text:
Talk:Fauna of Australia

Cod Photo
That photo of the guy holding the cod really appropriate? Dosent seem very encyclopedic... 121.45.22.89 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Venom
The lead paragraph to be used for the main page, on Today's featured article/December 2005, says that the monotremes are venomous. Is the echidna also venomous? Or just the platypus? Rewster 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just the Platypus, thanks for pointing out the error, I will change the main page blurb.--nixie 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Might be better to use platypus with a lower-case "p."  Rewster 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, caps is the convention for species names, lower case for the common term for a genus... --nixie 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you are correct, and the species name would typically also be italicized, but...platypus is the common name, while Ornithorhynchus anatinus is the scientific name. Rewster 05:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Caps is the Wikipedia convention for common names, and is applied throughout this article.--nixie 06:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Pipefish
Do pipefish males incubate their young, or is that just seahorses? Rewster 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From the FishBase entry all males in the Syngnathidae have a pouch to incubate young.--nixie 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See if you think it's clear the way I rephrased it in the article. Thanks,  Rewster 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems clear to me, thanks for all the copyediting you've been doing- a fresh pair of eyes always pick up new things.--nixie 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Rewster. You've improved readability quite somewhat. :)--cj | talk 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Invertebrates
Do we have any specific examples of the over-harvested natural urchin predators whose absence leads to urchin barrens?

Also, it is not clear to me why the first paragraph lists the numbers of worldwide species for each insect order. Why is this info necessary? Deleting it might make the paragraph more readable. Regards, Rewster 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will chase up some info on the urchins. I thought that the insect numbers were interesting since they indicate how much insect diversity is in Australia. Readability would be improved if they were converted to approximate percentages - we can comment out the actual number for future reference.--nixie 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Monotremes
In the lead paragraph and under the Monotremes and Marsupials heading it says "Australia is home to the two of the five extant egg-laying monotremes". But I was always told that there were only two, and monotreme says that there are only two extant monotremes (and two other extinct families). Also, "egg-laying monotreme" is a tautology. Nick81 26 December 2005.

 * There are five living species of monotreme, the monotreme article says that, furthermore monotreme means one hole- which has no direct relation to the egg-laying abilities of the animals.--nixie 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Awwwwwww...
Thanks for putting that superadorable koala on the Main Page. Made my night. jengod 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

End of the Article
This article ends abruptly --Hobophobic 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I spotted that and found the missing piece. Rich  Farmbrough. 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Platypus capitalisation
Is there a reason platypus gets continually capitalised in the lead section? --liquidGhoul 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because Playtpus is a species common name and the convetion is to capitalise.--nixie 04:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no convention, it is still being decided, but I thought that it was only really birds that the convention applied to. The platypus article does not use capitalisation. --liquidGhoul 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that this has already been talked about in the archived talk. I think something should be concretely decided upon. The current situation is starting to get annoying. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had explicitly spelled out which convention was being used in this article in a commented out section at the start of the article.--nixie 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about all that, I didn't see it. When I was creating White's tree frog, it had been changed by someone from all caps, to none (except for the proper noun). When I researched it, I got the idea that only birds were capitalised, but now I see it is left to the preference of the author. --liquidGhoul 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-MP review
Reviewing the series of edits made between Dec 22 and Dec 29, during which this article was featured on the Main Page, I noticed a chunk of text had been removed. Without narrowing down in which edit it was removed, could I ask if there was a reason? --cj | talk 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I restored it. Apparently KI  (talk) took it out while creating a new article Invertebrates in Australia.  However, this new article (so far) appears to be just a copy of the invertebrate section from Fauna of Australia.   --Rewster 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
In the last paragraph of "Monotremes and marsupials", the article says that "The 51 species of macropods are divided into three families..."- but macropods are animals belonging to the family Macropodidae so how can it be? 212.235.10.138 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There are actually 54 species documented, and three families I believe it refers to kangaroos/wallabies/relatives ?? perhaps the word three "families" should be changed to three "groups"... Sam

Mediation
Concerning Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-18_Fauna_of_Australia:

User_talk:Barrylb:
 * I did not know you could not add your own web site to wikipedia. Sam.

 * This is not strictly true. Ceck No_original_research for example. There are circumstances where editors can add their own publications to wikipedia. As the page is non-profit and seems to contain adequate information (even if its entry page looks like bad advertisement) I would say this might be a borderline case. --Fasten 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi - it would be great if I could add my web page to the Fauna of Australia page - I believe it fits the category!. I also think it has a lot of content which is useful, especially for primary age children to help with school projects and etcetera. Thanks, Sam..

 * Why not expand wikipedia's coverage of these animals rather than trying to adrevtise your own webpage? --Martyman- (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Martyman - Im not trying to advertise the site but I would like to have a link to it from the "Fauna of Australia" page as I believe it to be on topic. If the website can't have a link then that is fine (dissapointing, but fine!) - I would just like to know the reason why. And to answer your question, if I had a lot of spare time then I would certainly contribute to wikipedia's coverage of the animals - (I have made a number of small changes and additions in the past but never had a wiki account until now). Thanks, Sam.

 * I see two troubles with the linking your to site from wikipedia. The first is that you istigated it yourself which will be viewed by many as self promotion. The second is that while your site is quite extensive, I am not sure it is any more extensive than wikipedia's own coverage of Australian animals. If that is the case, it raises the question: Why link to it? --Martyman- (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * First Trouble! - it MAY (not WILL) be viewed as self promotion - as I said earlier it is not for profit, and I believe it to be helpful.

Second Trouble! - Please have another look at the site, it contains pages upon pages of information that wikipedia does not yet have - therefore I believe it to be a worthwhile link to be added to the Australian Fauna page.

I would really just prefer to wait until the mediation is complete rather than go back and forwards with you as to why it should or shouldn't be included.

and while we are here! - what do you think about the change i mentioned in the previous topic - should someone implement that? ... and there are 54 macropods not 51!

 * I said "will be viewed by many as self promotion" which is quite correct. Your claim of being non-commercial is not backed up by the sale of merchandise on your website. Please point out a few specific areas where your website has pages upon pages of information lacking from wikipedia. There is no rule about continuing to discuss this issue while waiting for mediation. Note: I have not reverted the re-addition of the link to the article. --Martyman- (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Mediation actually requires you to discuss the issue at hand. The mediator is more like a moderator to prevent undersirable trends in a discussion and promote desirable trends in the discussion. --Fasten 09:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As to your suggestion about content, if you feel that is what needs to be done, feel free to make the change youself. --Martyman- (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This site should not be added to Wikipedia because: These sites are all cross-linked. The intention is likely to make money from advertising and from services where you are paid to link to other people's websites. The websites are all hosted at the same IP address and a check of the WHOIS information reveals Sam Schmidt is the registered owner of most domains. Barrylb 06:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be an authoritative source;
 * The content appears to be lacking in quality, originality and verifiability;
 * There is a lot of advertising and t-shirts and gifts for sale;
 * I believe this site is part of an elaborate network of sites attempting to make a profit. This includes: www.unitedstatesfauna.com, www.canadianfauna.com, www.africanfauna.com, www.mexicanfauna.com, www.brazilianfauna.com, www.newzealandfauna.com, www.indonesianfauna.com, www.wikifauna.com, www.wildanimal.info, www.toplist.com.au, www.bestoftheweb.com.au, www.actionadventure.com.au, www.screenprinting.net.au, www.anzac-day.net, www.freepetwebsite.com, www.honeywerekillingthekids.com, www.bertsfamilyfeud.com, www.techtoys.com.au, www.mentionit.com.au...

 * Wow!. Yes I am the owner of unitedstatesfauna.com / canadianfauna / africanfauna / mexicanfauna / brazilianfauna / newzealandfauna / indonesianfauna - the fauna websites. Others I have set up on behalf of friends or people needing a hand. I dont much see the point of listing all websites on a web server as many people can use the one server to host websites.

