Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Capitalization of common names of species (redux)

This has been discussed a number of times before, but the way things are now seems absurd.

I think the rules of the English language state that a common name is a proper name, and thus should be capitalized.

Conventions for capitalization of species' common names seem to differ.

There are massive inconsistencies between article names, between the article name compared to its content, as well as mention of the common name within a given article.

Some examples:

• Black Rhinoceros: All upper case article name, and all upper case occurences within article
• Brown Bear: All upper case article name, and almost all lower case occurences within article
• Kangaroo rat: Second word lower case in article name, and all lower case within article

(Most articles are a mixed bag.)

I think this problem has arisen because the policy is likey wrong. Editors don't know which to pick, and the outcome is split. There are constant page moves from one convention to another, and back again. If this gets sorted out either way, MOST animalia articles will be flawed or inconsistent. This is a serious problem, and a very visible blight upon Wikipedia.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ill attempt to break it down, but you are correct its very complicated. The reason the Kangaroo rat is lower case is because it comes under the banner of WikiProject Rodents they have their own naming conventions, just like WikiProject Birds does. The Rhino and Bear are both under WikiProject Mammals and that project doesn't really have naming conventions however does try to use WP:Fauna name. In the big scheme of things I personally believe capitalization is trivial and we should be more concerned with what is in the article rather then how its capitalized. I would love for this issue to be resolves once and for all. Cheers ZooPro 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a further note, if we had more members in the projects this problem could easily be overcome if every project decided on a style and then edited "Every" article within there scope to reflect that. It is a GIANT problem however there are not very many of us that are available to change and uphold it in the long term. I would love for all the projects to agree on one style and stick to it however I fear that will never happen. However if you wanted to propose a Animal Projects wide consensus then I would support that and help as best as I can. ZooPro 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think consistency across Wikipedia is fairly trivial. But within an article, I think it is important because it looks sloppy. Black Bear with the capitalized title and the very first occurence lower case is one of many examples.

So, if the projects can never agree, fine. Upon inspection, it seems that they sort of stick to their own conventions, but not really. Everything is still all over the place. I think part of the problem is the way the guidelines are written. The rules are spelled out in paragraph form. Visitors are looking for a specific "quick reference" answer, and don't want to read a treatise. I suggest point-form rules and a table with examples. Something like this (please feel free to fix it, or object to it):

In general:

• Vernacular names (eg. lion) are lower case
• Proper names (Roosevelt) are upper case
• Second part of a hypenated name is lower case
• Occurrences of names within articles should always be consistent with the article title
• Use lowercase for well-known animals (e.g. "a cow")
• Uppercase for ambiguous names (e.g. Brown Bear)

Special cases:

Group	Case	Example 1	Example 2	Example 3	Remarks/exceptions
Birds	Upper	Grey Currawong	African River Martin	Red-billed Chough	lower case should be used in non-bird articles
Primates	Upper	Green Monkey	Hamadryas Baboon	Brown-headed Spider Monkey
Dragonflies	Upper	Dancing Jewel	Hamon's Sprite	Yellow-winged Darter
Moths	Upper	Grease Moth	Indianmeal Moth	Black-lyre Leafroller Moth
Butterflies	Upper	Passion Butterfly	Swallowtail Butterfly	Duke of Burgundy
Fishes	Lower	red snapper	spotted trout	ray-finned shark
Mammals	Lower	black rat	red panda	man-eating platypus

Something like the above. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having second thoughts about whether or not any of this is trivial. One article entitled Gypsy moth, and another entitled Indianmeal Moth just looks bad.

It's such a shame that this wasn't settled earlier. A bot could do this by finding articles with specific taxoboxes, with titles not in italics, and move the page to upper case name. Then search and replace all occurrences within the article. Then fix the redirects. Of course, this would cause the servers to catch fire, and Jimbo would be furious.

I think this needs to be addressed sooner or later. This is a long-term encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the servers would catch fire and Jimbo would leave a very nice note on our talk pages. However its a great idea and I fully agree. I suppose the WP:BOLD could be used aswell as WP:Performance to justify the proposal. I love the idea of a table and if we could get a consensus on it i think it should be added to WP:Fauna name. I would encourage you to add it to the WP:Fauna name talk page and lets get some consensus started. ZooPro 10:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse this botanical lurker, but I thought I might be able to add something here. In response to the above comment that common names are usually seen as proper nouns, I wonder where that assertion comes from. When we've discussed this at length before at WP:PLANTS and elsewhere, I brought up the fact that most external manuals of style suggest using lowercase. Often when we disagree here, we turn to established external guides for guidance. In general, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, Cooper's hawk. I thought it might be helpful to know that if this discussion is to continue. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right my lurking friend. I think it was different when User:Moriori and I were students. We would never write "The black bear...". But I am happy either way. I have just been watching this inconsistency for a couple of years, and then this, and this prompted me to try and sort things out and get the guidelines clarified. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my intentions: I don't care either way about case. I care about consistency of new articles being created, and to eventually address existing ones. I would just like to see the guidelines presented in a way that is easier to understand at a glance, and more comprehensive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what make of this—just one small note for now. The names of groups of animals (kangaroo rats, for example) are rarely capitalised, and it is agreed that they should not be capitalised on Wikipedia —innotata 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the main thing I have to say is that this is not a clarifification of the existing consensus or anything like that; this would standardise sentence case for mammals. Also, I think there is some element of the varieties of English here—as claimed at the last big discussion of capitalisation. —innotata 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Coming from WP:PRIMATES, I must admit that I favor standardizing on sentence case. It causes too much confusion when I write lemur articles and mention the "Fossa", but then use "fossa" in non-primate articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen a single reference to any authoritative sources for guidance, but lots of reference to WikiProject conventions and individual preferences. Why don't we try and identify some leading authorities in each field and adopt their conventions? Of course, if they vary, we could agree to adopt what the majority uses. As a starter for ten, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (e.g. see Holden, Peter and Cleeves, Tim (2002). RSPB Handbook of British Birds, A&C Publishers, London. ISBN 0-7136-5713-8.) uses the birds convention above, e.g. Mistle Thrush, Little Ringed Plover, Short-eared Owl, even mid-sentence. So that's one authoritative source that (in this case) reinforces our convention. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The RSPB book is scarcely appropriate to bring up. It just relates to certain aspects of birds from a certain part of the world from the point of view of birdwatching and bird protection. Using title case for bird names, however, is indeed very well established. Look at most books on birding and ornithology and you'll find title case used. The IUCN Red List and Mammal Species of the World are two better examples for this general discussion. Specialist and general use is a complex issue, and has been picked over often on Wikipedia talk pages; for one discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rodents. —innotata 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For primates: Lemurs of Madagascar uses names in sentence case where binomial names aren't used. I'm not sure about MSW3. I've also had several experts from the field question our use of upper case in the lemur articles I've written. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MSW uses title case in the "Common name" field, but if I recall correctly we've found instances of both title and sentence case in running text in MSW. Ucucha 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The table lists mammals as using lower case, but I do not recall any consensus in that regard, and certainly there are mammal articles outside of WP:PRIMATE (including Red Panda) that use upper case. Personally, my preference is to standardize everything on upper case. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Standardization across Wikipedia would be a dream come true. But, at least the members of each project group should be able to agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to all for opening this can of worms yet again. I really hope that something can be agreed upon, at least in terms of the visual layout of the guidelines.

If you see this discussion as a waste of time, please consider the thousands of hours that have been spent, and will be spent in coming years and decades, on edits and page moves from one case to the other and back again. This problem won't go away. It needs to be addressed at some point, so why not now? All of this hard work on the content, and we can't even get the titles right. This sort of inconsistency would never exist in Encyclopedia Britannica. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you need to apologize at all, Anna. Consistency is needed. LadyofShalott 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree no apology needed, in the end if we come up with even a small amount of head way on the issue then we have made a difference. ZooPro 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree and favor consistency, even to the point of having my opinion rejected as a minority view (if that's the case). – VisionHolder « talk » 02:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have looked at this problem, and bowed my head and sadly walked away, many times. It seems to me that the difficulty arises out of a number of causes:

1. Different uses in different fields - but Wikipedia covers them all - and they overlap.
2. An attempt to follow what the "learned journals" do, in order to gain some kind of "academic respectability".

For me the answer is simple, write as a normal person would, "A black bear came out of the trees.", "I was pleased to see a Blanford's fox hiding in the undergrowth.", "Nemo is a clown fish." or "I love peacock butterflies."

If it comes to the (mock) Latin names known as "scientific" then by all means say "I love Vanessa io." since this is not a usual locution the capitalization is not a smack with a wet Kipper.

Apropos of burning up the servers, we delinked the dates in over 650,000 articles in just about 7 weeks (November and December 2009), with no noticeable impact.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

If this thread ends the way the others have, the matter will be brought up again in a year. That's a waste of time, as are the case-change edits and page moves back and forth. Plus, the inconsistency is unsatisfactory to all editors, regardless of their preference. Allowing this to go unresolved for years represents a failure on the part of Wikipedia, i.e. us.

Most of all, we work hard to provide accurate information. To visitors, this highly visible blight makes this encyclopedia appear amateurish, and thus casts doubt upon the credibility and believability of the content.

Maybe a clue as to what should happen can come from imagining Wikipedia in 25 years. Surely this will be resolved by then. Surely this discussion won't reoccur for 25 years. So, what must inevitably happen? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some tendencies seem to be:
  1. Lowercase for well-known animals (e.g. "a cow"), and uppercase for less-known animals (e.g. "a Resplendent Quetzal").
  2. Lowercase for one animal, uppercase for the species.
  3. Uppercase to distinguish in cases e.g. "a Brown Bear" (one member of that species), "a brown bear" (a bear of any species which is brown in color)

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On consideration, my opinion is that resolving this and introducing consistency is desirable, though I disagree with a number of arguments for it here (it is not just journals, but ornithologists and birdwatchers in general who tend to use title case for birds, to give one example). I think usage, as pointed out at in previous discussions, suggests we should use sentence case, with exceptions certainly for birds, probably for butterflies, and possibly for other groups, such as dragonflies. (Also, many more animals should be moved to scientific names). —innotata 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the moves should be done manually, to avoid mess-ups—we can wait a bit. —innotata 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at everything I can find, I would like to guess how things will turn out to be in 25 years:

• Names are not completely inconsistent, (as they are now).
• Names are not completely consistent, (for about a dozen reasons).
• Names are consistent within groups, (as the groups agree among themselves how things should be).

I can't see it going any other way in the end.

So, I have a suggestion:

• Make a subpage here at Project Animals
• Paste in the list of general rules and the table (the one near the top of the thread)
• Let the groups agree among themselves and add their group and guidelines to the table
• Add it to guidelines page

If we can't (and ought not to) have things consistent across Wikipedia, at least we can have the guidelines as clear as can be. If this subpage/table thing has been done before, please forgive me. I couldn't find it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only flaw in the otherwise excellent ointment is, as when similar style debates try to go both ways at once, lists such as "Hanging Rock is home to Great Tits, black bears, Masterton's gibbon, Spotted Damsels, red snappers and the Great Green Arcklesiezure" - or similarly tables or more dispersed occurrences. This could certainly be lessened by prescribing only capitalization within subject-specific articles. So in ornithology articles, "Great Tit", in others "great tit". I think it should be fairly easy to decide wheter an article is an orinthology article, and if it's a problem well, wheel out WP:Lamest edit wars ever? Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Ha ha ha. Thanks Rich. Cereal almost came out of my nose. I don't think that would stick as a rule, though. Suffering a mixed bag might have to be tolerated.

Articles should always be consistent on using either title or sentence case—I think that at least is an established principle. WP:BIRD's guidelines even have language saying non-bird articles don't need to capitalize bird names. Ucucha 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. I think we can agree on that. I will add it to the list above.

With due respect to everyone, I made a suggestion for a strategy to at least get the currently agreed-upon guidelines clarified, and maybe even to sort the whole thing out. But, everyone just keeps giving opinions on what should be uppercase. Maybe it would be best if we approach this strategically -- maybe from the point of view of "agree on what can never be tolerated, and see what's left". (We can start with: "The current inconsistency existing for the next 25 years is intolerable. What's left is: "something else". That's logical, right?)

May I create a subpage here by myself? I would like to add the table and list of guidelines. There, everyone can give opinions on what should be uppercase, and what should be included. At least the uncontested rules and table entries might go in the guidelines in a quick-reference format. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do it. Once some basics are down, you could open an RfC on the page and advertize it widely to the relevant projects. LadyofShalott 03:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to create the subpage for you Draft capitalization guidelines I will leave it in your capable hands to edit. Cheers ZooPro 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ZooPro. I have added the list and table. Please give it a look over and tweak it if necessary. Then, I will post on the animal project discussion pages, and hopefully the list and table will grow a bit. Many thanks.

Too everyone: Thanks for all your input. I am not enjoying this one bit. I know it is a case of "Fools rush in where fools have been before". If the only thing that is accomplished is a bit of clarity in the layout of the guidelines, I will be pleased. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the current draft won't clarify the guidelines much. In particular, some of the "In general" rules just confuse things. For example, they say "Vernacular names (eg. lion) are lower case", but proceed to list a number of vernacular names (e.g., "Green Monkey") that are not capitalized. Then it says, "Use lowercase for well-known animals (e.g. "a cow")", but surely the brown bear is also a well-known animal, and the next rule says it must be capitalized. That rule is "Uppercase for ambiguous names (e.g. Brown Bear)", but it contrasts with a table entry that says mammals are lowercase and gives a much more ambiguous example for that (there are many more rat species with black fur than bears with brown). I think it would be better to have something like this:

• Names of animal species may be written either in title case or in sentence case. In title case, the first letter of every important word is capitalized (e.g., Grey Currawong, Duke of Burgundy), except for words that follow a hyphen (e.g., Brown-headed Spider Monkey). In sentence case, no capital letters are used (e.g., brown bear, ray-finned shark), except for proper names (e.g., North American beaver, Roosevelt's elk). Names of higher categories of animals are always written in sentence case (e.g., kangaroo rat, river martin).
• Individual articles should be consistent in using either title or sentence case for species. If an article on an animal species has a title-case title, all species mentioned in the text should have their name in title case.
• Whether articles on species should be titled using title or sentence case depends on the taxonomic group the species belongs to, as follows:

Group	Capitalization mode
Birds	Title case
Fishes	Sentence case

(Table incomplete.) Ucucha 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need you. Please edit the draft. That's the whole point: to see what is uncontroversial, which can then be added to the guidelines in a clear layout. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd probably replace the entire draft with the text I put above. I think my draft is complete (though it may do with some copyediting) and the points made aren't controversial—the controversial part will be filling in the table. I think in doing that, we should depend on usage in reliable sources on the groups (bird names are usually [though not always!] capitalized, fish names are not). Innotata said above that we should probably generally use sentence case, with exceptions for birds and perhaps some insect groups; I think that's probably right.

Even if we come to a consensus here, implementing it won't be easy. Whether we choose title or sentence case, many articles on reptiles and mammals will need to be changed—and it's hardly possible to do that with a bot, because things like image names, interwikis, and references titles shouldn't be changed. There is also the issue that many articles should be at the scientific name, because the common name is poorly established, but are not (also brought up by Innotata above). Ucucha 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick note: If we change primates to sentence case, I'm more than willing to manually correct every primate article over the course of a couple of weeks. It would give me something simple to work on during slow times at work. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• "...some of the "In general" rules just confuse things...": The guidelines, as they are now, do the same thing. There is a paragraph or two about general rules, and then two lines about exceptions for birds and butterflies. Clarification is the objective here.

• "... but proceed to list a number of vernacular names (e.g., "Green Monkey") ...": Primates are in the special cases table because they are exceptions.

• "... ambiguous names (e.g. Brown Bear)", but it contrasts with...": Just like the present guidelines: "general rules unless superseded by exceptions".

• "...Individual articles should be consistent in using either title or sentence case for species. If an article on an animal species has a title-case title, all species mentioned in the text should have their name in title case....": All species in that genus, or do you mean a kangaroo rat article that mentions a bird must have lower case bird name? Because that will never work out. Different cases of different species within an article must be tolerated. But, obviously, if the title of an articles is Red Panda, then occurrences within the article must be Red Panda, right? That is often not adhered to, and not currently in the guidelines, but ought to be.

• The small table presented above: Good. It could use one example, and a column for exceptions/remarks (IMO).

• "...I'd probably replace the entire draft with the text I put above...": Fine by me.

• "...Even if we come to a consensus here, implementing it won't be easy...": Well, it will give users creating new articles an easy-to-read guideline. Fixing old articles is another matter. But we have to start somewhere.

• "...If we change primates to sentence case...": I'm not sure consensus would be reached on that one.

I will tweak the rules and table. Again, the objective is just to nail down the uncontroversial conventions for inclusion into the guidelines. I think that's all we can expect. That might lead us down the road to a long-term resolution of this mess.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha: Good points and wording. I have made a few changes and added it to the draft. I could use a bit of clarification on:

"Individual articles should be consistent in using either title or sentence case for common names. If an article on an animal species uses title-case title, all species mentioned in the text should have their name in title case."

Does that mean if the article is about Red Panda, then spotted trout should be Spotted Trout if occurring within the same article? Thanks for the valuable input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does "individual" mean "occurrences within an article" or from one article to another? Thanks for having patience with me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't dropped this. Just taking a bit of time to gather an opinion or two. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party. I would like to make an argument for lowercasing all common species names except for birds, and using title case for birds. There might be other groups that should be capitalized, but I'm not aware of any.

• The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed, 8.127) says to consult authorities but "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives". Scholarly work appears to follow this convention as well – I don't have a real good way of verifying this, but doing a Google scholar search on a common species name essentially always yields nothing but lower case (except for when they appear titles of articles or organizations, of course – we are not discussing that here obviously). An exception to this is birds. As noted at WP:BIRDS, there is a claim that ornithologists generally always use title case for birds. There is a source to back this claim up. Google scholar searches reveal that some journal articles actually capitalize common names of birds. Not all or even most, but there are some. This seems supported as the style for writing bird names. I think if a WikiProject prescribes title case it ought to back that prescription up as WP:BIRDS has done.
• Arguments are commonly made in these debates regarding the relative merits of the different styles. For example, title case reduces ambiguity: "There are many brown bears in our state." Does this mean there are many Ursus arctos individuals in the area or does it mean there are many Ursus americanus individuals that happen to be brown? But if one writes "There are many Brown Bears in our state." then it is unambiguous. However, there are a lot of ambiguities in written English; if we were making up a new language we could get rid of them, but we aren't. Wikipedia is not a place to make up things like this; we must follow established conventions.
• There is also a sentiment that it just doesn't matter: do what the original author did, don't change it without local consensus or whatever, it doesn't make any difference. But I disagree with this, I'll just quote wp:CAPS because it says it so well: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility."

Hopefully we can agree on a well-supported, consistent style for Wikipedia. The current state of affairs is simply amateurish. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As one of the most active members of the Primates project, I support switching to sentence case. The only other "active" members I know of on the project are Rlendog and Jackhynes... and maybe UtherSRG (who favors title case). There may be other people involved, either in reviews or page monitoring, but otherwise I haven't noticed much activity. If we're just looking for a consensus from the project, maybe all we need to do is get an opinion from those people. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The key is standardized names

The key in the capitalization debate is whether groups have standardized names, like with birds. Once names are standardized, they become proper nouns and should be capitalized. As far as I know, no other group has standardized names, and as such, they should be lower case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

G'day Kim, Its good to have an expert finally join the discussion so thanks. ZooPro 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was invited to join something and it might be somewhere here. I am an amateur in this topic and sometimes expand or brush up plant/bird/mammal/rodent articles for DYK. General comments: (i) Nearly all publishers copyedit their journals. So what we see is not what the authors wrote, but what the publishers set as their policy, and they tend to stand by those policies and ignore other publishers. (Example, IOP Publishing will remove your full stops everywhere they feel like, so et al instead of et al.) (ii) At WP:CHEM we first look at common usage and then vote, no matter what some external authorities says. Example: IUPAC (the top authority in chemistry, which names elements, etc) is ignored on WP when its naming choice is ignored by scientists :-). Another example: endless edit wars over sulphur/sulfur, aluminium/aluminum were quenched once and for all when WP:CHEM decided "aluminium" and "sulfur" (per IUPAC, in this case).
While I understand the logic of the birds project on capitalization, the only benefit I see in it is convention. WP:MOS generally favors letter case. If there is no strong reasons against it, I suggest setting conventions by the project, through voting. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinator Position

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notice to all the WikiProject Animals members, its the start of the new year and with it brings about the start of a new term for the WikiProject Coordinators position/s. I hereby vacate the positions of Coordinator for WikiProject Animals along with User:Intelligentsium. Kind regards ZooPro 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A simple approval vote system is used to nominate and vote for candidates, current coordinators can be nominated again and can choose to decline or accept nomination (as can all users nominated).The nominations are open for 7 Days to be closed on the 15 January at 1800 hours (UTC). Positions are held for a period of 12 months from January to January, consecutive terms are allowed.

If you would like to nominate a User, please add the following to the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think they should be chosen.

For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating a user.

==={{User|Example}}===

Support:

1. (sign with four tildes)

Comments:

• (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----

For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support a user.

#~~~

The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. "T H F S W")

Support:

1. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}
2. Thank you for the nomination. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
3. ZooPro 02:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• High Fin is an active member who seems to have a good head on his shoulders. While I'm sorry to see ZooPro resign, I think High Fin will represent the project well. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Note: Struckthrough portion retracted at 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) when ZooPro clarified that he didn't resigned, his term merely ended and may be renominated. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

ZooPro (talk · contribs)

Support:

1. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}
2. Per Bob's nomination. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Seeing as how ZooPro is allowed another term, I'll gladly nominate him for another term. From what I've seen, he's filled the role quite well. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, sorry I should have clarified that point earlier. ZooPro 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Animal

Do you think that Animal is B-Class quality? Brambleclawx 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish it were, but the article has many problems on the surface. I didn't even have to read the article to see a significant lack of inline citations. The article also seems terribly short for such a broad topic, suggesting it may fail the second criterion as well: "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." If someone addresses these two obvious issues, I'll gladly take the time to read the article and provide an assessment. Otherwise, please refer to WP:ASSESS for guidelines. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a massive problem, this is our flagship article. I would propose a colloboration effort to bring it up to GA or FA status. ZooPro 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll put adding molecular level synapomorphies and phylogenetic data on metazoan origins on my "to-do" list, but I don't think I'll be able to get to it soon. If I'm late on this, feel free to ping me and I can help with sources. --Danger (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Right then. I'll do my best to fix these things. Not that I'm an animal expert or anything... Brambleclawx 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

Just to let people know that Template:Automatic taxobox is now stable and suitable for use in articles. The template should be able to replicate any existing taxobox, although its documentation is still incomplete; if you can't work out how to do something, the best option is to ask at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. The template may not be appropriate for every article; please use your discretion when upgrading, and preview the taxobox before saving. In particular, please check that there is consensus for the taxonomy in the new taxobox!

The template provides the following benefits:

• Automatic generation of many parameters, meaning:
  • Less code in the Wiki source
  • Consistency between articles
• Reduction of duplicate data
  • Taxonomies are generated by reference to a series of templates within Wikipedia, meaning that all articles using the Automatic Taxobox will use the same taxonomy - this only needs updating in one place
• Automatic generation of subdivision lists
  • Again, a change in classification can be reflected across Wikipedia in a single edit
  • Full taxonomy browsing: child taxa aren't "missed off" lists, and can be easily found

I've made a start automating some minor phyla (such as the Rotifera). There are rudimentary instructions detailing how to perform the upgrade. Let me (or others at Template talk:Automatic taxobox) know if you need any help! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

There's an RfC on a requested change to the way Appendix 1 conservation status in the CITES system is displayed in taxoboxes. Please stop by if you have any opinions on the subject. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Two articles in need of serious help

Trichomonadidae and Pediculidae. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not so sure these articles are of an encyclopedic nature. I will have a look however given they are brand new and both share the same creator I am rather suspicious of them at the moment. ZooPro 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged one as a hoax given the lack of google results and the fact the created has recently created another hoax article, and I have redirected the other to Body louse. Regards ZooPro 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Image Renaming

I have been granted the File mover flag for English Wikipedia. If anyone has discovered a mis-named animal file or image that they would like renamed please contact me or leave a note below and I will attempt to correct the error, I am at present only interested in renaming animal related files to assist the project (however I will consider reasonable requests for other files), such renames should be non-controversial (such as a file named "Leopard" when the image is in fact of a Cheetah) or if are controversial then consensus should be reached about the name before asking for the change. The usual process of renaming files can often be long and can create backlogs, I am hoping that keeping this within the project will place less strain on the admins and other file movers and make our project run more efficiently. Kind regards ZooPro 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for me, although I also have file mover rights on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You must have read my mind, I was just going to look for a user with those rights :) I will be in touch..... ZooPro 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Same here as with Visionholder. Probably shouldn't be a problem to get it on Commons. Just read the guidelines and ask. —innotata 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Animal

I think we really need to work on the article Animal. It is currently rated a C class article (its more B then C) and is our flagship article. I would like to propose a 1 month collaboration to turn it into GA or FA. If anyone is interested please head over and start working on some of the issues raised on the talk page. This really is our projects top priority. ZooPro 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow what an overwhelming response (a bit of sarcasm).......... Is anyone willing to spend some time on this article? I will branch out this request to the sub-projects in an effort to get some movement on this. ZooPro 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems for me. For one, I don't have sources that general. Second, I'm starting a small Wikibreak to work on writing up some research and to write a book. Also, the part I would be best able to write, "Origin and fossil record" is already fairly well developed. However, if you give me something small, send me some free sources, and give me a healthy deadline, I might be able to contribute. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I could possibly write something about their behavior, particularly their common ability to be trained, either with operant or classical conditioning. I'm hoping the animal training books I have would discuss such general matters. However, I'm not sure what other sources I would have for more general discussion of their behavior. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything at all would be welcome mate, I dont care if its only 1 word at least we are making progress. Cheers ZooPro 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The redirect to sexual intercourse from copulation has been restored. So now we need to fix the sexual intercourse article (see below). Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Subscriptions?

When writing articles on obscure species I often find studies for which I can only view an abstract. Does Wikipedia have any facilities {like a joint subscription) for viewing full length articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange. In many cases, I'll be able to help; just e-mail me. Ucucha 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in PubMed (contains a lot of free stuff), PubMed Central (free), PLos ONE (free). You may also consider finding out if your town library (or school/university, if you're a student) has a subscription to JSTOR, BioOne, or any of several journal databases. In most cases, I have to wait for an article to be at least a year old to view it, but I've had pretty good luck in being able to access about 60% of what I'd like to through my university. (Unfortunately I am graduating soon and this service will be cut off from me!) Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even these sources often don't have the really obscure stuff, like original descriptions of a random species in the Journal of the Helminthological Society of Kazakhstan or whatnot. At least that's what I've discovered. Danger (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I'll see what I can work out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, when I can't find an article in these databases, sometimes-- rarely-- it's been made available publicly and can be uncovered via Google or Yahoo!. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I usually search through Google scholar filtered for pdf files, or through a regular Google search with 'pdf' included in the search string. The pdf's are often named differently from the contents so it can be a bit tricky. But yeah, people with no access to subscriptions, like moi, rely heavily on Google-fu. :d--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I dread the realization that once I graduate this May, I will no longer have access to JSTOR and several other databases... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You just need to never leave school like some of us! As always, I'd be happy to provide any sources you can't find. Ucucha sometimes beats me to it, though. ;-) Rkitko ^(talk) 12:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that offer; I'll have to keep that in mind! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Please see discussion at Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex. Note that the term copulation redirects to sexual intercourse. Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done ZooPro 12:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a UK Wikipedian for a Summer placement

In the Summer of 2011, Wikimedia UK and ARKive are colloborating on a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of threatened species. This will involve recruiting a fixed-period in-residence role that we are calling Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador. This will be a volunteer, with access to desk space at ARKive's offices in Bristol and with travel and subsistence supported by Wikimedia UK. Their role will require both on-wiki activity and involving the wider community through online and offline events. If you can attend meetings in Bristol, and are interested in both wildlife and free knowledge, please visit the project page for further details. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

European edible sea urchin

I am proposing that the article on the European edible sea urchin be renamed to Echinus esculentus. Please leave your comments on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already suggested the user be BOLD and make the move, The users rationale is good and clear. ZooPro 10:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors

It is list of species where endagered status on enwiki is different than this on official IUCN website (to avoid 2.3 version problems I listed only articles with the same IUCN status on plwiki as on enwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1. article IUCN_status-from IUCN_website < IUCN &&& EN> status_set_on_enwiki

1. Pygmy Cormorant LC< IUCN &&& EN > NT  Done
2. Vipera ursinii VU< IUCN &&& EN > EN  Done
3. Quagga LC< IUCN &&& EN > EX ✗ Not done iucn says it is extinct, which is well known
4. Tristan Moorhen VU< IUCN &&& EN > EX ✗ Not done iucn classifies extant Gough Island Moorhen as same species
5. Great Indian Bustard EN< IUCN &&& EN > CR  Done
6. Sangihe Scops Owl EX< IUCN &&& EN > LC
7. Southern Fulmar NT< IUCN &&& EN > LC
8. Northern bluefin tuna DD< IUCN &&& EN > CR
9. Indian Egg-eater LC< IUCN &&& EN > DD
10. Corsican Nuthatch VU< IUCN &&& EN > LC
11. Black-and-chestnut Eagle VU< IUCN &&& EN > NT
12. Litoria capitula VU< IUCN &&& EN > DD
13. Middendorff's Grasshopper-warbler VU< IUCN &&& EN > LC
14. Grey-headed Bulbul NT< IUCN &&& EN > LC
15. Blue Duck VU< IUCN &&& EN > EN
16. Nauru Reed-warbler LC< IUCN &&& EN > VU
17. Bokikokiko EN< IUCN &&& EN > LC

Of course my bot may be wrong, interwiki (to plwiki) may be wrong or IUCN id in plwiki may be wrong Bulwersator (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Help: follow interwiki to plwiki and use ref on IUCN status in infoboks - it should include link to IUCN website, based on animal id Bulwersator (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested redirests

Redirects from latin name to normal:

1. Carpathian Newt: Lissotriton montandoni #REDIRECT[[Carpathian Newt]]
2. Darwin's finches: Geospizinae #REDIRECT[[Darwin's finches]]
3. Taeniodont: Taeniodontia #REDIRECT[[Taeniodont]]
4. Merginae: Mergini #REDIRECT[[Merginae]]
5. Siamese algae eater: Crossocheilus oblongus #REDIRECT[[Siamese algae eater]]
6. Tuna: Thunnini #REDIRECT[[Tuna]]
7. Old World vulture: Gypaetinae #REDIRECT[[Old World vulture]] - untrue, corrected
8. Eagle: Aquilinae #REDIRECT[[Eagle]]
9. Sea daisy: Peripoda #REDIRECT[[Sea daisy]]
10. Eumetazoa: Histozoa #REDIRECT[[Eumetazoa]]
11. Caracara (genus): Herpetotherinae #REDIRECT[[Caracara (genus)]]
12. Gudgeon (fish): Gobio gobio #REDIRECT[[Gudgeon (fish)]]
13. Polymyxiomorpha: Polymixiomorpha #REDIRECT[[Polymyxiomorpha]]
14. Hogfish: Lachnolaimus maximus #REDIRECT[[Hogfish]]
15. Kenyanthropus: Homo platyops #REDIRECT[[Kenyanthropus]]
16. Kessler's Gudgeon: Romanogobio kesslerii #REDIRECT[[Kessler's Gudgeon]]
17. Perninae: Gypaetinae #REDIRECT[[Perninae]]
18. Hucho perryi: Parahucho perryi #REDIRECT[[Hucho perryi]]
19. Bibron's gecko: Chondrodactylus turneri #REDIRECT[[Bibron's gecko]]
20. Cro-Magnon: Homo sapiens fossilis #REDIRECT[[Cro-Magnon]]
21. Plantcutter: Phytotominae #REDIRECT[[Plantcutter]]
22. Palawan Tit: Periparus amabilis #REDIRECT[[Palawan Tit]]
23. Elegant Tit: Periparus elegans #REDIRECT[[Elegant Tit]]
24. Songar Tit: Poecile songara #REDIRECT[[Songar Tit]]
25. Orobates: Orobates pabsti #REDIRECT[[Orobates]]
26. Cane toad: Rhinella marina #REDIRECT[[Cane toad]]
27. African Hawk-Eagle: Hieraaetus wahlbergi #REDIRECT[[African Hawk-Eagle]]
28. Woodcock: Scolopacinae #REDIRECT[[Woodcock]]
29. Erpeton tentaculatum: Erpeton tentaculatus #REDIRECT[[Erpeton tentaculatum]]
30. Chatham Shag: Leucocarbo onslowi #REDIRECT[[Chatham Shag]]
31. Daurian Jackdaw: Coloeus dauuricus #REDIRECT[[Daurian Jackdaw]]
32. Colostethus brunneus: Allobates brunneus #REDIRECT[[Colostethus brunneus]]
33. Colostethus bromelicola: Allobates bromelicola #REDIRECT[[Colostethus bromelicola]]
34. Colostethus capurinensis: Aromobates capurinensis #REDIRECT[[Colostethus capurinensis]]
35. Persian Ratsnake: Zamenis persica #REDIRECT[[Persian Ratsnake]]
36. Clown killie: Epiplatys annulatus #REDIRECT[[Clown killie]]
37. Yellow-rumped Serin: Crithagra xanthopygia #REDIRECT[[Yellow-rumped Serin]]
38. Gould's Shortwing: Heteroxenicus stellatus #REDIRECT[[Gould's Shortwing]]
39. Little Cormorant: Microcarbo niger #REDIRECT[[Little Cormorant]]
40. Joturus: Joturus pichardi #REDIRECT[[Joturus]]
41. Siberian Stonechat: Saxicola maurus #REDIRECT[[Siberian Stonechat]]
42. Sternoptyx: Sternoptyx diaphana #REDIRECT[[Sternoptyx]]
43. Wattled Crane: Grus carunculata #REDIRECT[[Wattled Crane]]
44. Great Spotted Kiwi: Apteryx haasti #REDIRECT[[Great Spotted Kiwi]]
45. Diablito: Oophaga sylvatica #REDIRECT[[Diablito]]
46. Grunion: Leuresthes tenuis #REDIRECT[[Grunion]]
47. Mantidactylus moseri: Gephyromantis moseri #REDIRECT[[Mantidactylus moseri]]
48. Pine Woods Snake: Rhadinaea flavilata #REDIRECT[[Pine Woods Snake]]
49. Scaldfish: Arnoglossus laterna #REDIRECT[[Scaldfish]]
50. Cucumaria miniata: Cucumaria japonica #REDIRECT[[Cucumaria miniata]]
51. Diphlebiidae: Philogangidae #REDIRECT[[Diphlebiidae]]
52. Golomyanka: Comephorus #REDIRECT[[Golomyanka]]
53. Neoseps: Plestiodon reynoldsi #REDIRECT[[Neoseps]]
54. Grotto Salamander: Eurycea spelaea #REDIRECT[[Grotto Salamander]]

Generated using bot Bulwersator (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IUCN, Genus and Species

IUCN status is assigned to species. But on enwiki there are multiple higher or lower taxonomic ranks with IUCN status in infobox - for example Tuatara. Is it mistake? Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the IUCN status from the tuatara, as the IUCN does not assign a conservation status to genera. However, subspecies may have a valid IUCN status, and other status systems than the Red List may also include higher taxa. For example, slow lorises are collectively listed in CITES Appendix I, and the taxobox reflects that. Ucucha 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the problem here is that two of the non-red-linked species articles are actually redirects back to that same article. I suspect that one or both of those species are bear that classification, but the proper way to fix it would be to create stub articles for each species and only use the classifications on the species articles (as you pointed out). The IUCN classification should not be on that genus article. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So I will remove IUCN info in similar situations: [1][2]

Probably situation is similar in en:Gorilla and en:Pupfish Bulwersator (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox

Why Dolphin is without {{Taxobox}}? Bulwersator (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason is given in the "Etymology" section—basically the term has many meanings and ultimately is a paraphyletic group (which don't get taxoboxes). The Monkey article covers another paraphyletic group, and it doesn't have a taxobox either. – VisionHolder « talk » 10:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations

I generated suggestion for illustrations.

• User:Bulwersator/illustrations - animals 1
• User:Bulwersator/illustrations - animals 2
• User:Bulwersator/illustrations - animals 3

IMHO adding them to articles is easy way to have better stubs. (tech info: illustrations are from plwiki articles linked with interwiki, where there is infobox with illustration on plwiki and infobox without illustration on enwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of these aren't the species you're suggesting they illustrate, like the hominids, and some articles have illustrations (and the dolphins have the images you suggest or similar ones, but not in the infobox). Most of the others are cases where an image has been removed due to copyright violation. —innotata 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Some of these aren't the species you're suggesting they illustrate, like the hominids" - can you list them? I will fix errors on plwiki

"the dolphins have the images you suggest or similar ones, but not in the infobox" - sadly, my script is unable to detect it

"Most of the others are cases where an image has been removed due to copyright violation." - so new image, without copyvio problems should be welcomed

Bulwersator (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you shouldn't do this, no, but you could have filtered this a bit more before submitting it. If the bronze Australopithecus is supposed to represent the species it is suggested for here on the Polish Wikipedia, it should be removed. Also, File:Trichosurus caninus Gould.jpg is a Short-eared Possum, not a Mountain Pygmy Possum, so it needs to be removed from two Polish articles. A bit puzzling how any of the dolphins on your first list showed up, since all of them have images in the infobox, and none of the suggestions would add or if so improve the articles. —innotata 20:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Filtered? How? (except human checking results - I am doing it with similar list: enwiki to plwiki on my home wiki). "Short-eared Possum" - thanks - error introduced 4 years ago! "all of them have images in the infobox" - probably yet another mistake in my code. I hope that my list are useful, but if not - nothing bad, it is byproduct of importing images and IUCN data from enwiki (IUCN data is ofc verified on their website) Bulwersator (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and checking for big errors like the dolphins. I don't think these are the best ways of generating cleanup lists, since around half the listings are incorrect and many others have problems like taxonomy differences. However, nobody really has done this, and though I have noticed English articles missing images used in other languages a number of times before, I've never thought of looking systematically or anything (though I have checked other language Wikipedias). I'm going through all those except where it looks like the situation may be too complicated/problematic to sort out (which especially are the non-vertebrates). —innotata 21:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"half the listings are incorrect" at least number of stupid errors in plwiki will decrease Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, the English article has an image, but a different one, or none in the infobox. —innotata 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Taxidermied grey fox.jpg is not a Cozumel Fox. —innotata 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe bot finding illustrations used in articles about species not connected by interwiki will be good idea? Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? —innotata 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Searching for files included in multiple articles about species - case of File:Trichosurus caninus Gould.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Should I mark progress on the userpages linked above? —innotata 16:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it may be also moved to WikiProject Animals as subpage Bulwersator (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mustelus mustelus

There is an image in article, named Mustelus mustelus described as Mustelus asterias - is this change correct? Bulwersator (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to ask the user directly, or at least ask WikiProject Fishes. ZooPro 13:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

O, yes. Qeustion moved Bulwersator (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Semelidae

I have come upon the page Semelidae by chance. As you can see it is quite a mess and I propose to correct the formatting shortly. But first, is there a means of automatically detecting pages such as this that need attention? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless they are tagged then i dont think there is, could always try use the assessment program..... ZooPro 12:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you explain what you mean by the assessment program? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

this is a toolserver program that helps find articles tagged for cleanup that come under the WikiProjects. ZooPro 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)