Talk:Paleobiota of the Maotianshan Shales

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genus articles

Most of the genera listed link back to the list itself. That is kind'a stupid, no?Marcraymond (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to redirect and merge all genera into this article whithout giving any information to the genera --Melly42 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcraymond and Melly42: absolutely. I've asked about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#List of Chengjiang Biota species by phylum. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Nailiana.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra ref.s

I need a ref. for the new species of Stanleycaris but I’m bad at referencing. Zhenghecaris (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanleycaris is not from the Chengjiang, but the Qingjiang, sorry Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so expansive

Gonna be honest I just realized that this article is supposed to include the Guanshan Biota as well. And going off the Maotianshan Shales page, also a bunch of other unrelated formations according to a single source that doesnt actually imply theyre related??

This doesnt make any sense to me. Why are all these different biotas being lumped into the same 2 pages? The Burgess Shale is made of different localities but this seems way worse. The Chengjiang Biota is found in the Yu'anshan Member of the Chiungchussu Formation - above this is the Hongjingshao Formation which includes the Xiaoshiba Biota, and then above this is the Wulongqing Formation which includes the Guanshan Biota.

All these different faunas are different faunas and not even part of the same geologic formation. Why on earth are they lumped together like this?

I could go through and add all the missing Guanshan Biota and Xiaoshiba biota and Balang Biota (which is its own formation, and not even from the same geological stage), and then add a column to specify which formation/biota theyre from, but why would I do that? These should be split. Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it back to List of Chengjiang Biota species by phylum, since “Paleobiota of the Chengjiang Biota” sounds weird. And in regards to the main page, splitting off Guanshan and Balang and Xiaoshiba into their own pages makes the most sense.IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prehistorica CM: (which is its own formation, and not even from the same geological stage) Then its NOT to be included here. The Maotianshan Shales article makes it clear that the shales only include the Chengjiang Biota, with the other biota correctly noted as occurring in the same (vast) country BUT in shale units. The current title here is very specific and focuses only on the Maotianshan Shales unit of the Chiungchussu Formation (which should not be redirected to the shales in the first place. I moved the article to this title for precision and to match the number of other Paleobiota articles that are now present.--Kev min § 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: why do the Guanshan biota have a section on the Maotianshan Shales page when they aren’t even from the Chiungchussu Formation, but rather from the Wulongqing Formation (speaking of, the latter needs its own page…)? I have also corrected the list of other sites from “The shales also…” to “Various other shales in China…” to mention that they’re separate formations, and not actually subunits of the Maotianshan Shales. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer as to why the scope was expanded beyond the Chengjiang Biota, and I'm not sure where it was ever implied that it should be? My main contribution was standardization of the article title to match the other Paleobiota series titles. @Prehistorica CM: where are you seeing the expanded scope you are referring to?--Kev min § 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to remove a taxon because it was from the Guanshan Biota, not the Chengjiang biota. Then I thought about it and noticed this page doesn’t say it’s only listing the Chengjiang Biota, but anything from the Maotianshan Shales. I went to that parent page to see what Wikipedia includes under that umbrella, and saw that it seemingly included every Cambrian lagerstatte from China, apparently.

The bit about Balang and the others was made less direct (though it’s still weird to mention, seems basically irrelevant or obvious that other fossils have been found in China), but the Maotianshan page still includes both the Guanshan and Chengjiang biota, despite them being two different faunas from two different geological formations, which obviously contradicts the “Maotianshan is part of the Chiungchussu Formation” bit.

I was willing to ignore the framing of the main page in such a weird way, but now that it’s affecting the list I put a lot of work into I do care. I would change this page back to “Paleobiota of the Chengjiang Biota” or whatever if I knew how. And obviously the main page needs updating as well. Prehistorica CM (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should I delete the Guanshan biota section, or leave it alone until a separate page is made, then move it over? IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistorica CM keeping in mind the pitfall of Wp:ownership, the Maotianshan Shales ONLY hosts the Chengjiang Biota, per the relevant reliable sources. I STILL am not seeing anywhere in this or the Maotianshan Shales that states the Guanshan Biota is "found in the Maotianshan Shales". The redirect of "Guanshan fauna" to the shales article occurred over a decade ago in 2009 before Chinese stratigraphic complexity was well communicated and understood in western literature. I word smithed the section in the Maotianshan Shales on the "Guanshan fauna to make it very obvious its a different thing and it really should be split out to its own formation article IC1101-Capinatator.--Kev min § 18:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I was being dramatic. In any case that looks fine for now. I still think ideally there should be a page for the Guanshan / Wulongqing, I might work on that soon. Prehistorica CM (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]