Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 10

Trilobite zone
The article Trilobite zone is very disorganized. It needs somebody who has a solid understanding of this topic. It is too difficult for me to sort it out. But I will gladly try to help. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Diatryma and Gastornis split?
Should Diatryma be split from Gastornis? From Google scholar, it seems that many recent sources actually refer to Diatryma as a distinct genus, and Brian Switek has also pointed this out.

The case is similar with Paraceratherium and Indricotherium, recent sources refer to both as distinct, but also as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Fossil ranges in the taxobox template
Hi all, an IP has been adjusting age ranges in various fossil taxoboxes, all good faith edits I think, but it in many cases it has shown that the ranges in Ma shown in the taxoboxes are poorly constrained, mostly unsourced and in some cases misleading. Taking Cacops as an example, the IP editor tweaked the age range from 276-271 to 274-271 Ma. In fact, all we know about the range of this genus is that it appears in a single formation (or formations correlated to it), which is dated as Kungurian. It appears to me (based on the article edited by the IP) that almost no taxa have ranges defined in Ma, so I don't think that we should use other than stage/series names unless the sources available use the numbers. Should a comment to that effect be added to the template documentation?Mikenorton (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. Unless we have a source that constrains the taxon to a more specific range, we shouldn't be putting numbers in. Also, it might be a good idea to cite sources directly in the parameter of the taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That IP really needs a block. He's disrupting a ton of articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed most of them and started with a warning for disruption - others can follow. The biggest problem is that he/she won't engage with anyone else. Mikenorton (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He's continuing... FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm still reverting - one thing though is that it means that the ranges used have at least been checked. Also I've realised that you can use ages in Ma in the 'fossilrange' template, but use a stage/series name to display - e.g. here. I've warned the IP again. Mikenorton (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mammoth taxonomic hell
I'm trying to fix the woolly mammoth article, and it seems there'll be a lot of trouble when I get to the taxonomy section. It seems that a gazillion subspecies have been named (I doubt any are considered valid now), and that every species of mammoth has at some time been placed in the genus "Archidiskodon", which I have no idea what is (and what the heck is "Mammonteus"?), and there generally aren't many references to any of these taxa. Anyone know of a good overview? Or any overview for that matter? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are a few sources - let me know if you can't see the full text version of the first one, I'll e-mail it. Discusses the origin ofM. primigenius, Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants, Mammoth and Elephant Phylogenetic Relationships. Good luck! Mikenorton (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that'll certainly help with the "hard" science, though there's still a problem with the convoluted history of the various names which have been arbitrarily attached to all sorts of things. I can't access the first article, but it seems to discuss some obscure taxa, so I'd appreciate the email! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Osborn (1942), available here, is probably still good for nomenclature. The book by Shoshani and Tassy (1996, ISBN 0198546521) is more up-to-date, but may have less nomenclatural details. Archidiskodon is evidently a genus that some people, particularly Russians, like to place earlier mammoths like Mammuthus meridionalis in.Ucucha (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any idea what the type species of Archidiskodon is? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's meridionalis. Ucucha (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. That paper Mike sent me resolves many of the issues as to why many subspecies, or rather chronospecies, have been named, but it doesn't take a stand on whether they are valid or not, since it is impossible to determine where one species ends and another begins. That means these names aren't exactly synonyms, but not exactly valid either. What should I do with them? Keep them out of the taxobox?FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * make some sort of disambiguation page ? EdwardLane (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they all refer to the woolly mammoth specifically, so there's not really anything else to link to. The problem is whether to treat them as synonyms or as potential valid taxa.FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting you create a page called mammoth taxonomy (disambiguation) or something similar - and then create a redirect for each of them to that page - so if someone types inarchidiskodon chronospecies One (or whatever), it still links up to a suitable article. And then on the mammoth taxonomy disambiguation page we'd need to explain that whilst they got to the disabiguation page from archidiskodon chronospecies One, they could also have got to it from archidiskodon chronospecies two or three etc, and that the question of whether any one of them is indiviually a valid taxa or not remains unclear (as of december 2012) and they may in fact be synonyms. Or something like that. Not sure if it's a good idea or not - but that's the rough idea (which might resolve the issue for now?). EdwardLane (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the point for sure. The thing is, these "chronospecies" are extremely obscure, and are hardly even mentioned in modern sources, unless shown in quotation marks, so it would probably give them undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * well in that case having it as a 'valid taxa' is probably undue weight - so synonym sounds like the answer. EdwardLane (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. And by the way, since it's the season, the image is in the public domain, and because it features a mammoth, here's a 1912 Christmas card by Charles R. Knight I uploaded for the occasion. So merry Christmas for anyone here who celebrates it. Yo. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States
Over the past several months, User:Abyssal has created articles on "Paleontology in ..." each of the states in the U.S. He has nominated those articles to be featured on the main page as part of DYK. The nomination can be found here: Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States. If any of the resident paleontology project members care to help, it would be good to have expert eyes on the articles and the nomination to raise any issues/concerns before these go to the main page in a few days. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

pauline avibella
I notice that Pauline Avibella is a redlink - a google search shows it as a new genus and species of ostracod - with some nice 'fleshy' fossils. Seems like that might make a DYK or ITN listing if someone of sufficient skill (not me I'm afraid) can generate an article.EdwardLane (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

How do we determine which paleontology theories to report?
Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States
user:Abyssal has recently written a series of 51 articles about paleontology in each US state (plus DC). The articles need some review before they can be featured on WP:DYK. Abyssal is looking for reviewers to assist. Several editors have volunteered, but more eyes are needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dave Hone's papers online
Archosaur expert Dave Hone has uploaded all published papers he has been involved with, good resource (scroll to the bottom): https://sites.google.com/site/davidhonesresearchprofile/home/publications-abstracts FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And now Darren Naish's: http://darrennaish.wordpress.com/publications/ FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing genus articles
Popular extinct groups such as dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs seem to be kept updated and in check by several users, and all new genera get articles. But it seems we still have some trouble with some extinct groups, mainly mammals, fish, and invertebrates. To give an overview of this huge backlog, I'll try to make a compilation of higher taxon and list articles that have a lot of red links to extinct genera in them, so that anyone interested can go ahead and churn out some articles. If anyone else have some more neglected groups to add, please do, it'll give us a nice overview of what is missing. I've made a few stubs as I went a long and encountered red links over the years. It can be somewhat fun, we could almost make it a contest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Taxa: Sparassodonta, Condylarthra, Equidae, Tapiroidea, Rhinocerotidae, Brontotheriidae, Suidae, Proboscidea, Antilocapridae, Anthracotheriidae, Archaeoceti,Hyaenidae, Amynodontidae, Oxyaenidae, Felidae, Hyaenodontidae, Odobenidae, Phocidae, Glyptodontidae, Pampatheriidae, Proterotheriidae, Macraucheniidae,Toxodontidae, Isotemnidae, Notohippidae
 * Lists: List of therapsids, List of prehistoric mammals, List of extinct cetaceans, List of fossil primates, List of fossil birds, List of prehistoric bony fish, List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish, List of prehistoric jawless fish, List of placoderms, List of acanthodians, List of Ediacaran genera, and a horde of invertebrate lists can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_prehistoric_invertebrates


 * Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to know what to do on WP in the next... er... years? -- Cycl o pia talk  10:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless we get a dedicated bot, I don't think those invertebrate and fish lists will ever be completed... But the elephants, rhinos, and horses are getting close. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more of an invertebrate/early vertebrate kind of guy :) -- Cycl o pia talk  12:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could single-handedly take care of the Ediacaran list then! FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to. If work doesn't choke my time... -- Cycl o pia talk  15:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found a pretty straightforward procedure where I go by the lists above, and then cross-check Google scholar and the Paleo database, so even if I don't have access to a given paper, I can check author and species info on the Paleo DB. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very useful suggestion. Thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, another good source of red links to fill are articles like 2012 in paleontology. Usually they already have the reference to the relevant paper(s). -- Cycl o pia talk  15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought those contained only blue links, so that's a good overview as well. And another thing to consider, some of these lists are many years old, so you may come across invalid taxa once in a while, so not every name listed necessarily warrants an article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I guess one has to comb the literature a bit carefully. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added these to the main page: FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Filling List of Ediacaran genera
About List of Ediacaran genera: I started with Anhuiphyton and Andiva. Of a few genera, I can't find a reasonable literature reference. I'll go ahead, unfortunately I have little time this period. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, much better than the one-line stubs I've started for mammals! We can always go back and take care of the few stragglers afterwards... FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget if you're starting new articles to try to make a DYK! Abyssal (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heheh, we could possibly have an eternal supply of extinct animal DYKs if those lists are any indication... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For Andiva DYK has been submitted and verified, for Anhuiphyton I couldn't find enough material to comply with the DYK requirements. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I created Arumberia today. Looks like there's a lot of literature but most of it I can't access; also it's the first time I work on ichnofossils. Anyone wants to jump in and help? -- Cycl o pia  talk  14:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access either, but the resource request page has always helped me out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * already greeted me with papers. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Toolserver can also be helpful for finding red links: Missing topics. I put the result for "Paleontology" here:User:Tobias1984/Sandbox_2. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I already took care of number one on the list. I'll try to get to more of the formations soon. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I imagine this will take forever, perhaps a bot could create the missing genus articles? Based on Paleo Database entries? FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Retallack editing at Ediacara biota
Hi, I've noticed that, most probably paleontologist Gregory Retallack, is editing at the article Ediacara biota. Here is a diff of his latest contributions (there's a bot in the middle). His edits seem mildly self-promotional but not overtly so; regardless I'd like some more expert eyes than me to take a good look and decide if it has to be tweaked/reverted. Thanks! -- Cycl o pia talk  10:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence: Natural History Museum, London
Hi all,

Just to let you know that the Natural History Museum in London is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, working jointly there and at the Science Museum next door; it's a paid post for four months, and applications are open until 10th February. I've worked with Ed Baker at the NHM to define the scope of the program, and it looks really promising - there's some real opportunities for interesting projects here. Details are available on the National Museums site, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programshere.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category for Calpionella and Calpionellidae
I don't edit paleontology often. Can somebody help me out with categorizing the stubs Calpionella and Calpionellidae? --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calpionellites darderi is the index fossil for the base of the Valanginian (also a stub). --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified fossils
I still come across quite a lot of unlabelled specimens and casts on Flickr and Commons, and sometimes I'm unable to identify them. So I'll post a selection here (along with my best attempts at classification), in hope that someone knows them better than I.


 * I'll try to ID some of these. I already got the Russian amphibian (it's Kamacops; see the picture here, which happens to have a restoration from Wikipedia in the display!) and I think I'm on to that sphenacodont. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I tried to identify the gorgonopsid based on its specimen number a couple months ago, but if I remember correctly it seems to have never been identified at the genus or species level. This might be the case with some of the other unidentified fossils on Commons. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, I see you identified a bunch of these already! I've added some replacements. And yes, you're right, some of these might never even have been classified by scientists, and there's not much we can do in that case... FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems several of these actually await scientific names, so it would be nice to have those collected in one place for the future. Maybe a Commons category for them? FunkMonk(talk) 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi tobias1984, do you have any info on the image you added? Where was the photo taken? FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I once got this fossil as a gift. I didn't get any kind of description with it. I was just curious if somebody would recognize it. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could perhaps be Knightia? How large is it? Knightia seems to be quite a common fossil, and is regularly sold. More photos on Google for comparison: FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Knightia looks pretty good. The specimen is 4.5 cm long mouth to tail. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What country do you live in? If not the US, is there any indication that the person who gave it to you could have gotten it there? In any case, I don't think we can identify it much further if it is not placed in a museum, because we have neither occurrence data or any general classification. We could write "perhaps Knightia" on the Commons description page. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In Austria, but I don't think that fossil dealers here buy local :). I'll change the Commons name and description. Thanks again! --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have anything else, feel free to post it here! FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tobias, I've found some papers about the trackway, that identify all the sauropod tracks at the highway as the ichnogenus Parabrontopodus. The tridactyl track seems to be an ornithopod, though. Could be a deformation, so maybe instead a theropod track, which seems to be prevalent there. The normal theropod prints look like Grallator, but it seems no sources identify them further. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The field trip was 2011, so I don't think that all the science is published yet. But with the locality we can always improve the description later. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case, the theropod could maybe be left under unnamed/unidentified categories until such is published, because I don't think there's much more we can do here, but I'll look out.FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This page (http://www.mfbe.ch/exkursionen/berichte/exk2006_transjura.htm) calls them Diplodocus and Alausaurus. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, there's no such thing as "Alausaurus", must be a misspelling of Allosaurus. And it should be pretty impossible to make such exact identifications, especially since none of those genera are even known from fossils in Europe (though some have been dubiously assigned to them)... The last section here identifies some of the theropod tracks (small: Carmelopodus, larger: Megalosauripus) and says one is a new taxon. As for the Nerinea, they are already identified as such? This paper may be relevant? Waite R. 2005 : I. Sedimentology and palaeoecology of “Nerinea” mass accumulations within the Kimmeridgian in the area of Porrentruy (NW-Switzerland). II. Geological maping of the SE part of sheet TK 8311 Lörrach and the SW part of the sheet TK 8312 Schopfheim. Master (inédit), Université de Bâle, 68 p. Encadrants : Andreas Wetzel (Université de Bâle), Daniel Marty. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't have access to the publication about Nerinea. I will just leave it the way it is now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, but if you some day get the urge to research it further, the source request site is good:FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now made a Commons category for animals that we know have not received a scientific name yet (but probably will), and I think that's pretty exciting. So once new species are announced, we can check that category and see if we already have images of them. We had images of Bistahieversor, Eodromaeus, Leonerasaurus, andSciurumimus long before they were announced, even years in some cases. We have an image of that "Zuni coelurosaur" already, for example.FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea the new category. By the way the elasmosaur it's from Colombia and probably is related to Callawayasaurus (if is not the same thing), but also it lacks of a scientific description. The skeleon of the another marine reptil could be Kronosaurus boyacensis or another related pliosaur.--Rextron (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, so that elasmosaur goes to the "unnamed" category as well, and I've replaced it here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the usage data, the "unnamed armored reptile" is Sinocyamodus and does match other images online of the genus.-- Kev min  § 18:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, weird, I wonder who identified it as such, because I uploaded it in the first place, and the Flickr page says it is an "ankylosaur", which it obviously isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Smokyjoebob is the one who added it to that page, and its clearly too small to be an anklyosaur lol.-- Kev min § 19:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I was unsure because it was also used on the Italian Wiki. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me who identified it. It's definitely a placodont, and it looks almost exactly like the holotype of Sinocyamodus, picturedhere, although it's not the same specimen. As far as I know, there are three placodonts from China (Psephochelys,Glyphoderma, and Sinocyamodus). It's definitely not Glyphoderma (which is pictured here) and I don't thinkPsephochelys is known from complete skeletons. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. It's a bit hard with the pictures from that Tianyu museum, because many of the fossils seem to be known taxa, but the specimens themselves may be undescribed. There are a bunch of maniraptorans there, but I'm hesitant to post them here for that reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The AMNH ichthyosaur is a Holzmaden specimen according to this page . Quite possibly a Stenopterygius quadriscissus specimen?-- Kev min  § 19:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those seem to be the ones with the skin impressions. I'm sure it must be a well known specimen, but I really have a hard time telling ichthyosaurs apart. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or is it the same specimen in picture four from the top here? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe they are the same specimen. The rectangular seem in the slate below the rostrum and the disarticulations in the vertebral column are the same.-- Kev  min  § 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The London clay turtle (skull) species is now named Puppigerus crassicostata. -- Kev min § 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * London Clay Turtle one is now Argillochelys subcristata-- Kev min  § 19:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! This identification business is going better than I expected. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Makapansgat snake fossil has not described as of yet, and in the original 2009 posting of the image by the Moropeng website (http://www.maropeng.co.za/index.php/mediagallery/entry/655/)there are no hind limbs on the specimen.-- Kev min  § 04:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I must have confused it with something else. Goes to unnamed then. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been checking what other wikis label them as. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That Pampatheriid is on the italian Wiki as Pampatherium. Maybe thats what it is. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the skull shape I think the Abelisaur image is Abelisaurus or an unnamed dinosaur closely related to it. The hr wiki labels it as Abelisaurus which agrees with my first comment.Reid,iain james (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closest found to the pliosaur (polycotylid?) is Dolichorhynchops. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only image of Peloneustes is blurry but the skulls look alike so the Thermopolis Pliosaur could be it. Reid,iain james (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't see your comments until now. The abelisaur skull seems much different from that in the Abelisaurus article. Another thing, this image is labelled as Archegosaurus on Commons. Doesn't look like it to me, looks more like Sclerocephalus. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sclerocephalus to me, too, although we should try to find out whether the uploader misnamed it or the specimen was mislabeled in the museum. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Images are often mislabelled on Commons (and on Flickr for that matter), so I guess the photographer's have just been looking at the wrong plaques... One recent example I uploaded and identified, half the skull of Allosaurus jimmadseni, labelled as Camarasaurus on Flickr...FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals
People here may have comments to make at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals on the future of WPPM, which never really took off.Le Deluge (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessing the use of the importance and quality scales
I do not occupy myself with ratings, but try to bring substance to mostly trilobite articles. However, I note that when ratings have been dealt, these seldomly rise above low importance and C-class. Neither provides much incentive for further work, to those that did substantial work on these articles and later notice these ratings. When reading through the set of criteria for the quality scale, these are rather qualitative. From discussions between users occupied with writing Featured articles and those that judge them it seems to me, that the creation of Featured articles is a rather freakish hobby, where users race each other to the top. This may leave other users demoralised or disinterested in the rating system. In this way the system does not help raising the quality of your every day article, which is to my mind the only ratio behind rating.

The article on trilobites was rated high importance. But even articles on orders of trilobites are either unclassified or low importance. I would motion to change this, so that the full range is applied and there is more balance between the classes. I would also welcome higher importance for a selected few genera or species that are well known. My proposal would be:
 * Top-importance: Trilobite (1)
 * High-importance: Nektaspida, Redlichiida, Agnostida, Ptychopariida, Corynexochida, Asaphida, Harpida, Lichida, Odontopleurida, Proetida, Phacopida (all orders), and Elrathia kingi (12)
 * Mid-importance: Olenellina, Olenelloidea, Fallotaspidoidea, Judomioidea, Nevadioidea, Redlichiina, Redlichioidea, Emuelloidea, Paradoxidoidea, Agnostoidea, Condylopygoidea, Corynexochina, Illaenina, Leiostegiina, Ptychopariina, Ellipsocephaloidea, Ptychoparioidea, Olenina, Anomocaroidea, Asaphoidea, Trinucleioidea, Dikelocephaloidea, Cyclopygoidea, Remopleuridoidea, Proetoidea, Aulacopleuroidea, Bathyuroidea, Calymenina, Phacopina, Phacopoidea, Dalmanitoidea, Acastoidea, Cheirurina, Odontopleuroidea, Dameselloidea (suborders and superfamilies), Asaphus, Phacops, Itagnostus interstrictus(=Peronopsis interstricta) (38).
 * Low-importance: about 20.000 subfamilies and genera.

Any supporters? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's alright. Sorry for the late reply, but ratings aren't my strong side. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Crinoid drawing.jpg
File:Crinoid drawing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Homo sapiens palestinus
and, redirects to Zuttiyeh, have been nominated at RfD. The discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 22 would benefit from contributions by members of this Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
Some decisions on how to handle and store information that is used in this project's infobox are discussed at Wikidata: link.--Tobias1984 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can now add temporal range start and temporal range end to any fossil on Wikidata. Some examples: archaeopterix, tyrannosaurus,ammonite. What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

New Wikidata task force
A new task force is working on taxonomy d:Wikidata:Taxonomy task force. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Schinderhannes taxobox
Can anyone fix the automatic taxobox at Schinderhannes (genus)? I moved it from the binomial per project guidelines. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Fama Clamosa (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, haven't figured out how it works yet! FunkMonk (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll no longer be archiving this page
I'm giving up on creating a new archive for this talk page as I don't have the time to babysit it any more. Every 20 topics someone needs to create an archive page. This isn't a big deal, but I thought I'd alert you so someone else can take the reins from me. Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, and good job so far, I'll probably do it when the time comes. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Monky! Abyssal (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Philcha
I had long wondered where Philcha had gone, as he was quite active within this project, and I worked with him one some things in the past. Looking at the list of deceased Wikipedians, I learned he died in 2012: FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember him although I don't recall ever interacting with him personally. I'm sorry to hear of his passing. Abyssal (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Australobarbarus fossil photo
I have a photo of this therapsid fossil I took in Natural History Museum of Helsinki. See talk page for more information. I have some questions and it would be nice to get an answer for them as soon as possible.-Asikal1 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the answer is pretty much yes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks!-Asikal1 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agoniatites vanuxemi
has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Agoniatites vanuxemi - Devonian fossil - Hamilton Group-Mahantango Formation from Deer Lake, PA.jpg
 * File:Agoniatites vanuxemi, a rare Devonian ammonoid fossil discovered by Michael Tomczyk near Deer Lake, Pennsylvania in September 2013.jpg

Living fossils and Lazarus taxa
Can someone take a look at these edits: ? appears to have invented a quirky personal view of what constitutes a Lazarus taxon and living fossil. For example, he claimed that Lazarus taxa have to be extant, which is not true and led someone else to revert one of his edits. He also removed the Coelacanth from the Category:Lazarus taxa even though the body of the article literally says: "The discovery of a species still living, when they were believed to have gone extinct 65 million years previously, makes the coelacanth the best-known example of a Lazarus taxon". For my part, I'm arguing with him over the Hula painted frog and don't really want to get into the other articles. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the frog is definitely not a Lazarus taxon; that would entail a long gap in the fossil record between the last appearance of extinct Latonia species and the Hula painted frog, but the article says the gap is only about 15,000 years. Whether or not it's a living fossil depends on your opinion of what a living fossil should be. Latonia and Discoglossus look similar and are closely related, but they've still been separate lineages for 32 million years, and the Hula painted frog is the only living representative of that lineage. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the frog is not a Lazarus taxon, but it has been widely described as a living fossil, e.g., which Abductive disputes. That's not really my point in posting here, though.  I was hoping that someone else might want to correct the Coelacanth article (to restore it's categorization as a Lazarus taxon), and take a look at Abductive's other edits to see if they are accurate or not.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Article name dispute
There is a dispute over the single-species genus guideline going on at Talk:Archicebus achilles. Feedback would be appreciated. – Maky  « talk » 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting source
This article in Zookeys might be of interest to someone here? All text and images are licences under a cc-licence so can be used on wikipedia. See: Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been trying to adjust our articles accordingly sicne it went online. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, awesome! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Resulting problems
The paper has opened a kind of Pandora's box of problems, which is being discussed here by me and Dinoguy, could be nice with some more observations? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
This submission is of interest to this project. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It uses Wikipedia articles as sources, which it shouldn't. And one included article mentions a Wangshi Formation, not this one. So not sure what's going on. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oldest genome sequence
This ITN nomination might be of interest to folk here, as, if I understood it correctly, it's the genome sequence of an extinct horse and pushes back the theoretical divergence of the horse 2million years accordng to the nature article. EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy help
Hello -

I just came across Procolophonida, which was marked for speedy deletion as a duplicate of Procolophonidae. I was prepared to merge, since the former had some information on infraorder/parvorder which the latter didn't; however, I find that the main article uses an automatic taxobox, and I'm not sure how to include that information in the template. Would someone more practiced mind helping me out? Here is the info and here seems to be the template. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Procolophonidae article has a nicely working taxobox, so I don't think there's any need to do anything. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the two articles should have been merged so easily: it looks like Procolophonidae is a family, and Procolophonida is an infraorder: a larger group that includes Procolophonidae and some other families. Small changes in spelling are sometimes quite significant in taxonomy. I'm not familiar enough with these animals to tell whether Procolophonida is a valid group that deserves its own article. Ucucha (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't have the necessary background to know; I just figured outright deletion was not warranted. Perhaps it should be changed back as they do seem to be different levels (?) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Procolophonida" is not a valid name. From what little information I could gather, it was used around the turn of the century a few times as an infraorder within "Cotylosauria", which is itself an outdated term (and another new article that should be redirected). I would redirect Procolophonida to Procolophonidae, because back when it was used Procolophonida would have included only members of the family Procolophonidae. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That brings me back to my original question - if it is merged, how can I get the additional information about parvorder and so on added to the taxobox template? I think this is more of a technical question; I just haven't used automatic taxobox before. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the ranks came from. The article wasn't even sourced, so I have doubts about the classification. Since Procolophonida isn't used anymore, it doesn't need to be added to the taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Megaloceros giganteus is the tallest deer ?
Hi, sorry for my English, but Cervalces latifrons is the largest deer : its antlers are smaller than those of Megaloceros giganteus (error in « Largest organisms » and in « Largest prehistoric animals » ?). In addition, nothing to do, should mention the breed « Shire horse » in this article ? And, what is the largest breed of pig ? --77.198.150.42 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "pig". If you take the broader view, the largest pig would be Daeodon or a close relative. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the word « Pig » has a broader meaning in English rather than French :). I speak only of the largest breed of domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus). ---77.201.135.43 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Synonyms
Hi, I wanted to know if Libralces latifrons is a synonym or not with Cervalces latifrons. Same question between Dama and Pseudodama; between Candiacervus and Megaloceros and Praemegaceros. To end, is this fossil showing a Megaloceros cazioti (or Megaloceros algarensis)? ---77.201.135.43 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first two are very likely the same. Pseudodama is a genus name used for some early species that are sometimes placed in Dama, so some species names will appear in both genera. Not sure about the others. Ucucha (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics related to archaeology and palaeontology. In case people might check what might be missing and what just might need a redirect - Skysmith (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, you might be interested in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_10#Missing_genus_articles FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Retallack
There is a discussion ongoing on Talk:Gregory Retallack -given that the subject is the main author of the article, there are POV issues that need an expert look. Your input is very welcome. -- cyclopia speak! 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Singular italic style
Probably pretty basic stuff in the zoology world, but as a layman, I'm confused.

Why does (for instance) Pteranadon say "Pteranadon was a reptile" rather than "Pteranadons were reptiles"? Surely "pteranodon" is a common noun by now, not just latina obscura (probably not a term). And the noun refers to a (previously) tangible beast, as well as an intangible classification. I guess it all depends on the italics, as to which we mean.

Also, I assume changing the articles to treat animals as objects would be unfeasibly controversial, but ask here to be sure. Is everyone generally on board with the genus way, or would arguing for the "proper" way be worth a shot? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pteranodon is italicized because it is part of a scientific name. By scientific convention, the names of genera and species are italicized. The scientific names of dinosaur and prehistoric reptiles often become defacto common names in popular literature, hence often is written "Triceratops" instead of Triceratops, since there was no one around 80 million years ago to give a common name like, say, "Western Three-horned Dinosaur", but in formal writing, genus names should be italicized. A similar issue occurs today: the name "Iguana" is both a common name and a scientific name, thus the name is selectively italicized when writing Lesser Antillean Iguana, Iguana delicatissima. The common name "Iguana" however, can refer to other lizards not in the genus Iguana. Returning to Pteranodon, I would argue against "Pteranodon" as a common name, since taxonomy and nomenclature can change with new discoveries, and it would just add another level of confusion to say: "The Pteranodon is now in the genus Protosaurodactylus" Animalparty (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Dmanisi skull
Can somebody please have a look at Homo erectus, the introduction if Dmanisi (with a blatant case of overlinking, awkward and incomplete phrasing) and Dmanisi skull]? The implication or explicit claim that Skull 5 was only found this year seems to be wrong; from what I've read it was already found in 2005 but only described now in 2013. I'm not conversant enough with the literature though so I'd prefer someone else to make the appropriate changes. Perhaps a separate article about all the Dmanisi finds rather than just Skull 5 – along the lines of [[:de:Hominine Fossilien von Dmanissi – would be preferrable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Helianthoides labyrinthica
Hi. I need help making sure that this article isn't a hoax. Does anyone have access to the paper he cites?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Aoufous Formation
This is a new article. It mentions gastropods so I stumbled across it thanks to new article listings for the gastropod project. It had no links at all and was an orphan. Also the English was a bit wobbly; I reckon the first editor's primary language is not English. I have fixed it up as best as I can in a first go-through... which took a couple of hours, but I am not a stratigrapher or even really a paleontologist so I can't really do the article justice. Will someone else who is more trained please at least look through it? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project (2)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-posting this for the sake of attention. This article will be deleted if someone doesn't rewrite without violating copyright. John Reaves 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Carnivoramorpha is the article in question. John Reaves 17:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Behemosaurus
Behemosaurus is an alleged Miocene iguana of giant size, but the only reference is this artwork in DeviantArt:, but no paper or book. I think that it must be deleted or merged until that a reliable source be available. --Rextron (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Note that some, like Heteroceras, Brochoadmones or Metopacanthus, seem real instead (or at least there is some evidence it could be so). Most of older articles created by the user seem genuine as well. I suspect the editor has begun a clever hoax injection. Please double-check if indeed sources exist, and if not, some admin should have a look. -- cyclopia speak! 14:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems there are problems with many of the stubs created by the . Of the following genera, I cannot find any reference on Google Scholar:
 * Pyrokerberus
 * Sinardea
 * Arbaxoceras
 * Antillodaeodon
 * Skinnerhyus
 * Sushuang (hits on Gscholar, but no hits related to the subject, a putative bird)
 * Seems like his additions were questioned at least five months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dinosauria#Behemosaurus_.26_Pyrokerberus_.26_Antillodaeodon_.26_Arbaxoceras FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the reference for Skinnerhyus: is Prothero & Pollen, 2013, and here is the article:, but I not found anything about the others. Now, as Skinnerhyus was described in this year, I don't know if these genera could be real, but certainly their articles must be retired, at least until the info come into view. --Rextron (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The DeviantArt illustrator of "Behemosaurus" seems to specialize in extinct creatures, and his comments on the Behomosaurus illustration imply that this species is currently being described, so it's possible he is affiliated with a research institute, but until such description of any of these taxa appear in a reputable source, they are speculative and suspect, and so should probably be deleted. Animalparty (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good, so I guess I can assume good faith then - I have struck my comment about the hoax above. Still, they're WP:OR at best. I suppose the best course of action is userfying them until sources pop out?-- cyclopia speak! 07:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm agree with your idea.--Rextron (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Antillodaeodon, Arbaxoceras, Behemosaurus, and Pyrokerberus should be deleted, since the author, Dinosauria, explicitly cites DeviantART (a visual arts website, not at all a reputable science source!) as the source here. It appears that Dinosauria is using paintings and drawings with associated "facts", but these could be simply fictitious creatures. I don't know how to delete or move pages, but they should be removed or hidden from Wikipedia immediately. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding WikiSpecies
There is a discussion currently taking place at WikiProject:Plants (here) regarding the status of WikiSpecies. All comments are welcomed and requested.-- Kev min  § 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata: How to store fossil data
Wikidata is making a lot of progress with taxonomic data. has made a Wikidata-only taxobox that you can use by adding to your common.js file on Wikidata (d:Special:MyPage/common.js). It also displays the temporal range for those fossils that have that information (e.g. d:Q17170). Next we would like to tackle the relation between fossils and lithostratigaphy. There is a discussion about whether it would be better to store the formations with the fossils or the fossils with the formations. What other kind of data would be useful to this project? The discussion can be found at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  importScript( 'User:FelixReimann/taxobox.js' ); 

Weigh in needed at WP:Anatomy -RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.
Hi, throwing this out there for anyone concerned. There is a discussion at WP:MED & WP:Anatomy concerning the way articles should be made up. So as not to exclude you I am posting here. CFCF (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Cladogram template on Tritylodontidae needs work
The templates here exceed the technical limits. The change was introduced by an extensive edit incorporating new data. I just ran across it and am not qualified to say what parts of the tree might be split off or summarized to make it possible to render the template and still communicate the relevant information to the reader. Perhaps someone here can do it? GreenReaper (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The same cladogram appears on Cynodont, broken into three sections. On this article however I feel it is far more detailed than necessary, especially since the majority of the taxa are not even Tritylodontids. Possible solutions include lumping non-focal terminal taxa at the family or subfamily level, starting the cladogram at say, Eucynodontia or Probainognathia, and/or pruning stem taxa in the interest of simplicity. A truly encyclopedic entry would summarize the existing knowledge, rather than go into extensive- although accurate- detail. Every phylogeny is ultimately a hypothesis (never set in stone), and it's very possible that other or future studies propose different phylogenies, and rather than exhaustively cataloging every published relationship (as some wikiauthors seem wont to do), or only including the most recent phylogeny, I'm in favor of simplifying the essentials whenever possible. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Multituberculata and subtaxa need work
The many descendent taxa of Multituberculata (see Taxonomy) are in need of a good dusting off and revising for tone and content. Many seem to have been written or substantially edited by the now ?deceased User:KTDykes, and include links to his online directory, which is currently inaccessible and should probably be replaced as a reference in all cases (the majority of taxa). Many didn't have Talk pages or associated Projects until just now (I probably missed some). Many have a list of references without footnotes. There is also the Ctenacodon/ Ctenacodon (Plagiaulacidae) confusion, which might involve merging. A good recent literature review of the group might yield fruitful results to add to the main article, as several species descriptions and phylogenetic studies seem to have come out in the last decade. Any editor who would like to take a crack at this would be most welcome. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the user that is most well versed in that field is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Petter_Bøckman FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, back after a loong break (moving house, don't do it if you don't have to!). I don't know too much about multituberculates down at the genus level though, I guess someone else will have to step up to the platter. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, not sure who else does here, really! FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Request an article review
I've overhauled the article of the entelodont Daeodon and it certainly isn't a stub anymore but I don't know and can't find how do you get it rated. Sorry if this isn't the right place for this question. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can also rate it, it is kind of arbitrary it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? wouldn't that be a bit biased? I suppose I'll give it a try. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's such a big deal, as long as they follow whatever guidelines there are. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Pliosaurus
This article seems to be a bit too long in my opinion which cuts down on its readability. I ran it by Dinoguy2 here and got his feedback. Any suggestions on what to do about it? Should the individual species be made into their own articles? ScienceApe (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at any featured dinosaur articles, it is certainly not too long. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Purbeck articles
Any reason why Purbeck Group and Purbeck Limestone Formation should be separate? And how does it fit with Purbeck Marble? FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At a brief glance it would seem that the limestone and the marble were formerly specific units in the larger Purbeck group. The limestone is in serious need of expansion though so its I'm not fully confident in my assumption, and the modern formations should have articles created I think.-- Kev  min  § 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the BGS lexicon of rock units, Purbeck Limestone Formation is one of the previous names for the Purbeck Group, so they should be merged. Purbeck Marble is a building stone taken from some distinctive limestone layers within the Durlston Formation, itself part of the Purbeck Group. To complete the picture we have Purbeck stone, which refers to all of the limestone beds within the group that have been used as building stone, of which the Purbeck Marble is just an example. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. So it is not a formation within the "group"? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, just an alternative name for the same sequence of rocks. They also get called the Purbeck Limestone Group, to maximise the confusion. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like clear merge then, not sure if there's anything to salvage from the shorter article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Paleozoic up for featured portal status
Today I nominated the Paleozoic Portal for featured portal status. Your comments and criticism are welcome at the nomination page. Abyssal (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ouch, your main image is a very likely copyright violation! Liopleurodon93 uploaded a lot of un free images back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Shit. It looked good there, too. Abyssal (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Helianthoides labyrinthica
Dear paloentologists: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything in it that should be added to the Nereites irregularis article, or should it be let go? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a synonym, it should be merged/redirected. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a redirect Helianthoides labyrinthica, so that's taken care of. Is there any useful content to merge?  I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't tell. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any unique material. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's gone now. Thanks for taking time to check this out.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured non-dinosaur articles
Very few non-dinosaur paleo articles have been featured, I can only think of Deinosuchus and woolly mammoth, Ediacara biota, and several subfossil lemurs. Anyone have suggestions for which others that could be pulled through? LittleJerry recently made Smilodon a GA, for example, and that one could probably do, after some expansion. Some pterosaur articles are in pretty good shape, but we have not even a single FA pterosaur article. SmokeyJBJ has also expanded many non-dinosaur articles a great deal, maybe some could be taken to FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Plesiosauria, Mosasaurus, Mosasaur and Hupehsuchia could be revised and expanded, and Pteranodon and Dimetrodon be a candidate to FA.--Rextron (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Smokey did a good job on Dimetrodon, maybe he's on it? FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If only I had the time! I haven't been active lately and probably won't be for another few months, so someone else can feel free to try to bring these articles to FA status while I'm gone. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Task list discussion (Articles needed or needing improvements)

 * I hope I wasn't too bold in recently adding a section to Articles needed or needing improvements on translating high-quality material from foreign language wikis. The layout and wording can surely be revised if anyone sees fit. I also added tips on inclusion criteria (i.e., articles with substantial, well-referenced material), to hopefully identify the most informative articles to translate.
 * Secondly, we might be more specific with "Articles needed or needing improvements", e.g. clarify what exactly needs improving. Save FA and GA, almost all articles can use improvements, so without a prompt (e.g. "new review paper out" or "grossly lacking in citations"), improvement may be slow to come. Similarly, to prevent clutter and to keep the most pressing and/or most recently added materials in view, we might discuss delisting 'criteria', and/or simply have a kind note to please remove your chosen article from the task list after making improvements. Thoughts?--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a very good iniciative. I've seen that some articles in German about extinct rhinos and others articles in Spanish that could be useful (for example, the species of Arctotherium or the SALMAs). Also, about the improvements I think that the section of years in paleontology could be useful. By the way, many articles of proboscideans need improvement, at least the scientific authorities of species and bibliography.--Rextron (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's an easier way to identify articles in non-English Wiki that don't exist yet in English. I've found a few by Googling and a French or German wiki article comes up, and others based on hunches, trial and error (e.g. clicking one of the "other languages" links and crossing my fingers). --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't known another way different of make searchs in Google or ask to editors in another wikipedias... I only can talk for the Spanish one.--Rextron (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are also several Italian articles we don't have. By the way, never thought about it before, but since Pteridospermatophyta is included here, does the project cover fossil plants as well? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Paleobotany is a rich and important field.--Animalparty-- (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Paleontology in Georgia
FYI, has been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Paleontology in Georgia -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed extinct animal images
Here's a "heads up" for anyone interested. Some time ago I created a Commons category for photos of extinct animals that have not received scientific names yet, or are to be reclassified. The category can be found here, and currently contains almost a hundred images. The point is to keep track of the images, and add them to articles once the taxa are named. But since there are so many different animals, I'll hardly be able to keep track alone, and there is also a possibility that some of these have already been named in the meantime (or will never be named), without me knowing it, so any help would be great. It's also a nice category to look at if anyone wants to know at least some of what's in store for palaeontology in the near future.

Here's a selection of some that are already well known, but need names. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The "skimmer porpoise" above was just named Semirostrum. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice catch!--Rextron (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hell Creek "Chirostenotes" was just named Anzu (dinosaur)! Weird that these two were named so soon after I made this thread, the specimens have been known for years... FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Linda A. Tsuji
Please help expand this new stub! Bearian (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but are you sure this person is notable per WP:SCHOLAR? Links to published papers, and/or Science Daily (which prints press releases, not original, independent news stories) may not be sufficient. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am not sure, but she's linked to several articles, so I was being bold and created it. Feel free to send it to WP:AfD, but send me a notice. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Zatrachys Copyright vio needs attention
The article Zatrachys was previously a verbatim copy of this abstract and needs rewriting. See also the potential plagiarism at Dicksonosteus. I've reduced it to a stub and placed a notice on the user's talk page to stem future copypaste violations. Anyone is welcome to contribute to these stubs.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Taxa with documented paleopathologies up for deletion
I created a category for prehistoric taxa whose fossils preserve evidence of ancient illness or disease so that interested readers could browse through different taxa preserved with such conditions, because information on what taxa have paleopathologies is difficult to come by for the layman. However, a user has contested the appropriateness of this category and has nominated it for deletion. I was seeking feedback from interested contributors as to whether or not this category should be kept. Abyssal (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD
There is an AFD on a musician/biologist that may be of interest to this wikiproject. There is an open question on if the subject would pass WP:NACADEMICS. Articles_for_deletion/James_Robinson_(filk_musician) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 28/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Araripesuchus wegeneri. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could this perhaps be included in the already existing Araripesuchus article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 29/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lepidosaur Herbivory. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This could easily be incorporated into Lepidosauria. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Category" assessment class
Can we create a "Category" assessment class so that we can tag relevant category talk pages with the WP:Dinosaurs template, but still distinguish them from the "NA-class" pages like the Wikiproject pages that they're currently lumped with? Abyssal (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ORCID
Those of you working in palaeontology may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using Authority control thus:  (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 18/05
Draft:Lepidosaur Herbivory. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatedly adding fossil taxa described in year categories
I was considering making a bot request to automatically add Category: Fossil taxa described in 2014 (or whatever year) to all of our relevant articles based on the years listed under the genus authority heading of the article infoboxes. Do you support this initiative? Abyssal (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Paleozoic renominated for featured portal status
Today I renominated the Paleozoic Portal for featured portal status. The last nomination failed because no one, apparently, could be arsed to comment on it. :( Your comments and criticism are welcome at the new nomination page. Abyssal (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/06
Draft:Hsanda Gol Formation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Palaeontology At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Francevillian Group Fossil and Gabonionta
Hello, sorry if I am not to the right place to talk about that. I am not an expert in paleontology but I think that Francevillian Group Fossil and Gabonionta refer to the same thing. Do you think the same? If so, could you do what is needed to merge both articles? Thank you :D 132.165.76.2 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the former article and merged it to Gabonionta. The proper title of the article is still up for debate : "Gabonionta" was apparently invented by a museum and is not widely used while "Francevillian Group Fossil" can refer to other fossils in the formation, I believe. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to use recently coined vernacular names instead of scientific names for fossil species
Those familiar with how we name articles (and why) on species only identified in the fossil record may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds,  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for restorations, again
A relevant discussion, which may be of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Illustrations_violating_NOR FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Images of fossils preferred in the taxobox?
In light of the above discussion, and lack of responses in this old one, I was thinking of whether we should make it a sort of written project policy that images of fossils or skeletal reconstructions should be preferred in the taxobox over life restorations? Restorations are always hypothetical, and therefore a great deal more contentious, and therefore less factual in a way. This should of course only be done when we have good images of fossils, and skeletons that are mounted correctly. Fossils/skeletons can of course also be restored in incorrect ways, but even then, there is much less speculation involved. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I prefer that in the taxobox the images have the real organism, or in this case, what remains of the such organism. On another hand, the recosntructed images of fossils are less abstract for an casual reader...--Rextron (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are probably more "presentable" than photos of a fragmentary skull or some such. But the skull is the "evidence", and for Wikipedia purposes, therefore more "verifiable". FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the choice of image type (restoration vs fossil photograph) should be made on a case-by-case basis, using the highest quality image available. I don't think the image type should be as strict as a policy, but perhaps more of a loose guideline or recommendation, with a good deal of room for common sense. Otherwise a strict interpretation means eschewing high-quality CC-licensed restorations that have been published in primary literature (see for instance Ocepeia and Ocepechelon). The controversy above appears to concern only user-submitted illustrations falling under original research, which certainly doesn't apply to published illustrations.--Animalparty-- (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on loose guideline and case-by-case basis. I'd prefer an excellent, peer-reviewed reconstruction over a grainy or inaccurately mounted skeletal. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think I mentioned this caveat in my first post. Bad photos and incorrectly restored fossils/mounts should of course not take precedence. And the latter should perhaps not be used at all, unless they can serve some purpose in a historically oriented section of an article. And yeah, a recommendation rather than a policy is probably better. Also, restorations published in journals are actually not always correct, see these for example, where the hands are definitely wrong, and the rest of the anatomy seems ill defined. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. All of the subfossil lemur restorations were done in conjunction with the leading authority on these animals.  In fact, she's even told me that Wikipedia now has the most accurate life restorations of these extinct lemurs ever drawn.  When it comes to photos of reconstructed skeletons, most are done incorrectly, plus photos are very hard to come by (without flying to Madagascar, in most cases).  I always try to include images of the subfossil remains in the article.  Therefore it would bother me a lot if I had to swap those high-quality images that I had worked so hard to coordinate the creation of with the relatively low-quality photos of bones displayed only a section or two down in the article. –  Maky  « talk » 06:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would of course be done on a case by case basis. And the lemur restorations here are some of the few custom made Wikipedia restorations with input from actual scientists, so they are quite unique. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Some examples of my own thoughts, the Massospondylus article has a restoration in the taxobox, and we don't really have an appropriate fossil image to replace it with. Much of the animal's skeleton is known, so it seems a bit weird to put a photo of only the skull there, for example, and our only image of a mount shows it inaccurately bipedal. On the other hand, Ziapelta is only known from a skull and some cervical half rings, so I think putting in the full body restoration in the taxobox would be quite misleading. The skull may not be too interesting for regular readers to look at, but it is more "verifiable". FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related, as I have seldom seen this distinction made in print, but just found an example, palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Palaeontology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability of paleontology biographies
I just put note on the project page regarding notability requirements for scholars. I've seen a handful of biography stubs that seem to pluck an obscure person out of a book mention or primary source, and/or a lot of unverified opinion statements (e.g. "...is notable for describing several species of ____"). I figured the note was warranted, and maybe we could also discuss ways to improve existing stubs, delete/merge ones that have little hope of ever being expanded, and improve the overall quality of paleo biographies. I recognize that some dinosaur and paleo enthusiasts may have an disproportionate view of a person's notability, which is why I think the discussion is especially important. Similarly, would it be worth adding a field to the WP Pale banner for biographies? (e.g. )? --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Project Pterosaurs
I have a question based on a couple of pterosaur article talk pages I tagged or created recently. Since WikiProject Pterosaurs is defunct, and now links to this project, (hence no category for "Start class Pterosaur articles") does that require that all Pterosaur Banners need to be replaced/supplemented with a WP Paleo banner that does categorize them? If so, it would require a good amount of effort to locate and re-tag all Pterosaur pages that lack Paleo banners (and also serves as a reminder of the problems when short-lived projects die). I have similar questions regarding descendent projects of WikiProject Insects, i.e. WikiProject Beetles is struggling, and is it even worth it to tag? --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should all be replaced. I think there is a way to find all pages tagged with it, but i don't remember how... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CatScan v2 is what you need. The availability of this tool is unreliable though; I'd say it works more often than not, but it frequently stops working for several hours or days. At this moment, it's not working and has been down for at least a day, so you'll have to try again later (well, the search page loads now, which wasn't happening last night, but the results page still isn't working). This search should uncover the WikiProject Pterosaur tagged articles that don't have a WikiProject Palaeotology banner. Using other search terms, you could find all the Beetle project articles that don't have an Insects project banner, or even drill down through the subcategories of Category:Beetles to find all the coleopterans that don't haven't yet been assessed for either Beetles or Insects (there are likely thousands of these; even the most active organismal WikiProjects have many articles in their scope that haven't been assessed yet). Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to let a bot do the finding and replacing Bot requests? -Tobias1984 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CatScan is back up, but the search I gave above doesn't work properly. Try this search, which finds articles in Category:Pterosaurs that lack a WikiProject Palaeontology banner.


 * By the way, the case is similar for "Wikiproject seamonsters" (ridiculous name), which was also redirected here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of merging the article concerning Cladoselache with Cladoselachidae
Hi, I do advocate convenience in the allocations of information, yet wouldn't support the merging of two pages, which do concern similar topics, yet regard two distinct taxonomic ranks. Now, one might say that such a standpoint is not tenable, due to the one page concerning a genus, and the other the family to which it belongs, but they are still two distinct taxonomic ranks and therefore merging the two would infer an insignificance of lower rank. --GaryGLouw 16:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLouw19 (talk • contribs)
 * This discussion belongs on the talk page of one of the two articles in question, but the convention is to merge monotypic taxa. Since the family apparently contains mutiple genera, it would be best to have the family article present an overview of all genera, (shared features, temporal occurrence, etc), yielding to genera articles for specific details. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, merging should only be done when the family/subfamily/etc. taxon is monotypic. This one isn't. In fact, the opposite has to be done; creation of articles for the red linked genera. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the above discussion to Talk:Cladoselache for better record keeping. Please continue any further discussion there, even if for no other reason than to formally close discussion.--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of coal balls
See WP:Peer review/Coal ball/archive3 for details. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 02:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Genus names with parenthetical disambiguation
There seems to be disparity and inconsistency across animal article titles when the genus is a disambiguated title and there is no common name (e.g. Larisa (genus), Adela (moth)), and Carnarvonia (fossil)). Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) for discussion of whether a new naming guideline should inform animal titles. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Years in paleontology lists
On the talk page of 2015 in arthropod paleontology there is currently a discussion about what kind of information these kind of lists should contains, especially whether they should list articles that were published in a particular year or taxa that were validly named in a particular year. As far as I can tell this wasn't really discussed before. Thoughts? --Macrochelys (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Helen Niña Tappan Loeblich]
I started the article on Helen Niña Tappan Loeblich one of the world's leading micropaleontologists. There is a lot of biographical information about her and her work available online if other editors want to jump in and make it a much better article. Sorry for the cross posting, the projects look like good places for like-minded or -topiced editors, but seem to be low activity. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

List of dinosaur specimens up for deletion
I really don't think this should be deleted, as there are many dinosaur specimens with coverage in the popular media that can be added, see my talk page comments, and please expand or improve the article and add my suggestions or yours. Also, let me know if there is a better way to offer this fun information to the reader. Articles for deletion/List of dinosaur specimens MicroPaLeo (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of thousands of dinosaur specimens. What is the criteria for listing specimen on this page? What is the reasoning for not just using the articles on the species or genera each specimen belongs to? Or is this only for specimens that have been given cute nicknames by newspapers? If it's the latter, maybe it would be more practical to have a "famous fossil specimens" page including not only these dinosaurs but things like "Lucy", "SuperCroc", "Predator X", etc. The criteria could be at least one valid source flat-out stating that a specimen is "famous" using that word ("notable" is misleading, because there are many notable specimens the general public will never have heard of and are not the basis for publicized mounts etc.) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, famous, not notable, but base existing Wikipedia notability criteria, no need to make anything different. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

