This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
PresN (talk) has made recent changes to this page largely reverting recent work by myself. As another point of dispute he then also complains that I should have gone to the talk page, but he doesn't do that himself.
Could this editor please provide any verification for what he has posted at all. This list is NOT based on MSW2005 at all. The editor may have started using that as the basis for article, but the result cannot possibly be described as that. There are vast modifications to Marmosa alone.
Currently there is no way to verify this list. This needs to be amended, or the list should stay STRICTLY to MSW2005, with NO modifications. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cite to the ASM database, you're correct that it should be explicit. Unless Voss is universally regarded as the premier authority on didelphimorph taxonomy, it's not appropriate to cite his taxonomy directly over that of a large professional organization. (Also, please see WP:BRD). --PresN 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I was tossing up whether or not this an area I wanted to get involved in. First I'll let you know what the guidelines are for mammal taxonomy on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines namely that editors should follow Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (2005), with the exception that if both Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN are in agreement on a difference.
You have made a change to the article by adding "supported by the American Society of Mammalogists.ref name="MSW" ref name="ASM". But it is still unclear to me where exactly you are getting your taxonomy from. It appears to be entirely based on Mammal Diversity Database and that you are not using Mammal Species of the World at all. For example if there is a difference between the two which one do you choose and how do you make the decision? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are always choosing Mammal Diversity Database. If this is the case the wording in the article should reflect that, otherwise how is any other editor going to be able to verify your work?
If my assumption is correct then what you are doing is against the guidelines. I don't have any particular problem with that, but again it needs to be clear in the article. The reason why I was generating a list of citations from one specific author (Voss) was because I was attempting to work out where you got your species list from. This was not a case of choosing to cite one author over an organisation, because I was not aware that you were using that organisation. My changes to the list occurred when I could not find any source to substantiate your edit.
The last thing is to try and make Wikipedia somewhat consistent and cohesive. The taxonomy is different to the taxonomy found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Again, I don't think that's a huge issue so long as the differences can be accounted for. However, having said that, other editors may not take the same view.
Could I please get you to confirm specifically how you are generating your taxonomy. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when I started doing these lists, the guidance was just MSW3, but it became clear that in some families/orders there had been a ton of changes broadly accepted in the past 20 years. That's how I generate these lists- I start with MSW3, and look at the accepted changes since (which is... what it said in the article text). Over time I started to drift into more and more of just using ASM as a proxy for the accepted changes, especially in orders like this that have had a ton of revision by a small group of researchers in the last decade, to avoid being biased by which sources were easily available in google books/open-access journals. It looks like I'm not alone in that feeling, but that the current guidance is actually to use MSW3 as a base, and then change from there if the IUCN and ASM agree, with exceptions hashed out on the MAMMAL talkpage (mostly around bovids, it appears). That's close but obviously not exactly what I've been doing, so I'll go through this week and revise this and other lists to follow that guidance (and update the wording to match). --PresN 15:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. --PresN 02:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy is problematic in general and in particular for Wikipedia. MSW3 was an attempt to standardise all mammalian taxonomy, but updates have progressively been delayed, most likely due to a combination of disagreement between taxxonomists and continued research, thus making a updated definitive edition difficult. In English Wikipedia it appears that ASM as gained favour. I suspect that this is due to US editors being predominant group on English wikipedia and the database that it provides being kept up to date. The MSW, ASM, IUCN combination appears to be a reasonable compromise. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameel the Saluki: Yeah, honestly, thanks for calling me out on this list- in going through all of the ones I've done in the last few years, there was a very obvious trend (partially because I started with the "big names" and worked down) towards using my gut and the ASM alone to decide what "changes since 2005" meant, mostly in the lists I did in 2022, and that's really not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Having a solid rule applied to them all is a much firmer ground, and it's not surprising that the species additions I reverted (mostly on this list, though Lagomorpha was also a little much) are the ones that don't have much sourcing beyond the paper that said they existed. Hopefully one day MSW4 comes out to get everything back to one source to follow, though I'm not holding my breath. --PresN 03:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list and I believe these further changes are warranted
Change Marmosa macrotarsus to Marmosa quichua. macrotarsus is not in IUCN or MSW, and is split from murina and includes quichua. Marmosa quichua is in both IUCN and MSW.
Add Marmosa regina. This is in IUCN and Micoureus regina is in MSW. IUCN is in agreement with ASM to drop the genus Micoureus for Marmosa. ASM says it was omitted due to being included in Marmosa rapposa which isn't included in the article list.
Add Marmosops cracens, M. impavidus, and M. neblina. In both IUCN and MSW.
ASM says impavidus and neblina are included in caucae. IUCN disagrees
ASM says cracens is included in fuscatus. IUCN is silent
Add Marmosops pakaraimae. In both IUCN and ASM.
Remove Monodelphis theresa. This is in neither IUCN or ASM. IUCN says it is synonysed with M. scalops. ASM is silent, but would have done that also
Remove Monodelphis umbristriata. This is in neither IUCN or ASM. Both say it is synonysed with M. americana
Add Philander frenatus. In both IUCN and MSW. ASM omitted due to change of name to quica
