Talk:List of fossil sites

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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  was making back in 2012 (below). — hike395 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What to include?

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Fossil Sites and Fossil-bearing Formations: Inclusion Criteria

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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  was making back in 2012 (below). — hike395 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: List criterion

message: Should this page and the Lagerstätte page be merged? PAR (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lagerstätten are a distinct type of fossil site with specific characteristics.  Given that this article is intended as a list, I don't think that it's fair to try to make it also cover a specific unusual type of fossil site. J. Spencer (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Lagerstätte? 

message: This is a stand-alone list, so it must satisfy specific notability criteria for stand-alone lists. In particular, " A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." 
I have provided a couple of references for such a list, but they highlight the main problem for this list: How exactly is this list defined? What are the selection criteria? The title implies a comprehensive list of fossil sites, but extrapolating the list for the U.S. and Canada to the globe would result in an enormous list. Also, lists should not be indiscriminate. On the other hand, the lead says the sites must be "important and/or well-known", but that is hard to interpret. I have seen several lists nominated in Articles for deletion because editors objected to such wording on the grounds that inclusion on the list becomes just a matter of personal opinion. Also, the only link I found for important sites (Fossil sites) is much shorter than this one. A another reasonable selection criterion is that all the entries are notable enough to be the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Most of the sites in this list satisfy that criterion, although there are too many red links.
So ... what is the purpose of this list? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think a category (with appropriate sub-categories) would be justifiable instead of this list? That would eliminate the sites for which no WP article yet exists, but I'm not sure what purpose is served by including those on this list. The list has averaged 240 views a day for the last 30 days, so there is some interest in it. -- Donald Albury 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether those 240 prefer this list or one of the alternatives – particularly List of dinosaur bearing rock formations, List of fossil parks and Lagerstätte (which is mostly a list)? It is rather handy to have the option of sorting the sites by location. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages average about 40, 11 and 95 views a day, respectively, so they are not as popular, whatever that means. Sub-categories could handle sorting fossil sites by location, by formation, by type, and by any other reasonable scheme. The only advantage I see for a list over categorization is that a list can include sites that do not yet have a WP article. -- Donald Albury 11:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, lists have plenty of advantages (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). I'm not recommending that this list be replaced by a category - just that its purpose should be clarified. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I am surprised, however, to see that there is no :Category:Fossil sites. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this list? 

message: 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.
Group, Formation, or Unit   	Site                               	Age                                                                    	Continent    	Country                   	Noteworthiness
Cross Valley Formation      	Seymour Island                     	Upper Paleocene                                                        	Antarctica   	                          	
Hanson Formation            	                                   	Early Jurassic                                                         	Antarctica   	                          	
La Meseta Formation         	Seymour Island                     	Eocene                                                                 	Antarctica   	                          	
López de Bertodano Formation	Seymour Island                     	Upper Cretaceous – Lower Paleocene (Maastrichtian – Danian)	Antarctica   	                          	
López de Bertodano Formation	Vega Island                        	Upper Cretaceous – Lower Paleocene (Maastrichtian – Danian)	Antarctica   	                          	
Nordenskjöld Formation      	Longing Peninsula                  	Jurassic                                                               	Antarctica   	                          	
Prebble Formation           	                                   	Middle Jurassic                                                        	Antarctica   	                          	
Santa Marta Formation       	James Ross Island                  	Upper Cretaceous                                                       	Antarctica   	                          	
Arikaree Group
* Gering Formation
* Monroe Creek Formation
* Harrison formation	Agate Fossil Beds National Monument	Miocene                                                                	North America	USA: Nebraska             	
Aquia Formation             	Potomac River                      	Paleocene                                                              	North America	USA: Maryland and Virginia	
Arkona Shale                	                                   	Devonian                                                               	North America	Canada: Ontario           	
Any comments? Elriana (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:   Suggested Reformat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Questionable inclusions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ages for Hominin sites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rock Shelters and Hominin sites 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is already sorted by continent. Kintaro (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by continent? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How do I add something?