Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 8 October 2020

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Palaeontology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:PAL WT:PALEO WT:PALAEO

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Palaeontology Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 January 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Palaeontology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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)

Do we need an internal peer-review?

A strength of Misplaced Pages are collaborative efforts. Our WikiProject offers several instruments for collaborative editing, including the Paleoart Review (which is a continued success) and the Palaeontology collaboration (which recently got new momentum). However, our core occupation – standard article work – was often without much interaction between project members, as our project offers no suitable instrument.

User:FunkMonk had the idea of a dedicated Peer Review to fill this gap, partly inspired by the internal A class review of the military history Wikiproject. We were discussing and developing the idea during the past weeks. Such a Peer Review, where any Paleo article, small or large, can be presented, enables authors to gain feedback and support for their work, and others to take notice of and participate in some of the many small accomplishments made in our project. Below we outline one possible way how such a Peer Review could be set up, though everything, including the viability of the idea itself, is of course open for discussion and requires approval by a majority of project members.

We could cover three types of reviews, each in a dedicated section: Fact Checks, Full Peer Reviews, and Old FA reviews. In the "Fact Checks" section, comments could be "content only" – to not bother the author with lengthly lists of minor style issues. This type of review is suitable for any new or reworked article, irrespective of length and completeness. The "Full Peer Review" could offer help to bring articles into shape for GAN and FAC. The "Old FA reviews" could spotlight one of the many old neglected FAs that are in need of improvement; a consistent problem which naturally becomes larger over time.

Everything could be kept as simple and automatised as possible. We envisage a routine very similar to the existing Paleoart Review, with automatic archival after a set time of inactivity. En passant comments are encouraged, and no full reviews are required since we do not have supports or opposes, fails or passes. Nominators would be expected to act on any issues presented to them, although direct collaborative editing to the nominated article would be encouraged.

For now, we would like to know:

• 1) Is the idea viable and worth a try?
• 2) If yes – do you have any thoughts, alternative ideas, or improvements to the possible setup outlined above?
• 3) Would you be interested in submitting articles to such a PeerReview, and do you possibly have suitable articles already?
• 4) Would you be interested in commenting on submitted articles? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, all I can add is that though we do have a palaeo peer review page, it has never really been used for anything but a list (I only learned it existed a few weeks ago), so we'd need some sort of new layout and infrastructure similar to the image review or military A-class to get it up and running. But looking at the list, it seems Kevmin added newly created articles there? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a Fact Check and maybe a Revitalize section, but if someone's looking for a full peer review, they might as well go to WP:PR.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

1: I think that this is a pretty good idea, although I suppose WP:PR could also be used (like I did with Puertasaurus)

2: One thing that I find helpful with initial expansion is to have someone look over what's there and then provide a list of questions regarding the content, like what Jens did when I started work on the paleobiology section of Acamptonectes. This sort of feedback was useful for focusing my efforts and building up momentum.

3: I'm currently working on expansions to Peloneustes and Tatenectes, so once those are ready sending them through an internal peer review would be really nice!

4: Commenting on submitted articles would be a good way to build up skills for GAN and FAC reviews, something that I personally feel quite apprehensive about doing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I tend to agree – we already have WP:PR for the regular reviews, and that place has the added advantage that people without much background knowledge can check for comprehensibility (a difficult thing to do for us insiders). So we could restrict ourselves to the Fact Checks (and possibly Old FA reviews). Maybe we could integrate a list of the active Paleontology reviews at WP:PR though, so that we still have everything in sight. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The regular peer reviews don't attract so many paleo editors, though, maybe because people may feel they have to conduct a complete review of the entire article at that FAC/GAN level? With this new system, drive by comments by anyone regardless of FAC/GAN experience would be encouraged, so people can participate without reading entire articles, which would hopefully attract more people. That is of course also possible at normal peer review, but there must be a reason why few people participate in them? Maybe they are not so visible either? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I must confess I had missed the paleo reviews at WP:PR far too often, probably because new paleo articles to review appear there far too infrequently and I just forget to check that list regularly. An internal Palaeontology Review would be something I would definitely have on my watch list. Maybe we can even transclude the relevant WP:PR reviews to our internal Peer Review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Or should we just keep it flexible, naming it "Fact Checks" while asking the nominator to indicate when they are looking for a more extensive review? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PRs do appear in the article alerts section on the project page, if you're looking for a place to find the paleo-related ones. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I was about to suggest transclusion here too, I wonder if it's technically possible? Because then we would get the best of both worlds... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If we're trying to set up our own independent system, we can steal from the DYK setup and do what's below (maybe change the color scheme so the plagiarism isn't too obvious), and then we can ask the PR coordinators if they can add a parameter specifically to redirect to our fact-checking page (maybe |paleo=yes). I haven't quite figured out how they did archive1 and archive2 and so forth, and I'd need to make some other templates to make this work properly, but if this is the direction we're heading in I can work on it more   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Here is how to request a fact-checking review Please don't panic I. Create the nomination subpage. Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page. II. Write the request. On the nomination page, tell us a little about the subject and what you expect from a reviewer. Is this article special for you? Or are you planning on nominating for GA or FA? Are you revitalizing an older GA or FA? Click Save page. Make sure your review page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion. III. Post at Fact-check. At the top of the current reviews section, add {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paleontology Fact-check/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}. Add an edit summary e.g. "Listing YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for fact-checking" and click Save page. Add {{Paleo fact-checker}} to the top of your article's talk page {{Paleo fact-checker}} banner would be A request has been made for this article to be fact-checked to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This would be a pretty good idea, since it looks like an easier way, and maybe more practical for new users? Though I think the question if the article is special for you might not be necessary because the articles nominated by users are usually (if not always) special (or important) for them. The color scheme might also be very obvious that it belongs to a DYK, so I agree that some changes should be made. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying the DYK setup is certainly an option, but isn't it a bit overkill for our comparatively small project? I was, instead, thinking about just copying the Paleoart Review setup instead, with slight modifications. Advantages of this approach I see include:

• We know it well, and it already proved its worth.
• We have all reviews on the same page (in separate sections), not in separate sub-pages. This is of disadvantage for a large project (such as DYK) but might be better for a small one, since we have all activity concentrated on a single site (we have all new comments to any review immediately on our watchlist).
• It is easier to setup, and easier to maintain. The only technical part would be the automated archival, and the inclusion of the list of reviews from WP:PR.
• Minimal recurrent maintenance. We should not underestimate this, even minor maintenance tasks that need to be made regularly will become a big problem long-term! (DYK seems to use a dedicated bot for this, but again, I think that is too much for us!). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jens that for small and short reviews a system similar to the Paleoart review, or maybe the "Fact Checks" would be more practical, but for the longer reviews such as the ones before FA or GA, I think the "Full Peer Review" or basically WP:PR would be more suited. I also didn't remember that the DYK process needs a bot, so that might not be so practical for small reviews, again, I agree with Jens on that one. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Paleoart scheme is better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also support a system similar to the palaeoart page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this (WP:PALEOART system) sounds good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Geology project has this system Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews, where active geology-related peer reviews are sent through WP:PR but transcluded on the page (although it doesn't look like it's seen action in 5 years). This is something that we could consider if we want to make long paleo peer reviews more visible. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with both of Slate Weasel's comments: a dedicated WP:PALEOART-style fact check page plus transclusion of relevant peer reviews. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another proposition for the interface:

Extended content

This page is for conducting peer reviews of paleontology-related articles. There are three different types of reviews that you can submit an article to, and which format to choose depends based on the article. Please read the below instructions to find which one is correct for your needs. Fact Checks Fact checks are relatively quick reviews that are mainly focused on article content. They are mainly used to assess the article's accuracy, and can be applied to any article, regardless of quality or length. To get an article fact-checked, click the button below to create a new section. Please title the section with the article name for clarity. Click here to submit an article for a fact check Full Peer Review Full peer reviews are longer and more rigorous, and also involve critique on style, prose, and layout. These are useful for getting an expanded article into shape for WP:GAN or WP:FAC. For this type of review, please go to WP:PR and follow the instructions there. ] After initiating a peer review, please add {{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Insert article title here/archive1}} below to transclude the review here. That way, more editors will be able to view it. Old FA Reviews Since research on a subject continues after it is promoted to featured article status, some older featured articles are now out of date. This form of peer review can be used to renovate a FA in need of updating. I don't think we really came up with how we're going to do this...

This is very minimal, and I think that it would be better if someone who isn't me wrote the instructions, but it does use the PALEOART system. Feel free to edit this if you wish. What do you all think about this? Is it an adequate setup or should it be scrapped? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Great, thank you all. It looks like there is enough interest in setting up an internal peer review, although it is impossible to tell if we will be able to keep it alive long-term. But I also think that giving it a try will not hurt; and even if this review falls asleep eventually, it will always stay available for editors to revive (all that is needed to revive it is submitting a new article, maybe with a note on the Project's main talk page so that people remember). So let's give it a try! I will set up the page, following the advice/drafts presented above (and coming back to you, @Slate Weasel:, for the technical details), and then we can improve it together before launching it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, and it seems there are already a few trial articles that could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the peer review transclusion is working, but does it take in all science articles? FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Only a test. I currently see two options: 1) Automatically transclude all Science articles listed in WP:PR (using the shortlist so that it does not become too long). 2) Manually add (and remove) respective transclusions from WP:PR (the original idea of Slate Weasel), which means it will only be transcluded if the author adds it in both WP:PR and in the Paleo PeerReview. I somehow prefer 1), since it works fully automatically without any maintenance, and we always have all paleo reviews listed. The drawback is that all science articles are listed. Well, paleontology is very interdisciplinary, so it might not be a big issue. But the article alerts seem to be able to filter out the paleontology reviews; so I wonder if it would be technically possible to transclude only those automatically? Does anybody know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slate Weasel: is it possible to have the blue buttons point at a specified section? Right now I got it working for the "Fact Checks", but it will open a new section only at the bottom of the page. This means that the Fact Checks need to be the last section, and that we cannot have a similar button for, e.g., the old FA reviews (which I left out for now). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The old FA reviews also need more discussion. I somehow doubt that a classical collaboration on those articles will be effective/gain much interest. Maybe we should just provide this section, encouraging authors who are planning to rework such an article to list it there, and then provide them which all possible support and contributions in the process? Like a collaboration, but with a single author responsible for keeping it going? If so, the section will remain empty until such an hero-editor appears. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an old FA review can also be just collaboratively making a to do list without necessarily fixing it all, and then copying the list to the talk page of an article afterwards, so that the issues can be chipped away down the line? As for transclusion of only paleo tagged peer reviewed articles, perhaps Headbomb or Hellknowz knows? FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

1) I fear that lists of unresolved issues left at the article's talk page will motivate people to list the article as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. Or worse, such lists would permit this in the first place. 2) I agree that discussions (even without immediate acting) are important though. But I think the main issues are similar for all these articles, so it might be better to have a general discussion on what the issues are, and how to solve them and keep them maintainable in the future. For example, the more important articles may need sub-articles where excessive detail can go; it would be great to have general agreement on which, and when, such sub-articles should be created (this is tricky!). 3) We could, instead, have a dedicated site at the WikiProject with a list of FAs, their current state ("good" to "urgent") and issues to be fixed, as an overview? 4) If we would do this, we might not need a dedicated sub-section at the Peer Review for such articles; if review is needed, we could simply use WP:PR for this task. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the buttons, I honestly have no clue how to control where a new section is added, perhaps IJReid, who created the buttons for the DINOART and PALEOART reviews knows? I've made the color of the fact check button text white so it can actually be seen (it was blue before). Also, my progress on Tatenectes is such that it will be ready for submission for fact check in a day or two! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Theres nothing really special to what I put Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Header more than changing the text and the button size and specs etc. IJReid  03:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, do we want a shortcut for this review page? If so, would WP:PALEOPR be good? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, why not! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with the button is that you set action=edit&section=new so it will try to create a new section. Since Fact Check is your 2nd section on the page, you should do action=edit&section=2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SECT indicates that it is not possible to control where new sections are added. The only way I can see this working is creating dedicated subpages and transcluding them into the primary page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That brings us back to how do we archive these pages   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What we could do is use action=edit&section=2, and instruct the user to put down {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/ARTICLETITLE/archiveNUMBER}} at the top of the list, and then save, click on the red link, and create the review page. For example, when a user hits the button, they might see

=Fact check=

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Tyrannosaurus/archive1}}

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Velociraptor/archive3}}

. . .

and when they save they would see their nomination as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Triceratops/archive1 and would have to click on this redlink and create a page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As it is now, the link for the Fact check will work (since the Fact Checks section is the last section). The old FA review is still being discussed (see above) but here we could just use the standard way (clicking just "edit" at the respective section as we do everywhere). I personally would avoid creating any dedicated sub-pages for the reviews, as this would require more maintenance I think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Folks, we have the Peer review ready now, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review. There are still things to improve (see discussion above) but I think the current version will work for now just fine. Old FA reviews may still be added (please discuss the details with us, see above). Automatic archival is another unsolved issue, as the regular bots are for talk pages only; I'm sure we can persuade some bot operator to include us, but maybe our odds are better once the page is actually full. We can even think about implementing the automatic archivals for the Paleoart reviews in one go. Please make any edits you feel fit, and if there are no more concerns we could start with the first reviews very soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! I just thought of another type of article that could be sent there; FAs which have been substantially expanded since being promoted, and whose new text has therefore not been reviewed. For example, Ankylosaurus became a FA before the newest redescription was published, and while it was later expanded accordingly, the text was never reviewed, and might need a check-up. Similarly, once Spinophorosaurus is fully updated, it will also be substantially expanded since its FA promotion, and could need a check up. And once I've incorporated the info from the new Dilophosaurus monograph, I'm sure it could need a fresh look over too (the culture section was also expanded recently)... That would count as a review of old FAs as well, just with more focus on the expanded text. Any thoughts on that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes sure, the intro explicitly states that "articles of any length and quality" (statement authored by Slate Weasel) may be submitted to the "Fact Check". This includes old and not-so-old FAs of course. Maybe we can formulate it more clearly that we are open for everything? Do we need to replace the term "Fact Checks" with something more general? We can also ask the nominator to indicate whether they are looking for a more comprehensive review? I think we should make this Peer Review as flexible as possible, but at the same time I tried to make clear that this is not just a redundant copy of WP:PR. Any suggestions on how to do this better are highly welcome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Added a sentence to the intro to explicitly mention this possibility, how does it look? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you're way ahead of me! The text looks inclusive enough, and I think I might put up Ankylosaurus as a test soon if we're ready. Edit: Anky now added! FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since the review process seems to be going pretty well, some questions have arisen that we may want to discuss: 1, how and when do we archive? Do we move the discussions to the talk pages of the articles in question only or should the PR page also have its own archive to keep track of its history? 2, what happens after a PR, can the same reviewers just quick pass the articles at GAN if they have done a full review, or would that be improper? Maybe Casliber (as an admin and paleo editor) has some idea of what would be good conduct? FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also is it allowed to have an open PR while the article is at GAN or FAC?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem I'd think, unless of course it's the "standard" PR which has its own rules. Though it's of course best to wait nominating for GAN/FAC until all issues raised at PR have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion about an internal archive; we would have the content in two separate places (the archive and the article's talk page), and it would require more maintenance, but I also see the benefits. If someone wants to set an archive up I would personally be fine with it. Regarding the quick pass at GAN, I also thought about that … I just asked at GAN, lets see what they say: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 22 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages as Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

https://en.wikiquote.org/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)

Eocene

Right then, am finding it hard to get enthused enough to do much content at the moment, but given the excellent work done to get Paleocene featured, I reckon we should strike while the iron is hot and get some other epochs done. That article can now work as a template so we can get other articles looking the same. I have reorganized Eocene. Is this something folks are keen on working on? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Dunkleosteus77, who did Paleocene, has some ideas for how this could be achieved. At the moment, I'd probably try to get the "official" palaeo collaboration Acamptonectes done before moving on to another (but I can review, which is always in short anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. Will take a look at the official collab tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Each epoch is going to have to be somewhat tailor-made depending on what's more important to this stage than others (for example, Paleocene is much different than the Boring Billion). The Eocene is known for having an explosion of floral and faunal taxa, and a lot of what is known about Paleocene taxa comes from the fact that these taxa are already well abundant by the beginning of the Eocene. Given this, it may be better to split up the Flora section into Angiosperms, Gymnosperms, Pteridophytes, and Algae depending on how much is known about each   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Eocene only gets around 400 page views a day while Jurassic, Cretaceous and Pleistocene get around 1,150, 1,350 and 1,250 daily views respectively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering most users in this Wikiproject tend to focus on dinosaurs and Mesozoic creatures in general, it may be better to choose a Mesozoic epoch for a collaborative effort   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I also think that it's a good idea to focus on where most layreaders will actually look, "gateway" articles we could call them. Most people have heard of the Jurassic, and will probably look there first, so if such articles are up to snuff, we've already come a long way in "educating" readers. Same with for example dinosaurs that appeared in Jurassic Park, most people will have heard of them, so more people will visit those articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, all of the geological epoch articles should be GA or FA because there aren't that many of them and geological epoch articles fall into the core remit of a classical enycylopedia, it's just that we should prioritize the most read articles first. Given that it is the most viewed, I propose that the Cretaceous as the article for collaboration. For the Cretaceous there's a lot of significant changes to cover, like the final breakup of gondwana, the rise of flowering plants, sea level changes C-T anoxic event and of course the K-Pg boundary. I don't think that the current article is awful but it is definitely lacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

sure. getting all the epoch articles up to GA and FA is a very good idea.Clone commando sev (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of doing them in a sequence, so Cretaceous is next to Paleocene....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The official collaboration, Acamptonectes, is almost done, so we could nominate Cretaceous as a candidate for the next one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to wrap that one up? I've started to write about the mandible, will probably also take the teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I can do the postcranium as soon as I get some time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Chengjiang Biota species by phylum

As noted at its talk page, List of Chengjiang Biota species by phylum has large numbers of links redirecting back to itself, which is pointless and misleading (as it doesn't show the absence of an article). Any views as to what should be done about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No taxa should redirect to the formation it was found in. If no article exists, they should be left as redlinks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. At worst they should redirect to the parent phyla. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

why would someone do that? it is truly mind-boggling. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've dealt with some of this by creating articles for the ones that were part of Artiopoda, I did think at the time that the redirect choices were puzzling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Having re-looked at one of the articles I created, many of them appear to have been unsourced stubs that were redirected by @Stemonitis: back in 2010-11. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This also means that many of the re-directs can simply undone, is everyone okay with me doing this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm down. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

unsourced stubs can be improved. go ahead. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: any action that gets rid of the redirects as they are now is good! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the "what links here" section of the article and undone all of the redirects, there were over 25 in total. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A complete list of stubs in case anybody is interested in improving them Jianfengia Almenia Clypecaris Combinivalvula Cyathocepalus Dianchia Comptaluta DiplopygeDongshanocaris Ercaia Ercaicunia Forticeps Glossocaris Haikoucaris Jianshania Jiucunella Kunmingella Kunmingocaris Kunyangella Mafangia MalongellaOvalicephalisParakunmingella Primicaris Pterotum Pseudoiulia. Many cambrian arthropod stubs are barren but these are especially bad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a go at them after Klamelisaurus. I need a long-running project, haha... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: you undid one of my reversions stating "the discussion was hardly consensus to create pointless uncited one-line articles simply to avoid self-redirects" would you like to explain why your opinion overrides the concensus of four people here? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

i see similar things all the time. it happens alot at DRN. some people just think they are more important i guess Clone commando sev (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia - local consensus does not override WP:UNSOURCED: .... should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Please reference the articles or change them back to redirects. --John B123 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but why was the accepted solution to this the creation of two dozen unsourced stubs? That's not a good state of affairs by any measure. Why not just have a redlinkdelink until a sourced stub is created? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For fucks sake. I did what I was asked to by members of the community and do not appreciate being berated as if I am the sole instigator of this problem, I explicitly said the stubs were unsourced. I am currently working on improving Clypecaris, Almenia appears to be a junior synonym of Cindarella so I redirected that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, while you have done nothing but complain I've already fixed half the entries. Hemiauchenia (talk)

@Hemiauchenia: If pointing out your disregard for one of the Misplaced Pages:Core content policies, WP:VERIFY, is complaining, then yes I'm guilty. Another policy you might want to look at is WP:CIVIL. --John B123 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now fixed all the entries, redirecting the ones that had barely any refs or were synonyms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! See, if these had been Taiwanese municipalities or something like that they'd have sat there unsourced for a year until someone finally blew a gasket, which is why I get jumpy when unsourced stubs appear in the double digits :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

New Pterosaur Paper

A new paper was published today, coining the new clade Zambellisauria for Peteinosaurus + Macronychoptera and Caviramidae for Arcticodactylus + Caviramus (interestingly Caviramidae was previously "predicted" on DeviantArt for the same clade, but likely as a replacement for Raeticodactylidae). The paper's findings seem at odds with the phylogeny used on Misplaced Pages; what should we do? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

we do the obvious. wait to see if any retractions are made. if no, we update the article/s. if yes we should find some consensus. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For the interested

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Pulmonoscorpius

Pulmonoscorpius averages 94 views per day yet is a 2 line stub, is anyone interested in improving it? there are some really nice images of the holotype at GB3D (See www.3d-fossils.ac.uk/fossilType.cfm?typSampleId=25001235 the link wont properly format for some reason) but these are under a NC license unfortunately. Hemiauchenia (talk)

eh it is a stub. should be pretty easy to improve. i'll do some work on it, when i get some time. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Quaternary extinction event

This article is in need of a massive cleanup, it gets over 500 views a day. The whole discussion of the Quaternary extinction event is requires nuance, which this article does not have, large sections are uncited and it's just a big mess, is anyone interested in helping me clean this up?

