Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 30

A loss for OA

The previously fully open-access Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society is now converting to frankly ridiculous closed-access paywalled system, with formerly free articles now costing $45 to have access to for 24 hours: [1]. Losing that Mendozasaurus paper has kinda crippled my lognkosaur-writing efforts... fortunately, some of the older papers haven't yet fallen: [2] [3] [4]. Just thought that this would be worth alerting people here of. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, but remember, it is very easy to get sources through WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I found the final proof of the Mendozasaurus paper through Google Scholar (phew, especially because that's my preferred titanosaur phylogeny, at least for lognkosaurs). But it might be a good idea to start downloading some of those papers while there's still a chance... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Move extinct birds into dinosaur taxobox taxonomy?

Coming from suggestions and opinions at Talk:Confuciusornis it seems we need to have a larger discussion about whether stem avialans (archeopteryx, confuciusornis, ichthyornis, etc) should be within dinosaur taxonomy or bird taxonomy for taxoboxes. Or maybe we set the line somewhere in between. The difference between the two, due to linnaean use in bird taxonomy, is as follows:

• Dinosaur taxonomy: Genus Xixiasaurus -> Family Troodontidae -> [hidden clades Eumaniraptora etc] -> Suborder Theropoda -> Order Saurischia -> Clade Dinosauria -> Phylum Chordata
• Bird taxonomy: Genus Corvus -> Subfamily Corvinae -> Family Corvidae -> Order Passeriformes -> Class Aves -> [hidden clades Avialae etc] -> Phylum Chordata

These two taxonomies are incompatible due to the nature of traditional Linaean systems, with Class Aves (invluding birds) separate from Class Reptilia (including dinosaurs). So Aves is normally the highest rank shown before the jump to Phylum Chordata in the bird system, hiding all extinct clades. This becomes a problem for "extinct birds" outside Aves, such as the example leading this discussion:

• Genus Confuciusornis -> Family Confuciusornithidae -> [hidden ranks Pygostylia etc] -> Phylum Chordata

As Confuciusornis uses the bird taxonomy, all extinct ranks besides family (always shown) are hidden, so all we can tell from the taxobox is that it is a chordate. Peter coxhead provided good pointers on why this system exists, and I think it should remain, but I also think that the effect on stem avialans due to the placement of these hidden ranks, and the division of Dinosaur and Bird taxonomy, is far less than ideal.

So I would suggest that we change the system, so that non-Aves falls into the Dinosaur systematics, and thus would display ranks like Avialae, Theropoda, Dinosauria by default, while keeping traditional Aves as jumping directly to Chordata. I'm not quite sure how this process would go, or if its possible, but I'll ping relevant editors to see if they agree. @Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, Lusotitan, Slate Weasel, and ErikHaugen: I will mention this discussion at the bird wikiproject to see if they raise any points for or against a change. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an obvious change. Why put taxa outside Aves into a modified version of the system that exists in order to accommodate the rank of Aves? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's obvious too, but idk the code differences or why it was put into place to begin with. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, but when you write at the bird project, it would probably best to specify further than just "extinct birds" in the title, which of course includes many crown group taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Technically, it's certainly possible to put the point of separation in the taxonomy templates between the bird and dinosaur systems at a different point than it is now, with some careful testing to ensure there are no unexpected side-effects.
2. I have some ideas on how we might manage inconsistent ranks differently, which I hope we might be able to start discussing soon – I need to write it out first.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I fully agree. I feel that this change has to be done in any case. The traditional bird system only works within crown-group birds (Aves), because Aves is defined a class. But Avialae are a much broader, phylogenetically defined group. The traditional bird system cannot be applied to taxa basal to the class (the crown group of birds). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible alternatives At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates that could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent taxonomies. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

What should the taxobox for Confuciusornis look like? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem here is Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip. The point of this skip template, if I am not mistaken, is **only** so that Dinosauria/etc don't show up on Bald eagle. (There might have been performance issues back in the day, but IIUC that is not a problem any more...) Confuciusornis should not be using Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip; it should be using Template:Taxonomy/Avialae. Archaeopteryx uses Template:Taxonomy/Avialae, and it doesn't have this problem. It shows:

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Dinosauria
Order:	Saurischia
Suborder:	Theropoda
Clade:	Avialae
Family:	†Archaeopterygidae
Genus:	†Archaeopteryx

Is that correct? Let's get all the non crown-birds using Template:Taxonomy/Avialae instead, so they get dinosauria/etc. Sound good? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I *think* we should:

• get rid of Avialae/skip; just have all its children use template/Avialae
• have all Aves' children reparented to Taxonomy/Aves/skip

Then, all the Aves subgroups will have Aves->Chordata->Animalia, and then all non-aves Avialae will have Dinosauria and Theropoda and crap too. This is what we want, right?ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen: in terms of removing inconsistent ranks, that will work, but at the cost of introducing an even larger skip over intermediate clades (I think about 44 will be missed out). I'm merely a 'technician' here; in this discussion, I take no view either way on what the classifications should be. My sole interest is how to achieve within the automated taxobox system what editors want. I understood that there are two concerns: not showing inconsistent ranks, and (in the discussion here) leaving out so many intermediate clades.

