Talk:Peninj Mandible

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: Human Origins: The Fossil Record (Third Edition) by Larsen, Matter, and Gebo says that the Peninj mandible was discovered by K. Kimeu. So, who was it, R.Leakey, K. Kimeu, or one working for the other? 66.208.215.126 (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that at that time Kamoya Kimeu was still working for Richard. Fossil finds are often not very clear cut, usually some unnamed worker will make the initial find, but it is the lead of the expedition who gets the credit because they are the one identifying it and reporting it. When you see the names of the leaders of expeditions as the discoverer, it may be better to read it as the expedition itself that 'discovered' the fossil. After 1977 or so Kamoya Kimeu ran his own expeditions and has his own 'discoveries'. Not trying to downplay his significance or anything, all the expedition members should really get the credit, it is a lot of hard work. Nowimnthing (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Found by?