Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Collaboration

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated February 2011.

WikiProject Mammals
Founded 28 February 2004
General information Main page Participants Recognised content Formerly recognised content Article alerts Task list Article requests Cleanup requests Expansion requests
Departments Assessment Collaboration Most Popular pages Pocket pets work group Mustelids work group
Resources Mammal Template Animal naming conventions Project portal Project category Templates
edit·changes

The monthly Mammal collaboration is a coordinated effort by WikiProject Mammals to improve Wikipedia's mammal-related content. Being a member of WikiProject Mammals is not a prerequisite for participation in this collaboration (nor, conversely, is participation here a requirement for membership in the WikiProject). All Wikipedians, regardless of their level of expertise in the subject area, are welcome to contribute.

Aside from the main benefit of creating better mammal articles on Wikipedia, it is hoped that a successful initiative will: a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. The ultimate goal of the Mammal Collaboration is to get at least one mammal or mammal-related article featured every couple of months. There are several mammals in particular that have very large articles because of their popularity and the volume of research devoted to them. These may be better worked on in a collaborative manner, rather than by a single editor, in attempting to reach Good or ultimately Featured status.

The first incarnation was active in early 2008, with four articles selected over four months from mid February to mid-June, one of which is now Featured (Primate) one a Good Article (Polar bear), and two B-class (Brown rat and Tiger). All are large articles. The collaboration was reactivated in mid 2009, with one article chosen (giraffe), but little activity ensured, although the article has since achieved Good status. The collaboration was reactivated in late 2010, the first collaboration (Fossa (animal)) is now Featured.

Any user may nominate an article to be collaborated upon. Nominees should:

• Be about any mammal or directly mammal-related topic (including prehistoric ones).
• Need a significant amount of work in terms of content, organization, prose, etc.
• Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection.

If you would like to nominate an article, please add it at the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think it should be chosen.

For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating an article.

===[[ARTICLE NAME]]===
''Nominated MONTH DAY, YEAR;''

Support:

# (sign with four tildes)

Comments:

* (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support an article. Note that you are allowed to vote for more than one, though it will dilute your vote if you feel very strongly about one candidate. Finally, if you feel inclined, noting what material should be included or gotten rid of to satisfy comprehensiveness may be very valuable on the article's talk page.

#~~~~

A list of past collaborations can be viewed here.

Please list nominees below using the code laid out in the above section. Newer nominees should be placed on the bottom of the list. Feel free to vote for as many nominees as you wish, but only once per nomination. Please only vote to indicate support, do not vote in the negative. If you like, add a comment in the comment's section under nomination, or on the collaboration talk page. Articles will remain on the list for 3 months, after which time the list will be blanked/refreshed and voting started anew. For the current collaboration, see the template at the top of the page. Voting will end one week after the nomination is made.

Note: Please leave archived discussions here until we finish the collaboration on the article.

Hamadryas baboon

Nominated November 27, 2010;

Support:

1. LittleJerry (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is a widely studied primate and a high-importance article for WikiProject Primates. It should atleast get a good article status. LittleJerry (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey

Nominated November 28, 2010;

Support:

1. Jack (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Anaxial (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gug01 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• An article that's visited 115,000 times a month (3,700 times a day) and yet is only a start class article (the only one in the top 40 most visited mammal pages)! Lots of additional information is needed, and quite a bit can be pared from the current article. Was once the focus of Wikipedia Spotlight though little was achieved. Jack (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do this one, I could write about evolution. However, I'm not sure if I have the resources, time, and energy to make it FA-quality though. Anyway, with pages as broad as this, you'd almost have to take the approach of what I've been trying to do with Lemur—write a big, fairly general article, then create numerous sub-articles on each of its topics. (Sadly, Primate is another article that needs this treatment.) The evolution of monkeys, for instance, is such a big topic that it merits its own article: Simian evolution or Evolution of simians. (There would need to be multiple redirects, of course.) – VisionHolder « talk » 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with VH. Very important & highly viewed article, but also a massive undertaking. Sub-article organization would require meta-planning & coordination, tons of literature to go through ... sounds like work to me. I prefer to keep my collaborations fun and FA-reachable without straining myself too hard, so have voted for the more easily handled Slow Loris above. Sasata (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto - look if the collab takes off well and gets a good head of steam, then I reckon this would be a fantastic candidate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, this is exactly the reason that the Spotlight nomination went nowhere, it will be a lot of work. However, we do need to revisit it in the future, I'm sure you all know its importance, not just to this WikiProject but to Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely. You might want to buff it up in the meantime and see how it looks. We'd all be happy to chip in with comments. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the next collaboration, I will definitely favor this article. Alternatively, I'm also willing to work on this outside of the official collaboration if another person wants to work on everything else—I am more than willing to write B-quality (possibly GA-quality) sections on evolution and taxonomy. I would also be willing to contribute to a section on interactions with humans (exotic animal trade, experimentation on monkeys, focus from animal rights, etc.). – VisionHolder « talk » 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's almost next collaboration time...I think the page counts do it for me. A good one to buff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC) If slow loris is moving slowly, then now isn't the time for a complex collaboration I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla

Nominated December 5, 2010;

Support:

1. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This article is Number 6 of the most visited Primate pages and a top-importance article for Wikiproject Primates. Not to mention they are well studied. How about this for next month? LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, a good choice too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a good choice, but I apologize for the delay. The Slow loris article collaboration has turned into a topic collaboration, which is moving slowly, but still moving in a very positive direction thanks to all the help from the research community and some very dedicated editors. Unfortunately, it may be a while before we start a new collaboration. And although I certainly favor the article nominated here, I'm wondering if we should shy away from a second consecutive primate in favor of another group... especially since this is for WP:Mammal, and primates have their own project (WP:Primates). I was thinking about nominating Sugar glider, which gets about half as many hits as Gorilla (~2k vs. ~3.5k hits per day), but is another popular exotic pet. Anyway, we'll put it all up for a vote when it comes time to think about a new collaboration. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]