Talk:Mauer 1

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

message: Hi!
i am German native speaker....would be great, if somebody just makes corrections and improvements of what i wrote...
Thanks and all the best!!!
Wikirictor (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: let's do the translation

message: Does anybody know, whether there are refs to be provided? I t is a translation after all.Available references lead to sources in German language, though
All the best!!!
Wikirictor (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: in the section Dating it says.... "in which the actual fossil either originates from the lower (around 500,000) or the upper (around 600,000) spectrum." - as is the case in the German version: "wobei das Fossil entweder dem unteren Bereich (um 500.000) oder dem oberen (um 600.000) entstammt." 
I am not an archaeologist, but i presume the lower strata is supposed to be older.
Anyhow- i have made a request on the German talk page -let's see, what they say...
Thanks Wikirictor (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: likely mistake

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mauer 1. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019053848/http://www.urgeschichte.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/images/harvati/downloads/085-094_GFU16_Harvati.pdf to http://www.urgeschichte.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/images/harvati/downloads/085-094_GFU16_Harvati.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified