Talk:List of fossil sites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lake Mungo

Although this area is classed as archaelogical it has some palaeontological relevance. Enlil Ninlil 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Dysmorodrepanis 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mechanics

It may be just me, but I cannot scroll to the bottom of this page. Jinns in the program, no doubt.

IMO, I would have much more fun using this table if it were chronological instead of geographical. I suppose at least half the users will disagree with that one.

Finally, could the sites with hominid or ancestral-to-hominid remains be designated? Maybe something as simple as asterisking them would work; you have enough columns to worry about as it is.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I'm against Dysmo's proposed merger with the list of dinosaur bearing rock formations. The latter is just too useful on its own.Abyssal (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe that is so, and would make this page too long. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support merge as this page should end up duplicating everything on that page if it lives up to it's title. Otherwise we need to rename this page. I think the dinosaur page is too specific, there are surely non-dinosaur fossils in many of the formations listed. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are so important historically and relevant culturally that I think they should get there own page, honestly. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What if you used a sortable table with a column for major species or genus? then users could easily pull out the dino info. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Sites

I would add Hakel In Lebanon, a rather famous site for it's marine fossils.One not in use (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Be bold! Awickert (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by One not in use (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

missing ?

I think literature reference abbreviation should be included as crossreference. Perhaps not necessary as table (it si hundred of sites, but as wiki linked-string (spatially and next temporally ordered?). If red perhaps somebody link it; great if if blue. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oslo graben

What about adding several places within the Oslo graben, where marine fossils from ordovician and silurian are widely found within layers of mudstone? Sample picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ordovicium-Silurian.jpg More information: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.17.220 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indus river

Perhaps this should be added? This was supposedly where transitional fossils of the whale, like Ambulocetus Natans was found. Eik Corell (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Lagerstätte?

Should this page and the Lagerstätte page be merged? PAR (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lagerstätten are a distinct type of fossil site with specific characteristics. Given that this article is intended as a list, I don't think that it's fair to try to make it also cover a specific unusual type of fossil site. J. Spencer (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list?

This is a stand-alone list, so it must satisfy specific notability criteria for stand-alone lists. In particular, " A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

I have provided a couple of references for such a list, but they highlight the main problem for this list: How exactly is this list defined? What are the selection criteria? The title implies a comprehensive list of fossil sites, but extrapolating the list for the U.S. and Canada to the globe would result in an enormous list. Also, lists should not be indiscriminate. On the other hand, the lead says the sites must be "important and/or well-known", but that is hard to interpret. I have seen several lists nominated in Articles for deletion because editors objected to such wording on the grounds that inclusion on the list becomes just a matter of personal opinion. Also, the only link I found for important sites (Fossil sites) is much shorter than this one. A another reasonable selection criterion is that all the entries are notable enough to be the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Most of the sites in this list satisfy that criterion, although there are too many red links.

So ... what is the purpose of this list? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think a category (with appropriate sub-categories) would be justifiable instead of this list? That would eliminate the sites for which no WP article yet exists, but I'm not sure what purpose is served by including those on this list. The list has averaged 240 views a day for the last 30 days, so there is some interest in it. -- Donald Albury 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether those 240 prefer this list or one of the alternatives – particularly List of dinosaur bearing rock formations, List of fossil parks and Lagerstätte (which is mostly a list)? It is rather handy to have the option of sorting the sites by location. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Those pages average about 40, 11 and 95 views a day, respectively, so they are not as popular, whatever that means. Sub-categories could handle sorting fossil sites by location, by formation, by type, and by any other reasonable scheme. The only advantage I see for a list over categorization is that a list can include sites that do not yet have a WP article. -- Donald Albury 11:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, lists have plenty of advantages (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). I'm not recommending that this list be replaced by a category - just that its purpose should be clarified. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised, however, to see that there is no Category:Fossil sites. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)