User talk:Amhmdyasr
I’ve just reverted your mass addition of this category to various extinct animal pages. While I aunderstand that you did it out of good faith, I would like to say that it simply doesn’t align with Wikipedia conventions. “Fossil taxa described in xxxx” categories are only added to genus pages based on the description year of the genus name, not the year when a singular species within the genus is described. I hope you understand. 49.144.192.24 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with this statement by the IP. Wikiproject:Paleontology practice is to treat both species and genera in combined articles, and as such the addition of this category is valid. Can the IP cite what guidelines they are referencing with the above comment? --Kevmin § 17:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not sure if there’s a written guideline, but I’ve noticed the pattern of categories across extinct genus articles of all kinds (e.g. Tarchia, Tupuxuara, Dolichorhynchops, Smilodon), so it seems like the consensus to me. Also, while I do agree that genus and species-related content should be in the same article, I personally find that it makes more sense to only include the genus authorship in the categories, because it would be confusing for example to see the article named Omeisaurus under “Fossil taxa described in 2020”, because the name of the listing only mentions the genus Omeisaurus which was described in 1939. 49.144.192.24 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're sample size is small though and highly vertebrate centric, moving out if the "shiny" large verts, the trend you are citing breaks down. Where would you put the category, given that the species are only being discussed at the article in question that covers both genus/species. Readers should be able to notice that a species has been described in 2023 and thus qualifies as being a Category:Fossil taxa described in 2023 entry. As for your Omeisaurus example, the article is not just on the genus, it "should" also cover the details of the 8 species spanning 1939-2021, and so should be noted in the respective categories.--Kevmin § 20:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not just vertebrates; the genus year is only listed on Arthropleura and Walliserops too. 49.144.192.24 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're sample size is small though and highly vertebrate centric, moving out if the "shiny" large verts, the trend you are citing breaks down. Where would you put the category, given that the species are only being discussed at the article in question that covers both genus/species. Readers should be able to notice that a species has been described in 2023 and thus qualifies as being a Category:Fossil taxa described in 2023 entry. As for your Omeisaurus example, the article is not just on the genus, it "should" also cover the details of the 8 species spanning 1939-2021, and so should be noted in the respective categories.--Kevmin § 20:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not sure if there’s a written guideline, but I’ve noticed the pattern of categories across extinct genus articles of all kinds (e.g. Tarchia, Tupuxuara, Dolichorhynchops, Smilodon), so it seems like the consensus to me. Also, while I do agree that genus and species-related content should be in the same article, I personally find that it makes more sense to only include the genus authorship in the categories, because it would be confusing for example to see the article named Omeisaurus under “Fossil taxa described in 2020”, because the name of the listing only mentions the genus Omeisaurus which was described in 1939. 49.144.192.24 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cnidaria described in 2023[edit]
A tag has been placed on Category:Cnidaria described in 2023 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)