User talk:Abyssal/Archive 2

Date format

Hi, just noticed some articles you've created recently have the wrong date format on "Retrieved on", creating redlinks. Pleas use 2008-01-12 instead of 01/12/08. Thanks. Lampman (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanahughmilleria

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nanahughmilleria, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nanahughmilleria. Thin boy 00 @276, i.e. 05:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience

I have nominated 1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Redfarmer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the AfD discussion above and find out. Redfarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2005 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article is empty and is not pure fact.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SimpsonsFan2008 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles

Hi,

Looks to me like you should just save any info in those articles. Of course the sources exist, at least for most years. But you probably won't convince people of that. It's easy to re-create articles (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion

A user on the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience has come up with a compromise which I quite think is a very good idea. I thought I'd let you know so you can take a look and see what you think. Redfarmer (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of paranormal, fringe and pseudoscience

With regards to the "Timeline of.." article idea, I've pasted the contents of your articles into a sort of bare-bones timeline article on my sandbox (partly because I've never created an article before and I wanted to have a go) but I'm very unlikely to get a chance to do anything else with it over the weekend, so feel free to either use what I've got there and expand it until it's ready to go, or copy it to your space (or ignore it entirely, I won't mind :) ) MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoceratops

The "sail" on the tail is actually quill like structures that were found in a fossil of the related genus Psittacosaurus. No such structure has been found associated with Archaeoceratops remains, but since these two genera are related, there is a possibility that the latter genus had them as well... ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the quill-like structures on Psittacosaurus tail have only been published in 2002 (Mayr, Gerald, Peters, D. Stephan, Plodowski, Gerhard & Vogel, Olaf. (2002). Bristle-like integumentary structures at the tail of the horned dinosaur Psittacosaurus. Naturwissenschaften 89: 361–365.).ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claypole (eurypterid)

After a cursory google I suspect that this is an error. Claypole is a worker on eurypterids, and the author of a number of generic and specific names. It is quite possible that a genus could be named in his honour, but one would expect a spelling such as Claypolea or Claypolia. If you agree you can blank the page and mark it as a candidate for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Claypole lacoana brings up Dolichocephala lacoana Claypole syn Ctenopterus lacoana (Claypole) and lots of Wikipedia mirrors.

A possible source is [Paleopedia], which has a malformatted list of eurypterids. This refers to back to Palaeos. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pterygotus

The species names have abbreviated forms of what I assume to be subgenus names. These don't appear to be defined anywhere. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling finds that the (A.) refers to subgenus Acutiramus, which is in Wikipedia as a genus. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurypterus remipes

This article, as it currently stands, is neither an article for Eurypterus remipes, nor for the genus Eurypterus. I suggest renaming it as the genus, and replacing the species with a redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the reference...

I removed that reference from Styloichthyes because there is the same reference repeated on the same page, and also the article about Styloichthyes exists now. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synapsid categorization

I'd say "synapsids of X" is reasonable; you can always make mammals a subcategory, or, for the convenience of those who don't know that mammals are synapsids, have the mammals of X category under both the synapsids of X and the greater Y of X category. J. Spencer (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Peter Deer (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm very sorry I seem to have reverted something on your to-do list. I apologize profusely for my mistake. Peter Deer (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo years

Is the introduction really necessary? Isn't it a bit patronising? Wouldn't it be better if you added actual events themselves or do you intend doing this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why 1946 in paleontology etc etc 1918 in paleontology is categorized as 1950 either? Shouldn't this be 1946 in science? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are all categorized as 1950? WHy is this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK but perhaps you could add an {{Under construction}} tag next time so other editors know your intentions. No there is nothing wrong with that text in the main article it is clear and very understandable, just didn't see the need to repeat it on every year ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a good idea in principal and if eventually we have a detailed account of events by year in that field of study the encyclopedia can only be improved. I'll assume good faith and leave you to it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be able to fix odd glitches in articles, like the glitch in the dates for Cuvier. I do hope you can add more content to those "Year in paleo" articles; they seem kind of thin... --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floian

If the "official" name of the arenig group is Floian, you should:

add the word Floian to the article and explain its derivation
move the article to the new title. Do not copy&paste beacuse this hides the edit history.

-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the vast majority of the incoming links are to Arenig, it is probably better to leave the article there. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Please discuss this at Talk:Arenig#Move to Floian?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish

Feel free to incorporate it if you see fit; I think it's helpful to have the separate article too, though. Perhaps a link or transclusion from the main list would be possible? Smith609 Talk 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accessdate in citations

Hi, it looks like you're doing great work adding fish articles. I have one minor issue to raise with you: when adding citations and using the 'accessdate' tag, please enter the date in format YYYY-MM-DD e.g. accessdate=2008-04-12. Unfortunately this tag doesn't work properly unless this exact format is used - see Template:Cite web#Required_parameters and it looks like you've been entering the date in a different format e.g. [1]. I'll fix your recent contributions using AWB. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoposeidon

You're welcome. Just don't do it again. ;) J. Spencer (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics

Just dropping by and say thanks for creating those size-comparison computer graphics. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plesiosaurus size

Hi, some very cool size comparisons you've been making, you should put them on Commons, but there is a little problem with the Plesiosaurus one[2], since you have based the silhouette on an outdated reconstruction where the head is held in a swan like manner. It wasn't possible for Plesiosaurus to do that, so maybe you could fix that? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Award!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your difficult work adding in-line sources to Antarctosaurus, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thanks so much for taking the article under your wing and improving it significantly. If only we had a hundred more editors willing to work on articles like this. Thank you so much. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work!!

Very good work with the Paleontology Portal!! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headings in short stubs

Hi Abyssal,

You've been adding headings to stub articles. WP:MOS recommends here that headings are to be used to "provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." On stubs which are only 1 or 2k, there is no possibility of the reader getting lost in the text, as 100% of the text already fits on the page, in two or three paragraphs. Separate headings for single paragraphs are thus unnecessary, unless there is a plan to expand the article within a short period. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Abyssal. I think I may have been looking at the wrong diffs (my mistake, not yours). I think your additions are an improvement, and would like to encourage you to make more, not fewer! Your work is GOOD. Again, my apologies. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I've removed duplicate sequential footnotes, but on the whole, your edits are pretty awesome. Ironically, I've been lamenting for months that WP:DINO needs more serious article writers willing to add sourced content to articles. Then I go and revert one who comes along... Firsfron of Ronchester 14:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Firsfron of Ronchester 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yixian Formation et al

What is the "Presence" field for? Whether a taxon is exclusive to that formation/epoch, or what? BTW we have a new bird from the Yixian Fm., Zhongornis. No pygostyle, but a shortened tail. Quite interesting; it's either a transitional form of a lineage eventually evolving a pygostyle, or transitional in that episode of avian evolution (i.e., not leading to a pygostyle as such, but indicative of a general tail shortening in avians of that time: the Yixian fm. has probably a higher diversity of avian tail anatomies than any other with this latest find). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... might it not be more useful to denote whether a taxon is only found in this formation or also elsewhere? For birds at least, the matter is pretty clear; after all most formations are readily recognizable, especially if they are bordered by unconformities. What is often disputed is the formation's age.

Take for example the famous Hornerstown formation which straddles the K-Pg boundary. It has been much reworked, and contains a mix of Cretaceous and Paleogene fossils. But in all cases, it is undisputed that the fossils do come from that particular formation; it is too characteristic (phosphoritic greensand IIRC). Same goes for the Jehol formation - we do not with 100% certainty know whether it does not contain the odd Jurassic critter, but for the most part the fauna is solidly Cretaceous. In any case, assignment of taxca to this formation is not really disputed in any case I have seen.

Fossil bird taxa are on the other hand often known only from a single specimen, whereas Psittacosaurus for example are all over the place. So at least from an ornithological standpoint, it would be more useful to signify whether the fossil record is limited to one particular stratum or whether the taxon is found more widely. In other taxa it might differ, but especially in non-avian dinos it would probably be really good to be able to tell it at a glance.

Of course one could make table columns for both, but that might become an issue of space. So if there is anything that I'd put into a footnote, it's disputed occurrence in a particular epoch or formation, and if there is something I would put into the table, it is whether a taxon is known from one epoch or formation only. The latter varies more, whereas the former is probably "Confirmed" in 95% of the cases (excluding some 19th-century fossils perhaps). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Evolution in popular culture and entertainment

Category:Evolution in popular culture and entertainment, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Category:Prehistoric life in popular culture and entertainment is also listed for renaming, to bring both into conformity with their sibling cats. Cgingold (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]