Talk:List of fossil sites

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Evolutionary biology Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Dinosaurs Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Top‑importance Talk:List of fossil sites is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Most of these aren't fossil sites but rather formations, meant in the very narrow geological sense of "a laterally expansive group of genetically related rocks." For example, the Smoky Hill Chalk "fossil site" can not be said to refer to anything smaller than an area of several hundred square miles in Kansas and adjoining states. A better use for this list would be for individual locations at which fossils are found, have been found, or can be found. E.g., Olduvai Gorge, Penn-Dixie Quarry, La Brea Tarpits.

Yes, but there is no article dedicated to geological formations, and this seems presently the most convenient and appropriate place to collect them. Some were listed already, I started adding a few others I found in the WP or would need for articles I did, and it went on from there. (It is also convenient as a to-do list ;-).

Besides, there is no definite boundary. A "fossil site" - in practical use - can be as small as the Laornis quarry, or it can be an entire network like the Jehol Formation, or it can be rather synonymous in content with a formation if the latter is not explored in other places.

It might seem nonsensical to the anthropologist who deals with only a few handfuls of key sites. One could add avian paleontology sites like Willow Creek or Mátraszõlõs or Pemberton, New Jersey, but then again, formation info would probably be sufficient for the time being...

But I suggest to start making a table out of this. The data is getting confusing for the amount of it. Dysmorodrepanis 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different things. So I'm not sure why a list of "fossil sites" contains links to a number of sedimentary formations, many of them obscure, that just happen to produce fossils. If a formation is associated with a landmark fossil site (meaning that it's famous) that's fine, but I don't think every stratigraphic unit that has ever produced a fossil ought to be in this list, which is being made less useful by overzealous inclusions. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this list should be about places rather than stratigraphic units. Abyssal (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a geologist's perspective, listing only places is problematic. Many important fossil beds are present in multiple locations, and it is the formation name that helps you find them on a geologic map. The Austin Chalk, for example, outcrops all over central Texas. No single geographic location is particularly important, since people have studied fossils from a number of outcrops (and road cuts). Listing every exposure is impractical. Should we then list all of Austin and its surroundings as a single site? No, because the area consists of a number of other geologic formations as well. Perhaps we could require a "type locality" be listed as the "site" for formations with many exposures? That way, the importance of the formation is still implied, but each "fossil site" in the list is a single geographic location. Would this be an acceptable approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elriana (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this list does not obey the guidance on list criteria, because there is no objective way to decide how to include a site or formation in this list that is supported by reliable sources.

My proposal is that we follow CSC#1: this should be a list of fossil sites (not formations), and to be included in the list, the fossil site must be both named and notable. That is, a site should have a name (not just a location or description), and it should be supported by multiple independent reliable sources (per WP:GNG).

In practice, adopting this criterion would shrink the list down to a list of fossil sites that already have WP articles. We could expand the list beyond that, if an editor wants to provide citations to reliable sources to new additions.

What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support CSC#1 as the criterion. There are hundreds of fossil sites around the world, so CSC3 is clearly untenable. Many of these have multiple independent reliable sources reporting on them, and therefore would qualify for their own article, so CSC2 is also inapplicable. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose forcing it to be a named "site" rather then a formation. There are numerous sites in say the Florissant Formation or the Klondike Mountain Formation that qualify under the proposed criteria. The Formations themselves are the relevant information, unless one takes a vertebrate centric view of "sites".--Kevmin § 23:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Don't most formations have fossils? Wouldn't this just become a List of geological formations if we allow notable formations? I think this was the point that RockMagnetist was making back in 2012 (below). — hike395 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, many don't, or they have very few fossils and are not talked about. List of geological formations is not the same, given that geological formation is all types of rock, not just sedimentary. The larger question is should't this BE a list of fossilferous strata (eg Klondike Mountain Formation) rather than sites (ala Boot Hill, Golden Promise, Gold Mountain, Corner Lot, Mt Elizabeth, Knob hill, Resner Canyon, Graphite Creek, (ALL cited notable KMF sites). To be honest, the list will likely get much longer going with the suggested criteria then just keeping it to Formations as a whole.--Kevmin § 14:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support converting this to List of fossiliferous strata, instead. I just want the list criterion to be clear, because it has been muddy for >10 years now. — hike395 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Looks like Lists of fossiliferous stratigraphic units may already be a split-up version of List of fossiliferous strata. — hike395 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! after ~5 hours work I have converted the lists to a set of wikitables for each of the continets (plus New Zealand). Please check it over and not any mistakes that i missed. I was able to find several redlinks were just incorrect wikilinks to existing articles but i may have missed some so check the areas that you know. -Kevmin 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, this article should be converted to sortable tables (y'know, those with the clickable divided-square symbols in the top row).

What needs to be in there? (discuss here, and when there is consensus, it can be done)

Name

Country - might be difficult, sediments know no political borders. Any ideas?

Age, geological - use format: "Epoch, Subepoch: Stage"? Should work well. "Subepoch" would be Upper .

Age, absolute numbers - start with oldest. Needs remarks when age is coarsely assessed (eg subepoch). Formations, let alone single sites like Lake Mungo or Atapuerca, can often be dated very precisely. This section needs references.

I cannot code these at present :( Dysmorodrepanis 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to add a column that states the reason why the site is important; i.e. a unique fauna or fossil group or preservation style. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country/state column is problematic, since formations cross political borders. This highlights the issue with listing formations as "sites". If this is truly a list of sites, then formations should not be listed in this way. More clarity would be achieved by listing the formation(s) associated with each site in a separate column. This would also eliminate the country/state issue, since sites are less likely to cross borders. If, however, what people want is really a list of geologic formations, the List should be renamed and the sites associated with each formation listed in a separate column. Elriana (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple formations can be found at the same site, and the same formation can be found at multiple sites, listing them in the same column is problematic (and is not done consistently in the current list). Also, sorting by time period would be improved if all the continents were in the same list. Below is an example of what this could look like.

Any comments? Elriana (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done this for the entire list in my sandbox. After a bit of cleaning and checking of links, I will replace the existing list (unless someone objects and/or has some better suggestions). Elriana (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the format ok, but needs to be split for easier access. It was better when the continents were divided. Now its just confussing and tedious to look shit up. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, you can sort by continent, right? The reformat now allows you to sort by other things, too, such as time period, country or notability. Elriana (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for sources for the Zhongming Formation but can't find any. The article itself is a one liner. Does this really exist? Additionally I can't find any information regarding Fangou Formation which is listed in this article but is a red link. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try varying the spelling when you search. Maybe these formations are better known under a different Romanization scheme. Also try the Paleobiology Database's stratigraphic unit search feature. Don't include "formation" in the name though if you do. Abyssal (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference listed for the stub article on Zhongming Formation. So yes, I'd say it probably exists. The Romanization is an issue with a number of the formations and localities in Asia. I have been (slowly) working on checking the entries in this list, but am ill-equipped to track down many of the Asian, African and South American references. If you do find additional information, please consider expanding the relevant article. Elriana (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to associate archaeological ages (ASPRO chronology?) with Hominin sites. Using these Period names instead of the Geological ones, however, would make the Age column messy and inconsistent. Any proposals of a systematic solution? What about sites with animals and other fossils as well as Hominin? The geological periods are universally applicable, even at Hominin sites, but the archaeological ones have finer resolution and may be more useful to some people. Thoughts? Elriana (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should rock shelters be considered 'fossil sites' if no animal or plant fossils are described there? Wikipedia does already have a List of archaeological sites by country. Surely sites notable for their rock art and tools should be on a list like that one rather than this one. While there is overlap between archaeological sites and paleontological sites, they are actually rather distinct in their definitions.Elriana (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now an IP editor has replaced the entry for Kamabai rock shelter in Sierra Leone with one for the Djebel Mela rock shelter in a different country. I am going to do some looking to see if I can put together an entry for Djebel Mela, but I have verified that these two locations are NOT the same, and that Kamabai should not be deleted. For more details on Kamabai, I would need to track down hard copies (electronic seem to be lacking) of frequently cited papers by Atherton in ~1972, but a number of pictures of artifacts from this rock shelter/cave can be found in books, websites, and wikimedia commons. Elriana (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google and Google Scholar searches for Djebel Mela return only a few hits, and those are all regarding rock art. I suppose rock art could be considered a trace fossil in some ways? But people looking for 'fossils' are not usually looking for early human art. Anyone have an opinion on how to handle such sites?Elriana (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is almost unworkable in its current format. Is there any reason why it isn't split by continent, as almost every other similar list of places and features is? It would make it far easier both to edit and read. (And before anyone says it, yes, I know you can sort by continent, but that doesn't make it any simpler to edit!) It would also make it far easier to split into separate continental list pages if this page grows too large. Grutness...wha? 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is already sorted by continent. Kintaro (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some people want to sort the list by country, age or fossil type. If split by continent that usage becomes impossible (or requires maintaining a large number of separate lists which will inevitably not be edited or maintained consistently).

