Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Shortcut

Taxonomy/Vertebrata

[edit]

There is an attempt at Template talk:Taxonomy/Vertebrata to garner consensus and make this subphylum "always display". This is to welcome editors to click that link and render your opinion. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on applying WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA

[edit]

Does WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA apply to taxa with only one extant species, but multiple extinct ones described from the fossil record?

Context for this question can be found here, I originally posted this at WP:Teahouse NicheSports (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning at the Teahouse that it doesn't apply. If it has multiple extinct species then it's no longer monotypic.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will start by improving the Mastotermes_darwiniensis page before converting the Mastotermes page into more of a stub.
Separately, do you think it is worth adding this clarification to the WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA guideline? Something like:
"This guideline only applies to taxa that are monotypic inclusive of both extinct and extant species. In the case that a taxa has only one extant species but does have one or more named extinct species, then it is appropriate for there to be separate pages for the taxa and the species - although care should be taken to minimize duplication of information across the taxa and species pages. For an example, see the pages Orycteropus and Aardvark." NicheSports (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization proposal at WT:PALEO

[edit]

There is a current discussion regarding categorisation of fossil animals going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Categorization proposal. Any opinions/voices are welcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize for most nature articles destubbed or improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the predatory nature of journals

[edit]

Hello, I'm thinking of nominating Intraproboscis for a featured article, but the page relies on an addendum to a citation, but the addendum was published in the International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology, whose publisher has been accused of being a predatory publisher. Since it's just an addendum to a non-predatory publication, would this be ok to use? If not, half the article would need to be deleted. What are your thoughts on this situation? Mattximus (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Can't display some taxa's authorities

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Can't display some taxa's authorities. Jako96 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025. Jako96 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Tetrapoda § Proposal of changing the parent to Stegocephali

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Tetrapoda § Proposal of changing the parent to Stegocephali. Jako96 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Lepidosauria § Subclass vs. Superorder

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lepidosauria § Subclass vs. Superorder. Jako96 (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip § Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Archosauria/skip § Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2025. Jako96 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Reptile § About using the paraphyletic group template

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Reptile § About using the paraphyletic group template. Jako96 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Lepidosauria § Proposal for always display

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Lepidosauria § Proposal for always display. Jako96 (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that History of hide materials, 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 00:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

An onslaught of seeming AI-generated additions to species articles

[edit]

Hi. Apologies if you see this elsewhere; I plan to crosspost it to WikiProject Plants and other relevant projects.

I've been tagging a huge amount of seemingly AI-generated additions to articles about species. Some are "sourced," some not. I suspect that they are due to AI tools that will "write" an article based on provided sources and/or search results provided in a prompt. What seems to happen is that the AI, unable to generate text on a topic, speculates on what may be "likely." At first I considered that maybe it's a copy-paste template because there are a few users who are prolific with these, or perhaps a sockpuppet situation, but I've noticed similar text pattern in other topics as well.

Some examples:

  • Diff 1: While specific distribution data for *Amethysa basalis* is limited, members of the genus are generally found in tropical and subtropical zones. This user has added many many edits like this (though they're not the only one). The asterisks indicate markdown formatting, a common AI tell.
  • Diff 2: Shell Characteristics: While specific morphological details are limited, as a member of the Modiolus genus, it likely.... A separate AI tell here is this puffery: "This inclusion highlights its relevance in studies of marine biodiversity in the South Atlantic region." Several drafts by the user have been declined for sources not matching text.
  • Diff 3: Although specific conservation assessments for Halystina globulus are not available, deep-sea species in general are considered.... Not also the "is essential" editorializing.
  • Diff 4: this remains unconfirmed without direct access to the original description and Specific details about its depth range or precise localities within the Philippine region are not well-documented in available literature, suggesting a need for further research. The "further research" editorializing is common. Note that this user's userpage also shows AI signs, like markdown link formatting.
  • Diff 5: Specific morphological details about C. bialata are limited in the provided sources.
  • Diff 6: While specific measurements are not widely detailed, it shares general characteristics with other species.... This user was blocked for ongoing LLM use. Note the plaintext "footnotes," also.

I could list a lot more but I really don't want to be here all day. Basically, we've been getting swamped with these edits for almost a year, it's worse than we thought, it shows no signs of stopping, and it is way too big for one person. and I'm not a biology expert by any means so I am of limited help doing anything but finding this stuff and flagging it to experts.

Anyway, wanted to bring this to your attention, hopefully people have bandwidth to help take it on. Please tag me if you have questions or remarks, or else I won't see it (because I am busy excavating slop).

Note to the future: I do not support a mass article deletion campaign related to this (as opposed to destubbing) and do not approve of any insults/harassment/dogpiling of the authors involved as have happened with similar past situations. Please don't make me regret flagging this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Neognathae § Always display

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Neognathae § Always display. Jako96 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Ecdysozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at

Template talk:Taxonomy/Ecdysozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Discussion at

Template talk:Taxonomy/Lophotrochozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025 ==

 You are invited to join the discussion at

Template talk:Taxonomy/Lophotrochozoa § Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Skink § Requested move 27 August 2025

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Skink § Requested move 27 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]