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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-01T15:09:00.000Z","author":"Ununseti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ununseti-2019-04-01T15:09:00.000Z-Notice:_In_the_News\/Candidate_entry_about_the_Tanis_site_K-T_boundary_fossils","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-01T22:07:00.000Z","author":"67.164.113.165","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.164.113.165-2019-04-01T22:07:00.000Z-Notice:_In_the_News\/Candidate_entry_about_the_Tanis_site_K-T_boundary_fossils","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-02T02:42:00.000Z","author":"67.164.113.165","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.164.113.165-2019-04-02T02:42:00.000Z-Notice:_In_the_News\/Candidate_entry_about_the_Tanis_site_K-T_boundary_fossils","replies":["c-FT2-2019-04-04T01:21:00.000Z-67.164.113.165-2019-04-02T02:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one.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.
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-26T14:57:00.000Z","author":"Abyssal","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Abyssal-2019-04-26T14:57:00.000Z-RfC_on_image_display_format_in_lists_of_prehistoric_life_by_location","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-05T00:37:00.000Z","author":"Enwebb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Enwebb-2019-05-05T00:37:00.000Z-Subscribe_to_new_Tree_of_Life_Newsletter!","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-22T16:45:00.000Z","author":"FunkMonk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-FunkMonk-2019-04-22T16:45:00.000Z-Original_research_in_palaeoart","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-04-22T16:57:00.000Z-FunkMonk-2019-04-22T16:45:00.000Z","c-Lusotitan-2019-04-22T21:03:00.000Z-FunkMonk-2019-04-22T16:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-23T14:53:00.000Z","author":"NessieVL","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-NessieVL-2019-04-23T14:53:00.000Z-Original_research_in_palaeoart","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2019-04-23T15:39:00.000Z-NessieVL-2019-04-23T14:53:00.000Z","c-Ornithopsis-2019-05-06T18:22:00.000Z-NessieVL-2019-04-23T14:53:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Nessie"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-07T07:54:00.000Z","author":"Cygnis insignis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-07T07:54:00.000Z-Original_research_in_palaeoart","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-05-12T10:23:00.000Z-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-07T07:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-12T21:01:00.000Z","author":"Ambrosia10","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ambrosia10-2019-05-12T21:01:00.000Z-Foulden_Maar","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-26T03:04:00.000Z","author":"Evolution and evolvability","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Evolution_and_evolvability-2019-05-26T03:04:00.000Z-A_possible_Science\/STEM_User_Group","replies":[],"displayName":"T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-21T15:35:00.000Z","author":"Cygnis insignis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-21T15:35:00.000Z-Guidelines_on_article_creation","replies":["c-NessieVL-2019-05-21T15:50:00.000Z-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-21T15:35:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2019-05-23T10:01:00.000Z-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-21T15:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","author":"219.70.189.47","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z-Guidelines_on_article_creation","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-05-23T13:41:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","c-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-23T15:32:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","c-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T17:00:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","c-Kevmin-2019-05-24T01:29:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2019-05-28T14:01:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z","c-Cygnis_insignis-2019-05-28T15:25:00.000Z-219.70.189.47-2019-05-23T13:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-05T11:09:00.000Z","author":"Evolution and evolvability","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Evolution_and_evolvability-2019-06-05T11:09:00.000Z-A_proposal_for_WikiJournals_to_become_a_new_sister_project","replies":[],"displayName":"T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-06T12:53:00.000Z","author":"Jens Lallensack","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-06T12:53:00.000Z-Palaeontology_collaboration?","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-06-06T13:01:00.000Z-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-06T12:53:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-07T10:23:00.000Z","author":"Jens Lallensack","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-07T10:23:00.000Z-Palaeontology_collaboration?","replies":["c-Slate_Weasel-2019-06-07T11:59:00.000Z-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-07T10:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-16T06:58:00.000Z","author":"Jens Lallensack","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-16T06:58:00.000Z-Palaeontology_collaboration?","replies":["c-Casliber-2019-06-18T23:38:00.000Z-Jens_Lallensack-2019-06-16T06:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-18T23:43:00.000Z","author":"Casliber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Casliber-2019-06-18T23:43:00.000Z-Task_forces?","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-06-18T23:52:00.000Z-Casliber-2019-06-18T23:43:00.000Z","c-NessieVL-2019-06-19T00:52:00.000Z-Casliber-2019-06-18T23:43:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Cas Liber"}}-->
clean-up listing for Palaeontology clean-up listing for Pterosaurs
There is a current move discussion happening at Struthio dmanisensis that needs help from paleo-literate editors--Kevmin § 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-06-27T15:57:00.000Z","author":"Kevmin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kevmin-2019-06-27T15:57:00.000Z-Notice:_Struthio_dmanisensis_move_discussion_needing_input","replies":[],"displayName":"Kev"}}-->
Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-07-25T18:36:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2019-07-25T18:36:00.000Z-Notice:_Struthio_dmanisensis_move_discussion_needing_input","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-08-09T03:09:00.000Z","author":"Kevmin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kevmin-2019-08-09T03:09:00.000Z-Edit_warring_of_etymologies","replies":[],"displayName":"Kev"}}-->
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.
Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-07-22T12:17:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2019-07-22T12:17:00.000Z-Re-created_taxonomy_templates","replies":["c-NessieVL-2019-07-22T15:23:00.000Z-Peter_coxhead-2019-07-22T12:17:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2019-07-22T15:43:00.000Z-Peter_coxhead-2019-07-22T12:17:00.000Z"]}}-->
Please join the discussion on the proposed merge from Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. --Nessie (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-09-17T13:52:00.000Z","author":"NessieVL","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-NessieVL-2019-09-17T13:52:00.000Z-Proposed_merge_from_Template:WikiProject_Pterosaurs_to_Template:WikiProject_Pala","replies":[],"displayName":"Nessie"}}-->
Hibbertopterus is currently going through the GA process (review) and the reviewer stated that;
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-09-22T09:15:00.000Z","author":"Ichthyovenator","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ichthyovenator-2019-09-22T09:15:00.000Z-Paleoart_as_original_research?","replies":["c-Slate_Weasel-2019-09-22T11:39:00.000Z-Ichthyovenator-2019-09-22T09:15:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2019-09-22T11:56:00.000Z-Ichthyovenator-2019-09-22T09:15:00.000Z","c-Cygnis_insignis-2019-09-23T01:41:00.000Z-Ichthyovenator-2019-09-22T09:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-04T02:47:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-04T02:47:00.000Z-New_Australian_Ornithocherid_Pterosaur_Ferrodraco_described","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-04T16:38:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-04T02:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-10T10:43:00.000Z","author":"Smirkybec","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Smirkybec-2019-10-10T10:43:00.000Z-Amphibian_tetrapod,_third_instance_from_Ireland","replies":["c-Dunkleosteus77-2019-10-10T15:04:00.000Z-Smirkybec-2019-10-10T10:43:00.000Z","c-Ornithopsis-2019-10-10T15:16:00.000Z-Smirkybec-2019-10-10T10:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-16T22:31:00.000Z","author":"Kevmin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kevmin-2019-10-16T22:31:00.000Z-Year_in_paleontology_cruft","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-16T22:48:00.000Z-Kevmin-2019-10-16T22:31:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Kev"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-07T10:29:00.000Z","author":"Certes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Certes-2019-10-07T10:29:00.000Z-Nomination_of_Portal:Extinction_for_deletion","replies":["c-Eostrix-2019-10-22T14:36:00.000Z-Certes-2019-10-07T10:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-20T23:09:00.000Z","author":"Slate Weasel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slate_Weasel-2019-10-20T23:09:00.000Z-How_much_stratigraphy_do_we_want_in_Paleoenvironment_sections?","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-21T00:26:00.000Z-Slate_Weasel-2019-10-20T23:09:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-23T04:56:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2019-10-23T04:56:00.000Z-Cleanup_of_Hanson_Formation","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-27T04:24:00.000Z","author":"Walkerma","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Walkerma-2019-10-27T04:24:00.000Z-Request_for_information_on_WP1.0_web_tool","replies":[]}}-->
(Redacted)
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-11-04T17:55:00.000Z","author":"BrownHairedGirl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BrownHairedGirl-2019-11-04T17:55:00.000Z-Ban_request","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-11-07T19:53:00.000Z","author":"Rowan Forest","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rowan_Forest-2019-11-07T19:53:00.000Z-Assistance_requested","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2019-11-07T20:23:00.000Z-Rowan_Forest-2019-11-07T19:53:00.000Z"]}}-->
I thank you all. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-11-08T22:11:00.000Z","author":"Rowan Forest","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rowan_Forest-2019-11-08T22:11:00.000Z-Assistance_requested","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2019-11-10T23:23:00.000Z-Rowan_Forest-2019-11-08T22:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-11-12T17:34:00.000Z","author":"NessieVL","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-NessieVL-2019-11-12T17:34:00.000Z-First_annual_Tree_of_Life_Decemberween_contest","replies":[],"displayName":"Nessie"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-12-01T17:30:00.000Z","author":"SilverTiger12","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SilverTiger12-2019-12-01T17:30:00.000Z-Tracking_an_obscura_Panthera","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-12-01T17:36:00.000Z-SilverTiger12-2019-12-01T17:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-12-09T05:30:00.000Z","author":"Rauisuchian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rauisuchian-2019-12-09T05:30:00.000Z-A_couple_ideas_for_evolutionary_articles","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-12-09T08:31:00.000Z-Rauisuchian-2019-12-09T05:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-12-12T14:22:00.000Z","author":"Ichthyovenator","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ichthyovenator-2019-12-12T14:22:00.000Z-FA_nomination_of_Megarachne","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-12-26T00:42:00.000Z","author":"Onetwothreeip","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Onetwothreeip-2019-12-26T00:42:00.000Z-Attention_needed_at_2019_in_paleontology_and_2018_in_paleontology","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2019-12-26T00:51:00.000Z-Onetwothreeip-2019-12-26T00:42:00.000Z","c-IJReid-2020-01-02T17:40:00.000Z-Onetwothreeip-2019-12-26T00:42:00.000Z","c-37.30.51.186-2020-01-04T11:28:00.000Z-Onetwothreeip-2019-12-26T00:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-01-08T21:36:00.000Z","author":"Lythronaxargestes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-01-08T21:36:00.000Z-Attention_needed_at_2019_in_paleontology_and_2018_in_paleontology","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-01-09T17:36:00.000Z","author":"188.147.105.100","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-188.147.105.100-2020-01-09T17:36:00.000Z-Attention_needed_at_2019_in_paleontology_and_2018_in_paleontology","replies":["c-IJReid-2020-01-10T15:38:00.000Z-188.147.105.100-2020-01-09T17:36:00.000Z","c-Hemiauchenia-2020-01-10T16:05:00.000Z-188.147.105.100-2020-01-09T17:36:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-01-22T19:46:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-01-22T19:46:00.000Z-Discussion_for_merging_Haplomastodon_into_Notiomastodon","replies":[]}}-->
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.[1][2]. 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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-02-10T16:21:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-10T16:21:00.000Z-Burmese_amber","replies":["c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-02-10T16:30:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-10T16:21:00.000Z","c-Kevmin-2020-02-10T16:53:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-10T16:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
References
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-02-21T17:12:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-21T17:12:00.000Z-Disputes_over_bilateral_symmetry_in_Ediacaran_biota.","replies":["c-Ornithopsis-2020-02-21T17:30:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-21T17:12:00.000Z","c-Alnagov-2020-02-21T17:56:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-21T17:12:00.000Z","c-Ornithopsis-2020-02-21T20:44:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-21T17:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-02-25T16:23:00.000Z","author":"Awkwafaba","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Awkwafaba-2020-02-25T16:23:00.000Z-a_taxobox_for_Protoichnites","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2020-02-25T18:17:00.000Z-Awkwafaba-2020-02-25T16:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-02-28T16:02:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2020-02-28T16:02:00.000Z-a_taxobox_for_Protoichnites","replies":["c-Awkwafaba-2020-03-04T15:00:00.000Z-Peter_coxhead-2020-02-28T16:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
Arthropoda/?
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-03-04T10:16:00.000Z","author":"FunkMonk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-FunkMonk-2020-03-04T10:16:00.000Z-Student_edits","replies":["c-Ichthyovenator-2020-03-04T10:44:00.000Z-FunkMonk-2020-03-04T10:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-07T10:33:00.000Z","author":"Jackhynes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jackhynes-2020-04-07T10:33:00.000Z-Species_articles_written_in_singular_form","replies":["c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-04-07T13:52:00.000Z-Jackhynes-2020-04-07T10:33:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Jack"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-03-25T20:24:00.000Z","author":"SilverTiger12","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SilverTiger12-2020-03-25T20:24:00.000Z-Edits\/update_requested","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2020-03-25T20:50:00.000Z-SilverTiger12-2020-03-25T20:24:00.000Z","c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-04-03T19:39:00.000Z-SilverTiger12-2020-03-25T20:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-03T22:52:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-03T22:52:00.000Z-Improving_Homo_erectus","replies":["c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-04-04T00:11:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-03T22:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-09T19:33:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-09T19:33:00.000Z-Improving_Homo_erectus","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-12T23:08:00.000Z","author":"Slate Weasel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slate_Weasel-2020-04-12T23:08:00.000Z-Updating_the_Pterosaur_Navbox","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-20T19:54:00.000Z","author":"Kevmin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kevmin-2020-04-20T19:54:00.000Z-Dinosaur_common_names_list","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2020-04-20T20:11:00.000Z-Kevmin-2020-04-20T19:54:00.000Z","c-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-20T22:12:00.000Z-Kevmin-2020-04-20T19:54:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Kev"}}-->
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.
