User talk:Abyssal leviathin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Abyssal leviathin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions to the dinosaur articles! Keep up the good work! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me he's called RPG Advocate! Kopf1988 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ammonite articles

Hi. I noticed you had recently created many articles on individual ammonite genera. I would ask that you consider whether it is a useful endeavour creating hundreds of sub-stubs that provide no information whatsoever on the particular genera they are meant to describe. I would think that writing more comprehensive articles on just a few genera would be more useful. Also, I noticed you included "Name" instead of {{PAGENAME}}, such that none of the articles actually mention their subject matter in the text. I'm not sure what would be the best course of action at this point. Perhaps deleting the articles and starting over? Mgiganteus1 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I intend on adding as much info as possible to these articles in the future. They won't remain useless forever. I'm just starting them up so that they can be edited by those who should choose to. Abyssal leviathin 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ammonite names

You're welcome, but in the future, could you insert the names when you create the articles? J. Spencer 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trilobite genera

Hi again. Nice work on the List of trilobites! I was wondering what reference you used to compile the list. Is it this page by any chance? If so, it would be good to list the original paper ("Available generic names for trilobites") in a Reference section at the end of the article. Mgiganteus1 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you've combined both sources? Mgiganteus1 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input request

Hi Abyssal leviathin, there is some discussion currently going on here, and I noticed you have {{User anime}} on your userpage. If you are not too busy, I would appreciate it if you could drop some of your ideas on how to reform the portal on the aforementioned talk page. Thanks! « ANIMUM » 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Echis

Hi Abyssal leviathin. I noticed your edit to Echis. Do you have a reference for your statement? Also, regarding your reference to this genus in the Fiery flying serpent article, these snakes are definitely not capable of leaping "up to chest height." The only ones capable of such behavior are of the imaginary sort. --Jwinius 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a reference. It's an article from a Mormon magazine. Here --> http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000609serpent.html
As for the chest height thing, I swore I read that somewhere. Just remove it. I'll re-add it if I ever find a believable reference, which as you said is unlikely. Abyssal leviathin 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I've added the reference to the Echis article. I've also taken the liberty of adding it to your Fiery flying serpent article. --Jwinius 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceratitida

Will this page turn into an article at some point? As of now, it doesn't qualify as a page which should be kept, but if you have a plan for this, please let me know. Thanks. Owen× ☎ 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. The best way to do that is to create the page temporarily in your User space, e.g. User:Abyssal leviathin/Ceratitida. Pages in your user space are generally left alone by admins. Once the page is ready, you use the move button to move it to the article space. Let me know if you need any help moving pages or deleting the "redirect" tag that is left behind when you use this method. Owen× ☎ 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I realized this was serious work in progress rather than the tomfoolery we often see here, but some other admins may be quicker with their "delete" button. Owen× ☎ 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Ammonite-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Ammonite Stuff

Not a problem, it's my pleasure :D Kevmin 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ‎List of prehistoric bony fish (Osteichthyes) List of placoderms ‎List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) List of prehistoric jawless fish

Hello there! When creating lists, could you re-format the content to make it easier to read. For instance like this page List of pterosaur classifications or like such: List of mammals of Canada. Even just to put a star before the name would be an enormous help. You seem to be on the right track, placing valid lists online. A few references from the WWW would help your lists stay online without being deleted. Try a template for a reference like this Wikipedia:Citation templates for inline citations for line by line. Try to add more inline citations to this article: List of prehistoric jawless fish This list has one reference as well, however the previous method is better: List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) Good luck and keep on with the good work! SriMesh | talk 02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello; Thank you for the heads up on your other lists such as List of ammonites amongst the others. They are very impressive. Way to go! Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of List of prehistoric sponges

A tag has been placed on List of prehistoric sponges, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Domthedude001 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a list of prehistoric sponges.. and none of them have links to other Wikipedia articles. No references, and It might have even been copied. -Domthedude001 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Number 1, it was copied -from the online database version of Jack Sepkoski's 2002 compendium of marine fossil genera. Number 2, no duh it doesn't sources, links or context, I made the thing 5 minutes ago. What did you expect? If you had waited til tomorrow before you tried to delete it you would have found no reason to tag it at all in the first place. I guess I have some work to do. <_< Abyssal leviathin 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you need more time for an article being speedied, add {{hangon}} under the db tag. I hope you don't mind, but I added bullets down to C. Remember to also add [[wikilinks]] -Domthedude001 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow! Nice context! Now, it doesn't meet criteria for speedy deletion. -Domthedude001 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I guess you win

Its not a problem. I've been working on metriorhynchids for two years now, so hopefully I should know which species lived when!

You may be thinking of Geosaurus araucanensis. I doubled checked the literature, and although Geosaurus is known from the Neuquen Basin in the Late Tithonian-Early Berrisian, whether or not it actually is G. araucanensis is another matter (which is currently being sorting out). But the holotype, and all topotypic material is Early Tithonian. Geosaurus gracilis and G. suevicus are known from the Weisser Jura of Baden-Wuttemberg and Bavaria, which for the limestones they are found in, is definately earliest Tithonian. So no Kimmeridgian species there. Dakosaurus andiniensis is most certainly not in the Kimmeridgian, although D. maximus is, but I neglected to put that in on the first edit, oops! However, I'm positive Geosaurus was around during the Kimmeridgian, its just a lack of actual fossils to prove it! Mark t young (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barremian

Most of these changes were acutally what I was actually pondering myself. I'll incorporate them over the next days; right now I'm playing around a bit to try out different formatting. I did not add the Annuloceras image as the article claims it's Lower Aptian, and this needs to be sorted out first. Dysmorodrepanis 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried out some new formatting at Santonian. Eventually, I think, all stage articles should mainly consist of a geoscience write-up (mainly climate, sea level, paleomagnetism etc) and have the taxa separate as in Maastrichtian. This will make it easier with the sections. Dysmorodrepanis 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mapping advice

For software, if you're modifying existing maps (that is if there's existing basemaps in commons you can use) then you just need a graphics program. I use Photoshop, but that's definitely not free. I know a lot of folks swear by GIMP which is probably the best free raster graphics program out there. If you're going to be making SVG files rather than raster graphics you need Inkscape. If you need to make a map from scratch you need some GIS software which definitely has more of a learning curve, I haven't used any of the free ones so I'm not sure which to recommend. If you go this route I can help you find data sources. Anything you use is going to use big files, that's pretty much inherent in mapping. Files types: raster use PNG, vector use SVG. For online map generators you may take a look at OMC for generating basemaps, you'd still need a graphics program to modify them (and change their awful default colors). For fonts I usually just use Arial, and the various Windows symbol fonts have a lot of common mapping symbols. If you're looking for something specific in terms of symbols let me know and I might be able to help. Kmusser (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word up!

Word up dude, you've been reviewed! ;) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the Oyster category

Hi Abyssal leviathin, It seems I was over-enthusiastic, so I have reverted the change, with apologies. I thought the category was anomalous, as there are many other similar groups that could have similar categories. Only thing now is I am not sure what should be in the category. If you could give me a pointer I can do the legwork for this. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lystrosaurus

Lystrosaurus is a genus non-mammalian synapsid. The term 'mammal-like reptile' is is not entirely appropriate as under recent phylogenetic systematics Reptilia is restricted to the MRCA of the various extant forms considered reptiles. Which obviously excludes the mammalian (synapsid) line, and even workers who don't like PN wouldn't refer to Lystro as a reptile sensu stricto. Mark t young (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, PN is short for phylogenetic nomenclature (e.g. PhyloCode). Good question about how to categorise them. Animals isn't really very good, and neither mammal nor reptile is entirely appropriate. I suppose synapsid is a bit too technical? I'm loathed to use 'mammal-like reptile', but at least the average layman 'knows' what you mean by that. Mark t young (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

You realize {{trilobite-stub}} doesn't exist, right? I replaced two stub temps with {{dinosaur-stub}}. Maybe you can use that instead, or maybe you have another idea for a stub? --Kannie | talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Abyssal leviathin. You have new messages at Kannie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Barnstar

The Fauna Barnstar
I just want to tell you that you are actually doing a good job making stubs about trilobites. Kannie | talk 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] List of prehistoric sponges has Zoarces eelpout fish image??

Hi. List of prehistoric sponges has an image (repeated several times) of a Zoarces eelpout fish, apparently added to the article by you at 03:02 on 16 December 2007. What may I ask is up with that?? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Sorry, I was using that picture as a place-holder in the code. I could hide it as a comment if you want." -- I should think that we shouldn't include anything irrelevant or "wrong" in publicly-accessable Wikipedia articles, even when intended as reasonably temporary. If nothing else, I think it's quite possible that somebody might call it vandalism. *I* certainly found it confusing! :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] List of prehistoric annelids, List of prehistoric foraminiferans, List of prehistoric gastropods, List of prehistoric echinoderms all are, or were, punctuated with numerous eelpout images

Hi Abyssal, How are you? Happy New Year. My question and comment is the same as Writtenonsand's comment for the list of prehistoric sponges. I also feel that is not a good idea to place irrelevant images in articles, even as supposed "temporary" place holders. (The annelid eelpout images had already been there for a month, which is not very temporary.) As Writtenonsand said, this kind of thing is very confusing, and it has an unfortunate superficial resemblance to vandalism, which is what I thought it was. I spent a fair bit of time last night and this morning taking these images out of the gastropod and the annelid articles. If you are working on an article and it is not yet in fit state to be posted, it can be put together on one of your user pages, and then posted once it is in decent shape. Or, if you need to have a place holder on an already posted page, it could perhaps be a row of dots or something similar which is less eye-catching and has no actual meaningful content. And you could try to make sure that it really is temporary, in other words make it disappear the next day or so.

Also I wanted to say that the "prehistoric" gastropod list already contains many genera which are still extant. I am going to have to go through and take the daggers off of all the ones that I recognize, but there will be many more that I don't recognize, so that is a problem too.

Plus to be honest, the functionality of the article is a bit questionable: a list of all gastropod genera living and fossil would be so huge as to be unwieldy, the gastropods being the largest class of invertebrates other than the insects. Invertzoo (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the place holder images, I do feel bad about the burden I've been, in that regard. Thanks also for removing all the daggers you could as well. That is a big big help for that kind of article. I would have done it myself but I know very little about gastropods, so that kind of thing is not very practical for me. As for functionality, it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric. I know it's a big list as it is, but since it's a direct port of Jack Sepkoski's 2002 list of fossils, so it should be reasonably close to completion anyway. Even if it's not, a big list is just as useful as a small one, in my opinion, even if it is "unwieldy," as you put it. :) Thanks for the New Years greetings. I hope your having a pleasant one yourself.

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on removing at least some of the unnecessary daggers, which is a slow and painstaking process. We all try to help one another with this stuff. If you ever need someone to check any gastropod stuff for you, please just ask on the talk page at WikiProject Gastropods. I did want to explain that when you said: "it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric", the problem is, that almost every gastropod genus which is found living now, also lived in the late Pleistocene and has been found in the fossil record, (apart from those which do not leave any fossil record at all of course.) The late Pleistocene fauna was almost identical to the current fauna, and that means that the list becomes by default every gastropod genus, or at any rate every shelled gastropod genus. It's not like ammonites or dinosaurs, which are legitimately "prehistoric". Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi me again. Remember I used the word "unwieldy" about the size of the prehistoric gastropod list? Well I see it does already have a "This page is 94 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size" tag. And unless it is split up in some way, it is only going to get bigger still and slower to load. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me once again. I am slowly going though your gastropod list. Though there are not all that many blue links as a proportion of the whole, still, such blue links as do exist, well, a large number of them are actually links to pages about Ancient Greek heroes after which the genera are often named. One even links to an article on a rock band which has the same name as one of the genera, and so on. The blue links are no use at all in that state, they would be frustrating and annoying to users of Wikipedia. It is always a good idea to check blue links and see if they link up to what you imagine they might, or to something else altogether. And if they link to the wrong thing it is a good idea to take the time to fix the situation, one by one.Invertzoo (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of prehistoric sponges: Eurypterids??

"The list includes all commonly accepted genera... (including) genera that are no longer considered eurypterids." -- Is that right? If it is, you may want to include some sort of context so people will understand what we're talking about here. (Link in case it's useful: Eurypterid.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed lists: Apparently you like more than others do.

Hi again!  :-) I don't mean this as rude in any way, but you apparently like detailed lists of things more than most people do. I see List of trilobites and List of prehistoric sponges which are currently 90%+ redlinks, along with the recent proposals at WikiProject Dinosaurs for detailed breakdowns of dinosaurs by country and epoch. I think that most people don't strongly feel a desire for such lists, and indeed dislike lists which consist mostly of redlinks. (Yes, I understand that the theory is to go through later and create articles and redirects for the redlinks.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "If people dislike redlinks so much, maybe they should make articles and turn them blue." -- I'm inclined to agree. But as you know, there are only so many hours in the day, and many calls on our time. Have a good one. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

Hi, just noticed some articles you've created recently have the wrong date format on "Retrieved on", creating redlinks. Pleas use 2008-01-12 instead of 01/12/08. Thanks. Lampman (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nanahughmilleria

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nanahughmilleria, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nanahughmilleria. Thinboy00 @276, i.e. 05:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of 1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience

I have nominated 1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Redfarmer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to the AfD discussion above and find out. Redfarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 2005 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article is empty and is not pure fact.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SimpsonsFan2008 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting articles

Hi,

Looks to me like you should just save any info in those articles. Of course the sources exist, at least for most years. But you probably won't convince people of that. It's easy to re-create articles (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD discussion

A user on the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience has come up with a compromise which I quite think is a very good idea. I thought I'd let you know so you can take a look and see what you think. Redfarmer (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of paranormal, fringe and pseudoscience

With regards to the "Timeline of.." article idea, I've pasted the contents of your articles into a sort of bare-bones timeline article on my sandbox (partly because I've never created an article before and I wanted to have a go) but I'm very unlikely to get a chance to do anything else with it over the weekend, so feel free to either use what I've got there and expand it until it's ready to go, or copy it to your space (or ignore it entirely, I won't mind :) ) MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeoceratops

The "sail" on the tail is actually quill like structures that were found in a fossil of the related genus Psittacosaurus. No such structure has been found associated with Archaeoceratops remains, but since these two genera are related, there is a possibility that the latter genus had them as well... ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The description of the quill-like structures on Psittacosaurus tail have only been published in 2002 (Mayr, Gerald, Peters, D. Stephan, Plodowski, Gerhard & Vogel, Olaf. (2002). Bristle-like integumentary structures at the tail of the horned dinosaur Psittacosaurus. Naturwissenschaften 89: 361–365.).ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claypole (eurypterid)

After a cursory google I suspect that this is an error. Claypole is a worker on eurypterids, and the author of a number of generic and specific names. It is quite possible that a genus could be named in his honour, but one would expect a spelling such as Claypolea or Claypolia. If you agree you can blank the page and mark it as a candidate for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching for Claypole lacoana brings up Dolichocephala lacoana Claypole syn Ctenopterus lacoana (Claypole) and lots of Wikipedia mirrors.
A possible source is [Paleopedia], which has a malformatted list of eurypterids. This refers to back to Palaeos. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pterygotus

The species names have abbreviated forms of what I assume to be subgenus names. These don't appear to be defined anywhere. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Googling finds that the (A.) refers to subgenus Acutiramus, which is in Wikipedia as a genus. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurypterus remipes

This article, as it currently stands, is neither an article for Eurypterus remipes, nor for the genus Eurypterus. I suggest renaming it as the genus, and replacing the species with a redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the reference...

I removed that reference from Styloichthyes because there is the same reference repeated on the same page, and also the article about Styloichthyes exists now. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synapsid categorization

I'd say "synapsids of X" is reasonable; you can always make mammals a subcategory, or, for the convenience of those who don't know that mammals are synapsids, have the mammals of X category under both the synapsids of X and the greater Y of X category. J. Spencer (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Peter Deer (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm very sorry I seem to have reverted something on your to-do list. I apologize profusely for my mistake. Peter Deer (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleo years

Is the introduction really necessary? Isn't it a bit patronising? Wouldn't it be better if you added actual events themselves or do you intend doing this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why 1946 in paleontology etc etc 1918 in paleontology is categorized as 1950 either? Shouldn't this be 1946 in science? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they are all categorized as 1950? WHy is this? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK but perhaps you could add an {{Under construction}} tag next time so other editors know your intentions. No there is nothing wrong with that text in the main article it is clear and very understandable, just didn't see the need to repeat it on every year ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea in principal and if eventually we have a detailed account of events by year in that field of study the encyclopedia can only be improved. I'll assume good faith and leave you to it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to be able to fix odd glitches in articles, like the glitch in the dates for Cuvier. I do hope you can add more content to those "Year in paleo" articles; they seem kind of thin... --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Floian

If the "official" name of the arenig group is Floian, you should:

  • add the word Floian to the article and explain its derivation
  • move the article to the new title. Do not copy&paste beacuse this hides the edit history.

-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the vast majority of the incoming links are to Arenig, it is probably better to leave the article there. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish

Feel free to incorporate it if you see fit; I think it's helpful to have the separate article too, though. Perhaps a link or transclusion from the main list would be possible? Smith609 Talk 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] accessdate in citations

Hi, it looks like you're doing great work adding fish articles. I have one minor issue to raise with you: when adding citations and using the 'accessdate' tag, please enter the date in format YYYY-MM-DD e.g. accessdate=2008-04-12. Unfortunately this tag doesn't work properly unless this exact format is used - see Template:Cite web#Required_parameters and it looks like you've been entering the date in a different format e.g. [1]. I'll fix your recent contributions using AWB. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)