But your idea is one that can be implemented now, rather than waiting for some possibly better solution in future. There aren't many taxonomy templates whose parent is Aves: see here. So, for example, if Template:Taxonomy/Neoaves is given |parent=Aves/skip, the taxonomy currently shown at Template:Taxonomy/Parus would jump from Class Aves to Superclass Tetrapoda. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I reparented aves/skip to Chordata, so Parus will be the same as it is now. Before this, nothing uses Aves/skip. I went ahead and reparented Taxonomy/Neognathae to aves/skip. If there are any problems, please revert that. I think Taxonomy/Avialae/skip, when it was created, was the direct parent of Aves, so this made more sense back then. Let's get rid of Taxonomy/Avialae/skip. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a note of this at Template talk:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip, to let any watchers there know in case someone cares. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Dinosaur size

Steveoc 86, Lusotitan, and I have been discussing the possibility of WP:BLOWITUP at Talk:Dinosaur size#Semi protect, maybe?. Further input on what to do is welcome. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pachycephalosaurus synonyms

It has long been suggested that Stygimoloch and Dracorex are younger growth stages of Pachycephalosaurus, and unlike the "Toroceratops" hypothesis, this seems to have gotten little or no dissent. Is it time to merge the articles then? The issue was brought up here[5], wherein Wikipedia was partially blamed for Stygimoloc featuring in the latest Jurassic World monstrosity... FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Well if we do that we should be sinking all of the Iguanodon offshoots Norman has conclusively sunk, as I mentioned at Talk:Mantellodon. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The big difference is that the Pachycephalosaurus synonymy has been discussed by many different researchers with no dissent at all (whereas at least Paul would disagree with the synonymy of his taxa, and few seem to have weighed in on the issue), and it isn't "either or" anyway. As for the "Toroceratops" debate, this seems pretty interesting:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Paul or anyone else making any defenses of the taxa since Norman cleaned them up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There has been little if any reaction it seems, which again, makes it a very different case with no bearing on the current subject. But yes, if more papers come out that confirm it, we should merge. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As I stated on the page, the statement has been made in the form of phylogenetic codings. No statement has been made since it was clear cut, there was little more to say since he already figured it out. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Suciasaurus

Shouldn't this be redirected to List of informally named dinosaurs, since it has no formal name? It may potentially have major legal importance, but isn't consensus still to redirect it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

An article on this subject was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington theropod. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say merge it into the list, as with everything like it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Two dinosaur articles at FAC

There are now two simultaneous dinosaur FACs for the first time in a while, Spinophorosaurus and Trachodon mummy, so please have a look! It might be difficult to attract unfamiliar reviewers to technical articles. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If need be I can get myself reviewing both, but I have other things on my plate. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated, it is hard to attract reviewers in general these days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Collaborating on DYNs, GAs, and FAs?

I recently had a discussion with FunkMonk (talk · contribs) about how to increase cooperation within our WikiProject. We just finished a collaboration on Spinophorosaurus, which was a lot of fun. It would be great to get a lot more Good and Featured articles as well as Did you knows, also because this is what gets recognized outside of our project, and potentially attracts new editors. There are many important articles that need to be written, including popular ones that actually do not require a lot of work. But we are also aware that writing, especially at such high level, might be daunting especially to new editors. Collaborations could help to lower the bar and make writing easier and more fun, and to provide new authors guidance and resources. Any ideas/thoughts on this? If you are interested in writing a Did you know? or Good Article in a more collaborative way, please let us know! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone has been wanting to write articles, but have found it a too intimidating or such, it would be good to know what could be done to make it easier. And we would of course gladly be of any assistance. For the sake of dinosaurs! Also, as has been discussed before, old FAs/Gas need some work/updates too, and they could maybe be an easier starting point than starting from scratch on some stub. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I should finally get Europasaurus done, all that remains is a bit of description of the postcrania, and seeing if there are any other sources for the discovery. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Jens knows of some additional German sources for Europasaurus, that was crucial for Spinophorosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty new but I would love to collaborate on an article so I can learn more about how it all works! I'll be gone for weeks at a time this summer though, so I don't know how involved I can get. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I definitely would be interested in doing a collaboration sometime (perhaps as soon as next week). Perhaps a request page could be set up? Also, have we ever though of doing nondinosaurian taxa for our big collaboration? (We have a disturbing lack of ichthyosaur and mosasaur GAs/FAs, for instance...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If either of you have any articles in mind, you can list them here and we can figure out what the challenges would be. We don't have a similar collaboration for non-dinosaurs, but one could of course be set up. Personally, for non-dinosaurs, I have been thinking of the ichthyosaur Acamptonectes lately, since it has a limited literature compared to other itchthyosaurs, and plenty of free images. Not many mosasaurs fit that bill, though. I have also been thinking of the gorgonopsian Viatkogorgon, which likewise has a limited literature and many free images, and we have no promoted gorgonopsians. Another contender could be Smok (archosaur). Most other members of these groups have insanely complicated taxonomic histories and literatures. FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s a single GA or FA icthyosaur article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think they seem quite inaccessible to most people. Add to that, most of them have very complicated taxonomic histories. But if we could find the right one, it could be done... After looking around, I found Acamptonectes to be the easiest one. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see so much interest! Looking forward to our collaborations.

@IJReid: Sure, I have some additional sources, will collect them soon. I could integrate the ones that are in German language directly. The article could also need more on the locality itself: Europasaurus comes from a single layer within a huge pile of rocks spanning several million years, all exposed in that single locality. Saying "displays the variety of plant and animal life from an island ecosystem" is therefore somewhat misleading; most of the stuff is marine, the island ecosystem is restricted to the Europasaurus layer. I will see what sources I have.

@Slate Weasel: Sure, I would be in for a non-dinosaur for sure! What do you think about FunkMonks suggestions, or did you have something different in mind already? We can't do that for the "Dinosaur collaboration" as that one is on dinosaurs, but instead we could ask at the WikiProject Paleontology if more people are interested in joining. We could have a request page in the future, but for the time being lets stay here I would say, as this is the page that people have on their watchlist.