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-26T15:19:00.000Z","author":"Dunkleosteus77","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-04-26T15:19:00.000Z-What_constitutes_a_reliable_source?","replies":[],"displayName":"User:Dunkleosteus77"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-29T23:26:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-29T23:26:00.000Z-Taxobox_templates_when_two_taxa_share_the_same_genus_name","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-04-30T01:21:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-04-29T23:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
|taxon=Wightia (pterosaur)
|genus=Wightia (pterosaur)
|species=
Peter coxhead (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-04-30T05:43:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2020-04-30T05:43:00.000Z-Taxobox_templates_when_two_taxa_share_the_same_genus_name","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2020-04-30T06:01:00.000Z-Peter_coxhead-2020-04-30T05:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-02T20:25:00.000Z","author":"Ichthyovenator","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ichthyovenator-2020-05-02T20:25:00.000Z-Can_I_upload_these_images?","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-02T21:08:00.000Z-Ichthyovenator-2020-05-02T20:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-04T00:23:00.000Z","author":"Atlantis536","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Atlantis536-2020-05-04T00:23:00.000Z-Five_pages_related_to_2020_paleontological_discoveries_were_deleted.","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-04T00:57:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T00:57:00.000Z-Five_pages_related_to_2020_paleontological_discoveries_were_deleted.","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T01:04:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T00:57:00.000Z","c-188.146.229.4-2020-05-04T04:33:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T00:57:00.000Z","c-JzG-2020-05-04T13:04:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T00:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-04T11:16:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T11:16:00.000Z-Five_pages_related_to_2020_paleontological_discoveries_were_deleted.","replies":[]}}-->
@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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-04T13:22:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-04T13:22:00.000Z-Five_pages_related_to_2020_paleontological_discoveries_were_deleted.","replies":[]}}-->
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))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-12T20:42:00.000Z","author":"Lajmmoore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lajmmoore-2020-05-12T20:42:00.000Z-Vadaravis_brownae","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-12T20:56:00.000Z-Lajmmoore-2020-05-12T20:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
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))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-17T09:16:00.000Z","author":"Lajmmoore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lajmmoore-2020-05-17T09:16:00.000Z-Draft:Coua_berthae","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2020-05-17T20:14:00.000Z-Lajmmoore-2020-05-17T09:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-17T15:12:00.000Z","author":"HastaLaVi2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HastaLaVi2-2020-05-17T15:12:00.000Z-New_update_for_geological_range","replies":["c-Clone_commando_sev-2020-05-18T23:49:00.000Z-HastaLaVi2-2020-05-17T15:12:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Z"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-20T15:08:00.000Z","author":"Lythronaxargestes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-20T15:08:00.000Z-Authority_format_changes","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-20T15:11:00.000Z-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-20T15:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
Looks like there is consensus for the comma. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-21T16:46:00.000Z","author":"Lythronaxargestes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-21T16:46:00.000Z-Authority_format_changes","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-20T23:04:00.000Z","author":"Clone commando sev","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Clone_commando_sev-2020-05-20T23:04:00.000Z-reliable_sources","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-20T23:09:00.000Z-Clone_commando_sev-2020-05-20T23:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-01T00:56:00.000Z","author":"Abductive","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Abductive-2020-06-01T00:56:00.000Z-Kampecaris_obanensis","replies":["c-FunkMonk-2020-06-01T00:58:00.000Z-Abductive-2020-06-01T00:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-01T03:02:00.000Z","author":"Clone commando sev","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Clone_commando_sev-2020-06-01T03:02:00.000Z-Kampecaris_obanensis","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-06-01T04:08:00.000Z-Clone_commando_sev-2020-06-01T03:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-01T06:20:00.000Z","author":"Lythronaxargestes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-06-01T06:20:00.000Z-Kampecaris_obanensis","replies":["c-Abductive-2020-06-01T10:17:00.000Z-Lythronaxargestes-2020-06-01T06:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-01T21:12:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-06-01T21:12:00.000Z-Kampecaris_obanensis","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-06-01T22:06:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-06-01T21:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-02T02:59:00.000Z","author":"Clone commando sev","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Clone_commando_sev-2020-06-02T02:59:00.000Z-Kampecaris_obanensis","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-07T13:30:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2020-06-07T13:30:00.000Z-Change_to_handling_of_ichno-_and_oo-_ranks_in_taxonomy_templates","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-30T05:48:00.000Z","author":"TheseusHeLl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TheseusHeLl-2020-05-30T05:48:00.000Z-Nizar_Ibrahim","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-30T13:12:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-30T13:12:00.000Z-Nizar_Ibrahim","replies":["c-TheseusHeLl-2020-06-01T20:46:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-30T13:12:00.000Z","c-Hemiauchenia-2020-06-02T17:10:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-30T13:12:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2020-06-08T17:52:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-30T13:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-25T02:08:00.000Z","author":"PaleoGeekSquared","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PaleoGeekSquared-2020-05-25T02:08:00.000Z-Wikipedia's_image_review_process_and_the_palaeoart_community","replies":[],"displayName":"\u25bcP\u03c3l\u0454\u03bfG\u0454\u0454\u043a"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-25T02:42:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T02:42:00.000Z-Wikipedia's_image_review_process_and_the_palaeoart_community","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-05-25T04:38:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T02:42:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2020-05-25T08:32:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T02:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-25T20:54:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T20:54:00.000Z-Wikipedia's_image_review_process_and_the_palaeoart_community","replies":["c-IJReid-2020-05-25T21:00:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T20:54:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2020-05-26T12:01:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T20:54:00.000Z","c-FunkMonk-2020-06-15T22:15:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-05-25T20:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
|skeleton=
|model=
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carnoferox/status/1256049195557027841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaurOfPark (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-24T04:42:00.000Z","author":"DinosaurOfPark","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DinosaurOfPark-2020-06-24T04:42:00.000Z-Beating_the_dead_sclerorhynchoid","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-06-24T06:46:00.000Z-DinosaurOfPark-2020-06-24T04:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-26T00:29:00.000Z","author":"Slate Weasel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slate_Weasel-2020-06-26T00:29:00.000Z-Bulldog_Shale","replies":["c-Hemiauchenia-2020-06-26T00:36:00.000Z-Slate_Weasel-2020-06-26T00:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-30T03:32:00.000Z","author":"Dunkleosteus77","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-06-30T03:32:00.000Z-Conventions:_Paleobiology_vs_Behavior","replies":["c-Jens_Lallensack-2020-06-30T03:37:00.000Z-Dunkleosteus77-2020-06-30T03:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"User:Dunkleosteus77"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-05-25T08:12:00.000Z","author":"Peter coxhead","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_coxhead-2020-05-25T08:12:00.000Z-Relevant_discussion","replies":["c-DrawingDinosaurs-2020-07-05T02:44:00.000Z-Peter_coxhead-2020-05-25T08:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-06T18:09:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-06T18:09:00.000Z-Taxa_lists_at_geological_stage\/age_articles","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-07T19:35:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-07T19:35:00.000Z-List_of_the_prehistoric\/Paleozoic\/Mesozoic\/Cenozoic_life_of_US_states_pages","replies":["c-Dunkleosteus77-2020-07-07T23:05:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-07T19:35:00.000Z","c-Kevmin-2020-07-07T23:41:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-07T19:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-09T01:43:00.000Z","author":"Abyssal","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Abyssal-2020-07-09T01:43:00.000Z-List_of_the_prehistoric\/Paleozoic\/Mesozoic\/Cenozoic_life_of_US_states_pages","replies":["c-Tisquesusa-2020-07-09T02:21:00.000Z-Abyssal-2020-07-09T01:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-08T20:08:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-08T20:08:00.000Z-Is_the_Paleobiology_Database_(fossilworks)_a_reliable_source?","replies":["c-Lythronaxargestes-2020-07-08T20:20:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-08T20:08:00.000Z","c-Slate_Weasel-2020-07-10T13:38:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-08T20:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-13T17:59:00.000Z","author":"Ornithopsis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ornithopsis-2020-06-13T17:59:00.000Z-Lobopodian_navbox_template","replies":["c-Ornithopsis-2020-07-10T17:09:00.000Z-Ornithopsis-2020-06-13T17:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-17T18:43:00.000Z","author":"2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368-2020-07-17T18:43:00.000Z-An_apparent_bias_toward_creationism_in_the_Wikiquote_article_\"Fossil\"","replies":[]}}-->
2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you can remove them yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-17T20:03:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-17T20:03:00.000Z-An_apparent_bias_toward_creationism_in_the_Wikiquote_article_\"Fossil\"","replies":["c-2804:14D:5C59:8833:1C99:9E2F:4B89:C368-2020-07-18T15:46:00.000Z-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-17T20:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-20T02:14:00.000Z","author":"Hemiauchenia","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hemiauchenia-2020-07-20T02:14:00.000Z-Parirau_ataroa","replies":[]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 18.217.128.108