User talk:Abyssal/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK for Fish egg fossil[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Reptile egg fossil[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dinosaur egg[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Egg paleopathology[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Egg taphonomy[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hello, Abyssal;

Thank you for the barnstar! J. Spencer (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Meade Layne proposed for speedy deletion[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Meade Layne[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Meade Layne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MrBill3 (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Dinosaurs[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your opinion on a detail of the restoration. The issue for me about that fact is that it is unbalanced - why do we have one minor fact (a colour change) but no major facts (the materials used, the reconstruction approach, main items replaced, ...). I'd prefer simply to do without the minor fact, however 'interesting', but what we should do is put in some of the bigger stuff and consider if the tidbit is worth retaining. It can't stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, I've checked the citation, and Megatherium is not even mentioned, let alone its colour, so "not in citation given" -- removed as WP:OR. I'll attempt some new text which is actually based on the citation now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I deleted most of your subpages using a script. Are you looking to delete all of them eventually? Let me know and I can just do that without waiting for more deletion templates. —Soap— 03:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosaur timeline[edit]

Hi, I noticed you recently inserted what's apparently to be a timeline of species descriptions to the article Stegosauria. I don't know if timelines such as these are common in dinosaur/paleontology articles (more often one sees geological timelines), but it seems to be a bit out of place and jarring, especially with the extra wide formatting extending past the right margin. It also has no introduction or context, forcing the reader to guess what the graph represents. In my opinion the graph is interesting supplemental information, from a history of paleontology perspective, but doesn't say much about the taxa themselves (their biology, distribution, etc), and would be better placed in a separate article, perhaps in a vertical format such that most browsers and mobile devices can easily view it. If you have added or plan on adding more of these charts to dinosaur articles, you might want to seek consensus on style, formatting, and usage first. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

db-user[edit]

Please learn to use {{db-user}} to get rid of your user pages. It saves us poor, overworked admins a couple of clicks per page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wescogame Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata[edit]

Hi Abyssal! I was wondering if you could help me with a couple of things for Wikidata. I noticed that you edit a lot of fossils and stratigraphic units, and we are currently trying to make that connection over at Wikidata. The advantages of the data is that we can do a lot of checks for errors and can generate infoboxes and lists for fossils and stratigraphic units. This leaves more time to work on the text and other things.
Here is an example. You recently worked on Hell Creek Formation. On Wikidata most of the infobox information is already stored: d:Q917642. In the future this infobox will be included in all language Wikis, so one change you make will benefit all languages.
One of the fossils from that formation is Pachycephalosaurus, but there is no quick way to find out in which stratigraphic units this dinosaur was found. What do you think makes more sense: Adding the fossils to the stratigraphic units, or the stratigraphic units to the fossils? Or asked differently: would you rather have those statements in d:Q917642 or d:Q14455? Queries for information will work both ways, so it is really more a question of style.
Thanks for your help! --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know whether fossils should be listed under the formation or formation under the fossils since the information doesn't really seem more or less relevant to either concept. Is there anyway to list it under both simultaneously? I know so little about Wikidata that I'm not sure what how to make a helpful suggestion. I am really excited about the concept, though.Abyssal (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say that I'm watching your page :). The statement (fossil in unit, or, unit in fossil) will be listed in only one item, but in a few months we will be able to generate dynamic lists that show either information (where the fossil is found, or, which fossils does a unit have). We will also be able to generate lists like "Fossils from Utah", or "Pachycephalosauruses found in North America that are on display in the Smithsonian museum". - I will try to discuss the details a little more on Wikidata and will inform the WikiProject Paleontology what we decided. I'm sure it doesn't make that much of a difference, and if we decide to change it, bots can move the information pretty quickly. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amyzon commune listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amyzon commune. Since you had some involvement with the Amyzon commune redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur strat lists listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dinosaur strat lists. Since you had some involvement with the Dinosaur strat lists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of portal subpages[edit]

I see that you've requested deletion of some portal subpages by using {{delete}}. This could lead to confusion: (1) The {{delete}} template expects a parameter; by itself it doesn't explain why you want the page deleted; (2) It accidentally requests deletion of any page that includes the subpage. To prevent accidents, I recommend the coding <noinclude>{{db-author}}</noinclude> when you request deletion of a subpage that you created yourself. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 27 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hi. I noticed your recent comment on the Article Feedback Tool talk page. I was particularly intrigued by your remark that you "worry about [the rejection of the AFT]'s implications for the community's openness to innovation and the dire need for public outreach". I'm not sure that you need to worry as much as you seem to be doing. Personally, I didn't care for the AFT and am glad that it's going. Nevertheless, I'm very open to continued innovation in Wikipedia, so long as this is innovation in active pursuit of Wikipedia's objectives. I also strongly believe that we should make Wikipedia as accessible to the public as possible. I believe we share the same goals, and I think it very likely that these goals are also shared by most of the people who advocated the AFT's demise. For myself, I simply felt that the AFT was not a good way to advance Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brule Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Glenns Ferry Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sunfish
Temple Butte Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Middle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns About Your Fossil Timelines[edit]

I'd like to call to your attention that some of the data in the timelines you've been putting in are incorrect, either in the form of incorrect taxa, or wrong fossil ranges.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Formations with X dinosaur genera[edit]

Category:Formations with X dinosaur genera, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Table of years in paleontology for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Table of years in paleontology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of years in paleontology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abyssal/Archive_14&oldid=604617842"