Talk:Speculative evolution

Recent Additions of New Subheadings without citations
I like to dabble in speculative evolution, and have never heard about these as distinct categories, (save for biomechanical evolution) Also, no citations. Should I delete them all, or wait until the person crating them adds more info?

Uncited lists of indeterminate length
has added previously deleted uncited lists of books and documentaries to the article, with the edit comment that "If needed, citations can be added". Well, Wikipedia policy on Verifiability states in terms that citations are required; and Wikipedia policy on sources requires that those citations are to reliable secondary sources, i.e. not to the books themselves but to reliable critical books or journals which discuss those sources. Currently, not one of the listed items is sourced here in the article. A further problem (and a major one) is that the lists are an invitation to listcruft (no sources in sight, so no checks on quality) and of indeterminate length (no verifiable list inclusion criteria, so anything goes, and "of the making of many books there is no end").

Rauisuchian states further that the "list of examples is vital for the article". Well, no, it isn't: the manual of style for the use of lists vs prose states that "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not." Lists are thus somewhat deprecated, as they fail "to explain", as the policy states.

There is in fact some quite good cited prose in the sections above the lists, so in my view the lists are redundant (which is, along with the fact that they were wholly uncited, why I deleted them a while back) to the text. I'm willing to be persuaded that some of the listed items could be cited and converted to good text that presents detail and clarifies context, as the manual of style says; but that means action to improve the article. My choice would be to remove the lists; if you think otherwise, I'll await your explanatory text and citations. Indeed I may write some myself as the article can't stay as it is, it's an embarrassment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Awkward verb also overdrawn
In some cases, creatures first imagined within speculative evolution have since been discovered, such as an imaginary filter-feeding anomalocarid illustrated by artist John Meszaros in the 2013 book All Your Yesterdays by John Conway, C. M. Kosemen and Darren Naish being proven as having existed through fossils discovered in 2014 of the real anomalocarid Tamisiocaris.

That's one heck of an awkward verb structure. Unfortunately, its awkwardness seems to mask that it's also not a suitable verb structure, since it overdraws the equation between the speculative and discovered. How about: "discovery of a fossil with striking similarities"? The famous Higgs boson discovery was originally phrased as Higgs-like particle discovered with five sigma. They had for sure a signal where Higgs was expected to exist, but they hadn't yet matched fingerprints. How much less close the imaginary and the real? &mdash; MaxEnt 18:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not only is the structure and phrasing awful, it's also a complete run on sentence. How about replacing it with, "In some cases, attributes and creatures first imagined within speculative evolution have since been discovered. A filter feeder anomalocarid was illustrated by artist John Meszaros in the 2013 book All Your Yesterdays by John Conway, C. M. Kosemen and Darren Naish. In the year following publication, a taxonomic study proved the existence of the filter feeding anomalocarid Tamisiocaris."
 * I added the words attribute because in the section As an Educational and Scientific Tool, it references not only species but also attributes like specialized rodents and aquatic apes. Thoughts? Whosafraidofcowtools (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Seed worlds
A couple of editors have recently attempted adding a section for "Seed world" speculative evolution works. I wonder whether the referenced works merit mention to this level of detail under WP:N. The only provided sources (excepting two links to TV Tropes articles which have been removed per WP:UGC) are to the works themselves and a YouTube video discussing speculative evolution more broadly; these alone do not demonstrate the notability of these works. I am not aware of any non-self-published sources that even mention the concept of "seed worlds". I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors on how (and if) this section should be handled. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, seed worlds are relatively new compared to other genres of speculative evolution, and, while works like Serina are definitely famous in the speculative evolution community, it's true that there haven't been as many reliable sources talking about the subject mostly because they're a pretty recent development. The video presentation I've linked shows how they're now considered a separate category on the level of the others, and I'll be surprised if there aren't more sources talking about either Serina in particular or seed worlds in general - I'll try to find more! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider if any sources would meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability guidelines. If discussion of seed worlds is restricted to within the online speculative evolution community (which is admittedly pretty niche), it may simply not be notable enough to be included in this article for the time being. Shuvuuia (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: added a reference to a well-known speculative evolution magazine! I hope I'll find more in the future, again seed worlds have become quite popular recently. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This magazine is still a primary source, and I'm not sure if a digital magazine of this nature that allows public submission of content qualifies as self-published or user-generated (would like to hear the input of other editors on this). I will note that the only other work discussed on the page that has not received mainstream publication, the Speculative Dinosaur Project, has been documented by a reliable third party (i.e., TetZoo) that the article cites. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it qualifies as user-generated, as the magazine doesn't directly publish submissions — they're used by the magazine's author as a basis but actually edited for publication, if he so chooses so publish them (from what I recall, only a small portion of the articles are submissions). I'm not sure how it is a primary source, as the author of the magazine is not the same person as the authors of the projects featured inside it. If you consider it this way, then any publication specialized in speculative evolution (of which this is the most well-known?) would also be considered a primary source? Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair regarding the publication process. Nonetheless, if the project author wrote the magazine article, even if edited before publication, it wouldn't be independent of the subject matter; an additional, independent source would be required to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. And the only reference provided to demonstrate Serina's notability is still the work itself, which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB. I won't remove content without more input from other editors, but the addition of reliable and third-party sources would be welcomed. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Balundaur1 - Speculative Dinosaur Project.jpg