User talk:Abyssal/draft

Fossils by state structure draft and titling dilemma
I've composed a draft for my planned series of articles on seeing and collecting fossils by US state and was wondering what you guys thought about its structure. Am I missing any sections? Any I should exclude or rename? What do you think about the order? Also, I was wondering how I should title these articles. I was originally thinking something like "Collect and see fossils in [State]", but some miscellaneous attractions of paleontological interest may not be fossils in their own right and I want these articles to be as inclusive as possible of destinations and attractions of paleontological interest, so that kind of title might not be strictly accurate for the article contents. I've considered something along the lines of "Paleotourism in [State]" in parallel with terms like "agritourism", but it would be a neologism and not necessarily super clear what the article is about just from the title. Another possibility would be to just use the same titling convention as their companion Wikipedia articles and call them "Paleontology in [State]". I dunno, maybe I was overthinking it in getting away from the "Collect and see fossils in [State]" construction. Comments and feedback are appreciated. Abyssal (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe just "Fossils in [State]" or, if that's not broad enough, then "Paleontology in [State]"? I think that short and simple is a good approach.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "Fossils in State" or "Paleontology in State" are better, here on WV we try to use short titles. Perhaps some of the headings should be subsections of Understand. Actually if you plan to write a lot about the the topic, it would perhaps make sense to first create a "Fossils in the United States" article as a "parent" article with general information, an overview (which part of the US is best for what kinds of fossils...), federal laws etc. and then create articles for individual states. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly suggest reading through the responses in your previous thread on this subject. As Ypsilon notes, and as was stated in the previous thread, starting out with a high-level overview is the recommended way to approach most travel topics, rather than starting out with numerous skeleton articles. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well before you create articles about collecting fossils in a state, I would suggest creating a travel topic Fossil hunting, and add details of individual sites to the relevant city articles. Individual site details like directions, admission fees etc will always belong in the city article. If you start Fossil hunting, you may find that somebody adds a load of useful information about fossils in Africa. Creating articles on a wiki is not like writing a book - other editors are likely to contribute, and this may take things in an unexpected direction. If you are unsure of the worldwide situation for a particular section, just put in what you know, perhaps with a general "things vary around the world" statement before a "in the US..." paragraph. See topics like Volcanoes or Hot springs for some examples. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think that COLLECTING fossils should be the bulk or main focus of the article. I think where to see fossils, what locations possess the holotypes of dinosaurs, what locations possess unique or one-of-a-kind specimens, etc would be a better focus. Collecting fossils, to me, seems to be drifting out of scope. I think Paleotourism which you mentioned would be a better title as the name implies a clear travel focus rather than an article about a hobby like Fossil hunting. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Several users have advised me to create a more general overview article before starting individual ones. No need to worry, that has actually been my intention since the first topic, but feel more confident in my ability to structure an article about fossil hunting unassisted, than I do about writing a regional guide. what sections do you feel belong under "Understand"? As I understand it lots of articles have separate sections for safety and being respectful of local laws and customs. Abyssal (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't you simply start an article in your userspace and link it here? That way, we can comment on it specifically or even edit it before it goes "live". Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually none of the sections. I was probably too tired when looking at your article draft yesterday or something. Nevertheless, it's good to a have little of everything in the Understand section as it serves as an introduction to the reader. Broadly speaking, you can arrange travel topics almost as you like, as long as they're logical and useful to someone actually going there. Also, I too think it'd be a good idea if you'd start one or more sample articles in your user space, especially if you plan to make a whole series of articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course there are fossils in many areas other than US states. The egion around Drumheller in Canada has some of the main dinosaur sites, Ngorongoro Conservation Area in East Afica has major proto-human sites, and others all around the world have interesting fossils. It is fine to start ith the US, but some care is needed &mdash; both in writing the ovrview and in choosing a title convention &mdash; to ensure we do not limit coverage to those sites.


 * What can we offer that just linking to List of fossil sites does not already cover? Pashley (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Places that fossils can actually be collected by travelers. Abyssal (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite like Paleotourism, however I feel this term might also include some elements of archeology or prehistory. For that reason and for reason of searchability, the "boring" fossil hunting might be more suitable. Regarding the proposaed structure, I would move Stay safe and Law and ethics toward the end. Danapit (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)