Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 12

Notice: In the News/Candidate entry about the Tanis site K-T boundary fossils

There's currently a WP:ITN/C entry for the K-T boundary fossils from North Dakota in recent news, but so far it looks like it hasn't really gotten much attention in the form of article updates. Not sure if this is something that needs to be looked at. -- Ununseti (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be looked at, but I think people were waiting for the PNAS paper, which is up now: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/27/1817407116

The breathless media coverage in the New Yorker and elsewhere is being treated skeptically so it's better to use the paper and responses to it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I have collected a few more media and other links at Talk:Hell_Creek_Formation#De_Palma_et_al_paper. Please feel free to use them for whatever. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Tanis (fossil site) and will DYK it when ready - eyeballs and input welcomed, and hoping to strike a measured balance and NPOV in tone, as it's still very early days and the paleontology and related academic/professional communities have only in the last few days seen the paper, so the major debates will still be in the air for months if not years to come.

I've got the basics done, as is easy to see. I'm now working offline to summarize the key points and evidence stated in the paper and its supplementary publication documents. By the time that's done, I'm hoping for media sources to start picking up professionally written articles and comments and initial reviews, which can be used to write sections on the media + professional/academic initial reception and some key observations/comments made by notable academics and observers.

At the moment the New Yorker is still about the only reliable source for quite a lot of background material, as dePalma himself and the site's discovery and history are not yet well covered in other third party WP:RS. Aiming for thorough and balanced coverage though, despite the inevitable media hype. Enjoy! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It's past my bedtime so I'll look tomorrow. Meantime this is a good new secondary source if you haven't seen it already. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a very good start, and potentially ready for GA or FA soon! It currently has some errors that should be fixed (no big deal) before DYK. I'll post some comments on the talk page. Meanwhile here is a Slate criticism of the New Yorker piece. Livescience has some general commentary. Steve Brusatte's twitter feed (SteveBrusatte) could also be good for a quote or two, since he has posted some explainers there. 73.93.143.4 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This too, by same author as the Slate piece. Their twitter name is Laelaps if you want a little more context. 73.93.142.221 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on image display format in lists of prehistoric life by location

There is an ongoing RfC on how best to display images in lists of prehistoric life by location. Abyssal (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Original research in palaeoart

As discussed at the palaeoart review[1], there is an issue of including WP:original research in palaeoart, which goes against Wikipedia policies. Such original research is encouraged by the "All Yesterdays" book, which has turned into a sort of movement on Deviantart and blogs, and is seeping into Wikipedia from there. I have nothing personal against this, but on several occasions, we have had major discussions with "outsiders" (on two or three occasions[2][3][4][5]) who demanded that usermade paleoart should pretty much be banned because it is itself original research. We just barely circumvented this issue by starting the palaeoart review page to begin with, while assuring that we would check all art against published sources. Therefore, the "All Yesterdays" style experimentation serves as a challenge to this "deal"; we risk getting usermade palaeoart banned if we don't stick to reflecting published sources (and no, that doens't mean just keeping things conservative, just published). So I wonder if we could discuss this, and also, should probably have a guideline at the palaeort review page advising against such experimentation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant, some users[6] have tried to exploit Wikipedia to promote their own original research on the life appearance of extinct animals by flooding Wikipedia with commissioned palaeoart that reflects their view (David Peters[7] style tactics, and yes, he was also active on Wikipedia once). This did not lead to a ban itself, but it shows how it is a slippery slope. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for a little bit of speculation, especially in great artwork, but sometimes there's just a line that shouldn't be crossed. Where that line goes is rather subjective though, and hard to figure out. I guess overall the allowance comes down to whether the artwork would be just as good at displaying the content without the speculation. If it is necessary for the artwork to function, its probably going a bit too far. For the current image on the review page, the main point of contention seems to be about the bioluminescent animals. If the bioluminescence is removed, the image itself is fine, until you realize that realistically you would be removing the main light source, rendering the environment a dark murky indistinguishable mess. I see how related animals are bioluminescent, so there would be a point to them, and there's gotta be some light source for the organisms with eyes to use to see, but I wonder if it would be in our best, NOR interests, to dial down the bioluminescence and instead introduce a bit more sunlight. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, in that particular case, there could just be another light source, as you say. But it seems the artist has a preprint up on PeerJ on bioluminescence, so it is a bit of a borderline case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is an important difference in scope between Wikipedia and Commons, the latter being less restrictive than the former. WP:NOR states at the very top "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."), linking to explanatory policy: "Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." That guidance applies to Wikipedia at large and the rather insular WP:PALEO community. An image can have value as educational content regardless of its usage (or lack thereof) in Wikipedia articles, even if it contains some speculative material, or is objected to by some arbitrators on Wikipedia (virtually ALL art is inherently an inaccurate depiction of reality). Usage of any image from Commons on Wikipedia is neither mandatory nor prohibited: that some Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia don't think it's perfect doesn't necessarily mean the image should be deleted, nor it be marred by the heavy-handed, gate-keeping stamp of "Inaccurate Paleoart", nor that draconian bans on users or the creation of paleoart should be implemented. But the line between benign speculation and blatant POV pushing is not clear. With regards to File:Burgess Shale reconstruction.jpg, the only salient issue I see is the inferred bioluminescence, all other quibbles concern text, which can change. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons also has a "scope"[8], and one of the main criteria for inclusion there is that a file has "educational" value. Is an image that supports unpublished, selfmade claims "educational"? I don't see how, and the only thing that kept one of Falconfly's OR restorations from deletion was that it was in use somewhere.[9] Of course, there is no reason to be pedantic or "draconian", but there is also no reason to risk being shut down (or to be misleading as to what we actually know, for that matter). Furthermore, even if an image is allowed on Commons, it is rather pointless to upload it there, since it can't be used on Wikipedia anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not defending any images uploaded by Falconfly, but Commons is not limited to what can and can't be used on Wikipedia. And if Swedish or Japanese or any other language Wikipedia decides to have less stringent application of no original research for images than English Wikipedia, then they can go ahead and do that. There exists a spectrum between depicting bioluminescent plankton and triconodonts capable of powered flight, and reasonable people can disagree on the merits, and the appropriateness of images for individual articles or projects. Commons tends to have a broader inclusion criteria, "educational" need not mean "correct". Again, not advocating for the retention of, say, File:Argentoconodon fariasorum-color.png, but it or something similar could conceivably be used to illustrate a controversial or widely rejected theory, if that theory has gained an iota of traction or attention. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no issue at all with speculation within reason; as long as there's no wild speculation or outright inaccuracies, All Yesterdays is a published source on palaeoart specifically encouraging such trends in reconstruction; I'm sure Mark Witton The Paleoartist's Handbook would also contain relevant writings on what speculation is justified. So acting as if such reconstructions should be avoided is going directly against published sources. Regarding the Burgess Shale art, I see no issue with the inferred bio-luminescence and would oppose rejecting it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a major dilemma with paleoart as a whole, as brought up by All Yesterdays. So much of it is shrouded in speculation (which may infringe upon Wikipedia's guidelines against Original Research), yet not speculating also may infringe on guidelines due to likely representing an inaccurate portrayal. Outside of Wikipedia I would definitely support speculative paleoart but right here I'm much more uncertain. Perhaps we can let this case pass as long as we make it absolutely clear in the description that the bioluminescent Amiskwia are entirely speculative with no peer-reviewed source supporting the hypothesis. We may even be able to conjure up a disclaimer box (like the current "speculative paleoart" box), only to have it directed specifically towards intricate scenes like these. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn’t object to explicitly labeling the bioluminescence as purely speculative. I do not want to claim this as fact, or that it has more support than another interpretation. But I’d also argue that the bioluminescence is perhaps just as speculative as the colour of the organisms depicted; bioluminescence being quite common for deep sea life, I don’t believe it’s too much of a stretch. But again, still merely speculative. And it should be labeled as such. Also, FunkMunk mentioned a PeerJ preprint about bioluminescence? I’d like to clarify I’ve never brought up bioluminescence in a preprint. PaleoEquii (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To my knowledge there's no published argument against luminescence in the taxon, so any reasoning as to why it couldn't have the trait would also be original research, no? As PaleoEquii said, it's a pretty common trait for organisms in such an ecology, so naturally the base assumption should be one of neutrality, not a negative. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a very dangerous line of thought that would never be allowed in the text of an article. It's saying that if there's no published argument against an extinct species having a certain plausible feature, then it's ok to show it with that feature in a Wikipedia article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No published argument against it and precedent for why such an animal would have it. If there was simply no mention, then yes, it may be different. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If a journal article is cited in a Wikipedia article, and they speculate that an animal may have been bioluminescent, could that be cited in the text? I don't think the issue is OR. Nor is it speculation, as all paleoart if speculative. It's how well supported the claim is, or how supported it could be. Obviously much can not be suppoorted: I would not expect the text to have citations for the coloration for more than a handful of species. However, if one included a picture of a Therizinosaurus with webbed claws I would expect several strong citations in the body text. Something in between, such as the example with bioluminescence perhaps just needs a note that it is an artists interpretation. I support the idea of a {{Speculative paleoart}} template for these instances. --Nessie (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally, we would never include an image that had not been published in a reliable secondary source, just as we would never include information that had not been published in a reliable secondary source. However, we all know that because of copyright issues this is impossible. So the test should be "is this image equivalent to an allowed paraphrase?" Its component parts should be sourceable, even if the image as a whole is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need leave out our personal opinions/ideals and stick to the reality; Wikipedia does not allow OR, end of story. If one book says "speculation is allowed in paleoart", that doesn't give us carte blanche to do that, because Wikipedia rules clearly state we have to stick to reliably published theories. "Speculation is allowed" is not a theory, it means nothing in our context. If no paper specifically states Tyrannosaurus wasn't bioluminescent, guess what, that doesn't mean we should show it as such. The sad fact is, if we don't follow the rules of Wikipedia, we risk being shut down. I see no compelling reason to risk that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: then you think no paleoart should include colors? Because that is speculation in almost every case. As is the amount of body fat, presence or absence of lips, and so on. All are speculation. IIRC, there are no papers that specifically state that Tyrannosaurus had lips, so any images showing the mouth of a Tyrannosaurus should be removed, as picking lips or no lips is speculation either way. As I understand, that's the thesis of All Yesterdays, that many assumptions/speculations/tropes in paleoart do not have a solid basis. Do we need to now remove all images from Charles R. Knight and other early paleoartists because their 'original research' has proved to be wrong? Do we need to fact check each plant in the background to make sure their range overlapped with the animal in the image? Paleoartists need to make some choices: you can't have both lips and the absence of lips. All those choices are speculation. --Nessie (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a point made by numerous dinosaur books that we don't know what colours dinosaurs had, therefore, it is open to reasonable speculation (though we now know the colours of a few dinosaurs). I wouldn't compare that to completely novel hypotheses about behaviour or morphology, let's be reasonably here; a precedent has been set by a lot of published palaeoart, often approved by or even drawn by palaeontologists, showing practically any colours within reasonable speculation. But no, that doens't mean we should be drawing glow-in-the-dark dinosaurs. To take the example of lips on T. rex, we have countless examples of published palaeoart that show this, so it is in no way a novel feature. Furthermore, it has been discussed in palaeontological works for various dinosaur groups on the whole; if we have sources that state all theropods might have had lips, which we do, then we don't need any that specifically state T. rex did. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, it should be obvious that not all speculation is created equal. We have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. The question here is whether bioluminescent Amiskwia crosses a line that would not typically be crossed by stuff like speculative color, which is often acceptable by our rules unless it is extremely flamboyant. The "lips debate", body fat, etc. are also reasonable examples of speculation. I personally think that while these Amiskwia are certainly more reasonable than a bioluminescent Tyrannosaurus, the extent of their bioluminescence as portrayed here is not consistent with that observed in living bioluminescent chaetognaths. In addition, I should note that only 2 chaetognath species out of ~120 have been observed to have bioluminescent organs. It's always a judgement call whether this "crosses the line". I'm right on the line, IJReid and FunkMonk think it definitely does, and Nessie and Lusotitan think it definitely does not. This is a problem with the paleoart review system in general, it often comes down to subjective preference. Perhaps that's why the rest of Wikipedia (which is designed for objectivity) is so skeptical about whether we deserve to be here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really any sort of widespread opposition to paleoart on Wikipedia? I've seen several proposals that it was inherently too "OR" but remember them always getting shouted down. Abyssal (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that it was repeated reassurances that we would rigorously review all user made paleoart and check it against published sources that saved us, not winning shouting contests. Therefore, we are kind of undermining our "raison d'être" when trying to avoid our stated obligation. It has also become standard at FAC review that reviewers ask for sources that confirm what's shown in paleoart images. If we use an image of an animal that shows them with features/behaviour that have never been proposed for them or their relatives, that would be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think FunkMonk and I fall on the "its too much" side because we have both been involved in the lengthy discussions about whether paleoart as a whole violates OR rules on Wikipedia (I think he's been involved in multiple ...). I think the piece as a whole is exceptional, and certainly a good representation of the possibilities in nature, and I would like if I could say it stays unchanged, but I don't think that's possible at this point, its too far from the NPOV. My suggestion is not to remove the bioluminescence, but instead dial it back, so the chaetognaths do not emit light. And to compensate, brighten the overall image as if its closer to the water's surface. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: Paleoart tends towards the creation of memes. If one creates a reconstruction of an extinct organism with any distinctive, memorable features that are not directly supported by the evidence, they are liable to be widely copied; Dilophosaurus with a frill is a particularly extreme example, but there are many others (such as Pegomastax with a crest on its snout and Deltadromeus with two pairs of lacrimal horns). Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, not a paleoart gallery. We aren't trying to provide visually striking, novel takes on the life appearance of taxa; we're just trying to illustrate a likely life appearance of extinct taxa. Memorable and distinctive features (such as bioluminescence) are likely to be misinterpreted as being based on clear evidence in this context. Therefore, I think we have an obligation to provide highly conservative reconstructions as much as possible, or at the very least label speculation clearly and explicitly. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely. Abyssal (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you formulated it much better than me. And there have actually been toys, game models, and other stuff based on Wikipedia palaeoart "designs", so it's not just a hypothetical issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this a ridiculous slippery slope argument. So long as the piece is reasonably plausible, it should be entirely acceptable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous to bring up concerns with whether particular aspects of some paleoart might conflict with Wikipedia's goals as an educational source. I think it is reasonable to assume that, unless the speculative nature of the artwork is clearly stated, a viewer seeing an image of Amiskwia with bioluminescence would reasonably assume that Amiskwia is believed to be bioluminescent, as bioluminescence is an "unusual" characteristic that a viewer is likely to notice. Bioluminescence is unknown in any gnathiferans outside of Chaetognatha, and evolved convergently in the two known bioluminescent species of chaetognaths, and thus can be inferred as having been absent in the concestor of chaetognaths. Therefore, according to phylogenetic bracketing, we have a clear-cut case where our null hypothesis should be the absence of bioluminescence, and as there is no other reported evidence for bioluminescence in Amiskwia we can reasonably say that it was probably not bioluminescent given available information. Therefore, it is likely that, if this art were included in a Wikipedia article without the speculative aspects being clearly labeled as such, a reasonable viewer would come to the wrong conclusion about whether bioluminescence is considered likely. What, then, is the educational value of including such an image? Ornithopsis (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If it would misleading without being properly labelled, perhaps... label it? Captions are a useful tool. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my initial comment, I think labeling speculative paleoart clearly is an adequate solution. I would still prefer to avoid such depictions when we can, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ornithopsis has outlined this situation very well, but an example and my general view on images. I queried the presentation of a published piece of palaeoart in an article, unobjectionable and appropriately captioned in its context, but highly suggestive in the article that is the sum of many sources (I did, however, misread what the image was depicting, nevertheless …). I think that images are too potent in text based content, yet their inclusion is almost compulsory if possible, the caption solution is an inadequate disclaimer to their potency and distraction. Any non text based inclusion should be almost necessary to supplement the article content itself, rather than an article serving its non-textual content; the latter approach has always been the overwhelming thrust in content creation that filled stub and start articles (as better than nothing). If the image could be absent, then its inclusion should be more closely scrutinised than they generally were. cygnis insignis 07:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• And here we go again, more reason why we should stay conservative to protect the project, even basic stuff is questioned:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Foulden Maar

