Misplaced Pages

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5

New section

Thanks

For looking at the Post-classical History article. You appear to be an expert on Pre-Colombian South American history. I think this is neglected within the context of the World History field.

Good to meet you! Sunriseshore (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bocas del Toro Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bocas del Toro

Paso Real Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Equus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Cottonwood Limestone infobox suggestions

Thanks you for the suggestions on my first use of the Infobox rockunit template (3.5 years ago). I have a couple questions:

1. Clarification of "siliceous to quartz nodules or infills of burrows"

"Fusulinids are common, especially in the upper part, and siliceous nodules project from weathered surfaces. In this area the Cottonwood is not a flinty limestone but nodules of partly silicified material that weathered more slowly than the rest of the rock give it the flinty appearance."

This is a particular and identifying characteristic of the Cottonwood (observation of these particular trace fossils gives definite identification of Cottonwood ). I was trying to express the range of silicification seen in the burrows, from just more resistant limey projections, to blue-grey cryptocrystalline flint, to crystal quartz geodes. Much of the flint in the higher units of the Flint Hills are also burrow infills, but completely different architecturally. It is only that it is possible to misidentify a Cottonwood sample as, say Threemile Limestone if one is looking at the blue flint infill. Honestly, the risk is so unimportant that I should just change the text to "siliceous burrow infills"?

2. How should I handle the Coord-missing tag? Just pick a point in the center of the outcrop? I keep thinking a range should be stated. My real problem is with the Western Interior Seaway coordinates when some beds range from the Great Lakes, Arctic, and Utah. I would rather not state the coordinates at all.

3. I used to try to use |author1= |author2= |author3=, etc, until someone changed my usage to |authors=. Reading Template:Citation/doc now, I see that the enumeration is probably preferred, am I right?

IveGoneAway (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Fencepost limestone

(For some reason, a lot of these helpful edits by others aren't showing up in my Watchlist.)

1. So, now I see that you changed "| period = Late Cretaceous" to "| period = Turonian" Isn't Turonian an age, not a period?
2. "Post Rock Limestone" is not a formal formation name, it's not even a formation name, it is cultural name (only for the rock out of the ground), but often capitalized often not, same with "Stone Post". I am wondering if both should be all lower case, but you so often see both in Title Case as a cultural terms, but usually in promotional literature. What do you think?

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 18:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mourasuchus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amazon

South Polar region of the Cretaceous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King George Island

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Narutolovehinata5 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey...

I was looking at your blurb, after your name at WP:WPPORT.

You mentioned the updating function of portals.

I am interested in your assessment of the progress of the portals project so far. What have we accomplished, and what yet needs to be done?

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Omingonde Formation

Hello! Your submission of Omingonde Formation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Please return to editing as soon as possible so that this nomination can proceed. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 00:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Cameroon

When you added the map to this article, you included the Igumale Formation, but the coordinate given is not in Cameroon and does not display on the map, thus causing the article to be in Category:Location maps with marks outside map and outside parameter not set.

I don't know where you got this coordinate. It is in Nigeria. Either the coordinate is incorrect or this formation does not belong on this list. MB 04:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wetterstein Limestone

Hi Tisquesusa, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edits here as the merge discussion hasn't been concluded. Bermicourt (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have gone to great lengths to improve, expand and reference the article and show the different names used in the different countries. There hasn't been any activity since August, what "not concluded"? They are not two separate formations; Wetterstein Limestone is a name locally used for the broader Wetterstein Formation that includes other lithologies too. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If I may suggest ... I am not sufficiently qualified in the Tethys to decide if Tisquesusa Wetterstein Formation sufficiently addresses the merge, but it might ... and if it does, there needs to be at least some corresponding modification to Wetterstein limestone, whether a redirect or not. The discussion needs to be updated to propose the updated Wetterstein Formation as a solution. If it was premature to replace Wetterstein limestone with a redirect because the discussion was not closed, it was equally premature to remove the merge tag for the very same reason. Something still should be done. At the very least, besides retagging, Wetterstein limestone now needs to be updated to indicate that the article is about a classification that is regional in the broader extent of the Wetterstein unit. If Tisquesusa's Wetterstein Formation covers the subject, then retention of Wetterstein limestone in some form needs to be justified in the merge discussion. Maybe the Wetterstein limestone classification is notable enough that it justifies a distinct article, but I think that status needs an explicit defense, now. IveGoneAway (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tone? While I wholeheartedly support the general concept of merging of the countless, unnecessarily redundant rock unit articles where they can be seen to be so, maybe it would help if you moderated your recent comment to the Wetterstein Limestone merge discussion? IveGoneAway (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bajo Barreal Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in the article Alajuela Formation you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Canaanimico

If you need to change the taxonomy listed for a page like Canaanimico with an automatd taxobox, you update it at {{Taxonomy/Canaanimico}}. Then the change propagates to all relevant taxoboxes. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Automated taxobox system/intro. --Nessie (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are screwing up my hard work and demand from me that I clear up your shit? Are you serious? Go do something useful. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, okay. The swearing really makes you case stronger. Automated taxoboxes are the consensus. Please don't go against that, especially when the fix is simple. If you have a better taxonomy, use it. Don't start an edit war because you don't like consensus. --Nessie (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The solution is simple; get your hands off my work and do something useful. Automated taxoboxes are optional and should be avoided when they cause problems, as is the case here. YOU only have the right to use them as long as YOU change the code of the box such that the information is preserved. YOU want an automated taxobox, so YOU do the work. Now go and do something useful and don't bother me with crap. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to work on you anger. You don't own the article. The automated taxobox does not cause problems. You can only have one parent in the taxobox, as per consensus. Cramming to taxonomies is not good for manual nor automated taxoboxes. Pick one, add |classification_status=disputed and discuss the other in the text. --Nessie (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Scientific names

"The second part of a binomial species name is never capitalized, even when derived from a proper name" This is not only WP convention. Autism is not material to the usage. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@IveGoneAway: I know that is the case, and that is not the point. The article] said "The specific name honours Guido Bonarelli who advised Tapia in his study of the find. By present conventions the epithet is spelled bonarellii, thus without a capital B.". So that sentence only makes sense if the <wrong> naming with capital is included in the article. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First, I am on a business trip and can only participate in this in non-business/non-business social time. Ok, it is is appropriate in the context on that section to use the historic capitalization and spelling (an embedded comment would help future editors) A quotation in the citation of the relevant section of the source is also appropriate. The following sentences should also be tagged for citation. If the Huene source supports the statements the that content can be quoted in that citation.IveGoneAway (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@IveGoneAway: I agree it should be referenced, as I extensively do in all my written articles, but I was reading the article and it didn't make sense, then looked into the history and some IP (who clearly didn't read the full short text) removed information which explained that point about the name. So I placed that information back, so the text would make sense again. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Seattle Fault

Another editor wants to bold, revert, discuss your changes to Seattle Fault. I started a conversation at Talk:Seattle Fault#March 2019 BRD ☆ Bri (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPA

Re this, are you aware you can be blocked for attacking other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Duitama has been nominated for discussion

April 2019

Hello, I'm Legacypac. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Oceania that didn't seem very civil. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Muisca art museums has been nominated for discussion