Talk:List of the prehistoric life of Washington

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Palaeontology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 4 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of the prehistoric life of Washington (state) to List of the prehistoric life of Washington. The result of the discussion was moved.

split article?

Given the inherent nature of how incomplete this list will always be, I think the sections that have more detailed lists (eg cenezoic), should be split off entirely as a see

or See: List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state). Right now one has to update two locations that cover the same thing any time a new taxon is published or something changes.--Kev min § 22:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like each "list of prehistoric life in [state]" to be substantial enough to stand on their own, even if we also need offsplits for length reasons. I'm not sure they could do that if we only linked to the dedicated lists and removed the abbreviated versions. This page is only about 1800 words long as-is, less than half of the lower end of the recommended article length. I'm also concerned that removing the condensed lists would also be a nuisance for more casual readers, who might prefer a prefer a "Cliff's notes" version to scrolling through hundreds of red links across multiple articles. Updating the abbreviated list with the complete one shouldn't be difficult because when one is updated, the new entry can just be copy-pasted to the other article as well, so the real work involved only has to be done once. Abyssal (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, this is literally just a content fork of the more specific articles, and if you or I stopped editing, WILL other editors know they have to make duplicate changes to two nearly identical lists? Im not convinced by the cliff notes version, and your argument for it actually provides a good rational for removing all red-links in this article, essentially nuking any pre-cenozoic taxa since I haven't the time to write the articles. This should be split.--Kev min § 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the abbreviated list doesn't pretend to be comprehensive there's no need to update it religiously with every new discovery; it would serve it's purpose adequately even if it were updated only with especially notable or spectacular finds. Nevertheless, I don't think it's likely to be overlooked in favor of the comprehensive Cenozoic list since the articles link to eachother and will be categorized together. I agree that listing Washington's Cenozoic life deserves its own dedicated article, but I think readers are best served by keeping an overview of the more important finds back at the state's overall article as well. Abyssal (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who determines "more important" or spectacular? Right now its an arbitrary mash of random.--Kev min § 13:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do, of course. :) The current version is just the main list minus the red links on the assumption that lacking an article after ~20 years of Wikipedia existing implied that the taxon was especially obscure. I'm open to adjusting the list in whatever ways make it most helpful to casual readers who might not want to power through the comprehensive version. Abyssal (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of fauna of Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]