Talk:Lists of mammals by region

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lists of mammals by region article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mammals High‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move from List of regional mammals lists → Lists of regional mammals edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:The Transhumanist says "moved List of regional mammals lists to Lists of regional mammals: Proper grammar - removed redundant list" (my emphasis).

We had this discussion over at Talk:Lists of birds by region, and I didn't get your point at the time. You say the second occurence of the word "list" is redundant, and therefore grammatically incorrect. But that is simply wrong:

The first occurence of the word "list" refers to the list on this page.
The second occurence refers to the lists on the other pages; the ones listed on this page.

There is no redundancy, so there is no grammatical error. And as pointed out in the other place, Wikipedia agrees.

Worse, the move changes the sense of the title to nonsense. There may well be some regional mammals, but this page certainly is not a list of them. Some mammals now occur all over the world - the Brown rat, for example. So presumably they couldn't be regional mammals, could they? So they wouldn't be in these lists, would they? But they are, and are meant to be. In the construction "regional mammal list" the adjective "regional" refers to the list, not the mammals!

Revert. --Glen Fergus 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would have to agree with the points made above. I believe we even have a Category:Lists of lists. However, is it possible that a title such as List of mammals by region would be acceptable to all? -- Visviva 06:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re Ireland edit

There was a link to the mammals of Northern Ireland under the United Kingdom. However, no such list exists on Wikipedia and Northern Ireland link redirected to the Irish list. So I moved the link out from under the United Kingdom and placed it as a stand alone link. I understand the urge to have a complete list of categories under the United Kingdom, but to do so honestly would require making a list of mammals of Northern Ireland and the overlap with Ireland might not be 100%.

Add topic