Talk:Saint Bathans mammal

Concerning Speciesbox
Is there any way to fix the speciesbox so it doesn't list "Saint Bathans mammal" as the species name or binomial name since it is blatantly neither? , would you consider taking a stab at it?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , what would you like to see there instead of "Saint Bathans mammal"? The only problem I see is that it is italicized.  I suppose also we should ask  about their choice.  --Nessie (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hurry up and force some paleontologist to give it a binomial name.


 * There isn't any way to make this display better. Undescribed species are one area where I think it is better to stick with manual taxoboxes rather than using speciesboxes. Manual taxoboxes allow more flexibility in italicization, and the binomial and species lines can be omitted. This particular case is especially messy since there isn't a genus; most of the articles Wikipedia has on undescribed taxa at least have a genus and a provisional species designation (e.g. Haplochromis sp. 'Migori'). Not that I think we should have articles on undescribed taxa in the first place. Plantdrew (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At the very least we should remove the binomial that says "Saint Bathans mammal"--Mr Fink (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, just erase an article extremely important in discussions of New Zealand's fauna (yes, very: nearly all Saint Bathans/Bannockburn Formation-related papers, ie. pretty much everything discussing pre-Pleistocene aotearoan fauna, mention this thing) and mammal evolution. Sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)
 * Do not put words in our mouths. You are aware that none of us made that suggestion, right? Right?  Or, perhaps you could explain to us how you interpreted "How do we fix the speciesbox so it does not say Binomial - Saint Bathans Mammal? as "Delete this important article!"?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one mentioned deletion. Though I'd like to see all these papers you mention cited in the article.  Only two of the citations in the article have to do with the fossil species, the other three are aboud other flora and fauna found in the same formation. --Nessie (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason that they thought this was a possible delete is that over at wikiproject dinosaurs there was a consensus that all of the articles on unnamed dinosaur specimens should be deleted and mover over to List of informally named dinosaurs, given that this is also unnamed, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that it might be deleted also. I personally strongly disagree with the decision taken over at wikiproject dinosaurs but there should be consistency across wikipedia for this sort of thing Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disagreeing with that idiotic policy. If nothing else we can reason that unnamed dinosaurs almost always belong to already known clades, while the Saint Bathans mammal is an impossibly unique taxon.


 * implied that. I strongly disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)
 * See the papers for Proapteryx, for the turtles, for the mekosuchine crocodile, for the herons and several other things. They all casually mention this mammal as an example of the "weirdness" of this faunal assemblage. Not to mention the fact that the phylogenetic test employed here is still used by nearly all Mesozoic mammalogist studies which likewise cite it (see for instance all the researchgate citations of this), albeit much more refined since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)
 * The paper being cited for phylogenetic methods has no bearing whatsoever on whether the specimen described is notable. Pretty much every paper I can find on the Saint Bathans fauna simply lists that a non-bat mammal is present, alongside the other fauna, without indicating that it is "weird" or notable. If you have any examples of papers which discuss the significance of this mammal further, beyond simply acknowledging that it exists, feel free to provide them. If there isn't anything important to say about this specimen other than merely indicating the presence of this group of mammals in this fauna, I don't see why this specimen merits its own page rather than just being mentioned on the Saint Bathans fauna page. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, revolutionising phylogenetic testing and studies on New Zealand's fauna and mammalian evolution is 'not notable' now. Sometimes I wonder how this wiki stays afloat. And yes, in case you're wondering I do have this article saved in case spite wins over reason.
 * Seen it here folks. Pages for various sex acts are uncontroversial in Wikipedia, but there's no place for an landmark in mammal and biogeography studies.
 * I did not suggest removing all references to this taxon from Wikipedia, nor do I necessarily think that this page needs to be deleted. I mean that it is worth considering the option of having this information on the Saint Bathans Fauna page itself, rather than as a short page of its own. You also have not provided citations of any papers which discuss this taxon further than including it in list of animals present in the Saint Bathans fauna, aside from the original paper, and so you have yet to support your claim that many papers mention it "as an example of the 'weirdness' of this faunal assemblage" or that it is "extremely important in discussions of New Zealand's fauna." Also, did you know that you can sign your posts on talk pages by writing four tildes? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A possibility that, again, I do not think should be entertained since extremely irrelevant things in comparison get to have independent articles; likewise imagine the mess that it would be to have two thirds of the SB fauna page be about just one animal while literally everything else gets an article. As to papers legitimising the study's relevance: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6640844_Miocene_mammal_reveals_a_Mesozoic_ghost_lineage_on_insular_New_Zealand_southwest_Pacific/citations
 * I specifically said "aside from the original paper," because I wanted you to support your claim that it is "extremely important in discussions of New Zealand's fauna." I agree that the specimen is important, and have never claimed otherwise. I would, however, like to see what other editors have to say about whether this subject is better addressed in the pages for the Saint Bathans fauna and Theriiformes. As it currently stands, the longest section in this article is a recap of the SB fauna page, and the rest of the article would be streamlined if moved to that page, so the SB mammal probably would take up no more than a quarter of the SB fauna page. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence why I am linking to the citations.
 * I apologize for misinterpreting why you were linking that page, I didn't see that it also had a list of papers which cite the paper in question. However, the vast majority of those citations appear to simply state "...and a terrestrial mammal (Worthy et al. 2006)," or similar, while listing members of the SB fauna, so I still am skeptical of your claim that it's considered "extremely important in discussions." Stating the specific papers which contain these discussions you mention would be helpful. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer amount of citations, its clear that its status as an iconic member of the Saint Bathans fauna is well established and that the study was revolutionary in mammal phylogeny studies given that how a third of the citations go.

I suggest just remove the box altogether. It is not meant for these situations. 2001:569:782B:7A00:9857:4A88:A48A:1370 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a solution, but it risks making this look like an illegitimate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)
 * It is not a named taxon, therefore a taxobox isn't relevant yet. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)