Talk:2020 in archosaur paleontology

Issues with notability

I originated the AfD on this article because I believed that it failed to meet the notability criteria required. I have an option to refer the outcome of the AfD to review, but before doing so I thought that it would be both useful and prudent to explore the issues here. This list, and many similar articles for other years contains a mix of content that includes:

• lists of research papers and
• lists (in table format) of new taxa confirmed in the year.

I suspect that these table of new confirmed taxa probably are notable since articles about individual species are typically notable (excluding monotypic genera) provided that they link to relevant articles or are appropriately sourced. The issue I have is with the list of research papers. One option would be to simply remove these sections of the articles, but since there seems to be significant support for these sections, I would welcome views on how these sections meet the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would help if the policy or guideline could be linked and a brief statement of how the content meets that requirement is given. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion on the topic of this and similar articles on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, with no one questiong the notability of research articles. If you still have doubts about it anyway, consider repeating your question there, where more people are likely to see it.
I should also point out that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus page states that the deletion review exists to address procedural problems in AFDs that either made it difficult for the community to achieve a consensus, or prevented a consensus that was achieved from being correctly applied. This does not seem to apply to the discussion about the deletion of the article in question, and in any case so far you did not make a compelling case that the discussion was affected by any of these problems. The guide explicitly states that the review does not exist to override community consensus that you disagree with.--37.30.53.66 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A discussion with the AfD closing admin here confirmed that deletion review process is correct. However I hope that a proper discussion about content may not make that necessary. Courtesy pings to Maksim Dolgun, Pontificalibus, MWAK, Jens Lallensack, Lusotitan, Lythronaxargestes, Kevmin, Abyssal, Captain Eek , Wm335td, Eostrix as contributors to the AfD.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As we stated before in the AfD, the lists of research papers have absolutely no bearing on whether the article as a whole meets notability requirements, since the taxon lists are sufficient to establish notability. Sure, we may discuss the content of the research paper lists (and you may recall that I am on the conservative side of this discussion), but I believe the AfD is improper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's consider again "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability".

In this case, the informational purpose seems obvious. Readers might want to inform themselves about scientific advances made in a given year. But there is also a very important developmental purpose. All that research is always about some taxon and thus should be added to the particular articles of the various taxa. Users from all over Wikipedia, also the non-English branches, can consult the list to see what edits should still be made.

A further point is that the content of peer-reviewed scientific articles should in general be considered notable. Typically, such articles constitute not only a primary but also a secondary source. Very often they are mentioned in the press. Almost always, such research is again cited in later scientific articles. It would be highly impractical for us to keep track of this citation process and delay an entry. WP:Common sense demands that we immediately insert the information.

