The discovery of Homo naledi is a significant step in understanding our origins. This image is the only image in Commons showing a complete reconstruction of the creature's skull. -- Martinvl (talk)
Comment By definition, a holotype need not complement. Avoid, to put on the same plane, a real fossil and a plastic copy. The confusion in the minds of non-specialists is very damaging. Above all, we work for a long time to create a relationship of trust between wikipedia and scientists. Labeliser a piece of plastic is an insult to Lee Berger who has always had high regard for Wikipedia. I'm sure it is not wanted; but it is a big blunder. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Llez: - Thank you for your suggestion. I have considered it, but I am not sure that the scope "Homo naledi skull - reconstruction" is an appropriate scope. Suppose that the archaeologists come across an intact skull and publish images of it in Commons under the scope "Homo naledi skull". This would make the scope "Homo naledi skull - reconstruction" redundant. In my view, it is far better that the image I proposed we accepted as a VI until such time as an intact skull is discovered at which time my image would be replaced by the new image. One should remember of course that the image should fit the scope, not the other way round. Martinvl (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
