![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 37 |
After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile [1]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.
I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile [2]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.
I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to spread the word – we have just started the WikiProject Palaeontology Peer review, a great way to get quick feedback on your articles regardless of their length and quality. We hope that this review will improve communication within the WikiProject and motivate for writing. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar, Baidu Baike is essentially the equivalent to Wikipedia in mainland China, unlike Wikipedia, it is a commerical entity and the license for the text is reserved by Baidu. Apparently Baidu Baike has an entire section of its website dedicated to dinosaurs. I was looking at the Baidu Baike article for Acrocanthosaurus which is regarded with a rating equivalent to a "Featured Article" on Wikipedia, the structure (and presumably the text) looks to be directly translated from the Acrocanthosaurus article, without credit, violating the license. Of course this isn't a new issue, and there's little we can do about it, but I thought it was worth noting. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was created not too long ago, but shouldn't it be merged into List of informally named dinosaurs? Is it even referred to by this name in any of the sources? All search results seem to be from Wikipedia: [3] [4]. What should be done if the name is not in usage? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably a deletion discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the taxa S. Brevicolius and S. Aegypticus? I have proposed merging on both pages, and would like this clarified. A transclusion from S. Brevicolius' talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Sigilmassasaurus
Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are of the same taxa. If I am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself.
Please get this clarified
Thanks,
PNSMurthy ( talk) 06:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has posted an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Theropoda asking for the rank of "clade" to be changed to "suborder". I responded that there would need to be a discussion here first, since such a change would affect many taxoboxes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The article at Vectaerovenator inopinatus has a bad taxobox because the taxonomy template has not been created. Google Scholar finds nothing for "Vectaerovenator", so has the name been published? Could someone please look at this article? Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I can recall where the press release coverage came out significantly ahead of the paper's publication, I've seen it happen significantly afterwards but never before like this. The Dryad Data entry provides the paper's abstract:
A series of axial elements from the Aptian Ferruginous Sandstone Formation [Aka the Ferruginous Sands ] of the Lower Greensand Group, discovered on the foreshore near Knock Cliff on the Isle of Wight, United Kingdom (UK) are – bar some isolated teeth – the youngest non-avian theropod remains reported from the British Mesozoic. These specimens have the potential to shed light on a poorly known section of the European dinosaur record. A consistency in size, appearance and adhering matrix indicate that the vertebrae belong to the same individual. This was a mid-sized tetanuran, the presence of several diagnostic characters indicating that it should be recognised as a new taxon, herein named Vectaerovenator inopinatus. The cervical and dorsal vertebrae are camerate and highly pneumatic. Tetanuran affinities include opisthocoelous cervicals and pneumatic foramina located within fossae, however assigning this specimen to a specific clade is problematic. Within Tetanurae, Vectaerovenatorpossesses axial structures and homoplastic features seen in megalosauroids, carcharodontosaurians and certain coelurosaurs. Not only is Vectaerovenatorone of the UK’s youngest non-bird dinosaurs, and one of few valid British Greensand taxa, it is also the first diagnosable theropod taxon to be named from Aptian deposits of Europe.
So it looks like it's not referrable beyond Tetanurae indet regardless. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up that PaleoGeekSquared's FAC nomination Siamosaurus is getting dangerously low on the FAC list, but with two supports it only needs one to prevent it from being archived. It's a nice article, so have a look! FAC has become very slow lately, I guess due to the combination of the pandemic and summer vacation. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I reverted a change to Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda. As this would affect many articles, I believe it needs discussion here first. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
See [7] the paper is open access. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This is Lusotitan; I've just changed my username and thought I'd let you guys know it's me since I'm a pretty active contributor to WP:DINO. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 17:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This skull was recently added to Diplodocidae, where it's labeled as Seismosaurus, which, weirdly doesn't preserve any skull material at all (not to mention that it's a junior synonym of Diplodocus). The older, uncropped image states that this skull has been restored after Diplodocus, despite no skulls being known from any other Diplodocus specimens either. I'm wondering if it may actually be based on one of the many indeterminate diplodocine skulls from the Morrison, or even Galeamopus. Does anyone know? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 21:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have a fairly strong SOP of making separate articles for separate clades.
E.g.: Saurischia - Sauropodomorpha - Sauropoda - Eusauropoda - Neosauropoda - Macronaria - Somphospondyli - Titanosauria - Lithostrotia - Saltasauridae ...
On the other hand, Ornithodira currently redirects to Avemetatarsalia.
Article says:
Cladogram shows Aphanosauria in Avemetatarsalia but not in Ornithodira.
We apparently have some dozens of articles that use the term Ornithodira. (And a few that mention "ornithodire" or "ornithodires".)
Should we have separate articles for Avemetatarsalia and Ornithodira ?
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:E475:7391:5CA4:42AF ( talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The Swedish Wikipedia uncritically accepted Ornithoscelida as the new consensus and invented its own Linnaean taxonomy with Saurischia and Ornithoscelida as orders. The former includes Herrerasauridae even though Baron & Williams (2018) placed it outisde Dinosauria, not to mention they also presented a more 'traditional' cladogram with Saurischia (including Theropoda) and Ornithischia. Other sources (the Gnathovorax description; the Saltriovenator description, etc.) still support the placement of Theropoda within Saurischia so Ornithoscelida should not appear in any taxobox unless it becomes better accepted in the future. Also, we should get rid of Linnaean dinosaur taxonomy in all versions of Wikipedia to better represent current classification and the fact that birds are theropods. By the way, it has also been pointed out that the SwW's "Saurischia" is actually just Sauropodomorpha (Holtz, 2017). Kiwi Rex ( talk) 21:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
An IP user has started a not so well made draft for Stygimoloch, which, if I’m not wrong, is a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus due to consensus in many studies. I truly think it’s unnecessary, first of all, because of the consensus of Stygimoloch being a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus, and second, I think the draft isn’t very well written. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems in the article about Yutyrannus, there is no source for data on the time range. HFoxii ( talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ Ichnobox}} and {{ Oobox}} have been updated. They should now handle automatic italicization of page titles and taxobox names in the same way as other automated taxboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 4#Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox templates for more information. I have tested the changes, but if you notice any issues, please report them there. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to make a small change to the colour of Ichnoboxes; comments please at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Colour of Ichnoboxes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello to our many talented Dinosaur-topic editors. There is a new Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 list where users are checking old FAs for compliance. As one of our oldest FAs (from 2005!) Dinosaur needs to be looked over be some folks with more knowledge on the topic. Check out the Instructions on the page. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I’m kind of new here and was wondering if we have something like a discord server to make collaborating on articles easier. TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The Ubirajara has been temporarily withdrawn according to the page on ScienceDirect. If the paper is permanently withdrawn, would this mean that the content would have to be moved to List of informally named dinosaurs? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've decided to switch gears and work on the Jurassic article until everyone feels like collaborating on the Cretaceous article. I've done some work on the evolution of other animal groups like arthropods, turtles, amphibians and lepidosaurs, but giving a concise summary (~ 500 - 1000 words, a-la the sections in Paleocene#Fauna) of dinosaur evolution in the Jurassic is a daunting task, does anyone want to help workshop the text here? Here is my thinking about main talking points:
Thanks for the help. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 37 |
After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile [1]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.
I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile [2]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.
I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to spread the word – we have just started the WikiProject Palaeontology Peer review, a great way to get quick feedback on your articles regardless of their length and quality. We hope that this review will improve communication within the WikiProject and motivate for writing. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar, Baidu Baike is essentially the equivalent to Wikipedia in mainland China, unlike Wikipedia, it is a commerical entity and the license for the text is reserved by Baidu. Apparently Baidu Baike has an entire section of its website dedicated to dinosaurs. I was looking at the Baidu Baike article for Acrocanthosaurus which is regarded with a rating equivalent to a "Featured Article" on Wikipedia, the structure (and presumably the text) looks to be directly translated from the Acrocanthosaurus article, without credit, violating the license. Of course this isn't a new issue, and there's little we can do about it, but I thought it was worth noting. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was created not too long ago, but shouldn't it be merged into List of informally named dinosaurs? Is it even referred to by this name in any of the sources? All search results seem to be from Wikipedia: [3] [4]. What should be done if the name is not in usage? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably a deletion discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the taxa S. Brevicolius and S. Aegypticus? I have proposed merging on both pages, and would like this clarified. A transclusion from S. Brevicolius' talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Sigilmassasaurus
Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are of the same taxa. If I am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself.
Please get this clarified
Thanks,
PNSMurthy ( talk) 06:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has posted an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Theropoda asking for the rank of "clade" to be changed to "suborder". I responded that there would need to be a discussion here first, since such a change would affect many taxoboxes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The article at Vectaerovenator inopinatus has a bad taxobox because the taxonomy template has not been created. Google Scholar finds nothing for "Vectaerovenator", so has the name been published? Could someone please look at this article? Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I can recall where the press release coverage came out significantly ahead of the paper's publication, I've seen it happen significantly afterwards but never before like this. The Dryad Data entry provides the paper's abstract:
A series of axial elements from the Aptian Ferruginous Sandstone Formation [Aka the Ferruginous Sands ] of the Lower Greensand Group, discovered on the foreshore near Knock Cliff on the Isle of Wight, United Kingdom (UK) are – bar some isolated teeth – the youngest non-avian theropod remains reported from the British Mesozoic. These specimens have the potential to shed light on a poorly known section of the European dinosaur record. A consistency in size, appearance and adhering matrix indicate that the vertebrae belong to the same individual. This was a mid-sized tetanuran, the presence of several diagnostic characters indicating that it should be recognised as a new taxon, herein named Vectaerovenator inopinatus. The cervical and dorsal vertebrae are camerate and highly pneumatic. Tetanuran affinities include opisthocoelous cervicals and pneumatic foramina located within fossae, however assigning this specimen to a specific clade is problematic. Within Tetanurae, Vectaerovenatorpossesses axial structures and homoplastic features seen in megalosauroids, carcharodontosaurians and certain coelurosaurs. Not only is Vectaerovenatorone of the UK’s youngest non-bird dinosaurs, and one of few valid British Greensand taxa, it is also the first diagnosable theropod taxon to be named from Aptian deposits of Europe.
