Talk:List of fossil sites

Geology List‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:List of fossil sites is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology List‑class High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article 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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most of these aren't fossil sites but rather formations, meant in the very narrow geological sense of "a laterally expansive group of genetically related rocks." For example, the Smoky Hill Chalk "fossil site" can not be said to refer to anything smaller than an area of several hundred square miles in Kansas and adjoining states. A better use for this list would be for individual locations at which fossils are found, have been found, or can be found. E.g., Olduvai Gorge, Penn-Dixie Quarry, La Brea Tarpits.

Yes, but there is no article dedicated to geological formations, and this seems presently the most convenient and appropriate place to collect them. Some were listed already, I started adding a few others I found in the WP or would need for articles I did, and it went on from there. (It is also convenient as a to-do list ;-).

Besides, there is no definite boundary. A "fossil site" - in practical use - can be as small as the Laornis quarry, or it can be an entire network like the Jehol Formation, or it can be rather synonymous in content with a formation if the latter is not explored in other places.

It might seem nonsensical to the anthropologist who deals with only a few handfuls of key sites. One could add avian paleontology sites like Willow Creek or Mátraszõlõs or Pemberton, New Jersey, but then again, formation info would probably be sufficient for the time being...

But I suggest to start making a table out of this. The data is getting confusing for the amount of it. Dysmorodrepanis 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Whew! after ~5 hours work I have converted the lists to a set of wikitables for each of the continets (plus New Zealand). Please check it over and not any mistakes that i missed. I was able to find several redlinks were just incorrect wikilinks to existing articles but i may have missed some so check the areas that you know. -Kevmin 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, this article should be converted to sortable tables (y'know, those with the clickable divided-square symbols in the top row).

What needs to be in there? (discuss here, and when there is consensus, it can be done)

Name

Country - might be difficult, sediments know no political borders. Any ideas?

Age, geological - use format: "Epoch, Subepoch: Stage"? Should work well. "Subepoch" would be Upper .

Age, absolute numbers - start with oldest. Needs remarks when age is coarsely assessed (eg subepoch). Formations, let alone single sites like Lake Mungo or Atapuerca, can often be dated very precisely. This section needs references.

I cannot code these at present :( Dysmorodrepanis 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to add a column that states the reason why the site is important; i.e. a unique fauna or fossil group or preservation style. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mungo

Although this area is classed as archaelogical it has some palaeontological relevance. Enlil Ninlil 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Dysmorodrepanis 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics

It may be just me, but I cannot scroll to the bottom of this page. Jinns in the program, no doubt.

IMO, I would have much more fun using this table if it were chronological instead of geographical. I suppose at least half the users will disagree with that one.

Finally, could the sites with hominid or ancestral-to-hominid remains be designated? Maybe something as simple as asterisking them would work; you have enough columns to worry about as it is.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

I'm against Dysmo's proposed merger with the list of dinosaur bearing rock formations. The latter is just too useful on its own.Abyssal (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe that is so, and would make this page too long. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merge as this page should end up duplicating everything on that page if it lives up to it's title. Otherwise we need to rename this page. I think the dinosaur page is too specific, there are surely non-dinosaur fossils in many of the formations listed. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs are so important historically and relevant culturally that I think they should get there own page, honestly. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if you used a sortable table with a column for major species or genus? then users could easily pull out the dino info. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Sites

I would add Hakel In Lebanon, a rather famous site for it's marine fossils.One not in use (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Be bold! Awickert (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by One not in use (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missing ?

I think literature reference abbreviation should be included. Perhaps not necessary as table (it si hundred of sites, but as wiki linked-string (spatially and next temporally ordered?). If red perhaps somebody link it; great if if blue. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]