Talk:Kota Formation

Yewtharaptor keeps changing the entry in the faunal list for the indeterminate thyreophoran/ankylosaur to "Andhrasaurus". I believe it is inappropriate to include "Andhrasaurus" in the list of fauna, given that it is a chimera that was named in an unreliable, self-published source that has been explicitly rejected in the literature.^[1][2] At most, it should be listed in the "notes" column as a name that has been proposed for the material. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Andrhasaurus" appears as an invalid taxon with it´s proper color code and clarifications of latter interpretations of the material. Yewtharaptor (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the same way as how "Campylognathoides indicus" is listed as an invalid pterosaur when it's actually a fish. However, there genuinely is an indeterminate thyreophoran of some kind, possibly a basal ankylosaur; the fact that those remains were among a chimeric assemblage invalidly "Andhrasaurus" in a self-published source is relatively unimportant compared to the genuine existence of the thyreophoran material. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I ran across this article in the GAN queue and was considering reviewing it; however there was one major thing that I noticed and wanted to bring up before I started the review. It seems like this article should be split, with the current article focusing on the details of the formation and a new list article comprising all of the tables of fossils that have been extracted from it. A prose summary of the formation's contents could then be included. I wanted to know the thoughts of some other editors, because as it stands this article is not (in my opinion) focused enough on its primary subject to pass GAN, but I think it would be if that one small change to its structure was made. Fritzmann (message me) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! When I reworked the article, I took as a basis that the tables should be included in it. If it were to be separated, then it would be very empty. I understand that the written parts may seem very short, but there is the problem that there are not so many sources to fill them properly. Yewtharaptor (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fritzmann and Yewtharaptor: I also came across the article from the GAN. While the tables look like they have value and obviously took a lot of work (I wouldn't want to throw them away), they present the reader with a massive wall of data. There's so much of it, with no introduction at all, that it's very difficult to make any sense of it. At the very least, they need some sort of a prose introduction/explanation/summary. Take a look at the Fossils section in the GA Marcellus Formation#Fossils, that's a good idea of what to go for. Then, if the subject of Fossils of the Kota Formation can be shown to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, the tables can be split off along the lines of the GA Fossils of the Burgess Shale.

I don't feel there's much sense going through with the GAN review as the article presently exists. The need for a split meets GA quick fail condition 3, as it needs a major cleanup tag ({{Too many charts}}). After this is addressed, the article can be re-nominated without prejudice. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll also note the discussion at Special:Permalink/1171502489#Kota Formation: too much tabular material? RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I might be a little late to the party, but splitting the table out of the article and including a prose summary of the fauna would probably be best. It also works for articles like Morrison Formation and Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation, so I see no reason why it shouldn't here. Including the new fossils of / paleobiota of article using a main article template would be a good course of action, the likes of which can again be seen on the Morrison Formation page. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Morrison Formation is a much more popular topic with quite a few casual readers. I'd suggest keeping the tables at least, but I do agree with making a more in-depth page. If such a page is required to be created, I would be more than ready to help. DNB XD (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)