Jump to content

Talk:List of human evolution fossils/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Table of fossils "more than 4 million years old"

The titles for the columns of the first table, "More than 4 million years old," are offset by one to the left. The first column was labeled "Name," but the entire column was blank. The next column was named "Age," but it had the names, etc. I added an empty column before the first column, so that it would balance out. However, this is a rather ugly fix. Who can actually fix it? Noddegamra 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone deleted the first column, you have restored it to what it is supposed to be, we just don't have any pictures there yet, once we get one that first column will look better. Alternately we could put some text placeholders in there. nowimnthing - not signed in right now.
Okay. I thought it was strange that there weren't any pictures for that one but ones for all the rest. Thanks for the help. Noddegamra 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC){{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg

Page Title

I have changed the title of this page to "List of Important Primate and Hominin Fossils". The reason for this is that the first table on the page shows fossils that are definitively not hominins. Aegyptopithecus is an early Catarrhine, whilst the likes of Proconsul and Lufengpithecus are Hominoids (i.e. apes), but not hominins. The only options are to remove these entries, or change the name of the page. In the name of keeping as much useful information on the page as possible, I opted for the former option.

Since I created this page a while back it has gone through a number of name changes. I thought my first was ok, Human Evolution Fossils, but someone correctly pointed out that it is really a list in WP style but that List of Important Human Evolution Fossils was too long and dropped it to Human Fossils. That of course is misleading so we came to Hominina Fossils, which as pointed out above is not entirely correct either. We could go back to Hominid, but given the different definitions that word has gone through, we may end up back here again explaining current usage. I propose going to List of human evolution fossils. That is the common theme of the page and it fits with the naming conventions on other pages in the Series on Human Evolution like Timeline of human evolution. Nowimnthing 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ER406f.jpg

Image:ER406f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Knmer3733f.jpg

Image:Knmer3733f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ng6f.jpg

Image:Ng6f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WT17ksmf.jpg

Image:WT17ksmf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SK46l.jpg

Image:SK46l.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sk48f.jpg

Image:Sk48f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skhul5 f.jpg

Image:Skhul5 f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sts71 f.jpg

Image:Sts71 f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TM1517a2.jpg

Image:TM1517a2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zinjf.jpg

Image:Zinjf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wadjf.jpg

Image:Wadjf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Al129knee.jpg

Image:Al129knee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:17400f.jpg

Image:17400f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1805fmax.jpg

Image:1805fmax.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1813f.jpg

Image:1813f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:732f.jpg

Image:732f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kabwecraniumf.jpg

Image:Kabwecraniumf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lachapf.jpg

Image:Lachapf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Laferrf.jpg

Image:Laferrf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lemousf.jpg

Image:Lemousf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AL200f.jpg

Image:AL200f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oh24f.jpg

Image:Oh24f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oh73.jpg

Image:Oh73.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

species name

Thanks for the help on List of human evolution fossils but do you have sources for the changes in species you made? Most of the ones on there came from Larsen. I realize that is an older title, if you have a newer source for upadted species please share. Nowimnthing (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted image overuse

I think I have covered all the bases on the copyrighted Smithsonian images on here. Each one illustrates it's subject and would be difficult if not impossible to reproduce, furthermore the Smithsonian retains copyrightm but explicitly permits fair use on it's website for educational purposes. Each of the images should have the proper documentation per WP:FU. If anyone is able to take pictures of any casts of these fossils either at university or in a museum, feel free to replace, though try to keep frontal views for comparison sake. I am not sure how much longer I can keep these up when they keep changing the rules and adding more requirements for fair use images. The subject of this article is the comparison of thsoe fossils, and I still contend that it will be difficult if not impossible to recreate all the pictures. Nowimnthing (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

young "fossils"

Should 400 year old finds really be listed here? For that matter, should 1500 year old ones? Andy Christ (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are because they represent important finds in one way or another. Otzi is an amazingly complete find, with clothes, tools, etc. Five knolls, humboldt sink, and scdg k102 are more important because of where they are found, indicating migration patterns or they were the first find of their kind. I would have to dig out my larsen if you need a more detailed reasoning on those three and why they are important to human evo rather than just cultural anth. Nowimnthing (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do. And please add some of that information to the article. I'm extra skeptical now that I've googled it, and I cannot find ANY references to SCDG K102 or Five Knolls 18 online that do not appear to come from this list. Oh, and I think the best way to incorporate any explanation of these finds would be to split off a section that only covers homo sapiens. Andy Christ (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I will get my Larsen when I am at home, but for now here is an article[1] (humboldt sink is discussed in the full version) that talks a bit about the importance in an evo sense.
"Abstract
Nondietary function is an important concern in the study of the human dentition and its role in adaptation. The purpose of the present investigation is to describe and interpret a pattern of dental wear in the anterior dentition of precontact hunter-gatherers that inhabited the western Great Basin. These data are discussed in light of ethnographic documentation as a means by which the archaeological record is linked with associated behavior of the representative populations. A series of 171 dentitions from a group of archaeological localities was examined. Of 1,931 teeth observed, 16 of these showed narrow (0.4-2.0 mm) transverse grooves located on the midocclusal surfaces of anterior teeth. The grooves were restricted in occurrence to five older adult males. Documentation of prehistoric and historic western Great Basin aboriginal populations indicates an adaptation that involves use of plant materials in the production of a variety of utilitarian objects, such as fish nets, basketry, funerary bags, fowling bags, and rope. In postcontact contexts, the anterior dentition has been shown to play an important role in the preparation of materials used for the production of this equipment. It seems most likely, then, that the grooves observed herein resulted directly from the use of the dentition as part of the tool assemblage for the production of other tools."
not sure how to fit that kind of info in a list though Nowimnthing (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Cromagf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/ is dead. Did someone want to do something about this? Qed (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is back up but I think they might be upgrading their website so some links may move, we should try to keep an eye on it. Nowimnthing (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Discovered by field

There may be some question about this and I think I covered it on another page, but my feeling is to put the leader of the expedition or the scientist who later classified it as the discoverer. That seems to be how textbooks handle it. We all know it is sometimes a farmer or some poor grad student who first stumbles upon a fossil, but the lead scientist gets the credit of 'discovery' because of their expertise in determining the import of the find. On another page I have replaced Kamoya Kimeu with Leakey as 'discovered by' when Kimeu worked on a team for Leakey. Later Kimeu headed his own digs and fossils found on those are correctly attributed to him. Any thoughts? Nowimnthing (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


The OH 13 link (the last habilis?) is pointing to something having to do with Ohio route 13. That's probably not correct. Qed (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Add Two Columns?

I think it would be a good idea to add a "significance column", that would be 1-2 sentences in length each so it won't be cluttered. It's a bit meaningless when these are shown as notable, but it does not in some way show why. For example, for "Ida": "significant transitional form between early primitive primates and the later prosimian and simian lineages". This column should be non-sortable if possible (it wouldn't make sense).

Also, a column that says what the find is, keeping it minimal, for example, "complete skeleton", "skull fragment", or "jaw"

It would be great to map it in some way in the future as well... 173.26.199.192 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the picture covers the second point, we just need more pics. The first ideally would be covered in an independent article about the fossil, which some of the more important finds do have. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ida inclusion?

I just added Ida back in, but I am open to argument for or against. Right now I lean toward inclusion because it would probably be taught in a college level human evolution class. But then where do we draw the line so we do not end up like the Timeline of human evolution which goes all the way back. I would say at the primate level and perhaps that is a better way to organize the page, indicating the species splits, though that is a blurry line to make and may cause some debate. thoughts?Nowimnthing (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against including it because at present there is no evidence that Darwinius is ancestral to humans. These articles Why Ida fossil is not the missing link , and Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor show that media hype over Ida is more of a publicity stunt. Though Ida is a primate, there is no evidence that fossil is related to anthropoids, with some suggesting that it is more of a primitive prosimian. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually most of the fossils here are not directly ancestral, the story of human evolution is really one of primate evolution. I guess that means should this page stop at the chimp/human split or the very start of the primates? Looking at other pages like Human evolution it seems to go back to the primates. I am not sure that there will ever be that many fossils of the early primates found to introduce an article length concern. Nowimnthing (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Table sort problems

The "age" column does not sort as expected. Also the "Image" column should be made unsortable. bamse (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

good ideas as it is already in order by age, ranges are put in order by their avg. But I will have to look up how to make certain columns sortable and others not, right now it is just the table that is set as sortable. Nowimnthing (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

as ever non-free image problems

WP:NFLISTS seems to cover us here, not sure why an admin wants these images just on the article page. I think they are essential to the function of the list. WP:NFLISTS discourages a bunch of non-free images on a list page but does not rule them out altogether, I think there is a solid case here as each image has a fair use rationale for THIS page. Nowimnthing (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is the policy. The images are not needed here to understand the article. All the specific elements that included a non-free image has a link to the article about the specific fossil. To use a non-free image both places definitely fails WP:NFCC#3. Additionally, the images is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. Several elements on the list are without any image. The ist does not suffer from that. I have reverted the reinclusion of the non-free content. Rettetast (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The images are needed contextually in this article as a comparative tool for students. No where else are these fossils and their pertinent information displayed in a comparative manner. It may be extremely difficult to obtain quality free photographs of some of these very rare fossils. The Smithsonian has kindly made some explicit exceptions to its own copyright on these images. WP:NFCC#3 - A. the images are needed on the article page, I do not think you are disputing that, I contend the images are also needed in a comparative context on the list page. B. The size of the image is significantly smaller on the list page than on the article page. WP:NFCC#8 - I believe the list does suffer from the lack of images on some elements do to the comparative loss. If we must agree to disagree on this, may I suggest we get a wp:third opinion. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What is there to actually compare? Rettetast (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The morphology of the skulls mainly. Seeing them lined up like this chronologically a reader can quickly scan millions of years of evolution getting a big picture view of trends that is not possible looking at the fossils one at a time. Timeline of human evolution Evolution of cetaceans and List of transitional fossils use images in a similar comparative way. While some human evo fossils are used on the first and last, this page is the most comprehensive. It focuses on the actual fossils rather than any interpretations or reconstructions. College level human evolution courses spend a large amount of time on comparative morphology, trying to understand why scientists classified a fossil as a certain species or later changed their minds. The size of the braincase, browridges, development of the chin, etc. all can be compared in these pictures. Without pictures there is no comparison tool elsewhere on wikipedia. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Without critical commentary on the specific image it fails WP:NFCC. Thats why we don't allow images in lists like this. You could list the article at WP:Non-free content review that is designed for such disputes. Rettetast (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I understand why it fails WP:NFCC. Critical commentary there is only mentioned in reference to art and screenshots. I think these may fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 #8, (commentary needed, but not critical)but according to some opinions Wikipedia:Non-free content/FAQ the images themselves may provide this commentary. Would you see the images as having the needed commentary component if they included descriptive and importance info similar to what is found at List of transitional fossils#Human evolution?Nowimnthing (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with all Wikipolicies on everything, the issue of copy-right and fair-use is very delicate. Many of the photos provided did not, IMHO, represent fair-use. If you had cropped part of the image or used it at a very low resolution it might pass as fair-use. In addition I really don't think these were essential for the list. More important for the list is an arrangement of fossil finds according to taxonomical placement.PB666 yap 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

page title

Wouldn't this page be more appropriately titled "List of Hominid Fossils" since there are no human (Homo sapien) fossils listed on this page? Perhaps also a redirect link could be created for "List_of_human_fossils" to redirect to the "List_of_hominid_fossils" page. Hexc0de 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I'll do it. By the way - there are some Homo sapien in the list. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "List of hominina fossils" would be better? Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of Human Evolution Fossils is a good title. It uses the word human, which is more likely to be findable by people not yet conversant with the taxonomy. It also avoids excluding categories that are related to human ancestors, such as Eosimias, which isn't a hominid, hominin, or hominoid, but is clearly of interest to students of human evolution even if they are focussed on primates. Please don't miss the forest for the trees.  : ) Human Libber (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the title. I think a title that is general enough to facilitate inclusion of fossils in the human lineage, both recent and ancient. It is certainly the case that only those familiar with the relevant fields of evolution are conversant with the taxa, some of which are the subject of ongoing debate. Most Wikipedia readers are likely to be general readers, whether they are lay readers or those involved in their own specialties. Such readers just want to wrap their heads around the topic without having to be turned into instant 'experts' just to navigate the field. Those of you who have attempted to review the extensive literature on primate evolution and the human lineage in particular, will have some idea of what I'm referring to.
Not only that, but as we know, taxa change, and there are competing phylogenetic models out there. So simply being able to find a list of information that is broadly relevant is an important bonus to people. Individuals can work out for themselves what specific paths of inquiry they wish to pursue, and the information, and citations to useful resources, can help them.
In a related vein, for people wanting to contribute, there is also the problem of where one can park citations to useful resources (past, present, ongoing controversies, historical info, etc). I have for example been culling my library for months, and decided to list some of the material that I accumulated over the years. But people don't always have the luxury of the time to create new articles (all power to those who do). In that case, to capture contributions, and further facilitate the growth of Wikipedia, it helps immensely to have places where one can make a contribution, even if it's adding citations with one or two lines.
So contributing editors, or potential contributing editors, have the same sort of problem as general readers, which is all the more reason to keep articles like this fairly general, at least to start with. If the article grows sufficiently large that it's blindly obvious it needs to be split up into smaller, more specific articles, that's what you do. But to have a chance of getting to that point, as with any data collection, you need to start off broad, for both the readers and the contributors. The current title probably facilitates that. You could always try to make the title a bit more general, like say 'fossils in the lineage of human evolution'. But that's a bit cumbersome. So you may have it as good as you can get. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

add skull

I know wikipedia likes to stick to kindergarteners science like the tidal nebula effect of planets created directly from the sun, but shouldnt there be a Cromagnum skull added? Here in this link are a few pics if you can get past the third eye indentation marks on there foreheads. --murriemir (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry have to gush a bit

Did everyone notice that apparently THE Richard Dawkins User:RichardDawkins edited a page that I created [2]? Sweet...love your work Mr. Dawkins. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I love his apparent outrage. Also funny that the editing he did had nothing to do with biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.29.75 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I must admire the determination with which he espouses his own version of how evolution works.98.165.79.166 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Balangoda Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_man Is there a reason why Balangoda Man is not included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.182.122 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific Balandoga Man fossil you would like to add? Feel free if you have info on one. The article you point to does not seem to give much info about specific fossils. Nowimnthing (talk)

boxgrove man

why does the photo say eartham pit, boxgrove?142.22.115.45 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved page

I moved the page to "list of hominin fossils". The list had the name it had because it used to include fossil non-hominin apes, like aegyptopithecus. It doesn't anymore, now it only contains fossils that have been considered hominins (Sahelanthropus is disputed but still there are enough scholars who consider it a probable hominin). I've chosen hominin over hominid because that is by now the most entrenched term in the literature the other suggested titles "hominina" or "hominan" have even less traction than hominid nowadays.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


List of human evolution fossils → list of hominin fossils – The list has the name it has because it used to include fossil non-hominin apes, like aegyptopithecus. It doesn't anymore, now it only contains fossils that have been considered hominins (Sahelanthropus is disputed but still there are enough scholars who consider it a probable hominin). The list should be located at "List of hominin fossils" becausse "human evolution fossils" is not a standard way fo referring to the contents and does not adequately describe what the list contains (all fossils of primates, mammals, and vertebrates etc. have potential significance for human evolution, and many of the hominin fossils in the list are probably irrelevant for the lineage that leads to homo sapiens). We should choose hominin over hominid because that is by now the most entrenched term in the literature the other suggested titles "hominina" or "hominan" have even less traction than hominid nowadays.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose there are several different definitions in use for "hominin"/"hominid"/etc. The 'official' version of the definitions have changed over the last few years as well. Indeed our (Wikipedia) definition of hominid is all the Great Apes and hominin is all three types of chimps (bonobo, chimpanzee, H.sapiens). This page should be restricted to fossils after the Pan-human split, and perhaps that last common ancestor also. The title should explicitly exclude other branches. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't take wikipedia's classification as a guideline - nobody uses hominid to include existing great apes. And several of the other classifications used here such as "hominan" have no currency whatsoever. Hominin is clearly the most common usage for members of the human lineage since the last common ancestor with chimps.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not just Wikipedia's classifications. It's the fields classifications that are also recently in flux, and that not every authority even uses the same definitions for these terms. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This last is not a viable solution. Depending on your reading of the term, the human evolutionary lineage stretches back to the first bacterium, while not including Paranthropus. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with 70.24.247.242 above. Also see WP:Article titles:
    • 1. Consistency - other related articles use the human evolution as opposed to hominin evolution Timeline of human evolution, Human evolutionary genetics and Human evolution.
    • 2. Recognizability - Hominin is not something that the average reader would be able to recognize and differentiate from hominid or homo.
    • 3. Naturalness - Again I think hominin is not something people would search for when looking for this information.
    • 4. Conciseness - As some of the early talk about the title shows, this seems to be the most concise formulation.
    • 5. Precision - This is the only one of the criteria that I think you may have a case for. In the scientific sense Hominin may be more precise but given that Human evolution is the better term in 4 out of 5 categories makes it the better title.

