User talk:Mark t young

Archives

Archive 1

If I left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise. Please click here to leave me a new message.

[edit] Kryptops

Hi, Mark;

I'm kind of wondering why you re-added extinct to Kryptops. It is certainly extinct, but a phrase like "an extinct genus of abelisaur" implies that there are some abelisaurs that are not extinct. That's why I never include it for members of extinct groups, and always have the temporal range very high in the lead. J. Spencer (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense if the article is about an extinct member of an extant lineage, because not all the members are extinct. When they're all extinct, I don't think it's necessary, and may be misleading. That's how I've been working it, at least. For what it's worth, the dinosaur and pterosaur articles usually don't have extinct in the lead, judging by the admittedly wonky search function. J. Spencer (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should find out. :) J. Spencer (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corsochelys

Why do you keep removing the written sources on Corsochelys? They are the sources the article was made with; they ought to stay in the article. The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

Well now that I am unblocked I can actually leave messages on your talkpage. I would just like to thankyou for becoming involved in this and fixing Thylacoleonidae a great deal. You have really improved that article alot and you deserve recognition for it. So yeh, thanks Cazique (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying for a while now, hopefully I can try and make Uther understand what I am saying, and hopefully he is willing to aknowledge and take into account what I say and not brush me off. Well all I can do is hope for the best I guess and continue discussions in a hope for a concensous. Cazique (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status 'fossil'

Hi Firsfron, I was wondering if there is any policy regarding having 'fossil' in the conservation status? On the article Redlichiina I removed it, but have met stiff opposition from two editors (see Talk:Redlichiina). Any recommendations? Should I just leave them to it, as its only one word. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mark!

Thanks for your note. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Conservation_status ("Conservation status may optionally be included; you can search the IUCN's database of threatened species to find the conservation status of many organisms. It is included via the status argument, which takes a code or template. It is not appropriate for prehistoric organisms - the fossil_range parameter may be a more sensible option.") and at Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Fossil_range ("The stratigraphic range for groups known as fossils may also be included, using the fossil_range argument. For instance, for a group known from the Cambrian to the Permian.") I have added the fossil range and removed the incorrect IUCN fossil "status", which, as you probably know, doesn't exist (the IUCN only deals with living and recently-extinct organisms). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Megalania

Hi Mark, thanks for correcting (and explaining) the italicis'n of its name. As for linking to ICBN, I obviously copied and pasted the wrong link off the ICZN page - D'oh! Cheers, Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:25, 7 June 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

[edit] Barosaurus

Thanks for fixing this, Mark! I was just about to correct it myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)