:

I'm particularly busy with time. But I felt important to share this updated source that covers most European countries, so that one or many members could help out updating this article, in a cooperative manner. Thank

1904:

I am currently in search of the "Handbook of the Mammals of the World, Vol. 9 - Bats" to aid in improving related articles. Unfortunately, due to the high cost, obtaining a copy has proven challenging for me.

2538:

It would be nice, but we can at least create the articles for new species. New species would need fresh assessments before the IUCN will list them; splits could use the subspecies assessment, if it exists. -

1495:

If nothing better than that is offered, I don't think they're warranted. It should theoretically be possible to write long enough articles about them that would justify splitting, but those sure aren't that.

260:

Moles of this genus varies in sizes. Kawada (2016) made a morphological revision of the Japanese mountain mole and proposed the actual position of this species (then known as Euroscaptor mizura) in

2951:, which will work identically, but I've updated the code to fix options that were broken when they changed the website. I thought thus was a good to to create a dedicated template with a 1627: 1266:

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.

1002:

Thank you for sharing this asset. It will certainly help. However, as you said in an earlier, most pages on individuals animals have multiples projects related to them. For instance,

1936: 2023:

IUCN assessments in the pipeline. While we should wait on acceptance elsewhere before creating new articles, a mention of the proposal in existing articles is probably warrranted.

1214:

Quality assessments by Knowledge editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at

2836:

redirects to the proposal page. I have a bunch of new Species Files that need an ID. Do you know if there is a method to make a bulk request or must all be done separately? —

1252:

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass

580:

First sentence should be cited and "varies in size", not "varies in sizes", but otherwise it looks fine. I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to ask about that addition.

1330: 2642:

It would be better to request an identifier on Wikidata, but my experience trying this was shall we just say discouraging. This works until someone sets it up on Wikidata.—

819: 2723:

Errr... nope. Not that, either. I know I was going to request a property, but it was already declined. Ah well. I'll put in a proposal for MDD when I have the time. -

630:). The whole paragraph cite Kawada's study. I could remove the first sentence and add a citation after the 2 sentences ( which included 8 species of the genus Mogera. 1037:

find cats/dogs/horses that aren't tagged for ANY project, I'd certainly set the search criteria to exclude the cat/dog/equine (and horse racing) WikiProject banners.

638:

I don't know why, thinking of it. Lol. Maybe fear of it being too precise and "copying a study" (by taking a few morphological data informations) was the thing. lol.

1014:

there are a bunch of articles out there that haven't been tagged for any WikiProject (to pick one example, the individual giant panda (Bao Bao), and it '''<u: -->

2576:

genus to another (or from subgenus to genus) are somewhere in the middle. And yup, I'm looking directly at the CSV, too. I did the download from the MDD website. -

1988: 2247:

There are multiples pertinents tables and figures in this documents (such as table 2.2.1, figure 2.3.1, table 2.4.1 (NOTABLY), table 2.4.2 (Notably), and others)

1337:

in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

1219: 72: 67: 59: 2016:

species of soft-furred hedgehogs (gymnures) making the news today. The paper describes two new species from museum species and elevates three subspecies of

886:

Thanks much for your reply ! I agree with you on the priorization of pages that do not have any projects related/attached to them, like you said as an example

274:. Some information from this study on their head-body length and tail length (in millimeters) and their weight (in grams) are presented in the table below. 3258:

recovered Kodiak and Alaskan Peninsula bears as within a Eurasian clade and separate from other North American bears entirely) and further work is needed.

1529:

Some authorities recognise 6-8 subspecies of black rhino, e.g. MSW3 recognises six including the Chobe black rhino. However, a 2020 IUCN assessment of the

1863: 2301:

It's been live for a few days now. I meant to post here about this earlier. There are 115 deltas from 1.11 to 1.12, including the following new species:

1351: 2219: 1390: 1007: 2820:

Use Mac's proposal. That's in the right spot. I saw that when I was about to transclude into the proposal project, so I came here with my WTF. -

2805:

Anyway, we shouldn't add the manual parameters for now, as this identifier should get approved and the manual parameters would need deleting. —

594:

Thank you for the quick reply. "Moles of this genus varies in size", it's not said/implied in the study but you see that there is "2 groups" of

1987:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1823:. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. 1626:

has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the

1853: 1839: 732: 203: 168: 119: 2231: 106:

is the only extant member of the genus, though other species were once included here and there are also several fossil species included here

811: 1239:

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to

2175:

I see you have already created the articles, but I thought it worth noting here than the ASM-MDD now recognise the extra five species of

1935:

has been nominated at RfD, and the discussion would benefit from input from those with knowledge of the subject area. Please comment at

1705: 947:

I will do a large survey of individual animals and update this later. You could find my progress in one of my many (and messy) sandbox.

895: 831: 1249:, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories. 2780: 2750: 1820: 1325: 1003: 815: 47: 17: 917:& , and i found that, along with Bao Bao, these pandas had either no wikiproject attached or in some, even existing talk pages : 2281: 2267: 1469: 1243: 1230: 3101: 237:

part of the intro in a new section "Description", by that I mean moving this to the section "Description" that would be erected :

2510: 3282: 3082: 3035: 3001: 2833: 2095: 1539: 977: 823: 1236:, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. 664:

yes. Thank you for noting this. I looked it up afterwards on google and depending on the circumstances, one of the two applies.

862:

are articles on individuals (not just mammals) tagged for WikiProject Animals that could be refined to a more precise project.

2680:

I think an identifier for MDD was requested early on but there was an issue with their permalinks. The current links of form

1319: 872:), and it would be more productive to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some. 2776: 2746: 2742: 2405: 1386: 1215: 157:

Thank you both for your swift replies! I'll leave it alone for now; I don't feel confident enough to carry out a merge.

1476:. Each of these drafts is a two-sentence stub. My question is whether identified subspecies are considered notable 92:

Hi, and hope you're well. Under what conditions should the genus and its only species share an article? For example,

652:"Moles of this genus vary in size" would be most correct. Subject = Moles, so must match verb to the plural noun. - 2230:

in the European Union – An In-depth Analysis. A report of the N2K Group for DG Environment, European Commission." (

2152: 1991:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1630:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1334: 38: 1473: 3070: 2470: 1485: 981: 925: 197: 162: 113: 2214:

Wolf Populations from Blanco and Sundseth (2023). The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union.

1440: 3189: 3160:

There's a conflict on Knowledge regarding how many subspecies of grizzly bear there are. The intro text on the

2485: 1996: 1548: 1174: 750:"Morphological review of the Japanese mountain mole (Eulipotyphla, Talpidae) with the proposal of a new genus" 2760: 1702: 3173: 2529: 2480: 2475: 2465: 2395: 2350: 2345: 1691: 1677: 1516: 1382: 930: 585: 3267: 3248: 3221: 3147: 3128: 2920: 2908: 2882: 2858: 2846: 2827: 2815: 2797: 2784: 2770: 2754: 2730: 2718: 2706: 2694: 2665: 2652: 2602: 2583: 2566: 2546: 2533: 2445: 2310: 2291: 2260: 2203: 2191: 2163: 2124: 2052: 2000: 1971: 1967: 1948: 1921: 1894: 1832: 1804: 1773: 1742: 1732: 1718: 1711: 1670: 1639: 1635: 1607: 1587: 1567: 1520: 1505: 1489: 1453: 1420: 1394: 1293: 1275: 1203: 1071: 1046: 1031: 993: 956: 908: 881: 849: 704: 673: 659: 647: 589: 574: 207: 187: 172: 152: 139: 135: 123: 2952: 2898:. I've added a couple on Wikidata for testing, but it will need a bot to update other mammal species. — 2671: 2425: 2380: 2375: 1695: 1432: 1256: 3196: 2450: 3228: 2983:{{cite mdd|id=1005993|title=''Leopardus colocola'' (G. I. Molina, 1782) |access-date=8 December 2023}} 1062:

Ah, that make much more sense. Yes, it would be way easier that way. Thank you very much, Plantdrew😊

3201: 3177: 2455: 2385: 2365: 2340: 2148: 1481: 1078: 914: 837:

If they are, they should be assessed or at least been given "the project have yet to rate this page"

193: 158: 109: 2495: 2435: 2410: 2325: 1992: 1944: 1623: 1617: 1449: 1042: 989: 891: 877: 827: 3204:

provisionally considered at least the California grizzly bear as a distinct subspecies, following

246:

in having one fewer pairs of lower incisors and in having larger hind premolars in the lower jaw.

3263: 3217: 2917: 2855: 2824: 2794: 2767: 2727: 2715: 2703: 2662: 2580: 2543: 2525: 2507: 2460: 2335: 2330: 2288: 2200: 2160: 2138: 1917: 1891: 1860: 1801: 1770: 1739: 1667: 1583: 1512: 1501: 1416: 1271: 656: 581: 149: 3231:

still recognized 14 extant subspecies, and the text seems to imply that two extinct subspecies (

3102:

https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Leopardus&species=garleppi&id=1005995

1308: 3181: 3168:) directly contradicts the page's taxobox (which treats all non-ABC Islands NA bears as being 3143: 3124: 3109: 2937: 2904: 2892: 2842: 2811: 2690: 2648: 2621: 2562: 2490: 2440: 2320: 2315: 2256: 2187: 2120: 2048: 2038: 1963: 1631: 1603: 1597:

conservation sections could improve the main article, even though it is a featured article. —

1563: 1378: 1364: 1289: 1199: 1067: 1027: 952: 904: 845: 729: 700: 669: 643: 570: 183: 131: 3195:

The approach should certainly be consistent across pages, but what approach should be taken?

2635:. If there is more than one wikidata item add the number to the parameter, e.g. for the lion 1016:''' to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some. 723: 3244: 3209: 2589:

any of these match up with our slow/conservative friends at the IUCN, please let me know! --

2415: 2355: 2042:. This has been accepted by the MDD (Apr 2023), but hasn't been implemented on Knowledge. — 1575: 761: 2070:

endemism in Tropical East Asia, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023;, zlad177,

3137:(where $ 1=ID) which open the species info page rapidly. The template has been updated. — 3105:

where the genus and species parts don't do anything and only the third id part is needed.

2946: 2596: 2430: 2176: 2083: 2018: 1828: 1794: 1780: 1660: 1646: 1428: 790: 100: 3017:{{cite mdd|id=1005993|genus=Leopardus |species=colocolo' |access-date=8 December 2023}} 2420: 2400: 2390: 1940: 1445: 1192: 1038: 999: 985: 873: 1435:" is the only article that has "freetail" in the title rather than "free-tailed bat"). 749: 3276: 3259: 3255: 3213: 2914: 2852: 2821: 2791: 2764: 2724: 2712: 2700: 2699:

Um... not IRMNG... I misspoke but can't remember the ID db that I Was thinking of. -

2659: 2577: 2540: 2504: 2370: 2360: 2285: 2197: 2170: 2157: 1913: 1888: 1857: 1798: 1767: 1736: 1664: 1579: 1530: 1497: 1412: 1344: 1267: 653: 242: 146: 3161: 3139: 3120: 2900: 2838: 2807: 2686: 2644: 2558: 2252: 2183: 2132: 2116: 2044: 1932: 1599: 1559: 1285: 1195: 1063: 1023: 963: 948: 900: 841: 696: 665: 639: 566: 179: 974:

Here is a search for individual bears that don't have a WikiProject Mammals banner

1821:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists

3240: 3023: 2989: 2681: 2027: 1959: 1884: 1870: 1402: 262: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2591: 2032: 1824: 1465: 1184: 940: 2503:

Looks like about a third of the list already have at least a stub created! -

2071: 3134: 3059:

parameters, which links to the treeview page and opens the species infobox.

2832:

Now I might understand the system. I hadn't noticed that the edit option on

1984: 1978: 1763: 1749: 1179: 1020:

as of now, i found that these pages have no wikiproject and/or talk pages :

94: 3064:*{{cite mdd|genus=Leopardus |species=colocola|access-date=8 December 2023}} 1010:, but not all. And we said, we'd prioritize those without any wikiprojects. 3172:

and lists the rest as "former subspecies now synonymized"). The pages for

2943:, for citing ASM Mammalian Diversity Database. It uses the same module as 230: 1537:

There are subspecies articles on the two extinct Javan rhino subspecies,

765: 3164:

page (which mentions other North American brown bear subspecies besides

2273: 1876: 1845: 1786: 1755: 1724: 1683: 1652: 1370: 1323:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the 1281:

Could you post an example of a page with this ? That's not very clear...

270:

with 17 other species of talpids, which included 8 species of the genus

2143: 2012: 935: 920: 887: 869: 250: 2553: 222: 1937:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 25#Pan-Primates

1854:

Talk:Sir David's long-beaked echidna#Requested move 11 November 2023

1840:

Talk:Sir David's long-beaked echidna#Requested move 11 November 2023

1079:

User:Gimly24/sandbox#Individual_Animals_with_no_WikiProject_Attached

633:

I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to ask about that addition

266:. In this study, the author presented and compared morphometrics of 3188:, while the pages for other North American brown bears, as well as 1837: 1431:, and many species have "free-tailed bat" as part of their title (" 794: 2282:

Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024

2268:

Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024

1300:

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

3205: 807:

What about repopulations and reintroductions of mammals pages ?

798: 2802:

Which location is the correct place to put an initial proposal?

2226:

In "Blanco JC and Sundseth K (2023). The situation of the wolf

1480:, or whether they should be left as redirects to the species. 1171:

Oh, and these three pages should be in this WikiProject ASAP :

969: 240:"Moles in this genus differ from Old World moles in the genus 25: 2272: 1900:

Request: Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol. 9 - Bats

1875: 1844: 1785: 1754: 1723: 1682: 1651: 1369: 1307: 1218:, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent 722:

Jo, Yeong-Seok; Baccus, John T.; Koprowski, John L. (2018).

1299: 2929:

New citation template for ASM Mammalian Diversity Database

2775:

Sorry about that (you did say "when I have the time"...),

1133:

Specific mammal(s) or groups of mammals related (29 pages)

2684:

look stable and load fast (unlike a previous version). —

2238:

Updated information on wolf numbers in the European Union

804:

Are they subject to assessments by WikiProject:Mammals ?

728:. National Institute of Biological Resources. pp. 91–93. 3099:

There is a quirk in that their permalink has a url like

2284: