Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is there really enough interest?

While I applaud the initiation of this project - Wikipedia's coverage of Palaeontology is in many places shocking - I wonder whether it will ever gain the critical mass necessary to be useful. WikiProject Geology has a much broader scope, yet lies essentially dormant. I truly hope this takes off, but it'll be a LOT of work putting the project into play, and I suspect the time could be better spent improving articles.

Yours cynically,

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I share Martin's reservations. WikiProject Sea Monsters for example, has for all intends and purposes, died a quiet death from lack of interest. I also think it would have been a better idea to get this launched with support from active users in the other palaeo-projects prior to rating all those articles. That's not to say I don't applaud all the hard work you've done thus far, but I think you need to begin 'actively' recruiting people to get this running as it is an ambitious task. Mark t young (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a think, and lets go for it. I'll add a note on all the relevant WikiProject talk pages to gather up some interest. Mark t young (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is much interest. I was waiting for some time to do it and did advertise a little. This is a long term project and a little idling here and there is ok. Maybe we can advertise on other forums websites if one gets a chance. Thanks for helping. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Couldn't dead projects like the pterosaur and sea-monster projects be merged into this one? Maybe they could be "task-forces". FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a task force needs at least 2 active editors, in other words, they form spontaneously. OTOH there would be nothing wrong with amending the relevant templates so that they cross-link. -- Philcha (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vertebrate only?

Paleontology is a large field. I know this is a fledgling project, but is it deliberately vertebrate only? If so, perhaps the name of the project should reflect that. Aleta ^Sing 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, upon rereading, I see specific reference to plants. Maybe a little more expansion could make it more obvious that this is an inclusive paleontology project, not just focussed on vertebrate animals. :) Aleta ^Sing 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you're correct this needs fleshing out much more. Wanna help with that? So far its just been Enlil Ninlil, doing work on this, I've kinda advertised this out to the whole community hoping for comments exacly like this. Up for a challenge? :-) Mark t young (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the trilobyte helps! Ummm... Yeah, I can try to help some, maybe esp. in connection to paleoprimatology and the Primates project. (Hmmm... what was I saying about not just vertebrates!) Aleta ^Sing 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Well I wanted to focus on all species and people who are associated with Palaeontology. The fossil invertebrates and fish species, algae, fungie etc, are very wanting on this Wiki so hopefully we can do something about that. I wont be discussing much as it wast much time that I don't have but thanks and good luck. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation issues

I've noticed three outstanding issues that I think its time to be resolved by the palaeo community as a whole:

Removal of "fossil" from conservation status

These should be removed per: Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Conservation_status.

As per my discussion with Firsfron, it is not appropriate for prehistoric organisms, the fossil_range parameter is a more sensible option. Also, see: Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Fossil_range ("The stratigraphic range for groups known as fossils may also be included, using the fossil_range argument. For instance, for a group known from the Cambrian to the Permian.")

Therefore I propose that all incorrect use of the IUCN fossil "status" be replaced by adding the fossil range parameter. The status doesn't exist as the IUCN only deals with living and recently-extinct organisms.

This has been discussed at length before; see for example here and here. Perhaps the best solution would be to make the "conservation status" parameter only display "fossil" if the "fossil_range" parameter wasn't set. Feel free to go through the rigmarole of addressing this if you wish; however, it probably isn't really all that important at this stage, where we are lacking good articles on almost every topic! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for fossil species

For monogeneric fossil taxa it seems more sensible to have the article pertaining to the generic name only. There are some good examples of this, such as Carcharodontosaurus, Uberabasuchus, Mahajangasuchus and of course Tyrannosaurus, with the binomen as a redirect to the genus page.

I think this should become a guideline for all palaeo articles. Any thoughts?

I don't think there's any need for a specific rule; WP:NOTABILITY does that already. If one species is particularly notable, it may merit its own page; if not, such a page probably won't be created. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles on the genus only is good, as per above. Species specific might not have a lot of specific information for many, and the taxa can change from time to time. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs has, for the past four years or so, been creating articles only for genus-level or higher taxa. There was a feeling among the members that there really wasn't need for articles on every individual dinosaur species (and that many, even most, dinosaur species-level articles would be based on dubious material). At least at the genus level, most of that gets weeded out. For example, we could have between 6 and 12 articles on species of Massospondylus, but no one considers most of those as valid species: the genus is considered monotypic. Why have 12 articles when one will do? Include the species list in the article, and discuss the differences between them. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm for the no lower than genus level approach. Just isn't enough info available on specific species to justify having unique articles for them, all information apart from age, location and physical features would be duplicated on all the species articles of a specific genus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Crosses to indicate fossil taxa

These have begun to crop up in articles more and more recently. What is the feeling on their usefulness? I've no strong feeling either way regarding these.

