Archive of User talk:Snek01.

Hi again Snek, I am thinking about the list I am working on. I have some questions for you:

• I notice that currently all of the regional lists are called "List of molluscs..." However the one I am working on will be ONLY the land and freshwater mollusks, the non-marine mollusks. I feel that for countries which have a coastline, there should really be two mollusk lists, one for the marine mollusks and one for the non-marine mollusks. What do you think? The marine mollusks are so very numerous and also they require a different kind of expertise. I feel they should be separate. Some of the existing lists are in fact non-marine only, but nothing in the title indicates that.
• I am thinking perhaps I should make one list for the island of Great Britain, and another one for the island of Ireland, because the faunas are a bit different. Any comments? (That is rather than trying to make one list for the British Isles, which is a controversial word that no-one can agree on.)
• As for the actual title of the list, some people call their list "List of the molluscs of Xcountry" Others call it, "List of the molluscs recorded for Xcountry". The titles should be standardized I think. Which do you think is better?
• I am confused about the available categories. There is a a category "Molluscs by country", and there is a category "Regional invertebrate lists". There is also a category "Molluscs of Europe" which seems to be primarily just individual species listed, but which also contains 7 regional lists which I think should either go into a subcategory, or in some way be separated from the rest of that category. Most of those 7 lists are not listed under "Molluscs by country".

Thanks for your input, Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Name of list: Keep List of molluscs of Xcountry. There is always description of what is the list about. If there will be need an additional list of marine molluscs, it can be named List of marine molluscs of Xcountry or List of molluscs of Xocean/Xsea and they can be divided into List of marine gastropods of Xcountry and List of marine bivalves of Xcountry if needed.
• Existing lists List of the molluscs recorded in Xcountry can be renamed to List of molluscs of Xcountry.
• Category: there should be only one category for lists. Category:Regional invertebrate lists / Category:Regional molluscs lists or Category:Lists of molluscs by country.
• Unused categories are: Category:Molluscs by country and Category:Molluscs of Europe - I do not use it at all because species can not have every category for every place where they live. --Snek01 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Snek. Actually I just put the article up a few minutes ago. Right now the title is List of non-marine molluscs recorded in Great Britain. I can easily change that, but I may not do anything more to it this evening, because I am tired. I plan to do more work on the article though. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said in reference to the name of the lists: "Keep List of molluscs of Xcountry. There is always description of what is the list about. If there will be need an additional list of marine molluscs, it can be named List of marine molluscs of Xcountry or List of molluscs of Xocean/Xsea and they can be divided into List of marine gastropods of Xcountry and List of marine bivalves of Xcountry if needed."

OK, you are saying that the default should be "List of molluscs of Xcountry" and that "List of marine molluscs of Xcountry" should be the exception.

I must say that I find it much clearer to have it this way: "List of non-marine molluscs of Xcountry" and "List of marine molluscs of Xcountry". That is the way it is usually done in Britain. What is the objection to that? Invertzoo (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already noticed that Anna [1] has been creating a couple of new stubs for large taxa. They were taxa that were listed on this most wanted list [2]. She likes putting together composite illustrations for the stubs. Do you have any suggestions about large taxa that need a stub, because if so I will let her know. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Snek, This is just a friendly reminder in advance, that any discussion that relates to possible policies or guidelines about the content and style of articles needs to take place in Wikipedia discussion space. Private email is never a suitable vehicle for attempting to negotiate style policies, because there needs to be a public record of what is said on those type of issues in order that a consensus can be reached. Here is a current comment from JoJan (the founder of WikiProject Gastropods) on the question of composite images: "Personally, I like them, especially for articles about families and the ranks above. They give a nice overview of the different species within that rank. And furthermore, it's pleasing to the eye and may attract more readers. A caption is optional. Anna is doing a good job and has become an asset for this project. JoJan (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)" I also like the composite images Anna has made, I think they are very attractive and I agree 100% with JoJan's comments. Best wishes to Snek and to Anna, from sluggy Susan Invertzoo (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal! I noticed you removed the composite image because it was not representative. I am just wondering why it is not. Cheers!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna, I think there were only marine Opisthobranchs on the image, while there are also other groups in Heterobranchia‎: marine and freshwater Lower Heterobranchia, marine, freshwater and land Pulmonata. It was misleading for non-specialist reader. A reader could think, that there are only marine slugs in this taxon. That is one of many reasons why I do not prefer such composite images. But I had to change only this for this one for the "non-representative" reason. This image is now misleading with this file name. Correcting this will need additional effort. Such strategy of using images is useless and I also believe that such strategy is not preferred at whole wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the non-representative composite image. I will try and find images to represent the group more accurately and create a new composite image. Considering that all the other major groups have composite images, I think it would be inconsistent to have only one group without. I know you would prefer none, but I hope we can both agree that all or none is best. I still believe, (as do all others who have given an opinion), that these composites are useful, and not "useless". Please try to consider the point of view of those who are not familiar with gastropods (people like me). To us, I believe the composites greatly clarify an otherwise confusing group of animals. Respectfully yours, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... While there is no concensus you can do everything, but you should rather avoid controversial things. There is also no composite image in article chair but there are normal separate images. I asked for opinion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Composite images. --Snek01 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stool! Armchair. Folding chair. There are so many different kinds. Maybe it is a good article for a composite. Ha ha. Just joking. I have no intention of running around making composites. This whole composite thing is not that serious.

I was too embarrassed to say this before, but when I first started to make Apogastropoda, I went to the gastropod article, and upon seeing the picture I thought that all gastropods lived in the sea, had shells and looked like a cowry. I didn't explore the page because I was jumping around trying to make sense of it all. It took me five minutes to figure out that snails are gastropods! Wikipedia is used by people like me, who are going to an article because they know nothing about it and want to learn. The first thing the article should convey is the most basic information about the topic. That is why the lead is a summary. Well, I think the picture, in rare cases, ought to be a summary too. Please consider how many people go to gastropod, see a picture of a cowry, and say to themselves "Ahhh, so that's a gastropod. Well, now I know." Respectfully yours, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user removed the link from Late Spring earlier but I would suggest not adding it back quite yet. We also should avoid deep linking (directly linking) to the "*.torrent" files too and only link to the release notes page. I'm still working on a template to make things easier for legitimate torrent links. (I've watchlisted your talk page so you can reply here.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for info. But rather answer at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#The Pirate Bay... (and related) and update the guideline Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to allow the thread on AN to be archived as it has already run its course. I already followed up on the Children of Hiroshima issue there on April 22nd. While it looks like Children of Hiroshima probably is in the public domain, I can't personally verify it myself. A similar situation exists for Late Spring. If you can show where it is documented who held the copyrights for these films so they can be verified as being in the public domain, then we can certainly add links for them. As for WP:LINKSPAM, I do not believe this would apply or be a problem for these links. Material clearly in the public domain and/or under a free license that is directly related to the article is already permitted per WP:ELYES. Also, WP:LINKSPAM was written for youtube-like websites where spammers use video to spam their product. This is quite different from a link to the release notes page for a torrent metadata file. Tothwolf (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is useless to explain it to me at my discussion page (it will be deleted soon) while nothing happens. To your question: read article public domain film (maybe you can use this wikilink while adding some torrents links). --Snek01 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are happening though. Do you know where I can find an english translation of the Japanese copyright law? In re-reading the information on Wikipedia it appears that Works are treated differently than Cinematographic works, however I am unable to read Japanese and cannot verify this. Tothwolf (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read the whole article and all of its external links but you should do so if you want to make decisions in such matter. Yes, there are differences in when they were published and by whom they were published. I can explain it for you, but while I can not speak Japanese, then you will never be sure that I say the truth. So, nearly all Japanese films were copyrighted/published by its company and so they were protected for 50 years since publication. (For example you can see such company logos in such Japanese films.) Later the law have changed and newer films are protected differently (longer). Films published by a company in 1952, in 1951, in 1950, in 1949 and older ones are free and they are not protected anymore. There are very few exceptions (at least 2 Kurosawas's films), which longer protection were confirmed by Japanaese court. - If you do not trust wikipedia articles, so you can read Copyright Act by yourself at http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data2.html but I have doubts that it will give you all of its consequences. Will you verify film length protection for all states include China, Korea, and so on? You can also read licenses at wikimedia commons. There is also another sketchy indirect way how to verify something: see, if such film screenshots are used at wikipedia of that certain language. --Snek01 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Wikipedia article, then yes, I did read the whole article. I have no intention or authority to make a final decision about these links, I'm only trying to obtain a better understanding the copyright/licensing covering this specific area so when others question why this type of public domain film is linked or remove a link from an article I can give a proper answer. Based on what I've read so far it certainly seems to me those films are in the public domain. I'm just trying to gather up information to help clarify this situation in potential future arguments. Tothwolf (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so continue trying to gather up information but do not say, that things are happening. --Snek01 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are indeed happening. See this discussion which has unfortunately not had too much outside attention. Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the latest discussion and filter changes I think the torrent links abuse filter issue is at least resolved for the time being. Tothwolf (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. Show me an example what is the most proper way how to add a link include the best edit summary, please. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive190#The Pirate Bay... (and related)

I posted a new article on the fossil genus Cuphosolenus, as I had the references from a prior project and I thought I might preserve it on WP. Any corrections or other help appreciated. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humbert. Of course! How could I have missed that? Ecphora (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But I do not know which Humbert. I am not familiar with this subject.
• It could be also probably possible to add images from Cossmann (1904) - the links I have added, but I have neither the book nor the scan to verify image author(s). --Snek01 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain either. I'll work on it. Thanks for the help. Ecphora (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be the Cossmann's work? Cossmann, M. 1904. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, vol. 6., Author and F.R. de Rudeval. 1–151. Paris. But its not online. --Snek01 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this "Humbert" is the same as Alois Humbert. Piette’s gastropod volume was published in 1891, after the death of Alois Humbert (1887). Humbert’s illustrations also appear in Cotteau’s book on Echinoids published (in parts) as late as 1894.

Also, Humbert signed Piette’s illustrations as “del et lith” = drawer and lithographer, and his illustrations in the 1894 echinoid book are signed as “lith”. Alois Humbert was a “Swiss naturalist and palaeontologist” and “ Curator of the Geneva museum” See Darwin Correspondence Project. I think it is unlikely that Alois Humbert was also a trained lithographer, which is a specialized trade.

It remains a mystery as to who is the Humbert who illustrated Piette’s book and others published by Masson. I’ll keep working on it. Ecphora (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check to see if this taxon is recognized in any way in the Bouchet and Rocroi taxonomy? If it is not then perhaps you can remove the taxobox in the article and make a note to that effect? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference and explained. Taxobox kept but feel free to remove it if there is a reason. --Snek01 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The possible reason to remove it is that the taxonomy shown is now out of date. I wish there were some way to render the taxobox in a "shadow version", or in a "miniaturized version", or something that could to show that it is not current. Left as it is, it is confusing, because it does not fit into our current taxonomy. Erasing it seems wasteful, but is a simple way to hide it. Can we just hide it may be? Invertzoo (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is: delete taxobox only from taxa which are impossible to add in any taxonomy. This one taxobox is fine and OK. It is completely all right for everybody who can read. --Snek01 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added old taxonomy note into taxobox. --Snek01 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That works. Invertzoo (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, with regards to your recent edits to the Discodoris page, I can appreciate the overlinking part, but what about the small tags? Everywhere I have seen on the gastropod articles the author name is in small text. Also it looks better so what gives? Which is the correct procedure? Frankly small looks better in my opinion. What do you think here? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons are:

• Small tags are generally accepted in taxoboxes for the purpose of saving space, because taxoboxes are usually slim.
• Such reasons for taxoboxes are not valid for other text in the article.
• Small tags does not have any feature in the text.
• Small tags may cause some difficulties for some people. See guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size.
• I think, that there may probably be some cases, when using some small text is useful, but definitely small text is not useful in simple list of species, when even parts of texts are easily distinguished with italics and non-italics. --Snek01 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am no kind of expert on this but this is what I think is correct. Yes, these snails occur in the deep sea, not in a river. These snails occur in special deep-sea areas where methane gas seeps out (bubbles out) of sea floor sediments. Methane is a hydrocarbon and these hydrocarbon seeps can be created in two possible ways. One way is that the methane is coming from petroleum deposits which are under the sea bed. The other possibility is that the methane is coming from organic deposits where bacteria are producing the methane as a by-product of their metabolism. I suppose in a situation where the deep sea methane seep is offshore from a major river estuary like the Congo River, it could be bacteria that are making the methane as they work on organic matter that was originally washed down the river and out to sea. But I do not know if this is the case.

Where did you see the word "cruise" and can you copy the sentence for me to see? It can be used to describe a large hotel-ship that people take for pleasure, people say a "cruise liner". A cruise can be a type of vacation you take on one of these large ships. On the other hand "to cruise" can simply mean to move slowly along possibly looking for something, like a shark cruising along a coral reef.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific trips on a boat or ship used to always be called "expeditions", which does sound more like science... rather than "cruises" which sounds like a fancy vacation on a ship! But recently there are some trips called "expedition cruising" where ordinary people come along as well as scientists, so it is an adventure for the ordinary people, much more interesting and challenging than a regular luxury cruise, which I imagine can be pretty boring.

I suppose in some cases the money from the tourists helps finance the expedition, so you have scientists doing their research, with tourists along for the ride. But in some other cases it is the scientists who are being paid to entertain the tourists by finding some interesting nature things for the tourists to look at, and telling them some info about it. Again, I don't know much about all this at all, so this is what I think is the case.

Invertzoo (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lepetelloidea  Done

I am working on this now. It's very small, only 32 species. I will go with the simple intro:

... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family ....

I handled the exception for Chloristellinae that is a subfamily of Lepetellidae. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 32 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you did it very good.

I have taken a quick look at vetigastropods for you. You can do this:

• Haliotoidea

 Done with 34 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lepetodriloidea, Neomphaloidea, Pleurotomarioidea, Scissurelloidea

 Done with 140 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the 36 generas are done too. -- Ganeshk (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ataphridae and Pendromidae http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=382162 For these two families import as usual, but do not add superfamily into their taxobox.

 Done Ataphridae and Pendromidae with 11 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intro sentence is like this:

• ... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family ....

but for Haliotidae is:

• ... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Haliotidae, the abalones.

With other vetigastropods I am not familiar now yet. It is probable that they will be imported as they are in WoRMS in the future, but I do not know now. --Snek01 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seguenzioidea

{{waiting}} waiting for creation --Snek01 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 193 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michal,

I have completed some programming to get the genus stubs done. Here is a full list of draft Lepetelloidea genus stubs. See Lepetella for example.

Please let me know your feedback. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is fine. I would improve sentence to be more simple:

This is a list of the accepted names of species in the genus Lepetella: (the main reference for recent species is the World Register of Marine Species[1])

Species within the genus Lepetella include:

And there is no need the whole text "(the main reference ...)", because all species have inline references.

I would add hidden category Category:Gastropod genera without authority reference (to those that have no original genus description reference User:Ganeshk/sandbox/genus/Lepetella and also for those ones that have no information in | genus_authority = User:Ganeshk/sandbox/genus/Pseudococculina). See Wikipedia:Categorization#Hiding_categories. I would made some template that will be placed in taxobox on that place {{no-gastropod-genus-ref}} that will only add this hidden category. --- But if it is possible, prior to this, would it be possible to get a list of wikipedia gastropod genus articles without original description reference? Those ones, that have no REF tag in | genus_authority = or have no info in this row at all. --- Alternativelly, list can be done for these new stubs instead of hidden category (but hidden category seems to be more effective for further adding this information). --Snek01 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would be fine to somehow mark (list? or hidden category?) those genera stubs, that have only one species listed. They will be optimally:

• redirected manually to the species, if they really have only one species;
• or other species should be added manually.

(Such information is quite difficult to find.) --Snek01 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the stubs and added the hidden categories. Please give the articles one more check. Choristella came out very good.

• Category:Gastropod genera with single species
• Category:Gastropod genera without authority reference

Original description is hard to find, so did not create that category. The hidden categories are not related to Taxobox, they are created based on the input values on the data file.

Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fantastic that you have set this up Ganesh! One thing about the phrasing of the intro sentence, I think it's better to say:

Xxxxxxxx is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Xxxxxxxxxx.

And you can just simply say under the heading Species:

"Species within the genus Xxxxxxx include:

Also in Choristella (and maybe all the rest?) there is an extra line space after the species list that should be removed.

By the way, all the genera within the families that are in the superfamily Lepetelloidea are all in fact small deepwater limpets, and could be described as "sea snails, small deepwater limpets". However, I don't know if you want to code the intro sentence for all those genera any differently from the rest of the genera you are doing, as it would make more work for you... I can always do it by hand later.

