Commons talk:WikiProject Paleontology

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Background discussion leading up to the creation of the project[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I see you've been editing a lot of images of fossils lately, so I was wondering whether you have found this[1] annoying? You can just comment here, that page is pretty dead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about those fossil categories. Abyssal (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I see you've already fixed many of them, thanks! I don't think anyone will object, I think the guy who started making them did not have English as his first language. This new way, it is easier to categorise... FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about suprageneric categories, like Category:Fossil Centrosaurinae. Would these be rennamed Category:Centrosaurine fossils? IJReid (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. What do you say, Abyssal? FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added a reply to the topic of fossil categories, I think it helps to justify the logical question. --PePeEfe (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks! What is the easiest way to move categories and the images in them? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cat-alot or whatever in the gadgets section of your preferences. I've been doing a lot of moving, but I'm starting to have doubts about naming conventions. Are we wanting these named like "[Taxon] fossils", "Fossils of [Taxon]" or "[Vernaculartaxonname] fossils"? Abyssal (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for taxa higher than genus? Where are vernacular names used? FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically. "Dinosaur fossils", "Mammal fossils" "Centrosaurine fossils" etc. I think even modern taxa are categorized by Linnaean names here, however, so I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be for us to go vernacular. Abyssal (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think scientific names should be used, that seems to be the norm anyway. In any case, very few people actually use these categories apart from us, I think we only need Kevmin to complete this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're at it, I think cats like "Artistic_restorations_of_Triceratops" should be renamed "Triceratops life restorations" or some such instead. First, "artistic restoration" can refer to restorations of skeletons as well, and it is probably easier to categorise with hotcat and similar when the genus name comes first in the cat name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, shall we or shall we not use Category:Centrosaurine fossils over Category:Centrosaurinae fossils? I agree that "artistic restorations or" should be changed, but wouldn't it be better to use vernacular names like the above for suprageneric groups? IJReid (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We use scientific names for the taxon categories themselves (or that's at least the norm). FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The practice for living-organism cats appears to be to use only taxonomic names for specimens per se, but to allow vernacular names in cultural and ‘stock photo‘ subcats. For example one might find things like “Paintings of ponies” and “Grey and white horses” somewhere under Equus. So I would stick to the Linnaean names for fossils, and also for scientific drawings & reconstructions, but I wouldn‘t mind vernacular names for artistic & pop-culture categories.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some specific examples? I'm not sure how many pop cultural references to "Centrosaurines" or other specific suprageneric taxa exist to categorize in the vernacular. Also, is there any possibility of starting a "CommonsProject Paleontology"? It would probably be better to have a public and accessible discussion of categorization schemes, kinds of images we need, assembling information on photographing fossils, legal and ethical aspects of taking pictures in museums, etc. Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think for examples there are Category:Dinosaurs in art and its subcats. As for a Commons palaeoproject, would probably be nice, because the task of keeping track on these is a huge task in itself, now also with the "inaccuracy labels" and stuff... And then we could centralise discussions like this, instead of having them on various user talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've formally proposed the idea of "CommonsProjects" at the Village Pump. Abyssal (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, I propose we make up some naming conventions for various categories, and what subcategories are needed... I had a recent discussion here, about a similar subject:[2] We should probably also ping potentially interested editors. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I think we need to start splitting this thread into multiple topic headings to keep it from getting too convoluted since multiple subjects have been brought up. Abyssal (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fossil categories nomenclature[edit]

Following comments copied from[3]: For some reason the convention for images of fossils have become for example "fossil Dilophosaurus"[4], instead of simply "Dilophosaurus fossils". I'm not sure what the rationale for this is, I think the latter is more well formed, and it is also much easier to replace categories with hotcat, because you don't have to write a lot of stuff before a category turns up. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with for example "unidentified fossils of Reptilia", instead of simply "unidentified Reptilia fossils" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, conceptually taxa or organisms can't be fossils. The rationale question is resolved by the taphonomy: Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of extinct organisms, while taxa are categories for the classification of all organisms (living and extinct), and organisms are living beings (now or in the past). Specialists often use "fossil taxon", but it is a conceptual impropriety. The extinct taxa or organisms of the past may not be fossils, they are not its own remains or traces. In other words, fossil is not a state that follows the extinction or death; making an analogy, we dont' talk about "the corpse Walt Disney" because he is dead, we talk about "the late Walt Disney". Then, for pictures of fossils should use "Dilophosaurus fossils" (as remains of Dilophosaurus) no "fossil Dilophosaurus" (as Dilophosaurus that are fossils). (Only exception may be ichnotaxa) --PePeEfe (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've [Abyssal] been editing a lot of images of fossils lately, so I was wondering whether you have found this[5] annoying? You can just comment here, that page is pretty dead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about those fossil categories. Abyssal (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I see you've already fixed many of them, thanks! I don't think anyone will object, I think the guy who started making them did not have English as his first language. This new way, it is easier to categorise... FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about suprageneric categories, like Category:Fossil Centrosaurinae. Would these be rennamed Category:Centrosaurine fossils? IJReid (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. What do you say, Abyssal? FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a lot of moving, but I'm starting to have doubts about naming conventions. Are we wanting these named like "[Taxon] fossils", "Fossils of [Taxon]" or "[Vernaculartaxonname] fossils"? Abyssal (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for taxa higher than genus? Where are vernacular names used? FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically. "Dinosaur fossils", "Mammal fossils" "Centrosaurine fossils" etc. I think even modern taxa are categorized by Linnaean names here, however, so I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be for us to go vernacular. Abyssal (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think scientific names should be used, that seems to be the norm anyway. In any case, very few people actually use these categories apart from us, I think we only need Kevmin to complete this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, shall we or shall we not use Category:Centrosaurine fossils over Category:Centrosaurinae fossils? IJReid (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We use scientific names for the taxon categories themselves (or that's at least the norm). FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The practice for living-organism cats appears to be to use only taxonomic names for specimens per se, but to allow vernacular names in cultural and ‘stock photo‘ subcats. For example one might find things like “Paintings of ponies” and “Grey and white horses” somewhere under Equus. So I would stick to the Linnaean names for fossils, and also for scientific drawings & reconstructions, but I wouldn‘t mind vernacular names for artistic & pop-culture categories.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some specific examples? I'm not sure how many pop cultural references to "Centrosaurines" or other specific suprageneric taxa exist to categorize in the vernacular. Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think for examples there are Category:Dinosaurs in art and its subcats. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might also be useful to ping ДиБгд/DiBgd. IJReid (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He never really worked with categories, though, only uploaded images. But Ghedoghedo, DenesFeri, and Daderot might be interested as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging some more possibly interested users: Steveoc 86 Tomopteryx Mariomassone El fosilmaníaco Smokeybjb FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I gave notice at the equivalent project in Spanish Wikipedia, in case there is someone interested there. Maybe you could do as well in the English equivalent?. --PePeEfe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abyssal did as well some time ago: [6] FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conventions[edit]

Maybe we should list the possible conventions and discuss them individually? Abyssal (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Category: Fossil Chasmosaurinae
  2. Category: Fossil Chasmosaurines
  3. Category: Chasmosaurinae fossils
  4. Category: Chasmosaurine fossils
  5. Category: Fossils of Chasmosaurinae
  6. Category: Fossils of Chasmosaurines
  • I'd be in favour of "Chasmosaurinae fossils". Another issue is that for monotypic genera, sometimes only a genus cat is created,but binomial cats are soemtimes as well. What to do there? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: "Chasmosaurinae fossils". --PePeEfe (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually leaning toward "Fossils of Chasmosaurinae" but "Chasmosaurinae fossils" works fine for me too if that's the consensus. Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me personally, it's because it makes it eacier to use HotCat: When I just type "Chasmo", it will itself suggest all categories beginning with these letters. But if the category is called "fossils of", and I want to categorise a chasmosaur images as "fossil of chasmosaurinae", I'll have to pretty much write the whole category name out, or I'll get a gazillion "fossils of" suggestions to choose from... FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. My preference was mostly aesthetic and the "Fossils of..." style has the advantage of not having to rely on piping to sort it within its parent category like "Category: Chasmosaurinae fossils|Fossils". Abyssal (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, perhaps we should note the new conventions somewhere, and that we're in the process of mass re categorisation, it seems some are already getting confused and reverting us, because we have not completed the task.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, and again: [8] FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that we should in any case use the Latin terms, not the English "vernacular". Apart from the English concepts being often confusingly ambiguous (like "tyrannosaur"), often people, even renowned scientists, haven't the faintest idea what the proper vernacular would be, leading to such abominations as "tetanurines" (apparently derived from the non-existing Tetanurinae) or "avialans" (Stacking two suffixes. Ouch). I also feel we should keep the structure as simple as possible. This makes finding the picture you need a lot easier and avoids time-consuming rearrangements whenever the phylogeny changes.--MWAK (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Chasmosaurinae fossils" seems the most logical choice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic restoration category nomenclature[edit]

Now we're at it, I think cats like "Artistic_restorations_of_Triceratops" should be renamed "Triceratops life restorations" or some such instead. First, "artistic restoration" can refer to restorations of skeletons as well, and it is probably easier to categorise with hotcat and similar when the genus name comes first in the cat name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "artistic restorations or" should be changed, but wouldn't it be better to use vernacular names like the above for suprageneric groups? IJReid (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've split this subthread off from the fossil category discussion. I think I actually considered a construction like "Triceratops life restorations" when I first started naming the "Artistic restorations of Triceratops"-type categories but opted for the latter because of the awkwardness of naming a parent category consistent with its daughters. "Artistic restorations of prehistoric life" sounds a lot better than "Prehistoric life restorations", IMO, although maybe consistency isn't that important and we can go from "Artistic restorations of prehistoric life" > "Animalia life restorations" > "Dinosauria life restorations" > "Triceratops life restorations" or something. Abyssal (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we already have a category called "palaeoart"[9], why not just use that as the parent category? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of dislike that idea for reasons I can't quite articulate, I'm open to it though. How strongly do you support that approach? What does everyone else think? Abyssal (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm thinking is something like paleoart> Life restorations of prehistoric organisms> Dinosauria life restorations> Triceratops life restorations. With various other parallel and subcategories, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you think should go under paleoart? It seems kind of redundant. Abyssal (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally, it should not have any images, but only be a parent cat, perhaps with cats like palaeoartists, Life restorations of prehistoric organisms, skeletal restorations of prehistoric organisms, and similar gneeric categories under it. Right now it is overcrowded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still kinda meh about that proposal, although a lot of those categories makes sense (especially paleoartists!). For instance, skeletal reconstructions strike me more as a kind of diagram than "art". Abyssal (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, skeletal diagrams are "art", I've also seen several sources refer to it as such... Will see if I can dig any up that refer to it as paleoart, but that should be a given. Also, think of the recent Gregory S. Paul "controversy" abut skeletal restorations, no one seemed to question its status as "art". FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm okay with your usage of the paleoart category. Abyssal (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing, would model categories also be within these "[Taxon] life restorations" categories? IJReid (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Abyssal (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genera conventions[edit]

Another issue is that for monotypic genera, sometimes only a genus cat is created,but binomial cats are soemtimes as well. What to do there? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this can of worms to its own thread. In my opinion we should categorize down to the species level if multiple species have been described, even if only one is valid, because we might have historically significant images or documents related to the defunct species names. I think only going down to the generic level is appropriate for genera that have never had any other species referred to them than the type, though. Abyssal (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Well, I think that should come down to the number of images that are available. For example for Triceratops, we could have a category for each of the two species, since there are so many for each. But if we only have for example a couple of images of each species, I think we should wait. However, I don't think we should have categories for invalid species; this is not done for modern synonyms either (there should be some consistency across the "tree of life" on Commons), and will only create an in-manoeuvrable maze of categories. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree about not having categories for invalid taxa. Too many invalid taxa are too historically important. Like Agathaumas or Trachodon. I also think you're overplaying the "maze" aspect. What would be wrong with something like "Category:Triceratops" > "Category:Triceratops horridus" = "Category:Triceratops prorsus" = "Category:Defunct species of Triceratops" > "Category:Triceratops gladius" = "Category:Triceratops flabellatus" = etc? Abyssal (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, then we've misunderstood each other, I was only referring to species synonyms, not dubious genera. So Agathaumas yes, but Triceratops elatus no... So we disagree about species, but I guess we'd need more opinions on this. Taxa that are widely agreed to be junior synonyms are redirected when it comes to living animals, so I don't see why extinct ones should be an exception? More importantly, categories should be user friendly. If I write an article and want to find a photo of a specific Triceratops horridus skull that has been used in a biomechanical study, and this skull was once made the holotype of some now invalid species, do I then have to go to defunct Triceratops species> Triceratops invalidus to find this image, instead of just Triceratops horridus? Or is it in both cats, thus making the defunct one redundant? I think that's what makes it a maze, and not helpful for editors. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see where you're coming from. Abyssal (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until now, I've attempted to note specimen number and past classifications to images when I knew of any. Is probably the easiest solution. On this note, there have also been created categories for specific specimens, when we have dozens of photos of them or casts based on them, such as Category: Stan (dinosaur). These need naming conventions too, some cats incorporate specimen number, genus, or only nicknames... I think something like "Stan (Tyrannosaurus specimen BHI 3033)" would be better as a standard. When it has no nickname, "Tyrannosaurus specimen BHI 3033" or some such would probably suffice. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we should only use the specimen number and just use the parent categories to associate specimens with their taxa and note the nicknames with text in the category headings. Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but in some cases, like Sue and Stan, these names are so well known that they may warrant a mention... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like Category:FMNH PR 2081 ("Sue") then? Abyssal (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the word "specimen" and genus name should also be included elsewhere, I remember some editors were confused by the numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FMNH PR 2081 (Tyrannosaurus "Sue")? Abyssal (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, any combination will do, we just have to make it understandable for non-palaeo geeks, who may remove the categories because they don't understand them, as happened to a cat I added once... FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important categories, tags, and policies[edit]

  • After some years on Commons, I've noted some features that should probably be mentioned on the front page of this project. Important parent categories to note are of course Category: Paleontology, Category: Fossils for fossils and Category: paleoart for restorations of any kind, but their internal hierarchies could probably be improved.
  • We should link to the dinosaur[11] and paleoart[12] review pages, so we don't have to have a seperate review page on Commons.
  • A category I have found very helpful is Category: Unidentified fossils and its subcategories, and this could maybe have its own department on the project, because many of these images could be potentially useul. Similarly, I started Category: Unnamed Animalia fossils recently, so we can have images in handy when these new animals are described.
  • Last there are some policy/copyright issues. For example, fossils are not copyrightable, since they are not art, so there should be no legal restrictions for us uploading photos of fossils here, even if there is no photography permitted in a given museum. Same goes for casts and 3D prints based on 3D scans of fossils. But then comes the problem of Commons:Freedom of panorama. In many countries, it is permitted to release photos of permanently installed artistic works, which would include for example models of dinosaurs (and yes, they are copyrightable, even if they are supposed to "copy" nature as some have complained). But in some countries, including the US, it is not permitted, which means such photos have to be deleted from Commons. Exceptions are if the artworks were created/funded by the US government, was published prior to 1923, and if the artist died more than 70 years ago, which makes the public domain. The former goes for art created for the Smithsonian Museum, Petrified Forest National Park, and similar. Sculpted parts of a fossil/skeletal mount could be victim of lack of FOP in the US and other countries if they are the main subject of the photo (for example the entirely sculpted skull of Deltadromeus), but as part of a picture of the overall skeleton that is mainly fossil/cast/3D scanned (such as the recent swimming Spinosaurus mount), these could likely be discounted per Commons:De minimis.
  • Note, anonymous works created a relatively long time ago (>1977) are also in the public domain even if they are completely sculpted. IJReid (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOP issues with mounted fossils[edit]

  • Close up of sculpted Deltadromeus skull in US, probably not OK
    Close up of sculpted Deltadromeus skull in US, probably not OK
  • Entire Deltadromeus skeleton cast in US, skull is probably Commons:De minimis and ok
    Entire Deltadromeus skeleton cast in US, skull is probably Commons:De minimis and ok
  • Close up of sculpted Elaphrosaurus skull in Germany, ok because country has FOP
    Close up of sculpted Elaphrosaurus skull in Germany, ok because country has FOP
  • Close up of Spinosaurus skull in US, mainly 3D print of scanned fossils with sculpted parts, so probably Commons:De minimis
    Close up of Spinosaurus skull in US, mainly 3D print of scanned fossils with sculpted parts, so probably Commons:De minimis
  • Close up of Paraceratherium skull in US with missing parts sculpted in plaster, probably Commons:De minimis (if not PD due to age)
    Close up of Paraceratherium skull in US with missing parts sculpted in plaster, probably Commons:De minimis (if not PD due to age)
  • Last but not least comes the issue of "original research" as it pertains to user made paleoart and sourcing, which I will not discuss at length here, as it will take hours to write. In short, a Wikipedia "ruling"[13] last year made clear that user made restorations are allowed, and don't need citations, but we should probably have some sort of citation system anyway to be safe. Past Wikipedia discussions of this issue:[14][15][16] FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proyect cover[edit]

Hello, on the cover of the project is said to be the branch in Commons of Wiki Proyect Paleontology from the Wikipedia in English. I think the proyect on Commons must be independent of any Wikipedia, although the lingua franca here is English. Maybe some potential users may feel excluded if they are not editing on the English Wikipedia. For example, I edited mainly in the Wikipedia in Spanish, and I am not a member of the Wiki Proyect in English, but I'm member of the equivalent proyect in the Spanish Wikipedia. What do you think? --PePeEfe (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New logo
How about this logo for the WikiProject PePeEfe? Instead of words in one specific language, It includes only one letter, which is used in a majority of languages as the beginning of "Paleontology". I kept the Anning plesiosaur on the front, as there aren't really any other images that are appropriate and have that much significance. Thoughts? IJReid (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for me the logo is fine, but I dont' object the language used here, English is today the universal interchange language (lingua franca), it is just because the phrase in the cover "The Wikimedia Commons branch of Wikiproject Paleontology!" (wich is in Wikipedia in English), it appears as not considering here this one as an independent project of others proyects from the Wikimedia Foundation (as Wikipedia, Wikidata, or others). I do not know if I managed to explain. I think will be better something like just "The Wikimedia Commons Proyect on Paleontology!" or similar.
And FunkMonk, yes, there are other equivalent proyects in non-English Wikipedias, but all are independents. At least: French, Finnish, Polish and Spanish.

Are also other sister proyects (dinosaurs, Earth sciences...) with common points. Cheers--PePeEfe (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate tag questions[edit]

Just a few questions on the use of the inaccurate tag to mention on the front page that might be important. When images are tagged as inaccurate, should we remove all other categories apart from the the inaccurate category unless there are unique circumstances (like the Raul Martin drawings leaving a category empty) or not? Also, do we place it above all other info in the article, including the description section? Should we also note what study showed this and sign it like was done for a while? These are just for clarity on the subject and mention on the project page. IJReid (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the tags are above everything, which is fine, since it will not be overlooked. As for categories, i think the idea in the beginning was that all categories should be removed, but I'm not sure why, I think its ok that they have genus categories as well. And yeah, it would probably be nice with citations or links to talk page discussions/revision summaries. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support "inaccurate" images keeping their normal categories as well. Some "inaccuracies" are historically important hypotheses and "inaccurate" is a matter of degree anyway. Some inaccurate images are still pretty good. Abyssal (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose of categories recommended for fossil images[edit]

I would propose as recommendation the categories which should appear in images of fossils (where possible and with the degree of accuracy that are available):

  • Category: taxon
  • Category: age
  • Category: geographic location (for pictures taken on the site)
  • Category: geological formation (for pictures taken on the site)
  • Category: fossil site (if exists this category then the categories for age, location and geological formation must go only to this category)
  • Category: Museum (in which the image was taken)

May also propose other secondary:

  • Category: anatomical part (dinosaur skull, Mammal vertebrae, ....)
  • ...