Let me clarify a few things you mentioned:

 * "These site are all cross-linked" - Barry, this is incorrect - these sites are not all cross linked at all. Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with cross-linking if they are on topic (i.e. fauna sites).
 * The intention is to provide free information, learn about the web whilst doing this and cover the costs of hosting.
 * There are a number of websites hosted on the single IP - and a number I have registered on behalf of others who do not have the knowledge to obtain a domain and set up.
 * Services where you are paid to link to other people's websites?? Please let me know about them and I might try those too!.
 * As previously mentioned, the advertising and commission on t-shirt sales (i don't physically sell t-shirts !!) cover costs of web hosting, and any remainder is donated to the WWF-Australia. This is a good thing I believe, the WWF do a lot of great work and implement preventative measures for our world.
 * Lacking in quality, originality and verifiability ?? Sorry I don't agree... originality - it is an information site, not an artistic site. Verifiability - references are stated at the end of each article. Quality - hmm... well I must say I designed the site two years ago and I am not a professional web designer??
 * Authoritative source - What is an authoritative source, and are authoritative sources the only links allowed on wikipedia??

Other than that, I think the number of websites hosted on the IP address, the owner of the websites or etc is irrelevant. I believe what we are looking at here is the australianfauna.com website, the quality of information and whether it should be listed on the page.

Sam

 * The sites _are_ cross linked. That is how I found them all.
 * Time consuming!
 * You say you have registered domain names for others that don't know how. Sorry, but why should I believe that?
 * Not fussed!
 * I won't tell you about services where you are paid to link to other people's websites because I am suggesting that you could be offering, or planning to offer, such services.
 * It's okay I was kidding.
 * You say you are just trying to cover the costs of web hosting and you are just intending to providing free information. Sorry, but why should I believe that?
 * Not fussed!
 * Anyone can donate to WWF. Good for you.
 * Thankyou, it is a very good cause and a very well run not-for-profit organisation. I am going to remove the link to my website and add a link to theirs so I hope that is okay.
 * Your site lacks originality in the sense that you are not providing new information. It appears to copied from elsewhere.
 * Well it isn't copied but "why should you believe me!"
 * Your site lacks quality in the sense that there is only very basic information on each of the various animals.
 * Less is more?
 * Despite your claim of references at the end of each article, there are very few articles with such references.
 * I paid good money to have those articles written up too.... looks like i didn't get what I paid for.
 * The reason it is relevant that the websites are all on the same IP address is that I believe it is because you are running them all in an attempt to make money.
 * There are about 90 websites hosted on that IP Barry, and no, I don't run them all :)
 * -- Barrylb 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Barry,

I responded to your points. I am going to remove the link seeings as it is causing so much grief, and I am really not all that fussed whether it appears or not. I hope this is okay with you?

I would also like to add a link to WWF-Australia if this is also okay?

Cheers,

Sam.

 * Let's please stick to the web site in question (Australianfauna.com).
 * According to WP:V this could be seen as a source of dubious reliability because it has "no (known) fact-checking facilities" and as a self-published source. It is not an authoritative source itself but refers to authoritative sources extensively as sources of its information. This would make it a poor choice as a source to support material in an article. This was, however, not the case. The reference has been added as a link for further reading (see WP:CITE: Further_reading). To my knowledge a site doesn't have to qualify as a source in order to be acceptable as a reference for further reading but similar expectations to quality may apply. The site is similar to wikipedia in that it is a reference compiled from authoritative sources. The site is dissimilar from wikipedia because it lacks publicly known fact-checking facilities. The site might be considered to contain an excessive amount of advertisement and was apparently added by the owner/operator of the site, which are both non-desirable qualities (see What should not be linked to / How not to be a spammer). --Fasten 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the plot thickens... I'd like to point out that the site www.insidebigbrother.com is also hosted at the same IP address as www.australianfauna.com. There was an earlier dispute about adding www.insidebigbrother.com to the Big Brother (Australian TV series) external links section which I and others believed to be spam. Another piece of evidence that Sam is misleading us? -- Barrylb 12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Sam has agreed to remove the link and this appears to be the appropriate step. Is there any further need for mediation? --Fasten 14:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think not. Thankyou for helping. Barrylb 14:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Biological Resources Study
Shouldn't the acronym for this be ABRS and not ARBS? --liquidGhoul 12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I checked out their website, and it was ABRS, so I have changed it. --liquidGhoul 06:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New Amphibian Section
I have created a new amphibian section, to stay up to date (taxonomically). I also thought that very little was written on Australia's frogs in comparison to the other animals so I wanted to expand on it. Here it is. I would normally just add it to the article, but since this is a featured article, I think I should add it here before I add it to the article (which will be tomorrow). Any objections, please raise. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

redirection
I had to search a while before finding this article. Might I suggest that the following search phrases be redirected to the article "Fauna of Australia":

 * Australian wildlife
 * wildlife of Australia
 * Australian mammals
 * mammals of Australia

Done. --liquidGhoul 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Placental Mammals
The article states: "Only three species of Australia's placental mammals were not deliberately introduced: the House Mouse, Black Rat and the Brown Rat." Shouldn't bats be included as "not deliberately introduced" as well, or am I missing something? I might be misreading the sentence; perhaps it should be changed to: "Only three species of Australia's non-endemic placental mammals were not deliberately introduced."

Also, it would be good to have a little more information on how the bats and rodents came to Australia. Did the bats fly from Asia to Australia? I would have thought that was further than their flight range. Maybe this is an open question among zoologists; if so the article should say so.

As for rodents, the article says they first arrived 5-10 million years ago. But how? Was there a land bridge? Or were water levels low at that point so that the Torres Strait narrowed and allowed them to swim? Ditto for the second migration of rats, 1 million years ago.

About seals: the article says the 11 species belong to the "family" Pinnipedia, but the article Pinniped refers to Pinnipedia as either a suborder or a superfamily, not a family.

Also, the sentence about the seals comes at the end of a paragraph about cetaceans, suggesting that seals are cetaceans when in fact they are carnivores. Plus, the implication is that the seals originally arrived in Australia the same way as the dolphins and whales, by swimming. Not sure whether that is correct. Mathew5000 09:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I can't answer all of these, but I can answer some. The rats and bats came over during the ice ages. The sea level was very low, and many animals were able to come across from New Guinea. This is not just the placental mammals, you also see the marsupials crossing from Australia to New Guinea, as well as many reptiles and frogs. White's Tree Frog crossed from Australia to New Guinea, and the Giant Tree Frog crossed from New Guinea to Australia. --liquidGhoul 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They started arriving well before the ice ages. It has been proposed that some of the bats arrived from South America via Antarctica some 40 million years ago. Sumanuil (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On your first point, "introduced" implies human intervention. The preceeding content of the paragraph is clearly discussing deliberate human introduction of mammal species. Humans had nothing to do with the arrival of bats of the first wave rodents. --nixie 01:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I understand that. The way it was phrased (before I changed it) was still misleading/incorrect. I inserted the word "nonindigenous", which fixes the problem. --Mathew5000 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured
I wanted to put a (featured article tag) on this page. It's been done already and I'm glad for all the editors. Please find a barnstar from a wanderer. --DLL 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quarantine additions
I have moved the long addition on quarantine concerns to the conservation aticle, the concept is already established in this article and the section is too long and has some issues with POV. This article is already long and any long additions should be useful and discussed here first.--Peta 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the problematic sectoion is already included in invasive species of Australia, problems with it can be worked out there.--Peta 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Photographs
FYI to someone who knows more about formatting pages than I -- at least on my browser, many of the photos are not wrapping around the text, but appear above it. I'd fix it but this is above my coding ability. Aloha. Arjuna 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What browser are you usuing? Also, which photos? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Foxes, toxic toads, western honeybee and more
It should be described in the article that the introduction of foxes by the british was one of the most contributing measures of the endangerment of local australian fauna (primarely marsupials). As there were no such predators, marsupials have become seriously endangered. Furthermore, introduction of the western honeybee (apis) has endangered the local (honey)bees, and because of there unique way of pollinization, certain local flora is endangered too, since they need these bees for their seeproduction. Toxic toads have also become a serious pest, and are seriously invading the country and deminishing their predators rapidly.

Please insert this information into the article, thanks.

