 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of the cover of a manuscript of Linnaeus, Carolus' work Fauna Suecica be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Ok. Now we moved Fauna (animals) to Fauna but the talk page was left behind. I tried the request move templates but it didn't work. Who can do this. How do you request the talk page to be moved from here to Talk:Fauna? Currently there's just a redirect. Jasu 12:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Salix alba just reunited the talk pages with their respective articles. Thanks a lot. Jasu 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be a Fauna and the disambig page that is there be linked to at the top of this page. Surely the majority of people who look for "Fauna" will be looking for the animals, not the other two definitions. Witty lama 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- definately -- MarSch 13:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I was just thinking the same thing. It would be the best. -- Francisco Valverde 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree but I don't know this is done best. Can you just copy the whole content to fauna (disambiguation) and move the content of fauna (animals) to fauna? Jasu 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Best not to cut and paste, that way you loose the edit history. Best thing to do is move fauna to fauna (disambiguation), find a friendly admin to delete the redirect left behind, this should be speedy G6, then move fauna (animals) to fauna. -- Salix alba ( talk) 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Moved Fauna to Fauna (disambiguation) and marked the latter for quick deletion to move Fauna (animals) there. Thanks to Salix alba for advice. Also checked links to Fauna (see [1]). The first 5 were all for Fauna as in animals not the disambiguation page. So, the move will actually correct these links. Jasu 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well done, Thanks! I reckon that's much more like it now. Cheers guys. Witty lama 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Made a quick diagram for Fauna. Not my best but all the time allowed for. Suitable for this article? Let me know. Jasu 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's great for the time being...Thanks! -- Francisco Valverde 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather than being a candidate for collaboration of the week, shouldn't this be a candidate for wiktionary? Brianpie 10:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Brianpie. Opinions vary but many think Wiktionary should just explain the meaning of the word in a few lines. Once any item is longer than that it's probably best of in the Wikipedia, and I guess we are aiming for more than that in this article. Here's a page on wiktionary inclusion that helped me [2]. Best, Jasu 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is just a proposal... I was wondering that considering all the Microfauna, Megafauna, etc... are related very closely to fauna and in any case they are all stubs, what would all of you think of merging them with Fauna...? Each of them as sections. -- Francisco Valverde 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. Maybe not Megafauna, since the article is substantial. But the rest are just stubs as far as I checked. Jasu 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We could also include, being consecuent with Flora, the list of the most famous faunas, like for example Linnaeus' Fauna Suecica, being fauna also the name of a book and any relevant history. This, I just speculate, I am not an expert in this subject, could do a good section...-- Francisco Valverde 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have found the term Ichthyofauna for fish fauna. It was in the German and Polish Wiki. Is it also used in English? -- Francisco Valverde 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ichthyofauna is the correct term, possibly derived from Ichthyology. Joelito ( talk) 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Both the sections on Macrofauna and Meiofauna use the term "benthic." After studying the article at benthic, I wonder if the term "aquatic" might be more accurate? ~ Mpwrmnt 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
These two terms mean very different things. Benthic means the seabed/ sediment at the bottom of a lake whereas aquatic just means having to do with water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athurber ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I get a very different picture of what Macrofauna might look like, depending on whether I consult this article ("Macrofauna are benthic or soil organisms which are at least one millimeter in length.") or the Wictionary ("macrofauna: A term applied to large animals, not quite large enough to be considered megafauna but larger than microfauna. Some include larger species of insects and annelids in this group.") Perhaps a few examples in each category would help. ~ Mpwrmnt 09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are the Subdivisions listed in any particular order? It seems to me that it might be clearer if they were. ~ Mpwrmnt 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The term 'microfauna' is listed as 'microscopic' and the Meiofauna, also defined as 'larger than 45 nanometers' are supposed to be larger than microfauna, but the microfauna page itself lists (nonmicroscopic) gerbils and housecats. Clearly someone is a little confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.48.161 ( talk) 05:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What properties Fauna should/must have to be called fauna? ( 81.197.155.108 ( talk) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
i have removed the sentence showing erroneous use of the word fauna. the word 'fauna' specifically means 'all animals' and so the expression 'ant fauna', like 'cat fauna', 'fish fauna' or anything similar is not only redundant it's incorrect. for example 'arboreal fauna' makes sense, so does 'arboreal insects', but 'arboreal insect fauna' doesn't; the all animal insects of trees?? 114.189.88.207 ( talk) 10:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
According to: "Fauna is all of the animal life of any particular region or time", should be tigers, white bears, and pinguins as fauna of London, Amsterdam, or Warsaw? All of them are living in Zoologicals Gardens in many places. But not in natur. So I think, the definition need some correct. Lien Shan ( talk) 23:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class animal articles
- High-importance animal articles
- WikiProject Animals articles
- C-Class Biology articles
- High-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- C-Class Ecology articles
- High-importance Ecology articles
- WikiProject Ecology articles
- Wikipedia requested images of animals
- Wikipedia requested images of publications