They may as well be used where useful - again I don't think a "one size fits all" guideline is the best approach here. Let's credit individual editors with the intelligence to decide what is appropriate for the articles they're working on. To re-iterate an earlier point, it would be somewhat of a shame if this WikiProject spent all its time deciding how things should be done, without actually adding useful content! 99% of Wikipedia's readers want a brief overview on a topic, and won't even notice if there's a cross or conservation status here or there... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that individual editor discretion is the best way forward, but I thought that this is the place to discuss these issues. We still don't have a large number of participants so we can't yet set up collaboration of the month's etc, but we can start discussions that could provide useful guidelines. Mark t young (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's a case by case issue. They are very useful in denoting extinct species in an extant genus, but don't serve much purpose in an article about a non-avian dinosaur group or a group of trilobites. --Aranae (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some ideas for the community to discuss anyway! Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the "crosses." I think the daggers are cute. They're like a little gravestone by the taxa names. <3 I also prefer them at the start of the name instead of the end.

And I think they should be utilized in taxa boxes to show how far extinction has proceeded up into the taxonomic hierarchy occupied by the article's subject. But I don't remember ever seeing daggers used like that, so maybe there's already some consensus against that. Anyway, random input.

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will try and follow Abyssal above, a good idea and seems clear. But must have a little explanation as well on the bottom of taxobox. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented this in Nanshiungosaurus. Any thoughts before I start doing this on a large scale? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm against it, personally. I think it's a bad idea for pterosaurs, non-avian dinosaurs, etc, for the simple reason of having to add a million of them to various paleo-articles (2000+ articles x 10 taxonomic levels = 20,000 daggers). And then having to watch them closely as various IPs tinker with them constantly. No thank you! user:Dinoguy2 just mentioned on WT:DINO the fact that they're also redundant with the "fossil range" parameter in the taxobox. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work, but it's not like the conversion from non-daggered to daggered would have to happen over night. We can take our time on this. And if you didn't want to do it, no one's gonna pressure ya. :D And I don't think we have too much to worry about with the IP guys. There may be vandalism, but I don't see why the daggers would be targeted more frequently than any other part of the articles. I don't think your criticisms are a valid reason to exclude them. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please only add them where they're genuinely helpful. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that they add information to the article in an aesthetically pleasing and efficient manner, I think they are always "genuinely helpful." Maybe not a whole lot, but they still bring benefit, and it would be illogical to exclude a benefit just because it's small. If someone offered you a nickel would you refuse it? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Firsfron of Ronchester and Martin and would add that daggers below the highest level which an organism is extinct at (eg, family, superfamily etc...) is reather redundant and not giving the read much credit for recognizing that if the family is extinct everything in the family will be extinct. Kevmin (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be technically redundant to dagger the lower levels, but I think it's necessary if we're going to use them. I mean, why go half-way? If we're going to label the extinct taxa, we should label the extinct taxa, and not arbitrarily skimp over some of them. I don't see how "redundantly" labeling the lower-level extinct taxa brings detriment to the article, but I see benefit to consitency in labeling and preventing confusion to the non-scientifically inclined (most of our audience!).Abyssal leviathin (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'm also against the use of crosses ("dagger"? Come on) for extinct taxa, and disagree that they're aesthetically pleasing, especially when used before every extinct taxon in the box. It just makes an infobox that may already contain terms unfamiliar to most readers more cluttered with potentially unfamiliar symbols that need to be explained via clicking a link to another article. This is almost similar to the "paleobox" thing from a year or so ago--trying to cram as much info into the taxobox as possible, that should realistically just be in the text. Say the taxon is extinct in the intro text, and if the reader wants to know more they can either glance at the box range or keep reading to see what time period the animal lived during. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also the issue of taxa vs. clades. I noticed on Nanshiungosaurus that there was no cross next to Suborder Theropoda. Arguably, if Theropoda is being used with the rank suborder, it is not containing the Class Aves and so is also extinct. A cross next to Theropoda on a cladogram is a different story--the clade Theropoda is extant, the suborder Theropoda is extinct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those symbols are called daggers. And they do look like knives with some typefaces.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. I still think the daggers/crosses/whatevers would be nice. I'm sticking with that. :)