@Audrey.m.horn: Great! As FunkMonk said, let us know if you already have an article in mind you would like to work on. I am personally open for everything, though some topics are much more complicated than others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Other possible ideas could be Malawania (ichthyosaur), Cryonectes (plesiosaur), Alanqa (pterosaur), Polonosuchus ("rauisuchian"), Cryptovenator (synapsid), and Megalolamna (shark). Additionally, Helicoprion could possibly be an idea for a whole project collaboration. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a few of those have few or no free images, so either we'd have to create them all ourselves, or have rather empty articles... That's at least one of the main things I usually take into consideration when choosing an article to work on. But animals published in one of the CC licenced journals always have a lot of good, free media, and I've also considered Polonosuchus before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apart from images, it is always cool to have material for a paleobiology section, or any interesting history facts, something that could make a good "Did you know"! But yeah, all of these article would work in principle, of course, and we would find interesting points during writing anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you guys be more interested in a collaboration in which we try to split the work equally? In this case, all participants would need agree on the topic, but it could be one that is easy to work with, and quick to get to GA level (in contrast to our regular collaboration, which is a very important but complicated article, and usually takes us ages to complete). Or would you rather choose articles by yourself and do the bulk of writing, and we just support you with everything needed? In this case, we could, e.g., discuss the article beforehand, look for additional sources, provide guidance during the writing process and make smaller edits, and do finishing touches in the end to make sure it is ready for GAN or "Did you know?". We also could do both. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather split it equally, just because I don't feel experienced enough yet to write a whole article mostly by myself. I am open to any topic though, dinosaur or not! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

For more article ideas, how about Pannoniasaurus for a mosasaur? Also, Argyrosauridae may be a good choice if we want to aim for a GT. Other non-dinosaur articles could include Vivaron, Eoplesiosaurus, and Broomistega. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Anything goes, for me, as long as it was published more than, say, five years ago, and has free images, it is more than adequate for GA/FA. But we even have FAs for taxa that were nominated the same year it was described. There are also some pretty famous animals like Dromaeosaurus and Lythronax which probably wouldn't be too hard to expand. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

To sum up, it seems we want a new collaboration with equal contributions. The new collaboration aims to bring paleo articles to GA level that are relatively quick and easy to write, yet interesting and important, with free image material available, and not about taxa that have been named too recently. Hopefully this collaboration will produce articles at a much faster rate than is possible with our regular collaboration. The collaboration would be fun for experienced editors, but also would have a strong focus on encouraging less experienced editors to get involved in article writing. Does everybody agree? The next important questions would be:

• Should it be official collaboration listed at Wikipedia:Collaborations? I think this would be the best way, as it maximizes visibility, with the potential to attract new editors from outside of our WikiProject. If so, I could do that the next days, unless anybody else would like to go ahead with this!
• Does everybody agree with Slate Weasel's suggestion that we should write on paleontology in general rather than just on dinosaurs? If so, I would ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology before we move on.
• Should we just name it "Palaeontology collaboration", or better something that also hints at our focus on new editors/uncomplicated articles (to further encourage people to join in)? Any ideas? Has to be very short though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Would probably be fine to place it under a new, general palaeontology collaboration, we can always state under individual entries that this time we are doing it in a sand-box-like way with no set time frame, or if we are being very serious, and so on. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Keeping it flexible sounds reasonable; we could also spontaneously choose an relatively easy article for the Dino collaboration, and, lets day, do Torvosaurus next. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• I now also created a new ToDo-list containing smaller jobs that need to be done for our big collaboration on Confuciusornis, see Talk:Confuciusornis#ToDo 2. I hope that this will make it much easier to get started! If you haven't already, please feel free to join in! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack I would certainly appreciate help with the addition of info from the german sources, since I'm not at all a speaker. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I will add the stuff as soon as time allows! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Added what I could now to Europasaurus, please see how it looks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thinking about it, it would be good to have agreement on whether we really want to collaborate on such articles like Acamptonectes that are easy but quite unimportant. As an alternative, would it work to keep focusing on important articles (lets say, Ophthalmosaurus) while maintaining todo-lists with "quick and easy" tasks that come with direct hints about what to do that are especially suitable for new editors and those with little time? There are usually plenty of these "minor tasks", and they take loads of time when they add up. I tried to do something like this for Confuciusornis (Talk:Confuciusornis#ToDo 2). I mean, smaller (yet important) contributions to a larger collaboration on an article of high importance can also be motivating? I really don't know, what would you guys enjoy more? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I like this a lot... I think the hardest thing about getting started for new editors is figuring out where to start in the first place (at least, it is for me!) so having more direction about how to help sounds really cool! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

On Acamptonectes and such, I think it would be the easiest starting point for beginners, and that even if it is a genus of little importance, it would still serve as a guide to how other ichthyosayr articles could be written. Similarly, I chose to expand Xixiasaurus over more famous troodonts, since it would be easier, but can still serve as an example if the more famous genera are to get the treatment. So it could be good for the more experimental collaborations, that serve to give inexperienced writers the hang of it, while the more important genera could be for the long-term, focused collaborations? FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I will ask at the WikiProject Palaeontology later if there is interest in establishing a regular collaboration in addition to the dinosaur one (if not, we may also think about just doing a trial collaboration on Acamptonectes first to see how it goes). @Audrey.m.horn: Good to hear that! If you would like to join the Confuciusornis collaboration, please just choose one of the todos, and don't hesistate to ask if you need any help. If you would rather work on something smaller, we should have the palaeo collaboration (in some form) up running soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I just asked at the Palaeontology project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Palaeontology_collaboration?. Hopefully this will sparkle some more interest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Good news: Our new collaboration is now up and running, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Palaeontology collaboration. First, we select the article we want to collaborate on. Please nominate your favourite, and leave your vote! Election will close on June 15. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, the voting phase just closed, and we are ready to start working on our first collaboration: Acamptonectes! Please see Talk:Acamptonectes for the discussion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing to consider is that we have many dinosaur GAs which wouldn't need as much work to get to FA level compared to other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential new editors

