Talk:List of placental mammals

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 Nov 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Reorganization

This really should be reorganized phylogenetically. Even if Wikipedia doesn't have a "List of members of cetiartiodactyla", it is Wikipedia's responsibility as an encyclopedia to at least display the information in the most complete and correct way. As it is, its just a mishmash of names. A seperate but related proposition is that we reorganize the names to comply with most recent phylogenetic studies, such as Benton, 2005; Pough et. al 2004; Flynn et. al 1998; Arnason et. al 2002; Feldhamer et al. 2007; Gatesy et. al 2001; Szalay et. al 1993; Roca et. al 2004; Matthee et. al. 2001; Milinkovitch et. al 1994; Wiens et. al 2008; and the Tree of Life. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

All of these headings need to be demoted one level. RickK | Talk 05:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. WormRunner | Talk 06:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Others?

Whats with the "other" catagory? Bensaccount 04:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When I started working on this page it was a random mish-mash of mammals ranging from common names for orders (Bat) to species (Lion), in alphabetical order. I decided that a list of all living and recently extinct mammals in taxonomic order would be good thing for wikipedia and that it should be in this article. Rather than delete the previous list, I started on one order, Carnivora, and listed every species in it, lifting those species which were already listed out of the list. (If you look in the history, for a long while there was a category of "Other Carnivores".) My plan was to work my way through all of the orders lifting the animals out of the original list as came to its order. The portion of the list I hadn't gotten to was relegated to the "Other Mammals" category. It would eventually go away. I have decided, however, to sort the remainder by Order and do away with the "Other" category. It may take a few days to do this.Dsmdgold 04:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm done with that - "Other" is gone.

Goal/completion

So what's the goal or completion agenda for this article? Have a list of every species? List some species, some genera? Lump some genera into families, list some species? It seems to be a mish-mash of stuff. I could quickly (5-10 minutes) have every Primate species included. And then also the Cetaceans. (Primates and Cetaceans have WikiProjects.) Would that be good or bad? What would be helpful to building this article? - UtherSRG 16:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This list IS a mish-mash of stuff. That's how I found it. My goal is to list all of the recent mammalian species, in taxonomical order. I also want to be fairly consistent on the taxonomic system I am using. For the taxonomy I am following that of the International Taxonomic Information System (www.itis.usda.gov). However, since the ITIS lists all of its taxons in alphabetical, rather than taxonomic order, I am using Walker's Mammals of the World (www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/w-contents.html) for the taxonomical order. Not the best system, but these are well-respected sources, that are available on the web. Adding in Primates and Cetaceans would be usefull. (adding in Rodents would be good too.) Eventually this article will have to be split into multiple articles, as there are 4000 some odd recent species. Dsmdgold 05:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah ha! You've fallen into my trap of logic! *grins* If we add all the species, we'll then later split up the list. The species would be added from the existing already split up pages, such as those linked off of Primates. So what's the point to this list? Mammal already points to all the different mammalian orders. Each of those pages links down to family and genus pages which list all their relavant species. Why collect them all here, especially if we'd then split up this page into several pages? I think a better effort would be to complete the existing order and family pages so that they are as informative as possible. - UtherSRG 13:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't want to do that. I want to do this. This article existed. It sucked. I am improving it. When I get done doing that, I will move on to something else. Perhaps you will approve of that project. Dsmdgold 03:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why only living species? I think there's a crying need for a complete list of extinct mammals (one of the best things of my site, I think ;-)). Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 14:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the primary reason that I have only been listing recent species is that that is what my sources do. We do have species listed that have gone extinct in historic times (e.g. Falkland Island fox), but not species and other taxons that existed in the far past. I agree that it would be a good thing for wikipedia to have a listing of extinct mammals, including those who went extinct pre-historically, although I'm not sure that this would be the best place for that listing. We do have List of extinct mammals which need a great deal of work. Dsmdgold 16:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

Is it really necessary to have both the common name and the scientific name set up as links on the same page? Since both names refer to exactly the same animal, won't one of them end up as a redirect to the other anyway? (See pink fairy armadillo, for example.) A. J. A. DeWitt 00:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, it probally is not necessary to have both names be links. When I started revamping this page, I didn't have both as links. I started putting in links for the scientific name, when I realized that there were articles for some of the animals in question using different common names than the one my sources used. I thought that the existance of a re-direct link from the scientifc name would clue me in to a different common name, after all, no one would create an article on an animal and not create the redirect, right? It hasn't worked out that way. It turns out that the link from the scientific name usually tells me that we are missing the redirect. I suppose that once article and redirects exist for all of the species, it would be best to get rid of the redunant links. Until then I, at least find them usufull. Dsmdgold 05:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite handy to make sure that both the common name as well as the taxonomic name have a link - the taxonomic one of course the redirect to the common name. andy 17:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rodentia

I'll try to make the Rodentia section (try to do it more-or-less) mechanically from my lists. Ucucha 14:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's impossible. Ucucha 15:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Splitting

I propose that this article be split into sub articles by order name, with this page retained as a table of contents style link. Mbisanz (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of placental mammals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204125137/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOZBW8DMT3rHIv5uyWjQHU30edVw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOZBW8DMT3rHIv5uyWjQHU30edVw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Taupe doree.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Taupe doree.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]