This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
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
The reason I redirected this is because trying to have this as its own article would cause significant confusion to general readers. It gets linked from both the
Silesauridae article and the
Ornithischia article and so it tries to awkwardly juggle both models. If you're coming from the Silesauridae through the Dracohors article it looks like Heterodontosauridae and Genasauria might belong outside of Dinosauria. If you're coming from the Ornithischia article then it looks like the silesaurs are definite ornithischians whereas Genasauria and Heterodontosauridae are only possible members of the group. Not to mention that it lists Silesauridae as a parent article when you came from Ornithischia which did not list Silesauridae as a parent or child taxon. Having be a bolded term with no page allows it to be used in its separate connotation at both Silesauridae and Ornithischia without causing this crossroad entanglement. Pinging
Zigongosaurus1138 and
77.99.156.192.
LittleLazyLass (
Talk |
Contributions) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not any of the users that you've pinged, but I'd agree keeping this as a redirect to Silesauridae, this way, Silesauridae remains as is, without any other separate (and in a confusing placement) subgroup; the Archosauromorpha template also lists Sulcimentisauria, but only includes the definite taxa, not the possible ones.
JurassicClassic767 (
talk |
contribs) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This does not need its own article at all. It's likely a valid subclade of Silesauridae, but it was only named last year and its component taxa are not entirely set in stone. The only rationale provided by the IP user who created the article was this: "no it does need its own article trust me".
Fanboyphilosopher (
talk) 17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is partially my mistake so I apologise. I was struggling to think of a way to make the newly added subdivisions in Ornithischia's navbox a bit easier to interpret, so the simple idea of offloading a lot of that mess onto an article of its own became an attractive solution. In retrospect that was obviously incorrect; clearly Sulcimentisauria is not in need of its own article. I did make a section in the Ornithischia
talk page about my concerns, but
Fanboyphilosopher's solution of listing Silesauridae, but noting its paraphyly, seems appropriate to me.
Zigongosaurus1138 (
talk) 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
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
The reason I redirected this is because trying to have this as its own article would cause significant confusion to general readers. It gets linked from both the
Silesauridae article and the
Ornithischia article and so it tries to awkwardly juggle both models. If you're coming from the Silesauridae through the Dracohors article it looks like Heterodontosauridae and Genasauria might belong outside of Dinosauria. If you're coming from the Ornithischia article then it looks like the silesaurs are definite ornithischians whereas Genasauria and Heterodontosauridae are only possible members of the group. Not to mention that it lists Silesauridae as a parent article when you came from Ornithischia which did not list Silesauridae as a parent or child taxon. Having be a bolded term with no page allows it to be used in its separate connotation at both Silesauridae and Ornithischia without causing this crossroad entanglement. Pinging
Zigongosaurus1138 and
77.99.156.192.
LittleLazyLass (
Talk |
Contributions) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not any of the users that you've pinged, but I'd agree keeping this as a redirect to Silesauridae, this way, Silesauridae remains as is, without any other separate (and in a confusing placement) subgroup; the Archosauromorpha template also lists Sulcimentisauria, but only includes the definite taxa, not the possible ones.
JurassicClassic767 (
talk |
contribs) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This does not need its own article at all. It's likely a valid subclade of Silesauridae, but it was only named last year and its component taxa are not entirely set in stone. The only rationale provided by the IP user who created the article was this: "no it does need its own article trust me".
Fanboyphilosopher (
talk) 17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is partially my mistake so I apologise. I was struggling to think of a way to make the newly added subdivisions in Ornithischia's navbox a bit easier to interpret, so the simple idea of offloading a lot of that mess onto an article of its own became an attractive solution. In retrospect that was obviously incorrect; clearly Sulcimentisauria is not in need of its own article. I did make a section in the Ornithischia
talk page about my concerns, but
Fanboyphilosopher's solution of listing Silesauridae, but noting its paraphyly, seems appropriate to me.
Zigongosaurus1138 (
talk) 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
