User talk:Abyssal/Archive 8

File copyright problem with File:Titanichthyscropped.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Titanichthyscropped.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dendroolithus

What are you trying to accomplish with this page? It looks to me to be some sort of template work in article space. This has already been A3 CSD deleted twice, through reversed once. But it cannot remain in article space as it is. It's not a stub, it's not an article, it's just a single call to a template. As it is, it fits the criteria for A3 speedy deletion, and the chances are high it'll be deleted again as such. I found it from one of the Short Pages lists myself. So I think I need to know what this is, and why it needs to be where it is in Article space. If it's really some part of a template, then it belongs in Template space, not Article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've finally figured it out by re-reading, again, what you wrote on my talk page. You're debugging a template. I'll try to tag/mark the page so it does not get deleted right away. But if this is what's happening, then it really should not remain in article space any longer than absolutely necessary. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The main factor affecting how long it will remain contentless is how long it is before I receive some assistance from Bob the Wikipedian about the failure of the template to display ootaxa of a higher order than oofamily. Don't worry, everything should be resolved soon. Abyssal (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A few days ago I realized that I had miscoded part of the ichno-code to look for "ichnordo" instead of "ichnoordo". This is now fixed. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops...that was unrelated. Oh well, you might care to know anyway that ichnoorders can now be displayed Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

List of dinosaur ichnogenera

Hi, Abyssal;

I didn't expect to see all of those blue links so quickly! J. Spencer (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, do you have any plans to fix the taxoboxes in those articles, or to add any further content? At the moment, all the taxoboxes are broken, leaving the articles in Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup. If there are no plans to provide taxonomies, then merging these sub-stubs into the list would seem like the best course of action. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add ichnoboxes (or any automated taxonomy, for that matter) to articles without completing the required taxonomies for them to display properly. Right now Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup is rather backed up with articles that have unfortunately incomplete taxonomies due to this mistake. Also, this leaves the articles in poor condition until someone can clean them up. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cerro Castillo Formation

Hello! I'm wondering if you might know this. The Cerro Castillo Formation article doesn't mention its location. Would this be located at Cerro Castillo in Chile? Thanks. - Ruodyssey (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken automatic taxoboxes

You created some taxa articles recently using automatic taxoboxes. I don't know if you checked them when you posted them, I assume you did. In which case an edit made by someone else to another area in the automatic taxobox is the cause; however, the articles appear to all have broken taxoboxes with error messages rather than taxonomies in them. You can delete the taxoboxes for now, until the error is fixed, or you can leave them, until the error is repaired. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for creating these stubs; just a couple of notes:

• Paratrisauropodus doesn't appear anywhere in Google or Google Scholar, leading me to wonder whether there's a typo there somewhere?
• You don't need to use the "italic title" template; this effect is produced by the automatic taxobox...
• When you add an ichnobox, you also need to add an accompanying taxonomy template, by following the link in the box. There's a bit of a learning curve here but I'm sure you'll soon master it; all you need to do is to specify the rank (ichnogenus, which will italicize the page and the taxon name in the ichnobox) and the parent taxon (i.e. the ichnofamily to which the ichnogenus is assigned).

Hope that helps. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I mention the articles you created here. They still have errors in their taxoboxes, and the red error message text overwhelms the scant text of the stubs. Did you preview or look at any of these articles after you posted them? Possibly creating just a small number, then looking at them, before creating 100+ would have lead to good stubs instead of problems. Although, the articles may be impacted by someone else's edit to a template, so I don't know for certain what went wrong. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They are obscure articles, and you appear to be a responsible editor, and now are aware of the problem. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst fixing these articles, I have discovered that many are invalid taxa, synonyms, or created by tails, etc (i.e. not footprints, as the articles claim). Given these inaccuracies, I think that the best course of action might be to delete the stubs until somebody with more experience can deal with them. Please feel free to defend their retention if you think that this is the wrong thing for me to do! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If I might interject here, I think it would be appropriate to delete only the ones which can be confirmed as outdated, and list the synonym on the relevant page. Deleting a page leaves a nasty notice that discourages it being recreated, and I don't see any reason that an article about one that's assumed to be valid should be gotten rid of. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Abyssal - great to hear that you plan to work on expanding these stubs. I too think it'd be great to improve WP's coverage of ichnotaxa, and applaud your step in the right direction. Your silence here gave me the impression that you'd abandoned the articles, but I should have thought to check for replies on other users' talk pages - sorry if this caused any upset. I wonder whether the best thing might be for me to move the stubs into your userspace until you (or others) get the opportunity to work on them and validate them? This would avoid having incorrect information in article space. (At the moment, I hope you'd agree that an article whose only content says that a genus is a footprint when it's actually a tail-print is doing more harm than good to readers.) To minimize your inconvenience I'd be happy to perform the moves myself, if you think that this is a good idea. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