List of paleontologists
I am working on expanding the page List of paleontologists. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Hza a 9 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Homo tsaichangensis
Any thoughts on this new taxa? Very recent description with only 5 Google hits, published by Meanma Press (?). Paper (PDF). jonkerz ♠talk 00:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's kind of a slap in the face of the team who described the fossil, and may be premature, but may or may not be valid. Mark McMenamin, who named the fossil that Chang et al described, is not a hominin specialist, and I have a hunch Meanma Press is McMenamin's own press, or at least affiliated with him (based in the same town as Mount Holyoke, many books solely by him). Talk about stealing thunder! (he did at least honor one of the authors in the species epithet). It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially since McMenamin is no stranger to controversy. There hopefully will be secondary sources soon, either scholarly or journalistic, to give better sense of balance and perspective to the issue.  --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, whether the name is valid or not, the jawbone has gotten some press already, yet none mention the name "tsaichangensis", only that it is a likely new species:   --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia article on a new species tied to a single source is not appropriate. This should be in his article, a redirect isprobably okay, but probably not needed. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be prudent to move the article to Penghu 1, as that currently appears to be the most widely used name, and mentioning that one author so far has named it Homo tsaichangensis, which appears to be a minority view until highly reliable secondary sources appear. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the fossil has enough coverage, it should be an article. But, if if the name is validly published it is about speciation, not a minority view, and discussion of that in the article should be based on what the other sources say. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the fossil has enough coverage, it should be an article. But, if if the name is validly published it is about speciation, not a minority view, and discussion of that in the article should be based on what the other sources say. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could the creator of the page be the author of the paper? FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be, but does that change whether it is notable for being an article at this name? I don't think so. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While not wanting to engage in outing, we can observe the user has an edit history that is heavily centered around a researcher and that person's research. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that the page creator and author of the paper is the same person. I support moving the article to Penghu 1, or redirecting it to Mark McMenamin, rather than having the article at its current location without reliable third-party sources. jonkerz ♠talk 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also highly likely he or she is a graduate student of his. But this does not change the notability of the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Revival of Paleontologists taskforce
In an effort to improve the coverage of paleontologists on Wikipedia, I would like to bring attention to the Paleontologists taskforce. I have added an option to include articles under this taskforce using the WikiProject Paleontology template, and hope to attract interest in updating paleontologist-related articles. Hza a 9 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for doing that. I brought it up a while back and am glad someone took the initiative (I don't know enough about template manipulation). Would it be possible to make a shortcut like "bio=yes", to supplement or even replace the "paleontologist=yes" line? If not only to make it easier on our fingers, and also to obviate British and American spelling differences. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've added both "bio=" and "palaeontologist=" as options now. Hza a 9 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I take that back - what I was doing was adding the paleontologist template to every paleontology article. I'm sure there's a good way to do this - I'll update if I can figure out how to make it work. Hza a 9 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project
There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Patasola"
The usage and primary topic of Patasola is under discussion, see talk:Patasola magdalenae -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Paleontology @ Wikimedia Commons
Calling, , , , , , and other members of Wikproject Paleontology! User:FunkMonk, me and some other users have established a Wikiproject Paleontology outpost at Wikimedia Commons and are now trying to establish category nomenclatural conventions and plan category architecture. We would love input from you guys on how best to go about this. Abyssal (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that project should be linked permanently on the front page of this project, ? FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Abyssal (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"coniasaurs" - can  somebody please  create a  stub or  redirect?
Several of our  articles  mention  "coniasaurs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=coniasaur&fulltext=Search

The term is  unfamilar to me and  doesn't  appear to be  defined  anywhere  on Wikipedia.

Can we please  create an  appropriate stub /  redirect /  whatever's  necessary?

Thanks -  189.122.195.17 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find much on Coniasaurus (Owen, 1850), except this. Apparently it belongs in Pythonomorpha and is a sister group to Mosasauroidea.  Otherwise I don't see much published about it. –  Maky  « talk » 02:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some stuff here about C.crassidens and C.gracilodens. Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Coniasaurus now exists as a stub and coniasaur is a redirect to that article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks - 189.122.195.17 (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiktaalik and convergent evolution:

 * Talk:List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

Would like some input from knowledgeable people on this. This is just something I've noticed, but I am far from an expert. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Brontosaurus distinct species news:

 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Skeletal changes of organisms transitioning from water to land

 * Article

Noticed a new article, I'm curious as to how it should be organized. There's already an Evolution of tetrapods article, and it could be that skeletal changes could warrant its own article. But there is overlap between the two. What do you guys think? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably best to merge into Evolution of tetrapods, especially given how readers are most likely to search Wikipedia to look up facts on this issue. There will of course then be a redirect from the title Skeletal changes of organisms transitioning from water to land, which is an awkward title that doesn't really fit Wikipedia's preferred practice for article titles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought about the title. A better title might be "Skeletal changes in early tetrapod evolution". I've also noticed the Evolution of tetrapods title might be too broad, and a better one might be Evolution of early tetrapods. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for splitting/merging palaeo species articles
A discussion that should probably result in some guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marsupial_lion#Merge_with_Thylacoleo FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Australosyodon
Can somebody expand this?♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanded a little bit. You should check the German version of the article which is bigger. Translating from that would improve the article a lot. See:  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Material from the German page would help out a lot. I don't know how to do those translations though. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitanian Extinction/Middle Permian Extinction
might be profitably turned into an article, since it is about a Big-6 extinction level event, or deleted as a WP:REDLINK; per elevating its status to one of the major extinctions. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Years in paleontology template question
I started deploying the new Year in paleontology article template when the thought occurred to me that I might tweak the order a bit. I originally had the scientific advances heading first followed by field work and a section on museums and scientific organizations. I then thought It might make more sense to have the field work section come first, then the museum section, then the scientific advances section to reflect the actual "life cycle" of a fossil being discovered, then taken in by some institution where it's studied and then science is published based on it. I think the logic behind that sounds good, but I'm not sure it looks quite right live in the article and I thought I would ask what you guys thought before I employed the changed version in any more articles. Abyssal (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you intending to add prose to each section header? I feel like having such a detailed template (the last few entries approaching trivia), gives a cluttered appearance, especially with little or no content to the headers. I would recommend, for stylistic reasons, only headings with content be used. Otherwise these year articles seem less like articles than like databases of shoehorned facts. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, every heading is intended to be filled with reasonable substantial content. Abyssal (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, I guess the templates should be added only when there is relevant info to add? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed category for "First appearances" by geologic time unit
We already have categories for extinctions by geologic time units (eg Category:Cretaceous extinctions, etc) I propose that we establish a parallel category series for first appearances as well, like Category:Triassic first appearances and so on. We may not want to add taxa with very brief "lifespans", but I think that at least long-lived taxa deserve to be categorized by time of origin in addition to extinction. Abyssal (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Paleontology in Kentucky
Article states no Devonian fish are known from Kentucky. However, isolated plates from armored fish and some large bones of Devonian fish have been found. 73.176.130.50 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Dave Fine 4/25/1573.176.130.50 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I'll look into updating the article in the near future. Abyssal (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dinosorex - autotaxobox
Could someone please add an autotaxobox to this newly created stb - Dinosorex aka the Giant Terror Shrew? AshLin (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Eras of the Phanerozoic
I've added a description of each era in the Phanerozoic a couple of days ago to the Phanerozoic Eon article, and also placed the descriptions to the corresponding articles (Mesozoic article gets the description of the periods of the Mesozoic...Cenozoic...Paleozoic) Tell me what you think! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revamp of the Years in paleontology articles
I've been doing a lot of work on the history of paleontology over the last year and have concluded that our "years in paleontology" articles are inadequate. Many of them are close to double the recommended page size according to policy. I also think that they are too narrowly focused on new taxa to the neglect of other developments in the field. Further, what few additions of research-related information gets added is easily lost among the massive tables. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to report new taxa, and I like the table format (I designed them after all), but I think that the years in paleontology articles could benefit from being more well-rounded. User:Macrochelys and an anonymous IP address have already started splitting some of the years articles into articles dedicated to more specific subdisciplines of paleontology.

I propose that we continue the process of splitting the tables off to more specialized articles and restructure the articles on the years themselves alone the lines of this template. The new template covers the major subdisciplines of paleontology in a broad overview style while also designating space for discussions of currently neglected topics like fossil discoveries, developments in natural history museums, the commercial fossil trade, legal and ethical aspects of paleontology, births and deaths of paleontologists and popular culture. Abyssal (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As with most other kinds of articles/lists, I don't think there's need for splitting before they become too long. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. What do you think of the new template, though? We could collapse the new taxa lists under their respective headings eg collapse the list of new dinosaurs under the vertebrate paleozoology heading. Abyssal (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Template looks fine to me, but it will of course take a lot of work to fill them up for every page... FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this needs a much larger discussion before it is implemented if at all. Please take a look at 1978 in paleontology and 2015 in paleontology, as it stands now I dont think it is at all feasible to make the additions that have been placed into 1978 work with the most recent 5 years or so of xxxx in paleontology articles, and as the older articles fill in they will reach similar issues. Im pinging the still active member of the project.-- Kev min  § 16:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I think these exta sections should only be added when they have content, not before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with FunkMonk. 1978 in paleontology looks atrocious, and borderline indiscriminate. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN candidate Australopithecus deyiremeda
Hello. The article Australopithecus deyiremeda has been proposed on In the news candidates -- Aronzak (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Columbian mammoth at FAC
Columbian mammoth is currently nominated as a featured article candidate, any comments for its improvement are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Does Dead Clade Walking = Extinction debt?
Please comment on that question at Talk:Dead clade walking. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I create templates for inactive "dummy projects" to help us monitor the development of specific topics?
One of the challenges we face as a project is monitoring the development of our content and using this information to ensure broad and thorough coverage of prehistoric life. Marking our pages with a project template gives us the ability to automatically keep track of how fully developed articles are with tools like WP bot and JL-bot. Unfortunately as currently used they offer little insight into how evenly that coverage is distributed among the various subfields of paleontological research, divisions of geologic time, etc.

To remedy this, I propose that we create templates for several inactive "dummy projects" allowing us to sort paleontology articles by important topics so that development statistics can be tracked for those topics automatically with JL-bot. This kind of information is especially important for portal maintenance. Meanwhile, their respective project and talk pages simply redirect to those of Wikiproject Paleontology so that our efforts aren't divided among a large number of smaller projects.

Creating task forces within Wikiproject Paleontology aren't enough, because JL-bot requires a template to be present in order to collect data. Sorting content with Wikiprojects also has the advantage of allowing the projects to be "turned on" if enough interest to sustain them is ever gathered as well as being able to rate the importance of articles within specific areas of study within paleontology independantly of their value to paleontology as a whole.

Specifically, I propose the following projects:
 * WikiProject Ediacaran
 * WikiProject Cambrian
 * WikiProject Ordovician
 * WikiProject Silurian
 * WikiProject Devonian
 * WikiProject Carboniferous
 * WikiProject Permian
 * WikiProject Triassic
 * WikiProject Jurassic
 * WikiProject Cretaceous
 * WikiProject Paleogene
 * WikiProject Neogene
 * WikiProject Quaternary prehistory
 * WikiProject Pterosaurs (technically a semi-revival)
 * WikiProject Ichthyosauromorphs (technically a semi-revival and split of the old Wikiproject Sea Monsters)
 * WikiProject Mosasaurs (technically a semi-revival and split of the old Wikiproject Sea Monsters)
 * WikiProject Sauropterygians (technically a semi-revival and split of the old Wikiproject Sea Monsters)

Most of the article tagging can probably be done by bot, so this initiative shouldn't require any special amount of effort on the part of users. I think the statistics we could gather this way would be really helpful. What about you? Abyssal (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, I prefer the KISS principle. I'd have to see it before I believe it'd be worthwhile. This seems like a lot of effort to make work perhaps a tad easier for a handful of editors, but I admit I don't know the mechanics of bots. Will we next week be adding a dummy WikiProject Early Jurassic Asian Theropods Described in the 1990s? If it only conveniences one or two people, at the expense of less bot-savvy editors, it may not be worth it in the long run. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a convenience to anyone who's generally interested in monitoring the progress we're making as a project and definitely anyone who wants to contribute to our portals. I don't think anyone could be inconvenienced by it. This proposal doesn't require anyone to be bot savvy (I'm not, myself) as the bots run automatically on a set schedule. JL-bot runs weekly, and I'm not sure about WP bot. I don't think we have to worry about a huge proliferation of tiny projects since the progress of very narrow can be evaluated easily by hand and no one will be making portals for such obscure subjects. Abyssal (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that dummy projects are the way to go. If there is a need to provide a more finely grained WikiProject classification of palaeontology topics, I'd suggest to do that via taskforces (or dummy categories for eras switched on through the WikiProject Palaeontology template). Plantdrew (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think progress is so slow that something like this automated list above right or this manual list would be easy enough to handle. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ocepeia up for peer review
I'm soliciting feedback on Ocepeia for a pre-GA peer review. Comments from specialists and non-specialists equally appreciated. See Peer review/Ocepeia/archive1 to comment. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Personally, I'd put a skull reconstruction in the taxobox instead of the life restoration, as it is more reliable, less hypothetical. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Why is the spelling of Paleontology / Palaeontology not standardized? The articles Paleontology and (year) in paleontology use the former (American) spelling while this WikiProject uses the latter (British). --Serpinium (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This project was started by a user using Australian English, regardless of the fact that Paleontology and other articles use American spelling. Either spellings are acceptable per MOS:ENGVAR, as long as within article usage is consistent. The science has no particular ties to any country, and the only case for preferring one spelling over the other might be articles such as Palaeontology in the United Kingdom or biographies per MOS:TIES. I use the British spelling in biographies of British palaeontologists, for instance, as that is consistent with many of the sources. I don't see a pressing need to change the Project name, per the mantra "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and using the same rationale for projects as articles,  MOS:RETAIN gives priority to the earliest usage (note WikiProject Paleontology and WikiProject Paleontology are redirects). True it would be a rather simple move, but also implicitly suggests American English is the "correct" English, for which there is no justification. If for some reason there is consensus to change the title, I wouldn't oppose it, but I suspect it may cause drama for little to no benefit. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I understand now, thanks a lot. --Serpinium (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

GA article - notability
I have taken the unusual step of tagging a GA-rated article for notability. See Talk:Kirtlandian. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the controversy should had been noted. But we can have good articles about controversial subjects, as long as all sides are accounted for. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - but the references to the Kirtlandian are so offhand as to suggest it is mostly ignored. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the easiest way to solve this is to let make some additions based on the mentioned sources, and see if we and the reviewer,, find the result passable. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On Talk:Kirtlandian, I have quoted pretty much all that is said about the Kirtlandian in those sources. Compare the sources I have just added to the reference sections of the well-established Cretaceous land-mammal "ages": Judithian, Edmontonian and Lancian. These secondary sources have quite extended discussions, and the most recent is dated 2012. I made a valiant effort to do the same for the Kirtlandian, but failed. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons Flickr image dump- files need categorizing!
Just a heads up: There are a ton of recent images on Commons of value to paleontology and natural sciences articles that need categorization. Please see the discussion from the Commons Paleo Project Talk page here. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

New stub Brooksella alternata
Just accepted at AFC, needs some work to get it into reasonable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would perhaps be better to move it to Brooksella, and not just focus on one species, as there seems to be more in the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Life restoration captions
Inspired by some recent activity on Twitter where paleoartists have been lamenting the fact that many media outlets and other consumers of paleoart view it as an anonymous commodity, I realized we do something weird on wiki when it comes to paleoart in articles. If the art is something of "historical importance" like a Charles Knight, the artist and date are always given in the caption. For more recent art, especially art created specifically for wiki, restorations are left anonymous in captions and the user must click through to Commons to find date and artist. This seems to me to reinforce the idea that other than old painting, which are fine art, modern paleoart is simply an anonymous commodity not worthy of being treated as art.

I went and checked the manual of style for both images in general and visual art in particular, and both say that ALL art should be given, at minimum, author and date in the caption itself. Because this is already an accepted Wiki-wide standard and I can't think of any reason it wouldn't apply to paleoart, I'm going to go ahead and start adding this in any articles I'm working on as long as the real name of the artist is available. I thought I'd post about it here so others could start doing the same. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It'll be nice to see our hard-working artists get the credit they deserve. Abyssal (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the idea, but here's an explanation of what I've been doing so far. Including name or not has mainly been about the notability of the artist and the work itself. Charles Knight is a world famous artist of historical significance and influence. But many old lithographs for example were made by rather obscure draughtsmen, so they are usually not credited in the captions. Likewise, Wikipedia-wide, we don't credit photographers in the captions, unless they are somehow notable. Neither creators of diagrams, etc. So I'd say go for it if you like, but there is no Wikipedia precedence for it when it comes to user-made work. And I do think that MOS guideline is directed at works by "notable" artists, not user-created content (which there is a lot of outside dinosaur articles as well, and I've never seen any of it credited in the captions). So there's also the question of where to stop, if we disregard notability. Why should only user-made restorations have caption credits, and not photographs of fossils, for example? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline may have been directed at situations where the art or artist are the subject of the article. But who knows? There was no discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts. In fact, I find it remarkable how little discussion there has been of any part of Manual of Style/Visual arts. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with the frustrations of artists, the twittersphere should not dictate style guidelines. WP:CREDITS states "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article." This guideline concerns articles or passges that are about visual art, and, for many user-generated (or even published) paleo restorations, the image itself is never or rarely the subject of discussion itself. There is clearly subjectivity (gasp!) involved in whether to credit or not, and guidelines are neither policy nor immutable, but I think in cases where the artist is not relevant to the image beyond creating it, and creditting the image doesnt add substantial new information, it should usually be relegated to the file description page. A strict interpretation of the proposed practice might consider all photographs or drawings to be "art", resulting in articles cluttered with irrelevant names, dates, and such. In theory an image by even a notable creator may not always necessitate credit in captions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of Unicode dagger symbol for extinct taxa
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (thread on usage and styling of the dagger). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:JCW needs help, again!
Last time, this proved quite the fructuous effort (see old thread)), so here it is again. For those unfamiliar with WP:JCW, it is a compilation of all journal parameters of citation templates has recently updated. Several paleo* publications are heavily cited, and lack articles on them. Any help on writing those would be greatly appreciated (and we even have some guides at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines), to help editors create these articles). I took the liberty of compiling a list, although I'm no expert on the topic, and I'm only basing myself on the titles of these publications. I could be missing a few, or include things not really related to the project, so feel free to edit the below list.

Note that for some of them, it might be preferable (e.g. if they fail WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG) to expand the articles on their publisher/associated societies with a section on the journal/magazine, and create a redirect to that section, rather than create a standalone article. But I leave that to WP:PALEO editors to decide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology (13th)

• Historical Biology (20th)

• Geodiversitas (24th)

• Palaeontologia Electronica (46th)

• Comptes Rendus Palevol (53rd)

• Palaeodiversity (104th)

• Special Papers in Palaeontology (111th)

• Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology (150th)

• Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala (178th)

• Annales de Paléontologie (189th)

• Paleontological Research (207th)

• Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum(432nd)

• PaleoBios (432nd)

• Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan (744th)

• Palaeontographica Abteilung A (744th)

• Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia (744th)

• Palaeontologia Africana (834th)

"Branchiosauria"
The taxon Branchiosauria and equivalent Branchiosaur is an obsolete, polyphyeltic assemblage of Temnospondyli amphibians (and others?). This is discussed briefly at Temnospondyli. I'm wondering if it's worth creating a separate article for this obsolete taxon, or if it should be redirected to an existing article, and if so, where might be the best target. I'm not yet sure where all the former branchiosaurs have been assigned (note that the more exclusive Branchiosauridae appears to be a valid taxon). Any suggestions? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be redirected, and discussed in the target article. But yeah, wonder what that would be. FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Automatic lists
There is now a new template that allows to automatically generate lists from Wikidata, which are always updated by a bot to include any changes. I created an example list here: List of stratigraphic units in Austria. I was wondering if there is any interest in a tutorial how to do these lists and how to add missing values. This would be a great oppertunity to reduce the amount of maintainance work. A big plus is that the lists can be used in any langugage of Wikipedia and the translation needed is reduced to a minimum. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Monster of Aramberri's True Identity?
I think that the Monster of Aramberri could be a species of Pliosaurus. Since it was 11 meters and Pliosaurus was 11-12 meters, and both animals had skulls up to 10 feet in length, I think the Monster of Aramberri is really a Pliosaurus. The only other candidate for the Aramberri monster's identity would be Megalneusaurus. The problem with this idea is that Megalneusaurus only reached up to 21 feet or so, like Liopleurodon. It was too small, unless previous finds of Megalneusaurus were only juveniles. I think only 2 individuals of Megalneusaurus have been found, but I highly doubt that the Aramberri monster was a Megalneusaurus. So unless the Monster of Aramberri was an extremely-large Megalneusaurus, then the Aramberri monster is a Pliosaurus. 66.44.6.209 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)EBLazerRex65


 * Speculating is all nice and dandy but Wikipedia relies on published sources, we can't use our own speculation, even then body size is not a very good way to distinguish taxa. Could MOA be an species of Pliosaurus? maybe, who knows, but until such conclusion is reached in a scientific publication we can't use it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Prototheria
Hi,

In last december, the article Prototheria was deleted, and redirected to a newly created article called Yinotheria.

The Yinotheria article says Prototheria is unanimously considered to be an obsolete taxon. I'm not a specialist but given that Yinotheria are harly mentionned on all other Wikipedias, I suspect there may be some aggressive pov-pushing here. In addition, even if the statement was true, the current state of the article is terrible because Prototheria is a well-known term and the reader has to scroll far into the Yinotheria article to have information on that term.

The user responsible for the changes is. There wasn't any discussion whatsoever for these changes (as far as I can tell ; I looked for article templates, talk pages, and projet talk pages).

Tinm (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good catch. A quick Google search (and a much longer write up of the results) makes it clear to this non-expert that reports of prototheria's demise have been exaggerated.  I've restored the prototheria article and posted a more detailed explanation on the talk page.  I'll also post on WP:Mammals and maybe WP:Tree of Life momentarily.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

PALEONTOLOGY IN CONNECTICUT
Under HISTORY (2nd contents title) the author states "In 1822 Professor Charles Henry Hitchcock published research on Connecticut's fossil plants. In 1848 he wrote about the local tracks." When I click on the link: Charles Henry Hitchcock, the page informs me that C.H.H. was born in 1836 and therefore would have been about twelve years old in 1848. There appears to be a discrepancy between the dates. I assume the date 1822 is in error and perhaps 1848 as well. Respectfully 184.147.178.104 (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Most likely his father Edward Hitchcock, who did publish on tracks in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Mikenorton (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Homo naledi
Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Homo_naledi. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: the article is currently protected until the dispute is resolved. Consensus is needed to resolve the dispute and resume article improvement. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

