Talk:Subashi Formation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subashi Formation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paleobiota help
[edit]Code
[edit]This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.
Premade rowspans:
| rowspan="2" |
| rowspan="3" |
| rowspan="4" |
| rowspan="5" |
| rowspan="6" |
| rowspan="7" |
Replacement headings for "Presence" column
! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material
Replacement headings for "Taxa" column
Cell background colors
[edit]The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.
Color key
|
Notes Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; |
Red for reclassified and preoccupied
|style="background:#fbdddb;" |
Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:
|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |
Dark grey for discredited taxa:
|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |
Peach for Ichnotaxa:
|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |
Light blue for Ootaxa:
|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |
Light green for Morphotaxa:
|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |
Innacurate Paleobiota
[edit]At least three of the species listed under the "Fossil Content" section seem to be incorrect. The Nemegtosaurus article states "A second species, N. pachi, was described by Dong in 1977 on the basis of the teeth IVPP V.4879, recovered from the Subashi Formation, but is a nomen dubium," the Jaxartosaurus article says "A second species, J. fuyunensis, was described by Wu (1984) for a dentary from Xinjiang, China, but is dubious," and the Euoplocephalus article makes no mention of any Chinese specimens at all (not to mention the fact that it lived in Canada). The first two should definitely be marked as dubious species, but I'm not sure about the Euoplocephalus, since it wouldn't be dubious (its listed as the type and only species E. tutus). Maybe mark it as "Falsely reported as present," if someone could find a proper source for that? I'm hoping somebody with more knowledge about Wikipedia standards knows what to do. 2600:1700:20DC:7810:D81A:AA22:410D:31CB (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Stub-Class Geology articles
- Low-importance Geology articles
- Low-importance Stub-Class Geology articles
- WikiProject Geology articles
- Stub-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- Stub-Class Palaeontology articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- Stub-Class dinosaurs articles
- Low-importance dinosaurs articles
- WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
- Stub-Class China-related articles
- Unknown-importance China-related articles
- Stub-Class China-related articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject China articles