These articles should never have been created in this state. They are completely redundant with the List of dinosaur ichnogenera, contained broken taxoboxes and, in some cases, erroneous information. While Abyssal says he will expand the articles in the near future, Category:Ammonites shows numerous similarly pointless stubs which Abyssal hasn't touched since 2007. Fortunately he gave up midway through letter B, otherwise we'd have thousands of these ammonite stubs. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it would seem to me Wikipedia is lacking experts in ichnology. Ichnology's a diverse subject that deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, and if stubs are the best we can do, that's a start. If anyone knows an ichnologist, please encourage them to edit Wikipedia. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suntar Series

I have merged it into Suntar-Khayata Range. Believe these are really one and the same. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Y not? 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dino Park

Hi Abyssal, thanks for the star! ;) I'm going through the chart in arbour et al. 2009 to add specific stratigraphic range. Unfortunately I don't have ryan & Evans 2005, but reading Arbour there are some problems. For example, Anchiceratops and E. longiceps (ones I've found so far) are listed by Arbour as restricted to the Horseshoe Canyon formation (Arbour even cites Ryan and Evans for this). Is that a conflict or are some of these taxa left over from before you began your (awesome) improvements to this article? MMartyniuk (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't own that one so if you could double check for me that would be great, if you get a chance. I'm going through now adding any that are in Arbour. If any are in Arbour but marked as from a different formation, I'll add a ? or something. I suspect some (Monoclonius, Leptoceratops, etc.) aren't included at all due to dubious validity or scanty remains.MMartyniuk (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm marking the suspect ones with the dates and the formation Arbour et al. place them in. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tanke 2001

The paper you're citing doesn't actually say anything about fossil juvenile crocs or turtles, just hadrosaurs. It seems you're adding it all over, including to pages of species mentioned only in passing in the paper or not at all. Mokele (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the PDF in front of me. Where does it say anything about juvenile crocodilians or turtles? Cite page and line number. Mokele (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. Still, it would be nice if they'd cited that statement, so we can refer to *those* papers instead. Mokele (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pisidiidae

Hello Abyssal, I was scrolling through the new articles and found your article Pisidiidae. It seems something is missing, i.e. there is no lead section.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, Abyssal. Thanks for your work on the Glenn Highway article. In the future, please include edit summaries. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Similar to the above request, I wouls ask if it is possible for you to possibly do larger edit at once and use the preview button rather then a myriad of small edits? I as due to the large number of edits you made on Corythosaurus. Im also curious as to why the transitioning to a footnotes & references style in the article? --Kevmin § 21:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Still not done. :) -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Geological range#Quaternary added to time scale?

I'd like to see this RfC wrapped up. As it is, it is very unclear where we stand on it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Stress

Honestly I can't see what's the encyclopedical relevance of that study... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems you can't live without that very relevant content! Joking... I'm still dubious, at least add some context to introduce your copypaste. What's the relation of that with the rest of the artcles? Also, please removed the excess blank lines and, in Megalosaurus, you wrote "Dilophosaurus"... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just on... In Turin is 10 AM! Nice night and good work tomorrow. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Project

Do you want to participate to my new project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Theropods?User:John Troodon —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

DYK advice

Your article would probably make a great DYK, especially because it's about dinosaur behavior, which most people find interesting. Most DYKs make it to the main page as long as all the criteria are met (see here). My hooks are rarely rejected because they aren't interesting enough, and those that are are much more uninteresting than yours. Just make sure that you nominate it at DYK within five days of moving it into article namespace. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not against the DYK rules to rely heavily on one source, but I think she's just worried that having the article on the main page will attract negative attention if anyone thinks that you plagiarized. Do some rewording and you should be fine. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theropod paleopathology

Hello! Your submission of Theropod paleopathology at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Froggerlaura (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Clarified my stance. Froggerlaura (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Modified the passage a bit. I think the article can be fixed for the main page. Froggerlaura (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Passed it! Great article and thanks for understanding. Froggerlaura (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Theropod paleopathology

rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cassiopeia Ribbon.png

Thanks for uploading File:Cassiopeia Ribbon.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)