Talk:OH 7

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge tags

I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.

2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.

3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.

4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the good work Nowimnthing, the unique about hominid fossils and their sites is they deserve a thoroughest description, there is actually no comparison in the archeological field , where so much information and time is compressed in individual and incidental finds. Many of the aspects of the fossils situ , their geological and derived conditions, their matrixes, etc. are in danger to be lost forever, there really cannot be enough attention. I suggest the preservance of the matrixes themself, to some extend in width and in depth. However that is practically. I found on the extern leakey 'habilis' page for example a reference that in 2003 'more and more evidence for evolutionairy relation of hominds and africa made them decide to dig up' such and such fossil. Scary, i been looking for characteristic missing parts of their fossils since, lower jaws, backs of the heads, parts of cheekbones. It is similar for the matrixes most probably, and possibly so still! for the sites. They do Koobi Foora and it is scary. Their anamensis became unobvious for me. 24.132.170.252 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Brain capacity

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How a brain showing a capacity of 663 cc at 8-9 years old could have a capacity of only 590 cc once adult as listed... Better to say that is could be estimated between 674-710 cc once adult.

-- luxorion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C6AC:201:5507:71D9:657B:4F29 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic