This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology This 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology

I am thinking about a new approach to our Palaeo Peer Review, one that is focused on collaborative editing.

The problem with the existing Palaeo Peer Review is that it is not really distinct from the normal WP:Peer Review; the process is kind of the same, i.e. participants leave comments and wait for the nominator to fix them. In contrast, we also have the Palaeontology Collaboration and the Dinosaur Collaboration; these were great because of the community effort, but just don't work and have been inactive for years now. Maybe it is time to try something new that combines the advantages of the Peer Review (flexibility; fast feedback; a main author behind the article) with those of a WikiProject collaboration (community effort).

The goal of this is to get more folks into article writing, by making such writing easier and more fun. Also, we encourage collaborative working on articles while improving communication within the WikiProject and also making the WikiProject more attractive to new editors.

It could work the same way as the existing PeerReview, except for that we focus on editing the article directly instead of listing minor issues on the review page. On the review page, we could document what we did, and discuss problems that cannot be solved by quick edits. The goal would be to bring the article at least to B-class. This requires that the original nominator of the article acts as main author to push it forwards and, most importantly, addresses any comments. This hopefully sparkles spontaneous collaborations, sometimes with editors becoming more heavily involved so that they may become co-nominators if the article is finally nominated at WP:GAN or even WP:FAC.

Maybe we would need a new name for it, like "Palaeo collabs" or "Palaeo article workshop". This whole idea is quite preliminary; I would like to know what you think about it, and if you would be interested in participating in such a thing. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a nice reorientation that can probably be of wider use. Like I wrote on Discord: "One thing I've noticed is that many editors feel best writing about specific subtopics within a topic, so they'll often work on specific sections and leave the rest. In some case I've reached out to such editors when I was expanding articles so other editors could work on those sections while I worked on some of the perhaps more complicated sections, and there have come some nice articles from it. So perhaps this could also be a way to facilitate that kind of collaborations, where someone dives into some specific part of the article without having to do the burden of working on everything else". FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is an overall improvement over the current review style for even things like Good Articles. Featured articles makes sense for people to critique and have discussions over improvements and layperson details, but all lower levels of "status" review I feel like it is more beneficial to allow people to implement the changes they see to make an article better. Things like rewriting sentences for clearer phrasing shouldn't need the original nominator to handle on their own. It should speed up processes and allow for more consistency, I'm in favour. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also in favour of this. It might also help in making bigger projects less daunting to tackle, like taxa with many species, complicated histories, etc. Maybe also a good way to handle those old Featured Articles we still need to reassess and improve? The Morrison Man (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. I went ahead and created a draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop. If anyone likes to edit the text, its concluded from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article Workshop/Header. Once everybody is happy with it, I will activate it and retire the deprecated project pages, including the Palaeo Peer Review, with a note pointing to the new site. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if he old paleo PR should just redirect to there to preserve old links and archives? FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to put a warning box on the old Palaeo PR page as well as the old collaboration pages, noting that these projects have been retired and that we have the Workshop instead taking over these functions. Other than that, I thought we should preserve the original pages including the archives instead of turning them into redirects (to make it easy to re-activate them if needed). Maybe we could include an "history" section in the workshop page, with a little chronology and links to the old initiatives and archives? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the most practical solution to me at least. I've made some slight edits to the introductory text at the top of the page. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "History" section and archives; we could just continue adding to the Peer review archives, I hope. How does that look? And btw, the Palaeo Peer review resulted in 43 reviewed articles, helping with promoting 6 GAs and 3 FAs. Not bad, but I think we can do even better! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! We shouldn't forget to also change the main project pages accordingly once the workshop is fully operational. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's on my list! I will activate it tomorrow unless there are any concerns. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this'll be great as a tool to promote collective contributions, like a little noticeboard people can look at and see where it might be worth helping out without the feeling they're making any specific commitment. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and did all the changes I thought were necessary. The Article workshop (shortcut: WP:PALEOAW) is up and running. Links were added to the templates and bars. I added inactivity notices to both collaboration pages and the peer review, so that newbies will not be confused by dead pages. Those notices are ugly, and if anyone likes to change them, please do.