Lastly, we should ask ourselves what the goal of the notability criteria is. They are there to battle self-promotion, POV and trivia. They are emphatically not intended to diminish public awareness of peer-reviewed scientific articles.--MWAK (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I may add that our articles, including Featured Articles, often rely exclusively on the papers (i.e., primary sources). In recent FAs (e.g., Spinophorosaurus), separate papers are often introduced (including author names and date) and summarized on a per-paragraph basis. This shows how important the "Year in paleontology" lists are for navigational purposes in Wikipedia. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Velella: I stand by my opinion from the AfD discussion that you raise objections to the content of the article rather than the article as such, and that these objections do not justify a deletion of the article. I think that at this point the principle that everything which is not forbidden is allowed, coupled with the fact that you did not prove a violation of any policy, is a sufficient reason to keep this article as it is.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to repeat a question that I asked during the AfD discussion, which you did not reply to: why did you present the article 2019 in science as an example of how to do these sort of articles "right", contrary to the article we discuss? Why, according to your criteria, the topic of "significant scientific events that occurred specifically in 2019" is notable and justifies a separate article, but the topic of this article doesn't? (And I stress this point to avoid misunderstandings - I mean the notability of the topic of the article as such, as defined, not of individual entries from the article.) I find it confusing that you criticized this article for supposedly being indiscriminate in its inclusion, while praising an article with a much broader scope and, in fact, less detailed criteria of inclusion. You are essentially making an argument that can be applied against "a year in a topic" articles in general, while also referring to such an article with no reason given. Perhaps the clarification of your argument would help us get to the bottom of the issue and find some solution.--188.147.34.115 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Velella: What are your concrete suggestions based off the questions posed to you at the AFD and here?--Kevmin § 18:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions posed at AfD and on talk pages are generally addressed to the community as a whole. My own opinions count for very little, but, when I have adduced the evidence that I need, I will present arguments in an appropriate place and respond at that time to any specific queries addressed to me, if they remain relevant.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Meaning what exactly? You have twice questioned this article, but have not actually responded to the direct questions that have been posed to you.--Kevmin § 02:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Velella: As my previous comments on the matter were scattered and written briefly, I decided to write down in detail why I think this article should stay - both in principle, and broadly in its current form. It is likely that the comment ended up longer than it absolutely needs to, but I tried to be thorough.
  I do have to say that your unwillingness to elaborate on your point in spite of direct questions made writing this comment harder than it needed to be, and perhaps influenced its length, but you do keep others guessing what, precisely, you are arguing for. Don't take this as a personal attack, but as an appeal for you to engage in the discussion and clarify your point.
  Keeping in mind that in the AfD discussion you were quite open about your wish to follow the deletion of this article with a deletion of "many similarly titled pages" (which are among the things you did not specify, but I suppose you mean "year in paleontology" pages and their subpages), and the fact that the article is a subpage of 2020 in paleontology rather than an independent article, I think it is appropriate to refer both to the specific article we discuss, and "year in paleontology" pages in general in my argument.
  Considering the fact that you not only criticize a section of this article, but also clearly consider re-submitting your appeal for deletion of this article altogether, I think it is necessary to cover two main issues: the notability of the topic of the article(s) as such, and the notability of the content of the article(s).
  - Regarding the first issue: the topic of this article is the scientific research advancing the study of paleontology that occurred in 2020. It is therefore of relevance to two fields of study which have their notability well-established by their relevant articles: the field of study that is paleontology itself, and a distinct but closely related field that is history of paleontology. Seeing that the topic of paleontology as such is notable and encyclopedic, and that the topic of the history of the progress of paleontological research through time is also notable and encyclopedic, I think it follows that documentation of research advancing the study of paleontology in a particular year is notable and encyclopedic as well.
  I think my reasoning is also in agreement with a common practice which, judging by the number of pages in Category:Lists of years by topic, seems to be based on the assumption that the documentation of events of a particular year in a notable topic is itself notable, encyclopedic and warranting a separate article. If, however, you disagree with this reasoning and assert that events of a particular year in a notable topic are not notable themselves, then you are not making a case against this article in particular, but against lists of years by topic in general. I don’t see, for instance, how the topic of 2019 in science, which you praised in the AfD discussion, could be considered notable if we accept your reasoning. In such case, I’m confused why, instead of bringing up the problem of lack of notability of lists of years by topic in general, you advocate selective enforcement of the rules instead, which the deletion of this article would ultimately amount to.
  As for why "2020 in archosaur paleontology"? The page is a subpage of 2020 in paleontology and is maintained as a separate article to prevent the latter article from becoming too long to read and navigate comfortably. It is simply more practical to keep the subpages separate rather than to create one enormous page for all of paleontology. However, the topic of this and other subpages of 2020 in paleontology is very much not random. Each of the subpages covers a large taxonomic group (plants, molluscs, arthropods, archosaurs, mammals) that is notable itself and has a large amount of research devoted to it published every year (not to mention tens if not hundreds of new taxa belonging to it named every year).
  Regardless of the above, I also concur with MWAK ‘s argument advanced both in the AfD discussion and on this very talk page that these articles have both informational and developmental purpose that, in accordance with WP:LISTN, justifies keeping them regardless of their demonstrated notability.
  - Regarding the content of the article, I will say that even if there is improper content in an article about a clearly notable topic, in my opinion it only justifies the removal of that content; however, it cannot justify a deletion of such an article altogether.
  I will also point out that the policies and guidelines cannot be interpreted in isolation. Their interpretation must take the entirety of their context into account, and must not cause conflicts with other policies and guidelines. For instance, I think it would not be a correct interpretation of WP:DIRECTORY to assume that every page from Category:Lists of people violates WP:DIRECTORY because the latter states that Wikipedia is not a list or a repository of persons. This statement appears in a particular context that, in my opinion, indicates that only lists of loosely associated persons are forbidden, rather than lists of persons in general.
  How does all of this apply to this particular article (and "year in paleontology" articles in general)?
  First, I will point out that WP:SAL makes it very clear that rules of Wikipedia do not forbid creating lists in general. Therefore, WP:DIRECTORY cannot be interpreted in a way that assumes that all lists are just forbidden repositories.
  Second, regarding your criticism that sections about research rely on primary research and your claims about lack of notability of these sections, I will admit that my reading of the rules is a bit different from other contributors. I think that you are applying the criterion of notability where it doesn’t apply. WP:NNC makes it explicit that notability guidelines apply to the topic of articles, but in general they do not apply to contents of articles or lists. I’m not aware of any rule which stipulates that the content of an article about a subject of established notability must be based on secondary and not primary research; certainly you did not reference any such rule. Besides, these articles, in addition to primary research, also list reviews.
  I will also, once again, agree with MWAK on a well-argued point he made: your reading of notability guidelines leads to using those guidelines for prevention of the dissemination of the knowledge of scientific publications, which is very much not the reason for the existence of these guidelines.
  All of this of course does not mean we can put anything in a list. WP:DIRECTORY still applies and we cannot create a repository of loosely associated topics (at least I assume this is what you are referring to; I don’t see how other points from WP:DIRECTORY apply here). So, are the articles similar to the one we discuss such repositories?
  I don’t think this is the case. The articles are not indiscriminate lists of every event tangentially related to paleontology. They only include information from peer-reviewed scientific publications that are either already published, or reviewed, accepted and scheduled for publication in scientific journal, with an advance online version of the publication already available; even data from sources such as non-peer-reviewed preprints of scientific publications, abstracts of conference talks or Ph.D. theses is not included. The articles aren’t even indiscriminate lists of every peer-reviewed paper on the topic of paleontology; they very much do not list every single discovery of a fragmentary and indeterminate fossil (that does not have any additional significance, e.g. expansion of known geographic or temporal range of a group of organisms), even if it was the subject of a scientific study. They do have their criteria of inclusion that you were (partially) able to figure out. These criteria are in fact spelled out in the article header: the articles document new fossil taxa described in a particular year, as well as other significant discoveries and events related to paleontology. Taking the focus of this branch of science into account, the significant paleontological discoveries are those that provide significant new information on the history of life on Earth, e.g. by providing new information on the anatomy of fossil taxa, their evolutionary history, geographic distribution, their environment or the age of their fossils. Such research, coupled with descriptions of new fossil taxa, is not in any way merely "loosely associated" with the topic of paleontology, it is the very core of paleontology.
  Long story short, to claim that this and similar articles are repositories which are forbidden by rules and guidelines, you would need to argue that lists in general are in fact forbidden repositories. But I think that such an argument would be possible only by reading WP:DIRECTORY in isolation, and it would lead to a conflict with other rules and guidelines. I said it already, but it bears repeating: the principle that everything which is not forbidden is allowed, coupled with the fact that you did not prove a violation of any policy, is a sufficient reason to keep this article as it is.--188.146.227.136 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delays in responding. I am very far from home working on unfamiliar hardware with only occasional access to the internet. I am grateful for your thorough exposition, and I will respond to it as soon as I am able. I am currently copying by hand from various on-line sources and drafting a response using pen and paper - it is a lengthy and tedious process. However, I shall respond and I shall try to ensure that the response is balanced and wholly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I just ask a little forbearance and patience in the meantime. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Velella:, its been a month, do you have any answers for us?--Kevmin § 05:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia sets no time frames. My views have not changed despite the many additions made to the article. However, I still have only very short periods of accessibility, nowhere near enough to make a cogent argument and respond to counter claims. I will respond when I have better internet access and the reassurance of sufficient time to make the arguments. In the meantime, I would welcome any other editor who wished to critically review the article content against Wikipedia policies and guidelines and take whatever action they deemed prudent.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removal of content

