Talk:Homo rudolfensis

message: Please verify if pub year of ref. 16 (Tattersall, I. (2019). “Classification and phylogeny in human evolution”. Ludus Vitalis. 9 (15): 139–140.) is correct. The referred article seems to be from 2001, not 2019.
My apologies if this is not the proper way to suggest a possible improvement: I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.maryniak (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right, it was supposed to be 2001. In the future, I'd recommend being bold and fixing errors when you see them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of ref. 16 correct? 

message: The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. .
Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.
Philip Lawton
p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
: Yes, the first two paragraphs are nearly literal copies of other sources. The only thing that stops me from placing a copivio notice on the article is that it's not clear who owns the copyright (if any) on the original. Here is another source that has the same paragraphs:
:  http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
: Google gives about 90 hits for pages with nearly identical wording
: Gene s 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis.  While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?
Charles Burgess
cb834214@albany.edu
:There really is no scientific evidence to suggest any of this. In fact, we don't have the means to determine this at this point in time. Seems fabricated to me.Drur93 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft Tissue issues... 

message: I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I belevie that this [Skull 1470] article is warranted. I think there is more to say about KNM–ER 1470 that will not (and probably shouldnt) fit in Homo rudolfensis - Por exemplo - how, when and by whom it was discovered; and considering that wikipedia has no size limits, there should be space for this scientifically important particularity. I hold no strong convictions on this issue, but considering that this is a subject that (I believe) is neglected on wikipedia, shouldnt we make some wriggle-space for extra article? --Ezeu 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly wiki has no size limits, but that doesn't mean we can't put two things side-by-side and see if they should be combined or not and use potential growth as an issue. Look at Meganthropus and the recent expansion its gone through. This article would easily be a section in Homo rudolfensis. I'd rather have one nice-sized article that covers several aspects (findings, evolution, interpretation, etc.) than several small articles that I'd have to use to piece together the larger picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, if the "nice-sized article" covers the subject, and the issues in the "small article" are not neglected (which often is the case) — cool. Unforunately  "nice-sized articles" usually ignore the nitty-gritty, leaving the seemingly unimportant details to stubs. I'd rather have several good stubs than none. --Ezeu 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There was no need. The statement was already tagged as unsourced. Meanwhile, we continue to search for a citation for the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Skull 1470 

message: :Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1470f.jpg

message: added external links71.232.93.212 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  add some useful information in external links 

message: At the end of the 2012 fossil find section there is a mention to KNM-ER 1802, but there is no explanation in the article about that fossil.--Cattus talk 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Article was hit by a vandal, which got (partially) reverted.  I've restored the original content.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  KNM-ER 1802 

message: and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[4] Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.[4] A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5]
Jhall251 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  KNM-ER 1470 - Cranial size statements not consistent? 

message: Not one word about the fact that some have referred this species to Kenyanthropus? I don't have time to elaborate on this myself, but it should definitely be mentioned. There are 64 hits for "kenyanthropus rudolfensis" (with the quotation marks) on Google Scholar.
David Marjanović (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Kenyanthropus''?