BTW, sorry for my slow response, I am not as active on here as I used to be. I will see if anyone over at Human evolution want to weigh in. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How is "human evolution" more concise than "hominin"? And what is the argument for saying "human evolution fossil" is "natural" - as far as I can see it isn't even good English. ("Human evolution" is not and adjective and can therefore should not normally modify "fossil" as it does in the current title - its like saying "list of global warming deniers" instead of "list of people who deny global warming" - its possible but its not pretty, and its is basically coining a neologism - and in this case we have a perfectly good word to substitute).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I buy the neologism argument, it may be clunky, but other formulations using human were more so or accused of not being precise enough. The Smithsonian simply uses "Human Fossils" [3] but I think we would get some arguments over that due to lack of precision. If you can find a better formulation that utilizes human over hominin I may support it, but I still think hominin is too obscure of a term for the vast majority of readers. Nowimnthing (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely on the basis of naturalness. The word hominin is not recognizable by the vast majority of English speakers, much less my spell checker. aprock (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Since when do spellcheckers trump WP:COMMONNAME? And how can a neologism be more natural than an established term?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite it's warts the current title conveys the meaning of the article more effectively to the broad population of English speakers. Using field specific jargon in an article title is almost universally a bad idea. A better title could be offered up, but any title with the word "hominin" - a hemi-homophone of "hominem" - is only going to make the title worse. aprock (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

I thought 'human' only meant to refer to the species of Homo Sapiens. This article lists all Hominin species, not just Homo Sapiens. 68.188.56.8 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is a terrible title. "Human" is sometimes used by specialists to refer to the genus Homo, but this use is definitely not the common name. However the list is supposed to include all fossils that are considered to be relevant for the study of human evolution, also those from pre-genus Homo species.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There is new images

There is new images in the Spanish article, from replicas and from originals. The pictures are from my own, CC 3.0. Most of them are not good but I will try to do better in few weeks. --Nachosan (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Some more new images. --Nachosan (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
A lot of new images. --Nachosan (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much, those are great. I don't edit too much anymore, but I am glad we are finally replacing some of those pictures I had to take down from the Smithsonian. Nowimnthing (talk)

Red Deer Cave

This should include Red Deer Cave people, humans from 14kya to 11kya, with very archaic features, possibly vestiges of H. Neanderthal and/or H. erectus features. Kortoso (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of human evolution fossils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of human evolution fossils. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Graecopithecus

Shouldn't the Graecopithecus fragments discovered in Bulgaria and Greece be added to the top of the list? They have been dated at 7.2 million years old making them oldest known human evolution fossils. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis needs relocating

In view of the recent re-dating of the Liang Bua Homo floresiensis fossils from 18,000 YBP to 60,000–100,000 YBP (with presumably associated stone tools dated to 50,000–190,000 YBP), their position in the table needs adjustment (by someone with Wiki-table expertise).

Further fragmentary fossils (with stone tools) apparently ancestral to (and even smaller than) H florisiensis have been found at Mata Menge in Flores and dated to ca 700,000 YBP. As yet there seems to be no consensus on their taxonomic classification, but perhaps they too should be added. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.201.233 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of human evolution fossils. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Otzi inclusion

While a fascinating and valuable anthropological/archaeological find, I have never seen anyone suggest that Otzi the Iceman shows any signs of mineralization - he isn't a fossil. The same appears to be true of The Man of Mondeval. I do find several references calling Cheddar man a fossil, so he is OK here, but the others, as fascinating and helpful as they are, belong on a different list - one with Kennewick man and Ikuk the Eskimo, as well as the many other anthropologically-relevant ancient skeletons that aren't fossils. Agricolae (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "fossil" originally meant "anything dug up", including artefacts. Though now restricted to items of biological origin (including tracks), which are most often mineralized, I don't think mineralization is an absolute requirement. The term subfossil is often used for non-mineralised specimens, and that would fit Ötzi admirably. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The original use of any word has little bearing on its use in modern paleontology.
Would you like to include Egyptian mummies as well? At which point do you wish to draw the line?
Kortoso (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
About the various possible meanings of the term fossil, see link. 187.101.30.136 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_human_evolution_fossils/Archive_1&oldid=1199255434"