Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Mammals (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Felidae#Requested move 25 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation of links to Woodland caribou[edit]

Could you help to disambiguate links to Woodland caribou? There are over 40 articles with links shown in this list. Any help to sort out which should go to Boreal woodland caribou or Migratory woodland caribou or both (using the format at WP:INTDAB) would be great.— Rod talk 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reindeer articles are undergoing a large amount of change with regards to species/subspecies/populations. I think fixing those dab links right now would be more of a problem than a solution. I don't think it's going to be a simple task to sort out which should point where. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the pages Boreal woodland caribou and Migratory woodland caribou the terms apply to the subspecies Rangifer tarandus caribou and a migratory population within it, in which case Woodland caribou should be a redirect to Boreal woodland caribou. In the revisions to the subspecies section of reindeer, the Woodland caribou is Rangifer caribou, following the new classification. If we are to follow this new classifcation then Woodland caribou should be an article for the new species rather than a disambiguation page.
I wonder if the change to the classification is too soon, before it is picked up by secondary sources; the ASM still recognise only one species of reindeer. The proposal was published in August 2022 and the changes are being made by the author of that paper without prior discussion. Lee Harding is opening about his identity and as a new Wikipedia editor probably isn't fully aware of the Wikipedia procedures. The taxonomy changes seem reasonable and the ASM are pretty quick, so perhaps this will soon be a moot point. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks both for the additional info. I have no expertise in this area, so will leave you to sort out the dab page links when the time is right and changes are appropriate.— Rod talk 17:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, the ASM have already seen the Harding et al (2022) proposal and this is what they say

"Harding (2022) suggested splitting R. tarandus into the following 6 species: groenlandicus (Greenland), platyrhynchus (Svalbard), caribou (much of Boreal Canada including the Ungava Peninsula), arcticus (tundra and boreal forests in Alaska, north and west Canada, and the Queen Elizabeth Islands), tarandus (east Siberian tundra and mountains of Scandanavia), and fennicus (eastern Europe to the Altai Mountains); this arrangement is tentatively not followed here, although it may be included upon rexamination"

So it's not currently flagged for review but they haven't ruled it out. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary[edit]

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
Kept to
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
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[edit]

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) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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

Updating List of mammal genera and global scale species ![edit]

Hello everyone,

"There are currently 1,258 genera, 156 families, 27 orders, and around 5,937 recognized living species of mammal." - Intro line of the linked page

The MDD Databases (Mammal Diversity Database) posted since 2018 complete and up-to dates information of all species of mammals. There have been 10 versions released to date, the last being released December 3rd 2022[1]. They recensed 6615 species of mammals (6514 extant and a sample of 101 extinct) and 1347 genera. That's 89 genera higher that what is stated in the intro sentence ! Yes, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (1993 ?) and the Mammal Species of the World (2005) are very good and outstandingly made, but they are quite old... especially the former. The MDD Database has a terrific amount of information and also kept tabs on the changes since Mammals of the world (2005) by showing the differences between now and then. In only 2 years from now, Mammals of the world will be 20 years old. 18 years old and 30 years old isn't quite the definition of up-to-date...

I built up with advices of @UtherSRG the whole MDD Version 1.10 list of mammals taxonomy, classificating them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal genera where i went by :

Genus (for which i gave the numbers of species featured in the file each time)

I also started documenting and making comments as to what should be changed, what not and what's new, see Akodon for instance :

MDD V.1.10 (42 species) --- > Wikipedia genus page of Akodon features 41 species or "species" of Akodon.

Akodon baliolus (NOT PRESENT) (Split from A. aerosus)
Akodon diauarum (NOT PRESENT) (Described in 2022)
Akodon josemariarguedasi (NOT PRESENT) (Described in 2013)
Akodon kadiweu (NOT PRESENT) (Described in 2021)
Akodon kotosh (NOT PRESENT) (Described in 2016)
Akodon oenos (NOT PRESENT) (Described in 2000)
Akodon polopi (Present but do not have a page)
Akodon glaucinus (Not a species, and do not have a page either) [Not a species in the MDD Version 1.10, treated as a junior synonym of A. simulator]
Akodon molinae (Not a species) [Not a species in the MDD Version 1.10, treated as a junior synonym of A. dolores]
Akodon neocenus (Not a species) [Not a species in the MDD Version 1.10, treated as a junior synonym of A. dolores]
Akodon serrensis [Akodon serrensis synonymized with Habrothrix angustidens (named from fossil material) as Castoria angustidens; moved from Akodon to the recently described genus Castoria]
Akodon tartareus (Not a species, and do not have a page either) [Not a species in the MDD Version 1.10, treated as a junior synonym of A. simulator]

On these, i noted that i would comment further the lumps or genus changes later.

