Talk:OH 5

This redirect 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

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Africa: Tanzania

	Africa portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
	Tanzania portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tanzania.

Merge tags

I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

2020 merge proposal

I agree with the merge tags, there is little reason why this article needs to be separate from the Paranthropus boisei species article, it has little to none unique info, and much of it is just duplicated. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the merge proposal was made in the midst of a GA review, at Talk:Paranthropus boisei#GA Review. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to continue this discussion here, given that this is the only substantive comment on it, and the initial merge proposal case is burried in the review. Klbrain (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge proposal, it seems reasonable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.

2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.

3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.

4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading photo

New to wiki but knowledgeable about fossils. The cranium pictured is indeed OH 5, the holotype for P. boisei. However, the mandible pictured is a different specimen of P. boisei. It's definitely the Peninj Mandible and not a part of OH 5--can confirm as I've seen both in person. So both are the same species but different specimens. The current picture would be better served on the page for the species Paranthropus boisei, so long as its properly labeled. The current picture on this OH 5 page is mislabeled and misleading. Can someone help me with these changes? AwesomeFresh (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]