Talk:Fossa (animal)

message: More and more sources are starting to use the spelling "Fosa" to distinguish it from the animal with the latin name "Fossa Fossana". This name is used in both English language guides to Madagascar (by Bradt and Lonely Planet) as well as in the Bradt Madagascar Wildlife guide (where there is a part about cleaning up naming issues. This should be mentioned as alternative spelling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.196.21 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The page recently read that "FOO-sa" was NOT correct pronunciation.  I saw several websites that said this IS correct, and so I changed it and included links to those websites.  I don't know much of anything about biology or animals so I'm leaving a note here, that I'm not positive this pronunciation is correct. TheMaster42 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, American-Heritage, and MSN Encarta all disagree with the website links you provided and use the Latin pronounciation... maybe we can find someone from Madagascar to clear it up. -Dawson 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that of the links you give, American-Heritage has only the "ditch" meaning, Merriam-Webster has pronunciation only for the "ditch" meaning, Encarta uses the same wav file for both without evidence of actually knowing what they're talking about, and dictionary.com pretty much just copies everyone else. OED to the rescue. The common name for Cryptoprocta ferox is from the Malagasy, through French, and has variously been spelt (and presumably pronounced) foussa, fosa, fossane and fanaloka. So this is where it gets complicated: Fossa fossa is the Latin name for an entirely different Malagasy civet, and is pronounced as the Latin normally would be: fos-sa or foh-suh, per your continent. I suspect that despite warnings from writers, the similarity of names and creatures has led to a confusion of nomenclature, and consequently the names have bled together. Hence, the OED has only one entry for the two creatures, giving both spellings and both pronunciations as valid (for either species). FWIW, in general speech, I think for clarity and etymological fidelity, Cryptoprocta should be foussa and Fossa should be fossa,- but as far as the article goes, leave both as valid pronunciations. 
Yeah, I thought "Foo-sa" was the wrong way to pronounce it.61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please use IPA for pronunciation so that it is clear for all readers. — 193.203.81.129 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation

message: "The fossa is extremely cat-like in appearance and behaviour. It is also more closely related to cats then other members of the Viverrid family are, but it is, however, not an ancester of cats, nor is it extremely closely related to the ancestor of cats."
English is not my native language, so can please someone check these sentences and correct them if necesarry.
:It doesn't make any sense, it reads as though the fossa is a cat, and yet, still is a mongoose, too.--Mr Fink 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check

message: Why does the article's text say the Fossa is a member of the Viverridae family, yet the infobox claims it's Eupleridae? I was going to change it, but I wasn't really sure which was right, though i'd go with the infobox by default--overall, i think the article is very ambivalently worded when it comes to the classification. Conflicting information is a big no-no, so can someone please change it to its correct taxonomy? --Wikiwøw ­­ 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I've found numerous websites claiming that the fossa is Madagascar's largest carnivore (http://www.earthwatch.org/site/pp.asp?c=cdKLIPNpEoG&b=1340387, http://www.waza.org/conservation/projects/projects.php?id=67, etc), yet, as wiki states, the Nile Crocodile would seem to be much larger. can anyone shed some light on this? SamuraiY 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two likely explanations. Firstly, it could be that people simply forget that the crocodile lives on Madagascar, or forget that carnivory is not limited to the mammals. The crocodile is unusual, being the only large reptile on Madagascar, it's semi-aquatic, so gets overlooked by terrestrial and marine biologists, etc. Secondly, perhaps more likely, especially in scientific contexts, is that "carnivore" often refers specifically to mammals of the Order Carnivora, which obviously the crocodile is not.  The fossa is of course the largest mammalian carnivore in Madagascar. ImmortalWombat 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: Would it be okay to add a reference to the movie Madagascar?  In the movie, fossas played a significant role as the only predators of the lemurs.  The lemur colony enlisted the aid of Alex the Lion to protect the lemurs from the fossas.  Therefore, this seems to be a major cultural reference to fossas that many people could relate with.
Also, regarding the pronunciation debate above, in the movie they were pronounced 'foo-sa'. (if this helps at all) CougRoyalty (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference to the movie should not be controversial, since they play a major role as the antagonists, & is how 95% of everyone has heard of the Foosa. (Until I found this article, I thought Foosa were a fictional animal.) Unfortunately, some Wikipedians have a rabid prejudice against "X in popular culture" sections -- which is where the fact of their appearance in the movie would fall -- & adding that section would probably trigger an edit war. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TRIVIA.  Honestly, a lot less than "95% of everyone" have heard of fossas.  I give tours at the Duke Lemur Center, and most of our guests don't recognize the name, even when I mention the animated film. – Maky « talk » 20:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maky had kindly provided us with an example of what I ranted about, & proof of how the inmates are running the asylum. Sheesh, if you ask any number of people at random what a "Foosa" is, more will say "That creature in that movie" than "A predator in Madagascar". TV, Hollywood movies, talk news radio, & word of mouth is how the vast majority of us gain knowledge about facts not in our area of experience. Ignoring these vectors of information -- or misinformation -- simply proves Wikipedia articles are written by elitist, unrepresentative pendants more concerned with actual trivial details (such as proper scientific classification -- who the fuck actually cares if they are more closely related to civets, mongooses, or felines?) than making the information relevant. I see responses like this & I wonder why I should bother to contribute any more. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

text: As I said above, it falls under WP:TRIVIA.  If it were added, only a single (short) sentence would be needed: "The fossa was depicted as the antagonist in the animated film Madagascar."  It's trivial, and an entire section does not need to be created for it.  It *might* be possible to make a mention of their antagonist role in the film in the "Human interactions" section where taboo is discussed... but then people will continue to visit the article and complain about the lack of a "Popular culture" section because they didn't read the article and see that the information was already included.  I know a lot of articles use "Popular culture" sections, but almost all of them are low-grade articles, not featured articles.  When you see that section, it usually means you're looking at an underdeveloped, unorganized article, which this article is not. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that argument, Maky, is that it prioritizes form over function.  I can't rattle off Wikipedia guidelines by name, but I feel like that's a good philosophy to follow. The form of a featured article is only good if it is useful, and it seems that it would be useful to include this fact about the movie - so let's find a way to fit it in. Simplebutpowerful 01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll find a way to work it in.  If you would, please help me find a reliable source.  – Maky « talk » 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Madagascar the movie

message: So are the Vaunerable or Endangered? The bottom fo the article says one and the Conservation status marker says another.
Pinothyj (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vulnerable, at least according to the IUCN website, who do the listings.  Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered 

message: I can find no source for the claim that the Fossa can live for 60 years in the wild. I can find sources to say that it hasn't been studied: 
:http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Cryptoprocta_ferox.html
The source of the change appears to have occurred here:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fossa_%28animal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=282378436&oldid=281955981
The IP address that made the change seems to have been associated with vandalism in the past so I thought it might be an idea to review this change.
Xxcv (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -Went ahead and made the change, seems no one noticed this talk page. Added source for the change to the references. Xxcv (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: So, shall we get this party started? - UtherSRG (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly!  I will be ready to contribute in a day or two since I have some other Wiki work to do tonight.  As I've stated before, I'm probably best equipped to write an "Evolutionary history" section. I can also share a small paragraph about references to the animal in Malagasy culture, as well as help in other sections.  The question remains: Do we want to work towards DYK credit to give the page extra publicity when we near completion?  If so, that will take coordination.  Otherwise, I'm all for pushing this article all the way to FA. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready to start adding stuff. I'm partial to getting a DYK (it's good for publicity and gets me 10 WikiCup points), but won't be fussed if that's too difficult to coordinate. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I don't have any resource materials with me, and won't be able to get my hands on any reasonably until we're close to the end of the collaboration, but start writing and I'll edit. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I copyeditted and left some comments here. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: And I may do the mating section next. Hubba hubba! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the link Ucucha posted.  It looks like it's full of information.  Maybe if Ucucha or someone can get digital copies of it, the 2003 article by Hawkins from The Natural History of Madagascar is an excellent source of information.  As for me, I'll try to start my sandbox after work this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'd lost my way finding that PDF. It's got some good stuff, including duplication/verification of data in HMW1. I'll work on expanding my description tomorrow. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it must be tomorrow already because I've expanded my description sandbox with info from the "General Characters" section of the PDF. ;) I've also addressed the comments from Sasata. I want to include some information from the "Form" section of the PDF, particularly the first paragraph (general external features), the last paragraph (comparison to felids, herpestids and viverrids), and the dental formula (perhaps with a little from the next paragraphs - maybe). The next-to-last paragraph is quite interesting, but I'm a pervy kind of guy. LOL! I think we can skip most of the rest of the "Form" section, depending on how much is included in other sections of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys! Alright, it seems you’ve pretty much divided the stuff up among yourselves. What section would you like me to work on? What about a “Fossa in popular culture” section? :) Just kidding. So what do you need me to work on? The Arbiter★★★ 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't know.  