Related to my work at Wiki Education, I noticed there is a Dinosaur Science course ongoing where college students (who presumably have an interest in dinosaurs) are learning how to edit Wikipedia so as to improve an article about a dinosaur. Many students never even learn that WikiProjects exist--perhaps someone would be interested in leaving a message on their talk pages about joining here. Just a thought. Enwebb (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a yearly event... they're infamous around here for writing very poorly written and often flatly incorrect content. I can't imagine they have particular interest or skill in encyclopaedic writing beyond finishing their project. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It is inevitable that they will edit, so we might just try to get the best out of it if we can, by somehow making some instructions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is defenitely worth a try, and there could be a chance that some of them may join in. They may not be perfect writers but I wasn't either when I started 14 years ago. We should be tolerant and offer help as much as possible. Perhaps inviting them specifically to join one of the collaborations would motivate and help them most, and makes guiding them easier for us. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As our new Palaeontology collaboration is running now, I just invited the three of them to join in! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Colossosauria

I discovered this paper [7] a few days ago with Google Scholar, but oddly enough I cannot find the original, the doi's not valid, and a search on the Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences's website recovers nothing. Does anyone know why this is? I thought that it would be best to ask why that is before adding this new taxonomic information to lognkosaur and rinconsaur articles. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, good catch, what an awesome sauropod hind limb with pes! And it is even under a free licence if I am not mistaken, so we should definitely upload those pics (they don't get any better). Regarding the DOI: I think the reason is that the issue of the journal is not yet published (the paper was uploaded to "Research Gate", but has not yet been officially published by the journal it seems). It would have a DOI reserved, but that DOI will only get activated when published. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Satapliasaurus and Satapliasauropus

Fortunately article alerts now show proposed merges and splits on the project page, so a bunch of those that I hadn't noticed before have popped up into the open. One weird case is Satapliasauropus to have Satapliasaurus split from it, which seems to have been done already. But are theese valid taxa? I can find some obscure references to them on the web, but the articles were heavily worked on by a now banned sockpuppeteer who was known for creating fake articles. If valid, the articles should have proper sources, otherwise we need to figure out what to do with them... FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Satapliasaurus is in the Glut 2003 source, but "Satapliasauropus" is not. The latter name thus is completely without source (and I can't find one either). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe a deletion request is warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Improving Kamuysaurus

The Japanese hadrosaurid formerly referred to as 'Mukawaryu' has finally been given a name, however the article is incredibly barebones and doesn't even have a taxobox. Can we get a collaborative effort going to improve it, the paper is here and open access.

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We had a restoration of it for a while[8], but it seems to be inaccurate now, as it shows an arched, Gryposaur-like snout. Perhaps we could modify it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur tooth article scope

I just noticed we have a dinosaur tooth article, but it seems to be very confused as to what its scope is. The intro only covers tooth histology, but then further down the article does go into other aspects of dinosaur teeth. The article seems to have been written by students, which might explain its issues, and it does need some cleanup. I think it is best to keep dinosaur tooth as the main subject, and cover histology in the article, but now it seems to be the other way around somehow. Pinging Dinohk, who appears to have written most of it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  It was never meant to be a dinosaur tooth article. It was always meant to be just on dinosaur tooth histology but it was changed at some point by another person.Dinohk (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur mummy

Dinosaur mummy had long been a redirect to the article now at Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060. I changed it into a disambiguation page as there is also an article on Edmontosaurus mummy S.M. R4036. There has been some previous discussion at writing an article about mummified dinosaur specimens, which would be better than a dab page, but I'm not up for writing it. AMNH 5060 was recently moved from Trachodon mummy; I'm not sure if that should also be a dab page (as both specimens would've been Trachodon at the time of discovery), or whether "Trachodon mummy" is a well know nickname specifically for AMNH 5060. 18:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Creating an article for Jack McIntosh

Despite being a physics professor at Wesleyan University, Jack McIntosh (1923-2015) was the foremost expert on sauropod dinosaurs for most of the 20th century, and helped write the chapter on Sauropods for The Dinosauria, as such I think he is very much in need of an article. Here are some sources Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Dracorex, Stygimoloch and Qianzhousaurus

In PBDB written that Dracorex hogwartsia and Stygimoloch spinifer is synonyms of the Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis and Qianzhousaurus sinensis is species of Alioramus (Alioramus sinensis). What will we do? — Maksim Dolgun (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed for example here:[9] I guess what we need is more sources that agree on the synonymy suggestions. And by the way, I now see we have archives up to at least 30, but the talk page here only shows 27, anyone knows what's up? I think IJReid looked into this once? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The archive index must be updated manually, as far as I am aware. Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really remember what happened last time but the automatic misnaming over the years may have put it beyond being feasible to fix. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the template for archive history on this page is looking for pages entitled like "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive number" but for archives 28 and above they're archived as "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ number" such that instead of having Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 28 we have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 28. So, proposed fix:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 28 → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 28

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 29 → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 29

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 30 → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 30

I make no promises but I'm pretty sure that a mass move will solve the problem. This problem only happens when User:ClueBot III archives the page, as archives 1–27 were archived by users whereas this bot archived the problematic 28–30   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and try it out with one of them, we have nothing to lose anyway it seems when it works this bad... FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the problem's been fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by Sawol, thanks, not sure what was done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Deinonychosauria

Deinonychosauria just reappeared out of redirection after six years of absence, and statements on the talk page as to the validity of this move are a lil' fuzzy. I'm marking reviewed for now but could a few people check whether this is a) unjustified based on current literature, or b) now contains lots of out-of-date material? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's sparked by the verymuch valid Hesperornithoides paper which should probably spur a large update to maniraptoran phylogeny on Wikipedia in general, which will obviously likely be a slow shift. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

New Carcharodontosaurid dinosaur Siamraptor described from the Khok Kruat Formation of Thailand

Paper link here, Plos One so should have no problem porting over images to commons.Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup of Hanson Formation

Yewtharaptor has struck again, while their edits are often well meaning, It's clear that the users native language is not english, (it's probably spanish or italian) and despite having been on wikipedia for 7 years, often their edits to articles are full of spelling errors, poorly phrased sentences and gramatical oddities, poorly formatted references and often with blatant plagiarism of text from research papers (although not in this case). Their talk page is quite something I've done my best fixing up the spelling errors, but I think I need help rephrasing sentences within the article. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Titanosauriform sauropod Fushanosaurus apparently described from the Late Jurassic Shishugou Formation, no reference to it at all online

A complete left femur apparently from a titanosauriform sauropod has been published in the chinese language journal Global Geology(paper is free access, the abstract is in english). This isn't that suprising, as the paper for Xinjiangtitan is also in Chinese. However it seems to have completely escaped mention, as there it literally no mention of it online at all in a google search, all links either go to the paper or various wikipedia articles. Given the lack of coverage, should an article be created? Paging User:FunkMonk Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I see it's on the dinosaur mailing list also. Well, I guess the lack of mentions is mainly due to the language, but that doesn't make it less valid. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, it seems Xinjiangtitan didn't get a press release either, and it also seems to lack news sources. Most dinosaur fossils seem to get a press release and have an embargo beforehand, it's pretty unusual to see it done so low key. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've found that generally Chinese taxa don't get much press. The same is arguably true of Xunmenglong, another Chinese dinosaur from this week. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Lingwulong got a pretty big press release, though that was probably because that taxon was far more significant in terms of biogeographic implications Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It also had involvement from Mannion, Upchurch, and Barrett - if there are multiple coauthors from other countries then press releases are more likely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Blurbs

Okay, we need to talk. I'm working on TFA blurbs for Featured Articles promoted in September 2018; see WT:Featured article candidates/Cetiosauriscus/archive1 for my proposed Cetiosauriscus blurb. Generally, writing blurbs isn't an aggravation ... there's usually some kind of middle ground that people can agree on, more or less, and most of the writers don't have strong feelings about what the blurb should say. Extinct species are starting to give me a headache ... it's becoming harder to get consensus, and innocents can get caught in the crossfire. So, please have a look at the proposed blurb, and feel free to agree or disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Gargantuavis found on Hateg Island, and comments on the phylogenetics of Balaur and Elopteryx

Paper is here. The mystery deepens, does someone want to help me update the articles to reflect the new information Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ornithischia Navbox

User Chermundy just combined all of the various ornithischian navboxes into a single enormous navbox for all of Ornithischia, without any prior discussion. Personally I feel this was misguided, the individual components were already plenty large on their own, and the Ornithopoda navbox was designed with several subsections in mind. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You should probably add something to their talkpage Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I decided to post here to see what other people's thoughts on the issue are. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The same thing was done to Sauropoda a while back and no one raised any flags. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

He did the same to Theropoda. I think all three should be re-separated into their individual components. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

All the boxes are collapsible so it seems fine to me, there's no real mess   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with most of Chermundy's changes, as long as they're consistent and scientifically sound. Nevertheless, they do need to be notified that these changes should be reviewed, since they affect many pages and are therefore difficult to undo in a timely manner if need be. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

All of the Ornithischia navboxes are currently redirecting to the Thyreophora Navbox, can someone fix this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Tknifton made the move. I don't understand why. It seems like the revision history for the Ornithischia navbox is also gone so there is no way to restore it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The various parts of the Ornithiscia template are found within the history of the Thyreophora template, as seen here, so it should be fairly easy to reasssemble Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes:, I performed the move to undo Chermundy's page move (he moved Template:Thyreophora to Template:Ornithischia). I thought it would be best to revert all of his edits and the page move while there was discussion. Tknifton (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

PhyloCode

It looks like Phylonyms, and by extension the Phylocode, will be published/come into effect in February. Have we ever discussed adopting this code as an "official" (within the Wikiproject) guide for applying clade names? On the one hand I can see an argument for waiting to find out if it gains widespread adoption. On the other, it would be nice to have an objective standard to point to. Hard to say how disruptive it will be to the existing system until we can read the companion volume. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The list of the 300 clades seems pretty sparse, taxonomy has moved on significantly in the last decade due to the use of computers in phylogenetics and many new well supported clades have been named since that haven't made the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you looking at the table of contents? The full list of clades has not been published yet. Each chapter (e.g., Theropoda) will include no new clades, but definitions for existing clades. The goal is to eliminate competing and contradictory clade definitions. I'm not proposing that we use ONLY the clades listed in PhyloCode either - just that we adopt the clade definitions for any clades that are included. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it will really depend how different they are from current conventions. Because, for example, if Titanosauria is officially defined as Saltasaurus (or Titanosaurus since type genus)>Euhelopus, that really differs from the current definitions even though it is potentially a more stable clade, so I would have a bit of a problem following it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

New basal tetanuran Asfaltovenator

Paper is here many implications for basal tetanuran evolution and many images to be added to commons, easily the most exciting taxon described this year Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It also has a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, which means we can use the images. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Cau has mentioned that this lines up with his results in recent years of a megalosauroid + allosauroid clade. I'm not sure if that result was featured in any of his published analyses or only on his blog - if the former, it should also be included. Note that grouping Megalosauroidea within Carnosauria will result in some fairly extensive changes to tetanuran nomenclature. I haven't gone through all the implications, but, for example, Orionides = Avetheropoda. Other potential changes depend on which definition is being used. For example, Carranno 2012 and Benson 2010 defined Megalosauroidea as everything closer to Megalosaurus than to Allosaurus. That would make it a synonym of Megalosauridae now, and spinosaurids are no longer megalosauroids. Hendrickx, Hartman & Mateus (2015) defined Megalosauroidea as closer to Megalosaurus than to birds, making it a synonym of Carnosauria (and, if you're going by history of name vs. history of definition, it's a SENIOR synonym of Carnosauria, making Allosauroidea a subgroup of megalosauroids). We may want to wait and see what definitions the Phylocode uses before moving on this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that basal tetanurae should be treated as a polytomy at this point, but there's no point changing the wiki taxonomy until there's some stability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's clear. Asfaltovenator shares apomoprphies with megalosauroids and allosauroids, not with basal coelurosaurs. There are also several tetanurans that are fairly clearly outside Avetheropoda. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Usually when the term 'Basal tetanuran' is used, the implied meaning is usually a paraphyletic assembelage of all tetanurans that are not coleurosaurs. I think you're right, I was probably too broad describing the whole of tetanurae as a polytomy, I still think Orionides is currently a polytomy. The main issue is that a lot of the phylogenetically important chinese basal tetanurans were described in the 80's before the introduction of phylogenetics, like Chuandongocoelurus and Gasosaurus and have not received adequate modern descriptions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We might have to end up treating this as the current Ornithoscelida situation was treated, leaving everything as it is currently until we have more information, but modifying it slightly so Megalosauroidea and Carnosauria are in a polytomy with Coelurosaurs. I really dislike the use of the Carrano matrix to determine relationships with respect to Coelurosaurs (the key group here deciding what clade is where) and even Ceratosaurs, especially since they have very low sampling and characters included. I would really like to wait for Cau or Mortimer to publish their results so we can compare to these (both Cau and Mortimer would have much stronger and better arguments about where clades go just because their analyses are more comprehensive). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So, how about we just show both results in the "Relationships" section of Avetheropoda and possibly also Carnosauria, giving priority to the cladograms based on a more comprehensive dataset. We can eliminate the page for Orionides (merging it with Avetheropoda?) and discuss it in the phylogeny section of the parent clade. E.g., have a page for Avetheropoda, Megalosauroidea, and Carnosauria, but not Orionides, which would be discussed as a potential hypothesis on the Avetheropoda page. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking how odd it was that not even Berberosaurus was included in the matrix, the taxon sampling is pretty sparse and definitely not definitive, I'd definitely wait until what Cau has to say Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Cau's expanded Carnosauria has been presented in at least one published paper, Cau (2018). Albertonykus (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Albertonykus:, I know that this isn't relevant to the topic but I enjoyed your presentation in person on Caprimulgiformes internal phylogeny at ProgPal this year, keep up the good work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for being there! Albertonykus (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New tyrannosaur Jinbeisaurus described from the Late Cretaceous of China

Paper is here, Only dental and maxillary material unfortunately, but interesting nonetheless Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Also some interesting phylogenetic stuff, Eotyrannus, Juratyrant and Stokesosaurus are considered to form a new clade, the Stokesosauridae within Tyrannosauroidea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect of GA

Hey, I recently did some work on cross-referencing articles that are GAs and that they are in the correct groups. The article for Othnielosaurus was redirected, but the GA tags were not removed. It doesn't seem like the redirect is a completely uncontroversial, so it would be suitable to have consensus to change. I reverted the change, but it was undone with [https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/931984278 this change.] I'm not sure an implied consensus due to no one reverting (before myself) is suitable, so does anyone have any input on the change? If it's to be kept then the tags for GA on the talk page need to be removed.

I don't particularly care either way.

Courtesy ping Lusotitan Cheers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The revert was perhaps a bit rash on my part, but given the articles share so much text it seems silly to have both lying around until a consensus is reached. Anyways, my argument for the merge was that, although the synonymization is rather new, some papers have already indicated acceptance through both their text and the coding of their phylogenetic analyses, and most of the existing literature on all taxa involve was written by Galton anyways, who is the one herein arguing they are all the same. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Dental battery?

In case I sound totally insensible, this is what I am describing... it is across the width... isn't it?

Here it seems as though the bottom set of teeth spans the width while the top goes either side of it?

Hello, I just started the article Dental battery the other day. It is based mostly on two lengthy and heavily scientific articles on the most detailed study of hadrosaurid teeth to date. These articles seem to describe rows of teeth which form a sort of curved plateau across the inside of the mouth where you and I normally put our tongue, supported by a unique system of ligature. Now I find File:Nigersaurus taqueti skull.jpg. This is another form of dental battery. Here the teeth are growing up from the back of the mandibles and migrating to the front. This is a very different to the hadrosaurid in any case, but am I mistaken in thinking the battery in the hadrosaurid is a kind of sheet across the mouth? Is it in fact a formation on the inside, or either side of the jaw, similar to our own formation except more densely packed, such as the Nigersaurus only on the sides of the mouth rather than the front? ~ R.T.G 05:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The term "dental battery" has nothing to do with the placement of the teeth in the jaw; it's how the teeth are organized:

Their dentition was arranged in dental batteries, with up to 60 closely spaced vertical columns of diamond shaped teeth per jaw. Each column of teeth – a tooth family, sensu Edmund – was interlocked with the neighboring tooth families and contained three to six successional teeth. — [10]

You can see the same in subfigure C of the Nigersaurus image: notice the rows of teeth stacked on top of each other, which is only visible when seen from behind/below. Think of it like shark teeth.

