Text and/or other creative content from Procerosaurus was copied or moved into Tanystropheus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tanystropheus 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
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ironically, this long-necked genus has a short article. And no picture. Totnesmartin 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Took out the "Wikiproject: Dinosaurs" thing. Honestly, crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than this thing is. 71.217.114.221 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanystropheus is not a dinosaur. T.Neo 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage from the article for a couple of reasons: for a start, it uses lots of weasel words ("some scientists have argued", "along with several other scientists"). In addition, as far as I can tell from a quick Google search, David Peters' views are generally regarded as "fringe" theories at best, so presenting them as orthodoxy is somewhat misleading. Icalanise ( talk) 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems like this is a debatable topic when it really shouldn't be according to my reckoning. Although Tanystropheus is part of the List of dinosaur genera, I'm not sure if this is enough of a justification. Shouldn't the list be edited if Tanystropheus was included on it erroneously? Also, I'm not sure why people think that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur. I have yet to find any source which claimed that Tanystropheus was a dinosaur, apart from toys and stuff like that. Even going by the logic that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur, is that really justification for its inclusion in the project? Should Megalosaurus be part of Wikiproject anthropology because the first fossils from that genus were mistaken for petrified human remains? Should elephants be part of Wikiproject mythology because people thought elephant skulls were cyclops skulls? None of the arguments presented seem to justify Tanystropheus being part of this project. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Procerosaurus was copied or moved into Tanystropheus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tanystropheus 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
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ironically, this long-necked genus has a short article. And no picture. Totnesmartin 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Took out the "Wikiproject: Dinosaurs" thing. Honestly, crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than this thing is. 71.217.114.221 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanystropheus is not a dinosaur. T.Neo 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage from the article for a couple of reasons: for a start, it uses lots of weasel words ("some scientists have argued", "along with several other scientists"). In addition, as far as I can tell from a quick Google search, David Peters' views are generally regarded as "fringe" theories at best, so presenting them as orthodoxy is somewhat misleading. Icalanise ( talk) 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems like this is a debatable topic when it really shouldn't be according to my reckoning. Although Tanystropheus is part of the List of dinosaur genera, I'm not sure if this is enough of a justification. Shouldn't the list be edited if Tanystropheus was included on it erroneously? Also, I'm not sure why people think that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur. I have yet to find any source which claimed that Tanystropheus was a dinosaur, apart from toys and stuff like that. Even going by the logic that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur, is that really justification for its inclusion in the project? Should Megalosaurus be part of Wikiproject anthropology because the first fossils from that genus were mistaken for petrified human remains? Should elephants be part of Wikiproject mythology because people thought elephant skulls were cyclops skulls? None of the arguments presented seem to justify Tanystropheus being part of this project. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)