You're right about the whole Linnaean/Cladistic thing. I was kinda iffy about how to show that myself. I was thinking using something like this: X instead of the normal dagger, but I was having enough trouble convincing you guys to use the widely used crosses, I didn't think you'd take kindly to me making up a new way of denoting pseudoextinction when that matter hadn't been laid to rest yet. :P Although, I actually kinda like the X idea for denoting pseudoextintion...Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is beside the point, but from the (largely unrefeenced) article "Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text before or after the name of a deceased person or the date of death, as in Christian grave headstones." This seems to be the use as discussed here, among the many uses of the dagger/cross in typography, this one is pretty obviously of the cross. I wonder who the first was to use this symbol for denoting extinction rather than death, footnote, or type to be deleted (which apparently were the original meanings of using the symbol in text)? And what their reasoning was? Not that it really matters, just curious ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, was Spartacus put on a cross? Anyway I don't think we are getting anywhere, so we should put it to a vote if you want! But I will keep lobbying its use where an extant genus has extinct species.Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is where use of crosses makes sense--not on all extinct super-taxa in the taxobox of an extinct taxon, but in all extinct sub-taxa in the taxobox of an extant taxon. This provides useful information, since there's a reasonable expectation on the part of the reader that all species of an extant genus, for example, will be extant unless indicated otherwise. In fact I wouldn't really be opposed to using them on the species of extinct taxa either, since the problems of definition can be pretty safely avoided. Most taxa, as nomenclatural entities, can't really be "extinct" the same way a species can, since species are more like "real" entities.

(And yeah, IIRC Spartacus was crucified. Pretty standard ancient Roman execution. But I've heard that the traditional cross shape in Christian symbols was a more recent invention, and that crosses used for crucifixion were usually shaped like an X). Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo

At last! A WikiProject for palaeontology. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen! :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Taging

Just wondering if anyone else appart from mark is taging articles. I've done the Burgess Shale, the Mesosaurs all done by someone, and some of the Ostracoderms and Placoderms are done. Happy hunting. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the marspuial lions, crocs, mosasaurs and sauroptergyians. Mark t young (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Has User:CWii not been asked to run his bot to tag the pages automatically? That would save you a lot of time, and save my watchlist being clogged! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question--I've noticed a heap of tagging going on. Paleontology is a massive field and this project will encompass a near-unmanageable number of articles... wouldn't it be better to consolidate some of these categories under one roof? For example, just make Wikiproject:Dinosaurs a sub-project of WP:Paleo as well as WP:Reptiles. No need to have eight project tags on each article, just one 'telescoping' tag. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a page should be tagged with at most one of WP:Geology, WP:Palaeo, WP:Dinosaurs, etc, etc... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Maybe it's time to begin making the Palaeontology Portal? Liopleurodon93 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be friggin' sweet! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have other ideas too! Such as sub-projects (like WikiProject Palaeontology/Vertebrates (Vertebrate palaeontology) or Invertebrates (Invertebrate palaeontology))! Also sub projects that focused on animals of separate geologic periods (for example, WikiProject Palaeontology/Devonian Life etc.). Liopleurodon93 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are good ideas in themselves, but would there be any interest? I honestly doubt that your proposals would generate much activity. I think we're better off working on articles than creating wikiprojects that might not get off the ground. Besides, this Project just got started, let's try to get it going to its fullest potential before we start fragmenting. :) You can do what you want, but that's just my $0.02. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry, Tasks (taskforces) I mean no sub-projects! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category-Class Status

I think our project needs "Category class" quality page. I created a category (Category:Category-Class Palaeontology articles) but the template of the WikiProject Palaeontology (for article talk pages) does not show the orange tamplate (for example such as the blue "FA" article status

FA

, in this place must shows an orange

Category

article status). I don't know if anyone understanding that I mean, but... Liopleurodon93 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we must create a template for palaeontology-related categories. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You could just use the "na-class"...

NA

Thanks.. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Conflict of Interest

Hi all,

I've made some edits to the metriorhynchid croc pages yesterday on recent phylogenetic analyses. However, one of the citations I've added is one of my own, so I was wondering if anyone wants to look over (and edit) the relevant pages to ensure no COI or appearance of it, that'd be great. The relevant pages are:

1. Metriorhynchidae
2. Cricosaurus
3. Dakosaurus
4. Enaliosuchus
5. Geosaurus
6. Metriorhynchus
7. Purranisaurus
8. Teleidosaurus

Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this issue has come up, and will most likely come up again, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/COI. Hopefully this will keep everything transparent and prevent any accusations of conflicts of interest. This is especially true after the 'issues' surrounding User:Consist (although there were other issues there too). What do you guys think? Mark t young (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New fossil range bar

Hi all,

User:Opspin added a new look fossil range indicator to Liopleurodon the other day, and I think it looks quite nice. I've unrolled it on several croc pages (see the Thalattosuchia pages). I think it visualises when the fossil taxa lived quite nicely. Wotcha guys think? Mark t young (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new template. For a while, we had these on a number of articles, including Tyrannosaurus. For whatever reason, all of the fossil range indicators were removed at one point, and we haven't had them back until now. Personally, I like them, though it may be difficult to implement them on thousands of pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never saw them before. If there isn't any objections I'd like to put it into the taxobox recommendations on the PalaeoProject front-page, and change the fossil_range line on article as I go. Mark t young (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an objection; I think it's cool, but let's get some consensus on this before it's added to all the articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that it's working on Firefox at least; one of the problems with the initial rollout was that it didn't quite put the bars in the right place. J. Spencer (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what the problem was! I couldn't remember why they all went away... Firsfron of Ronchester 17:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was doing some odd offsets, like putting Tyrannosaurus partially into the Paleocene. J. Spencer (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...so obviously a few rexes made it past the boundary. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If the aforemention bar placement problems can be overcome, I strongly support this measure. Abyssal (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it look like it's still extending into the Paleocene [1]? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be that the time range is just too fine to display properly; after all, the bar still has to be a certain width. Maybe subscales could be made for the different eras? J. Spencer (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason we had to discontinue it was because it didn't work properly with Safari, and I didn't have the experience with Safari to make it do so. Given that there's actually an interest in it now, I might see if I can re-code it more efficiently – hopefully this will also make it more flexible and easier to maintain, as well as removing the T rex error (zoom in and you will see that it is in the Palaeocene at the moment). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

T-J-K or P-T-J-K-P, for Dinosauria, then? J-K-P-N for fossil Aves? Something along those lines? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, or maybe ...Tr-J-K..., just some way to highlight the most relevant part of the scale. J. Spencer (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As weird as it may sound, I kinda like the full sized all-eras scale. It gives such a nice perspective on the brevity of genera lifespans. I think the scale as it is now really drives the idea of deep time home. Trimming would lose a lot of the impact that made the scale great in the first place. I know there's trouble with it now, but if those problems could be fixed, I really think we should endeavor to keep it. Of course if we can't, then, do whatever is necessary, but I still think we should try to keep all the historical divisions. A cropped version just wouldn't be the same. I know I'm being more sentimental than practical, but still.:( Abyssal (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the new code is in place, and should now be working fine, including on Safari. Short ranges are represented by an arrow instead of a bar. I'm not sure that a shorter bar (Tr-J-K) is the answer, as it doesn't really put the organisms in the context of the fossil record. I bet that most people don't realise how long there was before Dinos arrived!

So, shall we go "live" and move the template out of its sandbox into the real world?Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sample articles we can check out to see it in action? I'm excited about the new design, but I don't want to be hasty about implementing it, cuz if something goes wrong, then undoing all the new additions would be annoying and wasteful. MY fingers are crossed though. Thanks for all the good work, smith!Abyssal (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this is back and fixed! Checking the T. rex sample Firs linked above, the arrow seems to be pointing to the right place... but wouldn't two arrows or the highlight style be better for showing range? Especially in taxa known from multiple species/specimens. Also, minor point--Paleogene is abbreviated Pg, not P, to avoid confusion with Permian. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Never mind, playing with the code I see the arrow is used if it's only known from one faunal stage. Fair enough. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The arrow is used whenever the range is less than 5Ma, because the bar would be invisible at that scale. I'll make the template "live" while placing a note in its doc that it's experimental. If there are any problems, it's a simple matter to "hide" the template, as I did last time, until they are fixed, without editing any article pages. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll want to get the bugs worked out before we add it to 3,000 taxoboxes, no? Even though the template can be hidden, it's a lot of work just to add the template. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course – my point was that assuming the template will be added at some point, it does no harm to start adding it now. And no-one's complained of any bugs yet! I wonder how difficult it would be for a bot to add the template – a request at WP:BOTREQ might find someone willing to code one. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But could a bot correctly identify the fossil range? And is it wise to add an as-yet still untested template to so many articles? The template seems to work at the K-T boundary, but has it been tested at other places? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tested it; it works. If it works in one place it will work on all of them. The only thing I haven't explicitly tested is non-standard browsers – i.e. not IE or Firefox. But there is no reason whatsoever to think that they won't display the template properly, and if it turns out that they don't, I'll just knock up a fix when someone complains. The more pages it's displayed on, the more people there will be to spot and report a bug, if one does exist.