That said, the Article workshop is open for submissions! Don't forget to add it to your watchlist, so you won't miss any action! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I think it also cleans up the bar at the top of the WP:PALEO page quite nicely. Building off this, maybe it would also be valuable to invest in something like WP:MILHIST has at their academy for our project? We could do with a central place of information on how our articles work/should be written, and it would also give us an incentive to decide on some universal structuring. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, whenever I want to know how to write and structure an article, I look at the most recently promoted featured article (FA) on a close topic. The FA process significantly influences, or at least constrains, how we write articles at a high level. The advantage of the FA process here is that it provides external feedback from non-experts that allows (or forces) us to adjust or writing to meet the needs of the readers. Another advantage is that it is dynamic, as new FA nominations often result in reconsiderations of long-standing practises. I don't know, but if we have our own central guidelines, maybe we risk ending up with something too rigid that will not properly evolve over time and does not serve actual readers needs? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had it already for the palaeo project, but could be helpful to have something like the dinosaur project "article sections"[1] guidelines here? FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems User:Zhenghecaris (contribs) is adding information about taxa described by Mark McMenamin (who is famous for Triassic Kraken hypothesis) from Clemente Formation, and trying to create own articles. That include, Zirabgtaria, Korifogrammia, Clementechiton (which is supposed to Ediacaran chiton) etc. Those taxa are described in those books[2][3] and searching in Google Scholar results it is only supported by McMenamin and not discussed in other researches. This user also reverted my deletion in Evolution of the eye, which claimed Clementechiton as the earliest animal with eyes, originally added by one of the supposed sockpuppet of Mark McMenamin (Earthjewels830). So should those information be retained? As Shenzianyuloma, despite poorly described and not supported by other researchers, those taxa seems still available names. (Although those are described in his own books and unreviewed, so maybe can be nomen dubium? I am not sure about those rules.) However, even through claim as earliest mollusk or trilobite-like animal is quite surprising, none of them are used in other researches about origin of existing groups. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know, is still okay to write such content with notices about the situation? Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have opinion for that @Headbomb:? Should those taxa valid and enough to have mentions in articles? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody trusts McMenamin because of the Triassic kraken thing so everyone thinks his taxa are invalid. Zhenghecaris (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so why you continue to adding that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are still valid taxa. Zhenghecaris (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the taxa are supported by nobody aside from McMenamin himself, they shouldn't have their own articles. Clementechiton, for example, is only mentioned by him in his own books, and until other papers or other publications recognize that taxa, it shouldn't have a page yet. Fossiladder13 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is no need to put like "this seems invalid because author is famous with Triassic Kraken theory" or something because no reference says like that. If researchers don't approve of it, there's no need for Wikipedia to acknowledge it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like other paleontologists ignored McMenamin’s new taxa from the Clemente Formation and forgot about them without considering them invalid. Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McMenamin's work is somewhat questionable. He's advanced various fringe theories, like the Triassic Kraken, and Near Eastern discovery of the New world before Columbus. My own opinion is that if any taxa he has named have been largely ignored by other researchers then they don't warrant standalone articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to remove mentions of those things now. Also what about Shenzianyuloma, cause it is only mentioned by descriptions by McMenamin and another single paper by other authors[4] in controversial MDPI? It is not mentioned in other vetulicolian-related papers other than by McMenamin since 2019. This preprint by McMenamin[5] have critical comments and the evaluation is not good. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that vetulicolian gets an article Clementechiton deserves one too. Zhenghecaris (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion here is that that veticulicolian probably shouldn't have an article, either. I'm strongly against the inclusion of these taxa on the site, not because of any other hypotheses proposed by McMenamin "tarnishing" his reputation, but simply because these do not seem to be accepted taxa among secondary sources despite the extremely massive implications they are suggested to have (with the exception of Shenzianyuloma, which in this case is the reason it is of special note). Plenty of researchers are wrong about all kinds of things, sometimes hilariously so, and that alone does not invalidate their other work, but if what should be extremely revolutionary or noteworthy genera are flat-out ignored by other working researchers I'm inclined to say they should not be treated as valid genera. Gasmasque (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now started more wide-range discussion in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copy-pasted from WikiProject Dinosaurs): Hi, I don't normally participate in dinosaur articles, but other members have brought up the idea of bringing older dinosaur GA/FA articles to modern quality standards without taking them to reassessments formally, so here's the link for participation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop#Thescelosaurus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently proposed that we change the Taxonomy used at WP:Fishes. The proposal was open for three weeks and received unanimous approval from the editors who took part. The WP:Fishes page has been updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes#Taxonomy . Apologies that notification was not put here about this proposal, that was an oversight on my part. It was notified to the WikiProject_Tree_of_Life Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate explicitly stating that FOTW may be substituted if sufficient recent work shows it to be inaccurate regarding extinct lineages. I've updated several of my pages to cite FOTW5 (although in these cases it does not deviate from general consensus anyway). Relations regarding higher-level extinct fish lineage taxonomy, IMO, should not give any single source too much weight as so many wildly different hypotheses are accepted among different researchers (especially regarding entirely extinct lineages/clades/grades/polyphylies(?) such as Placodermi, Acanthodii, Palaeonisciformes, and several extinct orders of Elasmobranchii/Euchondrocephali. Thank you for discussing this over here as well, even if there aren't all that many dedicated extinct fish editors. Gasmasque (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that someone take a quick look at this draft. Only a quick review is required, in view of the length of the draft. Is there enough information to accept it as a stub? My own thought is that there is too little reliable information for something of such incertae sedis, but I'm a chemist, not a paleontologist. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa named by Mcmenamin are unfortunately not eligible for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Based upon, which states All Wikipedia articles should be based upon sources that are secondary and upon sources that are independent. (Remember that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, so these are separate requirements.) There are no exceptions to this rule, even though we know that we haven't achieved the goal yet in every article. – Mcmenamin is ignored by other researchers, and there are no mentions of this taxon outside of the works of this particular author, and no secondary sources can be expected to appear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Jens Lallensack. I am inferring that Mark McMenamin is considered a fringe scientist. Is that correct? I thought I ought to ask real paleontologists. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Probably good to see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementechiton. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion.

These categories are used for extinct species as well as living ones.

There is debate about whether it is possible to list some reasons for the extinction of a species without oversimplification and omissions amounting to misinformation; comments from anyone with an interest in extinction processes would be particularly welcome. HLHJ (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I noticed is that there are some inconsistence of age of paleontology articles. For fish fossils, 2010 and 2011 are named like 2010 in paleoichthyology, after 2012 it sudden become like 2012 in fish paleontology. This extends to 2015 in fish paleontology but after 2016 it again become 2016 in paleoichthyology. Same happens in mollusk paleontology, In 2013 it is named as 2013 in paleomalacology, 2014 to 2016 are named like 2014 in molluscan paleontology but after 2017 it become again like 2017 in paleomalacology. This makes that is really annoying to jump on articles. I created redirect articles to jump on (2015 in paleoichthyology, 2011 in fish paleontology, 2012 in paleoichthyology), but I hope someone can work on standardize them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ta-tea-two-te-to: I moved the odd named lists to "in paleomalacology" and "in paleoichthyology" respectively.--Kevmin § 16:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many snails have description sections that only show the shell length, but the references often don’t have links to them , so it is extra hard to get information so you can expand it. Zhenghecaris (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could any WikiProject member review this article? There are questions about the subject's notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is article did by Zhenghecaris to support McMenamin's taxa discussed above (seems now deleted). Either way this is not widely used group and not sure when this group established, so probably better to merge to Kimberella. Also here is discussion about user problem, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zhenghecaris. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We recently started the Article workshop, sparkling two collaborations on Good articles (GAs) and Featured articles (FAs) that have been promoted a long time ago but became outdated and in serious need of revision. We also discussed that we want to formally "approve" successfully reworked articles when we all agree that they are up to standards. We now have two such articles in line:

The first – Dracopristis – is a GA. Rework has completed and it has already been reviewed, and we would approve it shortly, but not before giving everyone the chance to comment (here please).

The second – Thescelosaurus, is an old FA that was hopelessly outdated. Expansion is now complete, and it awaits reviews before we can finally "approve" it. As a FA, it has to be a good read, and feedback on readability and comprehensibility are particularly needed. Is the article of the right length and not too detailed; is the prose engaging? Comment here please. Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look during the coming week. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added my remarks to Dracopristis. I'm going to leave Thescelosaurus alone because I worked on the article personally. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most geological formations contain a section which details all the fossil taxa found in the formation. In most cases, this is the largest part of the article, which is unavoidable in some cases. For especially fossiliferous formations (i.e. Green River, Solnhofen, Yixian, Burgess Shale, etc) the paleobiota has an article specifically to list all of the fossil taxa. Do we want to establish criteria for if/when this should take place? Particular examples I have in mind are the Dinosaur Park Formation, the Ouled Abdoun Basin, and the Kem Kem Group. I was going to just do this unilaterally, but I thought it may be useful to establish at least 1-2 guidelines for when this can/should be done. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could simply follow the general Wikipedia guidelines here (WP:CFORK and WP:SS). These say that we should create such spin-off articles if the main article becomes too long, or if the readability of the main article would benefit. So I would create separate paleobiota lists only when there is actually substantial text on the formation itself in the formation article. This is not the case for Dinosaur Park Formation, for example, which we would reduce to a stub when moving the list out. The other two you mention are even shorter. I personally would only do spin-offs if the article without that content would be at least as long as Yixian Formation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]