This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mammal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Mammal has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Heart was copied or moved into Mammal with this edit on 18:36, July 14, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icedburg824, Bokhan (article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): McKenzieKay, Balakay29, MariaBenitezC, AlyssaJordan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
[Profanity] unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:600B:8600:F5B5:57F3:A4EC:344C (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Good day! Please take part in the debate and votation. Thank you,Cloud forest (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
How can the users be invited to participate and vote in the debate, those appearing on this talk page? Cloud forest (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Cloud forest (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the image for this article was changed by Chiswick Chap three days ago without discussion. Could someone revert this? We should have a proper discussion of why the image should or should not be changed. 72.33.2.24 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
From the lead: "In cladistics, which reflect evolution, mammals—along with dinosaurs, and by extension, birds—are classified as endothermic amniotes."
This is nonsense right now and reads really awkwardly. The cladistics reference makes no sense when combined with a nonmonophyletic group, the reference to dinosaurs seems unnecessary (and I believe there is still controversy as to whether they were all endothermic?), and mammals aren't **classified** as endothermic amniotes, they **are** endothermic, that isn't based on classification. I'd fix it, but I can't really wrap my head around what this sentence is actually trying to say. Why is there a reference to cladistics here? Does anyone have a better idea? Somatochlora (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wiki Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
There are 18 animals that make up the main picture. However, some of the 18 most distinct mammal clades are not represented on the picture. And some are represented multiple times.
I can understand keeping the pangolin and forgetting the aardvark, since 77 million and 75 million are within margin of error. But the ones with Cenozoic MRCAs should probably be dropped in favor of Lagomorph, Treeshrew, and Solenodon representation. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should replace the squirrel with something very exotic looking, like a porcupine. Then we could perhaps replace the elephant shrew with a tenrec? Especially the lowland streaked tenrec, which has an exceptionally striking appearance. I don't agree that the solenodon looks that similar to the elephant shrew, but I do think that the seal is a particularly poor picture. As it's not easy to really tell that it is a seal at all. I also think the bat picture could be better. To preserve the diversity in form, I recommend losing the deer, the Tasmanian devil, the seal, and I guess the panda. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Avahoneybrown made a recent edit in which they commented that
Previous Taxobox needs editing out of the man as it suggests that black men and people of African origin are the ‘missing link’ between humans and animals.
I find myself agreeing that the choice of image for a human is questionable. Past versions of the image showed three politicians ([1]) and in 2018 Chiswick Chap updated the image to include the San man.
Can we find another image that suitably shows a human without this specter of scientific racism? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
you know ... out there on internet there is Millions Billions Trillions Quadrillions of .... Pictures for Humans of all kinds , yet you got Nixon as example for Human Species ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
how possibly you couldn't find neutral Simple Innocent Example for Human Kind ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.235.27 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that the writing underneat the pie chart state that 70% of mammals are rodentia, yet the wiki page on rodentia show that the number lies closer to 40%, as does the graphic representation in the form of the pie chart. I can only assume that it should be 40%, but does anyone have knowledge or references giving the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beumer N. (talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Would somebody who understands the inscrutable taxobox syntax please fix the link and description of image 4.3? It redirects to Reindeer, but it's an albino elk/wapiti. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is the Taxonomy Template Mammalia Parent taxon shown as Mammaliaformes/skip? Therapsida is usually regarded as an unranked clade nowadays so how about just change the parent to Mammaliaformes in general? Magnatyrannus (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I honestly think the gif with the raccoon lungs is disgusting. Why not use an animated illustration instead? 46.212.117.57 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems the article implies birds are reptiles but the reptiles article doesn't appear to mention that. 120.21.172.232 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Article uses “exponential” in the vulgar sense of “fast growth” for processes which do not grow exponentially. It’s better to just say “fast growth”. 85.226.194.47 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
We are still using a picture of Nixon and Brezhnev as the image for humans, which always reads to me as though someone thought it would be a sneaky joke. Ignoring even the problem of a potential political bias, it is a bit weird, and certainly provides a distracting context. From the biological perspective, if we are to show multiple people we would certainly be better to show a man and a woman, or an adult and a child.
I understand that not everyone was happy with the photo of the San man, but we do have other options. A good image should be clearly illustrative and look good at a thumbnail size; it should show at least a significant amount of the body, rather than solely a face; it should not feature other animals; it can feature clothing, tools, weapons, etc, especially in situ, as there is no need to show people in a “native” state; but it should avoid obscuring the person too much under costumes or workgear, and should avoid centering activities more than the people doing them.
Towards thinking about images, I have assembled some below, but please add to this list if you have good candidates. Note that while some of these are dark for this size, we can easily fix that for use in this article. I imagine that either a strong consensus will arise through discussion, or if necessary we can open an RFC using this discussion to pick candidates. — HTGS (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Hairy beast has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wiki: Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14 § Hairy beast until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The sentence: "There is a tension between the role of animals as companions to humans, and their existence as individuals with rights of their own." would be better changed to "as property of humans." Companions to humans does not encapsulate owning cattle for slaughter, for example. Or skinning animals for fur. It seems to be very specific to pet ownership? Changing to "property" gives a broader scope that covers it all. 2601:647:4D7F:5B55:89B4:8AB4:700A:B6C0 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Talk:Mammal, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.