User talk:Severan

Hibbertopterus

The title Hibbertopteroid track has been a redirect for nearly three years. I have no objection to another redirect at Hibbertopteroid trackway. But for the moment anything you have to say about the Scottish fossils should be added to the Hibbertopterus article. Discuss the possibilty of split in talk:Hibbertopterus. Why do feel an apparently desperate need for a separate article? Also "WEst Lothian" is awfully vague: are you going to give us a grid ref? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The text for the trackway is the same as it was originally, I have only moved it to another page and added text for Hibbertopterus itself. Scientifically trackways and their possible producer are dealt with separately, as one can never be sure of the producer; I was just trying to reflect this in the structure of the article. I had planned to update most of the eurypterid pages based on recent taxonomic revisions and new theories as a result of my own research, and as it has focused around the suborder Stylonurina (and superfamily Hibbertopteroidea in particular) I felt that this would be the best place to start. To be honest I can't exactly see the point of a page about the trackway - a simple citation to one of the many news articles on it would suffice. What I wanted was for the page dealing with the genus should be about the genus, and not a single trackway. By and large the accuracy of the eurypterid articles on wikipedia is poor (the list of taxa needs updating, as names which were sunk fifty years ago are still listed as valid), and sorely needs updating. Severan (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurypterids and such

Thank you for showing interest in helping our coverage of eurypterids! When knowledgable experts help it is very appreciated. We should decide on some abbreviations for geologic epochs before making major changes to the eurypterid list. Drop me a note when you get ready to work on that and I'll help as much as I can.

BTW, how does one get involved in eurypterid research? They're not like dinosaurs where there's a wide assortment of readings at different levels so you can start studying as a kid and work your way up. So far as I know there is no good popular treatment of the subject at all. Abyssal (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, geological names! People are still publishing papers using names that have been out of use for 30 years.

I kind of fell into eurypterids really - I had a general interest in palaeontology (mostly dinosaurs) when I was younger, and had the good fortune to land an MSc at Bristol with Simon Braddy working on stylonurids - mainly because the project actually involved fossils. Found out they were fascinating creatures and fully intend to keep working on them. I have a hare-brained scheme to get a popular picture-type book of eurypterids published, but I'm not really sure any publisher would touch it with a barge pole - other than Eurypterus and pterygotids noone particularly cares about them, sadly. Severan (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, anything's possible. I could see a book like that being sold. Anyway, I look forward to working with you on our Eurypterid coverage. Abyssal (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Drepanopterus art

I notice that on the Drepanopterus image there is no mention of a license and it credits a DeviantArt account as its source. I just wanted to verify that the image's license was one apropriate for inclusion on the project. I hope so, it's a great pic! Abyssal (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The art was actually done by my brother for my thesis redescribing the species - it will not actually appear in the paper, though. He has it up on deviantart though - I hope this is not unsuitable. Severan (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Images have to be under free licenses. See here. If you're brother is willing to license it under one of those, then it's perfectly fine. :) Abyssal (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Daggers/Crosses in taxoboxes

I notice you've been using daggers/crosses to denote extinct taxa in taxoboxes. I have two comments:

1. You didn't mark the genus the article is about with one, but did mark the higher order taxa with them, implying that the genus is still alive but its family etc are extinct. That doesn't make much sense. :P
2. Although I support your use of the daggers in taxoboxes, other members of WP:PALEO have objected to that kind of usage when I proposed it because it would require a lot of work putting them in every paleo-related article and trying to do it gradually would leave undesirable inconsistencies between articles for long periods.

Abyssal (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Put that down to minor stupidity on my part - got so hung up with the higher taxonomic assignments I neglected the genus.

1. Ah, I didn't realise this (I was just copying the kind of format seen on other pages). I'm happy to not put them on if that's what people prefer - perhaps a little standard sentence at the start of all the taxa pages 'xxxx is a member of the extinct group of aquatic chelicerates, eurypterids' or some such.

Severan (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I support what you've been doing, just letting you know that there are some party poopers in our midst. :P Abyssal (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:12th draft.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:12th draft.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)