I honestly feel that this article needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is bad about it? The article has 318 citations, is broad in scope with various hypotheses listed and lists of genera and species that now somehow are removed (why?). As the most recent extinction event that was global it will always be "a bit messy" because of the broad coverage. What is your problem with the article? Tisquesusa (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like a lot of wikipedia articles that have received lots of drive by additions, I think a lot of the content of the article is good but the structure is poor. I think that the lists of exinct animals by continent can be split into a separate article to increase coherency of the main text. Large amounts of the text are not properly cited and might be WP:OR, there's little discussion of specific well tracked extinctions like those of the Woolly Mammoth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In my view the lists of extinct taxa are best shown in a wikitable form with percentages per group, I remember having seen that data somewhere, but I don't recall where exactly. Isn't the idea of an overview article that specifics about the woolly mammoth are not pushed too much, yet belong in that article? Else you get bias towards certain animals, just that what an overview article should avoid. There may be some updating needed with the research of the last years included, but overall the article looks fine to me. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's missing a coherent history of research section, like the recognition of extinction in the early 19th century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, the origin of Paul S Martin's overkill hypothesis, which is reduced to a single sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mustelodon

I've just looking the articles of viverravids and I noticed that Mustelodon lacks of references, and I couldn't find any book or journal that uses that name (well, just one, but is a book that cites Misplaced Pages). I find suspicious it, considering that the information says that it's a mammal from the Paleocene of Panama, and the oldest mammals that I know from there are from the Miocene. Maybe it's a hoax?--Rextron (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

the only place I'm finding it is on the book Felines of the World from 2019, and it's only a brief mention that it was an early member of Viverravidae   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My guess it that this taxon does not exist; not sure if the alleged species name M. primerus is even possible, correct would be M. primus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if the taxon is poorly documented, you would expect there to be a physical record of a Lago Nandarajo or Lake Nandarajo in Panama.

Nada. It's a hoax. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this taxon might be a hoax. There are no mentionts of this genus in the both "Theodore Sherman Palmer: Index Generum Mammalium: A List of the Genera and Families of Mammals" from 1904, and "Malcolm C. McKenna, Susan K. Bell: Classification of Mammals: Above the Species Level" from 1997. These books are best sources from 20th century where you can look for data about some extinct mammal taxons discovered between 1800s and 1997. Also, none of the science papers since 1997 ever mentioned this genus.--The Explaner (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start an AfD if nobody else objects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This article exists in four other languages. What is the best way to let these other projects know about this apparent hoax? Enwebb (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, at 14 years, 8 months, 29 days, this could be the longest lived documented hoax, the current record is 14 years, 5 months, 30 days. Enwebb (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I just set this article as AfD on Serbian Misplaced Pages.--The Explaner (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I created a discussion on WikiProject Palaeontology in Spanish. Looks like it still has some watchers. I've never nominated for deletion in another language, so I hope someone there can see and take care of it. Similarly, I created a machine-translated post on Catalan WikiProject Mammals, which doesn't appear super active. Enwebb (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The version in Spanish is already nominated.--Rextron (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like deletion has now been proposed on all language version except Dutch. Enwebb (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

deletion proposal on Dutch Misplaced Pages is now also done. --Dick Bos (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We should also remember to remove mentions of Mustelodon from other articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Done, removed from all mainspace articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The AfD is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mustelodon Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, a small clue might be that Panama doesn't have a "northern border" (other than a very tiny strip): it's bounded on the north and south by sea as per File:Pm-map.png. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is currently the longest running hoax in Misplaced Pages history, at 14 years and 9 months. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't more like it, our prehistoric mammal article's haven't gotten much love until recently, with many groups so obscure that few would notice such hoaxes... We still have a huge amount of prehistoric mammal genus red links as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The double negative is pretty confusing there, but I agree there are likely to be other non-obvious hoax articles, the problem is that simply few people care for the pre-Quaternary Cenozoic in comparison to the Mesozoic. There's also this issue that relatively few people are reading those articles. Arguably we should be prioritising the articles on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Popular pages to maximise our impact on readers rather than focusing on creating articles that might average 1 view per day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Such mammals are just really hard to write about, because they get little scientific attention as well, and therefore have really messy taxonomies (I wouldn't have been able to do Paraceratherium if I didn't have a book that synthesised the huge literature). I'd like to do an entelodont one day, I think Archaeotherium might be the easiest contender. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ictognathus

