Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Cradle of Humankind[edit]

Could someone please reassess the above article ? Thanks Anthere (talk)

Margaretia and Oesia[edit]

I just read this article which asserts that Margaretia is not as previously thought - and actually made and lived in by Oesia - so it looks like the two articles may need to merge, but I'm not sufficiently up on the subject to be feeling bold, though the article seems pretty coherent and clear on the matter. So I thought I'd raise it here. EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if they are synonyms, they should be merged. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
All the detail can be found here - note that this paper is published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Mikenorton (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this the way it is done, immediately redo a taxonomy based on one, just-published article? --Volcanic throat (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Usually, yes. Sometimes the paper itself states their finding is tentative or weakly supported, then it is good to wait for confirmation. Otherwise, it is easy to revert later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That paper seems to strongly support Margaretia simply being part of Oesia, something that also happened for Anomalocaris, so it seems probable. IJReid discuss 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems too soon, especially as a taxonomy, when scientists in the field are just beginning the discussion. It is an odd policy for an unspecialized resource, to race the experts to the punchline. --Volcanic throat (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Specimens of Archaeopteryx reassessment[edit]

I've devoted a great deal of time working to flesh out the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, which was last assessed at C-class quite a long time ago. Requesting a quality reassessment at this stage. (Cross-posting this request to its other Wikiprojects, just fyi.) Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have expanded it too much. :P It looks like we could split it into pretty decent articles on all the major specimens now. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally a mergist rather than a splitter when it comes to such "historical review" articles. At 131,772 bytes, it isn't near the 186,904 byte Maya civilization article which became an FA recently, for example. The more articles about essentially the same subject, the more articles that need to be maintained, with much duplicate information. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Maya civilization" is a more unified concept than a list of separate individual specimens. Abyssal (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The original discussions about splitting/merging the specimens articles can be seen here and here. The specimens list was, at different points, a collection of separate articles and a discrete section of the Archaeopteryx article. I'll quote my main line of reasoning given in 2012, which still holds now: "I support creating a new article for all of the specimens together over each specimen having its own article because there is much more source material for some specimens than others, and some, like the most recent '11th specimen', haven't yet been published fully and don't yet have the notability for a full article, yet are still important to mention in context." Of course, maybe we didn't anticipate how much notable information there actually is on some of these specimens, so I'm happy to reconsider a major split if we can get more input and reach something resembling a consensus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In any case, I think it should be up to the writers doing the expansion work to decide. But I don't see a reason for splitting if the split articles would just be entirely duplicated information (as the Maxberg specimen article seems to be). FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I turned the Maxberg article into a redirect for now (will reverse if splitting ends up being the ultimate decision). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoration vs. reconstruction[edit]

There seems to have been confusion here in the past (and in some FAC discussions) about what the terms "restoration" and "reconstruction" refer to in palaeontology. Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs" (1984): "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." Maybe there are other definitions as well? And where does it leave skeletal diagrams with missing parts reconstructed/restored? Might be good to know for future writing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I support the traditional usage. Abyssal (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


BioRxiv support in citations[edit]

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)