Talk:2012 in paleontology

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2012

Since it's now 2012, this Section is a moot point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't understand this article as it isn't 2012 yet so how could any new specimens be named??--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of journals have started to publish articles online a month or two ahead of when the article is officially published in print. Per the ICZN and ICBN codes, any new taxon named is not official until the full description is published in hard copy print. This we have the species listed here, the article is online, but the print version will not be out until 2012.--Kev min § 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

large author lists

On author lists over 3 should we be footnoting or would it be more practical to use et al. The authors should still be accessible in the reference list and the taxon articles.--Kev min § 20:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

The list of references isn't displayed anymore. Is there a way to fix that?--37.31.71.205 (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be "Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included," i.e. there are too many templates on the page:

Not knowing how many are too many, my recommendation is to either just have the name of the country without the flag (no more country templates), or split this list taxonomically. J. Spencer (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with removing the flags, they are cute but the links to the countries themselves are more useful and the references are much more important.--Kev min § 00:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the flags worked for a while, but the problem eventually returned.--37.31.121.98 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size Split?

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split, starting with "Archosauromorphs". Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some of the content to two new articles

2012 in mammal paleontology.--Macrochelys (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply - Since we are now at 150 kB, we should split off Fish or Molluscs. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil gastropods can be moved to the List of gastropods described in 2012 (and also to the List of gastropods described in 2013). 2010 and 2011 lists works well in the same way. --Snek01 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldnt be moved to just there, since this is a list of all (or as much as we find) new taxa descriptions and major events from 2012.--Kev min § 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the molluscs to 2012 in molluscan paleontology--Kev min § 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK if fossil fishes were moved to a new page 2012 in paleoichthyology and we moved the fossil turtles and anapsids to 2012 in paleoherpetology? The point about this suggestion is that given the vast number of branches of zoology, it makes sense to use the term paleoherpetology when referring to studying fossil reptiles that don't belong to Archosauria or Sauropterygia.68.4.28.33 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

If sections are cut out like this then maybe summaries should be left in their place. e.g. if Bryozoans were to get the treatment, a summary such as:

In 2012, 9 new Bryozoan species were discovered : Admirandopora,Antoniettalla ... Op47 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]