Talk:Rugoconites tenuirugosus

Image
How is it valid to have an artist's color drawing represent an extinct species? David notMD (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * it's usual to have a reconstruction to represent an extinct species – see e.g. Adoketophyton or Horneophyton for plants, nor to have colour drawings – see e.g. those at Pterosaur. The issue sometimes is ensuring reliability. Usually we can't use the original reconstruction from a published book or paper for copyright reasons, nor can we closely copy it. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

As is the normal practice for fossil species, this article should be merged into the genus article Rugoconites. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. Larrayal (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do not really get why I need to merge this article with the genus, since it would probably delete the article itself as well as there not being a page for it. User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus User_talk:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus — Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus There is no need to worry about that. The information on Rugoconites tenuirugosus will be transferred to Rugoconites, and people searching for R. tenuirugosus will be redirected to Rugoconites. As for the merge, I support it. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that, seeing as the other article which a user has merged with rugoconites (lorenzinites rarus) was completely wiped off the earth , and only has a simple redirect message. I do not want that to happen with Rugoconites Tenuirugosus , but , what I want to include is the redirect message , so that people visiting the page can be redirected to the Rugoconites article, instead of having all the text and species box from the page be removed.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus
 * The only thing differences between the Rugoconites species taxonomy is that Lorenzinites is synonimized with R. enigmaticus and there is a slight chance that R. tenuirugosus should be called Wadea (which isn't even addressed in taxobox). We do not need separate taxoboxes for them. As for information, the only unique thing about R. tenuirugosus is that it is flatter and has lots of fine ridges alongside it. There is no reason for them to be kept separate as long as that information is included in the article. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Rugoconites is one of few described Ediacaran genera that is not monospeciﬁc (Wade, 1972); however, Rugoconites enigmaticus is much more common than Rugoconites tenuirugosus. Rugoconites tenuirugosus has been differentiated from Rugoconites enigmaticus on the basis of thinner, more numerous ridges (Wade, 1972). The known specimens of R. tenuirugosus tend to be larger in diameter but have no vertical relief other than the minimal relief of the thin ridges (Wade, 1972). Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC))
 * Support As it's normal practice for fossil articles, I would certainly support a merge. To be frank, there's virtually nothing in the Rugoconites tenuirugosus page created by the eponymous author that isn't in the genus article, Rugoconites, already. A redirect from each species name will still take a user to the destination article, and we'll benefit from having one fewer poorly-written, tautology-laden article. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree on that. There is no point in the existence of a separate article, because very little can be said about this species. It is more convenient to learn about both Rugoconites species in one article. This is all that is said about Rugoconites tenuirugosus in the recent article (overview of australian Trilobozoa https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08120099.2018.1472666 ) by Australian colleagues:

"To be frank, there's virtually nothing in the Rugoconites tenuirugosus page" So you're saying that EVERYTHING from the rugoconites page is on the Rugoconites Tenuirugosus page?Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus


 * That is why the articles should be merged. It is better to have one comprehensive article than two short ones. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

After over a month of this discussion open, here is where the situation stands:
 * Five users agreeing to merge the article.
 * The eponymous author disagreeing with the merge.
 * All information from R. tenuirugosus being present on Rugoconites as well.
 * Rugoconites being a more comprehensive article which also includes an image.

Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically, as Stated in The article itself

"its taxonomy remains unclear, and it has been suggested that a new genus, named Wadea, should be erected for it."

(not proven yet, most notable reason why this sentence / theory exists is because of how different the species R. engimaticus and R. tenuirugosus are)

There is still a possibility that it isn't in the genus Rugoconites. But, I now agree with the merge of the article. What I don't want to happen is for the history of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rugoconites_tenuirugosus&action=history) to be deleted like how the history on Lorenzinites was. I do not want this to happen because I think some other people will be interested in viewing the past of the article itself, which , I allow them to (a generic , and pretty obvious thing to say I know that).

This is the end of this conversation, no more dilly dalling (what) about "you can't make a article about a species" (which is pretty stupid in my opinion by the way, specifically for this article seeing as how it's not proven that "rugoconites" tenuirugosus is EVEN in the genus Rugoconites entirely). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus


 * Richard Jenkins erected Wadea genus to include Rugoconites tenuirugosus in 1992 without clear justification and formal diagnosis. Since then, no one has ever mentioned this genus as relevant, his proposal was tacitly rejected by other specialists. In addition, in the book The Rise of Animals (2007), the Wadea genus is recognized as junior synonym of Rugoconites. Among specialists this genus is forgotten like an absurd dream. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC))


 * Apologies if my original comment came across as blunt and crude, my intention was to resolve the merge proposal once and for all. As for your concerns about the articles history, it will still be preserved along with this talk page. The article will merely be redirected to Rugoconites, leaving everything else untouched and preserved. I will now merge the article. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, it appears that the history for Lorenzinites is still available here. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

new image
The new image which I've added to the article on January 29 2022 is made by me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus) using the original cropped image as a reference in order to make it. I do appolagise (English is not my native language) that the image itself looks like garbage as well as its quality, please understand that I am not an experienced drawer or artist since I have just started out drawing a couple years ago on a computer (2020 to be more precise). The reason why I have replaced the image is because of how it got deleted due to a violation of Wikimedia rules and that it is simply just a cropped image of a artists representation of the Tri-radially symmetric group named trilobozoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia based upon reliable sources. It is not a place for amateurs - no matter how well-meaning - to guess what fossils might have looked like by making copies of copies of unsourced images. I have removed the image. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I do know that the artwork was a piece of garbage, considering how low quality and terrible it looked. I based it off of the original (now deleted) image from when this article was first made. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus


 * OK. Thank you for recognising that fact. In future, all we require is that any garbage is left well and truly out of any scientific article. It really is that simple. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)