Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 5

Article in need of some TLC

I just came across the nearly-orphaned Striegeli, which is in quite a sorry state. Anyone want to take a crack at fixing her up? mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I redirected it to Fedexia the name the genus was formally given.--Kevmin (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australopithecus sediba

There's a big problem at Australopithecus sediba. It claims to be either an ancestor of H. habilis, or just H. erectus. This claim makes it appear that the genus Homo is a composite grouping with multiple lineages and no root species... how is that even a single genus?

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate paleoart category on Commons

I've just created a category for inaccurate paleoart on Wikimedia Commons, which most inaccurate paleoart should hopefully be tagged with, so it can be fixed or kept out of use from articles. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Inaccurate_paleoart For paleoart which has become inaccurate due to age, there is this category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_paleoart There are similar categories for dinosaur specific images, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cormohipparion?

The Cormohipparion article is odd. The only line says it's a synonym, but I'm not sure what to do with it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we need to find out if this is true, and if it is redirect it to Hippotherium then. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years in paleontology articles

These could be a really useful tool but they're largely inconsistant and contain some innacuracies. For example, under 1843 I found Ornithopterus listed for that year, and stating that it's a junior synonym of Rhamphorhynchus, not named until 1846! In fact a quick search showed Ornithopterus was named in 1860. Similarly, the "Newly named dinosaurs" sections usually list animals that were mis-identified as dinosaurs in their initial publication, but doesn't do the same for dinosaurs that were mis-identified as something else. For example, 1841 in paleontology lists Cetiosaurus and Cardiodon under Dinosaurs with no mention that they were described as marine crocodilians. I'd also question the practice of even using a "Newly named dinosaurs" section pre-1841, since nothing could be named as a dinosaur before that taxon existed! MMartyniuk (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the newly named dinosaurs tables to cover both taxa named as dinosaurs and taxa that later turned out to be dinosaurs. It would be silly not to list Iguanodon as a newly named dinosaur in the article on the year it was described, even though it was decades before the Dinosauria was formally erected. Of course, it would be appropriate to alert the reader that it wasn't described as a dinosaur at the time, which is something I haven't been doing. Sorry. I usually didn't list taxa described as non-dinosaurs which later turned out to be dinosaurian in sections for the non-dinosaur clades they were originally attributed to so that I wouldn't mislead the reader into thinking only the misidentified dinosaur had been described as part of that group during the relevant year. I know that's not consistent, but I was hoping to avoid being misleading since I didn't have all the info. I intended on fixing that inconsistent practice whenever I could be sure I had enough information to list all the taxa described from the group in that given year. Thank you for catching the pterosaur error, but I'm not sure what the significance of that individual mistake is. Abyssal (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UA 8699

Is UA 8699 an appropriate stand-alone article? The sources seem primary to me. 68.51.72.237 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of palaeontological articles use primary sources. Oftentimes tertiary sources, such as online news articles, distort, overemphasize, or misinterpret vital information, and numerous featured articles on dinosaurs use primary sources in the form of journal articles. If we did it any other way, the articles would be woefully short and not filled with information. -- Spotty ¹¹²²² 22:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spotty. WP:PALEO and WP:DINO make very good use of primary sources in terms of both quality and in agreement with Wikipedia policy, most of which isn't even especially relevant to the way the sources are used by our paleontology-related Wikiprojects. I know not everybody here likes articles on individual specimens, but my feeling is that the above article is very high quality and covers an incredibly obscure topic to a high level of detail. Basically, it embodies everything that makes Wikipedia more valuable than a traditional encyclopedia. Its author should be commended. Abyssal (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with specimen articles like this one where it represents a distinct taxon, but has no name to attach it to, and could pretty much be modified into an article about the taxon if it was ever named. But I dislike specimen articles where the specimen in question is from a well known taxon with several specimens. Such should be covered in the taxon article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some specimens of known taxa are inherently notable (e.g. Sue). Abyssal (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report.

Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into our scope, or near our scope.

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from paleontology from the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for external links

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter slab and use of the word "unscrupulous"

This posting pasted from ANI which editors felt was an inappropriate forum. This article was started on July 8 and was almost immediately tagged for deletion, the reason being given as "Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and unlikely to develop much further."

I have used the phrase 'unscrupulous fossil hunters and dealers' in this article, citing what I have assumed to be reliable sources. The word 'unscrupulous' has been repeatedly removed and I have been referred to NPOV and told that 'Inherently positive or negative' words should not be used in WP articles. I have now been warned that I am engaged in an edit war and may be blocked. I feel that the WP guidelines on NPOV are being stretched and ask for comment from this specialised group. Androstachys (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it would ever be appropriate for an encyclopedia to be making moral/editorial judgements... The news media outlet you cited shouldn't be doing this either, imo, unless it's a direct quote. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that scrupulous fossil dealers sell part & counterpart separately, as well as unscrupulous ones. I don't think that the word is essential for the understanding in the article, so I'm not sure that it is necessary... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Kuhn

FYI, Oskar Kuhn has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 billion year old multicellular fossil

I just thought I would bring this to everyones attention. I would not read the paper for some time, but is there a counter arguement for the description of the rocks/fossils? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm[reply]

Article naming

What's the accepted naming policy if a new species is described, but it is the only member of its (new) superfamily? Do you create an article by the species name, genus, family, or superfamily? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a new genus, probably that. Abyssal (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, genus (with redirects for all other names, of course). Ucucha 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Creation

While the creation of articles for new taxa that are published in wonderful, and always to be wanted, I have noticed what to me is a possible problem. A specific user has 2010 in paleontology on there watchlist and when new taxa are added will immediately create a stub for that taxon. This woulb be fine except that the stub is always a single line, often with inaccuracies, no taxobox, and no intent on expanding the article beyond the single line. This seems more like creating articles to create them and increase a personal number count then to create them for the information of the public. What to others think about this?--Kev min § 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be more encouraging for non-experienced editors to edit when articles have already been started than if they have to create them from scratch, so it's fine with me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to create the articles eventually anyway, so as long as the stub is literally better than nothing, there's no reason to be concerned. One thing I've been meaning to bring up here is the need for stub templates we can copy and paste to make new articles. For instance, a stub template for a new prosauropod would have a taxobox filled out to the level of prosauropoda, a sentence saying PAGENAME is a prosauropod, a see also section with a link to a related dinosaur and the year in paleontology, the prosauropods category and the apropriate stub template. If our IP friend would copy+paste something like that all of our lives would be easier. Abyssal (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea, especially for invertebrates such as trilobites and crinoids, which currently have few genus-level articles. It might be a good idea to have these templates restricted to higher-level taxa, because there may turn out to be hundreds of them if we try to make them too specific. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm developing User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors to help new editors. I'm like comments at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors, including from you new editor, as he/she is the intended audience. --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the problem is the articles aren't being created by a new editor but a long time contributor (2006 join date I think), who has stated on their talk page that they are not intending to do anything with the articles beyond the one line stub without taxobox. It may just be me thats wanting a bit more effort put into an article being created by a knowledgeable editor, I dont know. --Kev min § 07:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a problem with creating a stub... even a one-line stub (people forget that even the best articles started out as stubs). It's the accuracy part which is a problem. If the article isn't accurate, there's absolutely no point in creating it. Ask the user to please only create accurate stubs. Be kind, but firm. Explain which parts of the stubs were incorrect. Point the user to better references. Feel free to ping my talk page if the articles continue to be inaccurate. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, of course, I missed the part about inaccuracies, and I agree that there should be none, and on top of that there should be at least one reference per article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems

I think a List of unsolved problems in paleontology would make for a fascinating read and good complement to the List of unsolved problems in physics, List of unsolved problems in computer science, etc series of articles. I don't have the knowledge to contribute to such a thing myself, but would give a lot of moral support. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems mentioned in the physics and computer science articles seem to be very significant. I'm strapped for ideas of what to include for paleontology... maybe poorly understood evolutionary transitions, or various extinction theories? Smokeybjb (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what would be included? Physics and comp sci are mathematical sciences. Problems are unsolved because people haven't worked out the equations yet. Paleo is an observational and science, largely. We're dealing with various degrees of resolution on a problem, not solved vs. unsolved. A list of unsolved problems implies these problems are inherently solvable. It's entirely possible humanity will never fully understand, say, the origin of avian flight, or the origin of pteorsaurs, or the cause of the extinction of Placerias, or anything else I can think of off the top of my head. True, we may never have a unified theory of quantum gravity, but it won't be for lack of the existence of evidence, just our ability to get to it or understand it. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What killed the dinosaurs (still some debate), causes of other extinction events, whether tinamous redeveloped flight and are descended from ratites, T. rex hunter or scavenger, why horses became extinct in North America in the Pleistocene....are a few I can think of off the top of my head. Might make for a good page - a link from paleontology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"T. rex hunter or scavenger" May as well include the "possible" dinosaurian origin of birds or creation vs. evolution if by "unsolved problems" you mean "semi-debates that barely exist in the formal literature and have proponents numbering in the single digits."