KVDP 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackbuck
The article states that Blackbucks are introduced to Australia. I think this is a mistake, as I have never encountered this information, and I live in Australia. If they were introduced, they are certainly not here now, so I have removed this statement from the article. Frickeg 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blackbucks are not native to Australia, although they may have been introduced before Europeans. KP Botany 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A request - Fauna of Indonesia
Hi there - I am an Australian editor involved in the WIkiproject Indonesia. Our collaboration of the fortnight is Fauna of Indonesia. Thus, I am asking if any editors from this excellent Australian page could provide us with some advice on how to develop the article - or even help! Just drop a note on the article's talk page, or start editing! Of course, we can will look at this Australian ourselves, but the more heads the better. Just to get you all interested, Indonesia apparently has the world's second highest level of diversity after Brazil. kind regards and thanks in advance. --Merbabu 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Monotremes
Article says: Australia is home to two of the five known extant species of monotremes

But monotreme article suggests all five species and either platypus or echidnas. So that would mean all five are in Australia. Format (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * There are (at least) four species of echidna, only one of which (Tachyglossus aculeatus) occurs in Australia; it's also found on New Guinea. Three others, classified in the genus Zaglossus, occur in New Guinea only. Ucucha 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mammals of Australia
I think it is time for a separate article for this section. It is getting too large and no doubt it will expand if given the chance. Green Squares (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

 * It isn't too large because it is such a broad topic (30k prose). An expansion isn't going to kill it. The more pressing danger is WP:FAR due to a lack of citations. Judging by the list at WP:URFA it will probably get nominated soon as people work through the 2005 list.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Sigh - much of it is sourced with a tertiary source. It could do with some buffing and some of the facts I suspect need to be clarified. I'd take it to FAR but I think it'd be nice to get Australia out of the way first. I will ask Sabine's Sunbird to look at the bird segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically it is, yes, although if I just found another book called "Fauna/Animals of Australia" it may not be explicitly styled as tertiary but it would have the same structure with 2 pages on an overview of every group, followed by half a page on each animal. Things like "Field Guide of Australian Frogs" and other textbooks on frogs aren't designated an encyc but are built the same way, because with an umbrella textbook, on all fauna, there isn't enough space to cover anything except the core summary of the basics. Before I added Egerton, most of the books listed by Petaholmes would probably cover the same kind of depth as Egerton was 500+ pages. I mean, if I wrote a tertiary article on Churchill or whatever by simply paraphrasing a 10-page mini-bio from an encyclopedia or some mini-web-bio, that isn't in accordance with the ideal of distilling a 500-page textbook down into an article, but in this case we're distilling the whole 500 pages into a compact piece, so a whole book on all fauna may be ok for an article on all fauna, although not for taking one page out of the book for one animal. If we get a special textbook for each subfamily of birds, fish etc, we'll be here a long time. On another note, there are equivalent structured works that are called "Ox/Camb companion/guide to..." that aren't explicitly "dict/encyc" but have the same thing with hundreds of bite-sized things.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that somebody deleted what I think it's a very important part of the article that talked about dingos and platypus among other animals and now it's little to no mention in the article, though it is mentioned in the spoken article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.179.44 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Silly me. Hadn't noticed that roos, Wallabies, platypuses, etc had been killed off by somebody without being noticed  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) Ucucha has kindly pointed out some problems in the mammal section..I think the problems might be larger than we think. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me, the other problem with 2.5 source (i.e. somewhere between secondary and tertiary sources - namely wildlife encyclopedias) is that they are often outdated...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous Rodents
Hello, I have an interest in the Pebble Mound Mouse. I've noticed that there is no parent page for the Pebble Mound Mouse family. There seem to be three or four varieties. Should there be a parent page for them ? What about Australian rodents ? (Jimmy Heat (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

 * I think a pebble mound mouse article would certainly be in order. They form a distinctive group within the genus Pseudomys that is probably going to be a separate genus soon (including the species calabyi, chapmani, johnsoni, and patrius). Ucucha 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I look forward to seeing a Pebble Mound Mouse article here soon. It's surprising how obscure the creature is. (Jimmy Heat (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Crocodile Species
Are there only two crocodile species in Australia ? The article isn't clear on this, it mentions that Australia has both saltwater and freshwater crocodiles but not that these are the only species. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is badly worded - I'll change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review for Fauna of Australia
nominated Fauna of Australia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mammals in the Eocene
Although marsupials and placental mammals did coexist in Australia in the Eocene, only marsupials have survived to the present.

What kind of placental mammals?80.141.178.33 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Tingamarra, which is supposedly a primitive ungulate (and known from a single tooth). Ucucha (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fauna of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928231645/http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0057.pdf to http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0057.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Fauna of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221185455/http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/dugong_2002.pdf to http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/dugong_2002.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amonline.net.au/birds/research/figure1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320221926/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/07-fauna-2a-amphibia-myobatrachidae.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/07-fauna-2a-amphibia-myobatrachidae.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320222003/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/09-fauna-2a-amphibia-microhylidae.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/09-fauna-2a-amphibia-microhylidae.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725081627/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au:80/journal/australian-amphibians-among-oldest-in-the-world.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/australian-amphibians-among-oldest-in-the-world.htm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320222149/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/15-fauna-2a-chelonia-general.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/15-fauna-2a-chelonia-general.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/ants_in_australia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fauna of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725033425/http://www.australianfauna.com/saltwatercrocodile.php to http://www.australianfauna.com/saltwatercrocodile.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719035500/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/fish/index.html to http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/fish/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050723101859/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/36-ind.pdf to http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/36-ind.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Platypus.jpg

Dingos - arrival in Australia
I note in one paragraph about the dingoes that it says "Fossil evidence suggests that people from the north brought the dingo to Australia about 5000 years ago" while the text with the photo of the dingo says 4,000 years. Are these supposed to agree?

Tzali (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * They probably should. All the sources seem to be from the same time period too, unfortunately the two books don't seem to be available online. CMD (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Australian native snail" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_native_snail&redirect=no Australian native snail] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 18:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fauna of Australia


text:
Space station

A space station (or orbital station) is a spacecraft which remains in orbit and hosts humans for extended periods of time. It therefore is an artificial satellite featuring habitation facilities. The purpose of maintaining a space station varies depending on the program. Most often space stations have been research stations, but they have also served military or commercial uses, such as hosting space tourists.

Space stations have been hosting the only continuous presence of humans in space. The first space station was Salyut 1 (1971), hosting the first crew, of the ill-fated Soyuz 11. Consecutively space stations have been operated since Skylab (1973) and occupied since 1987 with the Salyut successor Mir. Uninterrupted occupation has been sustained since the operational transition from the Mir to the International Space Station (ISS), with its first occupation in 2000.

Currently there are two fully operational space stations – the International Space Station (ISS) and China's Tiangong Space Station (TSS), which have been occupied since October 2000 with Expedition 1 and since June 2022 with Shenzhou 14. The highest number of people at the same time on one space station has been 13, first achieved with the eleven day docking to the ISS of the 127th Space Shuttle mission in 2009. The record for most people on all space stations at the same time has been 17, first on May 30, 2023, with 11 people on the ISS and 6 on the TSS.

Space stations are most often modular, featuring docking ports, through which they are built and maintained, allowing the joining or movement of modules and the docking of other spacecrafts for the exchange of people, supplies and tools. While space stations generally do not leave their orbit, they do feature thrusters for station keeping.

Early concepts
The first mention of anything resembling a space station occurred in Edward Everett Hale's 1868 "The Brick Moon". The first to give serious, scientifically grounded consideration to space stations were Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Oberth about two decades apart in the early 20th century.

In 1929, Herman Potočnik's The Problem of Space Travel was published, the first to envision a "rotating wheel" space station to create artificial gravity. Conceptualized during the Second World War, the "sun gun" was a theoretical orbital weapon orbiting Earth at a height of 8200 km. No further research was ever conducted. In 1951, Wernher von Braun published a concept for a rotating wheel space station in Collier's Weekly, referencing Potočnik's idea. However, development of a rotating station was never begun in the 20th century.

First advances and precursors
The first human flew to space and concluded the first orbit on April 12, 1961, with Vostok 1.

The Apollo program had in its early planning instead of a lunar landing a crewed lunar orbital flight and an orbital laboratory station in orbit of Earth, at times called Project Olympus, as two different possible program goals, until the Kennedy administration sped ahead and made the Apollo program focus on what was originally planned to come after it, the lunar landing. The Project Olympus space station, or orbiting laboratory of the Apollo program, was proposed as an in-space unfolded structure with the Apollo command and service module docking. While never realized, the Apollo command and service module would perform docking maneuvers and eventually become a lunar orbiting module which was used for station-like purposes.