This page was recently created and has been worked on by various mostly New Zealand based editors. The area covered in this page has been featuring in recent news coverage as there is a possibility that the site will be mined for its resources. Members of this Wikiproject will likely have expert knowledge that can improve the page. I would be very grateful for any assistance given in improving the content, not least as outside views will hopefully ensure that a neutral point of view is maintained.- Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines on article creation

The is an entry at the front page of the project: Which articles should be created. The trend was to cite this as the consensus of the projekt, and this, or another piece of documentation, is still used to delete and redirect content by users wishing to create the species articles. I noticed that Thylacoleo has been judged to have 'too little to about species', other than the evocatively named marsupial lion T. carnifex, so all content is 'lumped' to the genus article. This begets more complications than it resolves, an opinion that seemed to emerge as others saw how this wasn't working out, eg. Talk:Marsupial lion#Merge with Thylacoleo discussion in 2015, which looks like keep to me but was retagged here. Ping @FunkMonk:, as a courtesy to that user, but I have already seen what their opinion is in their unilateral decisions and deletions. I've been following TOL general guidance, and certainly the Australian biota consensus, but this puts me in conflict with this projects stated guidance (which could interpreted anyway, including "there is never anything to say about a genus").

Comments? cygnis insignis 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there enough about Thylacoleo crassidentatus and/or Thylacoleo hilli to support a separate article? --Nessie (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be a certainty. A recent test case is Obdurodon, which has been relumped several times, deleting any attempt to split with the opinion outlined above. Everything associated with a species article, aside from the content, can now be maintained properly: the taxobox, categories, WD statements and so on. The species Obdurodon tharalkooschild still has a merge tag, but there was some easy additions that any reasonably well informed contributor could add, even one, apparently, that is only learning about palaeontology and is in the dark about mammalian biology (barring the little bit I know about our species). cygnis insignis 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think the guideline for paleotaxa below species not to have individual articles is followed a little too strictly at times. Though the case might be easier to make if the Thylacoleo at least had sections for each species. I think the main qualm about prehistoric species articles is notability, so if that can be shown I can't see why the articles can't exist. --Nessie (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A constraint by notability is wise, the genus we both worked on recently, Wyonycteris, has a problem of being notable but poorly resolved in its placement (thanks for taking the plunge Nessie). After worrying about that for too long, I forgot what fact I created the article to accommodate :P Stubs for species are harmless, and don't affect lumping the facts in a genus article. We don't know what wasn't expanded because the taxon was redirected, other than what I have seen deleted or disposed of as irrelevant to the higher taxon article it ended up at. Most of the work in Obdurodon was breaking up the lump and adding things others do in seconds with a routine. There is an unfortunate amount of extant taxa stubs that remain that way for a decade, but doing bust up to expand those stubs a little or a lot is something I'm glad I don't have to do. cygnis insignis 19:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Before overturning anything, please read the previous discussions.[11][12][13] The very long standing and well-argued consensus should not be ignored on a whim unless/until a new consensus emerges after a new detailed discussion between a wide range of editors. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment on whether the existence of species articles is appropriate, but it is pointless to have a species article that does not attempt to provide even a partial species level diagnosis that distinguishes the species from others in the genus. Descriptions like "had a long tail" or "was herbivorous" are redundant and make a strong case for a merge into the parent genus. 219.70.189.47 (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of three stubs (for one genus and two species) when you can have a single, fairly long and comprehensive article? Good examples of multispecies prehistoric genus FAs could be Smilodon, Apatosaurus, and Jaekelopterus. All the info the readers need found in a single place, instead of spread all over the place in half-baked stub articles. There simply isn't as much to say about prehistoric species as with living/recently extinct species, and prehistoric species are usually overplit as well because we have little to no clue about their range of morphology or behaviour. Suddenly atomising species articles left and right without discussion first is disruptive and should be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have been attempting to demonstrate by putting my time and effort to expanding the content, in the midst of that I reverted, causing edit conflict. Was the removed content going to be copy pasted as Funk Monk's contribution to another page, or has that practice been stopped with established users and admins who disagreed. The wishy-washy statement that is supposedly the product of consensus appears to have been applied as an override to AfD processes, the TOL standard every 'species gets an article? As some one said in prior discussions, if duplication is a problem then delete the genus article. I'm looking at Deltasaurus over the next day or two, the other example above is Obdurodon. I am exposing my shabby efforts to critique, but I won't be directly replying to the above repetition and self persuasion of funky and 'forgot to login, likely banned from a glance at their contributions'. Just a reset for those here, this is a subproject of a subproject, you don't get to shit on and rob any one who strays to page that has palaeontology banner; that is really unpleasant behaviour. cygnis insignis 15:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If the status quo is "wishy-washy", the project can hold a proper RfC and get opinions from other science editors instead of continuing to let petty wars fester. Looks like this one has been ongoing for the last ten years. At any rate, content forks for genus-level information do not constitute useful pages and complicate maintenance for everyone, which I presumed would be self-explanatory... 219.70.189.47 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) (aka 'forgot to login, likely banned from a glance at their contributions' - wrong on both counts)

I opened this discussion, that is all your presumption and unsupported opinion, and what, welcome to wikipedia? or just benefiting from being a rolling ip with no culpability. I should care what you think why, go and dance with your strawman instead of casting aspersions as a cowardly anon. cygnis insignis 19:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the guidance on the project page is fairly permissive towards the existence of species articles (will still generally discouraging them). If somebody wants a detailed article on a species, they should be able to. There are existing articles on species; some of them are reasonably detailed, others are perma-stubs that should be merged, but nobody has gotten around to doing so. Late-Pleistocene megafauna species may well have sufficient references to write species level articles. I don't think anybody is going to advocate not having articles for paleontological hominin species. I don't know much about biostratigraphy with Foraminifera, but I gather some species in a genus may be more important as index fossil than others, and might merit an article. It seems a little nuts to me that Apatosaurus excelsus wasn't deserving of an article but Brontosaurus excelsus is. But I don't see that the project page guidance necessarily rules out species articles for any of these examples. Species articles do need to be well developed with information that would be excessive in a genus article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to be on the lumping end of the opinion spectrum. As noted by others, out side of a VERY FEW sexy large vertebrates, little to no paleo species have anything remotely resembling enough unique information to merit separation from the genus article. See Fordilla, Palaeovespa and Parastylotermes for examples. Do we really need 12+ micro-stubs that are almost entirely duplication of information in thye sister species and genus articles? No, we dont.--Kevmin § 01:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As an example Deltasaurus pustulatus is almost all information that is the same for the genus or sister species and would be better covered at Deltasaurus then as a stub that duplicates information.--Kevmin § 02:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Following WP:NOTPAPER, I would say that species articles aren't inherently a problem and don't need to be always avoided, but rather only avoided when creating them doesn't contribute much in the way of encyclopedic value (which, I will readily admit, is often). The guidelines as described certainly suggest that species pages are allowable if there's much to say about the species specifically. I think there are plenty of cases where having a species with its own article is justified. If two species have distinct taxonomic histories, and there exists adequate information to write full articles on both species, I think they can be treated as separate articles. For example, if a species has a significant history outside of its current genus (e.g. Edmontosaurus annectens), it seems justified to give it its own article if there's enough to say about it specifically. I also think that separate species articles should generally be preserved for recent or controversial lumpings, as it doesn't do much good in case a recent lumping gets split again soon after. Overall, my inclination is that if a good article can be written about a species (that would be meaningfully different from the genus article) there's no reason to prevent it from being done. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, no one is saying prehistoric species articles are not permitted (and I have written some myself, such as woolly mammoth, which can carry it due to its significance). However, the guideline was formulated to prevent the creation of tiny stubs, which unfortunately is what is happening now. Species should generally be split off if the genus article can't carry the amount of info (such as with the mammoths), not for the mere sake of splitting. I see absolutely no point in having an article on both Batrachosuchus and Batrachosuchus henwoodi, both extremely tiny stubs. How does the reader benefit from having to jump between these stubs instead of having the info in one place? And why do these hasty splits before even discussing long standing guidelines broadly first? FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this is insight into the undocumented method by which users at this subproject can almost instantly determine that a page is not expandable, and delete an article (perhaps merging, I only know where that did not happen). The justification for years of heavy-handed editing is getting extremely thin when there is almost complete lack of agreed guidelines with formulations and precedents and, apparently, a consensus. Poor little amphib species, I went off and left it a stub, I'll get back to it one day, or someone else will. Or is everything that can be said about that species contained in that [points], look, look! "extremely short" page. Maybe I'm wrong, and that is it, it is not like someone will pull a new specimen out of a drill core, the odds of that are near zero. cygnis insignis 15:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I noticed a short article on a marsupial lion, in a monotypic genus, should one merge that to the family or see if can be expanded. I tried, this was the result, but the argument against any species article is that if another species is discovered there will somehow be less to say about this species. Sorry, the text is not two metres long, but most readers take something less than two minutes to read a page. Why, btw, are GA genus articles not split to sections. And how is there so much certainty about what readers require or need, I am so smart I should assume how smart or informed a reader wants to be, and second guessing of what they should have: they have to pick through a genus article to find out about a particular species? cygnis insignis 15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Palaeontology collaboration?

We have a vivid discussion at the WikiProject Dinosaurs about how to encourage collaborations, in particular to help newer authors to get started with writing: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Collaborating_on_DYNs,_GAs,_and_FAs?. The idea was proposed to open a regular Palaeontology collaboration, similar to the existing Dinosaur collaboration, with the goal to submit the article to the Good Article Nominations. It was proposed that we possibly start with a less complicated article that would be relatively easy to write (the ichthyosaur Acamptonectes has been proposed) – and thus especially suitable for newcomers (although everything is possible, and we would have a formal voting procedure to select the first article). Please let us know what you think – and if you would like to participate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably many more exciting yet easy articles that could be worked on. Taxa published in CC-licenced journals are easy for everyone to access, and provide plenty of free images, so they are good for practising. But if people are up to it, there are of course also many much more important and complicated taxa that could be collaborated on. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested, as I know bupkis about the whole GA/FA/LMNOP process. I frankly find it intimidating even with all my experience editing. I can't imagine how it is for newbies. I tried submitting a DYK once but that was rather like merging on a highway with a tricycle, with all the fine points to pay attention to.

I also assume that this endeavor will include WikiProject Pterosaurs, which despite the lack of activity include some of the more charismatic creatures that dino-fans will like working on. I also imagine there are folks in other WP:ToL projects that would be interested in this. --Nessie (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anything paleo related could count. The most charismatic pterosaurs have extremely complicated taxonomic histories, though... FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad we’re starting with the seas because there’s not much coverage in that in the GA/FA world (except for maybe sharks)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It is also the most neglected, except for Elasmosaurus, we have no promoted articles about the major aquatic Mesozoic reptiles... I personally think Kronosaurus would be one of the easier famous ones, not having been named in the 19th century is always a plus for the historical parts... FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Some other possible ideas (we mentioned them on the previous discussion, but I may as well list them here again) include Broomistega (temnospondyl), Acamptonectes (ichthyosaur), Pannoniasaurus (mosasaur), Eoplesiosaurus (plesiosaur), Cryonectes (plesiosaur), Polonosuchus (archosaur), Smok (archosaur), Alanqa (pterosaur), Lythronax (theropod), Dromaeosaurus (theropod), Argyrosaurus (sauropod), Cryptovenator (sphenacodontid), and Viatkogorgon (gorgonopsian). Speaking of sharks, perhaps we could do Kenolamna (whose article is disturbingly nonexistant). Perhaps we could make a more organized list somewhere, like we have on the dino collab page? Also, I agree that obscure taxa are the best starting point (I found that Puertasaurus was pretty nice, and its locality was great for practicing confusing name changes!). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! Our new collaboration is now up and running, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Palaeontology collaboration. First, we select the article we want to collaborate on. Please nominate your favourite, and leave your vote! Election will close on June 15. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Perhaps we could create a shortcut to it (WP:PALEOCOLLAB or something like that)? Shortcuts generally seem to help increase page accessability, in my opinion. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, could you create the shortcut (and maybe for the WP:DINOCOLLAB as well?)? But maybe use the British English spelling WP:PALAEOCOLLAB to be consistent with the name of the WikiProject Palaeontology (or simply create both variants)? They should also be listed in the Wikipedia:Shortcut directory. Now, we just need some nominations so that we can vote for something! Just choose the article you are most interested in working on, and nominate it (doesn't matter if and how much you will contribute)! Everybody may nominate one article each round. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, the voting phase just closed, and we are ready to start working on our first collaboration: Acamptonectes! Please see Talk:Acamptonectes for the discussion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow I missed this - good to see Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Task forces?

To get a better handle on content, would subdividing into taskforces be helpful? What I like to get an idea of coverage is the assessment table (e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Article_alerts_and_statistics). If all paleontology articles were tagged according to era, for instance we could get a view of coverage into Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paloezoic, and older (lump as Proterozoic?? or keep to all the eras for consistency?) amd have some assessment tables. Obviously it will be heavily stacked and mesozoic will be heaps more than others but still....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we're still a bit too undermanned for it to bear fruit/be worth the effort. Let's maybe see how the collaborations go, and if it stirs up more activity. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not for activity, but mainly for mapping out content so my thinking was for comparing coverage between eras really. But yes agree is a net negative if it scares folks off or confuses people Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it would necessarily scare people off, I was just wondering if it would be too much work. I certainly don't think it would hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see wanting to create task forces to improve data. But this might be an uphill battle with the mood for consolidation at WP:ToL. In any event, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article alerts doesn't seem to ornerous, and for the two existing TFs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Lobe-Fins/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Pterosaurs task force/Article alerts they are pretty dead. I know there are other statistic tools and that those two task forces are sluggish at best… but hey, I don't object, just don't want you spinning your wheels.--Nessie (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

hmm, there isn't a page for WP:Palaeontology here. Might be good to get one, no? --Nessie (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so I signed up. We'll see when the bot runs. --Nessie (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

clean-up listing for Palaeontology clean-up listing for Pterosaurs

BTW These cleanup lists are active now, so check them out. --Nessie (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice: Struthio dmanisensis move discussion needing input

There is a current move discussion happening at Struthio dmanisensis that needs help from paleo-literate editors--Kevmin § 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring of etymologies

A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.--Kevmin § 03:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-created taxonomy templates

Yesterday, some taxonomy templates for extinct taxa created by Paleofroggy were deleted by Bbb23 following a sockpuppet investigation.

This left a number of articles with broken taxoboxes. In order to fix them, I re-created the taxonomy templates listed below, based largely on the text of the articles (i.e. I did not usually look at sources myself). An editor with more experience of the relevant group (see taxon in parentheses) needs to check the parent taxon in these templates, and indeed the article.

• Template:Taxonomy/Alcmonavis (Avialae)
• Template:Taxonomy/Craspedodon (Ornithischia)
• Template:Taxonomy/Eichstaettisaurus (Squamata)
• Template:Taxonomy/Galulatherium (Mammaliaformes)
• Template:Taxonomy/Neurankylus (Testudines)
• Template:Taxonomy/Opsieobuthus (Scorpiones)
• Template:Taxonomy/Paleolepidopterites (Lepidoptera)
• Template:Taxonomy/Proscorpiidae and Template:Taxonomy/Proscorpius (Scorpiones)
• Template:Taxonomy/Yasykovia (Ichthyosauria)

Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: why did they delete these templates? Are there more templates/articles we need to get a refund on? I don't know how sock puppet investigations work. --Nessie (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This also applies to various validly created articles, such as Bohemiclavulus. I brought it up[14], but got no reply. We had a similar problem earlier when another sockpuppet also had its validly created articles (such as the first version of Simurghia) mass deleted. Not sure why this has become common practice. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's very irritating. It does now seem to be common practice to delete articles created by sockpuppets (at least those that only they have edited or mainly edited) once they have been identified as a sockpuppet. But deleting taxonomy templates, as opposed to flagging them to be checked, messes up multiple articles. I don't have time, energy or inclination to do more than re-create the templates based on a very quick look at the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 seems to be ignoring the issue, but it needs to be dealt with, otherwise it has be brought up elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring the issue. Last time I saw this, I assumed that because Peter had recreated the templates, everything was resolved. If you want me to restore certain templates, please list them and ping me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have created them all, so that there are no taxobox errors. As we can't rely on the sockpuppet's taxonomy templates, and as I don't have any knowledge of many of the taxa involved, my post here was to ask other editors to check my work.

@Bbb23: because deleting taxonomy templates can affect many articles, I suggest that it's better to notify this Wikiproject (or others), asking for them to be checked, rather than simply deleting them. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter, I understand the problem from your perspective, but the sock was here for far too long without being detected, which gave them time to create a great many pages. In those cases, it's often difficult to discriminate between pages because of the time it would take to do so. I suggest that if this happens again to come to my Talk page with a list of those templates you want restored and why so I can evaluate them and, if appropriate, restore them for you. Certainly seems like less work for you than recreating them yourself, although I understand your preference for me not to delete them in the first place. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't know what tool you use to delete multiple pages created by a sockpuppet, so I don't know whether it would be easy to distinguish those with names of the form "Template:Taxonomy/..." If so, this is all I am suggesting. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter, as I recall, the sock would create a new dinosaur article and an associated template, so obviously I deleted both. However, they also created templates for articles that they did not themself create. Those were the ones whose deletion would affect pre-existing articles. I didn't realize that at the time until I was almost through deleting. I had already spent a ton of time doing this (some I could do in an automated fashion, but many more I could not because of the limitations of the tool), and I didn't want to go back through all of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sooo... any chance of getting some of these articles back, in addition to templates? I saw Schoenesmahl dyspepsia got the axe, which looked entirely fine to me when I reviewed it. There are likely others. I am aware that G5 cases are not considered appropriate for refunding, but then I assume that technically applies to templates as well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Bbb23 should get back to us about this. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology

Please join the discussion on the proposed merge from Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. --Nessie (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Paleoart as original research?

Hibbertopterus is currently going through the GA process (review) and the reviewer stated that;

"Some of the images are reconstructions that are own works of ДиБгд. I'm counting that as OR unless these reconstructions were also published in some paper or article"

What do? A large number of articles include reconstructions of prehistoric animals, most of them not published in papers or articles themselves? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the first time this has ever happened (see the header on either review page). Generally adding what sources the images were based on to the file description (or at least stating the the proportions match with a reference) will satisfy people (I'm guessing that that's why my size comparison wasn't called out). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has been brought up many times in FAC discussions, where such usermade restorations have been accepted as long as sources have been provided on the file pages that show what they can be verified against. See the discussions listed here:[15] If that's good enough for FAC, it is certainly good enough for GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, right so if I add some published references which match the reconstruction (though of course I can't be sure the reconstruction was based on said references) it should be fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it can be double checked/verified it shold be fine, seems to be the gist of the discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Reconstructions can give undue weight to a conception, eg. Palorchestes story at Nat. Geo. They ought to be published elsewhere before appearing in articles, included with attribution and at least as much caution as the text. ~ cygnis insignis 01:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Not according to the outcomes of the very wide discussions above, though. And that's all we have to go by. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's working out well for the life reconstruction at Kamuysaurus, I bet! 2001:569:7CF0:9300:B4D2:2B45:C59D:3A75 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

New Australian Ornithocherid Pterosaur Ferrodraco described

see link (open access), no article yet so I thought I'd give everyone a heads up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:FunkMonk, give that it is scientific reports, do you want to upload the images from the paper to commons? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be quite easy, though, do you have a Commons account? FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I do, is there an easy auto transfer tool like geograph2commons? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You right-click and download an image onto your device, then go to commons:special:upload wizard and select the image from your downloads, fill out the copyright info, and then that's it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, as I mostly do, I just copy the templates from other images already uploaded and paste it into the empty upload form:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Amphibian tetrapod, third instance from Ireland

Hi all, I'm not comfortable enough with editing Palaeontology, but a new amphibian tetrapod fossil is getting a bit of coverage on Irish media today. If you look at this tweet, there is also free access to the relevant journal article. I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate article for this to be added? Smirkybec (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The study only says it's some ambiguous tetrapodomorph (it doesn't actually say it's an amphibian), so we should probably wait until enough is known for some more specific classification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not every scientific paper contains information that needs to be on Wikipedia. Sometimes the information is only of interest to specialists and/or locals. That said, if there was a page on the Clare Shale Formation (which would be justified), this specimen could be mentioned on that page in a list of known fauna from that formation. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Year in paleontology cruft

I have been noticing more and more that a group of IPs are adding to the "year in paleontology" list articles. While its awesome to be getting the new taxa added to as papers are coming out, I feel the lists are getting out of hand with the general research sections, eg 2018_in_arthropod_paleontology#Other_arthropods. As is these lists are getting massive, what level of inclusion should be applied to the sections, or should every article published be listed?--Kevmin § 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine, as long as sections are properly broken down into different pages once of sufficent length to prevent articles from being too long Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Extinction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Extinction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Extinction until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ironic that the extinction portal underwent an extinction event itself. Eostrix (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How much stratigraphy do we want in Paleoenvironment sections?

I've been working on Umoonasaurus again, and as I was working on some major expansion to the Paleoenvironment section, I began to wonder if the information in the first paragraph was too extensive. While the information is interesting, I'm not sure how much it applies to the subject of the article. What are your general thoughts on this? Should I keep the paragraph or condense it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this information is probably too in depth for the Umoonasaurus article, but interesting enough that it should be transferred into the Marree Subgroup article, or maybe even a new article on the Bulldog Shale itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as the basics are mentioned, and those issues that directly affect the genus, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this information would be useful for the Subgroup article. The second sentence is not very relevant to Umoonasaurus and the last two sentences could be condensed into the rest of the paragraph. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed and re-aranged the sections a bit, and added a little new info. Does this look better than before? If so, I'll move it to the Umoonasaurus article. Thanks for the input, and I may very well work on starting an article for the Bulldog Shale once I finish this project. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd think it'd only be pertinent to note aquatic creatures, so dinosaurs aren't really relevant. The rest looks good though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've condensed that sentence to just mention the rarity of archosaurs. Is this better or should I just remove it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, "Archosaur fossils from the Bulldog shale are rare, and are represented by the small tetanuran theropod Kakuru and several indeterminate specimens, some of which can be assigned to Dinosauria," is not needed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed any indication of archosaurs in the paragraph and transferred the whole section (and a new paleobiology section) to the Umoonasaurus article. I think that we can conclude that pal(a)eoenvironment sections need:

• Formation(s) that the animal comes from, where these formations are and what they're subunits of
• Only the most basic information on stratigraphy, unless more is needed due to unusual fossil preservation (i.e. Umoonasaurus and opals)
• Habitat the formation represents, relevant data on climate
• Information on other organisms in the animal's habitat (more general data on disparate groups, more detail on similar animals, whether by phylogeny or ecology)

If anyone can think of anything to add to this list, please do. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup of Hanson Formation

Yewtharaptor has struck again, while their edits are often well meaning, It's clear that the users native language is not english, (it's probably spanish or italian) and despite having been on wikipedia for 7 years, often their edits to articles are full of spelling errors, poorly phrased sentences and gramatical oddities, poorly formatted references and often with blatant plagiarism of text from research papers (although not in this case). Their talk page is quite something I've done my best fixing up the spelling errors, but I think I need help rephrasing sentences within the article. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ban request

(Redacted)

@Tisquesusa: I think you need to take a step back, and clear your head. I think reverting your edits for containing portal links is excessive, but of the portals are permanently deleted why include the links? Personally insulting wikipedia users and calling them creatures regardless of circumstance isn't acceptable. In case you weren't aware, BrownHairedGirl is an admin. I know you do good work on wikipedia, and I respect you as a colleague but you need to take a break, gain some perspective and think about what you're doing and why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted)

@Tisquesusa: as an outsider to the edits in question, all I can see is that you were asked not to add a link to a deleted portal ("Prehistory of Antarctica", which you anyway misspelt as "Prehistory of Antartica"). Why did you persist? It was clearly against consensus – there have been long discussions about portals recently, which resulted in the deletion of many. It does throw into question the value of your other edits when you behave like this. Anyway, I've removed just the portal in question, and leave it to others to judge the rest of your edits. If anyone should be banned as a result of this, it's you for your utterly uncivil behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting here that Tisquesusa has been banned twice before for posts like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted)

@Tisquesusa: You need to go outside and calm down, this isn't productive, your just ranting, go for a walk, please. Its not worth it, this isn't doing any good for anyone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted)

@Tisquesusa: I'm not siding with "Trolls", to be quite frank I don't give a flying fuck about portals. I respect your work, but insulting other users and calling them freaks and questioning their gender isn't rational or civil. You are editing an encyclopedia for fucks sake. In one edit reversion you said "stop the shoah now", do you not realise how fucking stupid and pathetic it is comparing the deaths of millons of people in the holocaust to deleting portals on wikipedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: I think you lack perspective, to be quite blunt, few casual readers of the encyclopedia cared about portals, only hardcore users who have portals as their own personal soapboxes really cared. I think the point of wikipedia is to make knowledge accessible, and the portals simply did not fulfil that puropose. I think you really need to go outside and take a breather, and have a hard think about why you are so angry, otherwise you are going to be banned again, which I don't want to happen because you are an excellent contributor otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the second round of this saga, and the second project which Tisquesusa has chosen to use a venue for his vile personal attacks. I have opened a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks_by_User:Tisquesusa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hello. I just completed a stub / start article on a new find in Germany: Danuvius guggenmosi, a great ape from the Miocene that walked erect (bipedal). I am not familiar with the use of the taxobox, so I need help on that. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added the speciesbox Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As a monotypic genus, it should be moved to Danuvius. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Danuvius is a redirect to the Danube river, and is also the name of a roman river god of the same river. In cases where a monotypic genus shares a genus name with something else, the preferred option is to use the binomial, as is the case with Proa valdearinnoensis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that the name had multiple meanings. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading more about it, it says (or at least implies) that restorations of dryopithecine apes should be more erect, so File:DryopithecusDB15.jpg may be outdated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Is this something that should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review? --Nessie (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. All the art work for Late Miocene apes was based on just jaw and tooth remains, so really the entire reconstruction is based on the idea they were more like other great apes than humans, and this new ape sort of discounts that, but, though the authors make several comparisons with dryopithecines, they never say Danuvius is a dryopithecine (but they do clearly say that dryopithecines could have had a similar build). There's not too much of an argument to say, either for or against, that File:DryopithecusDB15.jpg is inaccurate. We should probably just make note in the captions like "restored with a knuckle-walking gait" or something similar   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Could also be modified. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I see you reverted your edit removing dryopithecini from the taxobox, does this mean that Danuvius is definitively a dryopithecine? I don't have access to the paper. If it is it implies the morphology of other members of the clade should be similar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at when it first describes the species where the parent was Hominidae, but throughout the article is says things like "other dryopithecins" and things like that, so yeah it is in fact a dryopithecine. Looking into Dryopithecus, the reconstruction may have been based on a partial skeleton which was described as orangutan-like but is no longer attributed to Dryopithecus, or the idea that Dryopithecini is closely related to orangutans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think part of this is that they are deliberately trying to make it ambiguous to make the fossil seem like a human ancestor and therefore more important. Much of the news media coverage seems to based around "missing link" type headlines. It's like the whole Ida Darwinius debacle in 2009 that turned out to be an adapiform. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I thank you all. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The article has just been placed as the top news item on the front page of wikipedia, wow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Tracking an obscura Panthera

I'm back!

Anyway, I have found mention of the species Panthera dhokpathanensis in a 2009 paper. Said paper cites only a single source for the existence of this species. While I do not doubt that it exists, the source does not appear to be online. In fact, searching the entirety of Google only nets three results for the species, one being the 2009 paper and the other two being a Russian zoology forum (not useful).

Does anyone here have access to the original source, or point me in the right direction? I will write an article on the species if I can find, promise.

The source is: Bakr, A. (1986). On a collection of Siwalik Carnivora. Biological Society of Pakistan, Monograph No.11, pp.1-64.

Thanks for helping.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The best way here to find sources that are not available online is WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: are you near any of these libraries? --Nessie (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A couple ideas for evolutionary articles

I have a couple ideas for articles that I may start working on, since I've been wondering about and researching these topics for some time.

1. An overview of the "Evolution of forelimbs", focused on pronation, supination, and the skeletal adaptations, limbless lizards and snakes, tetrapod pentadactly, and the digit specializations that have occurred in fossil and extant genera.

2. An expansion of the posture section of vertebrate locomotion. Titled "Evolution of posture" and it includes sprawling, erect, pillar-erect, the skeletal morphologies, from human adaptations to bipedalism to bird adaptations to bipedalism.

I plan to add to Forelimb#Evolution of forelimbs until its evolution can be expanded into a separate article. If you have ideas for topics that would be included, want to fact-check, or have any good scientific papers for references, feel free to suggest or add them. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, not sure a separate article is necessary, though. The forelimb article is pretty short to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not also talk about the evolution of hindlimbs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I also think it makes more sense to cover the evolution of hindlimbs and forelimbs in one article, to accompany Limb development and provide necessary context, balance, comparisons and contrasts in the same article. Encyclopedia articles should begin with broader scopes rather than narrower. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Good points. Yeah, an article covering the evolution of all vertebrate limbs, to accompany limb development, is a better idea. Rauisuchian (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Posture and limbs are linked closely, and make sense in a vertebrate context. I don't think your article would address Ascidiacea for instance. Eostrix (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems this would focus solely on tetrapod limbs (do any other vertebrates even have limbs?), so the scope should probably not be limbs or even forelimbs in general. Maybe "tetrapod limbs". FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tetrapod limb sounds like a good, generic title. I've started a user subpage here though it is a very rough draft. Rauisuchian (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

FA nomination of Megarachne

Just popping in here to say that the article I've got nominated for FA, Megarachne, will soon be archived due to a lack of input. So, if anyone wants to add anything to the ongoing discussion here, and keep the FA nomination from becoming as extinct as the eurypterid it's about that'd be greatly appreciated :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention needed at 2019 in paleontology and 2018 in paleontology

There is far too much content under the sections of "other research", which could be used to form other sections or be moved to other sections, and this would greatly assist in further splitting these very large articles. Editors with some knowledge of palaeontology would be best to undertake this. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I was never convinced we need to cram so much stuff into those lists. But the scope as implied by the titles is incredibly broad, so it is impossible to know where to draw the line. The title doesn't restrict itself to new taxa, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

These list were just advertised at the vrtpaleo mailing list, which means that people including paleontologists find them (and their many sub-lists) to be a useful resource. But yes, more should be split of. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Related to this, 2020 in paleontology was listed for deletion discussion. I thoroughly dislike people constantly bringing up stuff like the paleoart review for discussion, so we should probably end this one here and now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Some deletionist wikipedia users outside of specialist topics are such obnoxious busybodies who seem to get a kick out of deleting stuff and misquoting policy, I've added my support Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. A couple of important points were brought up during the discussion on the subject of the possible deletion of 2020 in archosaur paleontology that I think are worth addressing - if only to make it possible to point to this discussion in case of any future doubts about what should be included in the article.
The research that should be included. It seems uncontroversial that new taxa described during a particular year should be included in such lists, but there are doubts about other research that should be included. Besides the new taxa, the article header mentions "significant discoveries and events related to paleontology of archosaurs", which is a broad and general guideline. Personally I consider studies providing new information on fossil taxa in matters such as, for example, skeletal anatomy, soft tissues, life history, diversity, evolutionary relationships, geographical distribution, the environment they lived in and the age of their fossils to be significant studies, but this comes from my personal judgement, and the guidelines from the article header are not detailed on that point.
The date of the publication. This isn't controversial in case of publications which are in print only, or publications in online-only journals without a print version. However, there are cases when both print version of the publication and the advance online version of the publication are made available by the publisher, with the release of the latter preceding the former. This in turn makes it problematic to the decide whether the date of the advance online publication of the study or the date of the final, print version of the publication (which in some cases happens years later) should be considered the date of the publication for the purposes of those "years in paleontology" lists.
This is especially problematic in cases when such articles name new taxa. One such problematic case is Thanos simonattoi, mentioned in the discussion on the deletion of 2020 in archosaur paleontology. In that discussion I wrote why it cannot be considered validly named in 2018 in spite of the advance online version of the publication naming it being made available then, so I won't be repeating myself here.
Personally I try to keep such studies assigned to the articles corresponding to the year when the final version of the publication came out. I'm aware of at least one case when the final version of the publication changed the title from the advance online version, had two authors from the advance online version removed, changed the name of the new species it described and had another new species that was about to be named removed from the final version of the publication, so keeping in mind just how big the differences between the advance online version and the final version might be, I think it's safer to stick to the final version. But now that I think about it, this is also my personal judgement and not something that the guidelines are explicit about. So after all I'm not sure, perhaps in such problematic cases we should just leave those studies (and taxa) in the articles corresponding to the years when they were first announced, whether their final version was published/they were validly named then or not.
Thoughts?--188.146.99.74 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you're making the best of a difficult situation. I'd agree its not very clear what the right answer to the question is. I think that for taxa it should be included on both lists with a note saying "formally published in 2020" and "paper online in 2018" or something similar. I'd like to re-iterate here that I think that your inclusive criteria for inclusion are good, as it seems to catch almost every relevant paper, far more than any other similar roundup, and as such is an incredibly useful resource without any clear alternative. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not put it in the notes when the year of online release and official publishing don't line up? Lusotitan (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that just what I said? You haven't answered whether it should be it should be offical year of publication or online, or both Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I skimmed over your comment. I thought it obvious that it should be the official year as we have always done (to clarify, I am not OP). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, in the information age, the de jure year of publication is irrelevant, as no-one reads physical papers anymore. What matters is the year that the paper is published online. You can see this with Adratiklit, which is formally published this year but came out last year. All of the press coverage was last year and the authors of the paper effectively regarded it as being published last year. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be cited as a paper from the physical year though. As long as the initial date is made known I think it is better organized with the year of physical date. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) What to include: This is the most important issue. The only good inclusion criterion that comes to mind is "peer reviewed articles only". This would include a lot, of course, but I don't see a clear reason why not. If we want to filter the important ones, we could go with "either media presence OR high-impact journal", though both have important problems (I just can't think about something better).

Which date: I would just use the date of first publication (usually the date of appearance of the online-first version). Simply because this is the date that counts in practise: From this point, the article makes an impact. The official publication date does not matter in this regard. These publication dates are a complete mess anyways, I recommend to just avoid that and keep it easy (one example: Volume 30, No 5 of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology is officially published in September 2018, although it was not available before summer 2019, and the "online first" versions of many of its papers were not published before 2019!). I would not include both publication dates in the lists, as I feel that these are of very secondary interest (unless people who want to cite the stuff). I also would not include the same study in two lists just because of the publication date confusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding whats included, I have no real opinion, but I think I fall opposite Jens on what date we use. I think the lists should be directly following the dates that would be included in citations, the "official publication date", since that is what the longevity of the source will be. Many historic papers were for example read in 1868 but published in 1869, or written 1869 but the volume published in 1870. We follow the official date for these, and I think we should follow the official date now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of which is chosen, I strongly disagree with Jens that the other date should not be listed. Why not list both dates? Both have their merits and usefulness and it clears up likely confusion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem does not apply to historic sources. In your examples, it must be, of course, the latter date, the date when it was first published. Online first versions are a more recent phenomenon; they are actual publications that can be cited as long as a printed source does not exist. Listing research in a list of 2010 for research that was first published in 2009 is, in my opinion, historically incorrect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Jens here, in the modern online age, date of online publication is the effective de facto date of publication. All of the taxa should go into the year it was actually published (with a note stating year of volume publication), rather than the year the volume/issue was published, as the journal volume/issue is effectively irrelevant in the modern age anyways. For instance for Thanos, clearly this is a 2018 taxa, and it makes no sense to say it was published in 2020 when it was actually published two years earlier. This simply causes more confusion, the least confusing criteria is to include the taxa in the year they were actually published (i.e. online). Paleontology has moved so fast in the last decade with so many new taxa that there is a much greater difference between 2018 and 2020 than there is between 1877 and 1879 for instance, as far more is happening. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I don't understand is how to tell when a paper is physically published. The Thanos paper gives no indication of a 2020 publishing, but the name would not be valid until the paper is physically published because it otherwise does not meet the ICZN requirements. I still believe we should follow the year the name is made valid, but we can also include it in the earlier article as a nomen nudum if people wish, because for Thanos, until physical printing occurred, it was a nomen nudum. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

An online-first version never states the future publication date of the volume, because delays in schedule can always happen. I never heard of this ICZN requirement though, could you provide a link? If this is indeed the case, then what about all the online-only journals without any physical copies, all the taxa named in PlosOne and the like? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is also one of the reasons why I recommend leaving out the "official" publication dates entirely: You don't know this date until the volume is actually printed. That means that we would have to keep track of all printing activities of the journals, to add the "official dates" to the current list and those of previous years each time a volume has been printed – that really would be a lot of (quite annoying) work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From the 2012 amendment of the ICZN code: 21.9. Works issued on paper and electronically. A name or nomenclatural act published in a work issued in both print and electronic editions takes its date of publication from the edition that first fulfilled the criteria of publication of Article 8 and is not excluded by Article 9. – This means that, in the case of Thanos, 2018 is and remains the valid date of description for this taxon. The printed version, which may (or may not) be published in 2020, does not matter at all. If I understood correctly, a paper version that is considered as "final" by the journal is valid according to the ICZN. That excludes preprints, but usually includes early view and online-first. But please prove me wrong, the code is always tricky. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The final, print version of the article naming Thanos is not out yet, so it isn't validly named yet. I tend to leave such taxa in the article about current year in paleontology with a note that the taxon is still "in press", because, taking the sheer number of new taxa first mentioned in the advance online versions of the articles naming them into account, I worry that I might forget about them otherwise.
The matter of naming taxa in electronic publications is governed by articles 11.1 and 8.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The former article states that the name or nomenclatural act must have been published, in the meaning of Article 8, after 1757. The latter article states that to be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred. There is also article 21.9 of the Code, mentioned by Jens Lallensack.
Regarding Thanos specifically, the advance online version of the article naming it has no evidence within the article itself that registration in ZooBank has occurred, so it cannot be considered a published work according to the Code, and so Thanos cannot be considered to be validly named in the advance online version (but will be validly named in the final, print version once it's out).--188.146.106.111 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But what, for example, about Pulanesaura, published in 2015 in Scientific Reports, an online-only journal. No ZooBank reference to be seen in the PDF. Does that mean the taxon is invalid? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is invalid (or at least it wasn't validly named in the Scientific Reports article), and this also applies to many (but not all) other taxa named in that specific journal. I know of two cases when the taxa invalidly named in Scientific Reports were subsequently validated in different journals for that reason. But I also keep in mind that otherwise, researchers working on taxa described in that journal tend not to dwell on that matter and simply treat them as valid. For that reason, I leave the "status" field empty when adding taxa from that journal and don't comment whether they are valid or not.--188.146.106.111 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting. Obviously, also the describers of Thanos did not intend to name an invalid taxon in an online-first publication, and it is certainly also not the prevailing conception in the field. To come back to our problem, this begs the question if we are actually allowed to remove Thanos from the 2018 list when no reliable source specifically states that it was invalid at that time? Wouldn't that violate WP:OR and WP:Synth? I feel that we have no choice but to assume that it is valid (as indicated in the paper), and leave the decision to others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I again dispute the logic behind not including both dates. Obviously, yes, going back to apply it retroactively would be too much work to necessitate unless someone felt like doing it, but since it is - again - useful info to have both, I see no reason not to do it in future cases at the very least. One thing I am curious about is what to do about the pages if we do go with the date of electronic publication. The actual citation will still be that of the official publishing date. What does the taxobox go with? The true date of the paper it is referring to, or the date we sort it as on the aggregation page? One is inaccurate, more inarguably than the date of naming IMO, while the other does not line up with the date in paleontology page which we traditionally link to from that location. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't watching this page. My two cents: at least in taxoboxes, we should be following citations used in the literature, which AFAIK generally use the official publishing date. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that taxonboxes should use the official publishing date. Though that would mean that, e.g. for Thanos, we would need to "correct" the date in the taxonbox once the official publication is out. Maybe we should only do this correction after the new official date has been adopted by other sources to avoid the WP:TF issue, I'm not sure. In these cases, I now see (and agree) that both dates are better to be included into the lists, and that the list of the year of the official date could contain a hint that the taxon is covered by an older list. For all other papers, I still think that the date of first publication is enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so if the taxobox date doesnt line up with the page it is on, do we link to the one it is actually on from that date in the taxobox? If the dates dont match up I dont see any other way to do it other than not link at all, contra our usual format. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 08:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be very confusing. No, I think we should always link to the list of the year that is stated in the taxonbox (e.g., 2020 in the case of Thanos), but leave a note in that list that the taxon is covered by the 2018 list, so that people who search for it will find it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking the above comments into account, I think that, in cases of taxa which weren't validly named in the advance online version of a publication, a solution would be to include such taxa both in the list of the year of the advance online publication and the year of the final publication, with a comment "announced in the year A; the final version of the article naming it was published in the year B", or something to that effect. (Or, in cases such as Thanos, with a comment "announced in the year A; the final version of the article naming it is not published yet"). This would create partial overlap between lists for different years, but it would make it clear why the taxon is mentioned on both lists. Also, by phrasing it that way we would not be commenting on the subject of the exact date of the valid naming of the taxon, which might be violating WP:OR and WP:Synth. Would such a solution be acceptable?--37.30.51.186 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this suggested solution is probably the best for us to use, a brief mention, maybe at the beginning/end of the "other research" section where we aggregate all "taxon was officially published" notes. And then on the page where it is in the large list, in the validity section maybe note something like "pending" or likewise so the situation is clear on both pages. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

+1. I like the prudent wording, avoiding to comment on the date of valid naming. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to note that there is currently a thread on the DML about this very subject.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I started applying the proposed solution to new taxa listed in the current and past "year in paleontology" articles. Regarding other problems:
-for studies that do not name new taxa and have both an online and print version - it seems to me that the prevailing opinion is that they should be included in the list for the year of the first publication,
-regarding the content included in the articles, it seems to me that some people support the lists being as inclusive as they currently are, and others do not have a strong opinion on the matter, with no one strongly opposing inclusive lists.--188.147.105.100 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the inclusivity is a benefit, I cannot count the number of times I have scrolled through the "other research" section trying to find a paper I vaguely recall hearing was published on a taxon that is not yet added to that article. And as far as non-nomenclatural publications, there is no real requirement to use the date of printing because there is nothing dependent on that print publishing. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with IJReid, the other research section is by far one of the most comprehensive sources of paleontology papers on the internet, there just isn't another source like it, there are the PLOS weekly roundups, but these only covers open access papers. The "other papers" section should continue to be inclusive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion for merging Haplomastodon into Notiomastodon