It seems that UtherSRG is covering anatomy (though more detail is still needed), and Sasata appears to be covering ecology.  UtherSRG also mention mating behavior, but I don't know if he intends to write an entire behavior section, or just a "breeding and reproduction" section.  Along with the evolution/taxonomy and Malagasy cultural references sections that I'm working on, I think that may round out the article...  I'd work with Sasata and UtherSRG to see if there are some details you can work on, or if you could write the behavior section.  If not, you're welcome to write the lead and review what's been written.  – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot... what about a Conservation section?  Just searching Google Scholar for "Cryptoprocta ferox" is already yielding quite a few papers related to conservation.  Maybe Sasata can help obtain copies?  – VisionHolder « talk » 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbiter - if you could do behavior, that'd be great. I only mentioned mating stuff 'cos I'm that kind of a guy. LOL! I'll stick with the anatomy for now. Many topics have an overlap: anatomy and behavior have some over lap, behavior and diet have some overlap, anatomy and diet have some overlap... it's all interrelated. Once each of our sections or sets of sections are done, we'll put it all together in one sandbox, smooth out the overlap areas, then put it up in the article space. I think that's the plan. LOL! Yeah... I'm getting punchy.... 2 weeks until I start my travels home... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I want to give everyone a heads up.  I'm still working on extracting notes and quotes from my sources, and that will probably fill the rest of my evening.  (Sorry, I'm slow!)  Unfortunately, I work from 8am until after midnight on Fridays, and have very limited time on Saturdays and Sundays.  Everyone else is moving so quickly that I hope I won't hold everyone up.  However, it should go pretty quickly once I have time to write it from the notes & quotes.  My only recommendation for everyone is that if you haven't seen the Hawkins article, someone please try to make a copy available.  It appears to cover just about everything in amazing detail.  If people can't get to it, I will try to scan the 3-page article and email it out.  The book is massive and my scanner is tiny.  I don't even have a copy of Acrobat Pro, to make things worse.  But if you guys need it, I will try to set some time aside Saturday morning and will then email it to as many people as I can. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *Both sent. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *If there's anything for my sections in those refs, please send me a copy. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Nothing left for me—I am writing on the giant fossa instead. I wrote above that we perhaps don't need a separate article on Cryptoprocta, as we can hardly write anything useful there: what do others think about that? Ucucha 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We still haven't heard back from Arbiter, so maybe you can have one of his two sections.  You're also welcome to thoroughly critique what I manage to write on the evolution (since you're so damn good at it).  Otherwise, PLEASE do write Cryptoprocta spelea.  The article would perfectly complement this article and subfossil lemur topic I'm gradually working on.  I'll help if you want.  Otherwise, I support your suggestion to keep this article and Cryptoprocta together as one article.  In fact, I may eventually do the same for Aye-aye, Daubentonia, and Giant Aye-aye. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Ucucha, I didn't mean to cut you out! Look over the list of sections. Is there anything we've missed? Would you want to write the conservation section? Also, we are all needed to review all of the sections. (My sandbox could use another set of eyes!) Also, I just yesterday split the genus article off. See up above a section or two where I mention that and give rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'll just copyedit and further improve C. spelea (now at GAN). Ucucha 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll extract it... give me a moment. Sasata (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is. Sasata (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoinked it into my sandbox. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Awesome work, everyone! Alright, I'll work on behaviorand conservation. I’ll be working in my Sandbox 2. Let’s turn this article into something great! The Arbiter★★★ 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I don't have any constructive criticism. Your writing abilities are better than mine, but I haven't done any significant writing since I started WP:PRIM... that said, I believe I'm done incorporating Hawkins into my sections. I'm worried I've over referenced some parts, and under tagged others. Otherwise I'm ready for you to incorporate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm working on mine slowly. Will be done by the weekend, then I'm taking a two-week holiday. I'll review your section later tonight or tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Alright, so who wants the remaining two sections?  Ucucha?  