Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 4

Expert opinion needed

Background:' The following articles contain empty tables of prehistoric genus of varying types of creatures. A bot has been written by me that can fill them in using data from paleodb.org and Sepkoski. The task is currently stalled due to some concern about my own lack of expert knowledge on the subject.

Needed: I need someone eith "expert" knowledge (defined as a passion for the subject matter & the ability to easily spot blatant errors) to review the potential bot output of any one of the following articles of his or her choosing:

The articles:

Sample page: A sample page is available for viewing here. This is provided to give you an idea about what the output will look like, but shouldn't be viewed as a final product as it (currently) includes at least one error that will be corrected shortly.

What I want: Basically, I want someone to look over an entire table (of their choice) and say either "I don't see any obvious errors" or "there are a few errors such as X,Y,Z." I will then figure out the cause of the errors (if any), fix the code, and re-run to make sure the errors are gone.

Reward: Wikipedia gets a lot of valuable science content. I get this stalled project off my to-do list. You get a "warm fuzzy" for helping improve Wikipedia in a significant way, my gratitude, and a token of my appreciation.

Let me know if interest, ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging of talk pages

Should we make a bot tag all articles in the dinosaur, pterosaur and "sea monster" projects with the paleontology project tag? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to consider it redundant, as they are all child projects, but it's not a big deal to me if they're added. J. Spencer (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with J Spence here. The tag would probably be more useful on the sea monsters and pterosaurs pages, but I'm fine with whatever. Abyssal (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NSU class project

I just noticed an editor with NSU at the end of the username active at Ceratonykus. Last year we had a few editors show up in the fall editing from NSU as part of a class project, and I'd guess this is the same thing. So, if you see large edits from a new NSU editor, it's probably for a class. J. Spencer (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missing taxobox

I've been trying to add taxoboxes to articles without them. I've done all that I can and the majority now left are articles falling under this project, could someone try and add some more? Some of them e.g. Dawsonia (problematicum) and Spongiophyton seem as though adding a taxobox is impossible as the taxonomy is completely unknown. Thanks in advance. Smartse (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get your information on the taxonomy? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stub type relevant to this project

Hi all - thought i'd give you the heads-up that a new stub type has been created relevant to this project: {{Palaeogeography-stub}} (with redirects from botht he US spelling and from palaeo-geo-stub). This is for historical/prehistoric geographical features and locations, e.g., Wealden Lake, Zealandia. Hope it is useful to you.

BTW, there seems to be a mismatch between the name of the parent article (Palaeogeography), and its category (Category:Paleogeography) which you might wish to discuss. The stub category has been made with a name to agree with the article - if this is incorrect, please propose it for renaming at WP:SFD.

Cheers, Grutness...wha? 00:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spelling is not that important. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurypterids

I have Volume P of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (TIP) and can expand some stubs, at least to the point of adding info from that source. Can anyone point me to a template for referencing the TIP, or to an article that references it?--Digthepast (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added anatomical descriptions to expand the following Eurypterid articles and stubs. Could someone check them and amend the tags accordingly? The articles/stubs are Hughmilleria, Acutiramus, Eurypterus , Onychopterella, Grossopterus, Hastimima, Slimonia, Erettopterus, Pterygotus, Lepidoderma, Tylopterella, Carcinosoma, Mixopterus, Megalograptus, and Echinognathus.--Digthepast (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done the same for Salteropterus, Stylonurus, Drepanopterus, Brachyopterus, Ctenopterus, Tarsopterella, Melbournopterus, Campylocephalus, Dolichopterus, Strobilopterus, Rhenopterus, and Mycterops. This takes me to the limits of my source. I will now be going back and adding some species information where it seems appropriate, and may create pages for some of the families. There may still be issues with the Hughmilleriidae, as it appears that they were reclassified since 1955, when the relevant TIP volume was published.--Digthepast (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added pages for the two superfamilies of Eurypterids (Eurypteracea and Stylonuracea), as well as for the following families; Pterygotidae, Eurypteridae, Carcinosomatidae, Mixopteridae, Megalograptidae, Stylonuridae, Dolichopteridae, Rhenopteridae, and Mycteropidae. I have not yet done the Hughmilleriidae, because material mentioned on some pages indicates that additional work has either split this family, or eliminated it entirely. I may yet do it, though, in hopes that someone will come along later and put things right.--Digthepast (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss A16 motorway

Hello,

I have just uploaded a number of images of the footprints found on the building site of the A16 motorway. They can be found here. I post this for the remote chance that some of them might be particularly interesting.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fractofusus

The page is confusing and misleading, it needs to be corrected. Pollofritto (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Extinction dagger" guideline needed

I posted this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#.22Extinction_daggers.22_.28again.29:_Yes_.2F_No_.3F.3F.
User:Kevmin suggested that it be posted here:

Have we established a style guideline within this project for when taxa should / should not be marked with "extinction daggers"?
Previous discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_20#.22Daggers.22, here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_1#Crosses_to_indicate_fossil_taxa, here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Dinosauria.E2.80.A0_.3F.
-- Not sure if there was any definite consensus on this.

I'm seeing inconsistent usage of the "extinction dagger" ( [[Extinction|†]] ). As I noted in my original post, this has been discussed before, but as far as I can tell, we don't have a consensus, or, if we do, editors are not aware of it (which I guess is the same as having no consensus).
People are using this inconsistently, reverting each other's edits, discussing proper style, etc.
We should establish a clear guideline on this, and post it clearly on the Project page (and also pages of related Projects).
Please comment.
(End of original post ""Extinction dagger" guideline needed ". Please post replies below.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to use them, because the "status" section of the taxobox already indicates when a taxon is extinct. However, I mainly work with taxa where only the genus and species at most are extinct, and I think that one may come to a different assessment where higher taxa (such as Ornithischia, Multituberculata, or Temnospondyli) are extinct. Ucucha 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the use of daggers to mark extinct taxa, especially in taxoboxes. I think that daggers should at least be used in the taxoboxes. I also support their use in cladograms and lists with mixtures of extinct and surviving taxa. Abyssal (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support their use in articles where it is already clear the taxon is extinct. For example, everyone knows that (sans birds) dinosaurs are extinct, but a few people have been adding extinction daggers to dinosaur taxoboxes, as if it somehow needed to be made clear that that particular dinosaur is extinct. The dagger doesn't provide any new information to the reader. I also do not support their use in cladograms; I don't remember having seen extinction daggers in combination with a professional cladogram, but for me the other issue is already a problem of size (conveying that much information in the little clade template cladogram space is already difficult). I think the lists with a mixture of extinct and surviving taxa might benefit from a dagger, though. There was a past discussion about daggers back in 2005 on Wikispecies, here, where the cross-like shape of the dagger was deemed offensive by non-Christians. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the use of daggers. I feel they're redundant with the status/fossil range field. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - reply to Firsfron)I think the taxobox at dinosaur is a great example where the extinction dagger is actually quite informative and educational. Dinosauria is not an extinct group, and the placement of the daggers indicates which dinosaurs are still extant. I'm in favor of using extinction daggers, but I don't mind making an exception for species on the red list, or perhaps even for situations such as those described by Firsfron if that's where consensus leads. The daggers can quickly tell you that Dinosauria and Crurotarsi are extant, but Sauropterygia are extinct. I don't think the reader can be expected to know this and here's a quick and relatively painless way to do provide some very important information. One point I wanted to make, though, was that I'd like to see the connection between clicking on the dagger and the extinction page more clear. Perhaps the dagger abbreviation can be mentioned and bolded in that page's lead. Right now the non-specialist reader sees a strange cross next to a name, clicks, on it, and is then just taken to a different wikipedia page and I'm not sure it's all that clear why they are sent there. --Aranae (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Firsfron and Dinoguy as well. The daggers convey significant information in taxoboxes. Even though we all know that every individual non-avian dinosaur genus is extinct, daggers let you know how many extinct groups it's a member of, i.e. "how" extinct it is. For example, Microraptor is a member of far fewer extinct groups than, say, Iguanodon, or even Plateosaurus. Aranae was spot on about that. I would also like to note that I have seen daggers used in cladograms in papers on occasion, especially when detailing relatively recent groups. The idea that daggers take up too much space in cladograms is silly; it's only one character. Practically all of our cladograms have names that already differ from each other significantly more than in just a single character. I do agree that if all taxa in the taxobox/cladogram/whatever are extinct then it would be a useless redundancy. However, I maintain its usefulness in mixed groups.

I also feel that the significance of the "religious" aspect of the symbol is overblown. For one, it's only dubiously Christian at all; the dagger is, as the name implies, as much a simplified knife as it is a cross. I've never heard anyone express offense at the daggers, only people worrying about whether someone might be offended. The daggers are also being used in a completely secular way that lacks any meaningful connection to Christianity. Symbols can vary widely in the senses they're used; just look at the history of the swastika. And that's not to mention the strong pre-existing precedents in the scientific literature for the use of daggers to denote extinction. There quite simply just isn't a good alternative to this useful symbol. Abyssal (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cross/christian association had never occurred to me. I like them in cladograms where one has mixed extinct and living taxa, and no strong opinion for taxoboxes (veering slightly negative actually upon thinking about it but not fussed). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"how" extinct it is. For example, Microraptor is a member of far fewer extinct groups than, say, Iguanodon, or even Plateosaurus."

But this is a fallacy based on the arbitrary listing/naming of groups. If the taxobox only listed "Archosauria", "Dinosauria", and "Iguanodontidae" on one hand and "Archosauria", "Deinonychosauria", "Dromaeosauridae" on the other, your point would be reversed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firsfron of Ronchester posted "There was a past discussion about daggers back in 2005 on Wikispecies, here, where the cross-like shape of the dagger was deemed offensive by non-Christians."
-- The link provided (Wikispecies:Village_pump/Archive_2#Extinct_dates) seems not to be working, and I haven't been able to track down the discussion in question.
Also, while I don't personally have any qualms about any possible religious connotations of this symbol, it apparently did originally represent a "Christian cross" and was used in Christian liturgical contexts (Dagger_(typography)), and we have to remember that Wikipedia is used by a global readership whose reactions may vary. Nevertheless, since it is a standard symbol in the scientific literature for "extinct taxon", IMHO Wikipedia could not be faulted for so using it. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link is species:Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 2#Extinct dates. Ucucha 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Uchucha; I was about to post the correct link, but you beat me to it. :) I have no idea why the link changed. It's not like I typed it in manually, I just copied and pasted it. Anyway, regarding the dagger itself, I'm not sure why it would be taken as a religious symbol in this context anyway, since the placing of a "holy cross" next to the name of an extinct animal isn't a Christian religious tradition anyway. Sort of like an objection to having an asterisk next to a taxon name based on the asterisk's resemblance to a Star of David: they aren't the same symbol, and there's no religious significance behind it. I don't object to the dagger usage because of this (IMO) spurious reason, but did want to mention that it has been objected to for this reason. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like 'em, and it's a purely selfish reason: they're just another damn thing to keep track of. J. Spencer (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there is not formal guideline for dagger usage. I tend to mark the highest extinct taxon level with the dagger as a piped link to extinction ( [[Extinction|†]] ). I think that marking every level from †Trilobitomorpha to †Phacops rana in the P. rana taxobox is overuse and would have a dagger at Trolibitomorpha only. Marking †Tilia johnsoni in the species list on Tilia as quite reasonable, as the majority of hte taxa (at this point) are extant.--Kevmin (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that I like using them in taxoboxes, but I think to only mark one taxon in the box creates an internal inconsistency. If we're going to use them in the box, we should mark all the extinct taxa in the box instead of distracting the reader by forcing them to infer which ones are extinct. If you guys think putting the daggers in front of the taxa names makes the symbols too prominent or distracting, we could always include them in parentheses after the names. Abyssal (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are few way, in which the dagger † should not be used:

1) It should never be used in "| binomial =" section in taxobox. This section is captioned "Binomial name" and a dagger is never a part of binomial name. Neither International Code of Botanical Nomenclature nor International Code of Zoological Nomenclature speciefies even if dagger should be used somehow. Dagger is never a part of binomial name and if used, then it can be used only with space like this:
- correct in text: † Tyranousaurus rex
- the only correct in "Binomial name section" is without dagger: Tyranousaurus rex
- Incorrect everywhere is dagger immediately with the scientific name: †Tyranousaurus rex
2) The other wrong way is immediately before the scientific name. Both codes do not use no symbols next to scientific names. If dagger can be used, then can be used for example only like this with the space before the name:
- acceptable: † Tyranousaurus rex
- acceptable: † species Tyranousaurus rex
- incorrect: species: † Tyranousaurus rex
- acceptable: † Tyrannosauridae
- acceptable: † family Tyrannosauridae
- incorrect: Family: † Tyrannosauridae

The dagger provide some information value even if used incorrectly. But the wikipedia should provide correct information in the correct way. I think, that we can be sure, that dagger in "Binomial name" section is incorrect. And I think, that dagger written between taxonomic rank with punctuation and scientific name is also incorrect. The dagger in taxobox is not necessary and there is no standard way how it should be written. How the dagger is used by the HIGHEST authorities (I do not mean single authors. I mean organizations.) for scientific classification and taxonomy? --Snek01 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're blowing things up a little there. True, the Code doesn't say you can put daggers next to scientific names, but it doesn't say you can't either, and as a dagger is a typographic symbol it's clear it's not part of the actual name. Besides, the dagger is actually used by people (even without spacing) who know what they are doing, such as McKenna and Bell in Classification of Mammals, which consistently uses, for example, "Subtribe †Dusignathina" (p. 256); "†Prophoca" (p. 257). Ucucha 14:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many authors use dagger in such way. But it does not mean, that it is correct. If this way "(fossil)Tyranosaurus" is incorrect, then is incorrect also this: "†Tyranousaurus". Especially, when there are other standards (linguistics) recommending not to use this. --Snek01 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any evidence to support your assertion that the use of the dagger is "incorrect". In any case, we shouldn't be the ones judging that; there are competent scientists who are writing on the subject who do use daggers, and that should be enough evidence for us to know that using daggers is at least not "incorrect" (even if we may choose not to use them for other reasons). Ucucha 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Dagger. --Snek01 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why on earth did you ask us? This has nothing to do with linguistics. +An gr 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily contradicting established scientific conventions based on one's personal linguistic opinions strikes me as being too close to original research. Abyssal (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the usage of daggers is long established in the paleontology literature, and if the codes had seen a problem with the usage there would have been a ruling on this by them already.--Kevmin (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I favor using daggers in the taxobox. There are plenty of extinct species the average reader will not immediately recognize as extinct, and it seems silly to try to figure out how obvious that will be on a case-by-case basis. There are even more (probably most) extinct species where the average reader will not know how many of the higher-level taxa it belongs to are also extinct.

As for only using the dagger on the highest extinct taxon, that might seem a logical approach to a software engineer, but to others the absence of a dagger is likely to be interpreted as "extant". Additionally, a single dagger (especially when five or six taxa above the species level) is not that hard to overlook. Whether daggers are appropriate for subtaxa when the article's taxon is extinct is debatable, but I tend to favor adding them in cases where there are no higher level extinct taxa, for the same reason.

I also tend to use the link to extinction only for the dagger at the article's main taxon, to avoid redundancy and to make the link more obvious by the contrasting colors. I think the religious connection to the symbol is tenuous and irrelevant. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the utility of adding "nowiki" and "/nowiki" around the link to "Extinction|†" ? WolfmanSF (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that those in this discussion can see how I format the link!--Kevmin (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An error on the page "Formicium giganteum ants" that contradicts with info on another page

In this page it is said the Formicium giganteum ants were the largest ant species ever to live with a length of about 3 cm, while on another page about Bull Ants it is said that bull ants grow up to 40 mm (4cm), so how are bull ants bigger than Formicium giganteum ants while Formicium giganteum ants are the biggest species of ants ever to live.

--Sameh890 (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says queens could grow to 5 cm. Maybe that's it? Abyssal (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil species articles issue (again)

Sorry to bring this issue up again (there's been a lot of discussion on it and I thought that an agreement had already been reached), but it seems that the level at which articles on prehistoric taxa stops is becoming an issue again. I had previously thought we were in agreement that articles stop at the genus level, but it seems that there are a lot of species-level articles on prehistoric Cenozoic mammals. Therefore, I do not think a consensus has been reached among all editors of articles on prehistoric taxa. As I am primarily an editor of articles on non-mammalian taxa, I am accustomed to having the genus be the lowest level of classification that merits its own article. However, it has come to my attention through a discussion on the Deltasaurus talk page that other editors do not share my views. Some are saying that all prehistoric species should have their own article. Since WikiProject Palaeontology encompasses articles on all prehistoric taxa, I feel like this is a good place to bring this up, where many editors can voice their views, not just the ones specializing in dinosaurs or other primarily Mesozoic taxa. Perhaps we can reach a final agreement, once and for all, between all paleontology editors. Then there will no longer be any disputes between editors. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still for genus level only articles, unless there is a lot to write about a certain species, but this seems to almost only be true for recently extinct species, where more than just fossil bones are known. That's not the case with most extinct animals, and the species articles are mostly redundant. On top of that, there is rarely complete scientific consensus on what extinct species are even valid. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a species-level article can be written without it being mostly a copy of the genus-level article, then I don't see why not. Whatever happens to be the coin of the realm (species or genus). J. Spencer (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This problem only came to my attention after I redirected the articles Deltasaurus kimberleyensis and Deltasaurus pustulatus to Deltasaurus, and these redirects were later undone by User:Hesperian, who seemed to claim the redirects were unencyclopedic. I redirected the articles because they were both mostly copies of the genus article. Existing articles on most prehistoric mammal species do not seem to have enough information to be article-worthy, but the users who edit those articles still seem to think they do. If I were to redirect some articles on prehistoric mammal species to their respective genus articles, I am almost certain such edits will be undone by users who claim that my edits were unencyclopedic. I am bringing this issue up again with these mammal articles in mind, because I feel they certainly should be redirected to genus articles in most cases. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The species articles were not copies of the genus article. The source I was working from was primarily about the species Deltasaurus kimberleyensis, and initially this was the only article I created. I don't have a source for the genus per se. The genus article only exists because some ignoramus moved the species article to the genus title, on the unjustifiable and false assumption that the genus was monotypic. I responded to that by making a stub on the other species, and creating the genus article. The fact remains that the only one of the three that is properly sourced is Deltasaurus kimberleyensis. If you don't like the duplication, you go right ahead and delete the genus article. Hesperian 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly the general agreement was that the majority of taxa would stop at genus unless, as stated above, a species is particular notable/well researched. Thus the younger the age of the taxon the more likely there may be the more likely there may be enough for species level articles. The older the less likely there will be species level articles. This is also true for taxa one you get away form the big sexy extinct beasts, eg mammoths. There is only enough information in my opinion to create a Dinokanaga page, a Palaeopsychops page, a Eosalmo page, etc... --Kevmin (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time if the extinct taxon is a species already, I have started to create articles for some of the ones I have more knowledge of, such as Tilia johnsoni, as they are different enough from the extant species in the genus to warrant a page. But as you can see, even it is destined to be a stub unless more study is done on/with the fossils. --Kevmin (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, there are some mammal species that are quite old and still have their own articles. Species of the amphicyonid Daphoenus seem to be pretty old, yet they each have their own article. Contrast this to the cryptodire Meiolania, which had some species that existed much more recently and yet do not have their own articles. I don't think these mammal species have their own articles because there has been more research on them necessarily, but rather because they were created by users who think that every species deserves its own article. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that with a few exceptions the extinct mammals should be at genus level at the lowest. --Kevmin (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that extinct species belonging to extant genera should get their own articles because there is already enough information on the extant species to allow them their own articles. Thus, the article on the genus should discuss the genus only, rather than discuss the genus, exclude information on extant species, and include information on prehistoric species. However, I still think that prehistoric species belonging to prehistoric genera should be discussed in the genus' article most of the time. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Kevmin (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are some other editors who do not agree with the consensus that has been reached and tend to undo any redirects to genus articles. There are many species articles that should be redirected because they are mostly copies of their genus' article, but since the editors/creators of those articles do not agree with our views, they are likely to continue to be opposed to any redirects. Perhaps I should begin to redirect some of the articles on prehistoric mammal species to their genera's articles, and if any editors have any opposition to such a move, I can advise them to leave a comment here to explain their concerns. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the major sticking point, getting them to participate in the group discussions. Hopefully we can get them here and find a good solution! --Kevmin (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything said already, but I think the editors who insist on separate species articles might not be the ones who are specifically interested in paleontology, but rather on extant animals. That might be the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on certain points. Yes it is true that the scientific literature treats many taxa at the genus level, largely to do with the available material. However, having a hard and fast rule about collapsing articles on fossil taxa to the genus level goes against the Wikipedia policy on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. If a topic, especially a "boring" or obscure one such as a fossil species has been treated by the lay media, it has enough secondary sources to justify an article. An number of other policies, guidelines and essays address the idea of restraining the growth of the number of stubby articles; the consensus is best summed up in Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Also, see WP:NOTPAPER. I suggest instead that WikiProject Palaeontology follow the sources; if the sources confine themselves to the genus, then Wikipedia should too. If the sources show an interest in a species, then Wikipedia should do that too. Abductive (reasoning) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what really is the point of having separate articles for say, every species of Lithornis, other than just having them for the sake of the point? Those articles can hardly be pushed further than where they are now. There should be exceptions, of course, like animals where we actually have something to write about the different species other than where they were found and what minor skeletal feature that arbitrarily makes them a distinct species. But that just won't do for most species that existed prior to the ice age. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do these Lithornis get any play in the lay media? No. Are they treated seperately by the scientific literature? Somewhat, but maybe not enough to justify an article for each species. So there is no problem with treating them on the generic level on Wikipedia. Why is Lithornis nasi still a standalone? Abductive (reasoning) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone who comments on this is aware, a complaint has been registered against User:Abductive for disruptive editing at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a person really was disruptive, then their opinion wouldn't carry as much weight. But pointing out a ANI discussion that came to naught only serves to ensure that their opinion carries more weight, since it usually means that the person pointing it out can't find a way to directly refute the opinion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone uses a species name with a dinosaur outside of the "natural habitat" (scientific publication, conference talk, advanced-level blog, etc.), one of the following usually applies: a) the topic is Tyrannosaurus rex, b) the person is someone between the ages of eight and twelve who hasn't grown out of dinosaurs and has just discovered binomens, c) the person is a journalist and is filling out an article or interview about a just-described taxon, or d) the person is older than twelve and is being pretentious. This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but I thought I'd get it off of my chest. J. Spencer (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, the thing that drives lay readers to these articles is the sort of information that scientists often disdain; biggest, smallest, sharp teeth and human fossils. But it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to get the lay media to smarten up, or the kids to stop wanting to grow up to be dinosaur hunters. If an extinct species has gotten attention from the lay media, the best thing to do is to play along, let it have a standalone article, and work instead on filling in some of the numerous Family and Order-level redlinks, such as the dozens to be found in List of prehistoric mammals. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly then, what you propose would hardly make a difference to the current consensus, as most extinct species that existed prior to the Ice Age do not get much secondary coverage, and for these, genus name is used most often. There are some cases though, like the new species of Alioramus or Velociraptor, but I still don't think that warrants separate articles at all. Rather have a focused, large article, than a lot of useless duplicate stubs, which is all articles on such species that are supposedly distinct due to minor skeletal details can be, unless they are written as technically and detailed as the papers that describe them, which is not what Wikipedia is about. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since the vast majority of extinct taxa do not get much interest from the general public, and the scientific literature treats them at the generic (or higher) level, the thing to do is to treat them the same way as the scientific literature does. In the rare instances of non-scientific coverage in secondary sources, the thing to do is cover the material at the level the non-scientific coverage does. This is consistent with Wikipedia's overall philosophy of covering anything and everything for which a number of non-trivial secondary sources exist, and of catering to the readership. See WP:Readers first. Abductive (reasoning) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think J. Spencer and Abductive are both right. Other topics have similar problems, e.g. anything to do with Harry Potter. IMO there's no simple principle for paleo. Some examples: --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Homo spp. are well researched and significant, and Homo neanderthalensis is sometimes classified as a sub-species but justifiably has an article. Other names in the literature have been assigned on the basis of 1 or 2 specimens. Australopithecus ssp. is as bad.
Species T.(which?) bataar is well researched and significant for the evolution of late tyrannid skull and vision. Some other tyrannid genus names have been assigned on the basis of 1 or 2 specimens.
Other examples where the genus name is debated include Pithecanthropus erectus. I suggest that for, the benefit of readers, stub articles with refs and just enough to explain the naming problem. Then remove anything other content that does no comply with WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the "fanboy" problem, I suggest the same type of stub. --Philcha (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recent activities

I recently added an odd category to about 250 geologic formation stubs. This category exists to assist me in some major work I'll be doing over the next week. Please just ignore it, I'll remove it from the articles when it's no longer serving my purpose. Abyssal (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil trade

Just started an insufficient stub on this important subject, so letting people know if they want to improve it. Then we might just help with getting some public focus on it, as requested by Dave Hone here: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/lost-to-science/. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! As a suggestion, you may want to nominate the article for DYK?, which may help even more people be aware of this major issue. We may need to be weary of WP:NPOV if the article is to include a lot of information on the illegal trade and how harmful it can be to scientific pursuit, since there obviously are still people who oppose many of the measures to limit the trade. I don't know a great deal about this issue, but I bet there are more than just news articles we can use as references. Maybe we can include information on AAPS's opposition to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (which can be found on their website) to insure that the article represents all the major views. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea with the dyk (and everything else), haven't done that before, so I'll need some help. I must admit I don't know too much about the issue either, just thought it was about time to have an article up, which is better than nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for nominating articles for DYK can be found on the nomination page. Think of a good, catchy hook, use one of the given templates (in this case New Article, self nom), and put it at the top of the "Articles created/expanded on January 9" section. Someone should review it within the next day or so. If you want, you could add the photograph of Samson to the hook, although if they put the article on the main page, the image might not be included. Smokeybjb (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone working on Pleistocene megafauna of the eastern United States...

Oliver Hay's 1923 work "The Pleistocene of North America and its vertebrated animals from the states east of the Mississippi River and from the Canadian provinces east of longitude 95" is available on Internet Archive at this link. It's very useful if you're ever trying to track down individual specimens, distribution, and old references. One of these days I may have to write something about the history of mastodon discoveries and research, although I know next to nothing about proboscidean anatomy. J. Spencer (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews

This is just a reminder/requst that everyone please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer reviews to their watchlists. It should be used as a means to vet/help/improve newly created and review needed articles such as Eonessa. --Kevmin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protoavis and the transference of articles

As some know, I kinda sort of retired from Wikipedia to maintain a separate project that is palaeontologically focused. Of course, Wikipedia is like an addiction that can't be broken easily ;). I've worked on various projects, and I am wondering if it would be possible to transfer them to Wikipedia. An example can be seen with a substantially expanded article on Protoavis that could make a GA (or FA, hopefully). The original article can be accessed here. This message has also been posted at the Dinosaur Wikiproject talkpage. All comments and/or criticisms are welcome! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikia uses the same wiki code as Wikipedia, so licensing should be the only obstacle to you transferring the content. Since you're the guy who wrote the other article, you shouldn't have any trouble in the licensing department. ;) Abyssal (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the wiki was once on Wikia, I've moved it since to a dedicated server that I host. The one thing I was worried about was not the licensing, as you mentioned (as the Fossil Wiki uses the same license as Wikipedia), but what effect a transfer would have on a good article or Featured article nomination, should one be pursued. I didn't know if that was "frowned upon", so to speak. If no one has any objections then, I'll move it to the main article namespace. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would make sure I wasn't overwriting useful information in the process of the transfer! Abyssal (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally used the Wikipedia article as a template, and expanded it from there. All the original information is still roughly intact, with a lot of expansion. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures around the time of the dinosaurs

According to recent news reports e.g. here, here and here (but there are other reports as well), dinosaurs and many other species\organisms were wiped out by an asteroid, an international group have concluded after many years of research. Simply south (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fedexia

Anybody wiling to have a look at this and add material from the actual paper (article currently cites only news sources: "OMG it's named after FedEx!") before the thing pops up on the front page? Circéus (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to add some new information. The paper wasn't yet available when I started expanding the article. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a company, not a genus of amphibian. I will read it and might contribute. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing paleotology topics

I've updated my list of missing topics related to archaeology and paleontology - Skysmith (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]