Bot-wise, it would only be possible where a fossil range parameter was already specified, but it should be elementary to spot any range of numbers, or any instance of the names of periods. That should get 90% of the pages, I'd guess. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the template I found to all the Thalattosuchian subpages (and some other croc pages) (not sure if it is any different from the one Martin made though). Anyway, why not use those articles as a test-bed to see if it's all working out okay? Mark t young (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding the template to various pages on the list of prehistoric cartilaginous fish, most living after the KT boundry. All has been working fine thus far. Also, I notice that pseudoextinction isn't taken into account, by the template though. Anyone think that it should be? Like, the bar could continue after the extinction event really translucent or in a different color or something. I suppose it would be a pain in the ass to program, but I thought I'd throw that out there before we got too far just in case. It's not something causing me any stress, but someone else might care more. Abyssal (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about something similar; it should be quite simple to pop on a semitransparent bar. I'll think about it tonight. Martin (Smith609 – Talk)

 Done. Use "earliest=" and "latest=" to specify the start and end of the postulated range. See it in action at Coelocanth! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the new look! :D However, coelocanths are not pseudoextinct, since a true member of the group is still extant. You may be thinking of Lazarus taxon. Also the text in that taxobox does not make a bit of sense. :P Still, great work with the translucent bar, that's just how I pictured it looking. :D Abyssal (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also quite happy with the result. Well-done, Martin! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The transparent bar looks good, but this brings up an issue with the fossil range bar itself--coelocanths are extant, but their fossil range stops after the K/Pg. This is also an issue for Lazarus taxa that have wide gaps in their fossil records. This can make the whole "Fossil Range" thing a bit confsing, when you have to add extra info such as "(but extant)" (how many laypeople know what extant even means?). Wouldn't it be simpler to re-purpose Fossil Range as Time (Temporal) Range, fossil or otherwise? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your kind words! Back with syntax, I think Coelocanth illustrates the point perfectly. The only thing we can reliably say about the majority of taxa is their fossil range, which is what the bar should specify. As the coelocanth's fossil range terminates at the end of the Cretaceous, that is what the fossil range should show. The shaded bar in this instance shows that it was definitely still alive until the recent, although it does not have a fossil record for that time. Perhaps the caption should reflect this more accurately. However, what happens when they start publishing molecular clock estimates for when coelocanths diverged from other fish? What happens when these clocks are so inaccurate they put this date in the Precambrian or something, a recalibrated clock puts it in the Ordovician, and a fossil from the Cambrian Burgess shale is interpreted as an early coelocanth? The beauty of restricting ourselves to a fossil range is that we can keep unreliable molecular data to the text of the article, and restrict the "at a glance" information to something inherently meaningful and uncontroversial. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to use this now? Do we still use the "fossil range/sandbox" template or just the "fossil range"? Abyssal (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in use, and I've not had one complaint to date. Please don't use the sandbox template in articles, so it can be used for future testing if necessary. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Aetogate"

Should the Aetogate controversy have it's own article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hhmmm, certainly is notable; however it is a charged affair. If you think you can get reliable sources for all sides of the argument then I'd say go for it. Mark t young (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, might be one of the only really controversial articles this project would include, apart from maybe creationism related ones. Not sure if I'm capable of starting such an article now (or ever, for that matter, I'm not that familiar with it), just wanted to see if it would get green lit by other members of the project. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a section in New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science could be devoted to the controversy. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations for extinct species

