User talk:Velociraptor mongoliensis
Mass Editing[edit]
Hello, I've noticed you've been editing a lot of dates in articles under the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology. I wanted to ask you kindly if there's a good reason behind these edits, and to stop publishing them if this is not the case. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Some dates on the pages don't seem to align 100% like how the Afrovenator page said 167 - 157 million years ago and it said "Middle Jurassic" even though 157 million years ago is the late jurassic or how the how the Omphalosauridae page said that they evolved 252 million years ago and said that it was the Triassic, even though that was 100,000 years before the Permian mass extinction. Velociraptor mongoliensis (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The solution is to just not mention the dates in the taxobox. There's a lot of nuance to geological dating, and most estimated stage boundaries come with error bars, sometimes in the vicinity of millions of years. As a result, many editors approximate ages to the nearest million year (for example, 251.9 Ma, which is early Triassic, approximates to 252 Ma). A more preferable solution is to track down the estimated biostratigraphic stage mentioned for a formation a species is found in. For example, if you can find a source that says Omphalosaurus has been found in sediments dated to the early Induan age by ammonoids or conodonts or whatever, then that would justify a 251 million year old estimate for its oldest occurrence. If not, then it would be misleading to claim that its oldest occurrence was 251 Ma. That's the problem we have with your edits: if you see that a dinosaur has been listed as "Middle Jurassic" in age, then you jump to adding "174.1 to 163.5" in the fossil range. Even though there's nothing that implies that genus survived through the entire Middle Jurassic. Your edits are misleading and make unjustifiable assumptions about how fossil taxa are positioned in time. If you're in any way willing to accept that explanation then I implore you to please stop creating disruptive sockpuppet accounts. They're a waste of your time and a waste of our time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand. Velociraptor mongoliensis (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The solution is to just not mention the dates in the taxobox. There's a lot of nuance to geological dating, and most estimated stage boundaries come with error bars, sometimes in the vicinity of millions of years. As a result, many editors approximate ages to the nearest million year (for example, 251.9 Ma, which is early Triassic, approximates to 252 Ma). A more preferable solution is to track down the estimated biostratigraphic stage mentioned for a formation a species is found in. For example, if you can find a source that says Omphalosaurus has been found in sediments dated to the early Induan age by ammonoids or conodonts or whatever, then that would justify a 251 million year old estimate for its oldest occurrence. If not, then it would be misleading to claim that its oldest occurrence was 251 Ma. That's the problem we have with your edits: if you see that a dinosaur has been listed as "Middle Jurassic" in age, then you jump to adding "174.1 to 163.5" in the fossil range. Even though there's nothing that implies that genus survived through the entire Middle Jurassic. Your edits are misleading and make unjustifiable assumptions about how fossil taxa are positioned in time. If you're in any way willing to accept that explanation then I implore you to please stop creating disruptive sockpuppet accounts. They're a waste of your time and a waste of our time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. JBW (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)