Talk:Archicebus

Page creation

created talk page for the Archicebus achilles article - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

@Peter M. Brown - Thank you *very much* for the format corrections re Archicebus achilles & related - your corrections are all *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Image

An illustirative graphic displaying Archicebus location in the family tree would be good - something like this- http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/06/05/archicebus_evolutionary_tree_custom-ce8800603045046677091ed20672d653451cd187-s40.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.76.252 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - I *entirely* agree re adding an image(s) to the article - however, your noted npr image may not be useable by wikipedia due to npr copyright policy - hopefully a suitable image will become available - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, this is depicted in the article with the cladogram. Having a more graphical illustration might be nice, but could take up a lot of space and cause longer downloads. At this point, this article has much more important needs. – Maky ^« talk » 16:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - the originally posted image (File:Archicebus achilles.jpg) has now been reduced - (from the original "1024 x 768 / 532 kb" down to the present "640 x 480 / 76 kb") - to conform with the Wikipedia "non-free content criteria" (WP:NFCC) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I have already written to the researchers who published the paper and requested the release of some photos—as I have before with Saadanius, Afrasia, and others. Hopefully we'll get some higher-quality, free images soon. – Maky ^« talk » 17:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Please note that all articles about fossil genera with only single species representing them are to be named after the genus, not the full species name. (The only exception is when the generic name has other meanings/articles associated with it.) Please do not move this article to Archicebus achilles, or the change will be reverted. – Maky ^« talk » 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You should probably provide a link to a Wikipedia policy that requires this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Single-species articles – Maky ^« talk » 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The example article cited in that guideline, Wiwaxia, begins "Wiwaxia is a genus of soft-bodied, scale-covered animals known from ", i.e., it is an article about a genus, not a single species. Perhaps the guideline needs updating. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you are welcome to take this up with the parent project. I was planning to update the lead of this article to reflect the fact that it is about the genus, but I have not gotten around to it. For now, please respect how this project names and formats its articles. – Maky ^« talk » 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When you do that, then you can propose to rename the article. As it currently stands I would imagine most readers of Wikipedia will find it confusing that the article title does not agree with the lead. Also, the project guideline only says "usually" and guidelines are not necessarily binding. BTW, I did not rename this article, so I am not disrespecting anything. I'm only asking for additional information. Perhaps you can link some example articles (or discussions) that are relevant. Thanks. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Examples: Saadanius, Babakotia, Archaeoindris, Hadropithecus, Plesiopithecus, Djebelemur, Altiatlasius, Azibius, Algeripithecus. Example of using full species name due to name conflict: Afrasia (disambig) vs. Afrasia djijidae. Note: Several of these listed have also been significant, even news-worthy, fossil primate discoveries. – Maky ^« talk » 19:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add the links. As someone unfamiliar with this area, these should be interesting. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Articles about monotypic genera are about the single included species per default. No proper reason to change the guideline. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There probably would not have been this confusion, if when the article title was changed to the genus, the lead had been slightly rewritten to make it clear the article was about the genus rather than the species. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As the guilty party, I agree. However, I was in the process of revamping the entire article, and I always rewrite the lead last. When I finally got to the lead, I was borderline incoherent and needed sleep. I haven't had much time to look at it since. In all fairness, it also would have been helpful if the person considering the move had inquired about the title on the talk page first. The reason for the title was spelled out plainly during the first move in the explanation, which was visible in the history. – Maky ^« talk » 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is what happens when editors like me read something in the NY Times and start looking at technical articles like this. I don't think any of us had bad intentions. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize now that I wasn't clear about the guideline needing an update: the example Wiwaxia is a two-species genus, so I replaced it with Saadanius. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Often fossil genera may have a few species, but there is so little to distinguish them, that separate species articles are not needed. Examples of this include Mesopropithecus, Pachylemur, and Archaeolemur. The issue isn't relevant to this article, but you are correct—the example needs updating. Good catch. – Maky ^« talk » 13:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary tree

