User talk:Abyssal/Archive 9

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

File:Quasipetalichthyscropped.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quasipetalichthyscropped.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hilda mega-bonebed
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Table format
Hi Abyssal, I like the idea of simplifying the tables but I'm not sure breaking them down into multiple separate tables is the way to go. Personally when I use these articles, I'm looking for a way to quickly view which taxa have been reported, and what their status is. I think the color coding works well in that respect, but maybe the codes are what's too complex. In Lance formation, for example, we've got pretty much the full spectrum of possible statuses minus a few special cases like morphotaxa and ootaxa. We've got two different codes for "discredited" taxon and there's no indication of what that even means. IMO we should stick with the grey but label it "dubius taxon" and keep that for nomina dubia, which do represent real animals in the formation a lot of the time (if they're dubious relative to taxa from other formations, which IMO is a really bad practice in the first place). Junior synonyms would fall under reclassified taxa, since that's what they are. we can drop the strikeout and small text, maybe adding and additional color for tentative records. Or alternately, create one additional table (or even a text list below the table) for tentative records or erroneous reports. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as nomena dubia go, take the example of Deinodon Deinodon is usually considered a nomen dubium because it can't be differentiated from other tyrannosaurids. However, there are formations with fossils attributed to Deinodon but no other named tyrannosaur taxa are present. So "Deinodon" is a dubious name relative to other formations, but there was a tyrannosaur of some kind there. In cases like this, there are two options: retain Deinodon as a dubious but valid taxon (remember that nomina dubia have no official standing under any taxonomic code, it's a subjective informal designation) or list Deinodon as "discredited" and add an additional entry for an unnamed tyrannosaurid species known only from teeth. IMO the latter involves a bit too much original research/revision. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Paleo by state
Well, the template looks good... not much I can think to add other than it looks like a whole lot of work will be required ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Depricated taxa
Again, I would say nomina dubia aren't really deprecated per se--they just exist in taxonomic limbo but still compete for priority etc. In fact, as no taxonomic code even recognizes nomina dubia as a real label, maybe we should simply keep this to the notes section and leave the color white. Anyway, wouldn't junior synonyms be better listed as a form of reclassification? For example, Iguanodon dawsoni was transferred to the genus Barilium. This means I. dawsoni was both reclassified as and made a synonym of Barilium dawsoni. It's hard to separate those two concepts and they should probably be rolled together. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP Palaeontology in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Palaeontology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see
Hello,

It's been quite a while since I was active on Wikipedia, but I'm back now. Do you still have interest in resurrecting the prehistorical animal stub creation bot and/or the other project you posted on my talk page about 6 months ago?

--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Off-topic-inline
Template:Relevance inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Relevance note. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

List of extant animal genera represented in the fossil record
Hello Abyssal, I was looking today at this article, which today when I arrive at it, had no intro of any kind at all. I believe this list was originally called "List of prehistoric mollusks" or something similar? I also believe that you started the article? If I recall correctly, back then it had a reference to the publication from which the list was derived. As you will see on the talk page, I am suggesting that since the list is about 80 or 90% molluscan genera, it might be better simply to remove the other organisms from the list, as there are only a few of them, relatively speaking.

Also the list is not only extant genera, so I "moved" the title on both counts. Maybe you can help shed some light on where the list came from originally? Thanks so much. Invertzoo (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Jagorinacropped.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Jagorinacropped.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 14:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your List Formatting Proposal
Did you give up on it? Should I revert list of pterosaurs and list of plesiosaurs to the previous formatting? Dracontes (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clearer. I'm talking about this. What's the final decision if there ever was one? I mean, at some point the pertinent list format edits you did to List of crurotarsans were undone to the previous formatting. "2008-08-02T17:20:45‎ User:Mark t young‎ (Until there is discussion on creating these tables, these edits should be reverted. The community rejected this idea for List of dinosaurs, and no discussion regarding this list has been made.)" I'm fine either way but I'd like to know what's the direction I should go and find some hope that we'll eventually agree on a common style for these. Dracontes (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I'm voicing that complaint at least as far the extent of your pertinent edits goes. The simpler style is far easier to maintain and as I said on the discussion there, the list of dinosaurs would be the place to decide if it went forward or not which User:Mark t young also alludes to in the edit I cited above. It'd be fairly cumbersome to have this discussion repeated for every pertinent article. The work you've had referencing these can be reused for the pertinent clade pages and I'm willing to do the reverting and moving myself. Dracontes (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not making myself clearer back then. Mind you, I did find merit in your proposal, but its application to a featured list is, to me at least, a particularly important criterion for using it elsewhere, beside all the workload/editing considerations. This is something to be done in the not-so-near future: I just wanted to clear things with you beforehand. Fair enough! Thank you for your comprehension :-)  Dracontes (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydrophis donaldi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Geographic and Skipper (check to confirm | 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) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Hydrophis donaldi at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hydrophis donaldi
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews
Abyssal, can I ask you to please be more specific in your DYK reviews? As someone who has to "review the reviews" in order to promote them to the prep areas, it's hard to judge how thorough your reviews have been when you don't specify what you've checked, so I'm having to do a complete re-review to be on the safe side, instead of a normal spot-check. Given your recent error regarding QPQs, it would help to know that you've checked the hook fact against an inline source, for example, or done the close paraphrasing checks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You reviewed my nomination without a signature. Please use the icons not for every single item you mention, - only one each step of reviewing, in this case the question mark would have been the best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Abyssal, your recent initial reviews do not include an icon. Even if there are issues with these initial reviews, please include an icon with them: the question mark if there is something that needs clarification, the slash mark if there are significant problems that can be fixed, and the X only if there are intractable problems that appear unfixable. (Short articles can be lengthened, close paraphrasing can be fixed, but articles that were expanded a month ago and not since are simply ineligible.) If there aren't issues, of course, one of the ticks should be used. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Neşet Ertaş
Hi Abyssal! Thanks a lot for your efforts on the article Neşet Ertaş and the related DYK hook. Cheers. CeeGee 08:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Abyssal (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
Abyssal, if you can reapprove this now that the issues have been solved, I can promote it into a prep area to run on the 21st. However, if I approve it, I can't also promote it, which might mean it would have to wait. If you're around, it would help for you to do this soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Finney's HIT Squad
Hello. You were reviewing my DYK nomination. Now that the issues you presented have been resolved, you can promote it. Thanks in advance. LlamaAl (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The dog ate my homework DYK
I have responded to your note in the review by addressing the issue ... can you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you again. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, did it again. Daniel Case (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with your changes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a cite to the Slate article to sustain that "earliest known" claim. Do you have any more concerns? Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Door to Hell
I have replied to your observations below the DYK of Door to Hell. -- Nvvchar . 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is shifted to Special occasions page for Halloween.-- Nvvchar . 02:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 19:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Hello. Thank you for reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/The Tragedy of Mister Morn. The QPQ has been provided. Could you take a second look?--SGCM (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK Yadira Silva
Hey, I would like to know if you are done copy editing the article Yadira Silva. Is the aricle ready to be aproved to show up at the Main? Thanks for your work. Osplace 11:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)