My edit moving several studies from this page to 2017 in archosaur paleontology, 2018 in archosaur paleontology and 2019 in archosaur paleontology was inspired by recent discussion on the talk page of the Wikiproject Paleontology. One of the conclusions of that discussion seems to be that the studies that have both an advance online version and the print version of the publication, and do not name new taxa, should be listed in the article corresponding to the year of the first publication. The studies removed from this page all had their advance online version published online in 2019, 2018 or even 2017, so I moved them to the relevant articles.--Macrochelys (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanos

Thanos is described in 2018, not in 2020. --Mozenrath (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It is also listed in the article 2018 in archosaur paleontology. Reasons are explained in the "notes" section; see also this thread for further explanation.--188.146.103.170 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The same contributor here. With that said, seeing that the inclusion of this taxon is causing a confusion, and keeping in mind that the final, print version of the paper naming it does not have a scheduled date of publication yet, I think a removal is indeed warranted. For now I will remove all taxa named in articles that at this point only have an advance online version (published before 2020) and have no scheduled date of the final, print publication. All these taxa will be moved to the year of the advance online publication, and will only be added back here once the date of the final publication is scheduled. Fortunately, the non-avian dinosaurs are all listed in the year of the advance online publication already.--37.30.31.221 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To the IP address/es who added basically everything here:

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and the science of paleontology itself. Never have I imagined that a single person (?) could be able to add - and keep track of - every single scientific paper about everything under the paleontological sun, even to the point that you care about adding URL's, page numbers, PMC's and PMID's, always within a few hours of their availability. May I ask how are you able to do this, and why you dedicate so much of your time to this? Thanks in advance! Atlantis536 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ordosipterus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)