Talk:History of the Burgess Shale

A fact from History of the Burgess Shale appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that this month celebrates the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the main Burgess Shale locality?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/August.

Wikipedia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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.

Gould

Leaving Steven Jay Gould right out of the text entirely: snobbism?--Wetman (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deliberate decision - he simply wasn't mentioned in the sources I was using. I've never been a fan of 'in popular culture' sections but I agree that he probably deserves a mention, and that is the only way I can really think of him fitting in - if he does fit in the scope of the article. What would you suggest? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Wonderful Life handy, but it does have some marvelously phrased passages about the significance of the Burgess Shale - there's one likening the fossils to "holy objects" that sticks in my mind. Perhaps if we could find some way of quoting or paraphrasing him in the text, with a reference by name, that'd manage it? "The Burgess Shale fossils were described by Gould as ..." - there's bound to be something there about the "most significant" or something equally high-sounding. Shimgray | talk | 11:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a scientific point of view Wonderful Life is "popular culture". The book was well out of date when published in 1989, since Gould presents the early 1970s view of the Burgess fauna and Briggs and Whittington had got interested in the stem group concept 1979-1981 (see Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Theoretical_significance). --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

This might come in handy for future expansion: Cambridge minds by Richard Mason, Cambridge University Press, pp. 127ff. --JN 466 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I've done what I can with the limited preview available with Google books... I'll see if I can hunt out a hard copy to fill in the blanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. As for filling in the blanks, the amazon preview will let you see the pages google doesn't. ;) JN 466 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip - wish I'd thought of that earlier! As it happens the other pages weren't particularly relevant to the article (but still a thoroughly good read!). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

I like the article and the attention it pays to the recollection of what it originally got, yet it makes me wonder if the page is specifically made with the intend to have one with no reference to equally relevant deposits, wich besides much preventing future disorder makes me wonder what actual intent it services. in the least it is a very narrowly defined view on something like a popular yet significant subject.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Lagerstätte (linked in this article) for a list. The Burgess was the first discovered of the Cambrian lagerstätte, and still one of the most important scientifically. --Philcha (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the Burgess Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info/program
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://burgess-shale.info/field-trips

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]