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, genera with single species is OK.

But I thought to add a notification about missing authority reference to those stubs, that have no written, in which work the genus was published for the first time. Like this: [3] I prefer template, because when adding information I/or other wikipedian will remove the template very easily and will add infomation about the zoological publication. (So this will be in all or in many genera stubs.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also thinking that perhaps we don't really need the section Distribution. We do not have that in most of our already-existing genus stubs. Of course eventually we will need that and many more headings when there is a not more information being added to the articles, but perhaps now it could be left out of the genus stubs? What do you think Snek? Invertzoo (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Agree, "Distribution" can be ommited in genera stubs. --Snek01 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the above fixes are done. Please give the articles one more check. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that now it is like this:

• If ##auth## is empty, then add Template:no-gastropod-genus-ref.

But I would like to have it like this:

• If ##source## is empty, then add Template:no-gastropod-genus-ref.

--Snek01 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please check. --Ganeshk (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I went ahead with the stubs and created 12 genera under Lepetelloidea. Please check. --Ganeshk (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. --Snek01 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so active on the UK wiki and therefore I only notice this now. You made the category Category:Prehistoric gastropods. I did not have a look at the parent categories, so I don't have an idea about how frequently this is used. In mine opinion this is rather a strange usage of the word prehistoric. History is the period in which we have written sources, texts. This is a term that is connected with us, humans. Something is 'historic' if this happened during this period. Prehistory is the time that precedes history, so this is also connected with man. A historic animal is an animal that lived in history, that means it lived during the period from which written sources are known. A prehistoric animal is likewise connected to the period that Homo existed, but without written sources. So until c. 2.5 ma ago, at the maximum. Each fossil that is older is by definition not prehistoric. I avoid the word prehistoric if 'species that only occur as a fossil' are meant. The term 'prehistoric' as referring to fossils points to a misconception of both 'prehistoric' as 'fossil'. I am aware of the popular usage of the term 'prehistoric animals', however, this should not imply that wikipedia should adopt misconceptions. You may change prehistoric into extinct. Best wishes, --Tom Meijer (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar comment on the talk page of the root category (Category talk:Prehistoric life). --Tom Meijer (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom, every category is artificial, especially all categories in the biology and especially those two ones. The purpose of this category is clearly defined in the intro of the category. There is also need to distinguish it from another category, that is also mentioned in the intro. I think, that it is OK and both terms are used in their most appropriate meaning or at least as much as possible to keep useful categorization. --Snek01 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree. You are right that any category is artificial (more or less). However this has nothing to do with the name of a category. 'Artificial' does not mean that an inadequete terminology should be used. It is not so that the content of the category is not worth to categorize. No doubt about that. Not the content is wrong, but the label is. However, I stay with my remark on the meaning of the term 'prehistoric'. Association of this term with 'fossils' or 'extinction' is nonsense. The meaning as given in the intro of the category is inappropriate: 'living things before history' (or something like that) does not cover what it pretends to do (and provides a wrong association). Fossils may be younger than the start of history, the term 'fossil' does not necessarily refer to an age of millions of years: hundreds is well possible. The same is true for the term extinction. And as I argued before, prehistory ends where Homo starts.

A term that belongs to a particular field (namely archaeology), and has a clear meaning there, becomes fuzzy if used in another field. And that is the case here. The term simply is inadequate for this usage. --Tom Meijer (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I am honored that you want to hear my humble opinion on this highly specialized matter.

If you want to rename Category:Prehistoric life, then add this: {{subst:Cfr|ProposedName}} to the category page. Notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology would be fine. But consider, that there is need to have two categories: 1) for taxa that died out after year 1500; 2) for taxa that died out before year 1500. - I am not against recategorization, but I only do not know better terms. Look for example at Timeline of prehistory that ranges from Big Bang to Neolithic and look at the first sentence: "Prehistory comprises all events which took place before the creation of written records." What if the word prehistory have two meanings: 1) human prehistory and 2) prehistory as everything before writing? Then the recategorization would not be much advantageous. I think (as a non-native English speaker), that the English language has no another term for the period from Big Bang to writing. But maybe you will find a better way. --Snek01 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]