But before that the Gemini program paved the way and achieved the first space rendezvous (undocked) with Gemini 6 and Gemini 7 in 1965. Subsequently in 1966 Neil Armstrong performed on Gemini 8 the first ever space docking, while in 1967 Kosmos 186 and Kosmos 188 were the first spacecrafts that docked automatically.

In January 1969 Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 performed the first docked, but not internal, crew transfer, and finally in March Apollo 9 performed the first ever internal transfer of astronauts between two docked spaceships.

Salyut, Almaz and Skylab
In 1971, the Soviet Union developed and launched the world's first space station, Salyut 1. The Almaz and Salyut series were eventually joined by Skylab, Mir, and Tiangong-1 and Tiangong-2. The hardware developed during the initial Soviet efforts remains in use, with evolved variants comprising a considerable part of the ISS, orbiting today. Each crew member stays aboard the station for weeks or months but rarely more than a year.

Early stations were monolithic designs that were constructed and launched in one piece, generally containing all their supplies and experimental equipment. A crew would then be launched to join the station and perform research. After the supplies had been consumed, the station was abandoned.

The first space station was Salyut 1, which was launched by the Soviet Union on April 19, 1971. The early Soviet stations were all designated "Salyut", but among these, there were two distinct types: civilian and military. The military stations, Salyut 2, Salyut 3, and Salyut 5, were also known as Almaz stations.

The civilian stations Salyut 6 and Salyut 7 were built with two docking ports, which allowed a second crew to visit, bringing a new spacecraft with them; the Soyuz ferry could spend 90 days in space, at which point it needed to be replaced by a fresh Soyuz spacecraft. This allowed for a crew to man the station continually. The American Skylab (1973–1979) was also equipped with two docking ports, like second-generation stations, but the extra port was never used. The presence of a second port on the new stations allowed Progress supply vehicles to be docked to the station, meaning that fresh supplies could be brought to aid long-duration missions. This concept was expanded on Salyut 7, which "hard docked" with a TKS tug shortly before it was abandoned; this served as a proof of concept for the use of modular space stations. The later Salyuts may reasonably be seen as a transition between the two groups.

Mir
Unlike previous stations, the Soviet space station Mir had a modular design; a core unit was launched, and additional modules, generally with a specific role, were later added. This method allows for greater flexibility in operation, as well as removing the need for a single immensely powerful launch vehicle. Modular stations are also designed from the outset to have their supplies provided by logistical support craft, which allows for a longer lifetime at the cost of requiring regular support launches.

International Space Station
The ISS is divided into two main sections, the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) and the US Orbital Segment (USOS). The first module of the International Space Station, Zarya, was launched in 1998.

The Russian Orbital Segment's "second-generation" modules were able to launch on Proton, fly to the correct orbit, and dock themselves without human intervention. Connections are automatically made for power, data, gases, and propellants. The Russian autonomous approach allows the assembly of space stations prior to the launch of crew.

The Russian "second-generation" modules are able to be reconfigured to suit changing needs. As of 2009, RKK Energia was considering the removal and reuse of some modules of the ROS on the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex after the end of mission is reached for the ISS. However, in September 2017, the head of Roscosmos said that the technical feasibility of separating the station to form OPSEK had been studied, and there were now no plans to separate the Russian segment from the ISS.

In contrast, the main US modules launched on the Space Shuttle and were attached to the ISS by crews during EVAs. Connections for electrical power, data, propulsion, and cooling fluids are also made at this time, resulting in an integrated block of modules that is not designed for disassembly and must be deorbited as one mass.

The Axiom Orbital Segment is a planned commercial segment to be added to the ISS starting in the mid-2020s. Axiom Space gained NASA approval for the venture in January 2020. Up to three Axiom modules will attach to the International Space Station. The first module, Hab One, is expected to be launched at the end of 2026 and will be docked to the forward port of Harmony, requiring relocation of the PMA-2. Axiom Space plans to attach up to two additional modules to its first core module, and send private astronauts to inhabit the modules. The modules would later detach into the Axiom Station in a manner similar to Russia's proposed OPSEK.

Tiangong program

China's first space laboratory, Tiangong-1 was launched in September 2011. The uncrewed Shenzhou 8 then successfully performed an automatic rendezvous and docking in November 2011. The crewed Shenzhou 9 then docked with Tiangong-1 in June 2012, followed by the crewed Shenzhou 10 in 2013.

According to the China Manned Space Engineering Office, Tiangong-1 reentered over the South Pacific Ocean, northwest of Tahiti, on 2 April 2018 at 00:15 UTC.

A second space laboratory Tiangong-2 was launched in September 2016, while a plan for Tiangong-3 was merged with Tiangong-2. The station made a controlled reentry on 19 July 2019 and burned up over the South Pacific Ocean.

The Tiangong Space Station, the first module of which was launched on 29 April 2021, is in low Earth orbit, 340 to 450 kilometres above the Earth at an orbital inclination of 42° to 43°. Its planned construction via 11 total launches across 2021–2022 is intended to extend the core module with two laboratory modules, capable of hosting up to six crew.

Architecture
Two types of space stations have been flown: monolithic and modular. Monolithic stations consist of a single vehicle and are launched by one rocket. Modular stations consist of two or more separate vehicles that are launched independently and docked on orbit. Modular stations are currently preferred due to lower costs and greater flexibility.

A space station is a complex vehicle that must incorporate many interrelated subsystems, including structure, electrical power, thermal control, attitude determination and control, orbital navigation and propulsion, automation and robotics, computing and communications, environmental and life support, crew facilities, and crew and cargo transportation. Stations must serve a useful role, which drives the capabilities required.

Materials
Space stations are made from durable materials that have to weather space radiation, internal pressure, micrometeoroids, thermal effects of the sun and cold temperatures for very long periods of time. They are typically made from stainless steel, titanium and high-quality aluminum alloys, with layers of insulation such as Kevlar as a ballistics shield protection.

The International Space Station has a single inflatable module, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, which was installed in April2016 after being delivered to the ISS on the SpaceX CRS-8 resupply mission. This module, based on NASA research in the 1990s, weighed 1400 kg and was transported while compressed before being attached to the ISS by the space station arm and inflated to provide a 16 m3 volume. Whilst it was initially designed for a 2year lifetime it was still attached and being used for storage in August 2022.

Construction

 * Salyut 1 – first space station, launched in 1971
 * Skylab – launched in a single launch in May 1973
 * Mir – first modular space station assembled in orbit
 * International Space Station – modular space station assembled in orbit
 * Tiangong space station – Chinese space station

Habitability
The space station environment presents a variety of challenges to human habitability, including short-term problems such as the limited supplies of air, water, and food and the need to manage waste heat, and long-term ones such as weightlessness and relatively high levels of ionizing radiation. These conditions can create long-term health problems for space-station inhabitants, including muscle atrophy, bone deterioration, balance disorders, eyesight disorders, and elevated risk of cancer.

Future space habitats may attempt to address these issues, and could be designed for occupation beyond the weeks or months that current missions typically last. Possible solutions include the creation of artificial gravity by a rotating structure, the inclusion of radiation shielding, and the development of on-site agricultural ecosystems. Some designs might even accommodate large numbers of people, becoming essentially "cities in space" where people would reside semi-permanently.

Molds that develop aboard space stations can produce acids that degrade metal, glass, and rubber. Despite an expanding array of molecular approaches for detecting microorganisms, rapid and robust means of assessing the differential viability of the microbial cells, as a function of phylogenetic lineage, remain elusive.

Power
Like uncrewed spacecraft close to the Sun, space stations in the inner Solar System generally rely on solar panels to obtain power.

Life support
Space station air and water is brought up in spacecraft from Earth before being recycled. Supplemental oxygen can be supplied by a solid fuel oxygen generator.

Military
The last military-use space station was the Soviet Salyut 5, which was launched under the Almaz program and orbited between 1976 and 1977.

Occupation
Space stations have harboured so far the only long-duration direct human presence in space. After the first station, Salyut 1 (1971), and its tragic Soyuz 11 crew, space stations have been operated consecutively since Skylab (1973–1974), having allowed a progression of long-duration direct human presence in space. Long-duration resident crews have been joined by visiting crews since 1977 (Salyut 6), and stations have been occupied by consecutive crews since 1987 with the Salyut successor Mir. Uninterrupted occupation of stations has been achieved since the operational transition from the Mir to the ISS, with its first occupation in 2000. The ISS has hosted the highest number of people in orbit at the same time, reaching 13 for the first time during the eleven day docking of STS-127 in 2009.

The duration record for a single spaceflight is 437.75 days, set by Valeri Polyakov aboard Mir from 1994 to 1995. , four cosmonauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir.

Resupply and crew vehicles
Many spacecraft are used to dock with the space stations. Soyuz flight T-15 in March to July 1986 was the first and as of 2016, only spacecraft to visit two different space stations, Mir and Salyut 7.

International Space Station
The International Space Station has been supported by many different spacecraft.
 * Future
 * Sierra Nevada Corporation Dream Chaser
 * New Space-Station Resupply Vehicle (HTV-X)
 * Roscosmos Orel
 * Current
 * Northrop Grumman Cygnus (2013–present)
 * Roscosmos Progress (multiple variants) (2000–present)
 * Energia Soyuz (multiple variants) (2001–present)
 * SpaceX Dragon 2 (2020–present)
 * Retired
 * Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) (2008–2015)
 * H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) (2009–2020)
 * Space Shuttle (1998–2011)
 * SpaceX Dragon 1 (2012–2020)

Tiangong space station
The Tiangong space station is supported by the following spacecraft:
 * Shenzhou (2021–present)
 * Tianzhou (2021–present)

Tiangong program
The Tiangong program relied on the following spacecraft.
 * Shenzhou program (2011–2016)

Mir
The Mir space station was in orbit from 1986 to 2001 and was supported and visited by the following spacecraft:

 * Roscosmos Progress (multiple variants) (1986–2000) – An additional Progress spacecraft was used in 2001 to deorbit Mir.
 * Energia Soyuz (multiple variants) (1986–2000)
 * Space Shuttle (1995–1998)

Skylab

 * Apollo command and service module (1973–1974)

Salyut programme

 * Energia Soyuz (multiple variants) (1971–1986)

Research
Research conducted on the Mir included the first long term space based ESA research project EUROMIR95 which lasted 179days and included 35 scientific experiments.

During the first 20 years of operation of the International Space Station, there were around 3,000 scientific experiments in the areas of biology and biotech, technology development, educational activities, human research, physical science, and Earth and space science.

Materials research
Space stations provide a useful platform to test the performance, stability, and survivability of materials in space. This research follows on from previous experiments such as the Long Duration Exposure Facility, a free flying experimental platform which flew from April1984 until January1990.
 * Mir Environmental Effects Payload (1996–1997)
 * Materials International Space Station Experiment (2001–present)

Space tourism
On the International Space Station, guests sometimes pay $50 million to spend the week living as an astronaut. Later, space tourism is slated to expand once launch costs are lowered sufficiently. By the end of the 2020s, space hotels may become relatively common.

Finance
As it currently costs on average $10,000 to $25,000 per kilogram to launch anything into orbit, space stations remain the exclusive province of government space agencies, which are primarily funded by taxation. In the case of the International Space Station, space tourism makes up a small portion of money to run it.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Space station


text:
French grammar

French grammar is the set of rules by which the French language creates statements, questions and commands. In many respects, it is quite similar to that of the other Romance languages.

French is a moderately inflected language. Nouns and most pronouns are inflected for number (singular or plural, though in most nouns the plural is pronounced the same as the singular even if spelled differently); adjectives, for number and gender (masculine or feminine) of their nouns; personal pronouns and a few other pronouns, for person, number, gender, and case; and verbs, for tense, aspect, mood, and the person and number of their subjects. Case is primarily marked using word order and prepositions, while certain verb features are marked using auxiliary verbs.

Verbs
Verbs in French are conjugated to reflect the following information:
 * a mood (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, or conditional)
 * a tense (past, present, or future, though not all tenses can be combined with all moods)
 * an aspect (perfective or imperfective)
 * a voice (active, passive, or reflexive)
 * Nonfinite forms (e.g., participles, gerunds, infinitives)

Some of these features are combined into seven tense–aspect–mood combinations. The simple (one-word) forms are commonly referred to as the present, the simple past or preterite (past tense, perfective aspect), the imperfect (past tense, imperfective aspect), the future, the conditional, the present subjunctive, and the imperfect subjunctive. However, the simple past is rarely used in informal French, and the imperfect subjunctive is rarely used in modern French.

Verbs in the finite moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, and conditional) are also conjugated to agree with their subjects in person (first, second, or third) and number (singular or plural). As in English, the subject must be included (except in the imperative mood); in other words, unlike other Romance languages, French is neither a null-subject nor a pro-drop language.

Auxiliary verbs are combined with past participles of main verbs to produce compound tenses, including the compound past (passé composé). For most main verbs the auxiliary is (the appropriate form of) avoir ("to have"), but for reflexive verbs and certain intransitive verbs the auxiliary is a form of être ("to be"). The participle agrees with the subject when the auxiliary is être, and with a preceding direct object (if any) when the auxiliary is avoir. Forms of être are also used with the past participles of transitive verbs to form the passive voice.

The imperative mood, which only has first-person plural and second-person singular and plural forms, usually has forms similar or identical to the corresponding ones in the present indicative.

Gender
Every French noun has a grammatical gender, either masculine or feminine. The grammatical gender of a noun referring to a human usually corresponds to the noun's natural gender (i.e., its referent's sex or gender). For such nouns, there will very often be one noun of each gender, with the choice of noun being determined by the natural gender of the person described; for example, a male singer is un chanteur, while a female singer is either une chanteuse (a pop singer) or une cantatrice (an opera singer). A plural noun that refers to both males and females is masculine. In some cases, the two nouns are identical in form, with the difference only being marked in neighbouring words (due to gender agreement; see below); a Catholic man is un catholique, while a Catholic woman is une catholique. Nonetheless, there are some such nouns that retain their grammatical gender regardless of natural gender; personne 'person' is always feminine, while (at least in "standard" French) professeur 'teacher' is always masculine. In Canadian French, une professeure is the standard feminine form, which is becoming more and more common in European French.

A noun's gender is not perfectly predictable from its form, but there are some trends. As a very broad trend, nouns ending in -e tend to be feminine (e.g., une étoile 'a star', une voiture 'a car'), while the rest tend to be masculine (e.g., un ballon 'a balloon', un stylo 'a pen'), but it sometimes can be the opposite. More consistently, some endings, such as -sion, -tion, -aison, -ité and -logie occur almost exclusively with feminine nouns, while others, such as -aire, -isme, -ème and -ège occur almost exclusively with masculine ones. Many nouns ending in -e preceded by double consonants are also masculine (e.g. un cadre, un arbre, un signe, un meuble). Nonetheless, a noun that seems masculine judging by its ending might actually be feminine e.g., la peau 'the skin', une dent 'a tooth' or vice versa e.g., le coude  'the elbow', un squelette 'a skeleton' are masculine. Noun clauses are masculine.

A very small number of nouns can be used either in masculine or feminine gender with the same meaning (e.g., après-midi 'afternoon'). Often one gender is preferred over the other. Some (very rare) nouns change gender according to the way they are used: the words amour 'love' and délice 'pleasure' are masculine in singular and feminine in plural; the word orgue 'organ' is masculine, but when used emphatically in plural to refer to a church organ it becomes feminine (les grandes orgues); the plural noun gens 'people' changes gender in a very unusual way, being usually masculine but triggering feminine agreement when certain adjectives precede the word.

Other nouns change meaning depending on which grammatical gender they are used in. For example, le critique (masculine) refers to a critic, while la critique (feminine) means criticism; le livre refers to a book, while la livre means the pound (in the sense of both weight and currency). Similarly, le voile means "veil", whereas la voile means "sail".

The vocabulary of French includes many homophones, i.e., pairs of words with different spellings but the same pronunciation. Grammatical gender, however, may serve to distinguish some of these. For example, le pot 'the pot' and la peau 'the skin' are both pronounced but disagree in gender.

Number
As in English, nouns inflect for number.

Orthographically, the plural is usually formed from the singular by adding the letter -s (cf. maison > maisons 'houses'). Nouns ending in -au, -eu, and -ou often take the ending -x instead (cf. jeu > jeux 'games'). However, the endings -s and -x are in most cases not pronounced, meaning that in speech the plural form of a noun generally has the same pronunciation as the singular. Nouns that end in -s, -x or -z in the singular are left unchanged in the plural in both pronunciation and spelling (cf. croix > croix 'crosses', both pronounced [kʁwa]).

Liaison between a plural noun and a following adjective is one case where the plural ending -s or -x may be pronounced: des fenêtres ouvertes  ("open windows"). However, this form of liaison usually only appears in careful formal speech (for example by newsreaders). In most everyday speech singular and plural forms of most nouns are therefore homophonous in all contexts.

In spoken French, the plurality of most nouns is marked not on the form of the noun itself but by a preceding article or determiner (cf. la maison [la mɛzɔ̃] 'the house' > les maisons [le mɛzɔ̃] 'the houses'; mon frère [mɔ̃ fʁɛːʁ] 'my brother' > mes frères [me fʁɛːʁ] 'my brothers').

French nouns whose spoken plural forms are distinguished from the singular include most of those ending in -al, whose plural form is -aux (cf. cheval > chevaux  'horses'), as well as a few nouns ending in -ail that also follow this pattern (cf. travail [tʁavaj] > travaux [tʁavo] 'works'). Three nouns form completely irregular plurals: aïeul [ajœl] > aïeux [ajø] 'ancestors' (but aïeuls [ajœl] 'grandfathers'); ciel [sjɛl] > cieux [sjø] 'heavens' (but des ciels de lit 'bed canopies'); and œil [œj] > yeux [jø] 'eyes' (but des œils-de-bœuf 'oculi' (round windows), des œils-de-perdrix 'calluses' (on the feet)). Three other nouns have regular plurals in spelling but have irregular pronunciations: bœuf > bœufs  'oxen, cattle'; œuf  > œufs  'eggs'; and os  > os  'bones'.

As with English, most uncountable nouns are grammatically treated as singular, though some are plural, such as les mathématiques 'mathematics'; some nouns that are uncountable in English are countable in French, such as une information 'a piece of information'.

Case
Nouns in French are not inflected for any other grammatical categories. (However, personal pronouns are inflected for case and person; see below.)

Articles and determiners
Articles and determiners agree in gender and number with the noun they determine; unlike with nouns, this inflection is made in speech as well as in writing.

French has three articles: definite, indefinite, and partitive. The difference between the definite and indefinite articles is similar to that in English (definite: the; indefinite: a, an), except that the indefinite article has a plural form (similar to some, though English normally does not use an article before indefinite plural nouns). The partitive article is similar to the indefinite article but used for uncountable singular nouns.

Adjectives
An adjective must agree in gender and number with the noun it modifies. French adjectives therefore have four forms: masculine singular, feminine singular, masculine plural, and feminine plural. A few adjectives have a fifth form, viz. an additional masculine singular form for use in liaison before a noun beginning with a vowel or a "mute h", e.g. un beau jardin, un bel homme, une belle femme, de beaux enfants, de belles maisons (a beautiful garden, a handsome man, a beautiful woman, beautiful children, beautiful houses). This fifth form, which is older, is sometimes used elsewhere in set phrases, e.g. Philippe le Bel (Philip the Fair or the Handsome of France, 1268–1314) vs. Philippe le Beau (Philip the Handsome or the Fair of Castile, 1478–1506).

The masculine singular, an adjective's basic form, is listed in dictionaries. The feminine singular is normally formed by adding -e to the basic form. This -e is mute, which makes many masculine and feminine forms homophonous (cf. civil > civile 'civil', both pronounced /sivil/). However, the ending causes "mute" final sounds to be pronounced, whereby masculine-feminine pairs become distinguishable in pronunciation if the masculine form ends in a mute consonant, which is the case with a great deal of adjectives (cf. lourd > lourde  'heavy'). Under certain circumstances, other minor changes occur in the formation of feminine forms, such as the placement of an accent, the doubling of a consonant, or its replacement with another, changes that often reflect the pronunciation of such endings (cf. bon [bɔ̃] > bonne [bɔn] 'good'; heureux [øʁø] > heureuse [øʁøz] 'happy'). Irregular feminine forms include beau > belle 'beautiful', blanc > blanche 'white', and a limited number of others. If an adjective's basic form ends in -e, it is left unchanged in the feminine (cf. riche > riche 'rich').

The plural is normally formed by adding -s to the singular (masculine and feminine). This -s is usually mute, but pronounced in liaison with a following noun that begins with a vowel. Unlike liaison after plural nouns, liaison after plural adjectives is common and even obligatory in standard usage. If the basic form ends in -s, -x, or -z, an adjective is left unchanged in the masculine plural (cf. doux > doux 'soft, gentle'). A few adjectives take the (also mute) ending -x in the masculine plural (cf. nouveau > nouveaux 'new'). Plural forms that are distinguishable from the singular outside of liaison environments occur only with adjectives ending in -al. These normally have -aux in the masculine plural (cf. central > centraux  'central'). By contrast, the feminine plural is formed according to the general rule: centrale > centrales.

Due to the aforementioned rules, French adjectives might have four distinguished written forms which are all pronounced the same. This is the case if an adjective's masculine and feminine forms are homophonous and if there is no liaison between the adjective and a following noun.

On the other hand, if the masculine and feminine forms have different pronunciations and liaison does occur, all four forms can be distinguishable in pronunciation. Adjective declension is therefore important in spoken French, though to a lesser extent than in writing. (All forms distinguished in pronunciation are also distinguished in writing, but not vice versa.)

Due to the peculiar orthography of French, which denotes mute final consonants, most feminine forms seem regular in terms of their spelling because they are formed by adding -e to the masculine form, e.g., grand > grande, lent > lente, persan > persane. However, if we put this etymologic orthography aside and consider only current pronunciation, the formation of French female forms becomes quite irregular with several possible "endings": >,  > ,  >.

Most adjectives, when used attributively, appear after their nouns: le vin rouge ("the red wine"). A number of adjectives (often having to do with beauty, age, goodness, or size, a tendency summarized by the acronym "BAGS"), come before their nouns: une belle femme ("a beautiful woman"). With a few adjectives of the latter type, there are two masculine singular forms: one used before consonants (the basic form), and one used before vowels. For example, the adjective beau ("beautiful") changes form from un beau garçon ("a handsome boy") to un bel homme ("a handsome man"). Some adjectives change position depending on their meaning, sometimes preceding their nouns and sometimes following them. For example, ancien means "former" when it precedes its noun, but "ancient" when it follows it. To give another example, un homme grand means "a tall man", whereas un grand homme means "a great man".

Many compound words contain an adjective, such as une belle-mère "a mother-in-law", which is distinct from une belle mère "a beautiful mother". Some of them use an archaic form of the feminine adjective that lacks the final -e. These used to be written with an apostrophe, but a hyphen is now (at least since 1960) considered more correct: une grand-route (formerly, une grand' route) "a main country road", which is distinct from une grande route "a long way", and une grand-mère (formerly, une grand' mère) "a grandmother", which is distinct from une grande mère "a tall mother".

Adverbs
As in English, adverbs in French are used to modify adjectives, other adverbs, verbs, or clauses. Most adverbs are derived from an adjective by adding the suffix -ment, usually to its feminine form (-ment is analogous to the English suffix -ly): e.g. anciennement "anciently", "of old", "in olden times"; grandement "greatly"; lentement "slowly"; though there are some systematic deviations (e.g. patient → patiemment "patiently", malaisé → malaisément "uneasily"), some adverbs are derived irregularly (bon "good" → bien "well") and others do not derive from adjectives at all.

Adverbs themselves are generally invariable. An exception to this is the adverb tout "wholly, very" which agrees in gender and number with the adjective it modifies when it is in the feminine and begins with a consonant (e.g. tout petit "very small, m.s.", tous petits "very small, m.pl." but toute petite "very small, f.s.", toutes petites "very small, f.pl." — when beginning with a vowel however: tout entier, tout entiers, tout entière, tout entières "completely, as a whole" (with liaison)).

Prepositions
French prepositions link two related parts of a sentence. In word order, they are placed in front of a noun in order to specify the relationship between the noun and the verb, adjective, or other noun that precedes it. Some common French prepositions are: à (to, at, in), à côté de (next to, beside), après (after), au sujet de (about, on the subject of), avant (before), avec (with), chez (at the home/office of, among), contre (against), dans (in), d'après (according to), de (from, of, about), depuis (since, for), derrière (in back of, behind), devant (in front of), durant (during, while), en (in, on, to), en dehors de (outside of), en face de (facing, across from), entre (between), envers (toward), environ (approximately), hors de (outside of), jusque (until, up to, even), loin de (far from), malgré (despite), par (by, through), parmi (among), pendant (during), pour (for), près de (near), quant à (as for, regarding), sans (without), selon (according to), sous (under), suivant (according to), sur (on), vers (toward).

Pronouns
In French, pronouns can be inflected to indicate their role in a clause (subject, direct object, etc.), as well as the person, gender, and number of their referent. Not all of these inflections may be present at once; for example, the relative pronoun que (that, which, whom) may have any referent, while the possessive pronoun le mien (mine) may have any role in a clause.

As noted above, French (like English) is a non-pro-drop ("pronoun-dropping") language; therefore, pronouns feature prominently in the language. Impersonal verbs (e.g., pleuvoir – to rain) use the impersonal pronoun il (analogous to English it).

French object pronouns are all clitics. Some appear so consistently – especially in everyday speech — that some have commented that French could almost be considered to demonstrate polypersonal agreement.

Negation
French usually expresses negation in two parts, with the particle ne attached to the verb, and one or more negative words (connegatives) that modify the verb or one of its arguments. Negation encircles a conjugated verb with ne after the subject and the connegative after the verb, if the verb is finite or a gerund. However, both parts of the negation come before the targeted verb when it is in its infinitive form. For example:
 * Je les ai pris I took them → Je ne les ai pas pris I did not take them
 * Je voudrais regarder un film et m'endormir I would like to watch a movie and fall asleep → Je voudrais regarder un film et ne pas m'endormir. I would like to watch a movie and not fall asleep

Other negative words used in combination with ne are:
 * negative adverbs
 * ne … plus — not anymore, no longer
 * ne … jamais — never
 * ne … nulle part — nowhere
 * ne … guère — not much, hardly (literary)
 * ne … point / aucunement / nullement — not, not at all (literary)

 * negative pronouns
 * ne … rien — nothing
 * ne … personne — nobody

 * others
 * (determiner) ne … aucun — no/not any (also nul, literary)
 * (restrictive particle) ne … que — only

Examples:
 * Je ne sais pas. — I do not know.
 * Il ne fume plus. — He does not smoke anymore.
 * Nous n`avons vu personne. — We did not see anybody.
 * Elle n`a rien bu. — She didn't drink anything.
 * Je n`ai aucune idée. — I have no idea.
 * Vous ne mangez que des légumes ? — You only eat vegetables?

The negative adverbs (and rien) follow finite verbs but precede infinitives (along with ne):
 * Il prétend ne pas/ne jamais/ne rien fumer. — He claims not to smoke/to never smoke/to smoke nothing.

Moreover, it is possible for rien and personne to be used as the subject of a sentence, which moves them to the beginning of the sentence (before the ne):
 * Rien n'est certain. — Nothing is certain.
 * Personne n'est arrivé. — Nobody came.

Several negative words (other than pas) can appear in the same sentence, but the sentence is still usually interpreted as a simple negation. When another negative word occurs with pas, a double negation interpretation usually arises, but this construction is criticised.
 * Elle n'a plus jamais rien dit à personne. — She never said anything else to anybody.
 * Elle n'a pas vu personne. — She did not see nobody (i.e., she saw somebody).

Colloquial usage
In colloquial French, it is common to drop the ne, although this can create some ambiguity with the ne … plus construction when written down, as plus could mean either more or not anymore. Generally when plus is used to mean more, the final s is pronounced, whereas it is never pronounced when used to mean not anymore.

As an example, the informal sentence Il y en a plus could be pronounced with the final  to mean "there is more", or it could be pronounced without it  to mean "there is none left".

Independent ne
In certain, mostly literary constructions, ne can express negation by itself (without pas or another negative word). The four verbs that can use this construction are pouvoir ("to be able to"), savoir ("to know"), oser ("to dare"), and cesser ("to cease"). cf. phrase « Je ne sais quoi » — "I do not know what [it is]" remaining in colloquial speech as a fossilized phrase
 * (standard, ne + pas) « Je n'ai pas pu venir. » — "I was not able to come."
 * (casual, pas only) « J'ai pas pu venir. » [same]
 * (literary, ne only) « Je n'ai pu venir. » [same];

Expletive ne
In certain cases in formal French, the word ne can be used without signifying negation; the ne in such instances is known as expletive ne (French: ne explétif):

 * « J'ai peur que cela ne se reproduise. » — "I am afraid that it might happen again."
 * « Il est arrivé avant que nous n'ayons commencé. » — "He arrived before we started."
 * « Ils sont plus nombreux que tu ne le crois. » — "There are more of them than you think."

Expletive ne is found in finite subordinate clauses (never before an infinitive). It is characteristic of literary rather than colloquial style. In other registers French tends to not use any negation at all in such clauses, e.g., J'ai peur que cela se reproduise.

The following contexts allow expletive ne
 * the complement clause of verbs expressing fear or avoidance: craindre (to fear), avoir peur (to be afraid), empêcher (to prevent), éviter (to avoid)
 * the complement clause of verbs expressing doubt or denial: douter (to doubt), nier (to deny)
 * adverbial clauses introduced by the following expressions: avant que (before), à moins que (unless), de peur/crainte que (for fear that)
 * comparative constructions expressing inequality: autre (other), meilleur (better), plus fort (stronger), moins intelligent (less intelligent), etc.

Existential clauses
In French, the equivalent of the English existential clause "there is/are" is expressed with il y a (infinitive: y avoir), literally, "it there has" or "it has to it". As an impersonal verb, the verb may be conjugated to indicate tense, but always remains in the third person singular. For example
 * « Il y a deux bergers et quinze moutons dans le pré. » – "There are two shepherds and fifteen sheep in the meadow."
 * « Il y aura beaucoup à manger. » – "There will be a lot to eat."
 * « Il y aurait deux morts et cinq blessés dans l'accident. » – "There appears to have been (lit. would have) two dead and five injured in the accident." (as in news reporting)
 * « Il n'y avait personne chez les Martin. » – "There was nobody at the Martins' home."

This construction is also used to express the passage of time since an event occurred, like the English ago or it has been:
 * « Je l'ai vu il y a deux jours. » – "I saw him two days ago."
 * « Il y avait longtemps que je ne l'avais pas vu. » – "It had been a long time since I had seen him."
 * « Le langage d'il y a cent ans est très différent de celui d'aujourd'hui. » – "The language/usage of one hundred years ago is very different from that of today."

In informal speech, il y is typically reduced to [j], as in:
 * Y a [ja] deux bergers et quinze moutons dans le pré.
 * Y aura [joʁa] beaucoup à manger.
 * Y avait [javɛ] personne chez les Martin.
 * Je l'ai vu y a deux jours.

Word order
The components of a declarative clause are typically arranged in the following order (though not all components are always present):
 * Adverbial(s)
 * Subject
 * ne (usually a marker for negation, though it has some other uses)
 * First- and second-person object pronoun (me, te, nous, vous) or the third-person reflexive pronoun (se)
 * Third-person direct-object pronoun (le, la, les)
 * Third-person indirect-object pronoun (lui or leur)
 * The pronoun y
 * The pronoun en
 * Finite verb (may be an auxiliary)
 * Adverbial(s)
 * (second marker for negation) The pronouns pas, rien, personne, aucun.e, peu, que (if not subject)
 * Main verb (if the finite verb is an auxiliary)
 * Adverbial(s)
 * Direct object
 * Indirect object
 * Adverbial(s)

 * Note that what is called in English (and above) an indirect object is in many cases called complément circonstanciel d'attribution according to French grammar conventions (e.g., in donner quelque chose à quelqu'un “to give sth. to s.o.” or “to give s.o. sth.”). What the French call complément d'objet indirect is a complement introduced by an essentially void à or de (at least in the case of a noun) required by some particular, otherwise intransitive, verbs: e.g. Les cambrioleurs ont profité de mon absence “the robbers took advantage of my absence” — but the essentially synonymous les cambrioleurs ont mis mon absence à profit has a direct object instead. Unlike in English, in French neither an indirect object nor a circumstantial can become the subject of the passive voice: He was given a book has no direct equivalent in French.