Once we at least have a behavior section written, I'll start compiling what we have, write a lead and post the article (and submit for DYK for everyone involved).  Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll be done.  It will just mean that we can start editing on the article directly, giving us the green light to clean it up and submit for GA. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll give it a try, probably tomorrow. (I have a few other articles I want to write, and need to check proofs for a paper, so may not have much time.) Ucucha 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Looking good - nice range map! I don't anticipate any problems at GAN, but we'll have to tweak and recheck the literature before FAC. I'll leave things in all of your capable hands for the next couple of weeks during my Wikileave. Sasata (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Looks like we've done good. :) I've made a few small tweaks, but nothing out of the ordinary. Enjoy your wikileave! (Hrm... now what are we going to do through June - the month we're supposed to be working this article! LOL! Actually, I'll mostly be on wikileave, too, since i'll be home in NJ for most of June.) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, the FAC process will consume a week or two.  – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: *Lead - VH
*Description - UtherSRG (User:UtherSRG/Fossa description#Description)
*Breeding and reproduction - UtherSRG (User:UtherSRG/Fossa description#Mating and reproduction)
*Behavior - Arbiter (User:The Arbiter/Sandbox 2#Behavior)
*Diet - Sasata (User:Sasata/Fossa#Diet)
*Habitat and Distribution - Sasata (User:Sasata/Fossa#Habitat and distribution)
*Evolution/taxonomy - VH (User:Visionholder/Sandbox9#Evolution, phylogeny, and taxonomy)
*Conservation - unassigned (Arbiter?) (User:The Arbiter/Sandbox 2#Conservation)
*Malagasy culture - VH (User:Visionholder/Sandbox9#Malagasy cultural references)
Above is a listing of the section headers we need (feel free to add/amend) and who is working on them. Also, feel free to suggest an ordering for the sections as they will appear in the completed article. Damn... we might be done before June even starts! LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing left for me—I am writing on the giant fossa instead. I wrote above that we perhaps don't need a separate article on Cryptoprocta, as we can hardly write anything useful there: what do others think about that? Ucucha 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We still haven't heard back from Arbiter, so maybe you can have one of his two sections.  You're also welcome to thoroughly critique what I manage to write on the evolution (since you're so damn good at it).  Otherwise, PLEASE do write Cryptoprocta spelea.  The article would perfectly complement this article and subfossil lemur topic I'm gradually working on.  I'll help if you want.  Otherwise, I support your suggestion to keep this article and Cryptoprocta together as one article.  In fact, I may eventually do the same for Aye-aye, Daubentonia, and Giant Aye-aye. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Ucucha, I didn't mean to cut you out! Look over the list of sections. Is there anything we've missed? Would you want to write the conservation section? Also, we are all needed to review all of the sections. (My sandbox could use another set of eyes!) Also, I just yesterday split the genus article off. See up above a section or two where I mention that and give rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'll just copyedit and further improve C. spelea (now at GAN). Ucucha 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll extract it... give me a moment. Sasata (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is. Sasata (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoinked it into my sandbox. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Awesome work, everyone! Alright, I'll work on behaviorand conservation. I’ll be working in my Sandbox 2. Let’s turn this article into something great! The Arbiter★★★ 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I don't have any constructive criticism. Your writing abilities are better than mine, but I haven't done any significant writing since I started WP:PRIM... that said, I believe I'm done incorporating Hawkins into my sections. I'm worried I've over referenced some parts, and under tagged others. Otherwise I'm ready for you to incorporate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm working on mine slowly. Will be done by the weekend, then I'm taking a two-week holiday. I'll review your section later tonight or tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Alright, so who wants the remaining two sections?  Ucucha?  Once we at least have a behavior section written, I'll start compiling what we have, write a lead and post the article (and submit for DYK for everyone involved).  Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll be done.  It will just mean that we can start editing on the article directly, giving us the green light to clean it up and submit for GA. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll give it a try, probably tomorrow. (I have a few other articles I want to write, and need to check proofs for a paper, so may not have much time.) Ucucha 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headers for collaboration 

