![]() | Geology: Cambrian Project‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Palaeontology Project‑class | ||||||
|
Please feel free to discuss the operation of this task force here.
Discussion about the Cambrian explosion article would be better directed to its talk page.
I've added Microbial mat to the Task List. I know it wasn't originally there at all (I created it while editing Cambrian substrate revolution because I could see a large number of potential wikilinks), and it's been rated "B-class" + "High-importance". But Smith609 and I know that a lot of work is needed, since:
I'm surprised at Opabinia′s low priority, as it's the poster-child for "short, abrupt" view of the CE, e.g in Wonderful Life. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding Halkieria - High importance, target GA - because possible stem group of molluscs & annelids, and appears early. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the only deuterostome on the list is Pikaia. I would not quarrel with its "Low" importance, since Chengjiang contained 2 bona fishes – but they are not listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion! -- Philcha ( talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to sort out a general structure for articles about Cambrian lagerstätten and their fauna. When I looked at WP:CEX and saw that Chengjiang fauna needs work, I found that Chengjiang fauna redirects to Maotianshan shales, where 90% of the content and all of the Talk are about the fauna. This looks wrong, as scientific artcles uses mainly "Chengjiang fauna" and only mention Maotianshan in the intros, describing where the critters were found. Then I found that Burgess shale type fauna describes critters from Sirius Passet, Chengjiang and Burgess Shale.
So I propose:
WP:CEX' to-do list includes Clade (importance High, target GA). I've had a look at both Clade and Cladistics, and done a little Googling. IMO Cladistics and related articles have reasonable content but significant gaps and are poorly sourced - in short, they neeed a mini-taskforce approach. In fact a taskforce should IMO start with Taxonomy. This article very sensibly looks at a wide range of uses of "taxonomy" - unlike e.g. articles on anatomy, which are far too human-oriented.[1] So an article is needed on biological taxonomy, and there's no link to such an article in Taxonomy at present. I'm thinking of an overall structure like:
I think this is too much for us to take on, as our own to-do list is the foothills of Everest.
[1] For example Protostome and Deuterostome can't link to Anus, which dives (!?) almost immediately into sexuality. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I decided to take a quick look at this page. I don't think there's much more to say that what's there, but it's not one of my finest works. Comments are welcome, please! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
The Cambrian explosion |
---|
![]() |
I think we've reached a stage where some of our work is worth showcasing, and I thought that at some point it might be helpful to produce a navigation box so readers on any C-Ex related page can easily navigate the key players and concepts. What do you think about the prototype displayed here, which was inspired by the one at Evolution? Edits and comments are welcome! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article to confirm that it's up to B-class and suggest any improvements? Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Geological range#RfC: Rewording of "fossil range" for a proposal to modify the fossil range template. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added this task force to the {{ WikiProject Geology}} banner. See WP:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion#Project banner. I have also added this banner to all the articles from C class up. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
The lead to the Cambrian explosion currently reads "Phylogenetic analysis has been used to support the view that during the Cambrian radiation, metazoa evolved monophyletically from a single common ancestor: flagellated colonial protists similar to modern choanoflagellates."
Should "flagellated colonial protists" be changed to "a flagellated colonial protist"?
A universal common ancestor for all metazoa analogous to the Last universal ancestor for all life?
Thanks,
![]() | Geology: Cambrian Project‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Palaeontology Project‑class | ||||||
|
Please feel free to discuss the operation of this task force here.
Discussion about the Cambrian explosion article would be better directed to its talk page.
I've added Microbial mat to the Task List. I know it wasn't originally there at all (I created it while editing Cambrian substrate revolution because I could see a large number of potential wikilinks), and it's been rated "B-class" + "High-importance". But Smith609 and I know that a lot of work is needed, since:
I'm surprised at Opabinia′s low priority, as it's the poster-child for "short, abrupt" view of the CE, e.g in Wonderful Life. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding Halkieria - High importance, target GA - because possible stem group of molluscs & annelids, and appears early. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the only deuterostome on the list is Pikaia. I would not quarrel with its "Low" importance, since Chengjiang contained 2 bona fishes – but they are not listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion! -- Philcha ( talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to sort out a general structure for articles about Cambrian lagerstätten and their fauna. When I looked at WP:CEX and saw that Chengjiang fauna needs work, I found that Chengjiang fauna redirects to Maotianshan shales, where 90% of the content and all of the Talk are about the fauna. This looks wrong, as scientific artcles uses mainly "Chengjiang fauna" and only mention Maotianshan in the intros, describing where the critters were found. Then I found that Burgess shale type fauna describes critters from Sirius Passet, Chengjiang and Burgess Shale.
So I propose:
WP:CEX' to-do list includes Clade (importance High, target GA). I've had a look at both Clade and Cladistics, and done a little Googling. IMO Cladistics and related articles have reasonable content but significant gaps and are poorly sourced - in short, they neeed a mini-taskforce approach. In fact a taskforce should IMO start with Taxonomy. This article very sensibly looks at a wide range of uses of "taxonomy" - unlike e.g. articles on anatomy, which are far too human-oriented.[1] So an article is needed on biological taxonomy, and there's no link to such an article in Taxonomy at present. I'm thinking of an overall structure like:
I think this is too much for us to take on, as our own to-do list is the foothills of Everest.
[1] For example Protostome and Deuterostome can't link to Anus, which dives (!?) almost immediately into sexuality. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I decided to take a quick look at this page. I don't think there's much more to say that what's there, but it's not one of my finest works. Comments are welcome, please! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
The Cambrian explosion |
---|
![]() |
I think we've reached a stage where some of our work is worth showcasing, and I thought that at some point it might be helpful to produce a navigation box so readers on any C-Ex related page can easily navigate the key players and concepts. What do you think about the prototype displayed here, which was inspired by the one at Evolution? Edits and comments are welcome! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article to confirm that it's up to B-class and suggest any improvements? Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Geological range#RfC: Rewording of "fossil range" for a proposal to modify the fossil range template. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added this task force to the {{ WikiProject Geology}} banner. See WP:WikiProject Geology/Cambrian explosion#Project banner. I have also added this banner to all the articles from C class up. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
The lead to the Cambrian explosion currently reads "Phylogenetic analysis has been used to support the view that during the Cambrian radiation, metazoa evolved monophyletically from a single common ancestor: flagellated colonial protists similar to modern choanoflagellates."
Should "flagellated colonial protists" be changed to "a flagellated colonial protist"?
A universal common ancestor for all metazoa analogous to the Last universal ancestor for all life?
Thanks,