"whether tinamous redeveloped flight and are descended from ratites" Who suggested this? My understanding is that some analysis find tinamous nested within ratites. That doesn't mean tinamous evolved from flightless birds, it means flight was lost several times among different branches of ratites.

This is my problem with such a page--all your examples are simply hypothoses that have been proposed. In science, every hypothesis is open to either furute support or future refutation. Should every single hypothesis currently supported be included, because it may be refuted in the future? Only controversial ones (then it should be "controversies in paleo", not "unsolved problems")? This is not a parallel with the physics page. The physics page doesn't list problems in the form of "a scientists proposed x, citing evidence y. Is he right? Who knows?" The problems are along the lines of "equation x doesn't make sense in the same universe as equation y. One must logically be wrong. Which one? Unsolved mystery." There is nothing similar in paleo, and pretending there is kind of seems like an attempt to make paleo something it's not on a fundamental philosophical level, while tirvializing the process to the point where "hypotheses" become controversies at the same time. That's what mainstream science reporters do to make headlines more interesting, and it's the fundamental reason science reporting sucks. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to harp on this, but reading more it strikes me that the unsolved problems with Physics article it really, really bad. It's almost entirely OR. I'm sure hypotheses have been put forward to explain some of these. At what point does an unsolved problem become solved? How strong does the resulting hypothesis have to be? Nothing can ever be "proved" in science, except for mathematical proofs. Some of the theories listed have been developed mathematically and await confirmation or refutation by observational data. Do black holes produce thermal radiation? We could know if we directly observed one in the right way. What factors drove NA horses to extinction? We probably couldn't come to a clear consensus answer even if we had a time machine. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am uncertain there are many unsolved problems in paleontology. There are few contemporary sources for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Also, I note that there are whole books on unsolved problems in science. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seeleysaurus and seeleyosaurus

Is there a disctinction between these two? We have articles for both, but images of fossil casts appear to show the same specimen, and they have the same species name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeleyosaurus is correct; see the original description at JSTOR 1298550. However, [1] suggests it may be a junior synonym of Plesiosaurus. Ucucha 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do the merging. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want a better citation(s). The PDF is "Thesis submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Master of Science", so it may not pass. --Philcha (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I won't merge it with Plesiosaurus, just Seeley/Seeleyo. By the way, haven't seen you much around, Philca, having a break, or are you just working on invertebrates, where I might not see your edits in my watchlist? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeontology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Palaeontology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enaliosauria?

Seems like a lot of plesiosaur articles list this as a subclass, does it warrant an article? It appears to have been totally abandoned scientifically, since it is an unnatural grouping of icthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, but if so, shouldn't it be removed from all taxoboxes it is used in? I've redirected it to Marine reptile for now, seems to be the closest fit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Polish dinosauromorph footprints

Some dinosauromorph footprints were just described from Poland in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, and the paper says it extends the range of the clade into the Early Olenekian. The paper says the Early Olenekian was ca 249–251 Ma, but according to the IUGS, the Olenekian starts at 249.7 Ma. I can't access the full article, so I'm not sure if there's some discrepancies in dating. Given that the oldest footprints are around 251 Ma, that would seem to place them right after the Permian mass extinction (although the paper says the extinction occured 252.3 Ma). This is very confusing. What dates should we go with? Smokeybjb (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think of the dates as set, maybe there is a descrepency or they have new data for the dates. Also the mass extinction i unlikely to be at one date. I can not comment further as I have not read the abstract, any chance of a link? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the abstract. Looking through the literature, the most commonly mentioned date for Permo-Triassic boundary is 251.4 Ma, although some papers say it is ~253 Ma.[2] [3] It seems like the more recent papers are saying ~253 Ma, though. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images needed from The Children's Museum of Indianapolis?

I am currently interning at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis as their In-House Wikipedian and will soon be coordinating a Backstage Pass event for any interested Wikipedians. I have now specifically met with the paleontologists in the Dinosphere PaleoLab and they are excited to contribute research content and photos to Wikimedia. If there are any specific content or, more likely, image requests of fossils, or any taxidermy animal you can think of, we'd be happy to help acquire such content. The Children's Museum has 110,000 artifacts, many of which are fossils and taxidermy. You can see 1,000 pieces of the collection here. A quick search of Fossil pulls up 86 objects. Please post any requests here and let me know if you have any questions! HstryQT (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New category: fossil algae

I've created a new category Category:Fossil algae. Please apply it to any fossil algae articles created. Thanks for the help. Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae --KMLP (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]