I need to mention that also genus Ictognathus is here on Misplaced Pages placed as member of family Miacidae. This genus is actually a conodont, so someone should take care of that error.--The Explaner (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of some genus of any animal called "Ictognathus", beside the mirror pages of Misplaced Pages. The few references is about a conodont called Elictognathus, and is funny that the reference of the article is about invertebrates, so the article may be another hoax.--Rextron (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is another hoax. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The creator, Wilhelmina Will, is an otherwise reliable editor, so I wonder if it is some kind of mistake? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Having apparently been pinged into this discussion, I've checked the revision history of this article, and I have to ask why you are crediting me with its creation? It predates my joining up with Misplaced Pages by over a year and a half, and its first revision is credited to a user named Cinala. It does not look as if I ever even edited this page. Reddit clarifies why beggars CAN'T be choosers. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages clarifies why editors CAN be choosers!!! (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, my comment with the pings was in response to the commet above mine about Ictognathus, whose first edit says "00:04, May 30, 2008‎ Wilhelmina Will talk contribs‎ 528 bytes +528‎ Created this one from scratch. It was difficult to find much context over the internet, however". FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. In that case, in reply to Jens Lallensack, I can honestly say this was not a hoax article, and I suffer an inclination to resent the supposition that it was. It was made at a time when I had an extremely novice understanding of what websites could be considered reliable sources. Reddit clarifies why beggars CAN'T be choosers. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages clarifies why editors CAN be choosers!!! (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wilhelmina Will: Please forgive me, I never wanted to affront anybody (and will avoid the word "hoax" in the future completely). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It was originally cited to TripAtlas.com (Fram removed the citation), and the archived version here does include a genus Ictognathus. So good faith error seems likely. Enwebb (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Though this original source is actually the Misplaced Pages article Carnivoramorpha, so the error was introduced to Misplaced Pages before this article was created. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone want me to start another AfD? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--The Explaner (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Explaner: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ictognathus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The source and more hoaxes

I'm pretty sure I've managed to find the ultimate origin of Ictognathus. Interestingly it appears to have originated on the Dutch Misplaced Pages with this revision of the Miacidae article by Erik R on the 22 March 2005, this was then subsequently copied and transferred to other wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there wasn't even a single source in this revision, so Ictognathus has to be some kind of hoax. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly Cinala, the same hoaxster behind Mustelodon, was also behind the translation of the Miacidae article from NL Wiki into english in one of his only two substantial edits, but this is in November 2005, months after the initial addition of Ictognathus Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Also of note "Mustelodon" is also found within the 2005 revision. Another apparent hoax Eosictis Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Eosictis does exist, not a hoax. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, the original NL version mispelled it as "Eostictis" which threw off the scholar results. Maybe Mustelodon and Ictognathus are also mispellings? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think those two are misspellings of existing genera. The content of Mustelodon is fantasy, and Ictognathus seems to be an invented combination: existing genera such as Pappictidops and Pseudictops share the "ict", and "gnathus" means jaw. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, Mustelodon was originally added to the NL Miacidae article in March 2005, but the Mustelodon article was created in November 2005 on Enwiki by a different user. There's no definitive evidence that Erik R is Cinala. I agree that the Mustelodon article Cinala created is very likely a hoax, given the fake locality name and the "north border of Panama" but the creation of the article is separate from the initial use of the name on NL Wiki on what was otherwise a mostly constructive edit. There may be an earlier source of the names on some long forgotten self published taxonomy website lost to time, but who knows. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The article about Hesham Sallam

While looking through dinosaur articles, I noticed that Hesham Sallam, the describer of Mansourasaurus, has an article, despite not having a lot of notable contributions to paleontology under his name. Looking deeper, I discovered some... odd things about the page. See my analysis on the talk page. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've nominated the article for deletion. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I commented there, the gist being that it is unfortunate we have so few articles about non-western scientists, and many sources about him are probably in Arabic. Anyway, that's not based on Misplaced Pages gui8delines necessarily, so let's see how it goes. But I think we can be more lax for the sake of balance. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Felid merge proposals

I have proposed merging the articles Panthera schreuderi and P. toscana to the article Panthera gombaszoegensis, as the former two are mere junior synonyms. Please comment here.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If those are clear cut cases, you should add merge tags to the articles to attract more attention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done so. Thank you for the reminder. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hominid fossil stubs and short articles - merge?