Isn't Anthropoidea (also called Simiiformes) an infraorder, like Tarsiiformes? If so, shouldn't it line up under the latter? (Maybe this is a problem with how the template formats it when the second item is not entered as a clade.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Labels are intended for clade names, which precede branching. I'll add some branching to it, which may help people who aren't familiar with how monkeys, apes, and humans are related. That should solve the problem. If you disagree, revert and continue discussing here. – Maky ^« talk » 22:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Even so, it is surprising to me that it shifted so far to the right. I would have expected it to at least line up with Adapiformes and Lemuriformes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It has to do with how it's constructed—from HTML tables. On top of that, the diagram looks differently between browsers. Try looking at it on both Firefox and Chrome. But at least it can be changed without modifying graphics. – Maky ^« talk » 22:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the vertical alignment looks much better in Firefox than in Safari. But on a mobile device like Apple's iPad, Firefox is not yet an option. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This may have to do with WebKit. All browsers on the iPad have to use it. I tried the Mercury and the Chrome browsers, and they both display it like Safari. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, someone should mention this in the FA primate. Now Plesiadapis is mentioned as the oldest primate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, there are quiet a few problems with the Primate article, and I'm afraid to touch it. But I'll try to look at it in the coming days. – Maky ^« talk » 20:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

I just posted this on the talk page of one of this article's editors, but now that I think about it, it should probably be considered here as well. – Maky ^« talk » 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to improve the article on Archicebus. I realize that the template {{Primary source}} points out that using only primary sources can imply original research (WP:OR). However, I feel that your assertion that the article *requires* news sources is misguided. The idea behind WP:OR is that you don't want someone writing something up in a primary source in order to push their original research/idea. The case at hand is not the same as someone writing a history book with their take on events. These are scientifically observed details, written up by a team of paleoanthropologists and published in a high prestigious peer-reviewed journal. Moreover, these secondary sources are less reliable than the primary sources. Science writers for the press are notoriously deficient in their ability to research, grasp, and explain advanced scientific material. Almost every time I read a piece about primates on either the BBC, CNN, etc., I usually have to write in and complain about the mistakes... which usually results in corrections. In this case—miraculously—there were relatively few errors in the articles I had read. (I have not read the news stories in all of your sources yet.) I think the press may have finally learned to do a bit more homework after the Darwinius debacle from a few years ago. Talk about a case where your reliance on secondary sources would have fallen flat on its face...

Regardless, these secondary sources do not trump the primary source. In fact, the citations you added were superfluous, particularly in the lead since the lead only summarizes the body and citations are only needed there when quoting contentious material (WP:LEAD). I do plan to use more news sources when I get around to revamping the article further, but they are only needed for the analogies they make and the claims the researchers made during interviews that may not have been in the original paper. Otherwise I would never direct someone to a science news article if I wanted them to "get the facts". If you want secondary sources for this kind of academic material, you have to wait 5–10 years for a new textbook. I also consider future journal articles that make reference to the original to be secondary sources, assuming they simply reaffirm what the original claims. – Maky ^« talk » 04:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

While I recognize the great effort you've put toward this article, and with all due respect, I would ask that you keep in mind that this is still wikipedia, and other editors are also allowed to have their opinions on the proper use of secondary sources as long as they follow the policies and procedures set forth here. I don't a dog in this fight, but I don't see an issue adding news articles as secondary sources. Adding additional references may be superfluous based on one's subjective opinion, but it doesn't harm anything. Given that this article involves not just a random genus, but one of specific attention and improvidence given its place in the more general discussion of man's origins, etc, it should be expected that it would have additional content relating to that prominence. I can certainly understand this as a situation in which the primary sources are very important. I can also understand your position. However, despite your wonderful contributions, you are one editor among many, all of whom are entitled to have their own positions. While I certainly know it's not your intent, I worry that restricting content based on subjective opinion rather than wiki policy is straying too far toward POV. Just my 2 cents. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with news sources being used... as long as they add something meaningful. It's when the article is flagged for using primarily primary sources and edit comments like "Now, don't tell me there aren't non-primary source refs" pop up, then I'm going to defend why I don't use news sources extensively. I don't see how there is any POV in trying to encourage people to carefully consider the "errors in translation" that make their way into science news articles. Science (from the primary sources) is not subjective opinion—science tries to be objective. News, on the other hand, is subjective. – Maky ^« talk » 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archicebus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608230639/https://news.sciencemag.org:80/sciencenow/2013/06/crucial-link-in-primate-evolutio.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/crucial-link-in-primate-evolutio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)