Also please consider that the extent and boundaries of geologic formations and tectonic plates don’t line up with continent boundaries. (And some fossil sites are technically in the ocean.)So sorting by continent is quite irrelevant to some interests.

As for editing, new entries can be added at the end; old entries can be found with ctrl-f; and any systematic changes should be consistent, something that was very not true of the separate continent tables before they were combined.Elriana (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add the Yea Flora Fossil Site to this list, but gave up when I cam to the field titled "data-sort-value". What on earth do I write there? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That field is used in the Age column and is the age in millions of year years. Since Geologic time periods are not alphabetical, there is no other good way to make the chart sortable by age.Elriana (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort toward tidying the table and working toward coherent inclusion criteria, I propose removing any entries that lack separate wiki articles, listed notability, and references. Unfortunately, this would slightly increase the list’s existing bias toward sites in North America. Is there any way to preserve a table of those entries for future editors to view and possibly flesh out without leaving them in the article itself? Would that even be a useful thing to do? Elriana (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a list of requested articles about sites could be kept at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, with a pointer from this talk page. There may actually be such a list somewhere, but I haven't found it, yet. Donald Albury 16:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an enquiry on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology Elriana (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a lack of movement on this issue has prompted another suggestion that the entire article be deleted. So I'm going to go ahead and remove questionable entries. Since I have no good idea of where else they belong, I'm going to make a list of excised entries here. Elriana (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could maybe be put back in if a type locality or specific notable site is added.

I corrected Hawthorne Formation to Hawthorn Group. At least some of the formations in the Hawthorn Group do have significant fossils. (The Hawthorn Group includes the Peace River Formation, which includes the Bone Valley Formation, which is already in the list.) If this list is kept in this article or split off on its own, I will add the individual formations with their significant fossils. - Donald Albury 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article will be kept. Moving on, I suggest restricting this list to fossil sites that have WP articles or substantive sections in articles. What then to do about biostratigraphy? We do have lists like European land mammal age and Triassic land vertebrate faunachrons, and categories like Category:North American land mammal ages and Category:South African assemblage zones. Should any article about fossils in a formation be placed in such a list or category, rather in than in this list of fossil sites? - Donald Albury 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not quite sure what you are asking. An article about the particular fossils in a particular formation should, I think, only appear here if it is based on the fossils found at a particular site. The site would be the entity that was listed here, and any article about the fossils found there would be the criteria needed for notability. A few sites might also be notable simply because they are type localities for particularly famous/important formations.

