User talk:Kevmin/Archive 2

"Photo taken" information

I very much appreciate your Wikimedia work, especially cleaning up the confusing categories. Please do not remove other information, though, from the image descriptions. The "photo taken" information is not in the way of anything and is quite useful. Mark Wilson44691 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have it included, then it should be placed as part of the author or permission sections of the summary box, rather then as a stand alone section below it. --Kevmin § 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Where it is now is quite useful because non-Wikipedians see it easily when perusing images. Some then contact me with the inevitable corrections (oops) or more information. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Im curious as to why it would not be noticeable when in the author line of the summary box?--Kevmin § 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose because when I do the upload that box is automatically filled with my username. I could put the info there in future uploads. For goodness sakes, though, please don't delete the information. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Emericiceras emeric

Thank you for your correction Emericiceras emerici. I am correct the database of the Museum. Bien amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Amusium cristatum Cypres.jpg

Hello Kevmin: When you renamed this file and corrected the spelling of the genus name (thank you for that), you added a misspelling of the country name. It should be "Cyprus". Could you please correct that spelling? I don't know how to do it as efficiently as you do. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved, sorry about he misspelling! -Kevmin § 05:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wilson44691 (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Heliobatis radians Green River Formation.jpg‎

You change the category. Can you explain. Please --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at the tree of life project for categorizing extinct taxa is to only create categories in the taxonomic structure down to genus level. This is due to the nature and fluidity of species level identifications in paleontology with many older tags and identifications on specimens being out of date. Thus its easier to maintain and verify the the generic level ids on specimens uploaded to commons.--Kevmin § 19:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the idea, but I'm not sure if it is good. Where can I find the discussion of this consensus on Commons? Thank you --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Im having trouble finding the correct discussion in the ToL archives, Im sorry. I would be happy to have the issue reopened in a new discussion at the ToL page to get a fuller view on the members current views, would you like to start a thread there? In the mean time I will stop redirecting any extinct species taxa categories to the genus level until the discussion has progressed. --Kevmin § 04:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and please discuss this topic. I fully understand the need to distinguish between the official name of the many synonyms that clutter our work. The consensus of a category by type is a wise rule, but occasionally we might make, in clear cases, category by species.

In the case of Heliobatis radians, but mostly Pleurocera case where there are already three species figured. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Heliobatis images may be a good example of a safe move to species level categorization. THe Pleuroceras images though are a good example of why they should not. Two of the three species identifications are good, however the P. "spiratus" name is not one that is in any literature, and thus there is no way of confirming what species the are. --Kevmin § 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching a little more shown that the tag may be a misspelling of P. spinatum, but given the very incomplete nature of the specimens, there is no way to confirm this possibility--Kevmin § 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pleurocera is actually a very good example. In this case both species identified, may be placed in their respective category. One that is still questionable in the category of genus. I would even advocate such decommission this ammonite, not determined because it is very unlikely to be the Pleurocera Genus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you meaning nominating the P. "spiratus" images for deletion? I dont totally understand what you are meaning with "even advocate such decommission", sorry. --20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion of the topic here on the Tree of life project page, please add your comments there. --Kevmin § 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

good recategorizing, small issue

Thanks for adding the Gray fossil site and Emydidae fossil cats. Good job.

Think putting in the Chrysemys cat, though, is less helpful. It is a mono-species genus, and you can see that all the other images are in C. picta.TCO (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cf C. picta

While it is true the genus is currently monospecific with only the living the C. picta, there are several described extinct species from the fossil record. The fossil specimens from the Gray Fossil Site are currently identified only as Chrysemys species, hence the cf C. picta on the tags. Placing the images into the C. pictus category is introducing more certainty then actually exists. Its is quite possible that they may be described as a different species/genus. --Kevmin § 19:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to a place where extinct species of Chrysemys have been published? Of course it's true that might happen and classification is an unholy racket of man-imposed divisions anyhow, I'm honestly unaware of alternate species inside C. in any modern acounts. Also the samples were classified by the Gray researchers as C. picta to me (you can read the OTRSes, and also look at the tags on the tray sample for instance). So, I really think you introduce extra confusion and less usability, when the researchers themselves are referring to these as C. picta (I have several papers on fossils, Ernst surveys them and we had a table at one point in our article.) It's really more like you are making a decision and introducing certainty.TCO (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the tag associated with the fossil, which states the fossil is cf C. picta , and noting that the Gray Fossil Site website lists them as "Chrysemys species". As noted in the entry for "cf" in wikipedia, the cf denotes that cf indicates similar to but not part of. At least one accepted extinct species in the genus is known at this point, Chrysemys antiqua from the Eocene of South Dakota, and given the age of the Gray Fossil Site sediments, 4-7mya, the material from there may well belong to a distinct species. --Kevmin § 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I need to research this issue more. I'll write up a paragraph on extinct species of Chrysemys. From what I can see so far, like the Kansas 1946 paper, people putting forth separate species of Chrysemys have not really proven it. And there was a 1970s paper discussing the issue, with a lot of researchers not buying into some of those. But I need to go get a bunch of Copeia papers that are JSTORed. If there are some well established species that are extinct, I will discuss them. If its another one of these he-said, she-said classification kerfuffles, I'll discuss both side.TCO (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That works, have you encountered any papers suggesting the fossil taxa are more appropriately placed into C. picta? I know the Pleistocene species C. timida seems to be more commonly referred to as subspecies now (Chrysemys picta timida) or not be mentioned at all. The extinct C. germanica is not placed in the genus Ocadia I think, while Chrysemys platymarginata has been moved to somewhere in Trachemys and Chrysemys limnodytes doesn't seem to be talked about much at all.--Kevmin § 04:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a good review actually. And I read about 10 pages on JSTOR via the read the first page method. The one thing to realize is that the classification of even the living species has changed over time, and is not completely resolved still. Until 1931, there were a lot of subspecies called out as species (albiet all still within Chrysemys). Then there was a lot of kerfuffle in the 50s-80s with people talking about merging the slider-cooter-painted genera. That pretty much died, but it causes issues where I see fossil papers talking about Chrysemys scripta. Which is just a slider. Then there is even the recent issue of Starkey et al wanting to elevate one of the subspecies of Chrysemys picta (dorsalis) to be an own species. Has not generally caught on yet, but you see some different usage, so in that sense Chrysemys would be non single species. I think it's hard enough to tell the difference between sliders and cooters and painteds from a fossil, would think differences closer to painted would be pretty hard still. I really don't know of any killer, clear, "this was an ancient species fer sure" of Chrysemys. There was a paper from 1940s of some Kansas species, but I don't see later people mentioning it (and it's all an argument based on scute pattern). I would think Holman would have the best review, he was like the MAN for these fossils, but I haven't seen an easy summary paper. Ernst just gives a list of like 30 different fossil site papers. I guess the way to go after it would be to check some of the Holman stuff first and then go after reading through the whole slew of Ernst referred papers. At least I understand the living genera so can deconflict when they mention Chrysemys floridiana (that's not an ancient species, just a cooter classified differently). I'm actually fine with you leaving the pics in the genera category. I had hopes for a cool paragraph, but now have doubts on getting much over what I have. I'm just not finding a good extinct species to refer to, even a debated extinct species. Actually if you look at the clade-grams, it's kinda like the other stuff all split off of picta. TCO (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Triarthrus Eatoni

I created Category: Triarthrus Eatoni, is it like to do here? Is it there something I forgot? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It looked good, but I did have to move it and mark the one you created for speedy deletion due to the species name being capitalized. The good version is now up at Category:Triarthrus eatoni. The only other things I did were to add the species name to the category as such: Triarthrus|eatoni this sorts the category by species and not genus name, and I added the date published to the authority field.--Kevmin § 11:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I saw my mistakes, I'll be careful. Thank you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Stylemys nebrascensis and other

I created a category with more attention. What do you think?

• Category:Stylemys nebrascensis
• Category:Eryon arctiformis
• Category:Captorhinus aguti

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Archepseudophylla laurenti

Thanks for correcting and renaming --Llez (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Astropecten lorioli

• We have a problem with Category:Astropecten lorioli.

“Astropecten lorioli is recombined as Archastropecten lorioli according to H. Hess 1955. “ Should we make a change and how?

• I do not publish my picture without your opinion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this one is a bit of a puzzle. From what i am finding there is no use of the combination "Astropecten lorioli" after about 1931, and only one mention of the "Archastropecten lorioli" combination. The Paleobiology database uses the combination "Pentasteria (Pentasteria) lorioli" citing Lewis 1993 ("Catalogue of the type and figured specimens of fossils Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea in the Natural History Museum.") butI dont find any use of that name in Google books or Google scholar either. My thought is that it was possibly synonymised with another species at some point in the late 1950's early 1960's and the paper has not been digitalized yet, making it hard to track the name. I dont know at this point what to do with the images. --Kevmin § 22:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose to keep the name Astropecten loriol. We will correct, if the data allow us to decide. Thank you for your reply. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecochirus longimanus

• Category : Mecochirus longimanus

Bad spelling.

• Category : Mecochirus longimanatus

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed and updated, with additional images placed into the category from other categories, thanks!--Kevmin § 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not entitled to speedy delete galleries

Please note that there is a procedure to delete galleries. We are not entitled to take the content of carefully created galleries, make categories out of them and then to delete them by replacing them by a redirect. Please follow the proper procedures for deletions. --Foroa (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As you have noted yourself in your comment here, they are not deleted, they are redirected. The information in the categories I am creating for the taxa in question is more complete and accurate, as the specimens were often uploaded under obsolete names or with incorrect spellings. If there are policies specifically about the conversion of galleries into categories and vice-verse please link me to them. As it stands I have not encountered objection to the redirection's until now.--Kevmin § 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And I will also note that COM:G does not say that galleries are not to be removed, rather that galleries are to showcase a selection of the best media on a particular subject. In the galleries I ahve redirected the categories are not populated with enough media to warrant a gallery and most of them are incorrectly named.--Kevmin § 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

if you do insist they are to be kept are you going ot take responsibility for maintaining them and updating them with the correct taxonomic information and name spelling?--Kevmin § 04:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting a gallery is the same as deletion. There are rules for that. --Foroa (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The content in the galleries is being migrated and updated, so by the definition of deletion it is not, it is more akin to moving from one format to the other. Do you have a link to the policy that says redirecting is deleting?--Kevmin § 06:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

With your logic, one could eliminate Lepanthes, Apis mellifera, Euphorbia, Flukes Oncidium and 97 % of the galleries. It happens all the time that people empty the galleries made by other folks and then try to redirect or speedy delete it. If we want to obtain decent galleries, we have to give it some time; most of them start small. Redirecting is emptying, so deleting. Please read Commons:Galleries and Commons:Deletion policy#Maintenance. --Foroa (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you will note, I did read Commons:Galleries and specifically cited it in my first reply to you. The comparison of the galleries I have redirected and Lepanthes, Apis mellifera, Euphorbia, Flukes Oncidium does not work as the volume of media in them is not the same and likely will never be as they are small genera and/or rare species to begin with. As I ahve noted three times now the work that was put into the galleries I have kept and improved, while the versions you have reverted to are both incomplete and many cases providing false information. --Kevmin § 14:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalisme. there are procedures to delete galleries. --Foroa (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Foroa, with all due respect, I have asked you three times now for links to the specific procedures you are suffering to, and for links to the specific sections of policies which support the assertion that redirecting small galleries to categories is deletion, but you have not provided them. The content of the galleries in saved and expanded in the categories, with needed corrections made.--Kevmin § 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is bad faith. Emptying a gallery and replacing it by a link is the destruction of a gallery and boils down to a deletion. I am not here to play semantic rules. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not bad faith, it is me Following the policies as I am aware of them. I have read through Commons:Galleries and as I understand the page, there is nothing incorrect about my redirections. There is no information being deleted, only a change in the placement of the information. If it is against policy please provide a link to the specific page where it is explained. --Kevmin § 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Last words. A gallery is a way of presenting things in a well organised and documented manner to the grand public, a category is just a bunch of elements that happen to fall in the same box. Like an art gallery, species galleries grow sometimes to very educational pages as you might discover when browsing in Special:LongPages. The rules state that galleries cannot be speedy deleted if they contain two or more images. Quite rightly, otherwise galleries would never grow to maturity.

I dont think you read carefully Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories nor noticed the passus Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category. However, this does not mean they should be deleted or "merged". Categories will always be categories, but galleries can turn into something much more. --Foroa (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if you have actually taken the time to examine the categories to which I redirected the galleries in question. They are not simply a "bunch of elements". They have more compete taxonavigation sections, links to the Paleobiology Database. I did read that passage and will note that the page also clarifies and stipulates that passage with Our goal is not to simply have a gallery on every notable or noteworthy subject. They should be created with a specific purpose. A single image on a page is not a gallery.; if there is only a gallery with little or no content, a gallery title can be redirected to a corresponding category and while galleries should contain a sample of files related to the subject. These three passages seem exclude the creation of the types of galleries that we are discussing here, ones with all the same media content as the categories, where the information associated with the media is less then that contained in the category, and where selection of samples of the media would reduce the media in the gallery to one or two images. All are instances where redirecting is acceptable.--Kevmin § 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Last words. The basic discussion is if you have the right to empty or delete a gallery. I cannot find the discussion, but there is the consensus that a gallery with more than 1 image is not empty. So don't do it. --Foroa (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kallirhynchia sharpi to Sharpirhynchia

Thanks for updating the nomenclature. I have one question and one request.

The question is: If Kallirhynchia sharpi is the older combination (which it obviously is), how can it be a jr. syn.? Is jr. syn. not the status of a name given to a species that already had a valid and available name?

The request is: Since you know how to change the names of files (and I don't), could you also change the gallery page and restore the links wo that page from the different Sharpirhynchia files.

Thanks in advance, Ronald

Uncinulus primipilaris to Primipilaria

Dear Karl,

I noted that there are few pictures of fossils contributed to wiki commons. Hence, I have just started a few weeks ago to upload pictures of my collection of fossil trilobites and brachiopods in a systematic and accessible way.

Today I noted that my uploads are being amended, primarily by you (were do you get the time to do it?). I have a few remarks to make.

I think it is usefull to have categories that bring together pictures of the same fossils from different sides together. Those pictures belong together and are needed to have the correct 3-D impression of each specimen. Can you please reflect if you support this view?

I also think it is usefull to have categories that bring together all different species within a genus to illustrate communalities and diffences between the species. The same for higher taxa, although perhaps here one should not strive for completeness. Can you please reflect if you support this view too?

I further think it is usefull to have categories that bring together fossils from specific locations, that users of wiki commons may assist to identify their finds from that location. Same for regions/states/countries. Do you agree?

I noted that you deleted many categories, and I think that is a loss for the accessibility of the media on wiki commons. You have also severed links to galleries I made, that still remain.

Finally, I note that you changed several names. Since you aspire to be a paleontologist, I assume you are aware that any name is just an opinion of an author on the relation between taxa. Now, if people start changing names of wiki commons files, others may support other nomenclatural opinions, and we will get an unstable and inconsistent set of taxonomical names.

I sometimes have a hard time identifying the name and taxonomical position of the specimens I photographed, so it is no fun to see others change information, that I derived from presumably reliable sources on the internet (such as zipcodezoo.com, gni.globalnames.org, paleodb.org). My question to you is: do you know of a policy of wiki species regarding the prevailing opinion on taxonomic names, and if so, were is it, so I can adhere to that policy myself. If not, I would like to ask you not to tamper with my uploads, please. I would rather upload as much material as possible and not having to quarrel to keep my uploads intact.

Kind Regards, Ronald

In regards to the first question, I think you are asking if I agree that multiple images of a specimen is agreeable. Yes I agree. In regards to you second question, I think you are asking about categorization of images into multiple levels, say Category:Brachiopoda, Category:Rhynchonellata, Category:Hebetoechiidae, Category:Primipilaria. To this I disagree as it goes against the Commons policies of categorization which say an image should be placed only in the finest level of category possibly (Category:Primipilaria) and is considered overcateorized if it is also placed in one or more of the parent categories. I agree that having fossils from the same location are useful, and in that regard I have not removed the country level categories you have added. I have adjusted the names to match the existing category trees for both the countries and the formations categories. The categories I have deleted are ones that are considered overcategorization per Commons policy. I need to relink the small group of galleries that have been orphaned at this time by nomenclatural updates. I ahve been getting the nomenclature from the primary literature wherever possible, as site such as Zipcodezoo are most often out of date, and the quality of the PBDB depends on the taxa in a particular area varies greatly with both brachipoda and Trilobita being on the poor end of the information spectrum currently. The policy as I understand it is to use the currently accepted nomenclature used by the primary literature.--Kevmin § 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Karl, I would like to be able to the get the currently accepted nomenclature used by the primary literature myself. I hovever am not aware I could have access to it. If I pursue reading a scientific article, almost always I get a 35 USD bill from some publisher. My question to you is: How do you access the scientific literature without having to pay huge amounts? I mean, you will understand I want to make good contributions and not be outsmarted all the time by others. If I make an honest mistake, I'm fine with being corrected. I also accept I have to learn. Thanks for answering in advance. Kind Regards, Ronald

Stealing my topics

Dear Karl, If you make pages using my upload just hours after I made them, it really feels like your stealing them from me. If you really want me never to upload anything to wiki commons, please go on. Kind regards, Ronald

Ronald, I'm sorry you feel that way. I will say that I have been actively doing the same types of edits you see for you images, e.g. categorization and classification, for a number of years for the commons fossil media. Remember as a collaborative open project anyone is allowed to move edit the media that gets uploaded to commons.--Kevmin § 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Karl, I think it is highly commendable that you obviously put a lot of effort in developing wiki commons. I hope however that you can see that if I have uploaded a number of files, but I have to go to work or to bed, it is a disappointment to find someone else has quickly created the category you were intended to make yourself. It would help a lot if you could give me at least a few days to finish what I started. I'm sure I have no way of stopping you if you want to continu, but please consider what it does to the motivation of others that want to bring something to wiki commons too. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh at first, but I think it should be fun building on wiki commons. Please lets do it together in a respectful way and not make it into a struggle for life ending in the survival of the fittest. Friends? Ronald

File:Aspidoceras_1.JPG - wrong orientation?

Hallo Kevmin, really? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aspidoceras_1.JPG&diff=61175684&oldid=54360622 I do not see why this is wrong. Hmm. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now it is positioned wrong in relation to how the living creature would have been. It would be the same as placing a fish or elephant facing the bottom of the image and the legs/fins the right side of the image.--Kevmin § 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooohkay. :-D Thanks for the confirmation. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thrissops_subovatus_cm4030.jpg‎ (605 × 403 pixels, file size: 45 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Kevin, I was looking over some fossils of fish here on Wikipedia and came across a fish fossil that looks real familiar to the one i have,this page is the fossil Im speaking of of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thrissops_subovatus_cm4030.jpg#filehistory.

About 20 years ago I moved in to a apartment and was unloading my clothes and on the top shelf of the closet shelf was this fossil of a fish resembling the one in this picture called the Thrissops .I matched the tail and the top and lower fin up to the fossil I have of a full fish, the only thing that’s not showing is part of the head. I was wondering if someone interesting in fossils like this would like to take a look at this fossil I have. I took some pictures and will try to attach them to this post to you.But Im not able to leave a picture. I was wondering if a nice full fossil like this would be better served in some ,whatever you call a place that keeps fossils for the public to view. Its is really nice fossil,you will be impressed.

Timman

Category:Beipiaosaurus

Beipiaosaurus has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84.61.173.236 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nanshiungosaurus

Nanshiungosaurus has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84.61.173.236 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Formicium giganteum

Yes, it was labeled as Formicium giganteum in Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt.

It was not in amber, it was discovered in Messel Pit, the material is not amber... I think. --Ghedoghedo (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all fossils in Messel. For example this: File:Thaumaturus intermedius 4.jpg . This file is from Messel... --Ghedoghedo (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Category descriptions

Could you please reprogram Linebot so it does not change the category descriptions in the Fossil xxx categories to vernacular names? The {{en|Raphidioptera fossil specimens}} is present specifically as a description of what the scope of the category is, and thus it is incorrect to have it transformed into the vernacular names template. Thanks.--Kevmin § 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Il just did it.

But are you sure that your description is really needed ? You just add the term 'specimens' which is obvious.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is needed, as the category is specifically for fossils and casts of fossils. Artists drawings, taxonomic charts, phylogenies, etc... belong in the subcategories of Category:Raphidioptera--Kevmin § 00:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. So maybe, you need a template like {{Fossilscat}} that would display (perhaps in a small banner) the explaination you just gave me:

"This category contains fossils and casts of fossils of Raphidioptera (Please, avoid: artists drawings, taxonomic charts, phylogenies...)"

It would have multiple advantages:

• centralized text (modify once => change everywhere)
• internationalized text (I have friends knowing some languages ;-))
• always the same display (better than a voted rule or a consensus ;-))
• template will automatically detect the taxon category (Category:Raphidioptera here) the fossil category is related to.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Identity?

Hi Kevmin - your pic File:Alnus parvifolia 04.jpg also includes a small conifer shoot stated to be Metasequoia occidentalis. What's the basis for this identification? I'm fairly certain it can't be, as it shows spiral leaf arrangement, whereas Metasequoia has opposite leaf arrangement (as obvious on e.g. File:Metasequoia branchlet 03.jpg). It looks to me more like a Sequoia specimen or perhaps even a Taxus [comparing only with extant genera]. Can you check with the holder of the fossil, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting fossil genus categories

Hi, I see you've redirected many fossil genus article to family level articles on the grounds that there was not enough media. I think this is a bad practice for two reasons: First, I've had to revert this many times, since the amount of fitting media is growing rapidly every day, so a cat with few images will quickly become full. Two, such cats should rather redirect to the genus article, not the family article, otherwise it is pure hell to find, say, an image of a Pakicetus skeleton, when it is nowhere to be found in the actual Pakicetus category, because someone has tagged it as "fossil Pakicetus", which then just redirects to fossil cetacea. I've had this problem dozens of times, makes it hard to find images of fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fossil_Micraster

Fossil Micraster has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fossil Ptychopariida

Fossil Ptychopariida has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

All Ptychopariida are extinct, so the content of Category:Fossil Ptychopariida should be merged with Category:Ptychopariida. --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)