So it looks like it's not referrable beyond Tetanurae indet regardless. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up that PaleoGeekSquared's FAC nomination Siamosaurus is getting dangerously low on the FAC list, but with two supports it only needs one to prevent it from being archived. It's a nice article, so have a look! FAC has become very slow lately, I guess due to the combination of the pandemic and summer vacation. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I reverted a change to Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda. As this would affect many articles, I believe it needs discussion here first. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
See [7] the paper is open access. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This is Lusotitan; I've just changed my username and thought I'd let you guys know it's me since I'm a pretty active contributor to WP:DINO. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 17:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This skull was recently added to Diplodocidae, where it's labeled as Seismosaurus, which, weirdly doesn't preserve any skull material at all (not to mention that it's a junior synonym of Diplodocus). The older, uncropped image states that this skull has been restored after Diplodocus, despite no skulls being known from any other Diplodocus specimens either. I'm wondering if it may actually be based on one of the many indeterminate diplodocine skulls from the Morrison, or even Galeamopus. Does anyone know? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 21:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have a fairly strong SOP of making separate articles for separate clades.
E.g.: Saurischia - Sauropodomorpha - Sauropoda - Eusauropoda - Neosauropoda - Macronaria - Somphospondyli - Titanosauria - Lithostrotia - Saltasauridae ...
On the other hand, Ornithodira currently redirects to Avemetatarsalia.
Article says:
Cladogram shows Aphanosauria in Avemetatarsalia but not in Ornithodira.
We apparently have some dozens of articles that use the term Ornithodira. (And a few that mention "ornithodire" or "ornithodires".)
Should we have separate articles for Avemetatarsalia and Ornithodira ?
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:E475:7391:5CA4:42AF ( talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The Swedish Wikipedia uncritically accepted Ornithoscelida as the new consensus and invented its own Linnaean taxonomy with Saurischia and Ornithoscelida as orders. The former includes Herrerasauridae even though Baron & Williams (2018) placed it outisde Dinosauria, not to mention they also presented a more 'traditional' cladogram with Saurischia (including Theropoda) and Ornithischia. Other sources (the Gnathovorax description; the Saltriovenator description, etc.) still support the placement of Theropoda within Saurischia so Ornithoscelida should not appear in any taxobox unless it becomes better accepted in the future. Also, we should get rid of Linnaean dinosaur taxonomy in all versions of Wikipedia to better represent current classification and the fact that birds are theropods. By the way, it has also been pointed out that the SwW's "Saurischia" is actually just Sauropodomorpha (Holtz, 2017). Kiwi Rex ( talk) 21:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
An IP user has started a not so well made draft for Stygimoloch, which, if I’m not wrong, is a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus due to consensus in many studies. I truly think it’s unnecessary, first of all, because of the consensus of Stygimoloch being a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus, and second, I think the draft isn’t very well written. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems in the article about Yutyrannus, there is no source for data on the time range. HFoxii ( talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
{{ Ichnobox}} and {{ Oobox}} have been updated. They should now handle automatic italicization of page titles and taxobox names in the same way as other automated taxboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 4#Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox templates for more information. I have tested the changes, but if you notice any issues, please report them there. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to make a small change to the colour of Ichnoboxes; comments please at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Colour of Ichnoboxes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello to our many talented Dinosaur-topic editors. There is a new Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 list where users are checking old FAs for compliance. As one of our oldest FAs (from 2005!) Dinosaur needs to be looked over be some folks with more knowledge on the topic. Check out the Instructions on the page. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I’m kind of new here and was wondering if we have something like a discord server to make collaborating on articles easier. TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The Ubirajara has been temporarily withdrawn according to the page on ScienceDirect. If the paper is permanently withdrawn, would this mean that the content would have to be moved to List of informally named dinosaurs? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've decided to switch gears and work on the Jurassic article until everyone feels like collaborating on the Cretaceous article. I've done some work on the evolution of other animal groups like arthropods, turtles, amphibians and lepidosaurs, but giving a concise summary (~ 500 - 1000 words, a-la the sections in Paleocene#Fauna) of dinosaur evolution in the Jurassic is a daunting task, does anyone want to help workshop the text here? Here is my thinking about main talking points:
Thanks for the help. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)