User talk:Abyssal/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Untitled
Thanks for your additions to the dinosaur articles! Keep up the good work! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Thanks for reminding me he's called RPG Advocate! Kopf1988 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ammonite articles
Hi. I noticed you had recently created many articles on individual ammonite genera. I would ask that you consider whether it is a useful endeavour creating hundreds of sub-stubs that provide no information whatsoever on the particular genera they are meant to describe. I would think that writing more comprehensive articles on just a few genera would be more useful. Also, I noticed you included "Name" instead of, such that none of the articles actually mention their subject matter in the text. I'm not sure what would be the best course of action at this point. Perhaps deleting the articles and starting over? Mgiganteus1 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I intend on adding as much info as possible to these articles in the future. They won't remain useless forever. I'm just starting them up so that they can be edited by those who should choose to. Abyssal leviathin 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ammonite names
You're welcome, but in the future, could you insert the names when you create the articles? J. Spencer 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trilobite genera
Hi again. Nice work on the List of trilobites! I was wondering what reference you used to compile the list. Is it this page by any chance? If so, it would be good to list the original paper ("Available generic names for trilobites") in a Reference section at the end of the article. Mgiganteus1 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking you've combined both sources? Mgiganteus1 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Input request
Hi Abyssal leviathin, there is some discussion currently going on here, and I noticed you have User anime on your userpage. If you are not too busy, I would appreciate it if you could drop some of your ideas on how to reform the portal on the aforementioned talk page. Thanks!  «  A NIMUM   »  22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Echis
Hi Abyssal leviathin. I noticed your edit to Echis. Do you have a reference for your statement? Also, regarding your reference to this genus in the Fiery flying serpent article, these snakes are definitely not capable of leaping "up to chest height." The only ones capable of such behavior are of the imaginary sort. --Jwinius 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have a reference. It's an article from a Mormon magazine. Here --> http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000609serpent.html
 * As for the chest height thing, I swore I read that somewhere. Just remove it. I'll re-add it if I ever find a believable reference, which as you said is unlikely. Abyssal leviathin 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! I've added the reference to the Echis article. I've also taken the liberty of adding it to your Fiery flying serpent article. --Jwinius 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceratitida
Will this page turn into an article at some point? As of now, it doesn't qualify as a page which should be kept, but if you have a plan for this, please let me know. Thanks. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. The best way to do that is to create the page temporarily in your User space, e.g. User:Abyssal leviathin/Ceratitida. Pages in your user space are generally left alone by admins. Once the page is ready, you use the move button to move it to the article space. Let me know if you need any help moving pages or deleting the "redirect" tag that is left behind when you use this method. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I realized this was serious work in progress rather than the tomfoolery we often see here, but some other admins may be quicker with their "delete" button. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammonite-stub
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  02:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Ammonite Stuff
Not a problem, it's my pleasure :D Kevmin 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

‎List of prehistoric bony fish (Osteichthyes) List of placoderms ‎List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) List of prehistoric jawless fish
Hello there! When creating lists, could you re-format the content to make it easier to read. For instance like this page List of pterosaur classifications or like such: List of mammals of Canada. Even just to put a star before the name would be an enormous help. You seem to be on the right track, placing valid lists online. A few references from the WWW would help your lists stay online without being deleted. Try a template for a reference like this Citation templates for inline citations for line by line. Try to add more inline citations to this article: List of prehistoric jawless fish This list has one reference as well, however the previous method is better: List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) Good luck and keep on with the good work! SriMesh | talk  02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello; Thank you for the heads up on your other lists such as List of ammonites amongst the others. They are very impressive.  Way to go!  Kind Regards.  SriMesh |  talk  03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of prehistoric sponges
A tag has been placed on List of prehistoric sponges, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Dom the dude 001 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a list of prehistoric sponges.. and none of them have links to other Wikipedia articles. No references, and It might have even been copied. - Dom the dude 001 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Number 1, it was copied -from the online database version of Jack Sepkoski's 2002 compendium of marine fossil genera. Number 2, no duh it doesn't sources, links or context, I made the thing 5 minutes ago. What did you expect? If you had waited til tomorrow before you tried to delete it you would have found no reason to tag it at all in the first place. I guess I have some work to do. <_< Abyssal leviathin 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you need more time for an article being speedied, add under the db tag. I hope you don't mind, but I added bullets down to C. Remember to also add  wikilinks  - Dom the dude 001  00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! Nice context! Now, it doesn't meet criteria for speedy deletion. - Dom the dude 001 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you win
Its not a problem. I've been working on metriorhynchids for two years now, so hopefully I should know which species lived when!

You may be thinking of Geosaurus araucanensis. I doubled checked the literature, and although Geosaurus is known from the Neuquen Basin in the Late Tithonian-Early Berrisian, whether or not it actually is G. araucanensis is another matter (which is currently being sorting out). But the holotype, and all topotypic material is Early Tithonian. Geosaurus gracilis and G. suevicus are known from the Weisser Jura of Baden-Wuttemberg and Bavaria, which for the limestones they are found in, is definately earliest Tithonian. So no Kimmeridgian species there. Dakosaurus andiniensis is most certainly not in the Kimmeridgian, although D. maximus is, but I neglected to put that in on the first edit, oops! However, I'm positive Geosaurus was around during the Kimmeridgian, its just a lack of actual fossils to prove it! Mark t young (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Barremian
Most of these changes were acutally what I was actually pondering myself. I'll incorporate them over the next days; right now I'm playing around a bit to try out different formatting. I did not add the Annuloceras image as the article claims it's Lower Aptian, and this needs to be sorted out first. Dysmorodrepanis 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried out some new formatting at Santonian. Eventually, I think, all stage articles should mainly consist of a geoscience write-up (mainly climate, sea level, paleomagnetism etc) and have the taxa separate as in Maastrichtian. This will make it easier with the sections. Dysmorodrepanis 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mapping advice
For software, if you're modifying existing maps (that is if there's existing basemaps in commons you can use) then you just need a graphics program. I use Photoshop, but that's definitely not free. I know a lot of folks swear by GIMP which is probably the best free raster graphics program out there. If you're going to be making SVG files rather than raster graphics you need Inkscape. If you need to make a map from scratch you need some GIS software which definitely has more of a learning curve, I haven't used any of the free ones so I'm not sure which to recommend. If you go this route I can help you find data sources. Anything you use is going to use big files, that's pretty much inherent in mapping. Files types: raster use PNG, vector use SVG. For online map generators you may take a look at OMC for generating basemaps, you'd still need a graphics program to modify them (and change their awful default colors). For fonts I usually just use Arial, and the various Windows symbol fonts have a lot of common mapping symbols. If you're looking for something specific in terms of symbols let me know and I might be able to help. Kmusser (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Word up!
Word up dude, you've been reviewed! ;) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Oyster category
Hi Abyssal leviathin, It seems I was over-enthusiastic, so I have reverted the change, with apologies. I thought the category was anomalous, as there are many other similar groups that could have similar categories. Only thing now is I am not sure what should be in the category. If you could give me a pointer I can do the legwork for this. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lystrosaurus
Lystrosaurus is a genus non-mammalian synapsid. The term 'mammal-like reptile' is is not entirely appropriate as under recent phylogenetic systematics Reptilia is restricted to the MRCA of the various extant forms considered reptiles. Which obviously excludes the mammalian (synapsid) line, and even workers who don't like PN wouldn't refer to Lystro as a reptile sensu stricto. Mark t young (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, PN is short for phylogenetic nomenclature (e.g. PhyloCode). Good question about how to categorise them. Animals isn't really very good, and neither mammal nor reptile is entirely appropriate. I suppose synapsid is a bit too technical? I'm loathed to use 'mammal-like reptile', but at least the average layman 'knows' what you mean by that. Mark t young (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stubs
You realize doesn't exist, right? I replaced two stub temps with. Maybe you can use that instead, or maybe you have another idea for a stub? --Kannie | talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of prehistoric sponges has Zoarces  eelpout fish image??
Hi. List of prehistoric sponges has an image (repeated several times) of a  Zoarces  eelpout fish, apparently added to the article by you at 03:02 on 16 December 2007. What may I ask is up with that?? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Sorry, I was using that picture as a place-holder in the code. I could hide it as a comment if you want." -- I should think that we shouldn't include anything irrelevant or "wrong" in publicly-accessable Wikipedia articles, even when intended as reasonably temporary. If nothing else, I think it's quite possible that somebody might call it vandalism. *I* certainly found it confusing! :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