Aswell, I commented the information given on what is and what isn't species for the majority of the species and "species" featured at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species with the reference to the MDD Version 1.10. I only added comments to it for now, changing/removing/adding nothing else.

I just wanted to let people know this. Thanks much. Also, see Talk:List of mammal genera. Gimly24 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Upham, Nathan; Burgin, Connor; Widness, Jane; Liphardt, Schuyler; Parker, Camila; Becker, Madeleine; Rochon, Ingrid; Huckaby, David (3 December 2022). "Mammal Diversity Database (1.10) [Data set]" (Data Set). Zenodo. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7394529. Retrieved 17 January 2023.

Problem with this page : List of heaviest land mammals[edit]

Seems like someone or somehow this page information was duplicated in the page (see table of contents)

However, the top table has 53 sources and the bottom one 43 sources...

I'm a bit busy at the moment. Could someone give it a look ?

Thank you :) P-S : I think [| think this edit is the culprit] Gimly24 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed and done. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article, which I'm having trouble assessing. I think that this may be both extensive and topical enough to make sense as an expansion of Tiger#Reproduction and life cycle, if accompanied by a little culling of both articles. frWP (whence it was translated) seems to be happy with the same setup ([1], [2]). Thoughts? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this. Maybe the addition of a link to the page (detailed article : see Life cycle of the tiger) style would be nice. Of course, it would need to be done correctly. My first language is french and I like this section of the french article a lot !! Let's see what others think about this :) Gimly24 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism on the page Tapir[edit]

Edit : I undone this user edit for now and wrote vandalism. Please tell me if a warning can be given and how to ?

also known as Humphrey

So I use the fonction "undo" and how do i add vandalism and warning to @Qualander ? Gimly24 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update : This user vandalized 3 more times after i undone it's first edit. 3 different users reverted it's vandal edits and another user blocked Qualander from editing indefinitely. I consider this point of the discussion done :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimly24 (talkcontribs)

The proper place to alert someone to vandalism is WP:AIV. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The species Dwarf multimammate mouse (Serengetimys pernanus) is presented in the template Template:Murinae (Stenocephalomys–Xeromys) as Mastomys. Where would Serengetimys go inside the template? I wrote a similar message on this template talk page, then found out the formatting of it should be talked here and change to the format should be decided via a consensus.

As for Serengetimys, it is a newly described genus only containing this species, which moved from Mastomys according to Nicolas et al. (2021) and the moved is recognized by the MDD. The species is valid in IUCN, the last assessment being in 2016. Therefore, the next assessment of the IUCN on this species will tell if they (IUCN) accepted the genus move.

This is also the case for 2 of the 3 species presented under Myomyscus in the template Brockman's rock mouse (Ochromyscus brockmani) and Yemeni mouse (Ochromyscus yemeni). The last assessment of the IUCN for the former is 2016 and the latter, 2019. The new genus was described by Nicolas et al (2021) and the genus move for both is recognized by the MDD.

Same thing applies to the species Delectable soft-furred mouse (Montemys delectorum) which is presented under Praomys in the template. The new genus is again by Nicolas et al (2021), is again recognized by MDD and IUCN last assessment for it is of 2016.

Same thing applies to the species Lukolela swamp rat (Congomys lukolelae) and Verschuren's swamp rat (Congomys verschureni) also included under Praomys in the template. Again, Nicolas et al (2021), move valid according to MDD and the last assessment of both by IUCN was in 2016.

Gimly24 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably these genera should be placed alphabetically in the "Stenocephalomys Division" section of the navbox, if you're just wanting to add them somewhere and aren't worried about completely overhauling the Murinae navboxes, which are in a dreadful state, and should be completely overhauled (or deleted). The language at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals/Article_templates/doc welcomes corrections. Updating taxonomy is not a "formatting" issue that needs consensus. And I can't find any discussion that arrived at consensus in how to format the navbox in the first place. The creator (Tombstone/Vanished User 4517) of the doc page asking for consensus on formatting changes created many of the navboxes for mammal species; presumably they formatted the navboxes they created consistently, and it's reasonable to expect that the set of navboxes for mammal species should be formatted consistently.
However, I'm also not finding any discussion that arrived at consensus to create these navboxes and add them to articles. I've searched the WikiProject Mammal talk page archives for "navbox" and "navigation". There's a passing comment from Tombstone (in 2008) about having created the navboxes and adding them to articles. Then there's a question (in 2014) about splitting the navbox for Murinae from the person who ended up creating {{Murinae (Stenocephalomys–Xeromys)}} (and others). In 2019, there was a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life about navboxes (which was not a consensus in favor of them), with a follow-up at WikiProject Mammals, and the ensuing deletion of the navbox for bat species.
The navboxes for Murinae are split alphabetically by groups of genera. When they were created in 2014, the Murinae article was organized by groups of genera. Now it is organized by tribes (as well as some genus groups). The Murinae navboxes split tribes and unite genus groups from different tribes alphabetically.
Mammals species navboxes require effort from editors to be kept up-to-date. That effort isn't happening. Theoretically, the navboxes have value to readers, enabling them to get from an article about one mammal species to an article about any other mammal species. Readers can also do that via links in taxoboxes. Either way (navbox/taxobox), successfully navigating from an article about a kangaroo species to an article about a bear requires some knowledge of mammal taxonomy (and there is nobody who has knowledge of mammal taxonomy who would find "Stenocephalomys–Xeromys" a useful term to navigate by). Navboxes pre-suppose a particular way a reader might want to navigate. As a reader, I would find it (slightly) useful to have a navbox at the bottom of the articles of every mammal species that occurs in my state. And that wouldn't be at all useful to the majority of readers that don't live in my state. Maintaining taxonomically organized species level navboxes is of minimal benefit for readers and a waste of time for editors. Better to delete navboxes that were created without prior consensus.Plantdrew (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok... But i just revised every template of Murinae this afternoon and yesterday and fixed and updated the stuff. In fact, i finished reviewing Muridae as a whole (Templates) today. There were a lot that were present in genus pages and not in the templates so i added them (exception made of those in red). I also moved some when genus changes occured (Except those moved to genuses not present in any muridae templates, i.e the 4 genus above). Aswell, there were some that were in templates but weren't linked with the correct common names in both templates and pages. Example, Lophuromys had the good names, Deomyinae did not (see edits) (there were like 6-7 species of Lophuromys there like that). And I also find it less disturbing than having quadrillions category under a species page. Like Imagine the red fox page categories at the bottom : Mammals of Canada, Mammals of the United States, Mammals of blah blah blah. It's overcrowded (rightly or not) and at that, categories are usually not listed in any kind of alphabetical order at all (even by group of categories : Mammals of). I would not delete the Murinae templates, far from it, it's quite helpful for us, that can see all the grand scheme of genuses instead of scrolling down a lot through Muridae list of species and genuses (One-by-one). I personally (when revising) duplicates my page on another window, so i have the template with the genus and species on one and going through the genus pages on the other (browsing each genus and validating the templates and making changes).
And yes, I would honestly prefer having the template be : "extant species of Muridae by subfamilies" or whatever it's called as 1 big template than having many templates doing alphabetical division non-sense.
Also, i liked more the way it was presented before @User:NSH001 (aka NSH002) changed it : the one before the last big change (Template:Murinae: Revision history - 3rd from last edit (-121). Why ? Because like Carnivora templates for example, you hide things if you don't want too many, not separate them in others templates for unknown reasons. Gimly24 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the changes to the template and added the 4 genuses and moved the concerned species to them. It was somewhat easy to do ! Thanks for the tips Gimly24 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North American jaguar[edit]