Also, I would argue that dental batteries in other groups have also received a decent amount of attention. CT scanning of Nigersaurus' battery is done by [11], and likewise is done for the ceratopsian Liaoceratops by [12]. The article should probably give a fair amount of coverage to these papers and other relevant literature cited therein. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah okay some of those pictures are a bit more clear. In the reference towards the hadrosaurid study in 2017 there was a lot of talk about special ligatures on which the teeth were suspended, but sure, I understand what shark teeth are like to an extent so can picture it properly now and will try to correct the article this evening and tomorrow. Sorry about that o/ ~ R.T.G 12:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

dental battery already exists in the Dinogloss article (dinosaur glossary of anatomy terms etc). If it needs an expansion go ahead but I'd rather we don't split the information between pages. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Could also be covered under dinosaur tooth. Better to keep very related info on the same pages, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we open a merge discussion? We should come to a decision soon because it's been nominated for DYK. @RTG: any particular reason you decided to create the article rather than leaving it as a redirect?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is going to be a lengthy article. I apologise for not fixing it immediately as I have only phone until Wednesday, however, this much of the article is a short note on one of three variations. Just try reading the two main sources and I'm sure you'll agree it is just a stub of an article. This category of dentition was one a dominant feature on the planet and it is unique down to the minute level. Beside that, tooth in the singular is a poor heading for this. If anything, given that carnage gore teeth are relatively unremarkable in dinosaur teeth are relatively unremarkable in carnivores, the battery ought have always been dominant to content on dino teeth. Fleshed out, this topic will double in size to explain the hadrosauridae and perhaps triple thereafter to cover all three types. Sorry, Wednesday the earliest. Can barely type on the phone let alone research. ~ R.T.G 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the main concern here (which I do agree with) is that this article — regardless of length or quality — is going to be a content fork of existing material (although the discussion at dinosaur tooth is rather poor, in my opinion; certainly worse than the current article). I'm just not sure there's a very strong reason a priori (that is, discounting the current state of the article) for the article to exist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It also seems really wordy. I can condense the article into one paragraph:

"The herbivorous hadrosaurs, neoceratopsians, and rebbachisaurids had a dental battery, a formation of tightly-meshed teeth connected by soft tissue, with vascular cementum and dentine, and a texture comparable to medieval scale armour or shark skin denticles. It consisted of several rows of teeth (tooth families), each comprising 4–6 teeth, adding up to about 300 total in the mouth. The teeth would get rapidly replaced as they wore down. The lower jaw probably had a backward and slightly circular motion while chewing (palinal chewing), and this method of processing plants is thought to have contributed to the hadrosaurs' herbivorous domination of the time."

