Talk:List of mammals in California
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] To do
This list has a lot of potential. Following the example of List of California birds, it wouldn't be hard to work towards the coveted featured list status.
- Update list with recent changes published by the California Department of Fish and Game (in References).
- Also update species numbers in introduction, subtotals for each order.
- Needs more images.
- Needs a full introductory paragraph.
--Justin 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done, done and done. All paragraphs can still be fleshed out more, and images can be added. And of course, stub out red article links. Might add endemic subspecies of special interest as a next step. --Justin 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heading names
Would it make sense to change the names of the headings to the common names since that is the Wikipedia convention, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Article titles? -- Basar (talk · contribs) 20:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've been wondering the same myself. So far I've only maintained the conventions I found here when I started working. I'm open to the idea, as long as we keep the taxonomic sort order. --Justin 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't been back here recently. I like the formatting, and I think the way the lists are numbered is utilitarian, but in a FLC, some people might think it looks ugly. I think it might be good to reduce the pics below the lead section to standard thumb nail size as that is often preferred to enable user preferences on thumb size. It may also be a good idea to replace the CDFG special concern tag with an asterisk or something and the endemic tag with another marker just because lists are often done that way and because it makes it a little cleaner. I'll look around for any more pictures that might be considered an upgrade or for where pictures are lacking. I think this list could be FLC'd soon. Also, I think stating how many species are in an order is redundant with the individual numbers, I think either or, but I would vote for bullets and a number at the top myself. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good work on the updates; I think I like the way it looks sorted by families. I went through the top part of the article looking for pictures, but I found that the commons has very poor pictures for those animals. I imagine I will find better ones for animals further down. If you decide that you want bullets instead of numbers of the list, I think I can do it with a computer program. Same goes for the asterisks if you want those. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback. The suggestions you made here all sound like good choices, I'll work on implementing. I prefer the look of the bullets over the numbers in other lists, we can keep the subtotals in the section headers. If you can whip up some code to automate the conversion, that'd be sweet. What languages/tools do you use to program wiki-utilities? If you could link some good reading on the topic, I'd appreciate it. --Justin 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good work on the updates; I think I like the way it looks sorted by families. I went through the top part of the article looking for pictures, but I found that the commons has very poor pictures for those animals. I imagine I will find better ones for animals further down. If you decide that you want bullets instead of numbers of the list, I think I can do it with a computer program. Same goes for the asterisks if you want those. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't been back here recently. I like the formatting, and I think the way the lists are numbered is utilitarian, but in a FLC, some people might think it looks ugly. I think it might be good to reduce the pics below the lead section to standard thumb nail size as that is often preferred to enable user preferences on thumb size. It may also be a good idea to replace the CDFG special concern tag with an asterisk or something and the endemic tag with another marker just because lists are often done that way and because it makes it a little cleaner. I'll look around for any more pictures that might be considered an upgrade or for where pictures are lacking. I think this list could be FLC'd soon. Also, I think stating how many species are in an order is redundant with the individual numbers, I think either or, but I would vote for bullets and a number at the top myself. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To do 2008
1. Convert numbers to bullets. 2. De-wikilink section names (see List of mammals in Connecticut]]. 3. Only link order names. TOC is out of hand. 4. Update refs. A couple of new lists on the CaDFG website, including 2008 docs. 5. Standardize key for listing types on page (extirpated, invasive, state/federal listings, etc). 6. More prose. --Justin (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
