Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconPalaeontology Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Saccorhytida un-redirect?[edit]

Since Beretella has been described (in a preprint, but still) and Saccorhytida is thus no longer monotypic, which is the whole reason why it currently redirects to Saccorhytus, Saccorhytida should probably get its own page, even if it’s just a stub. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might work on a page for this new genus, if the draft gets accepted, I will change the redirect into a stub Abdullah raji (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Beretella has been accepted and i will now change the redirect Abdullah raji (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two move requests[edit]

I have requested that "Sauropsid" and "Synapsid" be moved to "Sauropsida" (from which it has recently been moved without discussion) and "Synapsida". please see Talk:Synapsid#Requested_move_26_March_2024 and Talk:Sauropsid#Requested_move_26_March_2024. Please participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fossilworks and Paleobiology Database (PBDB), revisited[edit]

Following up from the discussion I started last year, Fossilworks now is consistently timing out for me since about two or three weeks ago, making all Fossilworks taxon ID links in the taxonbar useless as of writing. Therefore it seems about time to me for Fossilwork links to be swapped to links to paleobiodb.org, so I have started a discussion over at Wikiproject Taxonomy on Wikidata to suggest this be done there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no sign of activity at Wikidata, I've modified {{taxonbar}} to get the identifier from Fossilworks taxon ID (P842) and link to PBDB. If wikidata has both Fossilworks taxon ID (P842) and Paleobiology Database taxon ID (P10907) and they are identical the duplicate is deleted. If they are different (as in lion, which gets 46521 from Paleobiology Database taxon ID (P10907) and 49734 from Fossilworks taxon ID (P842)) there will be two links to PBDB. If there are questions on this, please add to the discussion at the {{Taxonbar}} talk page. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Cultural depictions of dinosaurs[edit]

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on use of palaeoart in FACs[edit]

FAC discussion relevant to editors here[1], and perhaps the MOS for images should have a note on how to deal with palaeoart once consensus emerges. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Caenagnathoidea into Oviraptorosauria[edit]

I've added a merge proposal to Talk:Caenagnathoidea to merge it with Oviraptorosauria for the following reasons:

  1. The vast majority of constituent taxa are shared by both clades.
  2. The taxa excluded from the smaller clade are ambiguous due to conflicting taxonomies.
  3. Any new information added to caenagnathoidea would need to also be added to oviraptorosauria for that reason.
  4. Portions of text from both pages are copy/pasted onto one another.
  5. Similar merges occurred recently for Tyrannoraptora and Maniraptoromorpha for reasons that apply equally to this merge.

Thank you for your time. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass merge discussion notice[edit]

A collective merge discussion on a number of potentially redundant clade-level articles has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Mass_merge_proposal_for_redundant_clade_pages and may be of interest to this WikiProject. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor altering fossil age ranges, introducing contradictions and spurious accuracy[edit]

User:Mannlegur is changing a large number of fossil age ranges, as at Fish, without checking to see if these contradict cited descriptions in the bodies of the affected articles, as they did in Fish's case. Sometimes they replace names like "Silurian" with numeric ranges, which may convey spurious accuracy: that too can be misleading. I've posted a note on their talk page, but the project may need to check all the edits for appropriateness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for letting us know! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpetida[edit]

https://mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.5450.1.1 Is a new article on Devonian Harpetida from Morocco.

Now, from the abstract (the only section I have access to) they basically:

This could lead to conflict, as in the Order page Helioharpes is listed as a synonym of Harpes, Fritchaspis as a synonym of Lioharpes, and Globoharpes seperate from Eskoharpes.

I don't know what to add, but I will keep this in here for further discussion.

  • also I'm adding this to the talk page for Harpetida.

Abdullah raji (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the abstract won't be enough context here. Either this paper or prior scholarship would be needed to show whether this is a revision that workers generally agree is necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida[edit]

Hi, I've proposed to merge Neodiapsida into Diapsida, since the two are largely synonymous. Discussion can be found here. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]