Talk:2014 in paleontology

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

We are not yet in 2014, aren't we?. Someone could clarify me, please?

Descriptions of some of the taxa listed in the article are already specifically scheduled to be published in 2014, e.g of the ones described in these articles. In case of others, we know they are going to be published at some point in the future, but definitely not in 2013 (they are going to be published in journals of which the last 2013 issues are already out).--Macrochelys (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.43.195 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misplacement?

Most of the non-avian dinosaurs are said on other sources or their own pages state they where already described. For example, Camarillasaurus is said to be from 2012, Arcovenator from 2013, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished manuscripts of the papers describing Camarillasaurus and Arcovenator were made available online in 2012 and 2013, respectively, but these don't fulfill ICZN requirements for valid publication themselves. As neither of these papers was published in the printed issues of the journals they are going to be published in or validly registered in ZooBank, they remain unpublished. (In case of Camarillasaurus the paper describing it was registered in ZooBank; but ICZN requires evidence in the work itself that registration in ZooBank has occurred (article 8.5.3 of the Code), and the manuscript doesn't contain such evidence, so the description of Camarillasaurus remains unpublished).--Macrochelys (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for most point taken, but all other sources say that Camarillasaurus was from 2012, not leaked in 2012.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was leaked; Acta Palaeontologica Polonica simply has a policy of making accepted manuscripts available online before they are formally published. Which is helpful, as in some cases it takes as long as two years before accepted articles are published in the print version of the journal - so at least, thanks to making articles in press available online, the public is made aware of them much quicker. In case of Camarillasaurus, the article describing it was made available online in 2012, which is how the public became aware of the taxon, but so far it remains not validly published for reasons outlined above.--Macrochelys (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the page

I was thinking that the arthropods and mollusks in this article should be included in separate articles "2014 in arthropod paleontology" and "2014 in molluscan paleontology", as arthropods constitute more than four-fifths of all described animal species and therefore it's known that fossil arthropods and fossil molluscs account for about three quarters of known fossil representatives of extant invertebrate taxa. What is your take on my suggestion, just in case the growing number of taxa described this year makes this article too long to read? 68.4.28.33 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

The split articles should perhaps be mentioned towards the top of the page, as the average reader may not realize that "mammals" are under synapsids (an obscure word outside of biology), and/or that there are additional sub-topics. Maybe something like a {{see also}} hatnote, or a small box template.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa for 2015

I have moved a number of taxa to a new page 2015 in paleontology because a number of taxa described in the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica will be described next year due to APP bureaucratic process of publishing papers submitted to APP.Extrapolaris (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 in paleontology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217093247/https://www.voluminajurassica.org/volumina/article/view/170 to https://www.voluminajurassica.org/volumina/article/view/170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move sections to separate pages

I recently noticed that 2014 in reptile paleontology and 2014 in archosaur paleontology lack their own pages. They are some of the only recent pages in this "series" that lack this standard format. I don't expect anyone to care too much, but I wanted to post here to make sure no one was opposed to moving the reptile and archosaur sections of this article to their own respective pages. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, I have slowly been expanding and splitting off Year in Arthropod paleontology and Year in paleobotany sections as they are expanded.--Kev min § 13:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]