About the use of the word "prehistoric"
I've just stumbled on the article "List of prehistoric echinoids". Such name is absurd : No species of sea urchin has emerged since historic times, hence this page should just contain all of the 1200 known genera of sea urchin, both fossile and current. There are other pages like this, such as List of prehistoric brittle stars, etc. I suggest these pages should be renamed "List of fossile xxx", or just suppressed as they are just basically ultra-long lists with no content and no sources. Regards, FredD (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, most modern invertebrates probably don't have any documented fossil record. Abyssal (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not actually absurd, given the content of the lists are for taxa that have been described from fossils.-- Kev min  § 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since, however, this page and several others in Category:Lists of prehistoric invertebrates are based on "A compendium of fossil marine animal genera" by Sepkoski, it might be more appropriate to rename them "List of fossil X genera". RockMagnetist(talk) 18:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "List of fossil X" or "List of fossil X genera" is a good alternative. On a different note (somewhat of a personal peeve), it is awkward to see the title in bold in every list: "This list of prehistoric X is an attempt to.... " per WP:REDUNDANCY and MOS:BOLDTITLE, this is unwarranted, just as we don't begin articles "This article on echinoids is an article about..." There is a widespread misconception throughout Wikipedia that the title of a list must be repeated verbatim in bold in the first line: this simply isn't so. A more elegant intro for List of prehistoric stylophorans, for example, could simply begin: "Around x genera of stylophorans have been described since 18xx..." --Animalparty! (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite doi replacement
Since many paleo editors used the cite doi template until it was closed down, to add and automatically fill scientific citations, I thought I might explain what the alternative is now. Instead of cite doi, you now add this: And then you push the "expand citations" button at the left side tool bar, and citation bot will fill out the ref. Replace doi with pmid for that kind for article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus
I have nominated Psittacosaurus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Llanfawr Quarries SSSI
I just stumbled on this pdf which looks to be part of geology wales - pdf says "The quarry preserves an extraordinary fossil fauna (Botting et al., 2004) of great international importance, and is one of four significant soft-bodied faunas in the Ordovician worldwide." and List_of_Sites_of_Special_Scientific_Interest_in_Powys does have the Llanfawr Quarries but clearly only as a redlink. The PDF gives the Ordinance survey grid reference but I can't figure out how to find the latitude and logitude without maybe having the correct OS map (I think I may have gone there once as a child - somewhere near Builth Wells)- and unfortunately google is unusually unhelpful when looking for old quarries. Anyone able to turn that pdf into an article? - I don't think my geology is up to the standard needed to turn the tech speak into an article without just rewording it badly. EdwardLane (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Aha found what is probably the Botting et al 2004 mentioned above paywalled but you can read the abstract here EdwardLane (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Full text version via researchgate here. Mikenorton (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK so I've made the article Llanfawr Quarries - but I'm not expert at this and if anyone is good with sponge fauna - or just generally decent at converting tech paleo stuff into wikipedia articles, please get in there and tidy up. Cheers. Incidentally there are two redlinks reticulosans and lyssakids that appear to be categories of protosponge (based on quick google searches) - but I don't see any other mention of them anywhere on wikipedia which is probably something for more expert hands too EdwardLane (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First Apperances/extinction categories
I see a number of edits adding "category:xxxx first appearances" and/or "category:xxxx extinctions" to taxon articles. I feel that these categories are flirting with if not fully are OR. The categorization is seeming to be based only on the information in the articles, and does not accommodate that the latest/earliest fossil find of a taxon does not mean that is when the taxon emerged or went extinct. How do others feel about them?-- Kev min  § 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * note there is previous relevent discussion here. My thoughts are that first appearance/extinctions (from the fossil record) are almost always verifiable. A different question is whether it's a useful category to have, i.e. a defining trait of a taxon. I think they're rather beningn categories that have some educational value, but when these categories get split into smaller and smaller time periods, the utility and convenience to readers is lessened, and the likelihood of becoming outdated increases. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There in lies the problem though, its not based on papers, its based on whatever may be in the article that is categorizing at the time. And given the fluid nature of taxonomic circumscription, deep time geologic naming, geologic formation naming, and utter lack of complete articles for 95% or more of taxa on wikipedia, its not an accurate category structuring to try to implement.-- Kev  min  § 00:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a problem with an article being categorized based on unverified or incorrect information within an article, that's a problem with the individual article and its contents, not with the categorization scheme. Complaining that taxonomy, geochronology, are too fluid to serve as a basis for categorization makes no sense since those have always been the primary basis for the categorization of all paleontology articles. The fact that we don't have articles for every taxa isn't even relevant much less a discredit for these categories. Abyssal (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They are valid points, given that I am seeing categories as fine as Zanclean etc which are very fine (geologically speaking) and many of the boundaries of such are not fixed and agreed on yet. My issue is that you are making categories that are much too fine, given that a category outside of a taxonomic tree category shouldnt be split if its under about 100 articles.  wikingnoming is fine, but there are a number of project that were started and still not finished...-- Kev  min  § 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thalattosaurus copyright concerns
I see snippets of text in this article that seem to be copyright violations, like the comment about the range seems to have been copy-pasted from Paleos and there's a weird copyright attribution of a David Peters image not used in the article. The author has not crontributed to any other article. Can anyone give this article a once-over and confirm? Abyssal (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...
 The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! 21:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines about living scientists
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proapteryx citations. Who are Phillips and Tennyson?
Phillips et al. 2010 or Tennyson et al. 2010 are not proper inline citations for Proapteryx. Who are Phillips and Tennyson?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Expert help
Where is the expert help category for Palaeontology?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Category:Palaeontology articles needing expert attention. I'll add it to the Project page as well. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Eionaletherium
Dear paleontology experts: Here's a draft article that has been abandoned. Is this a notable subject? There's an article about it in the German Wikipedia with references.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is certainly notable. I've fixed one of the references, the scientific article that describes this sloth. What else it needs to being submitted? the another references are "just" news, but they seems to be right.--Rextron (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Every genus warrants an article, so looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's in mainspace now. News articles are good - they show that there is interest in the topic so that the article will be read and appreciated.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

†Gangiguana
Expert help is sought from this project and from the Amphibians and Reptiles project to provide reliable sources for the Gangiguana article – see also Talk:Gangiguana. Any and all help would be dearly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Stick to sources!  Paine  02:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We had this problem again, an article of paleontology based in a image posted in Deviantart: but that is not still published or is hypothetical. I recommend erase it. --Rextron (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rextron! That would explain why it cannot be found in existing databases.  I will follow up on this, and thank you again for your valuable information!  Stick to sources!  Paine   04:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's seems our fellow editor actually drew that, so maybe he has some more info. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I based that picture on an irresistible description that I read in a book a while ago. Try as I might, too, I've been unable find any reference to Gangiguana that doesn't repeat what I've already said about it.  It's a situation very similar to the four-winged fly "Axioxyela" from Madygen mentioned in "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" that appears to be the only source.  As much as I would want to see the article in Wikipedia, but, given as how neither I, nor anyone else can find a source for it (and that I haven't accessed the original book in over a decade), I defer to Rextron's proposal to delete the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a book that mentions Axioxyela, Evolution, by Douglas Palmer. It is only mentioned once, and very briefly, but the book is a "trustworthy" source.
 * It's a beautiful picture, Mr Fink! I thought it best to PROD the article since it's been on Wikipedia since early 2009.  If someone comes forward with reliable sources, then it can always be reinstated.  Thank you very much for your help!  Stick to sources!  Paine   01:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also fair.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

wikidata and organization of items of genuses related to single species
Sorry to bother you. After dealing with doubts specially interacting with itwiki users, I have asked at the village pump of wikidata a question about these genus and species items where basically there is only one species for the genus, and different languages use different titles but often link to the same item. It is here. I hope it was not confusing for the other users as it was for me, but I link the discussion so I can be sure it is "universally accepted". This way next time a newbie ask me something I know that what I am saying is correct.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Made a comment there. Seems like unnecessary confusion to have different entries for genus and species when the genus is monotypic. And as I stated there, the problem isn't unique to extinct animals at all, there are many extant monotypic genera. They just use the common name as article title, thereby bypassing the problem with having multitple taxonomic level names referring to a single animal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible vandalism/hoaxes by IP addresses
Hello all, I have come across a few IP addresses who seem to be arbitrarily changing information in and adding irrelevant pictures to palaeontology-related articles. They have also created some drafts which appear to be hoaxes. The addresses in question are and. I've undone some of their edits and have WP:G3-tagged some of the hoax drafts, but as I do not have any expertise in this subject area, I wonder if anyone in this project would like to go through their contributions more carefully for more issues. Thank you, /wiae /tlk  19:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Help on equus
New article, Equus alaskae, appears to be the same species as Equus conversidens? Can someone verify this one way or the other? Also, someone added some new links to Equus, ( diff) and I have the same question, if these are redundant or alternative names to something else. The same editor also created some articles out of redirects, here so not sure if that was OK or not. This isn't my area of expertise, so any help will be much welcomed; just seeking accuracy. Montanabw (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not a palaeontologist, but since nobody else has chimed in...the edits were certainly good faith, and there's nothing definitively redundant/alternative to them. But the taxonomic literature is a mess. Looking at the species added to the template, the Fossilworks database lists E. semiplicatus and E. alaskae (as well as E. conversidens), but it lacks E. mexicanus and E. cedralensis. The paper by Alberdi cited in the E. alaskae article describes E. cedralensis for the first time and treats E. mexicanus as a valid species, with E. pacificus as a synonym (Fossilworks has E. pacificus as valid, no record for E. mexicanus). Alberdi also accepts E. conversidens, and while she mentions E. alaskae, she treats it (in my reading) as a enigmatic group of fossils outside the scope of the region she studied. Between Fossilworks and Alberdi, all the additions to to Equus (and the article creations) are accounted for. But then there's the UTEP page cited in E. conversidens that has E. alaskae as a synonym. UTEP, Alberdi and Fossilworks all note that "Winans, M.C., 1989, A quantitative study of North American fossil species of the genus Equus" is driving recognition of E. alaskae, but differ in accepting Winans.


 * It seems the more sources involved, the worse it gets. Nobody agrees. To quote Alberdi "Horse taxonomy is convoluted worldwide and the same is true for Mexican horses. Many species have been described, many of which are currently synonyms of others. Although some studies have tried to assess the actual taxonomic status of the North American Pleistocene horses (e.g., Azzaroli, 1998; Winans, 1985, 1989), a unique proposal is not yet available."


 * It's not clear to me where the list of extinct species in Equus (genus) and Equus came from. Is there a source? Fossilworks might be a good route through the minefield, but it's not internally consistent (because the sources it relies on are very inconsistent). Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are right that the lists appear unsourced... Maybe a chart is the way to go, each column for each palaeontologist with a Y or N if they classified a given species? I'd be willing t create a chart if others could help propagate it.  Montanabw (talk)  05:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Something like that might work, perhaps as a stand-alone List of prehistoric Equus species? Rather than Y/N, it should probably be valid species/synonym/not applicable. The species considered valid should be listed for anything treated as a synonym, and not applicable would cover species published after the date of a given palaeontological paper, or outside of the geographic scope of a taxonomic revision. I'm not sure how many papers we'd have to account for, but it should focus on broad scale stuff; ideally global revisions, but Winans continental study probably should be included; something with as narrow a focus as Alberdi could be skipped. I'm not sure that I could be much help; I don't have any special access to the zoological literature that would need to be consulted. I could go with what's in Fossilworks, but I'd really prefer to verify against primary sources, as Fossilworks has some weird stuff going on (e.g. Asinus africanus listed as a species of Equus). Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Want to help? We are getting outside my pay grade.  Genetics, cool, taxonomy... EEK! But technically it's e. asinus africanus actually, so yes, a member of the equus family.  Montanabw (talk)  23:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

New article: Dhirendra Kishore Chakravarti
I've done what I can, but this article is still a very stubby stub. Can anyone help improve it? Narky Blert (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DinoLover4321
The user has created many sub-substibs, some of them contain errors, eg. Elephas recki recki is not a species but subspecies, Antilohyrax is a genus. Please verify his/her contributions.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirected the first to Palaeoloxodon recki. We hardly even keep articles about extant subspecies, so not prehistoric ones at all. But if that genus is currently valid, we can keep it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Margaretia and Oesia
I just read this article which asserts that Margaretia is not as previously thought - and actually made and lived in by Oesia - so it looks like the two articles may need to merge, but I'm not sufficiently up on the subject to be feeling bold, though the article seems pretty coherent and clear on the matter. So I thought I'd raise it here. EdwardLane (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they are synonyms, they should be merged. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All the detail can be found here - note that this paper is published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Mikenorton (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the way it is done, immediately redo a taxonomy based on one, just-published article? --Volcanic throat (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes. Sometimes the paper itself states their finding is tentative or weakly supported, then it is good to wait for confirmation. Otherwise, it is easy to revert later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That paper seems to strongly support Margaretia simply being part of Oesia, something that also happened for Anomalocaris, so it seems probable. IJReid  discuss 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems too soon, especially as a taxonomy, when scientists in the field are just beginning the discussion. It is an odd policy for an unspecialized resource, to race the experts to the punchline. --Volcanic throat (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Specimens of Archaeopteryx reassessment
I've devoted a great deal of time working to flesh out the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, which was last assessed at C-class quite a long time ago. Requesting a quality reassessment at this stage. (Cross-posting this request to its other Wikiprojects, just fyi.) Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may have expanded it too much. :P It looks like we could split it into pretty decent articles on all the major specimens now. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm personally a mergist rather than a splitter when it comes to such "historical review" articles. At 131,772 bytes, it isn't near the 186,904 byte Maya civilization article which became an FA recently, for example. The more articles about essentially the same subject, the more articles that need to be maintained, with much duplicate information. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Maya civilization" is a more unified concept than a list of separate individual specimens. Abyssal (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The original discussions about splitting/merging the specimens articles can be seen here and here. The specimens list was, at different points, a collection of separate articles and a discrete section of the Archaeopteryx article. I'll quote my main line of reasoning given in 2012, which still holds now: "I support creating a new article for all of the specimens together over each specimen having its own article because there is much more source material for some specimens than others, and some, like the most recent '11th specimen', haven't yet been published fully and don't yet have the notability for a full article, yet are still important to mention in context." Of course, maybe we didn't anticipate how much notable information there actually is on some of these specimens, so I'm happy to reconsider a major split if we can get more input and reach something resembling a consensus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think it should be up to the writers doing the expansion work to decide. But I don't see a reason for splitting if the split articles would just be entirely duplicated information (as the Maxberg specimen article seems to be). FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I turned the Maxberg article into a redirect for now (will reverse if splitting ends up being the ultimate decision). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoration vs. reconstruction
There seems to have been confusion here in the past (and in some FAC discussions) about what the terms "restoration" and "reconstruction" refer to in palaeontology. Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs" (1984): "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." Maybe there are other definitions as well? And where does it leave skeletal diagrams with missing parts reconstructed/restored? Might be good to know for future writing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the traditional usage. Abyssal (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ocepeia at Good Article Nominations
I've nominated Ocepeia as a Good Article. Any involved editors are welcome to review. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

2017 in paleontology?
The journals Cretaceous Research and Historical Biology already have issues scheduled to be published in 2017, including articles naming new taxa. Would it therefore be alright to start article 2017 in paleontology to contain taxa which we know will be published in 2017? --Macrochelys (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we might be breaking some embargoes, no? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The electronic versions of the articles naming new taxa in these journals were already made available by the publishers anyway, so I don't think we do.--Macrochelys (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it, the last 4 years an article for the next year has been created around this time.-- Kev min  § 20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And depending on what taxa are in each, it would make sense to just create the subpages (arthropod paleontology, paleobotany, etc) now rather then split within a month or so anyways.-- Kev min  § 20:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References for user-made paleoart used in featured articles
There has been some discussion about whether user-made palaeoart restorations used in featured articles should have references on their description pages, see here: It appears they should, so perhaps we should encourage this practice? FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should begin categorizing taxa based on stratigraphic occurrence
I think we should begin categorizing taxa based on what stratigraphic units they occur in. To some extent we already do this, but to my knowledge it's not any kind of "official" project policy and implementation is currently haphazard. Often when articles are moved from very general categories to more specific ones they can become "lost" if the recategorizer does not move the articles all the way down the category tree to where they belong or only moves it down one "branch" of the tree. Categorizing based on specific units will allow us to categorize from the bottom up, so they'll be where they need to be from the beginning.

I propose that we title these categories along the lines of "Fossil record of the Example Formation" so we can include trace and micro fossil parataxa as well. Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly in-tune with the categorizings, so I'll let others decide. But I don't think it would be too harmful. IJReid  discuss 03:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already do that IF there are enough taxa from a formation to warrant a Formation level Category. I have categorized that way for Amber localities (eg Category:Baltic amber) for a while.  I personally would just stick with "Category:Klondike Mountain Formation" or if needed "Category: Klondike Mountain Formation taxa"  rather then the complex name structure you propose.-- Kev  min  § 04:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * identifies the key principle: if there are enough taxa, then sure, have a formation level category. The general principle of Wikipedia categorization, namely that categories should be of a "sensible" size applies; over-categorization into many small categories doesn't help readers. (It seems to me that some editors get more interested in the activity of categorization than in the value of end result.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong opinions on categorisation either, as long as it is not too much of a task to navigate through them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we still planning to change our focus from genera to species?
A while back there was discussion, at least among the dinosaur-focused contributors, to begin focusing on species rather than genera as our "basic" article on low-order taxonmic units and begin moving articles monotypic genera to the name of their respective species. I was wondering if this proposal still had the support of the community overall since little progress has been made towards actually implementing it. Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly an interesting proposal..... in my opinion, it would cause a lot of unnecessary clutter, in the (probably inevitable) case that additional species are named; and the amount of accessible content to draw from is not necessarily congruent across the different species - e.g. the description of Coahomasuchus kakhleorum is not readily available, unlike that of C. chathamensis, so the article for the former would likely amount to a glorified stub (unless an editor has a copy of the description) whereas one could conceivably expand the latter into a reasonable start-class article. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that we would only create separate species articles for those taxa that are most likely to be split, or most questionably referred, such as Coelophysis rhodesiensis or Edmontosaurus annectens. However, I also support the usage of Binomials in article titles instead of using the brackets when the genus name is used elsewhere, like for Balaur bondoc etc. IJReid  discuss 03:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a reasonable compromise; I'm on board with that. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I for one would advocate strongly against placing monotypic taxa at the binomial, as it is not in line with how extant monotypic taxa are handled. Also if additional species are described one does not need to suddenly create a genus and additional species articles that are all essentially duplicates of each other.  See what a mess the article structure would be for Gerontoformica would have been if all the species had been separate articles.-- Kev  min  § 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with re monotypic taxa; we should remain consistent regardless of extant or extinct, following WP:FAUNA (and WP:FLORA). The principle to be followed in my view is that there's nothing special about extinct taxa per se; it's just that it's more likely that there won't be enough information for articles on each species in multispecific genera, and having a single article at the genus makes sense. If there's enough information for more than one non-stub species article, then we should create them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since this is now a discussion of two things, 1: I agree we should focus on genera, with the caveat that some "recently" extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth, are no doubt notable enough to have their own article. I think it comes down to the sheer amount that can be written about a species, based on the sources; the default should be to have them covered at the genus level, but if an article grows too long, there can maybe be talk about a split (but this will be a rare occurence). Articles like Cyclotosaurus buechneri and Ichthyosaurus anningae should surely be merged, for example. Temnodontosaurus eurycephalus is more debatable, since it is likely to be moved to a new genus. 2: As for naming of articles about monotypic taxa, I also think we should stick with Wikipedia-wide conventions at Naming conventions (fauna), and keep the parenthesis. Right now, it is too inconsistent. An irking example is Livyatan melvillei. Whatever we decide on these two issues, it should be clearly stated on the project page afterwards, since the issues keep coming up again and again. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My main issue with the "genus name (animal)" is that its not supported by the wiki naming conventions. Refer to the last 2 lines here: Naming conventions (fauna). Apparently we should be using the binomial names in such cases, I don't know if this is a recent edit or whatnot, but it is there. IJReid  discuss 23:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For those interested, a discussion about the naming convention has been started at the dinosur project, so discussion of that can be kept there, while we discussion of genus/species articles can be discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a real need for paleontological articles at the species level. Already, at least 1/4th of all articles are on dubious genera: names erected for what turned out to be petrified wood, etc. The number of dubious species is far, far larger. And what happens when one authority has lumped two species together, and the next authority splits them apart again? This happens constantly, and most often at the specific level. Finally, many clades are not known to the general public by their binomials. This will cause confusion for the reader. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the genus level as the default for all extinct taxa bar those that are members of extant genera. Unless there is a huge amount of info or something on two or more species in an extinct genus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics in palaeontology (and archaeology) updated - Skysmith (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Made some redirects. Australopithecus desiba seems to be a misspelling, but redirected it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help at Late Devonian extinction
The Late Devonian extinction article includes about 11 sources that consist of only author and year. They were added in 2010 by an editor whose IP address indicates University of Chicago, but they were never completed. A list of the incomplete sources is given on the talk page here. Could someone with greater knowledge of this subject try to fill these out?

Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I sorted Brezinski. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated
Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a heads up that there appears to be an editor who's making up fake extinct species: so far, I've found Gigantonycteris nosferatu and Geococcyx giganteus. There's not a shred of evidence (no book, no JSTOR article, no web hit — other than Wikipedia and mirror sites — nothing) for either species. I've requested their deletion. MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Skeletal changes of organisms transitioning from water to land
Article seems redundant. Should it be merged into another article? This has come up in the past, and people leaned towards merging, but nothing was done. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A merge seems logical. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then someone should go ahead and do it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Antatomy" or "Morphology"
When writing a section dedicated to the organism's body plan, is entitling it "Anatomy" or "Morphology" preferred, or when is it appropriate to use either? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither, most such sections in for example featured articles are called "Description". FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable extinct species
Hi I'm not part of the project but I patrol new pages and I recently modified this article to Bubo leakeyae to redirect it here Horned owl as there was no more information on the new page than was on the other page and I could find nothing of note in a search. I was reverted twice, one by the creator (a 15 year old who is passionate about fossils) with this comment "(That's a valid species)" I then reverted this with this comment "It is a valid species but there is nothing that proves it meets WP:GNG please discuss on the talk page before undoing this edit." I was reverted again by a more experienced editor with this comment "restoring per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, I'll try to find referencing in a sec". The argument is that all species that have a correct name or a valid name are inherently notable and deserve a separate page. This is contrary to your guidelines for single-species here (or at least I think it is). The editor who created this page has created 10 others that are mostly just information copied from other pages. I'm not an expert at all so I wanted to have someone's opinion about the usefulness of these pages because I get the feeling this editor has only just started with his single line page creations. I have started a constructive discussion with the experienced editor about this subject who was aware of the likely outcome for living species but not your guideline for extinct species. If someone could advise I'd very much appreciate it. Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also thought about this issue lately... How do we deal with prehistoric species of extant/recent genera? For example, we have several Thylacinus species articles seperate from the one about the thylacine, and Gymnogyps amplus has an article, even though it is listed as a synonym on the California condor page. I think it should depend on how much there can be written about it. If there is only info enough for a few paragraphs, I'd say leave it at the genus page. No much use of dozens of articles that can never be more than stubs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you might want to participate in the discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I take the opposite position. The WP:Paleo guidelines are to have information on extinct species of extinct genera at the genus article, as there usually isnt a lot to make the individual species start or above articles, however extinct species in extant genera are treated in separate articles, as there is typically enough to support a start level article or above. -- Kev  min  § 20:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi the guidelines don't seem to make the distinction between extinct et extant genera but it does say that a level of common sense is needed. The particular article I am interested in has a single line copied from the genus page and I searched for more information and could find nothing a part from the fact that it was name after Mary Leakey.  The advantage with a redirect is that should more information become available or wish to be added it is possible to transform the redirect on article without difficulty. Domdeparis (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Making a start class article on B. leakeyae]] should be fairly simple using these articles type descriptionreview article and review article I would look at them closer, but internet here at work blocks researchgate.-- Kev  min  § 13:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In the News candidate:

 * In_the_news/Candidates

Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Earliest known life forms
Article is up and running. Needs expansion and review. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does this need to be separate from Origin of life? It is merely a WP:Content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They are completely separate concepts. This is about the earliest discovered life on earth. Abiogenesis is about the actual origin of life. The earliest life discovered would have been many millions of years after the origin of life. They overlap in that the earliest life gives us some indication of how life before that time. The vast majority of the abiogenesis article is about theories and research about the actual creation of life. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems more like different aspects of the same subject to me. But since the origin article seems very large, it might be appropriate to have separate articles. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The search for the earliest life is just that. The earliest life we can find. The analysis, debate, search for this life is a big enough for its own article. It offers some clues to the origin of life, but not much else. These discoveries would have been many millions of years afterwards. The origin of life article is about multiple theories of the origin of life, such as RNA world, protocells, etc. Now that there is a separate Earliest known life article, we can now trim that section of the abiogenesis article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability?
I just came across this article yesterday Günter Bechly, while he was (no longer active and now a member of the Discovery Institute) a paleoentomologist that did a significant amount of work with Odonates,  Im pretty sure he doesn't meet the notability criteria, and the article was almost entirely created by the subject himself. Also a fair portion of the article is referenced to his personal website, not a Reliable source at all. Is someone familiar with the process able to take this and stub or nom for deletion?-- Kev min  § 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC) thoughts?-- Kev min  § 14:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this in one place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography Plantdrew (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ongoing move discussion
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Isurus hastalis, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Checks needed
Hi paleontologists, I've added species, range and distribution to a genus of trilobites, but the existing ref says it was a wastebasket genus where many species have been reassigned. I however do not have access to the full 176 page article, only to the abstract and there the reassignment is not shown, see Talk:Proetus (trilobite). Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dating of Santana and Crato Formations
The temporal ranges given on Wikipedia for these formations and the taxa that live in them are wildly inconsistent. The infobox on the Crato Formation lists its range as latest Aptian-Albian; the text claims 108 Ma. Stratigraphic ranges given for animals known from the formation are variously 120 (Coxoplectoptera, Lacusovagus), 112 (Ludodactylus, Tupandactylus), and 108 (Aymberedactylus) Ma. Most given dates for the Santana Formation are 112 Ma (and it's given as Albian-?Cenomanian in the article), though dates of 110 (Irritator), 108 (Mirischia), and 80 (Cearachelys) Ma are also given. As far as I'm aware, stratigraphy of these formations are generally not clear enough to distinguish older and younger dates within the formation (note Santana Formation as used on Wikipedia seems to be synonymous with the Romualdo Formation/Member). Given the Crato Formation underlies the Santana Formation (and Santana is explicitly said in the artice to be about 10 Ma younger than Crato), logically the dates given for Crato should be consistently earlier! Knowing temporal estimates for these formations are controversial and wide-ranging, what, if any, dates for these formations and taxa should be used on Wikipedia? Shuvuuia (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added two online references, information about the fish and flora, and a provisional 10 Ma timespan in the infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a lot of papers on this and overall I think that the Santana Formation is being replaced in the literature by the Crato and other formations. The age range for the Crato Formation is Upper Aptian - I've found no recent reference that indicates a lower Albian date. The Upper Aptian is not a formal subdivision, so there are no agreed date for its start, although 113 Ma is the end - ca. 119-113 Ma seems a reasonable range to use in the article, if we need numbers. Mikenorton (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking again at Tomé et al (2014), they show a stratigraphic column with the Crato clearly Upper Aptian in age. However, they continue to describe it as possibly extending into the Lower Albian in the text, which isn't particularly helpful. Also note that to some researchers the Santana Formation has been elevated to group status, so if we're using Crato Formation we should consider changing to Santana Group. Mikenorton (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Current use of the term "Santana Formation" on Wikipedia seems to be synonymous with the Romualdo Formation, the dating of which has also been quite contentious; the only consensus seems to be it's "mid-Cretaceous" and younger than the Crato Formation. Martill 2007 (which considers the Santana and Crato formations distinct) may be an important read here. As of this paper, vertebrate paleontology can indicate dates from the Tithonian to the Turonian, and palynology and stratigraphy imply anything from the Aptian/Albian to the Turonian. If Crato is largely considered upper Aptian, the latter dates would make sense for the overlying Romualdo. Shuvuuia (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)