There is currently a discussion over at Talk:Notiomastodon, after a long discussion on the topic on this talk page several years ago, so I thought it would be best to leave a link here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Burmese amber

I have created the article for Burmese amber, which if you're familiar with paleoentomology you'll know is long overdue. The list of taxa includes 42 classes, 108 orders, 569 families, 1017 genera and 1379 species described as of the end of 2019, with over 300 species described in 2019 alone.. However this presesents a problem of coverage, as I have no idea how to cover a topic as broad as the entire paleobiota of the burmese amber in depth, as there is so much to go through. Kevmin has created the Paleobiota of Burmese amber page for a complete list, but I think he's bitten off far more than he can chew and it will never be satisfactorily complete if over 300 taxa are coming out every year, which is close to one a day, never mind the over 1300 already described. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to cover the topic adequately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there an online database of every species? Instead of listing them all on wikipedia, you can just leave that as an external link, and only talk about general trends and patterns in biota like what Ediacaran biota does. With that many taxa, it's not very practical to make a list (especially with tables as you seem to be doing right now), and it wouldn't be very user friendly unless you're planning on splitting it up into family or order sub articles (like Paleobiota of Burmese amber is left as basically a disambiguation page, which lists articles like Hymenopterans of Burmese amber and Angiosperms of Burmese amber), but even then, that's a really mammoth task   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For an online database of species? Fossilworks/PaleobioDB has all the species as entries in the database, but these are all split up over separate collections, and are not all in one place. It's worth emphasising that I haven't contributed to the Paleobiota article at all and it wasn't at all my idea. I think it's a fool's errand with the volumes of taxa coming out right now. The two refs I have cited are two PDFS by Andrew J Ross, which includes a full list of all taxa described up until 2018, and an additional supplement for 2019 containing new taxa and corrections, both of these include full reference lists. These are the most complete lists of burmese amber taxa online, that actual researchers use. Obviously new papers that have come out in the last couple of months aren't on the list, but instead can be found at 2020 in arthropod paleontology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Geee thank you for denigrating my efforts @Hemiauchenia:. Paleobiota of... lists are done for a number of the major fossil localities, and there is no reason not to have one for Burmese amber. 300 taxa seems massive until you look at that having happened over the course of 12 months and not all at once. We shouldnt just be pointing off into the internet if anyone asks whats been found at a particular fossil locality. 25 taxa a month (which get a single line each in the biota article is not much to handle. PBDB is not a good option as its horrendously spotty in coverage for anything that doesnt have a skeleton, and often uses incorrect or outdated plcements and names (And no, it does NOT have all the taxa). Are we going to tell annon IP that the 2020 in paleo list are just to much to handle with the volume of papers coming out each day as well??--Kevmin § 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, in no way was I trying to disrespect or denigrate you or your work on wikipedia. You've created many high quality articles on paleoentomology and related topics, and you have my respect for that, you do really good work. I just think your efforts creating the list could be better spent elsewhere,. The current list has 55 taxa out of a total of over 1379, around 4% of the 2019 total. The 20XX in paleontology guy puts hours a day into putting the taxa lists together and it's also easier when you're simply trying to find recent literature and can use websites like novataxa. Often times it's not simply adding taxa, there are also corrections like species synonmy, differing taxonomic placements, more broad scale taxonomic revisions which alter placement etc. It's a lot to keep up with for over 1000 taxa, and is much more difficult when you can't just get the information you need by reading the abstract. I agree with you that PaleoBioDB is spotty and not a good source for this kind of stuff, but for the breadth and scope it is trying to cover it could never hope to be anywhere near perfect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Disputes over bilateral symmetry in Ediacaran biota.

Former idea of isomerism in Dickinsonia, image is made by user pushing the views

Young Dickinsonia specimen, showing clear bilateral symmetry

As a primer, it was formerly thought that some iconic members of the Ediacaran biota, like Dickinsonia, Spriggina etc (Proarticulata) had glide symmmetry, i.e. that the segments were displaced from each other by half the length of the segment, I remember reading this in my old paleontology textbooks in the early 2000's. However in recent literature, it is believed by most current Ediacaran workers that Dickinsonia et al did not have glide symmetry, but are genuinely bilaterally symmetrical, and grow by the insertion of segments at the anti-deltoidal zone, See this paper and this paper, (Edit also see these papers and that previous suggestions of glide symmetry are due to taphonomic distortion, causing the thin segments in adult individuals to have been shifted slightly (here is a paper that specifically addresses the "glide symmetry" claim) Even papers that disagree with the bilaterian affinity agree that the animal has bilaterial symmetry. I have updated the articles to reflect this. However Alnagov has reverted my edits to this. I shall quote his reasoning here for Dickinsonia revert "It is not a common opinion that based on some poorly preserved deformed Australian Dickinsonia specimens which were photographed at the wrong angle of illumination and orientation of the specimens. In addition, glide reflection symmetry is visible on a Dickinsonia feeding traces that excludes a taphonomic distortion". and for Proarticulata "There is no evidence in the Hoekzema and Gold articles that the symmetry of gliding reflection is a taphonomic distortion. And these articles consider only Dickinsonia costata, but not the entire phylum." "common opinion" is an obvious weasel phrase and neither of these edit reverts are stated with any evidence. I didn't want to get involved in an edit war so I thought I would have a discussion here. If Alnagov wants to give a detailed rebuttal to these claims here then I would be greatful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As always, WP:NPOV applies. If recent reliable sources all argue against glide symmetry, then glide symmetry should only be mentioned in the historical section, but if there are recent papers taking each position, both hypotheses should be mentioned roughly proportionally to how many scientists have taken each stance in reliable sources. I'm not terribly familiar with this topic, but from skimming the Dunn paper it seems like at least some relatives of Dickinsonia are still interpreted as having glide symmetry. Alnagov's assertion in their Dickinsonia edit sounds like OR or OS to me, but I don't know much about the topic. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear that juvenile specimens of Dickinsonia are indisputably bilaterally symmetrical, so it wouldn't make any sense for the adults to not be so. I was maybe a bit hasty on the entirety of proarticulata being bilaterally symmetrical. From what I have inferred I think the user is a researcher who works on Proarticulartans, so I'm interested in hearing their opinion as an expert in the field.

This juvenile specimens of Dickinsonia (right photo) is bilateral animal but its left and right half of a segments are organized in an alternating pattern along the longitudinal axis of their bodies. See the rotated image. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

See Ivantsov et al 2019 - "One of the characteristic features of the structural organization of proarticulates is their “pre-articulation” or “pseudometamerism” that means the separation of a body into two rows of “semi-segments” (isomers), shifted relative to each other on both sides of the sagittal plane (Fedonkin, 1985; Ivantsov, 2008). The alternating arrangement of isomers (symmetry of gliding reflection) is usually quite clear on fossil remains of proarticulates of all known species, but, sometimes, there are specimens with the opposite arrangement of isomers. As an example, a juvenile form of Dickinsonia costata is mentioned (Gehling et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2017; Hoekzema et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018). It should be noted that the opposite arrangement of isomers is characteristic of small specimens with thin isomers, but it is not always. Such an arrangement is unknown for proarticulates with wide isomers. Nevertheless, some researches consider the very opposite arrangement as a primary one and describe Dickinsonia, correspondingly, as normally segmented organisms (Glaessner and Wade, 1966; Wade, 1972; Jenkins, 1992; Gehling et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2017; Hoekzema et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018). Here, we present images of large and small specimens of one of Dickinsonia species, which have thin isomers with the distinct alternative arrangement (Plate 3, figs. 2, 3). In our opinion, the clearness and regularity of impressions indicate the absence of deformation of the body and, correspondingly, the primary origin of such an arrangement of isomers. The insignificant postmortem longitudinal displacement of one or the other side of the body would be enough for the small specimen (Plate 3, fig. 3) to have the opposite arrangement of isomers (or vice versa). However, based on this assumption, it is difficult to explain an absence of continuity of ridges marking the boundaries between isomers, observed on the body axis of the large specimen (Plate 3, fig. 2). Of course, it is hard to prove the primary origin of any arrangement by showing more and more found specimens. However, the possibility of differentiation of the “segments” on impressions into two parts strictly along the body axis and the displacement of these parts relative to each other, no matter what a reason was, indicates the presence of a certain longitudinal structure (membrane, cord or other linear zone), with which the proximal ends of isomers are linked." Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for this Alnagov, apologies for the rudeness earlier. Can I confirm that you are indeed third author on the paper? I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions in the paper, but as there is clearly some dispute about this among Ediacaran workers, regardless of your personal views as a researcher that works on these organisms, this needs to be reflected in the article to reflect the views of researchers as a whole. Admittedly my previous edits didn't do this justice, as I didn't realise some researchers still supported glide symmetry, for that I apologise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for, Hemiauchenia. Yes, I am coauthor of this article. About segmentarion the small Dickinsonia on the photo see rotated image. I think that Dickinsonia and other Proarticulata are bilateral symmetrical animals, but their left and right halves are displaced as well as in a modern lancelets. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)).

Thanks again for the response Aleksey. Do you have a source for the Lancelet offset claim? Given that Lancelets are bilaterians, the offsetting would seem to be a superficial feature in that case. Do you think that the glide symmetry of proarticulatans is a fundamental feature, or simply just represents a slight offset in the left and right segmnents of the organism? I noticed the paper cites another paper you are co-author of "Morphology of integuments of the Precambrian animals, Proarticulata" Also published in 2019, which suggests that the ribbed section of most proarticulatans only represents the most resistant part of the organism, and that the real organism is signficiantly larger with the dorsal area covered with tubercles; this seems like a signifcant development. I think all of the Proarticulatan articles probably need to be significantly updated anyway, as most cite little current research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Some papers about asymmetric segmentation of lancelets: Blum et al. 2014, Bertrand et al 2015, Soukup 2017, Schubert et al 2001 and classical paper Conklin 1932. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

Thanks again, Alexey, really interesting papers. I apologise if I am asking you questions which you have already answered in your publications, or questions that are stupid due to my lack of understanding of developmental biology. Asymmetry seems to be a derived property in Bilateria, as most simpler forms seem perfectly symmetrical. In your 2019 paper it states in the conclusion "Proarticulata already achieved a bilaterian grade of development, although they had a specific type of symmetry atypical for the Bilateria." Do you think it is reasonable to state that Proarticulatans are stem-bilaterians or have bilaterian affinities, or do you think that is too speculative? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrey Ivantsov has long time considered glide bilateral symmetry to be the main arguments in favor of the independent from Bilateria origin of the Proarticulata (unpublished). I drew attention to the similarity of the asymmetry of Proarticulata and lancelets in 2017 in the process of preparing the manuscript of the paper 2019, but a discussion of this phenomenon was not included in the article because it requires further reflection. Australians deny the presence of sliding symmetry in Dickinsonia (they study only Dickinsonia costata! It is a very strange approach...) therefore they do not discuss the importance of glide symmetry for Dickinsonia and Proarticulata systematics. I note that over the past 20 years, Australians (including with involvement of foreigners) have not described a single new genera and species of Proarticulata, and there is not a single paper about the internal systematics of this group. A Two last genusses was described in 1976 and 1978, a last new species was described in 1992. During the same 20 years, Russian specialists have described 11 new generas and 14 new specieses (include trace fossils) and several redescribed. I think that the position of Proarticulata on the Eumetazoa tree is uncertain. With equal probability, these can be: 1) non-Bilateria bilaterally symmetrical animals (some cnidarians also are bilateral); 2) stem-Bilateria; 3) very specialised crown-Bilateria. This is a very speculative. We are more interested in the description of new species, anatomy, behavior and internal systematics of Proarticulata. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC))

On a related note, regarding the quality of Wikipedia's information on the Ediacaran biota, I've noticed that Mark McMenamin (who I am most familiar with as the discoverer of the so-called "Triassic kraken") is frequently cited on some of the pages. Given that many of his other claims are considered to be fringe, I've felt concern that those citations may be giving fringe views undue weight. However, I am not particularly qualified to evaluate whether his views on the Ediacaran biota are as unconventional as his views on, say, Triassic cephalopods. Are his views on Ediacaran organisms considered credible enough for inclusion? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

a taxobox for Protoichnites

The article for Protoichnites needs an {{ichnobox}}. I'm not super knowledgeable about ichnotaxa, and I couldn't find the original description anywhere in the literature, just short asides. The citation in the article also doesn't seem to mention the ichnogenus. Can someone take a look? --awkwafaba (📥) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The term Protoichnites has only four references on google scholar. The only useful comment comes from the book Carboniferous-Permian Transition at Carrizo Arroyo, Central New Mexico "Thus, their Protoichnites is Dromopus, and what they termed Anomohiichnium includes tracks now termed Dromopus and Batrachichnus (Haubold, 1996)." It's worth noting here that Dromopus is a tetrapod track, not arthropod one. This and that the name seems to have almost no presence in the literature, suggests it is not a widely used term and a disused synonym of a more widely used name, not really worth the effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: yea, I looked on Scholar and saw that sentence. You suggest then an AfD? --awkwafaba (📥) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: I think redirecting it to a newly created Dromopus article is a better solution, I am happy to assist creating a taxobox for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'm not really wanting to write a new article, i'm just trying to clean out Category:Missing taxobox ( 1 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: It doesn't have to be anything more than a 2 sentence stub, just something to redirect to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It gets more complicated. Proichnites is likely a typo; the correct name (albeit still a repressed name) is Protritonichnites. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This paper seems to present Protoichnites as a legitimate Devonian marine ichnogenus. Given that Dromopus and Protritonichnites are Pennsylvanian-Permian in age and represent terrestrial amniotes, they cannot be referring to the same taxon. Advise against redirect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've got it! It's Protichnites. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In any case, it is no longer a redlink. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now that that's solved, Protichnites also needs a taxobox... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: great job on Dromopus. Alas, Protichnites also lacks an {{ichnobox}}. Would the parent be {{Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Arthropoda}}? --awkwafaba (📥) 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This whole "ichno" taxonomy just makes my head ache; there are long hierarchies for dinosaur traces – see, e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Chirotherium. Personally, by analogy with Diplichnites, which the article says could be made by the same species, I would set the parent in the taxonomy template to Arthropoda/? and leave it at that. However, I believe the "ichno purists" would object in both cases that Protichnites and Diplichnites are not (possible) arthropods, they are (possible) arthropod traces, so their parents should be trace taxa, not organism taxa. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm not fan of ichnotaxa either, which is why so many were clogging up Category:Missing taxobox ( 1 ). I just got sick of seeing them and had to suck it up. Anyhow, it's done for Protichnites now. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Student edits

As should be evident in the hot articles section of the front page, there appears to be some school project going on, with a flurry of expansions (which is nice), including a lot of unorthodox edits (which is not so nice). As usual, relevant Wiki projects have not been notified about this and which articles that are affected, which would help us oversee and fix issues in these articles when they may arise. How can this be done better in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the average person knows that WikiProjects exist or what they are for (I didn't before I started editing Wikipedia) - and you can't notify someone if you don't know they exist. "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology" is of course prominently displayed on the talk page of every paleontology-related article, but I digress. I agree that it would be nice if more school projects notified WikiProjects, which would lend itself to better co-operation and assurance that what goes up is true and in-line with what research says (I think that would be a win-win situation for the school projects as well?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the school projects are done in cooperation with Wikipedia, though, so it should be possible? I think Enwebb may be involved, or can point to someone who is? FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk, school projects in the US and Canada are supported by Wiki Education, a separate nonprofit from WMF (and yes, my employer, though I'm speaking in a volunteer capacity right now). I believe what you've identified is what we call a "stealth class" that is not affiliated with us or WMF. An instructor is independently doing a Wikipedia assignment without the support of the Dashboard, trainings, and other infrastructure. We will talk to these students and see if we can identify who their instructor is, and if in the US or Canada, try to get them to create a Dashboard page. A giveaway of a stealth class is that the students do not have userpages or user talk pages. We automatically create those for students who enroll (their user page should link to their course, their user talk should have a welcome message from us).

As far as notifying WikiProjects in general, I'm not sure it's something we've considered, given the glut of WikiProjects that are abandoned. Also, large projects like WikiProject Biographies would have hundreds of notifications each term. We encourage students to assign themselves the article they're working on with the Dashboard, which then automatically adds a template to the article's talk page (see Talk:Big brown bat). The template links to the course page, which is a mirror of and links to the course Dashboard. The course dashboard has an activity tab with all the recent activity of the students, as well as an articles tab that shows all articles they have edited.

If you have issues with a specific class, reach out to the staff member associated with the class (visible on student talk page, Wikipedia mirror of the Dashboard, or the Dashboard). If you identify more stealth classes like this, you should post on the Education Noticeboard so we can try to intervene and connect the students/instructors to Wiki Education resources. Enwebb (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I think it might be worth notifying projects like the paleo, dinosaur, and bird projects, which have small but dedicated and mostly coordinated editor bases. But I can see why it would be impractical and pointless for broader projects. That's of course not possible with stealth classes, though. Maybe worth to see what other members of the project think before deciding on how to proceed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, I think I'm fine with changes made by student editors, especially if we're dealing with a stealth class that we can't really communicate with. We can always fix the affected articles up to in-house standards afterwards. But there is some content being inserted which is so egregiously bad that it's not worth keeping it around for any length of time: see the awful potato-quality images at Hyposaurus, including the very crude map. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Species articles written in singular form

I've noticed a few species articles written in the plural form (Neanderthal, Homo naledi, Homo erectus) which contradict species articles written in the singular form from the rest of Wikipedia (e.g.Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, chimpanzee, dog, cat, giant redwood). Since the articles are about a single species they should be written in the singular form, I see no reason to treat them any differently to any other species article. Dunkleosteus77 has been doing some amazing work on bringing those articles through GA-review so will have an opinion on the form. What does everyone else think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no real prescribed policy on using singular over plural for an article. So long as consistency is maintained, using "them" instead of "it" is acceptable. Also, not every species article uses singular (off the top of my head, human uses plural)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your example, human, is not a species article but an article on humanity. Homo sapiens is a species article and uses the singular form. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case we should really delete the taxobox   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See cat for an article that intermixes the singular and plural. I really don't think it's a problem. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I also think it is not a problem in articles like cat and human. And the formulation "Neanderthals were" (using plural) is correct. But a formulation like "Homo erectus were a species" is incorrect in my opinion. This needs to be singular because of the scientific name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point - agree that there's a difference between common and scientific names, and that Homo erectus should be written in the singular. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would further argue that "cats" refer to members of Felidae and the domestic cat article should also be wholly written in the singular. But to be honest my main issue is using Latin names in the plural, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, and Homo erectus all started in the plural, though Dunkleosteus77 has now changed the first two back to singular. "Homo erectus were a species of..." is incorrect English in my understanding. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits/update requested

Greetings from a sporadic editor of this illustrious WikiProject.

There has recently been a paper published on a Sivaelurus and Miopanthera, a pair of rather obscure felid genera. The first of those two hasn't had a paper written about it in over a century (not since 1915, to be exact). From the abstract, the paper looks to have some pretty important information in it. However, I can not access it as it is behind a paywall.

Therefore, I am requesting that an editor who does have access please read it and update both articles thoroughly. Or send me a copy and I'll do it at some point. The article can be found here: link.

Thank you all, and have a good day!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, Alexandra Elbakyan has come up with a solution to your problem Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think using a sketchy website is a good way to get access to paleo-papers. Thanks, but no thanks.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't be rude to me like that, I was just trying to help you. Sci-hub is regularly used by researchers all over the world, and works great most of the time to access research papers. If you want you can apply to Taylor & Francis on the wikipedia library card, but it will take seven days to reach a decision. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Most requests for paywalled research papers on there seem to go unanswered though, I think if one wants to go by legal means then the library card is the way to go. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten almost everything I ever requested there, even stuff that had to be scanned. Only some really obscure papers couldn't be found. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What was the average turnaround time between request and access? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Often just minutes, again, depending on how obscure a paper was. Paywalls are never a problem, the people there have access from university or libraries. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can email it to you if you wanna give me your email address   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. How do I send you my email address?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You could just create a junk email account and post it here (then never use it again after I send you the pdf)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Improving Homo erectus

The article for Homo erectus gets a daily average of around 2,500 views, around 2/3 of that of Tyrannosaurus, and has recieved over 4 million views since July 2015, yet it seems very lacklustre by comparison. Many interesting papers on H. erectus have been published in recent years, so it would be good to incorporate new information. I know Dunkleosteus77 is currently working on the Neanderthal GA review, so would anybody be interested in collaborating to improve the article after that is done? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I worked on Homo erectus for a couple days in December, but I just removed text rather than added it (reducing the article by about 55%). I'd like to see all major Homo species at GA or higher, and I'd be happy to help   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the lead before you edited it was completely awful, your lead was definitely a considerable improvement Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how it could've gotten into the situation that it did considering how many views it gets. The biggest problem I foresee about expanding H. erectus is that its very taxonomically unstable and borderline wastebasket taxon (which is why its fossil record encompasses nearly the last 2 million years)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subspecies labels given to Homo erectus are largely useless, Homo erectus is a morphological grade and a chronospecies. Human evolution is very similar to Mammoth evolution in that sense, where a subpopulation speciates and subsequently expands and then replaces the pre-existing species, as with M. meridionalis --> M. trogontherii and M. trogontherii --> M. primigenius. I don't think that Homo erectus is any less a valid species than the Steppe mammoth, it's just that the binomial system was never designed to account for the messy reality of transition of one species into another. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to work on taxonomy?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend youtube videos by paleoanthropologist John Hawks. I think he goes over early and late Homo erectus and the species concept in hominins quite well, I agree with him that the species names are largely used as a way to refer to and identify particular or related groups of specimens with unknown relationships to other specimens. I will help with the taxonomy at some point, but it feels like a mammoth task and one that I will have to to extensive reading beforehand. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating the Pterosaur Navbox

I noticed that Template:Pterosauria is using a classification scheme that the majority of more recent sources have not supported. I've begun to update the Pteranodontia section (which really should be titled Pteranodontoidea) here. My main sources are [17], [18], [19], [20], and a little bit from [21]. One problem I've encountered is the classification of Alamodactylus, Cretornis, and Volgadraco - the Barbaridactylus paper places them in Nyctosauridae (dubiously in the case of the latter), but does not seem to explicitly state this. What should be done in this case? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaur common names list

Thoughts on this list User:4444hhhh/Dinosauria Common (in @4444hhhh:s userspace) and if it should be prodded given that its very much WP:OR. Personally it doesnt seem to be something that should be on WP even as a userspace list.--Kevmin § 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as it stays out of main space, it should be ok. There are guidelines for what is allowed in user space, and it mainly concerns political statements, I believe. See Wikipedia:User pages FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The section "User pages that look like articles" may advice against it, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

From the intro, it seems obvious to me that the page is in user space and not article space, although I may be biased by the knowledge that it is in user space. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The article has existed for over 12 years without issue, the lead makes it clear that it is a user page. I think it's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As users, we understand that its in userspace, however its not clear to anyone else who would come across it, and thats the problem. per WP:User pages

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Pages that look like articles outside of mainspace should not be indexed for search engines.

Add that its presenting information as real when all the common names are made up.--Kevmin § 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that it is problematic as being potentially misinterpreted as information. At least my sandbox is incoherent otherwise it could have the same issue :) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source?

There's a discussion going on at WT:FAC#What constitutes a reliable source? about the inclusion of recent discoveries in paleo articles (specifically if these violate NPOV constituting as primary sources), the verifiability of books as opposed to journal articles, and more generally what counts as a reliable source especially in articles with large scopes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxobox templates when two taxa share the same genus name

The new pterosaur Wightia declivirostris has been named. However the name Wightia is also used for a flowering plant which uses the automatic taxobox. Is there any way of getting around this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked up examples of animal/plant homonyms. There is precedent, e.g. Prunella: [22] [23] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This has now been resolved, though name of the template will probably have to be changed in the (unlikey) event of a second species being named to the genus Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The standard technique for disambiguating taxonomy templates when there are genus names duplicated across nomenclature codes is to use a parenthesized term. In this case I have changed the taxonomy template to Template:Taxonomy/Wightia (pterosaur). Then:

• in an {{Automatic taxobox}} (i.e. for the genus article), use |taxon=Wightia (pterosaur)
• in a {{Speciesbox}} (i.e. for a species article, should more species be named), use |genus=Wightia (pterosaur) plus |species=.

Peter coxhead (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The choice of taxonomy template title in such cases is actually covered in the second bullet point at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#Title conventions, but it's not easy to find! I think there needs to be some kind of index to the automated taxobox system documentation, but it's a big task. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is useful! I think a shortlink for that page (like WP:TAXOTEMPLATE) would go a long way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload these images?

I've got approx. 40 images of fossils from the Kristianstad Basin (an often overlooked Cretaceous formation with interesting fauna, I created an article for it today) taken of exhibited stuff at Havsdrakarnas hus, a somewhat lacklustre exhibition of Kristianstad Basin fossils in a train station waiting room. The images include ones of fossil taxa that currently don't have any images on commons, such as Tylosaurus ivoensis (a local apex predator), Scanisaurus, Aigialosuchus and various invertebrate and shark taxa which may or may not already have images. I assume that they'd be fine to upload (I need to go through and edit some of them first so it will take some time for them to go up either way) since I took the images myself but I don't know Swedish image copyright law well enough (in some countries you're restricted from publishing images taken within some buildings?). Stuff from inside Swedish museums seem to be fine to upload as per these examples but it's questionable if Havsdrakarnas hus counts as a museum. Stuff from within train stations seem to be fine to upload too.

Just wanted to get some quick input on this and be on the safe side. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the formation with the leptoceratopsid tooth? Does Sweden have FOP? Perhaps @FunkMonk: would know? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I'm personally unsure whether FOP exists and to what extent it applies, but the images in question are head-on photos of single fossil specimens (do they qualify as "works of art"?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Even in regions where FOP does not apply, skeletal mounts are fine to upload, due to their uncreative nature. The same applies even more to fossils, which even lack the "creative" element of casting bones from a relative. So as long as these photos aren't of models or artwork (paintings etc) they can be uploaded without considering FOP. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty! I take it that it would be fine to upload them, then. I've put up a first batch of images here, there's a few more of various invertebrates, sharks and some turtle stuff coming some time soon. Will begin adding stuff to the pages of taxa I know are missing images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, since fossils can't be copyrighted, that shouldn't be a problem. It is more iffy with models and such. Nice images! If you ever come by the Swedish Museum of Natural History, there should be various cool specimens there too. As for FOP in Sweden, seems not:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great! Yeah, hope they'll be useful :)

Will see about investigating said museum in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Five pages related to 2020 paleontological discoveries were deleted.

Because they were created by banned users, the pages for Acuetzpalin, Antarcticavis, Apatorhamphus, Mesolicaphrium and Raibliania were deleted. If someone here has the power to do so, please reinstate them. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This always happens when Lapitavenator creates a new account, unfortunately. While he did engage in disruptive editing practices several years ago, most of his edits relating to paleontology are largely good faith and are generally less disruptive than Bubblesorg's were. Some of his articles could be janky (notably a taxobox with no article text). But removing the articles he creates rips holes into the encyclopedia. You can usually get an archive of what the page looked like (though not the source code) by typing the articles name into google and using Google cache, which will allow the restoration of the main text , references and images. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the caches of 4 of the 5 articles: Acuetzpalin Antarcticavis Apatorhamphus and Raibliania, while I can't find Extrapolaris's version of Mesolicaphrium, there is a substantial italian version. When translating articles I often find it useful to use google chrome's page translate function on an open page, then cut and paste the autotranslated text into the new article and then do further copyediting. It's worth noting that the caches won't last very long, perhaps a few weeks at maximum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis536: is that satisfactory? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

They are okay, thank you. I reinstated the reptiles' pages based on the caches. I'll see what I can do about Mesolicaphrium later. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or contact the admin who deleted them, User:JJMC89   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just him, JzG also removed some of them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Mesolicaphrium" probably should not be reinstated. It was supposed to be a new genus for the proterotheriid species "Prolicaphrium" sanalfonensis, named in the early online version of this article. However, the final, published version ended up not naming it, and assigning "Prolicaphrium" sanalfonensis to a different genus.--188.146.229.4 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, these were deleted under WP:CSD#G5, creation by a blocked or banned user evading their block or ban. You can create them yourself, no problem, but please don't use the (generally minmal) text created by the banned user. If you want to write an article at any of those titles, you are absolutely free to do so, no permission is needed. Guy (help!) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The genus that it was assigned to instead is Olisanophus, which it is probably worth creating an article for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I am well aware of the fact that these were deleted under the block evasion criteria, this has happened multiple times with Lapitavenator articles. The text created by Lapitavenator for the stub articles is generally the same standard language and phrases used in all stub paleontology articles (it was found in x formation, etc). so it's difficult to avoid using at least part of the same text. Also under G5, it states that the article should "have no substantial edits by others.", but the article for Apatorhamphus looks like it was substantially expanded by other users, and therefore should never have been deleted in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Vadaravis brownae

Hi everyone, I hope I've come to the right project for advice. I've just created my first page that's not a human biography (I usually edit for the Women in Red project) and made a page for Vadaravis brownae a fossil stork, which is named after a woman whose page I've de-stubbed this month. I'd be keen for feedback as to whether I've got the conventions correct, understood notability in this project and described things OK? Thanks very much for help and advice (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC))

Usually articles for extinct animals are written at the genus level. Since this genus contains only the one species, it should be correctly titled Vadaravis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the swift support @Lythronaxargestes: & @Hemiauchenia: - much appreciated! I've got a better idea of conventions now. Many thanks. (Lajmmoore (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC))

Draft:Coua berthae

Hi everyone, a slightly different page, which is a part translation from DE wikipedia for an extinct coua. Would anyone be able to take a look at the draft? Draft:Coua berthae Thanks! (Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC))

Looks better than even some of the articles abut living couas, such as Running coua. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

looks to be a good article. aside from the red links it is perfectly fine. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New update for geological range

For the template {{Geological range}}, I have been working on a new update on Turkish Wikipedia, and now we have a working geological range template with just one module. No need any other templates and also {{long fossil range}}. So I combined the two templates without the need to add any new parametres. It simply detects the given numbers or period names and act on them. So I implemented the same module here: Module:Geological range and the examples can be seen here: User:HastaLaVi2/sandbox2. Should we update the template here? ~ Z (m) 15:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

i don't see why not. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, since the template is under protection, I could not made the change. If someone could take a look into this, I would be able to make the change. ~ Z (m) 22:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You would add a template-protected edit request to the talk page of {{Geological range}}. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Authority format changes

As you are probably aware, in our taxoboxes we generally identify authorities in the format "Author, Year". Tisquesusa has proposed a change to the format "Author Year", giving the reason:

Commas refer to specific publications <author>, <year>, not to definitions of taxa, they are without comma <author> <year>

Personally, I can't say that I really see the difference between an authority and a citation of a paper. It seems like an arbitrary difference that comes down to style rather than semantics.

