Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates

This extinct genus is included in Category:New World monkeys as "†Branisella", which means that it gets indexed in the category under "†". This seems odd to me, and I was going to change it, but it occurred to me that this might be intentional, so I thought this would be a good place to ask. I observe that Noropithecus is not indexed that way in Category:Old World monkeys

I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts here on short descriptions for notable individual animals, particularly whether the redundancy of including their species in the short description is acceptable, and secondarily if it is more appropriate to refer to a primate that is not a pet as a "pet".

I've started a discussion at the following talk page: Talk:Bubbles (chimpanzee)#short description due to my edit being disputed; the edit was changing the short description of Bubbles (chimpanzee) from "Pet once owned by Michael Jackson" to "Chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson" as this is more accurate as well as consistent with the guidance and other comparable articles. MossOnALog^Talk 20:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François de Loys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to De Loys's ape.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François de Loys until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure where an appropriate place would be to start this conversion, so please feel free to share any thoughts here. But, with all that scientists are learning about animal emotions and cognition, I'd love for Wikipedia editors to rethink defaulting to "it" to refer to animals within a species. Referring to animals as "it" is an practice that, historically, benefitted medical research on animals, but, increasingly, has outlived its usefulness and become destructive.

Wikipedia is far from alone in describing animals as "it"s. A recent Guardian piece (23 April 2006) about the "stunning findings about great apes mental capabilities" even refers to a nonhuman ape as an "it." Media will refer to celebrity animals, such as Punch the monkey, with male/female pronouns, but an unnamed animal is invariably "it."

Where does one even begin to have a conversation around this at Wikipedia? I've made a few edits on pages to avoid the use of "it" (retaining that word when directly referring to, say, a species, subspecies or genus) while switching to plural and "they" in sentences where the animal is the subject. And also using "they" in the case of an unnamed individual. Maybe that's the best way to handle for now? I guess I'm just wary of getting into edit wars over this. Monkeywire (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Lemur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this has too much excessive scientific detail, and with too much jargon, to be highlighted as a feature. Wikipedia is for a general audience, not for scientists or biology specialists -- this has 8 paragraphs detailing the taxonomy alone, in addition to a chart. Six full paragraphs and another chart for dentition. At times, it's unclear that this page is referring to a living animal. Long passages on etymology, a subsection on metabolism.... I'm guessing that most people who want to know more about lemurs want to know what they are like. It is difficult to get a sense of that from the scholarly focus here. Monkeywire (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested that Ngogo chimpanzee war be moved to Ngogo Chimpanzee War, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Notification provided by Move+)