User talk:Anselmus7

Welcome!

Hello, Anselmus7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil stubs

Hallo, while stub-sorting I've come across several of the articles you've started, like Wutubus with the edit summary "(Created page. Will return to later. Please do not delete due to brevity)".

Please don't do this. There is no hurry to get all these articles started (unless you are in a race with poor editors who think that the number of articles they've started shows how clever they are). It is much better to get each article up to a standard fit for the encyclopedia before moving on to the next. I've cleaned up Wutubus: added the References section, found a useful link, etc. Please go more slowly and create fewer, better, stubs. Thanks. PamD 09:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please sort out the "reference" for Sinosabellidites. If it's in a journal which is not available on open access, that's OK: but you need to give a proper journal ref for it - author, title, journal title, volume, page, date. Thanks. PamD 09:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, I saw some too. We do not wish to be unkind, but it is common for stubs to languish for ten years or more without being improved in any way, so it is vital that they are reliably sourced from the outset. If you can find two or three citations for each one, that would be very much better than just one, and it should not need to be said that all the citations must be correct and complete down to page numbers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I appreciate the advice. I am currently gathering and sorting information about a variety of similar taxa, and as I organize this information, I want to add part of it to these new (or sparse) pages iteratively. I understand that it is not optimal, but it is easier for me to work this way on this project. There are still some pages I intend to make, but as I go through them I will include more formatting, like for references. The Sinosabellidites link is correct, it is just for a paper whose reference could not be easily auto-generated. I will fix it. Thank your recommendations to a less experienced editor. Anselmus7 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rugotheca typica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rugotheca typica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugotheca typica until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]