Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

How to deal with Triangulum's highly inaccurate arthropod reconstructions?

Sorry Triangulum, but these images seem to be in serious trouble right now. Triangulum is a fan of cryptid, and I know well that he is not familiar with arthropod bodyplan, and that arthropod anatomy itself is difficult to understand. Unfortunately, these images are too inaccurate not only for species characteristics but also considering body plans for eurypterid and millipede, and cannot be used. However, I feel that the problem is that these file names are simply very simple file names such as "Pterygotus.png" and "Arthropleura.png". Because of these simple filenames and the seemingly photorealistic style, many people may use this image as a reference. In fact, there are currently some restored illustrations based on this Arthropleura.[1] Yesterday I found these images being used on Wikipedia in Hebrew and replaced them with accurate reconstructions, but they were reverted and I am about to be blocked by considered as trolling.[2] There are already description that show why that is inaccurate in Commons page, but this alone may not be enough. The best way in my opinion is to rename the file. With a file name like "Arthropleura_inaccurate_ispodlike", no one would bother to use this image, and the Commons title currently appearing in image searches will show that image is inaccurate. But the question is whether it will pass the review... Any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this case is much different from most other cases of inaccurate images. They are usually used on many non-English Wikipedias even when replaced here, but I don't think there's much we can do about that, other than adding replacements, though I don't think it's our responsibility to do this on all Wikipedia. If they revert you even though the images have inaccuracy tags, I don't think changing the filenames will help further with that, they'll revert you anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for advice. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-tagging unreviewed Commons images

We often run into cases where well-meaning editors add images to articles without realising that there's a review process. I wonder if it'd be possible to auto-tag images that (1) are placed in palaeo-related categories and (2) haven't appeared on a review page before? FunkMonk, is there precedent for this or would that be considered administrative overreach? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen something like that before (except the bot that notifies article talk pages about DRs), and while the general idea sounds interesting, it would no doubt also tag the kinds of images we usually don't review, such as images from papers and fossils, so it create a lot of false alarms. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size Chart for the Ergilin Dzo formation fauna?

Could anyone here do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo Formation? it would be REALLY helpful and informative. 161.38.238.45 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much apparent coordination

I've boldly EC protected this page for two weeks. This will keep out most low edit-count lurkers. If an EC wants to tangle in this, otoh, I'm happy to see them self-identify. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relating to the Triistodon situation? Gasmasque (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suspect that Palaeoaficionado/Toosey is asking people associated with the University of Edinburgh or the broader British paleontology academic community for assistance, which is why we're seeing this suspicious activity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hello. It seems that this page got EC protected for a while? Thereby if I may, I am requesting to add my paleoart to be reviewed. My user name is Daeng Dino and while I still have low edit count, I always ask for review first before uploading... Thank you in advance and please inform me if I have done a misconduct in the past

DD (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't the problem, some other person went and had to ruin things for everyone else by doing plagiarism/copyvio and then having a hissy fit. SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see.. I am glad if I haven't conduct any major transgression to wikipedia community..Thank you DD (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's interrupting your work, User:Daeng Dino. The protection is temporary, and we appreciate your efforts here to do the right thing. BusterD (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is fine! It is understandable after I read the thread before. And yes it is only temporary so I can wait.. Thank you for the reply and appreciation.. DD (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]