message: I have pieced together the existing work that has been divided between three sandboxes, standardized the references, and posted the initial draft of the new article.  I hope everyone is satisfied with any changes I've made.  I've also submitted the nomination for the DYK credit since we have met the required 5x expansion requirement (counting solely at body text).  I have shared DYK credit everyone who has actively written and reviewed, including Ucucha because I know he will eventually re-write the general "Behavior" and "Conservation" sections.  Before I go to sleep tonight, I will re-write the lead.  From here on, we can edit the article directly.  Once the last two sections are complete and everyone has a chance to review the article, I will submit it for GAC.  Following success there, we will move on to FAC.  – VisionHolder « talk » 05:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good - nice range map! I don't anticipate any problems at GAN, but we'll have to tweak and recheck the literature before FAC. I'll leave things in all of your capable hands for the next couple of weeks during my Wikileave. Sasata (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Looks like we've done good. :) I've made a few small tweaks, but nothing out of the ordinary. Enjoy your wikileave! (Hrm... now what are we going to do through June - the month we're supposed to be working this article! LOL! Actually, I'll mostly be on wikileave, too, since i'll be home in NJ for most of June.) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, the FAC process will consume a week or two.  – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write: moving forward 

message: Shouldn't the map caption read "Original distribution"?--Wetman (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This distribution is significantly less than that listed here. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: *We should mention C. spelea in the article.
*The cladogram is not supported by the source, which does not have Eupleres sister to Fossa–Cryptoprocta, or Galidictis to Salanoia. MSW 3 says Eupleres and Fossa are sister, but I haven't been able to find other genetic studies of euplerids which address this.
*:Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about all four issues.  I remember the cladogram was a pain to piece together, so I may have mixed up references.  I was also hoping someone would reply to my request about adding dashed lines to .  Feel free to additions and other changes.  I'll be tied up today with several lemur articles and probably won't have time until later this week or sometime next week. Sorry. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I'm gonna jot down stuff I find interesting while digging through the papers above (I'm working from the bottom up, btw). Feel free to comment, or add directly to the article. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely recommend including material (or a section) on captive populations and captive breeding success.  It's certainly worth a mention. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the content to add it to the article.  Is this all that's missing?  – VisionHolder « talk » 04:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm just taking my time. Will hopefully get finished this weekend. Sasata (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Random comments

message: It looks like we've covered most of the sources.  So aside from outstanding issues with the title and the inclusion/exclusion of the genus article—both issues that would benefit from feedback from a wider audience—are we ready to submit this article for FAC?  My last nomination just passed, and my plate is clear for this nomination if you guys are ready to go. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready for it to have a run. I'll give it another read-through after I get a couple of GA reviews finished. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready for FAC?

message: The current disambiguator in this article's title is not a very good one: after all, Fossa is also an animal. I can't think of any better alternative than Fossa (Cryptoprocta), though. Ucucha 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not the best title, but what other examples can we compare it to?  Honestly, I'm okay with the current title as long as we have the disambig information at the top.  I think it's very well worded and should help direct people appropriately.  I'm just not sure how the FAC reviewers would respond if this were the only disambig animal article that wasn't titled "Name (animal)".  But if there's not a standard, then let's compare with what's out there. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't; compare Attalea (genus) and Ambondro (genus). I guess the situation of this species is unique (common name identical to the scientific name of a different, closely related genus). Ucucha 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the situation is unique.  I've had to memorize large lists of common and scientific names for school before, and I could swear that there were other examples.  Let me think on it for a while.  I'll try to post back here after work. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm drawing a blank.  I can't think of any similar situations off-hand.  However, I'd like to see what everyone else has to say on this matter.  Alternatively, we could raise the question during the FAC to get a slightly broader range of opinions. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: In some of the languages in Indonesia, "fosa" or "posa" means "cat" and might be connected to "pusa" in Tagalog. I put it in "trivia" section of the article, but maybe it belongs to another section. Jiwa Matahari (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for this?  Without a reference, an uncited claim will only degrade this featured article.  Otherwise, the etymology of the name can either go in an etymology section, or we could work it into the "Taxonomy" section since it covers a little bit of etymology already.  If you find a verifiable source that does not involved original research, I'll gladly help you work it into the article.  Otherwise, "trivia" sections are generally frowned upon. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed a likely origin for the Malagasy term; see . Ucucha 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  You and I have been working with this source, but I got a little lazy and didn't bother to check it.  We should try to work this in somewhere based on what this source says.  Do you have a preference on where to place it?  Start an etymology section (for this and the existing etymologies), or work it in with the others in the "Taxonomy" section?  – VisionHolder « talk » 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've got the information added in a new "Etymology" section.  Let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fosa" and "Posa" in some Indonesian languages 

message: I just saw these animals on "Deadly 60." I can't believe I've never heard of them before. I love them. :3  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neato 

message: Here an article on genital organs of the female, with drawings. The author, Einar Lönnberg, died in november 1942, so his work is in public domain the first day of January 2013. Totodu74 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genitalia