there is currently a discussion here about the usfulness and validity of drawings and illustrations created by users being used on the various pages on wikipedia. As a result several pages have been deleted by the creator. There sould bee more discussion about this as it cotradicts WP:Dino policy. --Kevmin (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the debate and the arguements that are against the pictures seems flimsy. I view the debate as pointless and support any images that can be used on articles to illustrate the articles theme. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The person who started all the fuss at discussion of editor-produced images now proposes to make paleontology Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology a guinea pig for the new not-policy. This is a good way to strangle an infant Wikiproject. It is not Wikipedia policy, it is WP:CREEP, and should be squashed. -- Philcha (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you guys have my support in the battle against the craziness. I think things should be settling down now, though. I hope Stan won't be required to write a detailed essay for everyone of his reconstructions, but sadly, that seems to be the way things are going. I'd rather have him spend more time drawing. :/ Abyssal (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, a detailed essay should already exist--the article! Cite the sources that should already be provided there for any soft tissue, posture, behavior, environment stuff, and link to a skeletal for the rest. Done. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinoguy2, I know you're trying to be helpful, and we all appreciate it. But that's not how articles grow. Most articles acquire illustrations long before any formal review, and in this phase the main requirement is to grow them, not control them. So anything that might inhibit their growth should be avoided. -- Philcha (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually from the look of the proposers contributions, I doubt they have any interest in this subject. Sorry for spelling so tired. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying this is analogous to the Dino Wikiproject in that exponential growth period where we decided to have at least a stub for every genus, resulting in hundreds of new stubs with no references, many of which were wrong in every detail, including basic identification of the animal? ;) (i.e., better to have any information, correct or not, and fast growth, than slow growth and correct information). I know that's hyperbolic, but we need some control. These images get picked up in the media/blogs left and right and I'd prefer they not continue to disseminate inaccurate images. We have this under control at WP:Dino with image review, because we're lucky enough to have a number of editors who know their stuff and can recognize mistakes 'by ear'. But other wikiprojects within paleo do not seem to have this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A thought--would it be feasible to just expand WP:Dino image review to cover all paleoart? I know most of our experience is specifically dinosaurs, but it would be better than nothing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the dinosaur image review already incuded nondinosaurs. Here's an archive with several examples. It does seem to be just vertebrates, though. If we do expand dinosaur image review, I suggest that we make sure to link it at this wikiproject to make sure specialists on underrepresented taxa ahave watchlisted the page. --Aranae (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If I understand Dinoguy2 (23:59, 6 August 2008) correctly, the problem of a lot of low-quality content arose because Wikiproject Dinosaur itself decided at some point to go for quantity rather than quality. In that case the solution appears to be simple - don't repeat their mistake. I've created some articles of stub size to support other edits, but they're accurate and referenced, e.g. Signor-Lipps effect, Dead Clade Walking.

Wikiproject chess had a similar problem because an enthusiastic editor created a huge number of short articles on minor chess masters and then started adding material to articles people were watching, but a little gentle guidance fixed that problem and he's become a very useful member. -- Philcha (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support, and help, with a decision to expand WP:dino image review to include other palaeo groups. Def, second the proposal to link it to this project though. Mark t young (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just make a new review page on this project? FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hi guys, I've made some templates recently (Thalattosuchia, Mesoeucrocodylia, Mosasauridae, Basal crocodylomorphs), and I've been thinking about creating one for crurotarsans. I've got a draft version at User:Mark t young/sandbox‎. What do you guys think? Seems all a little too much to me. Mark t young (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather large. I'd avoid placing that template on very short articles, as it would overpower them, IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Would making its initial state "collapsed" help? The underlying template:navbox has a parameter state [autocollapse, uncollapsed, collapsed, plain, off] that defaults to "autocollapse" (A navbox with "autocollapse" will start out collapsed if there are two or more tables on the same page that use other collapsible tables. Otherwise, the navbox will be expanded.)

You could give your crurotarsan template a state param that defaults to "collapsed" and which it passes to template:navbox. Then if an article expands, the crurotarsan template in that article could be set to some other state. -- Philcha (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to try putting in collapsable sub-menus like my Varanoidea template, but autocollapse would just as nicely me thinks. Cheers guys, Mark t young (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• okay, what do you all think of this version: User:Mark t young/sandbox2? Mark t young (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominated Small shelly fauna for GA

I've nominated Small shelly fauna for GA. -- Philcha (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed. -- Philcha (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Project icon

The current icon is too detailed to show anything at icon size, and the full pic looks as if it's about mining rather than the history of life on earth.

Nominations:

• Image:Kimberella blue.jpg - I'm currently using on this my User page. -- Philcha (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That photo's illumination ia awfull, do you have a better pictue to use. If it is good then I do not oppose a change. Maybe we could change it regulaily like they do for the numisnatics icon. Sorry for spelling I am drunk. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Plesiosaurus macrocephalus", found by Mary Anning, drawn by William Buckland

• What about this image? It's a significant fossil, the image is well-known, recognisable, and it looks pretty stylish and iconic (looks like a design actually). It has already been used in another paleo logo here too. It illustrates both how fossils can be beautiful, incomplete, and that some guesswork has to be done (the lines where the missing tail bones should be). FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

noframe

WikiProject Palaeontology

WikiProject Palaeontology

The "Plesiosaurus macrocephalus" pic works very nicely at icon size, and it's graceful. But the banner at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology would have to be changed as the pic gets lost in the lettering. I suggest a sandy b/g colour with the pic's b/g the same, so it looks like a fossil in situ. The CSS also uses the CSS 3 "text-shadow" feature, so it will look like bones when browsers catch up (see "Eclipse" exmaple at W3C page).

For now I've inserted a really ancient CCS/HTML trick to produce a text shadow without needing fancy hacks like those at Creating Cross Browser Compatible CSS Text Shadows. Works even in IE.-- Philcha (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where else has it been used in another paleo logo? If there's no conflict, I'd go with "Plesiosaurus macrocephalus". Otherwise there's a nice gallery at Trilobite. -- Philcha (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the paleo stub-logo too. And yeah, sandy looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palaeontology

Perhaps a good starting challenge for this project would be to improve the article on Palaeontology. At the moment it's rather lacking in content and focus. I've recently been chatting to a few "ordinary people" about palaeontology and have been shocked how few know the difference between it and archaeology, and was particularly amazed that one intelligent person earnestly thought that the earliest eyes might be found in sheep. It would be lovely to be able to tell the palaeontologically naive "you should take a look at the Wikipedia article" but I'd be embarassed to do so with it in its current state! I've put some comments on its talk page and would welcome any input. Shall we see whether between us, we can raise the article to FA? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What you mean, those people knew what Palaeontology was, they're smart. Also why not tell them, most proberly they would get a rough idea on the topic, and they would not want to read a 5000 word essay. If they want a better article tell them to see the links. Yes this article should be the top priority as it is what the project is about. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've revamped Paleontology. If we can get it up to at least B-class we should nomiate it for Wikipedia v 0.7. -- Philcha (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated Opabinia for GA

I've nominated Opabinia for GA. -- Philcha (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed GA. -- Philcha (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work Philch, as Bruce Lee says just like water. You seemto work hard on this subject, like the Small Shelly Fauna article. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed archive for cited web pages

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wiki_cache_for_references has a proposal to cover the risk of cited web pages going offline or being taken over by advertisers / domain resellers. Although WP:PALEO uses mainly academic articles, some of these are only / mainly available via the web, e.g. Acta Paleontologica Polonica; there's also an "open" biology article site whose exact name I can't remember right now. I suggest WP:PALEO should pitch in, and also post on the Talk pages of any other Wikiprojects that would be seriously hurt by the disappearance of important pages / sites. I've posted similar notices at WP:DINO, WikiProject Chess and WikiProject Video Games, and will also post at WikiProject Computing. -- Philcha (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish and List of crurotarsans

I've decided that splitting the List of crurotarsans and List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish would be a good idea, for obvious reasons of size and maintainability. The problem is that these taxa don't seem easily splittable along actual taxonomic lines. Crurotarsi is especially problematical as the cladogram given in its article seems to give a rather linear progression without good branches to split along. The generous peppering of basal forms further complicates things.

Chondrichthyes seems a bit easier as there seems to be a tripartite division of chimaeras, sharks and rays that would work, although I'm not sure if that would leave out any major ancient extinct divisions or forms basal to chondrichthyes itself. You guys know more about this stuff than I do, so I was hoping that someone would have some suggestion of along what lines it would be best to split these articles. Abyssal (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The cladogram for Crurotarsi is not that linear - it has 5 1st-level clades, but all the subsequent action is in the 5th, Crocodylotarsi.-- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is kinda what I meant, but I may not have described it popularly. The point I was trying to make is that all the clades seem to be nested within each other like Russian dolls with only the inclusion of basal forms distinguishing them at all. E.g. the only difference between suchia and crocodylotarsi is that suchia excludes the phytosaurs.

Crurotarsal phylogeny is rather uncertain, see Archosauromorpha: Archosauria and the subsequent pages. Hence splitting or structuring List of crurotarsans according to any particular researcher's cladogram is hazardous.-- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's why I came for advice. :P Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise might be to add a new sortable column "Clade" and follow the cladogram of your choice (with a ref in the heading, of course).-- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really help because it won't end up splitting the article, and that kind of basic information would be included in the description column anyway. Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

At present the table wastes space by having a separate column for images, although only a few entries have images. If you do not expect many additional images, I think you could save space by placing the images in the "Description" column, floated right. That will allow many multiline descriptions without images to shrink by about 50%. -- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm kinda wary about what kind of horrible stretching might occur in the cells with images, but I do like the line of thinking. I'll look into experimenting with that. :D Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered how much work might be involved in keeping the table up-to-date? -- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I underestimated the task at first. Now it's hitting me like a ton of bricks. :O Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable alternative might be to set up a category "Crurotarsi", assign the Category to all the articles about Crurotarsans, and link to the Category in Crurotarsi, e.g.

Further information: [[:Category:Crurotarsi]]

This is produced by {{Further|[[:Category:Crurotarsi]]}} -- Philcha (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

With Chondrichthyes you could get the best of both worlds by adding in articles:

Further information: [[:Category:Cartilaginous fishes]]

and one of

Further information: [[:Category:Chimaeriformes]]

Further information: [[:Category:Sharks]]

Further information: [[:Category:Rays]]

-- Philcha (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do categories because of all the information that would be lost - we can't really do articles on invalid taxa, dubia, junior synonyms, etc. The info could be in the renamed taxon's article, but would lose the context of being listed among the names, and I think that would be a major loss because sometimes those names can be enormously important historically and pop culturally. People still talk about Brontosaurus. It would also necessitate the creation of bazillions of stubs, and while I'm not opposed to stubs, I like the idea of one centralized list with descriptions more than many separate stubs. The list has some "meat" to it as an article, and I think that gives it some value that dozens of tiny articles lack. Although maybe having the list and millions of stubs would be the best solution. :P

Right now I'm thinking about dicing up the list rather finely, like having a list of crocodylomorphs and then listing the genera from the other clades in their respective articles, with the exception of some higher order ones that would contain only the basal miscellaneous forms. thoughts?Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No one else has any comments? In the mean time, could I get some feedback on User:Abyssal/List of ichthyosaurs (draft)? It's getting filled in slowly but surely. Abyssal (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sublists, but given the state of crurotarsans the only ones I think we could do with any degree of confidence are aetosaurs and phytosaurs (they stick out like sore thumbs, and they've already got categories, which would make them even easier to sort out). J. Spencer (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely most crurotarsan genera can be classified at some level? I mean if the material is diagnostic enough to warrant a new genus surely it should be obvious if it's a crocodylomorph or what...? Then again, looking at that cladogram maybe not.

New Proposal: keep the actual list of crurotarsans as it is, a bare bones list, use the table format for the crurotarsan clades that "stick out like sore thumbs" as you put it, Spence. Scrap the idea to create lists for incertae cedises and very basal forms in the articles on their respective clades. How does that sound? I think that leaves us with table-style lists of ctenosauriscidae, phytosaurs, aetosaurs, crocodylomorphs and maybe poposaurids and rauisuchians, but I'd like your input on the last two as I'm not sure how certain we can be about what genera to include. These lists would probably be small enough for inclusion in their respective articles except perhaps for the crocodylomorphs. Any opinions?

And how does my User:Abyssal/List of ichthyosaurs (draft) look so far? Abyssal (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The ichthyosaur page is looking very good. The table format is particularly helpful for topics with many redlinks and old junior synonyms. J. Spencer (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, on that note, see User:Abyssal/List of mosasaurs (draft). It's like 3/4s of them have some taxonomic defect or another. Abyssal (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on my final List of crurotarsans proposal before I actually start on it? Abyssal (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, going through and doing the math I find that the last proposal would only end up reducing the list size by about 12%, although the actual number of entries removed would be a bit higher due to junior synonyms. I was hoping to reduce the list by at least 35% or so and I'm getting fed up.

Final crurotarsan proposal: A List of crocodilians, table style with the rest of the names on my list of crurotarsans going into whatever well defined group they can, down to the family level if need be. Basal forms of higher order taxa can go screw themselves. Integrating all this into the mainspace will probably result in the creation of one new article (the list of crocodilians) and the addition of tabled lists to the articles on several families and/or orders. These lists shouldn't be too big of a deal since many of them had very few members anyway (eg ctenosauriscidae). Hopefully I'll be able to divide and conquer the seemingly epic task of listing and summarizing all known crurotarsans.

Final chondrichthyes proposal: Split it into three, a list of prehistoric sharks, list of prehistoric rays/skates/batoids and a list of holocephalians. Once more, basal forms can screw off. Abyssal (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Handling paraphyly in fossil range templates

You may remember that I added a translucent extension to the bar of the fossil range template of the dinosaur article to show that dinosaurs have a descendant group that survives to this day. Still, I'm not entirely sure how the translucency should be used in other articles. Dinosaur obviously needed it, but what's your opinion on handling paraphyly that way? Should the taxon have to be thought paraphyletic by the scientific community or just perceived that way by the general public the way dinosaur was? What if the connection between the paraphyletic and "descendant" taxa is not confirmed? I really like the translucency feature but I'm a bit dubious on how to apply it properly and I'd like to hear your thoughts before I try to apply it to any more articles. Abyssal (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)