Talk:Archaefructus

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture of facsimile fossil

I think it should be made clear in the figure caption that the "fossil" shown is in fact a facsimile or reproduction of the original fossil described by Sun, Dilcher, Zheng et Zhou (Sun et al., 1998). The real thing is shown here: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/deeptime/virtualfossilcollection/Archaeofructus.html Plantsurfer (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archaefructus image

Hi Ljgua124 The caption says it is a photograph of the fossil. That is false. It is a photograph of a facsimile of the fossil made by painting onto a piece of limestone. If you compare it with the photographs of the fossil in the original paper you will see that they are not the same. It is fraudulent to claim that this is a photograph of the original fossil. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit of "In popular culture"

@Plantsurfer: I don't see how this section is considered "irrelevant" when there are other plant Wikipedia articles with cultural references (see: Rose, Tulip, Lilly, Apple, etc among other examples). The same as some of these listed examples that specifically mention their inclusion in cultural examples. The species was explicitly mentioned by name in the film.

Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is defined by reliable sources, and the suitability of Wikipedia having an article on that subject is decided by reference to WP:Inclusion criteria - appropriate topics are those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time - so they are "notable", and are not disallowed by policy.
— Wikipedia:Out of scope

Predators is a financially successful film and is part of a large franchise viewed by millions. Many no doubt like myself looked up such the name reference. If anything for clarity's sake an explanation that the plant depicted is not the one shown would be beneficial to overall understanding.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

MTWEmperor (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I was in the process of highlighting its erroneous depiction when said edit was reverted MTWEmperor (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPCV and WP:IPCEXAMPLES provide guidance on good and bad popular culture references. Plantsurfer 20:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]