A fact from Titanokorys appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the relative rarity of the
radiodontTitanokorys(video featured) in
Marble Canyon suggests that the deposits in which it was found may represent the outermost edge of its distribution in life?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
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
Thanks for the edit. I'll modifying it with images better showing diagnosis (image of carapace/frontal appendage instead of size diagram). Also those of Zhenghecaris was oudated reconstruction as a thylacocephalid instead of a radiodont.--
Junnn11 (
talk)
10:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)reply
There's some very obvious copyediting issues (grammar, word choices, lang inconsistencies, etc) that I can easily fix and will do. Slightly bigger problems concerns the flow of reading; some sentences are excessively long and could be broken up to two. "mothership" and "spaceship" weren't capitalized in the Science article; should stick closely to the source.
The sentence in Description section, "Whats striking about this fossil are numerous specimens of the agnostid Trilobite genus Peronopsis in the immediate vicinity or directly on the exuvia." needs some clarification. Is that sentence related to the next one?Dora the Axe-plorer (
explore)
06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Dora the Axe-plorer, Ok I fixed the citations that lacked an author, only problem was that one of the news articles said it was made by the Royal Ontario Museum, that would not fit into the "first name"-"Last name" format of the citations. What do you suggest we do about that.
There are two files that show hypothetical reconstruction in different formats. Is it possible to stick to one, or is there some reason to justify including both?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: This article received GA status three days ago, so I believe it can be nominated, and I did not review this article for GA status. The user who reviewed it was
Dora the Axe-plorer.
Article long enough and GA new enough. The first question I have
Fossiladder13, is there any reference that actually uses the faux-nacular "Gaines' Titan Helmet"? If not it should be removed as an OR name. if there is, it needs to be cited.--
Kevmin§22:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Its still problematic, as Caron & Moysiuk 2021 don't use the phrase "Titan Helmet". You've already provided an ample etymology section covering the sources for the name parts, there is no reason to introduce the OR faux-nacular.--
Kevmin§15:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
As noted article long enough and GA approved recently. No policy issues are now identified. No copyvio issues are seen with the wiki mirror ignored. Alt1 is a preferable hook, being cited and verified. Alt0 is problematic, as the source does not support that paleontologists used those terms other than as shape descriptors, while the news article used the terms as nicknames for the radiodonts as a whole. looks good to go with Alt1.--
Kevmin§16:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Fossiladder13: The type description discusses the relative rarity of Titanokorys, and postulates on the possibility that the new Burgess shale exposures might represent the edge of the species range in life. That is a good section of information that could be added in and used for hooky material.--
Kevmin§23:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmm, alt2 isnt quite accurate to the type description and its not actually covered in the article yet. Variation in spatial distribution might then have played a role in coexistence, with the relative rarity of Titanokorys in the Marble Canyon area possibly resulting from proximity to the edge of its range.
Alt3 is worded too definitively right now, both the type description and the Phys article clearly use "might" and other qualifiers.--
Kevmin§20:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Fossiladder13 Alt2 is good, it matches the Type desc now, the remaining problem is that its still not actually in the Titanokorys article. Alt3 is better, but seems overly verbose in its current form, it could be trimmed down to be more streamlined.--
Kevmin§14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Fossiladder13 At this point in the process, you and I are done with the nom, unless the promoter who moves the nomination to a prep queue has any questions or concerns and pings us.--
Kevmin§16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)reply