This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Primates This page is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate

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 was thinking of creating a list of notable documentaries focused on nonhuman primates, especially the ones with Wikipedia entries (Chimp Empire, Chimp Crazy, Monkey Kingdom, etc.). I was thinking it should be a list -- as opposed to a subcategory -- because there doesn't seem to be clean way of blending film and TV (and possibly audio/podcast) nonfiction on the topic.

There is currently a category for Films about Primates but it is woefully underutilized. And since, increasingly, documentaries are taking the form of TV series, I'm thinking something new might be best.

Does this make sense? Wanted to ask in advance... Monkeywire (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeywire I would check with WP:FILM to see if they have more similar list pages of this type. I can only imagine that Films about horses would be equal in status… Ah, see: List of films about horse racing — HTGS (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various WikiFauna pages (humorous pages that describe Wikipedia user personalities) have been added to this Wikiproject (including pages like Wikipedia:WikiGiant and Wikipedia:WikiKing). I don’t think these really fall into the relevant types of pages this project wants to manage, but I do want to check if others disagree. See the full list of this project’s project-level pages here: [1] — HTGS (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all! the entry for the evolution of primates is looking kind of anemic right now, there's only a few complete sections, and any expansion is welcome. Anyone who would be interested in basically writing from scratch sections for the article should check it out and see if you can help out. here's the list of sections that currently need fixing: origins of primates, evolution of strepsirrhinnes, evolution of haplorrhines, evolution of new world monkeys, human evolution (most of that section is just copy/pasted from the main entry,) and evolution of the pelvis. Many of these used to be empty or single sentence, I've expanded all of them to at least be something, but I would love any help I can get from the primate crew. BioNerd13 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently started editing pages related to the historic Great ape language research, which are a bit of a mess, and have encountered a user who keeps making over-reaching claims and cutting swaths of material he doesn't agree with. For example, a page on Washoe chimpanzee mentions the Clever Hans conference, which was the subject of heated debate at the time. This user cut simply excised the criticisms of the conference. I undid the cut (and ultimately the page COULD use rewriting) but he reinstated.

I'm relatively low-drama and have never run in this problem before. Tips from a more seasoned editor? Monkeywire (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claims aren't overreaching, though. There is zero acceptance of these experiments demonstrating language ability by relevant experts, and WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY mean we don't need to give the objections of the research groups to overwhelming consensus much space, if any. Just because the authors disagree, doesn't mean that those disagreements are worth paying attention to. As they're making a linguistic claim, we must consider a: the uniform response of subject matter experts and b: the fact that the authors of these language experiments typically are not subject matter experts in linguistics (see: WP:PARITY).

It's possible the inclusion of the clever hans conference is warranted, I certainly don't own the article and won't object if you want to work it in, but I absolutely would object to reinstating the objections of the research team as WP:ADVOCACY unless there's evidence that their objections are taken seriously. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the user mentioned by @Monkeywire above. I've started a discussion at the Linguistics wikiproject about the need to rework much of the presentation of these articles so that they're not either misleading or, in many cases, presenting widely rejected conclusions reached by some of these researchers as credible. Please feel free to chime in. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]