Talk:Penghu 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tedvogel. Peer reviewers: Ptama003, Theturtleprincess, Dhern041.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move to Penghu 1
Penghu 1 appears to be the most widely used name of the fossil, both in the original description and in secondary, third-party sources (e.g.   ). The name Homo tsaichangensis currently appears to be used only in the McMenamin paper, published nearly concurrently. Until reliable secondary sources start to use "Homo tsaichangensis", I think we should focus on calling it Penghu 1, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WEIGHT, as that is what people reading the popular news articles above are most likely to seek. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Support MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Move completed. I've also retooled the article to portray how it is currently covered by third party sources (i.e. species indet., too soon to tell). When there is any reliable secondary coverage of "Homo tsaichangensis" then we can evaluate the weight of McMenamin 2015. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with proposed move after enhanced discussion of the species identification issue. Chang et al. provided more than enough evidence to establish a new species as McMenamin points out. Penghu 1 scores 7 out of 16 key traits as either outlier or off the charts with respect to other Late Pleistocene species of Homo. Reading between the lines of the Chang et al. paper, there may have been some internal discord among the authors over the species naming issue. McMenamin 2015 has cleared this impasse, and the name Homo tsaichangensis is fully in accord with the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) naming rules. The species name could of course be synonymized or revised by later work, but this seems unlikely at this point based on the evidence presented in the two papers.Circulationsys (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is currently no reason to question its valid publication, in spite of comments that the author is not an expert in Homo and the publication's ownership. The only issue is that, for Wikipedia the article title should not be based on a single source. And the name's inclusion should not be based on one primary source. As the name gets further mention, it can be inluded, even retitling the article. Now, this is best. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, a new species of Homo should not be added to templates and all over Wikipedia based on one publication. Please don't continue to do this. Paleoanthropologists will take time on this one. MicroPaLeo (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Penghu 1 restored to Homo species list. Wikipedia readers now able to access additional information on this fossil from the Homo page. Circulationsys (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source, other than the one article, that says it is a species? MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found another one. None of the sources mention this, but Penghu 1 likely is a new species because Taiwan would have been separated from the mainland during glacial times. Circulationsys (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By, do you have a source, I guess I mean, can you post one? If you can, everyone here will help you out. A blog is not a reliable source. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)