Would someone please check recent edits at North American jaguar. Is there a reason "ohio" might be mentioned in subspecies? Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think not. If i remember correctly, Jaguars are a monotypic species. Gimly24 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked the main article up. Since 2017, the species has only the nominate subspecies (P. onca onca), therefore, it is monotypic and ohio is invalid (or invalid to be used to describe a population). I edited the page. Thanks for pointing it out. Gimly24 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. This is over my head and I would appreciate your thoughts on any edits by Zachbarbo (talk · contribs) in say the last month on topics you are familiar with. If you have a comment that is not relevant for mammals, you might add it at the user's talk which I am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, I might take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers :) Gimly24 (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request Move (Indian muntjac -- > Southern red muntjac)[edit]

I made everything so that it fits with the current day informations for the Indian Muntjac and kept the edit before the "big change". I described it in Indian Muntjac edit but primarily see Talk:Indian Muntjac

When i tried to move the page, it wouldn't let me. In brief, Muntiacus vaginalis Southern red muntjac was formerly a subspecies of M. muntjak, but it's not anymore and since quite a while (2+ assessment of IUCN and MDD recognition). Vaginalis corresponds now to all populations of M. muntjak north of Sunda exception made perhaps of Malaysia. I revised pratically everything. I deleted some parts that reference were needed (that had elderly "need refs" templates (2015, 2019) and also trimmed and deleted parts about names + removed the predators that, with the new reduced repartition, occurs in this species ranges aka no wolves, jungle cats, striped hyenas, etc.

So, how do we do this, because it's technically inaccurate to refer this species as Indian muntjac, that's for sure. Thanks much. Gimly24 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:RM#TR. The target (Southern red muntjac) has been edited and so you need move privileges to override it. You definitely would not do a "copy-paste-move" (which is a copyright violation). Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. What do you mean by copy-paste move ? it's still the same page, just need the name of the page to change. I modified already the page indian muntjac for it to be correspondant with the current repartition of the species. So i would have to post a request for technical move on the link you gave me with the same comment i posted in talk:Indian muntjac, for example ? Thank you Gimly24 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppose it was wanted to move A to B. The wrong way would be to copy the wikitext from A then paste it to replace the wikitext at B. That would be wrong because the result would be that B had the wikitext but A had the history of who contributed to that wikitext.
Your comment at Talk:Indian muntjac#Page Move Request [February 2023] is not very clear. Please add a new comment below that to say that the correct name should be Southern red muntjac and add a brief reason (is that what reliable sources now use?). I will then make the move for you but I need a clear statement first. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. I'm gonna add the sources to the IUCN and the MDD and the reason remain the same although i formulated it better. Sorry, i forgot to add my sources my bad. And thank you.
Thank for the explanation on the copy-pasting. I do understand it better now.Gimly24 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have performed the move. See Talk:Southern red muntjac. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. Gimly24 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Himalayan shrew and its genus article[edit]

Hi, and hope you're well. Under what conditions should the genus and its only species share an article? For example, Soriculus says that the Himalayan shrew (Soriculus nigrescens) is the only extant member of the genus, though other species were once included here and there are also several fossil species included here. Thank you in advanced for your time and attention. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 articles to reflect the different scope of each. Loopy30 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mogera edit : is this okay ?[edit]

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

"Moles in this genus differ from Old World moles in the genus Talpa in having one fewer pairs of lower incisors and in having larger hind premolars in the lower jaw.[1]

lens Part I would add (need agreement) :

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 Oreoscaptor. In this study, the author presented and compared morphometrics of [O]. mizura with 17 other species of talpids, which included 8 species of the genus Mogera. 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.

Basic morphometrics values of some species of the genus Mogera[2].
Species Numbers of individuals (n) Head-Body Length (X, mm) Head-Body Length (Range, mm) Tail Length (X, mm) Tail Length (Range, mm) Weight (X, grams) Weight (Range, grams)
M. etigo 13 164.62 157.0 - 170.5 26.04 23.0 - 29.5 123.40 94.9 - 161.5
M. imaizumii 97 126.64 102.0 - 154.0 15.93 8.5 - 22.5 58.74 36.31 - 109.1
M. insularis 12 130.09 112.0 - 139.5 9.32 6.5 - 11.5 57.74 42.0 - 72.5
M. kanoana 11 121.91 113.0 - 133.5 11.09 8.5 - 13.5 39.91 23.5 - 59.0
M. latouchei 17 122.26 116.0 - 130.0 13.94 12.0 - 16.0 39.56 33.0 - 51.8
M. robusta 5 154.10 147.0 - 165.0 18.10 16.0 - 20.5 108.62 95.9 - 127.3
M. tokudae 5 145.92 131.5 - 163.0 26.12 23.0 - 27.5 102.60 82.5 - 120.5
M. wogura 201 158.76 123.0 - 180.0 19.14 11.5 - 29.0 117.25 62.9 - 178.0

Face-smile.svg Thank you for your time Gimly24 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 Mogera (imaizumii, insularis, kanoana and latouchei are much smaller and the larger species : etigo, robusta, tokudae and wogura). 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.
I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to ask about that addition
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. Gimly24 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Moles of this genus vary in size" would be most correct. Subject = Moles, so must match verb to the plural noun. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes. Thank you for noting this. I looked it up afterwards on google and depending on the circumstances, one of the two applies. Gimly24 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Edited page and re-organized the table in the process :) Gimly24 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Jo, Yeong-Seok; Baccus, John T.; Koprowski, John L. (2018). Mammals of Korea. National Institute of Biological Resources. pp. 91–93. ISBN 978-89-6811-369-7.
  2. ^ Kawada, S. I. (2016). "Morphological review of the Japanese mountain mole (Eulipotyphla, Talpidae) with the proposal of a new genus". Mammal Study. Mammal Society of Japan. 41 (4): 191–205. doi:10.3106/041.041.0404. Retrieved 2 March 2023.

Are individual animals page in the WikiProjectMammals ?[edit]

Like for example 926F (Spitfire), O-Six, OR-7, etc ?

Are they subject to assessments by WikiProject:Mammals ?

What about repopulations and reintroductions of mammals pages ?

Ex : Repopulation of wolves in California, Repopulation of wolves in Colorado, Repopulation of wolves in Midwestern United States, History of wolves in Yellowstone, Wolf reintroduction, Reintroduction of beavers to Europe, etc

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

Thanks. Gimly24 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 would be accepted in the scope of that project.
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 are articles on individuals (not just mammals) tagged for WikiProject Animals that could be refined to a more precise project.
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 Bao Bao), and it would be more productive to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 Bao Bao. I would suggest giving a Wolf reintroduction & Reintroduction of beavers to Europe 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. :) Gimly24 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked up List of giant pandas &, and i found that, along with Bao Bao, these pandas had either no wikiproject attached or in some, even existing talk pages :
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. Gimly24 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gimly24:, you should use PetScan for this. Here is a search for individual bears that don't have a WikiProject Mammals banner (Category:Individual giant pandas is a subcategory of Category:Individual bears). 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). Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Plantdrew 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, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing covers almost all horses present in the page List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses, but not all. And we said, we'd prioritize those without any wikiprojects.
[..]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>would be more productive</u>''' to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some.
as of now, i found that these pages have no wikiproject and/or talk pages [Edited : see bottom of the page/my next to last edit of this talk page] :
Gimly24 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 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. Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that make much more sense. Yes, it would be way easier that way. Thank you very much, Plantdrew😊 Gimly24 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so i think i'm mostly done, we got here User:Gimly24/sandbox#Individual_Animals_with_no_WikiProject_Attached
Individual(s) :
  • 5 pandas
  • 4 bears
  • 5 chimpanzees
  • 5 other primates
  • 3 cats
  • 15 dogs
  • around 96 horses
  • 8 individual bovines
  • 1 individual sheep
  • 1 goat & tiger (they are together in a page)
  • 2 killer whales
  • 1 blue whale
  • 8 elephants
  • 2 wolves
  • 9 others individuals animals that are mammals
Specific mammal(s) or groups of mammals related (29 pages)
Breeds :
  • 17 Cattle
  • 8 goats
  • 10 sheep
  • 1 pony
  • 1 water buffalo
  • 1 wolf-dog
  • 6 dogs
  • 1 pig
Others (32 pages)
My gawd, was it long
Oh, and these three pages should be in this WikiProject ASAP :
Thanks a lot to @Plantdrew Gimly24 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]