==List of prehistoric annelids, List of prehistoric foraminiferans, List of prehistoric gastropods, List of prehistoric echinoderms all are, or were, punctuated with numerous eelpout images== Hi Abyssal, How are you? Happy New Year. My question and comment is the same as Writtenonsand's comment for the list of prehistoric sponges. I also feel that is not a good idea to place irrelevant images in articles, even as supposed "temporary" place holders. (The annelid eelpout images had already been there for a month, which is not very temporary.) As Writtenonsand said, this kind of thing is very confusing, and it has an unfortunate superficial resemblance to vandalism, which is what I thought it was. I spent a fair bit of time last night and this morning taking these images out of the gastropod and the annelid articles. If you are working on an article and it is not yet in fit state to be posted, it can be put together on one of your user pages, and then posted once it is in decent shape. Or, if you need to have a place holder on an already posted page, it could perhaps be a row of dots or something similar which is less eye-catching and has no actual meaningful content. And you could try to make sure that it really is temporary, in other words make it disappear the next day or so.

Also I wanted to say that the "prehistoric" gastropod list already contains many genera which are still extant. I am going to have to go through and take the daggers off of all the ones that I recognize, but there will be many more that I don't recognize, so that is a problem too.

Plus to be honest, the functionality of the article is a bit questionable: a list of all gastropod genera living and fossil would be so huge as to be unwieldy, the gastropods being the largest class of invertebrates other than the insects. Invertzoo (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of the place holder images, I do feel bad about the burden I've been, in that regard. Thanks also for removing all the daggers you could as well. That is a big big help for that kind of article. I would have done it myself but I know very little about gastropods, so that kind of thing is not very practical for me. As for functionality, it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric. I know it's a big list as it is, but since it's a direct port of Jack Sepkoski's 2002 list of fossils, so it should be reasonably close to completion anyway. Even if it's not, a big list is just as useful as a small one, in my opinion, even if it is "unwieldy," as you put it. :) Thanks for the New Years greetings. I hope your having a pleasant one yourself.

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on removing at least some of the unnecessary daggers, which is a slow and painstaking process. We all try to help one another with this stuff. If you ever need someone to check any gastropod stuff for you, please just ask on the talk page at WikiProject Gastropods. I did want to explain that when you said: "it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric", the problem is, that almost every gastropod genus which is found living now, also lived in the late Pleistocene and has been found in the fossil record, (apart from those which do not leave any fossil record at all of course.) The late Pleistocene fauna was almost identical to the current fauna, and that means that the list becomes by default every gastropod genus, or at any rate every shelled gastropod genus. It's not like ammonites or dinosaurs, which are legitimately "prehistoric". Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi me again. Remember I used the word "unwieldy" about the size of the prehistoric gastropod list? Well I see it does already have a "This page is 94 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size" tag. And unless it is split up in some way, it is only going to get bigger still and slower to load. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me once again. I am slowly going though your gastropod list. Though there are not all that many blue links as a proportion of the whole, still, such blue links as do exist, well, a large number of them are actually links to pages about Ancient Greek heroes after which the genera are often named. One even links to an article on a rock band which has the same name as one of the genera, and so on. The blue links are no use at all in that state, they would be frustrating and annoying to users of Wikipedia. It is always a good idea to check blue links and see if they link up to what you imagine they might, or to something else altogether. And if they link to the wrong thing it is a good idea to take the time to fix the situation, one by one.Invertzoo (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of prehistoric sponges: Eurypterids??
"The list includes all commonly accepted genera... (including) genera that are no longer considered eurypterids." -- Is that right? If it is, you may want to include some sort of context so people will understand what we're talking about here. (Link in case it's useful: Eurypterid.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Detailed lists: Apparently you like more than others do.
Hi again! :-) I don't mean this as rude in any way, but you apparently like detailed lists of things more than most people do. I see List of trilobites and List of prehistoric sponges which are currently 90%+ redlinks, along with the recent proposals at WikiProject Dinosaurs for detailed breakdowns of dinosaurs by country and epoch. I think that most people don't strongly feel a desire for such lists, and indeed dislike lists which consist mostly of redlinks. (Yes, I understand that the theory is to go through later and create articles and redirects for the redlinks.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "If people dislike redlinks so much, maybe they should make articles and turn them blue." -- I'm inclined to agree. But as you know, there are only so many hours in the day, and many calls on our time. Have a good one. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in South Ossetia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in South Ossetia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in South Ossetia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Transnistria for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Transnistria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Transnistria until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of taxa described from Minnesota