While reviewing Paranthropus boisei, I noticed the user Nowimnthing created dozens of short or stub articles for hominid fossils back in 2006 (see here and sub-cats). Today, some of them have been expanded to a point that could justify keeping them separate (though much of this info is about the taxa, not the specimens themselves, and therefore WP:content forks), but many remain short stubs with little logic as to why they would remain separate from their respective taxon articles (see for example Peninj Mandible or AL 200-1). I'd suggest most of them be merged, but since it's a significant number of articles, it needs a wider discussion. An alternative could be merging them and their info into List of human evolution fossils, as was done with the informally named dinosaurs articles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Coelurosauravus jaekeli

I undid some changes to Coelurosauravus jaekeli because they broke the taxobox. An editor has now just changed the text of the article to change the binomial, but not moved it nor changed the taxobox. Could someone look at it please? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Transferred to Weigeltisaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

All eyes needed

I just found this article with a large portion of the text that was added by the subject themselves, Michael Wachtler, who appears to be promoting self published pseudoscience paleontology.--Kevmin § 01:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does he meet the notability baseline to even have an article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he does; the article should be deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of text in the article sure doesn't pertain directly to him. Don't think we need a detailed exposition of Megachirella wachtleri in a BLP. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The entire article beyond the Life section sounds like an editorial; just pick out any sentence at random and it sounds wholly un-encyclopedic and far too flowery, "Unimpressed by the charges brought up and the prison sentences, Michael Wachtler is considered more and more to be the "warning voice" against the destruction of nature in the Dolomites. Although the DoloMythos Museum is in danger of being closed by the authorities, he continues to fight without pause and more than ever before to raise the awareness of humans for the fragile environment"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have started a deletion discussion

I think many of the references also seem unreliable, but I'm not sure. The whole article also seems a bit strange; agreed that a detailed section for an animal discovery is unnecessary, and a lot of sentences do seem un-encyclopedic. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, what is the purpose of the Prehistoric reptile article? It feels like a relic from 2009. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Err, maybe redirect to Evolution of reptiles? Seems like a pointless WP:Content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oculudentavis, the saga continues

The preprint for the second specimen has been made available which has been submitted to eLife and will probably be formally published soon, there is also an interesting accompanying NatGeo piece, which is worth a read. Oculudentavis is definitely a lizard, but with an uncertain placement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So who will dare draw our life restoration of it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Both skulls have been crushed in proportionally different ways, a restoration is given in the preprint (p. 27) which represents a compromise between the two, and on a technical level looks quite good., the amber dripping around what looks like the living lizard to obscure the unknown hind sections does look incredibly goofy though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That reconstruction should be under a free CC licence once published in eLife anyways, right, so we can use it directly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Schöningen forest elephant merge discussion

Based on the notability discussion that happened during the withdrawn DYK nomination, I have started a merge discussion on talk:Schöningen forest elephant, input is requested.--Kevmin § 15:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Parirau ataroa moved to mainspace

I called an AfD on the draft of this article in July which resulted in it being kept. The article has now been moved to mainspace at Parirau ataroa and I have opened up a second deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Parirau ataroa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Correlations tables

Tisquesusa has started to add "correlations" tables which show a rather random selection of formations from a given time period and shows a point system graph of what has been found in the formations. See Victorlemoinea and Golden Valley Formation. the problem is there is no indication of what sources are used for each table, and from my perspective they seem like rather wp:coatrackish information dumps collectons. For the Golden Valley formation, why have the rest of the Okanagan highlands formations been left off (Klondike Mountain Formation, McAbee Fossil Beds, Driftwood Canyon etc, while several formations with no articles are on the table. thoughts?--Kevmin § 01:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not keen on them, for all the reasons you give. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it either. If we want something like this, we need sources like Fowler (2017) . Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I already dislike the San Juan Cretaceous stratigraphy image that has been slapped on to numerous formation articles (e.g. Kirtland Formation), which poorly represents the complex intertonguing relationships of the San Juan basin. But I can at least imagine it being useful for some reader somewhere, and it's probably okay appearing just once in San Juan Basin. This one has the potential to be slapped onto hundreds of articles and shed almost no light in any of them. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume your comment is re: Fowler? I don't disagree, these sources need to be judiciously used in articles in a way that complements and illustrates surrounding prose, instead of replacing it altogether. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Steneosaurus finally exploded

The wastebasket taxon Steneosaurus was finally broken up, but that leaves a lot of new articles for us to create, and synonyms to redirect (and free images to upload), so please have a look: https://peerj.com/articles/9808/?fbclid=IwAR3kGmKVKlYj40gUCpYLt2Il81ntg-acIy0jgjNAeBid9KILf3jS6Vc77Y4 FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Project-Class Palaeontology pages
• NA-importance Palaeontology pages
• Project-Class Palaeontology articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject Palaeontology articles