Talk:Maxberg specimen
Appearance
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Maxberg specimen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Specimens of Archaeopteryx
[edit]Instead of having one article, wouldnt it be nicer to have a more focused "specimens of Archaeopteryx" article? Similar to the specimens of Tyrannosaurus one. Then the huge section about specimens in the main Archaeopteryx article could be split off. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, at its current size, Archaeopteryx is well due for a split. Two options are available, from my view: Have one article for all ten, with the current Maxberg specimen one as a chapter or have ten individual ones. Given that there is only ten with their history is so distinctivley different and each quite significant, individual ones seem justified. But I certainly wouldn't vote against a Specimens of Archaeopteryx either. Calistemon (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- How long do you intend to make this specific article? Because if each specimen had this amount of text, I think they would fit neatly in an article together. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its now pretty much at the lenght I can make it, given the limited sources I have. I would like more specific information on the fossil itself, but haven't found much more on it. Calistemon (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- How long do you intend to make this specific article? Because if each specimen had this amount of text, I think they would fit neatly in an article together. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't say the specimen section in Archaeopteryx is all that huge, given the historical relevance and notability of the specimens. And I certainly hope a Specimens of Archaeopteryx won't resemble Specimens of Tyrannosaurus which doesn't mention most of the specimens it supposedly is about but is apparently used as a waste-basket for information banished from Tyrannosaurus — and very effectively so: the main article has about 1.2 million hits per year, the junk article about 12,000. What is removed from a main article might as well never have been written at all: practically no-one will ever read it again.
- For more information about the specimens, I strongly recommend Wellnhofer's recent Archaeopteryx — the icon of evolution. I'll expand this article just to show how much can be gleaned from that work :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about creating a new article for specimens here. Any input is appreciated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
- Redirect-Class Germany articles
- NA-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- NA-Class Bavaria articles
- NA-importance Bavaria articles
- WikiProject Bavaria articles
- Redirect-Class bird articles
- NA-importance bird articles
- WikiProject Birds articles
- Redirect-Class dinosaurs articles
- NA-importance dinosaurs articles
- WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
- Redirect-Class Palaeontology articles
- NA-importance Palaeontology articles
- Redirect-Class Palaeontology articles of NA-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles