Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon 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 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Featured non-dinosaur articles[edit]

Very few non-dinosaur paleo articles have been featured, I can only think of Deinosuchus and woolly mammoth, Ediacara biota, and several subfossil lemurs. Anyone have suggestions for which others that could be pulled through? LittleJerry recently made Smilodon a GA, for example, and that one could probably do, after some expansion. Some pterosaur articles are in pretty good shape, but we have not even a single FA pterosaur article. SmokeyJBJ has also expanded many non-dinosaur articles a great deal, maybe some could be taken to FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that Plesiosauria, Mosasaurus, Mosasaur and Hupehsuchia could be revised and expanded, and Pteranodon and Dimetrodon be a candidate to FA.--Rextron (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Smokey did a good job on Dimetrodon, maybe he's on it? FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If only I had the time! I haven't been active lately and probably won't be for another few months, so someone else can feel free to try to bring these articles to FA status while I'm gone. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


This article seems to be a bit too long in my opinion which cuts down on its readability. I ran it by Dinoguy2 here and got his feedback. Any suggestions on what to do about it? Should the individual species be made into their own articles? ScienceApe (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at any featured dinosaur articles, it is certainly not too long. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads[edit]

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Purbeck articles[edit]

Any reason why Purbeck Group and Purbeck Limestone Formation should be separate? And how does it fit with Purbeck Marble? FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

At a brief glance it would seem that the limestone and the marble were formerly specific units in the larger Purbeck group. The limestone is in serious need of expansion though so its I'm not fully confident in my assumption, and the modern formations should have articles created I think.--Kevmin § 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the BGS lexicon of rock units, Purbeck Limestone Formation is one of the previous names for the Purbeck Group, so they should be merged. Purbeck Marble is a building stone taken from some distinctive limestone layers within the Durlston Formation, itself part of the Purbeck Group. To complete the picture we have Purbeck stone, which refers to all of the limestone beds within the group that have been used as building stone, of which the Purbeck Marble is just an example. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah. So it is not a formation within the "group"? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No, just an alternative name for the same sequence of rocks. They also get called the Purbeck Limestone Group, to maximise the confusion. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems like clear merge then, not sure if there's anything to salvage from the shorter article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed extinct animal images[edit]

Here's a "heads up" for anyone interested. Some time ago I created a Commons category for photos of extinct animals that have not received scientific names yet, or are to be reclassified. The category can be found here[1], and currently contains almost a hundred images. The point is to keep track of the images, and add them to articles once the taxa are named. But since there are so many different animals, I'll hardly be able to keep track alone, and there is also a possibility that some of these have already been named in the meantime (or will never be named), without me knowing it, so any help would be great. It's also a nice category to look at if anyone wants to know at least some of what's in store for palaeontology in the near future.

Here's a selection of some that are already well known, but need names. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The "skimmer porpoise" above was just named Semirostrum. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Nice catch!--Rextron (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The Hell Creek "Chirostenotes" was just named Anzu (dinosaur)! Weird that these two were named so soon after I made this thread, the specimens have been known for years... FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Paleozoic up for featured portal status[edit]

Today I nominated the Paleozoic Portal for featured portal status. Your comments and criticism are welcome at the nomination page. Abyssal (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ouch, your main image is a very likely copyright violation! Liopleurodon93 uploaded a lot of un free images back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Shit. It looked good there, too. Abyssal (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Helianthoides labyrinthica[edit]

Dear paloentologists: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything in it that should be added to the Nereites irregularis article, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is a synonym, it should be merged/redirected. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There's already a redirect Helianthoides labyrinthica, so that's taken care of. Is there any useful content to merge? I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't tell. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any unique material. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it's gone now. Thanks for taking time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Task list discussion (Articles needed or needing improvements)[edit]

  • I hope I wasn't too bold in recently adding a section to Articles needed or needing improvements on translating high-quality material from foreign language wikis. The layout and wording can surely be revised if anyone sees fit. I also added tips on inclusion criteria (i.e., articles with substantial, well-referenced material), to hopefully identify the most informative articles to translate.
  • Secondly, we might be more specific with "Articles needed or needing improvements", e.g. clarify what exactly needs improving. Save FA and GA, almost all articles can use improvements, so without a prompt (e.g. "new review paper out" or "grossly lacking in citations"), improvement may be slow to come. Similarly, to prevent clutter and to keep the most pressing and/or most recently added materials in view, we might discuss delisting 'criteria', and/or simply have a kind note to please remove your chosen article from the task list after making improvements. Thoughts?--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is a very good iniciative. I've seen that some articles in German about extinct rhinos and others articles in Spanish that could be useful (for example, the species of Arctotherium or the SALMAs). Also, about the improvements I think that the section of years in paleontology could be useful. By the way, many articles of proboscideans need improvement, at least the scientific authorities of species and bibliography.--Rextron (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there's an easier way to identify articles in non-English Wiki that don't exist yet in English. I've found a few by Googling and a French or German wiki article comes up, and others based on hunches, trial and error (e.g. clicking one of the "other languages" links and crossing my fingers). --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't known another way different of make searchs in Google or ask to editors in another wikipedias... I only can talk for the Spanish one.--Rextron (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are also several Italian articles we don't have. By the way, never thought about it before, but since Pteridospermatophyta is included here, does the project cover fossil plants as well? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Paleontology in Georgia[edit]

FYI, Paleontology in Georgia (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) has been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Paleontology in Georgia -- (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Linda A. Tsuji[edit]

Please help expand this new stub! Bearian (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but are you sure this person is notable per WP:SCHOLAR? Links to published papers, and/or Science Daily (which prints press releases, not original, independent news stories) may not be sufficient. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not sure, but she's linked to several articles, so I was being bold and created it. Feel free to send it to WP:AfD, but send me a notice. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Zatrachys Copyright vio needs attention[edit]

The article Zatrachys was previously a verbatim copy of this abstract and needs rewriting. See also the potential plagiarism at Dicksonosteus. I've reduced it to a stub and placed a notice on the user's talk page to stem future copypaste violations. Anyone is welcome to contribute to these stubs.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Taxa with documented paleopathologies up for deletion[edit]

I created a category for prehistoric taxa whose fossils preserve evidence of ancient illness or disease so that interested readers could browse through different taxa preserved with such conditions, because information on what taxa have paleopathologies is difficult to come by for the layman. However, a user has contested the appropriateness of this category and has nominated it for deletion. I was seeking feedback from interested contributors as to whether or not this category should be kept. Abyssal (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)