The most common word order in French is subject-verb-object (SVO).

 * J’adore le chocolat (I love chocolate).

French also allows for verb-object-subject (VOS) though the usage is relatively rare and various constraints apply. The most common instance of this word order is in more formal texts or in response to questions with a focus on the subject, as opposed to more broad questions such as, Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé? (what happened?). Below are examples of each circumstance.

 * Formal or administrative text – Recevront un bulletin de vote les étudiants et le personnel académique (students as well as academic staff will receive a ballot paper).
 * Response to questions with a focus on the subject – Qui a mangé les gâteaux? (who ate the cakes?)
 * Ont mangé les gâteaux Marie, Pierre et Stéphanie (Marie, Pierre and Stephanie are those who ate the cakes).

Finally, in a comparatively limited number of instances French allows for object-subject-verb (OSV) word order, such as when adding emphasis

 * Le chocolat j’adore (chocolate I LOVE).

In regard to word order, French is more restrictive than other Romance languages. For example, Spanish allows for all six possible word orders, compared to French’s three. Additionally, unlike other Romance languages, specifically Spanish and Italian, French does not have free inversion, which is often explained by French not being a pro-drop language (while Spanish and Italian are).

Negation
As mentioned above, French expresses negation in two parts, the first with the particle ne attached to the verb and one or more negative words, which modify either the verb or one of its arguments. The participle ne comes before the verb in the sentence that is marked for tense and before any unstressed object pronouns that come before the verb. The location of the second part of the negation varies, however.

History
Modern French allows for fewer word orders than Latin or Old French, both of which Modern French has evolved from. In both Latin and Old French, all six potential word orders are possible:

 * Subject-verb-object (SVO)
 * Verb-object-subject (VOS)
 * Object-subject-verb (OSV)
 * Subject-object-verb (SOV)
 * Object-verb-subject (OVS)
 * Verb-subject-object (VSO)

While linguistic evolution occurs on a continuum, the major shift towards increased grammaticalization occurred in French most distinctly between the mid 12th century and end of the 15th century. It is believed that the progressive move towards SVO as the dominant French word order occurred during this time, as a result of a "progressive fixation of the subject in preverbal position from the fourteenth century on".

Question formation
Broadly speaking, there are two types of questions; yes/no questions and information questions.

Yes/no questions
In French there are four ways to form yes/no questions, each of which is typically associated with a different degree of formality.

1. Raising intonation
The simplest and most informal way to ask a yes/no question is by raising intonation at the end of a declarative sentence. This question formation structure is common in informal spoken French, but relatively uncommon in more formal spoken French or written French. Examples include:

 * Elle va rester ici ? (Is she going to stay here?)
 * Je peux mettre mes photos au mur ? (Can I put my photos on the wall?)

2. Est-ce que
Yes/no questions may also be formed by adding est-ce que to the beginning of a declarative sentence. This structure may be used in any style of French; formal, informal, spoken, or written.

 * Est-ce qu’elle va rester ici ? (Is she going to stay here?)
 * Est-ce que je peux mettre mes photos au mur ? (Can I put my photos on the wall?)

3. ..., n'est-ce pas?
Source:

This is like adding "is it not?" to the end and it is pronounced.
 * Tu es Jane, n'est-ce pas ?
 * Tu parles anglais, n'est-ce pas ?

4. Inversion of verb and subject
Finally, yes/no questions may be formed by inverting the verb and the subject. This sentence structure is typically used in formal and written French. These questions may be formed in one of two ways, depending on whether the pronoun is stressed or unstressed. If the pronoun is unstressed, it changes places with the verb that it agrees with.

 * Es-tu content ? (Are you happy?)

This subject-verb inversion is similar to question formation in English, though in English the inversion may only occur with auxiliary verbs, while in French it may occur with all verbs.

If the subject is anything other than an unstressed pronoun, an unstressed subject pronoun that agrees with the subject is added to the right of the verb.

 * Pierre est-il content ? (Is Pierre happy?)

Two additional notes on subject verb inversion in French. First, when the inversion results in the adjacency of two vowels “t” is inserted between them.

 * T-insertion: A-t-il 17 ans ? (Is he 17?)

Secondly, only the most formal French inverts the verb with “je”. It has become more common, both in spoken and written French, to replace je with est-ce-que. For example, the following two sentences are ungrammatical in French.

 * *Mens-je ? (Am I lying?)
 * *Prends-je le bus ? (Am I taking the bus?)

Information questions
There are four ways to form information questions in French. Like yes/no questions, each form is associated with a different degree of formality.

1. Addition of question word or phrase
The simplest and generally most informal way to form an information question in French is by replacing a word in a declarative sentence with a question word or phrase and adding rising intonation to the end of the sentence. The question word or phrase may occur at the beginning or end of the sentence, depending on which word is being replaced, unlike in English, where the question word typically occurs at the start of the sentence.

 * Declarative sentence – L’étudiant(e) téléphonera à son député demain. (The student will telephone his/her MP tomorrow.)
 * L’étudiant(e) téléphonera à son député quand ? (When will the student telephone his/her MP?)
 * Qui téléphonera à son député demain ? (Who will telephone his/her MP tomorrow?)

2. Moving question word or phrase
Another common and informal way of forming information questions is by replacing an item in a declarative sentence by a question word or phrase then moving the question word or phrase to the front of the sentence.

 * Qui vous avez vu ? (Who did you see?)
 * À qui Marcel a écrit ? (Who did Marcel write to?)

3. Addition of "est-ce que"
Another way to form a question in French is by following the steps outlined above in one and two, and in addition inserting est-ce que after the question word. This style of question formation may be used in all styles of French.

 * Qui est-ce que vous avez vu ? (Who did you see?)
 * À qui est-ce que Marcel a écrit ? (Who did Marcel write to?)

4. Inversion of verb and subject
Finally, information questions in French may be formed by following the steps outlined above in one and two and additionally, inverting the subject and verb. This is typically the most formal form of question formation and is found in written and formal spoken French. As in yes/no question formation, if the subject is an unstressed pronoun, it switches places with the verb:

 * Qui avez-vous vu? (Who did you see?)

If the subject is anything other than an unstressed pronoun, an unstressed subject pronoun is added after the verb.

 * Qui Robert a-t-il rencontré? (Who did Robert meet?)

Cleft sentences
Cleft sentences are sentences that consist of two clauses, one of which is a copular clause and one of which is a relative clause, also known as a cleft clause. The copular clause consists of a copula followed by the cleft constituent. Cleft sentences are found in many European languages, including French. In the sentence, c'est Stella qui lit Kant (It's Stella who reads Kant) "c'est Stella" is the copular clause, "Stella" is the cleft constituent, and "qui lit Kant" is the cleft clause.

Types of clefts
While cleft sentences are common in European languages, the types of possible cleft sentences vary dramatically by language. Subject clefts, in which the cleft constituent acts as the subject of both the main verb and the cleft clause, are the most common clefts and are found in all languages that have clefts. C'est Stella qui lit Kant (It's Stella who reads Kant) is an example of a subject cleft. In complement clefts the cleft constituent is a complement of both the main verb of the cleft clause and the non-cleft clause. For example, c'est Kant que Stella lit (it's Kant that Stella reads). The final type of clefts are adverbial clefts, which are the most common clefts in French, but are not found in all languages with clefts, such as German. In adverbial cleft sentences, the cleft constituent has an adverbial syntactic function. Therefore, the cleft constituent is not subcategorized by the cleft clause's main verb and it is not required in corresponding non-cleft clauses.

 * Adverbial cleft sentence: C'est avec facilité que Stella lit Kant (It is with ease that Stella reads Kant)
 * Corresponding non-cleft clause: Stella lit Kant [avec facilité] (Stella reads Kant [with ease])

title: French grammar