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of taxa described from Minnesota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dolotta (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of taxa described from Oregon


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of taxa described from Oregon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at List of Taxa described from Wisconsin
You are invited to join the discussion at List of Taxa described from Wisconsin. Can you help me out? I'm a little confused.... The caption under the picture lists a different species name than what's listed under the taxon column. Does this need fixing? Dolotta (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Graphical timeline of pterosaurs
This timeline appears to be broken; all the names are squashed on the very right of the graph. I've looked at it in Firefox, Chrome and Edge browsers. There's an old talk page comment about it, so it doesn't appear to have been caused by some software change since its creation. Anything you can do to fix it? The page is not really suitable for mainspace as is.- gadfium 05:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Brachiopods
Portal:Brachiopods, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brachiopods and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Brachiopods during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Silurian stratigraphic units of North America


A tag has been placed on Category:Silurian stratigraphic units of North America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Permian stratigraphic units of North America


A tag has been placed on Category:Permian stratigraphic units of North America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wuchiapingian synapsids of Africa


A tag has been placed on Category:Wuchiapingian synapsids of Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Devonian stratigraphic units of North America


A tag has been placed on Category:Devonian stratigraphic units of North America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Heavily tattooed people has been nominated for discussion
Category:Heavily tattooed people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about dinosaur-bearing rock formations
Hey, I noticed you seem to be the go-to guy for these (incredible work, by the way), so I thought I'd check something by you. Do these articles purposely exclude non-dinosaur fossils (like insects and similar), or is it a case of "haven't gotten to it yet but they do belong there"? The reason I ask is, I'm trying to de-orphan Blapsium, which is apparently some kind of extinct beetle genus, but I can't find anyplace to link to it. Some of my sources say that it was found in the Stonesfield Slate, so I was thinking of linking it there, but I don't want to be a bull in a china shop if there's a reason insect fossils aren't listed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

St. Peter Sandstone
Please check your edits. The St. Peter Sandstone is not in West Virginia. Vsmith (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also - when you rename a page, please follow through with a bit of cleanup ... Bass Islands Formation and others. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Scylacorhinus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scylacorhinus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scylacorhinus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Crusafontia categories
I noticed you removed Category:Cretaceous mammals and added Category:Early Cretaceous mammals of Asia using HotCat when the article itself does not mention where it lives (it lived in Spain only according to the Paleobiology Database) in future can you check with the references before changing any categories. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bembridge Beds
Hello, since you're the resident fossil expert around here I was wondering if you're at all familiar with the Bembridge Beds? Should it be standalone? Merged? Is there anyplace I can link to it? It's ported straight out of the 1911 Brittanica so it's dated as all hell. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be merged into the Bouldnor Formation article, which covers the Bembridge marls as a unit of the formation.-- Kev min  § 02:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll try to get to that in the next couple days :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Paleozoic nautiloids


A tag has been placed on Category:Paleozoic nautiloids requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — swpb T 16:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sinemurian genus first appearances


A tag has been placed on Category:Sinemurian genus first appearances requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two questions: (i) why create when we already have ? (ii) why have you ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To prevent the first appearances of small taxa like genera and species from drowning out the bigger taxa like families and orders. (Any given geologic age has enough genera and species to create such categories even if they're not populated yet). Abyssal (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And question (ii)? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an error while trying to put it in the category it really belongs in. It's fixed. Abyssal (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy categories
I just wanted to let you know no hard feelings after I reverted quite a few of your additions of multiple geological periods to categories, especially since I see what you were trying to do. Others suggested going the Wikidata route, which I'm not too familiar with. I'm not sure how or if it would work with categories, but there should be some way to produce a query of what taxonomic groups were present in a given age as long as the first appearance and last known documentation/extant are listed somewhere. It at least sounds like it should be possible without having to manually add each time period manually. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"List of the prehistoric life of [US State]" articles
These articles you're creating all mention Alabama instead of the appropriate state in the lede, and additionally have a series of identical placeholder images along the right instead of relevant images. Just a heads up. CJK09 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Abyssal (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So now you have two editors telling you not add the placeholder images. Also, you have literally DOZENS of dab issues in EACH of the articles. Please try to not make work for other editors.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Please try to not make work for other editors." You don't see the irony in actively removing essential effort saving aids from the article that hinder's my ability to actually complete them then coming to post this on my talk page? Abyssal (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no extra effort you need to exert to add valid pix to those articles. When you have the valid pic, simply add it. It's not that difficult. In the meantime you add irrelevant material to an encyclopedia article. In addition to the dab issue, as well as the inaccurate leads in quite a few of the list articles you've created.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single one of the 50 articles in this series requires me to evaluate many dozens of images to balance the often conflicting needs for the highest quality images with the need to depict the most regionally distinctive animals against the significant limitations imposed by space. Having a series of pre-written images reduces this workload substantially by making image additions an easy cut and paste exercise. This article series requires a huge amount of effort on its own and I object to your continued disruption of my ability to complete it. Abyssal (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Abyssal, I agree with the other two editors commenting here. It is not appropriate to use uninformative, non-encyclopedic "placeholder" images in live list articles in main space. Instead, you should develop this content in draft or sandbox space, and move it to the encyclopedia only when it is accurate and informative. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved all of the pages with three or more disambiguation links to draft space, so you can work on them without being bothered by disambiguators and the like. Please make sure that all disambiguation links are fixed before restoring the pages to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have moved ten more of these pages to draft space, due to excessive disambiguation links. Feel free to move them back to article space once all disambiguation links are fixed and you can offer reasonable assurances that more disambiguation links will not be added to the articles. bd2412  T 02:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of the prehistoric life of Delaware


The article List of the prehistoric life of Delaware has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This list serves no encyclopedic purpose that could not fulfilled by a link to fossilworks.org. If at such time as a new fossil is discovered in this state, the page will have to be updated by hand. The data in a WP list or table is not a common data-input format; the user would have to work hard to convert it, or go somewhere else anyway. In short, this is WP:listcruft."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mauch Chunk Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mississippian ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mauch_Chunk_Formation check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mauch_Chunk_Formation?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Pseudosuchians
Portal:Pseudosuchians, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pseudosuchians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Pseudosuchians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Graphical timeline
I have noticed you used badly made horizontal timeline in Paleontology in Japan page. I re-wrote page using the standard timeline template and would like to ask you to use the same template for your future timelines. --Trurle (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paleontology in Kenya


The article Paleontology in Kenya has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No content."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fossils of Oklahoma


A tag has been placed on Fossils of Oklahoma requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What is happening?
I saw on my Watchlist this, among other examples: "Chonetes‎; 00:18 . . (-32)‎ . . ‎Cydebot (talk | contribs)‎ (Robot - Removing category Fossils of Wyoming per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 0.)", tried to find the related "CfD discussion" but to no avail, what is happening? I think your categories are important; the US states being as large as many countries and it's important to categorize articles according to their geographical area... I am working on the South American paleontology in the meantime, you may have seen it, but this is a drawback and especially the fact that link leads to nothing, so I wonder how that has been decided and why there was no post put up on the Paleontology WikiProject or anything? Good night, Tisquesusa (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your help desk question
I'm way behind on the archives but you didn't get a response to your question about a navbox template. I don't know how any of this works but WP:VPT may be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tatankaceratops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diceratops ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tatankaceratops check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tatankaceratops?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I've moved your sandbox "Aguja Formation/fish sandbox" to User:Abyssal/Aguja Formation/fish sandbox where you can continue to work.-- Auric   talk  00:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Columnar navbox
I figured out how to do columnar navboxes, see User:Hike395/sandbox. After we figure out the color issue, I'll bring these up as another alternative. —hike395 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)