Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Multiple copyright issues about images related to Waterloo Farm lagerstätteEdit

@Funyu123: (contribs) edited multiple articles to add descriptions about Devonian Waterloo Farm lagerstätte, and uploaded[1] images related to that. The descriptions refer to multiple artists and researchers, even though these images are all uploaded as "Own Works". It is possible that this user is a researcher studying Waterloo Farm himself and has permission to use the images, but there is no concrete evidence of this, and since there is no user page, it is completely unclear who this user is. These images look pretty useful, but should they be removed due to copyright issues? Unfortunately this user has been completely inactive since Spring 2020. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct approach here, I think, is delete first, ask questions later. If this user cared about procedure they would've gone through OTRS. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chances are these are just plucked from articles without much regard for our copyright requirements , but there might indeed be at least some connection to the artists. E.g., the illustration for Octochara is a colourized version of a B/W illustration from this article. But, no declarations made. I agree that removing from WP use first, verifying later, is the correct course here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: eh no, it isn't - mix-up, disregard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway I noticed that Rob Gess himself have Wikipedia account as well (@Robert Gess:, uploads). This user was active in 2013-2015 for uploading images, but looks like he is no longer active, maybe we can try to contact with him about these images. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This reconstruction is one of image without credit and apparently their own work, and used in paper by Gess himself without credit
Now created deletion nominate.[2] However, I think this user may be Rob Gess himself, so possibly good to contact with him... This paper by Gess[3] uses reconstruction same as uploaded images shows that possibility as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of images are removed per nomination. I sent e-mail to his university but no reply came. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I found probable another account of Rob Gess, User:Bayandalo (Contributions). I appreciate about his contributions, but still it is sad for me that some of papers are inaccessible at all from the Internet. (large cyrtoctenid eurypterid for example) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Gess is the uploader, no OTRS permission is needed. And as users are not required to disclose their real names, I wonder if we even need to assume it's not him or demand deletion if we don't get identification, if all the images are related to Gess, it seems pretty probable. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be honest I am not sure... Even through that user is Gess himself, uploading Maggie Newman's work may needed to show permission? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, anything that's not his own work would need confirmed email permission. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing invalidly published names as synonyms in taxoboxesEdit

So far we have only listed validly published names as synonyms in taxoboxes, but an edit[4] at Duriavenator by Richardhesutton added the never validly published, older nomen nudum "Walkersaurus" as a synonym, despite this technically not being either a senior or junior synonym, as it was never published, and therefore doesn't "exist" in the taxonomic system. Names like these are sometimes mentioned in published articles as invalid names, but never as synonyms, so shouldn't be here either. It appears some blogs and personal websites list such names as synonyms, but that's not what we should follow in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that the reason I start the discussion here instead of on the talk page of the article is that this has wider ramifications; we should be consistent, and not do it randomly in specific articles if we do choose to include invalid names like that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. If a name hasn't been officially published it doesn't count as a synonym, and should not be included in the taxobox under any circumstance. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll unprotect the page when it's clear the consensus for not listing nomina nuda in taxoboxes hasn't changed. As FunkMonk says, not listing them has long been the consensus. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Validly published" is a term of art in the botanical (and bacterial) code; "published" is the equivalent concept in the zoological code. Taxonomic databases regularly list invalidly published names as synonyms when the synonymy can be determined (e.g., Larix larix is considered invalid under the botanical code because tautonyms aren't allowed, but that is a retroactive rule, and at the time Larix larix was published there was nothing wrong with it, and it is quite clear that it can be considered a synonym of Larix decidua). And it's not infrequent that a publication fails to meet one of the technical requirements to be considered valid, and the name is validated in a later publication. If there are some names that shouldn't be listed as synonyms, a more precise definition than "invalidly published" is needed. If nomina nuda aren't going to be listed, should we even have any of the articles that are in Category:Nomina nuda? Plantdrew (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Invalidly published in this case would be nomina nuda, yes (but also manuscript names and thesis names). And I don't think they should have articles either, which is why we have list of informally named dinosaurs for example, instead of very notable cases like Archaeoraptor, but that's a different discussion. A case where such a name is mentioned in a properly published source but specifically stated as invalid and not a synonym is Gay 2005 for Dilophosaurus "breedorum": [5] FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I list in the infobox basically any other scientific name the taxon has been known by, on the theory that most people aren't going to know the difference between actual synonym and nomina nuda, and that they'll want to know what happened to such-and-such taxon mentioned somewhere, and having it there under synonym is a relatively straightforward location. The fine details can and should be explained in the article proper. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, we shouldn't do it at random, but be consistent in whether we include such names or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely agree consistency is important, but in that case I think a few pages should be amended to reflect that, such as Altispinax, where "lydekkerhueneorum" has been listed for a while. I don't mean to be disruptive as well and I apologize, I only wish to contribute as I have on other pages and I will not edit war again. Richardhesutton (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If more editors could participate here, we could define a guideline. But as it stands, it seems former consensus was to not include nomina nuda, so I will remove it again. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A possible Parioscorpio look-alike?Edit

So I was reading up on the Eramosa lagerstätte, and I found a picture of a fossil arthropod that looks pretty much identical to P. venator. Now this is probably classified as original research, but should I add a brief mention of it on the Waukesha lagerstätte article or the Parioscorpio article itself?. Here is a link to the study where I found the photo. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO, that would be fully OR. We must ALWAYS have a reliable source to back any statement that is made in an article. If no discussion has happened regarding the affinities of the specimen in question, we have no grounds at all to make lay person leaps of faith that the commentary will come.--Kevmin § 01:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having had a look at the specimen in question, I agree it does look very similar. Obviously we can't include this observation anywhere per WP:OR but it might be worth emailing some of the researchers who had worked on Parioscorpio to let them know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hemiauchenia yeah, I could try emailing them, what would be a good way to do so though?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked Dr. James Lamsdell via Twitter when I tried to confirm the identity of this specimen to be Parioscorpio.
Let's see if he has any comments about the Eramosa specimen as well. Junnn11 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh btw @Fossiladder13, I found document that compares Eramosa arthropod and Parioscorpio (at that time unnamed), although this is Ph.D. Thesis so possibly not good for source.[7] Images on this document is shown just black and white so fossils are so hard to see... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of transitional fossils nominated for deletionEdit

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transitional fossils, participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tanis (fossil site)Edit

Now that the majority of the new hoopla has dies down regarding the Tanis site (suggestions of data impropriety and discovery scooping aren't nearly as enticing as DINO DEATH!!!!!), I feel its time to take a good editing session to the article as it stands. The main body is a relic from the early 2019 pre-publication news fervor, and there are areas which feel very unbalanced and sensationalistic, while there is coverage of the second article at all so to speak.--Kevmin § 01:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mentioned this in an ignored section on the talk page, but is the parenthesis in the title even needed? Isn't it just known as "Tanis site" anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "See also" note suggests that the other Tanis is also a "site". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for TemnospondyliEdit

Temnospondyli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cretaceous MongoliaEdit

Came across this article while looking through the list of stub articles for Paleontological Sites. Doesn't seem to fit in the category, or any other for that fact. We might want to consider having it deleted, as any information can easily be found on the pages of respective formations, like that of the Nemegt Formation and the Barun Goyot Formation. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there was a Paleontology in Mongolia article, like there is a Paleontology in the United States, I'd recommend merging it there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asoriculus/Nesiotites, againEdit

I attempted to redirect the three sentence Balearic shrew stub into Asoriculus, however, @UtherSRG: reverted asserting without evidence or any attempt at improvement that the articles didn't warrant merging. Given that my previous split proposal went nowhere and received exactly zero responses (at least on talk) I expect this will go nowhere either, but I can't be faulted for not trying. Please respond if interested, the discussion is located at Talk:Asoriculus#Merger_proposal, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

scansoriopteryx socketEdit

the scansoriopteryx skeleton on the main plate had a full hole in the hip socket, and on the counterslab plate, the was distorted during decomposition. What do you think ? Dinomarek (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you be more specific? Links? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scansoriopteryx had a non-perforated hip socket, but s on counterslab. During on mainslab had a full hole in the pelvis.This counterslab plate may distorted during decomposition. Dinomarek (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what are you suggesting we should do? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user seems to be intent on opposing BANDit reasoning. Without a specific suggestion in the literature, though, I don't think there's much we can do... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggesting publish a scientific journal containing this argument. The scansoriopteryx skeleton on the main plate had a full hole in the pelvis and on the counter plate, the pelvis was distorted during decomposition.What do you think ? Dinomarek (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, if you want such a paper, write it yourself. Wikipedia reports on existing literature, it does not create new literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just can't because I didn't graduate. Dinomarek (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How to improve the wikipedia article about roasted dinosaurs? Primitive feather types[edit source]
This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Dinomarek (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primitive featherEdit

How to improve the wikipedia article about roasted dinosaurs? Primitive feather types[edit source]

This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Dinomarek (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mosbach lion"Edit

Can anyone with experience with either fossil cats or how common names are handled check in on Panthera leo fossilis where an editor is attempting to insert a supposed common name that does not appear to have much (if any) support in the scholarly literature and is removing other common names that seem to have been used? Eocursor (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

kulindadromeus and Psittacosaurus had Feathers ?Edit

What are the references to The 2016 publication in the Journal of Geology in contrast finds that the integumentary structures found on Kulindadromeus and Psittacosaurus are highly deformed scales and not feather-like structures ? Dinomarek (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]