I think it may be useful as a guide for users, --PePeEfe (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. There are also categories like "Jurassic dinosaurs" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many mixed categories, as taxon-geography (Category:Dinosauria of Europe), taxon-age (Category:Eocene Mammalia), fossil-geography (Category:Fossils of South Africa), fossil-age-geography (i.e. Category:Carboniferous fossils from France), taxon-museum (Category:Dinosaurs in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien), etc. I think all are correct, but if possible we must add also the most accurate known category for each area (location, age, etc.). --PePeEfe (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately geography and age intersect at whatever stratigraphic unit the taxon was preserved in, so that would be a good basis for those series of categories, eg Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation < Dinosaurs of North America = Late Jurassic Dinosaurs < Jurassic Dinosaurs = Dinosaurs of North America. Abyssal (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the new section to the project page. Please check my english and add or correct what you consider appropriate. Regards, --PePeEfe (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for paleoart[edit]

Hi all, I've reading the discussions about the lack of references in the paleoart made by users... So, would be like put in the description of the image (here in WikiCommons) the scientific references used? maybe also indications of what skeletal diagram or fossil specimen found in the web was used? --Rextron (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly couldn't hurt. The problem is that much Wikipedia paleoart is uploaded by random users who do not read any policies or edit articles, only add images, so it will be impossible to enforce, but the rest of us can of course do it voluntary... FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FunkMonk, our paleoartists should be as rigorous as possible in citing the sources of their ideas, but on the other hand producing quality paleoart is hard enough as it is without adding extra hoops to jump through by making such citations mandatory. Abyssal (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, of course make images is already a lot of work, but the controversy of the Paraceratherium images make me think if between the policies of the project must have some aclarations, disclaimers, or something similar about the nature of the paleoart made by users The scientific references would be put in the description of images if are required in some dispute.--Rextron (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category structure and nomenclature for publications and works[edit]

Wikimedia Commons doesn't just host pictures and video, we also host a lot of freely licensed texts. In fact, every text archived by Wikisource has a PDF of DJVU equivalent here at commons and I think we should start discussing how to best name and organize the categories. I'll list the current architecture under a subheading. Abyssal (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current architecture[edit]

Abyssal (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, some of the categories seem overly verbose, and some appear categories for the sake of categories (which doesn't necessarily aid in finding media). I don't think "relevant to X" should be in the category names, since it can imply vague or subjective inclusion, which is not good for efficient categorization.) To address to verbosity, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Ichthyosauria could simply be titled Category:Works on Ichthyosauria- there are no neontological works! I also don't think a sub-category for every genus, clade etc. needs be created until or unless there is a large amount of entries (I would argue that Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Plesiosaurus‎, with its sole article, is functionally (albeit not conceptually) redundant to Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Plesiosauria, and simply makes navigation that much more complex. I also don't think there is a need for all descendent categories to match the title of the parent e.g. Category:Paleontological publications and works (which itself could be simplified to e.g. Category:Paleontological publications). I believe category names that are simple, intuitive, and no more precise than absolutely needed will better enable other contributors to use and navigate the categories, rather than only being of use to a small group of editors who "oversee" the relevant categories and know the complex tree. Animalparty (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree on the "categories for the sake of categories" part in general. If there simply isn't much media related to a taxon, having many subcategories is not helpful. It should probably be done on a case by case basis. For example, if we have one fossil image and one restoration of a specific taxon, a taxon category without subcategories should suffice until more media is uploaded. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Ichthyosauria"-type nomenclature, I included the "paleontological" portion to make it consistent with categories for taxa that do have neontological publications ie so that we would have (Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Mammalia, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Plesiosauria, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Serpentes, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Pterosauria, etc) as opposed to "Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Mammalia, Category:Publications and works relevant to Plesiosauria, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Serpentes, Category:Paleontological publications and works relevant to Pterosauria, etc". I'm not married to this convention, I just considered consistency to be worth the trade off in extra wordiness, you guys may disagree, that's cool. I wasn't a huge fan of the wordy category names, either, that's why I brought them up for discussion.
Regarding Works about Plesiosaurus being the same as Works about Plesiosauria, that's actually not true, there are a lot of works about plesiosaurs in the commons, they just haven't been properly categorized yet. :P
Regarding the "Paleontological publications and works" category name, I meant publications as in things like journals that aren't exactly coherent works in and of themselves and works as in individual texts like journal articles or fiction like Journey to the Center of the Earth. It's a long name but I'm not sure it's all that redundant. Again, I'm not married to it.
I actually kind of think specificity makes it easier to navigate as the contents of each category are "exactly what it says on the tin" with no need to guess.
I pretty well agree with your comment, FunkMonk, but with the caveat that I prefer a category with 20 subcategories containing 2 images over a category with 40 unsorted images. Also, I think a subcategory with one item may be appropriate when the parent category already contains several subcategories containing a significant number of images- no need to have a singleton lingering in the parent category. Abyssal (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's just an extra click for the sake of it, without any gain. But I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to notify Abyssal, I see you added some genus specific "inaccurate restorations" subcategories to files, but the inaccurate cats are already added by default when the warning template is added. I do think having that many subcats is a bit messy also, it's mainly just a trash bin for files we can't just delete, or place to find images to correct, so we probably don't need to be that specific. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's actually a lot of educational value in highlighting inaccuracies in dinosaur restorations since portrayals in art and popular culture represent the extent of most people's interest in paleontology anyway. Associating inaccurate images with their respective groups makes it easier for readers to find and learn about common errors in that groups portrayals. It also makes it easier to find images depicting outdated hypotheses that are of historical importance. Come to think of it, the template can be easily modified to add categories for specific groups with a variable, if you're open to it. Abyssal (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for the modified template, but only categorize to the extent of "Dinosauria-Ornithischia-Ornithopoda" and "Dinosauria-Saurischia-Theropoda-Coelurosauria" and "Dinosauria-Saurischia-Sauropoda". IJReid (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful for the historically obsolete images, but most of the home-made dreck we can't delete for policy reasons (I'm talking about the really bad stuff here) is better off remaining in obscurity... So I think such a category should be "obsolete/outdated theropoda images" for example, instead of genus specific, would make it easier to find in one place. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of paleontology[edit]

Would we prefer to rename "Category:Videos of paleontology" to "Category:Paleontology videos"? Abyssal (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More concise is better to me, but there may be some sort of "videos of" convention for files in general... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question of diagrams[edit]

I have been adding categories to skeletal diagrams, and noticed that some are in fossil categories and others are not. I think that fossil categories should be restricted to pictures of fossils, or images including a picture of a fossil. I will ask others thoughts before recategorizing. Another possibility would to create e.g. "Tarbosaurus diagrams" categories for the skeletals and maybe other diagrams (growth, skull diagrams, illustrations of bones). IJReid (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's also another thing I've thought of, does a drawing (including old lithographs) of a fossil (unrestored) count as a diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I might think so. So do we agree the fossil categories are restricted to only fossil photographs? IJReid (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, only photographs (or paintings and drawings) of fossil specimens. Also replicas of fossil specimens. No skeletal diagrams. --PePeEfe (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where would it leave an image like this?[17] It is both an exact drawing of a fossil, but also a diagram... ~~
For me it is well categorized, everything shown in the drawing are fossils. Anyway, I have a certain problem of translation, because in Spanish "diagrama" refers only to geometric drawings, sketches, not realistic drawings. --PePeEfe (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified dinosaurs[edit]

The categories Category:Unidentified Dinosauria and Category:Unnamed Dinosauria fossils are kind of hard to decipher. I believe that the Unidentified category refers to photographs that have not yet been identified by wikipedians. I think that the Unnamed category should only refer to specimens that have been described in literature yet not given any formal genus/species name to. If the categories are like this, then there is a gap, where undescribed specimens occur. Thus, should we create a category for undescribed specimens, or what are others thoughts? IJReid (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think an extra category will just be extra work to keep track of it. The unnamed category was specifically made (by me) to include animals that are not described yet, as well as those that just need new names. On the other hand, I think we should not have a Category:Unidentified Dinosauria fossils separate from Category:Unidentified Dinosauria. Again, just more subcats to keep track of. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making the project more visible?[edit]

I sometimes have trouble even finding this page. Is it possible to tag categories with project templates, like on Wikipedia? FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe the inaccurate template links here? IJReid (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batch of new images[edit]

User DiBgd (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a number of new illustrations. I can't vouch for their accuracy, but they are very well done (samples below). Feel free to use as seems fit. -Animalparty (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I asked him some weeks back if he was going to upload more. Seem pretty up to date, the mosasaurs have bilobed tail flukes, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of the illustrated fish don't even have English articles, so if anyone is up to creating them, here are the ones in question:[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr image dump- files need categorizing![edit]

Just a heads up: User Fæ is currently importing huge amounts of images from Flickr's commons, (e.g. Internet Archive and Biodiversity Heritage Library feeds), which is great for procurement, but the images are very coarsely sorted into categories like Category:Paleontology, Category:Natural history or Category:1878 books, resulting in these categories being flooded with hundreds to thousands of images. The good news is that the file names often include the book or journal title and year, which allows for easier searching and categorizing with Cat-a-lot. (e.g. Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale di Genova (1878). I've done a few random sweeps at tidying, really a drop in a bucket, and any assistance on this task is appreciated: I figure top priority would be to sort images into publications and then move them out of major categories, before the nitty gritty business of taxonomic sorting. A bot could probably do it better and faster? Also, since the Flick often posts poorly cropped images (i.e. key elements are cut off or poorly centered), there is the useful category Category:Internet Archive (uncrop needed), which will replace the file with the original pages from Internet Archive. Enjoy! -Animalparty (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images (like this[26]) even appear to have nothing to do wih paleontology, or even animals. I wonder if there is any point in such massive uploads. They're not really of more use here than if uploaded one by one from Flickr with proper identification. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can pretty much guarantee that at least one image can and will be used in a Wikipedia article, so they do have use, although the file descriptions specific to the images (i.e. "Text Appearing Before/after Image") are often garbled or unhelpful without recourse to the original image. There does seem to be a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure what's the best way to modify these images: I generally just write a short, plain text description above all the machine imported description. Animalparty (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, there are some licensing problems as well that should be addressed. The pages are released under a CC licence, but if they are PD due to age, they remain PD, and cannot be re licensed. Furthermore, some of the books are not even old enough to be PD, yet they have CC licenses as well. So it is essentially "Flickr-washing", though in good faith. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are definitely some images on the Flickr feeds with dubious if not downright wrong copyright status. Might be worth contacting BHL or Internet Archive to confirm / clarify licences. Animalparty (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trace fossils[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a mess with trace fossils, for example we should merge Category:Trace fossils by classification and Category:Trace fossils by taxon. Any ideas?? I prefer the second option and delete the first. --PePeEfe (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identical categories[edit]

We should merge these categories: Category:Paleontological sites and Category:Fossil localities. What do you think? --PePeEfe (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be interchangeable. Or are we missing something? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they are fully sinonimous. --PePeEfe (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the rest of categories and files from Category:Paleontological sites to Category:Fossil localities and I've added the category redirect template to the first one. --PePeEfe (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization[edit]

I've been doing through and recategorizing images I find that are in improper categories, and I've noticed some things I think we should discuss. Abyssal has done great work categorizing the images we have, but I think he may have gone too deep in a few things. Most importantly in my opinion are the subcategories, excluding the template-generates . If the template was edited to auto-assign the subcategories it would be much better (I think I could make the changes if wanted), but I still think we do not need as extensive subcategories as exist right now (Ornithischia and Ornithopoda would probably be good for ornithischians, Theropoda Coelurosauria and Paraves should be good for theropods, Sauropodomorpha Sauropoda and Macronaria should be good for sauropodomorphs) to avoid the extensive nest of categories we have developed. IJReid (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having specific categories for inaccurate depictions of different taxa makes it easier to document outdated historical hypotheses and common mistakes in restoring them. Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also commend the work, but also have to note that making very specific categories makes it very hard to find images, because you have to wade through a very long hierarchy before you actually find the images you are looking for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use the all images option in the good/featured article dropdown in the upper right. Abyssal (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what exactly that means, is it the image gadget preferences? IJReid (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, some of the categories discussed here are debatable, Abyssal, but I think categories for specimens should never be made unless there are many photos of a specimen, not just one or two. But more seriously, there should not be specimen categories for taxa where a single specimen is known (such as Carnotaurus[27]), that is just redundant, and creates very tedious hierachies. There is absolutely no use for such extreme specificity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Category:Gorgosaurus libratus, but Gorgosaurus is monotypic as far as I know. What should be done about this? Slate Weasel (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it to the genus category. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came across categories for "Machairodus (male)"[28] and "Machairodus fossils (male)"[29]. And sorry, this level of over-categorisation and redundancy seems ridiculous, especially when it involves so few images. Similarly, why do we need a multitude of categories AND subcategories for species of Araripesuchus[30], all leading to a single cladogram? Abyssal, I think this is way too messy and counter-productive, and should not be continued. Such subcategories should only ever be created if there is a massive amount of images, not for a handful. All it does is make it almost impossible to find anything at all because you have to wade through a hierarchy of empty categories just to find a single file. For this reason, I've actually long stopped using categories, and just find images by search terms. I think this over-splitting of categories is becoming damaging, but it is almost too late to roll back. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made some changes regarding the overcategorized categories you mentioned. I upmerged all the male Machairodus fossils into both the fossils category and the regular male Machairodus category and nominated the male fossil category for speedy deletion. I kept the general male Machairodus category so that the pictures of the male fossils could be accessed from the regular Felidae (male) cat. I upmerged the little Machairodus teeth category into the skull category and had it deleted as well. I also nominated for speedy deletion all the Araripesuchus species cladogram categories. Kept the species categories themselves (I do think we should have a category for every valid non-monotype species we have media for), but uploaded some relevant files so they're not as empty and categorized them by date of description and formation so they're accessible more ways than the extra click from the genus cat. Totally open to further discussion about improving more categories or philosophy of categorization more generally. Abyssal (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think in general, it is good to consider the utility for a category before creating it. For example, why do we need the newly created "Dinosauria crania" when we already have "Dinosauria skulls", Abyssal? I know there is a distinction (it is the skull excluding the mandible), but do we really need an entirely new category just because it's possible? It seems to be overkill, how is it in any way practical? Also, it is kind of misleading, because even all photos of skulls that also include mandibles do show the crania. I think it should be nuked, it is just more hierarchies for the sake of it, and only makes it harder to navigate in the already complicated categories. I think we should discuss new subdivisions here before they are created, so they don't get too out of hand before it's too late. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I don't see how it's impractical. If someone wants to look at whole skulls, they can look at whole skulls. If they want to look at crania, they can look at the crania. Obviously a whole skull contains a cranium, but it doesn't make any more sense to say that we shouldn't have a cranium subcategory than to say we shouldn't have categories for skulls because there's a category for skeletons, IMO. Abyssal (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But let's look at this practically, since this is what the categories are for; to make it easy for editors to find what they are looking for. It is not merely for curation. For example, if I am looking for a photo of the Regaliceratops holotype which consists only of a cranium, following this scheme, I would have to go through the categories Regaliceratops, Regaliceratops fossils, Regaliceratops skulls, and then Regaliceratops crania, before I would even find a single photo. Or similarly if I am looking for a photo of a specific Triceratops skull specimen which happens to not have a mandible, I wouldn't be able to find it in the Triceratops skulls category, but would have to click through to yet another sub category, Triceratops crania, to find it. I just don't see how this is helpful to anyone. All it does it make finding images more cumbersome. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yeah I agree with your example. Readers shouldn't have to click a bunch of times to find any media in a taxon category. In a situation like that, why not just have the hypothetical "Regaliceratops crania" directly under Category:Regaliceratops instead of the Category:Regaliceratops fossils-skulls-crania chain? That way people who come to Category:Regaliceratops can access it with only one click while it's also still indirectly accessible from categories related to fossils, skulls, etc if the reader started from one of them. Abyssal (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identical categories #2[edit]

We should merge these categories: Category:Paleontology museums and Category:Fossil museums. What do you think? --PePeEfe (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly licensed images[edit]

I've noticed this a few times, and I'm getting pretty annoyed with it by now. Frequently files are uploaded based on other works, but the license gets changed to something incompatible or CC BY images are uploaded with CC BY-SA licenses. Here are some examples:

  • PLoS image, should be CC BY but instead is licensed as CC BY-SA (uploaded by a user known for creating hoaxes)
    PLoS image, should be CC BY but instead is licensed as CC BY-SA (uploaded by a user known for creating hoaxes)
  • Same as above
    Same as above
  • Same as above
    Same as above
  • Same as above
    Same as above
  • CC0, but original work is CC BY-SA
    CC0, but original work is CC BY-SA
  • CC0, but original work is CC BY-SA/GFDL
    CC0, but original work is CC BY-SA/GFDL
  • PD, but original work is CC BY-SA
    PD, but original work is CC BY-SA
  • CC BY-SA, but the tyrannosaur seems to be CC BY-NC-SA
    CC BY-SA, but the tyrannosaur seems to be CC BY-NC-SA

Any comments on what is to be done here? Slate Weasel (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing that can be done is to just change the licences. But some of those derivative drawings are so pointless that they could probably be nominated for deletion as commons:out of scope. And the Nano is derivative of a copyrighted drawing by Gabriel Lio:[31] FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous Categorization[edit]

When categorizing size comparisons, one thing that I've seen a lot is that multiple taxonomic levels will be used (i.e. putting a alvarezsaur in Alvarezsauria, Maniraptora, Coelurosauria, and Theropoda size comparisons). The problem with this is that it can lead to cluttering (see Category:Theropoda size comparisons for example). I think that Theropoda size comparisons should be used for including:

  • Categories of "$clade size comparisons" where "$clade" belongs to Theropoda (i.e. Carnosauria)
  • Size comparisons of theropods that don't fit into the above subcategories (i.e. Zupaysaurus)
  • Size comparisons of illustrating something about theropods in general (i.e. largest theropods), even if the depicted taxa can all fit into subcategories

Cryolophosaurus, Spinosauridae, Zhuchengtyrannus, and Yi, for example, have images in this category, despite already being in subcategories of that category. Is this really necessary? COM:OVERCAT indicates that these superfluous categories should be removed. However, since this issue affects so many files, I thought that it might be better to bring it up here before taking action. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trilobite species identification?[edit]

Dear Paleontology buffs, Excuse me, perhaps this is the wrong place to ask the following question, however perhaps you can redirect me in that case. Who recognizes the species of this small Gouda, the Netherlands trilobite with its first segment(s) folded upwards? Thank you!, Hansmuller (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a rostroconch, they are quite frequently found in "pavement paleontology" (example) as opposed to trilobites, that are not found. If you want an expert opinion ask Jelle Reumer who wrote "Stadsfossielen". I took the liberty to rename your file. - Aiko (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:WikiProject_Paleontology&oldid=704099573"