Talk:Mazon Creek fossil beds

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What lagerstätten are

The opening has been amended by someone to read "The Mazon Creek fossils are conservation lagerstätten". I 'm under the impression that a lagerstätte (singular) is the preserved environment itself, not the fossils that may be found in it. I hesitate to get into an encounter over it with an editor who seems so briskly confident.--Wetman (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic names

Names of taxa are not capitalized in a sentence if they are informal (such as lycopsids) and genera are italicized (such as Lepidodendron). Wikilinks should be preserved.Wilson44691 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

I have tagged Mazon Creek Fossil Beds for merging into this article as they are covering the same topic.--Kevmin (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be the other way around, merge the fossil article in the lagerstätten article. We typically have lagerstätten articles first (see also List of fossil sites) and do biota articles second, when the biota are not limited to a single lagerstätte and very important (see e.g. Jehol Biota).

Other than that - Support. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger in the direction suggested by Dysmorodrepanis. Deor (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Centipedes of the Mazon Creek fossil beds is a small stub that would be better covered here with the other fossils, rather then as a stand an almost orphan.--Kev min § 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are the faunas separated?

Freshwater horseshoe crabs??? Seriously? David Marjanović (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you find to be an issue with the division of the faunas?--Kev min § 03:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true, there were Xiphosurans present in freshwater environments in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic. --Gretarsson (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beds within concretions?

In the introductory section it reads: „The fossil beds are located in ironstone concretions [...]“. Well I’m not a native speaker but AFAIK “bed” means the same as “layer” or “stratum”. So it sounds somewhat strange to me that there are beds being located in concretions, since AFAIK concretions occur within (preferredly mudstone) beds rather than the other way around. So it would probably more accurate to say: „The fossils occur [or are preserved] in ironstone concretions [...]“. --Gretarsson (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC) GREAT SUGGESTION. I've changed the page as you suggested.--User:Stocksdale[reply]

Location

I broke away part of the Geology section to form a "Location" section. And therefore added more detailed information about the location and the fossils being found in the coal mines. It was also a helpful way to add in information about the current State Park that was previously Pit 11. It is the prime location where people collect fossils these days. I thought it was also helpful to give a bit more specific locations of what is later referred in the article as ESSEX and BRAIDWOOD biotas. --User:Stocksdale

Fauna

I added some more information here with links to a newly created page on the commonly found fossil Essexella. I also felt it would be handy to divide the two Biota/Fauna location ESSEX and BRAIDWOOD.--User:Stocksdale

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mazon Creek fossil beds. 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:

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) 09:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centipedes of the Mazon Creek fossil beds

The article/redirect now points here ... where the centipedes have all been deleted ... "since all got articles": but how is the reader to reach them, if their names are not known to the reader already? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-tea-two-te-to - shall we just revert this or have you an alternative proposal? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the taxa list for Mazon Creek would be needed instead. I felt strange that only centipede have suddenly listed in the page. But if needed probably fine to revert. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some sort of list would clearly make sense, but just destroying the small part that did exist seems like moving in the wrong direction. And, you haven't addressed my question, how the reader is supposed to reach the now completely unlinked centipede species articles? Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmmm that is what I am not sure as well. @Fossiladder13 tried to work on Mazon Creek taxa list, so perhaps that would help to link these centipede taxa. Anyway, if we're going to list centipedes, we'll eventually need a list of various groups like fish, insects, jellyfish, etc. (Edit: I added centipede taxa shortly in the page now) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]