Thoughts from others? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if there is consensus to make/revert the change, it might be a good idea to get a bot on this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen no objective reason to make the change, and personally within both taxoboxes and text I would either have a comma separating as in author, year or parentheses around the year so that it is author (year).IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The ICZN itself uses a comma between author and year in the examples given in article 51, but does not appear to have a specific rule requiring its use. As such, I consider using the comma preferable. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would follow the example of the ICZN and include commas. This is by far the more common format currently on Wikipedia; there are 582 Speciesboxes with the string "([[Carl Linnaeus|Linnaeus, ####" and only 1 with "([[Carl Linnaeus|Linnaeus ####". Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

i personally don't really see why we need a change. its just a comma. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there is consensus for the comma. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

reliable sources

i am trying to maintain lists and make articles for red-link species. but i am not sure what constitutes a reliable source. do nation institutes count? nat geo? nature? fossil works? i need to know so i can make some stubs (to be improved) with minimal (but reliable) information. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Within the project we generally try to use papers as much as possible. FossilWorks is not a reliable source by any means — it is sparsely curated. Best to go to the original papers cited by FossilWorks and check followup papers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the advice Clone commando sev (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

i checked for fossilwork's sources like you suggested and i don't think they site any. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It definitely does. See the bottom of this page for example: [25] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clone commando sev: National Geographic I don't consider a reliable source at all, it is a popular science magazine and tv show, not a scientific investigation. Fossilworks is a database, and as such it lists taxa, formations and publications, it is an ideal start, especially for lists, but not what I would call a source, in itself it is not a scientific publication. It is a reference I use mostly, but then add the underlying publications. For open access, the only way to go for an open access encyclopedia imo -I avoid any criminal journals who ask 30 dollars or so just to see a publication, which is already financed by the educational institution the authors work for- there are many journals listed on the Wikiproject page. I would always go first for the CC-BY-4.0 journals as Acta Paleontologica Polonica, PLoS ONE, PeerJ and such, to be able to both use their images and even copy whole text, make sure you attribute the source correctly, see for instance how I did that with the Tendaguru Formation. In general, it is very important NOT to avoid red links, as red links are the backbone of Wikipedia. Not linking terms that should have articles is giving the false impression that "Wikipedia is complete", which it by definition never is. The more red links there are, the more enthusiasts like yourself can expand Wikipedia. If you need any further assistance, feel free to write on my talkpage. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

National Geographic should be ok for circumstantial info, like other science news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kampecaris obanensis

Help, I may have screwed up. I created Kampecaris obanensis, which is in the lay media as a new discovery, but a Kampecaris obanensis was described in 1899. If anybody could take a look at the stub and make the necessary corrections that would be great. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How come you created it without a single reference? Anyhow, Google Scholar gives a lot of sources to use. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the references at 00:59. I don't need sources, I needed a sanity check. Abductive (reasoning) 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, the other supposed species could be covered there as well for a more comprehensive article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

maybe add a note in the article about how it is not a new discovery and the reporting is incorrect? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't say the reporting is incorrect until a source says it is. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the reporting is incorrect. The paper out now revised the dating and pushed back the fossil from the early Devonian to the Silurian, making the millipede the oldest land animal known. Abductive (reasoning) 05:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have mildly expanded the article based on the literature that I could find (and access) on the genus Kampecaris, which is not a lot. However, basic details of morphology and discovery are there. I have some issues with how this is being reported — there is at least one species (the type species) which may or may not be older than K. obanensis, in which case it would not be the oldest known land animal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not put that claim into my original stub, just slipped the revised date into the infobox. As I created the article, the thought occurred to me that the authors may not know everything about these 19th century fossils and the work done on them back then. Abductive (reasoning) 10:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is deeply surreal to me, I did my Mapping Project for University on the mainland around Oban around 3 years ago now, just across the channel from Kerrera (where some of my fellow coursemates were mapping) and quite literally looked at the geological unit this taxon came from for six weeks. I took some images of the unit while I was there, would these be of any use? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool experience! The article is pretty stubby, it might need a qualified invertebrate editor to work on it before images can be added... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

the reason for me saying that it should have a note about incorrect reporting is that i didnt hear about this genus, nor did i know about it til now. i am sorry if i was wrong Clone commando sev (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Change to handling of ichno- and oo- ranks in taxonomy templates

Following a discussion at WP:Dinosaurs, I have changed the handling of taxonomy templates so that it is no longer an error to be flagged if an ichno- or oo-taxon has a parent at the same normal rank (e.g. an oofamily has a family as the parent). This affects only a very few animal taxonomy templates and corresponding articles, but if you notice any resulting errors, please let me know (and revert the relevant edit if the error is serious). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nizar Ibrahim

Hey all! I just created the article Nizar Ibrahim (my first article about a paleontologist). Any additions would be helpful. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would just remind you to carefully read the WP:BLP guidelines when creating articles about living persons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can someone here expand this article using these sources:

Giant predatory dinosaur Spinosaurus was scourge of prehistoric rivers, The Guardian;

Largest dinosaur predator was a water-loving quadruped, 'River monster': Huge African dinosaur Spinosaurus thrived in the water, Reuters;

Scientists Identify First Swimming Dinosaur, WSJ;

Giving Workers 'Economic Dignity'; Evidence Of Swimming Dinosaur, WBUR-FM;

The only known semiaquatic dinosaur, now on display, The hunt for Spinosaurus, The Washington Post;

Ossements de Spinosaurus au Maroc: Nizar Ibrahim raconte sa découverte, TelQuel -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

i dont think news sites count as reliable sources. regardless of accuracy. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You are thinking about the requirements for paleontology articles. This article is a biography; it can and should be held to different standards. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Nizar is extensively editing the article himself, as both IP addresses are based near Detroit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

do you have any proof? that is a pretty major claim. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any proof, but both IP addresses being based near Detroit (where Nizar lives), and both IP addresses adding extensive puffery to the article strongly imply that either Nizar or someone close to him is editing the article in violation of Wikipedia's WP:COI or Wikipedia:Autobiography guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that would be COI but reading over the article there doesn't seem to be a sense of self-promotion. He is notable enough and if the citations for everything checks out it's a better and more verifiable article than anything I could write. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

On notability, I've never really been a fan of WP:PROF, as it mainly focuses on the "distinguishedness" of mainstream academics, which by and large doesn't apply to paleontologists, who often work at small institutions and museums. The article in its current form has largely had the IP edits removed, see this version after the edits of the first Detroit IP, which has a lot of what I would consider puffery that is currently absent from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

maybe you could confront them? or file a drn if that doesnt work. instead of just sitting here and discussing it. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of paleontologists lacking articles, Boheti bin Amrani (or Mzee Boheti) of Tanzania has been highlighted in some social media recently, as he was very important during the Tendaguru expeditions, and found and oversaw the excavation of many famous specimens. A quick search gives many results in books and papers:[26][27][28][29][30][31] Australodocus bohetii was named for him, and he is also covered in Dinosaurs of Tendaguru. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's image review process and the palaeoart community

After what happened with Mario Lanzas and Joschua Knüppe, as well as this comment by Tyler Stone on the latter post, I think it's become clear that we may need to start taking further measures to inform palaeoartists outside of the project how uploading art to Wikipedia works and what it implies, why the image review process exists and is necessary, and why artwork is legally allowed to be modified under the CC license if the original artist is unable to (not enough time, difficulty in contacting them, etc.) or won't make accuracy adjustments to it for use in articles. Otherwise I feel this might lead to misunderstanding and/or potential conflict, or even discourage users from contributing images to the project, as shown in the aforementioned examples.

It's understandably rather difficult to even find out about the palaeoart review pages unless you edit palaeontology/dinosaur articles or know someone who does. I mean even just article talk pages are rarely noticed by most readers. Since that's unlikely to change anytime soon, since it's more relevant to the way the site is structured, the best and most sensible thing we can probably do right now is try and spread awareness about this, preferably by social media where most palaeoartists tend to communicate. So places like Instagram, the palaeoartists Facebook group, Twitter, Discord, blog posts, etc. are all good starting points. I'll try my best to write something about this soon and post on all these sites; been planning to do something similar before but I'd forgotten and recent events just reminded me. Anyone else from the Dinosaur or Palaeontology WikiProjects who is active on social media is welcome to try something similar if they have time/are able to. Feel free to give more thoughts on this matter, as it's definitely something to at least consider. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sympathies with Jamale Ijouiher, who also complained in the thread, as the creative commons licence was likely stipulated by the publication. As for the others, they should have considered what a creative commons attribution licence actually means, it means that people can legally commercially exploit their work, so long as they credit them. Image collages and slight tweaks should be the least of their concerns. Most of Mario's work was unacceptable in terms of accuracy, and would have been rejected if it were a museum commission, so I don't think it was a huge loss. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The linked Twitter thread shows that people do not know about original research requirements on Wikipedia. It would be important to talk about this in any communications, especially with respect to pushback from the wider Wiki community about user-created images. We're in a tough spot - we have to alter images to satisfy site-wide requirements, but we do so with the real possibility of offending artists who are unaware of how CC works (this is not a concern on paper, but realistically we must think about this if we want artists to keep contributing). Just throwing this out there - perhaps it would be useful for us to establish rules about what does and does not constitute reasonable modifications to an image. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel the bit about Knuppe's piece went a step too far since it spliced someone else's art entirely into his work. Fixing some little aspects of accuracy is one thing, while this, I feel, is different. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have commented on the twitter thread; I think the most important thing is to try to educate paleoartists about what we do and get them involved in the process as much as possible. Our process of review and modification works perfectly for Wikipedia's purpose of being a collaborative encyclopedia; if we're going to do a better job in the future, we need for those artists to contribute their perspectives. As for what we can do with editing, remember that the Creative Commons license "allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format". While it is certainly a good idea for us to be polite and respect artists' wishes, ultimately, artists should not release their art under a CC license that allows modifications if they don't want it to be modified. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that for self-published works, if they are uncomfortable with them being modified then they should release them under a no-derivative license, which would make them inapplicable for commons. For commercial art that is included in an open access paper, who retains the copyright to the image? Is it the artist, the authors of the paper, or the journal publisher? I'd have to imagine it varies on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps Deviantart would be one of the best places to get it through somehow, as most paleoartists seem to be present there? Perhaps a group or something could be made, not entirely sure how it works there. As for CC licenses, even if it may be annoying, it is inherent in these that images can be modified, but that Spinosaurus image was a bit iffy since it mixed different artworks and styles, and should at least have been uploaded separately (I don't think we should have restrictions on how much an image can be modified, but images of historical significance probably shouldn't be, since they can be used exactly to illustrate these historical ideas). Another issue is also that even when notified, some artists attempt to circumvent the gudelines by just adding images without review, which is pretty counterproductive. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a hard limit on how much we can modify images in general, as we should work with what we have to make the images we need, but also that the Spinosaurus image in question is not exactly an example of image modification at its best. I also agree we need to think about historical value as well when deciding whether or not to edit images. As for spreading awareness of the importance of image review, a couple points: I've also noticed that there are cases of artists who were repeatedly informed of the image review policy who continued to add art without going through the review process; I'm not sure how to make the importance of the review process clear to them. I also think it's important to point out that the art review process is not merely an inconvenience we suffer because of restrictive rules, but an important part of upholding Wikipedia's admirable policy of verifiability. Ornithopsis (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So it seems we should agree on a guideline for modifying images, which is not mentioned at all in the current guide, and how to deal with historical images, since Spinosaurus images from just a few years ago can now be considered historical. And I'd say there is also a distinction between usermade images and images from journals in this regard; an image of Spinosaurus published in a journal, such as the Knuppe image, can be said to be historical even if recent, because it reflects a scientific paper and has been approved by writer and reviewers, whereas images specifically made for Wikipedia or Deviantart do not have this same significance, and should be more fair game, since their purpose is to show an up to date interpretation of the animals in question. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to a guideline of some sort. I think that that's a good starting point; images from journals that were accurate at the time of publication should be generally treated as historically valuable and not modified whereas user-submitted images should be open to modification. A general guideline, not a hard rule; on a case-by-case basis I think it may still be necessary to modify published images or keep user-submitted images historical. I'd also like to just point out that Knüppe's image was not from a journal, but rather an unreviewed preprint. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

An example could be this Thalassodromeus image by DBogdanov, where I made a "corrected" version[32], but kept the original on request from MWAK, since it showed an outdated lifestyle which it could potentially be used to illustrate:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a good way to resolve this would be to upload all modified versions of images as a separate image files on commons. That way we would seem more respectful of artist's wishes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I was considering suggesting that as well. I would say limit that to non-user images, because tweaking each others work we all know and expect will happen if anatomy changes, but for stuff we take from papers or DA for example perhaps we preserve the original and upload a new image with the edits. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ofc I agree that all the images that we create here are fair game, and can be modified at will. I've reverted the change to Nobu's Macrauchenia, @Monsieur X:, feel free to upload the altered image as a new file. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should restrict such a rule to images from journal articles, Nobu Tamura and others have explicitly said in the past they are fine with their images being corrected (he also started out here before he got his own sites). FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think the Macrauchenia trunk dispute is still not definitive enough to "correct" unlike the spinosaurus tail, as a saiga antelope like nose is also plausible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I also think there's a distinction between minor tweaks (e.g. erasing a misplaced synapsid ear) and major reworks (e.g. replacing the depiction of Spinosaurus in Knüppe's image entirely). The former edits should go in the same file, but the latter should go in new files. Perhaps we also need separate templates for historically valuable but outdated paleoart and paleoart that's simply inaccurate? Currently we have everything ranging from the Crystal Palace dinosaurs to crappy amateur sketches included under the "inaccurate paleoart" template. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Theres actually a parameter of the template '|historical=yes' that does this for you. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems it isn't always added, though, maybe some editors are not aware of it. As for journal images, I think all we have to do is just to upload "archival" versions of the original files, and link them from the corrected ones. That's also how historical Library of Congress photos are stored, for example here's the original TIF[34], and a modified, cropped version:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. It seems somebody may need to add that parameter to a bunch of images on Commons, then. I'll go ahead and add it to some of the obvious ones that are missing it. Having archival and revised versions of files is a good idea. I think that, in the future, whenever art requires major changes due to a new discovery (e.g. as with Spinosaurus), our practice should be to add the inaccurate paleoart template, marked as historical, to the original file, and to create a new file for the updated version if one is made. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already begun the grind of re-parameter-ing all the inaccurate images, about 150 of roughly 800 done. I added two categories, |skeleton= and |model= two sub-cat the inaccurate models and inaccurate mounts we see, because those are essentially impossible to correct without simply cropping out what is wrong. As well, I've set up automatic categorization for ornithischia, cerapoda, sauropormorpha, sauropoda, theropoda and coelurosauria with their respective parameters so that I can get rid of the manual subcategorization which still leaves every single image in the main dinosaur category on commons. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Could it be beneficial to have a parameter or parameters that reflect the source of the image? Like "this user-submitted reconstruction is inaccurate" versus "this published image is inaccurate"? Just a thought. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe automatic categories for skeletal mounts and models would be good too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah automatic categories for mounts and models exist. As far as journal vs usermade I don't know if there will be enough journal content that it would be worthwhile. Especially since we tend to not upload published work that is inaccurate. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Do those cats work, though? Here is an image of an inaccurate skeletal mount I've tagged as such, but no category shows up:[36] I don't think it works in any of them? FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't just mean journal images; I mean any image which can be considered to be from a reliable source. Inaccurate images from reliable sources are definitely uploaded, though most are historical, and it is of course possible for a user-uploaded image to be either historical or simply inaccurate, so having a separate tag indicating the kind of source it came from might be worthwhile. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems the historical parameter overrides the skeleton parameter? The skeleton category disappeared when I added historical here:[37] FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently yes as being obsolete was probably more important if only one subcat is allowed. I can change it so multiple are allowed if you want, though the classification subcats will remain mutually exclusive of each other. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, more often than not a skeleton is inaccurate because it is based on historical ideas, so both cats should be present most of the time? FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

After a quick edit, images can be obsolete, model/skeleton, and paleo/dino/cerapod/ornith/sauro/coelur/thero at the same time. I don't think it's necessary to have all possibilities applicable at once (and I'm not going back to edit them all again) but the three types are no longer mutually exclusive. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now this one[38] is both obsolete and inaccurate, I'd assume both aren't needed, and that inaccurate is inherent in it being obsolete? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC):

Okay I can go back to having the paleo/dino/ornith/sauro/thero/coelur only being added if the image is not obsolete, a model, or a skeleton. Alternatively I could have it so that it can be a model or skeleton and still be in a classification category, since those only do anything if the image is of a dinosaur? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Second option seems best for now, but I wonder if it'll be problematic down the line if we make the same hierarchy for other animals? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I can manage if that occurs later, at least there isn't as expansive a need for non-dinosaurs yet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps even journal images should be taken on a case by case basis. For example we have this image[39], where the original image[40] showed a gap between the metacarpals as if they were fingers. I painted over that gap, because it was obviously wrong, and has nothing to do with historical views. Would we really need or want to have the original on Commons too? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, corrections such as that are almost unnoticeable (even I didn't notice it at first), so I'd suggest not to keep the original files if the corrections that we do to them are almost unnoticeable (e.g. very small gaps). As for the other corrections such as major ones, I'll probably suggest to keep the original. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My view, at least, is that minor corrections such as those, where it was a mistake on the artist's part and not a faithful representation of scientific views of the time, shouldn't need an archival version here. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But we have edited images from journals which have since become outdated, such as the Macrauchenia in File:Pleistocene mammals of Chile.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We have done so in the past, but I think that this is an example where we should have kept the original and uploaded the revision as a new version. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'd actually agree on some points, though the Macrauchenia in the image, yet again, I think it's not that noticeable by the general public, so I'd suggest to keep it that way, even though I'm aware that it comes from a journal. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The changes to the Spinosaurus image that the guy on twitter complained about were also hardly noticeable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as the style goes they weren't, but looking at it the fact that the tail was extended way up really was noticable even at thumbnail size. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• To get this off the backlog, how about the following adittional text: "Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged, but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as seperate files, so that both versions are available." FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems good to me for now. I doubt it's the last we'll hear of this issue, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now added to both review pages. Anyone feel free to modify further. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Beating the dead sclerorhynchoid

https://mobile.twitter.com/Carnoferox/status/1256049195557027841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaurOfPark (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Just what do you hope to accomplish? The damn image has been edited already. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulldog Shale

Hello everyone, I've finally wrapped up my work on the Bulldog Shale, an Australian formation famous for its opalized plesiosaurs, and created an article for it. I'm a bit inexperienced in creating articles, stratigraphic unit articles, and rating articles (i.e. Start, C, B, etc.). Would anyone mind looking it over to make sure that I didn't make any egregious errors? Also, is there anything that I should add to improve the article? Thanks! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added additional information from its entry in the Australian Stratigraphic Units Database, a site which provides a useful summary of stratigraphic and lithological formation for Australian units. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll be a handy resource to keep in mind if I work on Australian stratigraphic units again. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Conventions: Paleobiology vs Behavior

Is there any specific reason we generally call the section on behavior "Paleobiology" instead of just "Behavior"? Paleobiology is not a very friendly term to use, and the average person won't know that information such as diet or social/reproductive behavior is discussed under this heading   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Paleobiology encompasses much more than just behavior, e.g. range of motion, function, metabolism, posture, and growth, all common topics in palaeontology articles. I can't think of an easy term that covers all of these. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is, I think, the best compromise we have. Plus, as long as subheadings are present, what we call this section probably shouldn't matter. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, biology is much more inclusive. I don't see why having the word "paleo" in front of it should make it harder to understand for readers, most people looking up paleontology articles would know the word. On the other hand, calling description sections "morphology" in some neontology articles, as seems to be the tends some places, would be harder to swallow. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 33#Problematic ichnotaxa classification which is of wider relevance than dinosaurs. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just leaving a note to say that after clearing up all the dinosaur ichnotaxonomy over on WikiProject Dinosaurs, I've worked my up through the rest of the tetrapods under that system and have managed to remove almost every nonexistent ichno-group and placed the remaining ichnogenera under suitable classifications, to the best of my abilities. The majority of the names grabbed from PaleoFile are now under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for deletion. However, I have left one string of them as they are used for Module:Autotaxobox/testcases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and that is something I don't want to risk messing around with. These taxonomy templates aren't being used live anywhere else though, so keeping them isn't a problem IMO. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 02:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Taxa lists at geological stage/age articles

There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Geology about how to improve stratigraphic stage articles. One of the issues that has come up is the long taxa lists, like those at Barremian, which all current contributors (including myself) agree should be removed, your participation would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

List of the prehistoric/Paleozoic/Mesozoic/Cenozoic life of US states pages

What do people think about these articles? They appear to be the pet project of Abyssal, some of them are catalogued at the Category:Lists of prehistoric life in the United States and at Category:Prehistoric life of North America The format of all the articles, such as List of the prehistoric life of Florida consist of vast indiscriminate bullet point lists of taxa ripped from the Paleobiology Database. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It'd be more helpful if it were divided by ages instead of periods and say what class of animal is being listed. Beyond that, I'm not sure who would maintain it as new extinct taxa are discovered pretty regularly as we see on List of years in paleontology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the lists were broken down to periods they may be more manageable, but even with List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) which I tried to improve as much as I could as it was in construction, I think a large portion of it is rather dubious, being PBDB derived. If the lists were taxonomic groupings rather then just alphabetical they might be more useful, but its dependent on there being someone to maintain and update. Also the political boundaries are very arbitrary and it might be better to work the into paleobiota of X articles that correspond to the formations being discussed above, as is done at Paleobiota of Burmese amber for large taxa lists or as is done at Klondike Mountain Formation for smaller ones.--Kevmin § 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be better. Articles like List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) should redirect to the List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units series, so List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) becomes a redirect of List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Washington (state)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

These lists are useful to readers interested in researching what forms of prehistoric life have been reported in various locations. The lists have very specific inclusion criteria, eg that any entry known from fossils, and be found in a particular place, and be of a particular age, which amply satisfies Wikipedia policies for stand-alone lists. Some of the larger lists do need trimmed or split, but I think polishing up the current crop of articles has a higher priority.

Lists of taxa found in individual stratigraphic formations are important, but serve different functions and readership. The political geography-based lists are more useful to lay audiences who may not even be aware that units of the rock record called "formations" even exist. However, even people with little to no understanding of paleontology at least have a vague sense that prehistoric life existed and are familiar with the existence of their own geographic region and others'. That is why having navigational infrastructure based on political geography is so useful- familiarity and relatability. The boundaries are arbitrary, sure, but so would be listing taxa from Europe separately from those found in Asia, or listing taxa by modern continent in light of continental drift. Abyssal (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I see various problems with such lists. 1) it is directly and blindly copied from Fossilworks/PDB and thus contain inconsistencies related to the discussion below. 2) it is non-specific per time period and even, especially for big states like Texas not really useful (has the fossil been found near the Oklahoma or the Mexican border?) 3) the lists need to be updated every time a new fossil is described, like is the case almost weekly for the US. It needs active maintenance, which even in the case of a more specific list as List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Colombia (compare with User:Abyssal/List of the prehistoric life of Colombia) is a monumental task. Using the What links here function it may be useful to see where a specific fossil is found more, but then a quick link to Fossilworks, linked in the Wikidata-derived bottom bar is just as quick and updated better, as FW is maybe not ideal in their maintenance but it is definitely better maintained than these long lists. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the Paleobiology Database (fossilworks) a reliable source?

I think it is worth having this conversation here rather than at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as in my experience questions about scientific sources recieve few responses. The Paleobiology Database and its alternate portal Fossilworks are familiar to regulars of this Wikiproject as one of the most important ways to access paleontological information. The external links search shows that fossilworks has been linked to on wikipedia a staggering 45,000 times per fossilworks.org  , with only a few hundred for the Paleobiology Database itself per paleobiodb.org  . The Paleobiology database is extensively used by actual paleontologists and the data contained within is has been statistically analysed in the literature. However, over the years I have heard many users complain about the inaccuracy of the Database, (something that is inevitable considering the hundreds of thousands of entries and relatively few contributors), and I was wondering if a discussion was warranted to define how and when PBDB/fossilworks should be used. I personally think that it is fine for locality information, but that the information contained within it should not assumed to be complete or up to date. I would not consider it a reliable source for taxonomic classification, as I have found this to be in error on numerous occasions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Fossilworks is to Wikipedia as Wikipedia is to a college paper. It is a good starting point for locality information, but this info should be cited to the literature whenever possible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, though I think that it is an acceptable alternative for when the literature is difficult to access, like with a lot of the old soviet papers which just aren't usable otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The question what is a reliable source can become a bit philosophical, but my assessment after 4 years using it as a source for expansion and writing of articles is 1) it is a database and as such "not really" (contains errors), 2) it is an actively maintained database and as such "yes", 3) it is peer-reviewed, that it is maintained and updated by experts in the field so "yes", 4) it contains references to the underlying articles that are reliable sources, so "it is a portal to reliable sources, while by itself not one necessarily" or 5) it is never more reliable than the publications that support it. Taxonomy is updated faster than Fossilworks I think and agree with you that for that purpose it is not as reliable as for the basic information (locations, formations, ages) that it provides. As a start to link to for further expansion of articles with the publications (which in quite some cases I have linked as Further reading under articles) I think it is great, because what else is there? Tisquesusa (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't trust it for uncited formation ages either, as has been discussed on Wikiproject Geology on stage articles, the age of many terrestrial geological formations without tuff beds (and even with tuff beds, see the Cañadón Asfalto Formation) are still pretty uncertain and even new detrital zircon methods are hazy. I would rather cite PBDB for instances where many different papers are describing many different taxa all from one locality, as often happens with microvertebrates and insect compression fossils. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• On the subject of this, I just discovered that the information that I created Limnostygis with three years ago, all sourced to FossilWorks (something I definitely would avoid doing now) was almost entirely wrong, with the genus being considered dubious since 2002 and chimaeric since 2004. I think that we should avoid citing it at all when possible (which it frequently is). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Lobopodian navbox template

I think that the pages on prehistoric lobopodians (such as Aysheaia, Hallucigenia, Pambdelurion, et cetera) would benefit from a taxonomy navbox like those found on so many paleo pages (e.g. Template:Archosauriformes), and so I intend to make one. However, I am uncertain of the appropriate name to use for the template. I could call it Lobopodia, using the paraphyletic group name that contains the relevant species, or I could call it Panarthropoda using the clade name that contains lobopodians and their descendants. While the monophyletic name may seem preferable, one reason I am reluctant to use Panarthropoda is that I feel that a template by that name may be better-suited for a higher-level overview of the major clades (like Template:Chordata) rather than a genus-level coverage of the lobopodian grade. Does anyone have any thoughts on what I should do, or if this is a good idea in the first place? Ornithopsis (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented, I am going to go ahead and make such a navbox at Template:Lobopodia shortly. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now created Template:Lobopodia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

An apparent bias toward creationism in the Wikiquote article "Fossil"

I understand that Wikiquote is a separate "project" from Wikipedia, but if anyone is interested, the Wikiquote article "Fossil" seems to have a pretty strong bias toward creationism.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fossil

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you can remove them yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it's better if more qualified users edit this.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Parirau ataroa

I've opened a deletion discussion on Draft:Parirau ataroa as the name is a nomen nudum found in a pre print by our old friend Falconfly. I don't think that the IP who created the article is Falconfly. Your participation would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)