Talk:Riversleigh World Heritage Area

Australia: Queensland B‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Riversleigh World Heritage Area is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

World Heritage Sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals: Bats High‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

Bats missing

Even I know that microbats were found at Riversleigh. They're missing from the list of Riversleigh mammals. Mollwollfumble (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page title

@Kerry Raymond: Hi. What's going on with the page title, it seems a bit awkward and I'm hoping there is a name in the references to it. I also fancy the fossil site is more important than the townlet, and that Riversleigh, Queensland is available for this article; but I am likely to be bias on that point. Anything we can do? cygnis insignis 10:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct. The page title reflects UNESCO’s name for the site and also the Australian National Heritage List and how it’s referred to in Australian National Heritage List. The locality Riversleigh, Queensland is named per WP:NCAUST as is normal for an Australian suburb/locality. I note that the fossil site takes its name from a cattle station and NOT from the locality of the same name and that the two Riversleigh’s are a very long way apart. Riversleigh is currently a disambiguation page between them, but if you wanted to make a case for the fossil site being primary, I think most people would probably agree. If you want to propose better names for this article and its Naracoote companion article, go ahead. The root of the problem lies in the fact that UNESCO and/or the ANHL chose an unofficial name for the fossil site rather than referring to it as Lawn Hill (which is the official name of the locality where the fossils are). The Qld Govt used to call the fossil site Lawn Hill National Park (which makes geographic sense), but some time ago renamed it to use the Indigenous name Boodjamulla National Park. If UNESCO and the ANHL had gone with either Lawn Hill or Boodjamulla as their name, we wouldn’t have the problem. Kerry (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the dab, hopefully that works for those searching it out. Not even having read the article, I didn't know that about the location. That sort of thing makes locations ambiguous in the west too, for similar reasons probably, if it were closer to my scope I would be wondering why the one line on the fossil site is buried in the NP article (the easter egg link too(. Excuse the bother and thank you for the explanation, if only to confirm my confidence in you likely getting it right and I need not distract you again. [This could be an unconscious bias on my part, every bloke I know called 'Kerry' has a bit of chip on his shoulder about being lumbered with a girl's name; you seem have risen above that sort of thing and be stronger for the school yard taunts and jabs] Best wishes for the year and happy editing

Unconscious bias indeed! I’m female. Kerry (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Raymond, I don't think that very likely, this is wikipedia, I mean statistically unlikely. cygnis insignis 15:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being dopey, lest I cause offence, I noticed someone use your gender in reply and the site's software confirmed it. I thought you a remarkably sensible and cautious contributor, it would be more remarkable if you were male. An obtuse way of making a point, unhelpful, very west australian, apologies cygnis insignis 15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: Hi again, I was wondering where this silly comment was and hoped you understood it was a compliment. Anyway, welcome to my thought processes :| I'm thinking that a list might be split out as another article (not just a list), what i am seeing referred to the Riversleigh fauna (like the flora of place, meaning every animal found there). This would include animal species that were not discovered there, although many new fossil species were discovered at Riversleigh, and include things like the discovery of the thylacine in the deposits. I find little facts, like Attenborough being honoured for helping the place to be recognised as one of the four most important, in the naming of the feisty marsupial kitty Microleo attenboroughi. cygnis insignis 11:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got the sources, go for it! You don't have to ask me for permission. Kerry (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh) → Riversleigh World Heritage Area – The area was nominated as a heritage site (with support from Attenborough) and this various terms for the area tend to have been replaced with the proposed title. I don't think it controversial, as the later name encompasses everything else that researchers there are uncovering, more than the mammals that initially brought interest to the sites. I recently split out the Riversleigh fauna, the collective term for the animals (not just mammals) that are found and/or discovered there. cygnis insignis 19:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

support, as proposer, unless someone has a better idea. cygnis insignis 19:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not as clear as I thought. And I seem to have overlooked Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Naracoorte). cygnis insignis 17:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Reasserted support, cygnis insignis 08:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see this as a show-stopper to the move. So long as any move makes sure all the titles used in the various heritage registers exist as redirects, this article can be called whatever works best. Kerry (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the current title is very oddly structured (bureaucrats made it) and while the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Naracoorte) were nominated and designated as a pair, they are treated with separate articles about the paleontology, geology, and history.--Kev min § 04:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kevmin and Kerry Raymond:. I should have looked at the good secondary source I was planning to use, which repeats the title used by the Riversleigh team. This is a huge but diffused topic that I'm finding difficult to get facts to align to a title, eg. some notes on Lennard shelf I clumsily inserted to Canning Basin. cygnis insignis 08:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.