I think one paragraph per order would make for a good Dental battery section on dinosaur tooth. Also note, above is just the parts of the article I understand, I don't know what "hadrosaur teeth appeared to be like a pineapple of individual berries fused together" is supposed to mean   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not find it notable? It was a dominant feature. If you didn't have one you ate one. ~ R.T.G 23:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. That feels like "we should have an article about lamb shanks because we have an article about sheep". There's a part-whole relationship here - a specific but notable aspect of dinosaur anatomy still shouldn't be addressed apart from dinosaur anatomy. For this reason I'm also not convinced dinosaur tooth should exist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, dinosaur tooth really talks about nothing 90% of the time, but uses a lot of big and complicated words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If dinosaur tooth (teeth would be better) is kept, which I think it warrants, it should cover all aspects of the subject in one article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the longer an article is, the more likely it is to be concise and manageable or... ? Because..? Let me point something out. Red links and redirects are not the way the encyclopaedia gets expanded. Awareness is that. The study was done on the hadrosaurids two years ago. Here on Wikipedia, even the dinosaur teeth article is relatively new. The redirect for dental battery got 23 hits in over a year previous. Now it's been getting a steady 10-25 a day. It's like, the main topic of all dinosaur teeth. Why don't you just try to enhance it, or leave it alone and hope that it grows and continues to have a knock-on effect to the related articles? There isn't going to be any negative consequences from having this encyclopaediac content, I promise you. ~ R.T.G 18:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because we can doesn't mean we should (per WP:FORK). How is it better to split Dental battery off into its own separate article rather than discussing it at the dinosaur glossary like every other dino-specific term?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've formally listed this as a merge discussion now, since the consensus among most of us seems to be that this article, while the content is good, is an unnecessary WP:FORK that could be better presented either at Glossary of dinosaur anatomy#dental battery or Dinosaur tooth. I think the former would be best to hold a condensed summary of the current information, but I think everyone should try and come to the largest consensus first, especially since RTG put in effort to make a presentable page. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that while the article is good, its easily condensed down. It would be best dealt with at the Glossary and if things get unwieldy, a fork should then be worked on at Dinosaur tooth. --Kevmin § 08:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Also as a note, RTG has decided that this is not the right venue for this discussion I guess, see Jimbos talk page re:Dental battery.--Kevmin § 08:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, you are putting up a wall to this important information. My intent here is to disseminate. Once a wall is several bricks deep, there is little point fighting against it. Posting this unheard of important information on Jimbos talk page before you relegate it again, at least a small few will hear of it. I can't see what you are afraid of. ~ R.T.G 08:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to continue the discussion here, since it has been going on here and Jimbos talk page it archived so rapidly it is already gone. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would you say that?? What is going on with this project? You have overlooked this important information for years, and when it shows up you give it some sort of rough treatment. If you are on with the mission, what you would have done is help expand it and copy edit it. Covering it in clarification tags and insta-ganging up to try and classify it as a dictionary term instead..? If I felt like you were trying to hide the emergence of the dental battery as an item of knowledge, I'd be fairly perplexed, and yet here we are. ~ R.T.G 12:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the information should be deleted. But having three places all covering the same aspect of anatomy (dinosaur tooth, dental battery, dinosaur glossary: dental battery) is too many. It should only be covered on one article, and the purpose of this merge discussion is to determine where this article is moved, or what we move into this article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A merge to either the glossary or dinosaur tooth seems reasonable; might suggest the latter, with a link from the glossary entry (which has about the right extent at this point IMO). Look, this is a mere housekeeping issue - we don't want the same content triplicated across article space. The double status as subsection plus glossary entry is already more textual repetition than most topics get in this encyclopedia. If merged, then any reader searching for "dental battery" will end up where the goods are located, via the redirect. No one is trying to "bury" anything (and dramatizing things on Jimbotalk strikes me as both an over-reaction and counterproductive). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@IJReid:If you don't discuss the 3 purposes of those 3 places, what is the content of your opinion? A glossary is an index of technical terms. It is a mini-dictionary. All you are doing is making a sign that says, "If you are trying to start a new article on dinosaurs, don't ask the dinosaur project for advice because the hidden information you find won't even make it through DYK ". There is no actual reason given. ~ R.T.G 03:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Glossary of Dinosaur Anatomy is meant to be a place where we describe the anatomical features present instead of having to bracket off every time we use spinoprezygapophyseal lamina. The dental battery there describes the dental battery in a way that allows readers to jump from a hadrosaur article to an explanation of the term back to the article. The article of dinosaur tooth is exactly that, it describes the anatomy and functionality of dinosaur teeth. Did You Know has nothing to do with this discussion, there is an unnecessary duplication of information that should be compressed to either a single location or two with slightly different content. Now that it has been brought up I think putting this information into dinosaur tooth and then adding a link in the glossary to more information is the best way to go about this. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a duplication. This info has not been written into the site for two years. ~ R.T.G 05:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This info was not written into the site. The whole subject of dinosaur teeth is a joke in its coverage on the site for years, and the response is like it was always written, and I have disturbed it. In fact I've rewritten the whole topic. All I've gotten from this project is a series of all vs one spanners in works, thanks very much.

You've got control of a whole region of the site here. All you need to do is nip really important stuff that most people don't pay attention to, like dental batteries, and you'll have a chance at gnawing every stilt the site has over other sites like Britannica. Literally at odds with what makes this site a thing. ~ R.T.G 05:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, nobody is debating that you've done some good writing (at least I'm not). It's just that there is literally no need for a separate article when your writing can go in a much more relevant place. Indeed, a user does not need to navigate away from the glossary to view the definitions of any other anatomical terms when they look at an entry for "dental battery". And redirects aren't evil. They're supposed to guide the user to relevant content. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The user does not need to navigate away from the glossary to understand what a tyrannosaurus is in the same key, yet the article we have is over 143,000 bytes long, more than twice as long as the parent article tyrannosauroidea 65,000 bytes long. ~ R.T.G 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes but that is a comparison of two different things. This is comparing a feature of dinosaur teeth to the article on dinosaur teeth. The parent article is not in any way long enough for us to split this information off, if we assume thats where the article should be merged to. The consensus right now, which is what matters, appears to be that the articles should be merged. It also appears that the information should be merged to dinosaur tooth, but that consensus is less strong. If this is taken to a straight vote, the article will be merged. But I'd rather not do that because then we would be overriding your opinion by the numbers, and I would prefer if you had input on the method through which we merge it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with merge, also @RTG: your writing style is incredibly sloppy and unencyclopedic and your behavior is completely out of order as showing by your edit warring in mathematics. Nobody is trying to hide knowledge, it is you who is unknowledgeable and ignorant Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I support the motion to merge this into the dinosaur glossary article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So do I. That makes four. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge to the glossary. I don't know if I was included in the 4 or not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You're the fifth. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's best to merge it into dinosaur tooth, the glossary entries are kept quite short, and we wouldn't want to lose information. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk, merge should be to dinosaur tooth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Dental battery should go the glossary just so that when we link it in an article, it's easier for the reader to get a quicker summary, and go back; and in the glossary, we put {{Main|Dinosaur tooth#Dental battery}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what the specific glossary links are for, such as dental battery. Regular redirects don't lead to there anyway as far as I understand. Also, it's probably best such links go to the fullest account (which we don't have dinocentric articles for in most other cases). FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that there are two different merge destinations being discussed here. I support merging to dinosaur tooth, given that RTG already has introduced a content fork there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I also tend to prefer a merge with dinosaur tooth (perhaps better "dinosaur dentition"?), as the glossary focuses on definitions while keeping general context at a minimum. But I generally would be fine with both. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article is fine as it is and can exist apart from the glossary. --evrik ^(talk) 19:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

But can it exist apart from dinosaur teeth, which is the logical place to find the information? Both articles are fairly short, so there is no size issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I also think this information should be put into the dinosaur tooth article, with a {{main}} from the glossary page to the tooth article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached consensus, so I've redirected Dental battery into Dinosaur tooth#Dental batteries. There didn't seem to be any new information worth adding to Dinosaur tooth, so Dental battery was just blanked and redirected.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)