Talk:Counter slab

	Paleontology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Unscrupulous"[edit]

I've removed this word and the similar replacement "avaricious" and attempted to explain on the contributor's talk page and in edit summaries why this is not appropriate (i.e. WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV), but it's been replaced again and I'm not willing to risk editwarring over it. Could we have a third opinion on the matter please? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Er, it's kinda hard to give a 3O when there hasn't been any discussion. Having said that, I think that adding an adjective in there is sort of editorializing and doesn't really bring anything to the article. Further, in the latest set of edits, a forum was added as a reference - and forums are not reliable sources. I'd say remove the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was in edit summaries and on the other user's talk page User_talk:Androstachys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred that the discussion/dispute took place on this page, but Giftiger_wunsch seems to feel otherwise. Androstachys (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is taking place on this page. The only reason it started on your talk page is because you asked me why I removed the term on your talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are large gaps in the history of the article because of your objections - I could easily move the omitted sections here. Androstachys (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion: Concur with HelloAnnyong. The disputed words are POV and inappropriate for the article. The article currently has a neutrally worded description of their actions, with acknowledgement of profit motivations. Readers can make up their ow mind as to whether this constitutes avarice or a lack of scruples. AJ Cham 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Opinion: Readers can decide for themselves if there are a lack of sculptures, this article must not be based on an opinion, all content must be sourced and there is no "official" article that says that the Counter Slab is Unscrupulous. Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Form of term[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move so retaining status quo. DMacks (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter slab → Counterslab — This term is usually spelled solid, as counterslab. Perhaps the article should be moved to that title.| Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)| Deor (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references all mention the term as "counter slab" or "counter-slab"; it seems (from the references, at least) that it's more common as two words. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, especially in British usage, hyphens are often used after prefixes, but I still think that the open form is the worst of the three possible titles. Searching along with "fossil" to eliminate irrelevant results, one gets:

Google Books: counterslab, 48 hits; counter-slab, 28 hits; counter slab, 23 hits
Google Scholar (confined to cases in which the Google snippet shows the form used): counterslab, 96 hits; counter-slab, 25 hits; counter slab, 28 hits

No skin off my nose, though. Deor (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that for fossil plants and insects in the US the terms "part/counterpart" are more often used.--Kev min § 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things need to be established here really: what national/regional standard of English is this article using, and is one version of the word/phrase significantly more common than others? If both terms are in common use (and the google hits seems to suggest that this is the case), then status quo means it should just stay here, as counterslab already redirects here anyway. As a side note, I've added the move template to this section to clarify the discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within wikipedia articles, "counterslab" appears to be the most common usage, although I am not sure that the individual articles were vetted for "proper use" of this term. [1] [2] [3] Active Banana (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm searching "slab counterslab" only returns 2 results in google scholar while " "part counterpart" fossil" returns 55 hits. many compression fossil scientific papers use the "part/counterpart" term. --Kev min § 23:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is not an evident consensus position, so relisting. If there is no consensus then it is likely that the status quo would be maintained. billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this entire article be part of something more encompassing, like an article on fossil matrix, or just the fossil article? The focus of the current article makes little sense. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope[edit]

The title seems a bit insufficient, since there can not be a counter slab without a "slab". And there is no reason to keep the two terms separate. Isn't there a better way to handle this? Perhaps merge with compression fossil? As I understand it, slabs and counter slabs are merely components of a compression fossil, and are not distinct in anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. I'm leaning towards a merger of the two articles, but my paleo terminology is a little rusty, so am not certain the two are identical. A fossil that is exposed by wear may not have a counterpart, but I think as long as both terms are prominently mentioned, there shouldn't be too much trouble. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it is also an arbitrary decision which slab is the "counter" one. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]