Talk:Specimens of Archaeopteryx

Copyright
Please note:I checked the website http://archeopteryx.info/history_of_discovery.html.They claim copyright for their article Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved. Archaeopteryx.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
I'm paraphrasing this from what I left on user:Pharaoh of the Wizards's talk page. The text in this article was copied over from the main Archaeopteryx article and not written by me, with the intention to split off the long "History of discovery" section into a new article. I've just checked the edit history for Archaeopteryx and this is the last revision from 2010. The external site you linked to is "copyrighted" 2011. I think it's obvious that this site copied text from the Archaeopteryx article, and not the other way around, and the copyright flag only popped up after I made the new article (Specimens of Archaeopteryx) with the same text. The other sections on that website (Paleobiology, Controversies) etc. also appear to be directly copied from Wikipedia, which can be confirmed by looking at an older revision (earlier than 2011) of the page. This is true even of much older revisions of the page: here's one from 2007. If you look at the edit history from around this time, you can see the "History of discovery" section being added piecemeal by different editors, so it was clearly not copied in its entirety from another source. Though I don't think additional verification is necessary, I have just looked up the domain registration information for archeopteryx.info and you can see that the site was created in 2011, long after the original text was added to this article by Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately I think the external site is probably violating their host's TOS by willfully claiming copyright for borrowed text. Hopefully this can be sorted out quickly, as it is clearly an open and shut case and I would like to get back to editing this article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like http://archeopteryx.info/index.html is copied from wikipedia without attribution ("in popular culture" is a giveaway). The copyright infringement is in the other direction. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about Ostromia
How much of this article's commentary do we want to keep or move? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted a massive undiscussed deletion of the Haarlem specimen section on the grounds that the information contained therein should be truncated, moved to Ostromia in a "history" section, or otherwise integrated with existing pages rather than outright deleted. A single new primary source renaming the taxon cannot possibly be grounds for a mass deletion of an entire section, most of which references multiple secondary sources. Complete deletion of the section could be considered once the reassignment to Ostromia has reached clear consensus among researchers and is discussed in comparable secondary sources. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't even think the entire section would have to be ever deleted, as the specimen was long considered to belong to this genus, it is an important part of its history. The text could of course be copied to the new article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What to do about Eduard Opitsch? He seems to have a Wikipedia article simply because he owned the Maxberg specimen, but all the info Wikipedia needs about him is already in this article. Seems to be a case of WP:one event. Should it be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)