As to faunachrons, etc., such time periods are often named for specific sites. It may be somewhat notable that a chron or age is named for a particular site, but I don’t know that we should include such sites on those grounds alone. Unless there is more available information, such as a wiki article, about a site, we probably shouldn’t list it here. (I say this knowing that biostratigraphy lists and categories would be my first idea of how to find sites from the under-represented continents of South America and Asia.) Elriana (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at earlier discussions in which it appears that some editors wanted to include geological formations in this list. I don't see any clear decision on whether or not to include such in this list. Indeed, the lead to the list mentions formations eleven times, and sites seven times, and I do not think it provides clear guidance on what to include in the list. Many of the entries for formations that you recently moved to this talk page do not mention fossils in their articles. I'm suggesting that we make it explicit that such entries should not be in the list. Donald Albury 22:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geological formations are generally geographically extensive, should not count as "sites". Once the AfD closes I intend to remove all such entries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that while encompassing every single fossil site is an impossible task, as most fossil-bearing formations have several fossil sites that are of importance. Consider for instance one I worked on recently, the Kuldana Formation. If we take every single fossil sites and localities, we have at least seven named fossil localities, a dozen more numbered H-GSP localities, and a lot more if we include microfacies. This is an absolutely daunting task, and any attempt to reduce it would basically turn it into a carbon copy of the Lagerstätte article. I think the article should be renamed into "List of notable fossil-bearing formations" or something along those lines. Larrayal (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the criteria for notable? Would it be enough for the site to have an article with more than a passing mention of fossils? Would a section in an article about a site qualify? Consider Parachucla Formation#White Springs Local Fauna, a section that is larger than many articles about fossil sites? I think the list should be restricted to articles or sections about specific fossil sites. If we set such criteria for entries in this list, I don't think it particularly matters whether we include "notable" in the title. Donald Albury 22:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im with Larrayal, Shifting this to "sites" will only worsen the issue at hand, and to be blunt, its vertebrate biased. What makes a vert "site" notable will be very different from what makes a plant, insect, fungi or foram locality (and NO verts are not any better then forams). Plus what makes each of those notable will vary by group and who you ask. This is in essence just a messy copy of the Lagerstätte list with much less direction and bigger biases that are being brought to play.--Kevmin § 22:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way, is there any doubt at all about the notability of the Green River Formation and its fish, it has an entire National Park Unit dedicated to the Fossil Lake Section, but it was "pulled" because its not a terrestrial vertebrate site with named quarries.--Kevmin § 22:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Green River Formation was pulled (moved to this talk page) because it is about a formation, not a site. Fossils in the Green River Formation is a very broad topic. Looking at sources in a Google Scholar search, I see that Fossil Lake, Lake Gosiute, and Lake Uinta have distinctive fossil fish assemblages and I suspect decent articles could be written about each of them. While the lakes each cover a broader area than the typical fossil quarry, they still would be closer to fossil "sites" than an entire formation. Aside from that, many of the formations that were "pulled" from the list have little, if any information about fossils. Of course, some of the articles about "fossil sites" in the list also contain little or no information about fossils. Donald Albury 23:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed, and I support, that articles about geological formations are outside of the scope of this list. Should we move such articles to one of the Lists of fossiliferous stratigraphic units by continent? Donald Albury 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the scope of this discussion, but in trying to figure out how extensive Beecher's Trilobite Bed is, I found a lot of link rot there, including the first citation, "Martha Buck's senior thesis", which, by that description, is not a reliable source. Donald Albury 14:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article NEEDS to be wrapped into the list of Lagerstätten. Donald Albury how many specific localities that are not vertebrate quarries can you name? Given the narrow scope you propose, MAJOR fossil formations are being dumped simply because modern paleontologists haven't labeled every hole they make. Being "more a formation article" should be how we are handling fossil producing localities. Names for sites as major part of the stratigraphic paleontology has waned over the past 100 years with the advent of modern geologic mapping and stratigraphic techniques. Modern articles will ofen not name a site at all or give a passing mention to a vernacular or Museum code, and then detail the relation to the Formation as a whole. --Kevmin § 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).