Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 15

Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight

I recently came across the Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight article, and just wanted to let everyone know that, even if the article has enough value to be kept, it needs a drastic overhaul. Currently it is a list of the present animals in text only, though tables would fit a lot better. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wessex Formation already contains all the information of that article, I think a redirect is in order. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with a redirect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think its the best option TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if they entirely overlap in scope, add a merge tag. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It has been proposed now TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't entirely overlap in scope. Vectaerovenator is known from the Ferruginous Sands, and Mantellisaurus is known from the Vectis Formation. That said, I am not sure what the article really adds to the encyclopaedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Common Name" of Jaggermeryx?

Currently, page of Jaggermeryx have "Jagger's water nymph" in infobox as common name. But isn't that just etymology of scientific name, not the common name? If that is accepted, then many fossil taxa that is introduced widely by media will have "common name"... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd wager something counting as a common name depends on how much the name is used as such? Boar croc arguably counts as a common name for Kaprosuchus, even if its also a literal translation, given how much it was pushed by early releases relating to the publication. That being said, idk what the consensus is but I don't think common names should be in the infobox at all unless its a relatively recent animal and/or has an exceptionally well known common name (Steller's Sea Cow, Wooly Mammoth or any other number of species driven to extinction by humans) Armin Reindl (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If the "faux-nacular" is less prevalently used in reliable sources, or only found as a "Jagger's water nymph" style translation, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. If its something only found on wii, it needs to be deleted as OR.--Kevmin § 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dave the shark

Hello, the Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre has revealed that they have put up a new genus of filter feeding shark from late Cretaceous sediments of Manitoba. I have added it to 2022 in paleoichthyology, page however the only source i could find was the centre's facebook page. I am hesitant to add this source so can I get some thoughts on this please. This is Fossiladder13 asking BTW.... Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this should be there. Not formally published and no name either (non-notable common name). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

ok Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Issues of Placodont articles

Some placodontia articles have problems with the references. Both Placodus and Paraplacodus are only relying on just information in a book, especially one that is used as reference of Placodus looks really outdated. And in Cyamodus, many citations from the paper by C.G. Diedrich are used. His work has been heavily criticized in Scheyer, T. M. et al. (2012),[1] and recent papers about plcodonts, his papers are rarely used as reference and always Scheyer, T. M. et al. (2012) is referred.[2][3][4][5][6] The main problem with his research is that he consider placodonts to be algae eaters like sea cows. It may be necessary to state that his research is negative, as his research hits the top when searching for genus of placodont. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I can attempt to find some better material for Placodus, given that I'm very familiar with the sourced book and it's by no means an adequate source (a pop-science childrens encyclopedia by all accounts, not too different from the modern DK book)Armin Reindl (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Now I added the information to Cyamodus that study of Deidrich is not accepted widely. Still, due to massive edit by Ashoe13 (contributions) it is hard to re-build the article without referring his works. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Gehlingia (fossil)

Hi, Draft:Gehlingia (fossil) is sitting in draft and although I believe it notable it could really do with extra sources. Can anyone find any additional sources, and do people think this would survive AfD and thus just be accepted? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a McMenamin taxon. He is considered a crank generally but may be more reliable for Ediacaran/Cambrian taxa. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Lythronaxargestes - if he is not a respected/trusted source and more of a crank it does not sound like this should be accepted as stands. KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  KylieTastic - that's not what I meant, sorry. This article is within the area where McMenamin is likely more credible. I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to assess if this article meets the higher bar that is necessary for McMenamin research. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  The taxon is almost unmentioned in non McMenamin written literature, (having only been referenced twice). It's really borderline. I agree with LA about the marginal nature of McMenamin's work, it appears there is a lot of self-citation, and not a lot of citation by actual Ediacaran researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Mark McMenamin is my professor at Mount Holyoke College. He's an amazing professor and is really dedicated to his work! Definitely not a crank. JulietGrace02 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Err, you're creating articles for species named by your professor? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

On a related note that I might as well bring up here, another McMenamin taxon that recently got a page is Shenzianyuloma. It was published in an online-only journal without a Zoobank registration, and so is not an available name. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Surangular

I've been intermittently dabbling in trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of non-human osteology. One thing I noticed is that the page on the surangular bone is currently titled Suprangular, a much less common spelling. I brought this up two weeks ago, but nobody's commented since. Would anyone here mind weighing in on the move discussion so that it isn't stuck in relisting purgatory? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Suprangular = 145 results on Google Scholar. Surangular = 5,610 results on Google Scholar. Pretty open and shut IMO. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree, but I shouldn't move the page myself because I posted the move proposal. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I can carry it our for you if it's still needed TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a move request, it might help more to comment there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Category year practice

I have been informed that "Fossil taxa described in XXXX" categories are by practice replaced if a species is reassigned between genera. If this is the case, could this be described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Categories? It's not immediately intuitive, and it would be helpful to point to as unexplained changes to a year is a common form of vandalism. Best, CMD (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is the case, it's out of line with other taxa. Thus "Plants described in YEAR" categories use the year of original description, so transfers of genus make no difference. I have always used this approach for fossil plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article in question is Murrayglossus, which is a genus (not a species), and this genus was described in 2022. If we need such categories in the first place is another question. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that the usual practice with taxonomic authorities? e.g. if a hypothetical Genii speciousus Mugatroyd 1898 is reassigned to Djinii then the authority remains unchanged, e.g. Djinii speciousus Murgratroyd 1898. Not a paleontologist; as much a question as a comment. Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The genus/species article distinction seems quite an obtuse technicality with regards to these categories for monotypic genera, especially for the article in question, which was for many years until earlier this month a species article. CMD (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think using the generic date makes more sense. For, say, Psittacosaurus we do not include the relevant category for the naming year of every species in the genus, we just include the year the genus was named. The fact that in the case of, say, Regaliceratops there's only one species and it aligns with the date of the naming of the genus doesn't change the fact that it's the naming of the genus we're using as the basis here. The result would be the same in this case based on the genus or the species, but "we use the only species for monospecific taxa, but the genus for genera with multiple species" is inconsistent in terms of how we got to that result, whereas "we always use the genus" is consistent. It's the same reason we don't call the article Regaliceratops peterhewsi; it wouldn't be any less correct for the article subject, but it makes more sense to be consistent and use the genus name in all cases unless there's a disambiguation conflict. Thus the same logic would be carried over to an article like Murrayglossus and 2022 would be the chosen year. "The category for articles whose subjects are genera should be the year of the genus' coining" is a universally applicable rule and I don't see any particular advantage to using the species specifically for these cases to justify the inconsistency. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This presumes the subject of the article based purely on the article title, which is the opposite direction of presumption per policy, with titles instead meant to reflect rather than define subjects. Since the article in question was moved to Murrayglossus, it has had a mere half a sentence added. The article literally opens with "Murrayglossus hacketti, the giant echidna, is an extinct species"(emphasis added), and also has "Binomial name: †Murrayglossus hacketti (Glauert, 1914)". While I'm sure these items could be changed/removed, I don't see how such changes would help the reader. Still, if there is consensus that the logic is meant to cascade in such a way, I would ask again that this be documented somewhere. If there is no consensus, that would also be good to know. CMD (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem would be with using categories for both years in cases such as this. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The same thoughts may also apply to the "Taxa named by X" categories. CMD (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see with using categories for both years is consistency. To be consistent, we would need to include those categories also in genus articles that cover multiple species, such as the mentioned Psittacosaurus. That would quickly be overkill in terms of numbers of categories. Alternatively, having a category that includes species of monotypic genera, but not species of other genera, seems arbitrary to me; it just does not make sense, and monotypy is not a valid inclusion criterion in my opinion. I think that only the status quo may work. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The solution to multiple dates when the article is at the genus is to put the category for the species on the redirect. See, e.g., the extant species Heliocharis amazona. This appears to be the standard practice for monotypic extant genera with the article at the genus name, and is equally applicable to extinct genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. But that means that genera are included only when monotypic and when the only species was described in a different year. This doesn't seem consistent to me – we should either include all genera or no genera, but not only some genera because of such opaque reasons. It might be more consistent to add the categories only to the species redirect but not to the monotypic genus article? A different approach is needed for most paleo articles, which are usually kept at genus level only. Here, the categories would contain genera only (avoiding the mentioned problem with Psittacosaurus as example), if I understand correctly. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: note that we are discussing categories called "Fossil taxa described in ...", so they can be used for genera and species (and other ranks). Indeed, I see that Category:Fossil taxa described in 1923 does contain a redirected species. On the other hand, the category of my example Heliocharis amazona, Category:Insects described in 1853, is only for species (although its name does not make this clear), since if you move up the category hierarchy you will reach Category:Species described in 1853. So for fossil taxa, I see no reason for inconsistency. The genus and any species redirects, however many, can all be placed in their appropriate "Fossil taxa described in ..." category. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so do I understand you correctly that all species redirects (synonyms as well?) should be categorised? This does not seem to be common practise in our WikiProjekt, and categorising them all would easily double the size of these categories; but yes, a few such species redirects do already exist. Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a great fan of the "described in year" categories; I'm not sure what use they are to readers. My personal view is that I'd only categorize in this way species redirects that are at the name used in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Discord Server

In November of last year, I decided to make a small discord server and invite a few other editors from this wikiproject there, to have a place to discuss our editing endeavours off-site. Mostly because the wikipedia message and talk page system can be quite tedious, and in some cases halts effective communication.

Over the past 4-5 months, the server has grown to now accomodate 26 members. Nearly all of these members are also WP:PALEO editors, with the excpetion of a few, mostly there for consulting purposes (Before any alarm bells start ringing, I’d like to point out that the server’s first rule is to keep “official” discussions on wikipedia itself and abide by its rules at all times).

In light of recent events, more specifically a running arbiration request regarding canvassing over at WP:TC’s Discord Server, it seemed evidently clear that in order to keep running this off-site communication we would need to start a management of full transparacy with the rest of the project on-site.

Hereby, I would like to share with everyone here at WP:PALEO an invite to said server, and an apology that it was not issued sooner. If anyone has further questions, I’d love to hear them. Invite link: https://discord.gg/FJUpqYvYv3

-TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Small note: Tim refers to "WP:TC" but this is meant to refer to WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, whose shortcuts are WP:WPTC or WP:TROP. The arbitrary request in question can be found here for the time being. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Status of Dinichthyloidea

Greetings, on August of the past year I conducted some research on the page Dinichthyloidea and its usage as a clade in modern literature which I recorded in Talk:Dinichthyloidea. Considering the comment on the latter article and the convoluted and attention requiring nature of arthrodiran pages, I would like to know what would be the most appropriate way to proceed. Sclerotized (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Avgodectes

I've just noticed the Avgodectes article after David Peters (paleoartist) was linked from it, though it was created all the way back in 2006. The genus was invalidly named by Dave Peters in 2004, in Prehistoric Times magazine after a pterosaur egg specimen published in a Nature paper the same year. In my opinion the article should be deleted, given that the name was never validly published or commented on in the academic literature, but I was wondering what others thoughts were. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting invalid taxon articles should be uncontroversial, unless the invalid taxon somehow got significant public notoriety (e.g. Piltdown man). --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, best course of action would be deletion. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Specificity of geological range in taxobox

Some recent changes by Biological Clock motivated this discussion. Typically, before our {{fossilrange}} templates in taxoboxes, we include some text specifying the geological timespan that the more specific range belongs to. There is no consistent convention across articles. Specifically, for Mesozoic taxa, some articles have epochs, some have ages, some have both, and so on. What, if anything, should the convention be? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think epochs would fit best, specific enough without being too serious in regards to the specific time mentioned after it. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I always try and reflect what is discussed in the text. If a very specific range or age is given, like Lythronax, that's what I display in the taxobox. If sources are limited to say, early Callovian like Kimmeridge taxa, then Callovian is the smallest division for which there is a citation. If its a taxon thats "early cretaceous" because of poorly constrained deposits like Taohelong or Wuerhosaurus, then thats what I have in the taxobox (unless there are sources with a more specific aptian-albian etc). Basically I try and reflect the text and have the fossilrange showing the smallest referenced interval of time, even if that makes it inconsistent between articles. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's my preferred approach too. That would mean having Campanian, not Late Cretaceous, for Elasmosaurus (I don't remember why it was like that). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting a consensus on Paleobiota pages

Dear fellow WP:PALEO members,

I am currently working on an overhaul of the Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation page, and saw that this page includes some differences to other paleobiota pages, like the Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale. Seen as I couldn't find any real consensus on how we want these pages to look, I took the time to come up with a proposal for a single approach as to keep our pages within a unified style, look and feel. Below are three of my main thoughts:

• I think we should try to keep the Paleobiota of a single formation on the same page as much as possible, as to give a better idea of the full ecosystem. An exception to this would be if the list becomes too long, in which case an argument for a split can be made (Though “too long” is subjective anyways).
• I think it would be best to include ichnotaxa, ootaxa and nomina dubia in the main tables, though I question the use of including junior synonyms, except for a passing mention in the notes section of the species or genus that takes priority.
• I don't think it's necessary to paste the template for the meaning of the different table colours after every group's name and short description. I'd like to suggest only implementing these after the headings of larger groups, as to decrease clutter in the articles.

As a final thought, I think we can use Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale as an example of a "good" paleobiota page, and it would be a good choice to use this as a reference when overhauling existing pages or creating new ones.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this! Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to be a judge of the first point, since length is like you said kinda subjective. But I definitely believe that junior synonyms should not be included unless there is active debate surrounding their synonymity. Otherwise it would seem odd to me that some synonymized taxa are included, when others aren't (like lets say Manospondylus or Dinotyrannus obviously wouldn't be included in Hell Creek, to use an extreme example). I also agree with table colors. Implementation for large subsections (or at the beginning of the list) sounds good to me, otherwise it would just repeat the same information and add unnecessary clutter to the page. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree we should keep everything in a single article unless is grows too long. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to also bring up a seperate point referring to article length, referring to the Morrison page specifically. A couple of months ago, arguments were made against a possible merge with the List of Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation. I do still firmly believe the two should be merged, referring to point one, as I dont think the article would get too long. However, I think it would be best to get some more thoughts on that before starting another merger discussion. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Another thing to consider: what do we want for images? Currently life restorations are overwhelmingly preferred, but I'd argue that it would be better to show photos/diagrams of fossils actually from the formation (since that's what the page is about). For the first point listed above, should we perhaps try to quantify "too long" using something such as bytes or number of entries? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  We could choose to limit size by the amount of subsections in the navigation box at the top of the article? I am also on board with the implementation of more images of the actual fossils alongside life restorations. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree with the fossil images. The Tendaguru Formation article is a good example of how that works better than restorations. Additionally, should we have a written guideline for what we conclude here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  That was my original intent, yes. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  The pages are called "Paleobiota of the [X] Formation", not "Fossils of the [X] formation". If we want it to be about the fossils per se and not the organisms, we should probably change the title, and I think there are some significant differences in how to best organize the page depending on which we choose (see my comment below). Ornithopsis (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think a healthy mix of both would work best. Perhaps if there are two closely related animals we use an image of fossil material and a life restoration? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think that fossil illustrations can be problematic in some cases. To use sauropods in the Tendaguru article as an example, illustrating Dicraeosaurus and Giraffatitan with photographs of skeletal mounts is a good choice. As Australodocus is only known from two vertebrae from similar positions of the neck, illustrating it with a clear photo of the holotype vertebra is appropriate. However, illustrating Janenschia with a photo of a half-buried forelimb is not appropriate, in my opinion, as the photo can be a bit difficult to interpret for someone unfamiliar with sauropod anatomy, it doesn't actually illustrate the animal very well, and it can be somewhat misleading about what's actually known of the taxon. In other words, at least for vertebrates, I think illustrating the taxon with images of fossils is only appropriate if either it's a complete skeleton, the photo is reasonably representative of everything known of the taxon, or the specimen being illustrated is highly characteristic of the taxon. If I had a nickel for every time I talked to someone who was under the impression that the single specimen illustrated for a taxon on Wikipedia was the only specimen known of the taxon...Suffice to say, images of random bones are by far my least favorite way to provide a representative illustration of a taxon. I think we should be consistent in our approach, either using fossils or life reconstructions, but not a mix of both within each table. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think a nice middle ground is "life restorations unless they are unavailable". I agree with the argument that these are "palaeobiota", not "fossil", articles, although the article contents nevertheless don't deal very much with the animals in a palaeoecological content. (Fault of the title? Perhaps.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps that is something that could be improved in existing and future lists? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that uncontroversial junior synonyms shouldn't be included on paleobiota lists, except possibly as mentioned in the notes column. Regarding the matter of nomina dubina, I think there are two different kinds of nomina dubina in this context: those that add to an appreciation of diversity of the biota, and those that don't. Compare the case of Diplodocus lacustris to the case of Astrodon johnstoni, for instance. The only reason D. lacustris isn't a synonym is that it's impossible to determine what it should be synonymous with; including it in a list of Morrison paleobiota would be more misleading than useful, as it does not represent evidence of a distinct taxon. By contrast, while Astrodon is also dubious, there are no valid taxa in the Arundel paleobiota it could be synonymous with, so it's potentially useful to mention. However, both dubious taxa and junior synonyms could be interesting for historical reasons. Perhaps things could be handled in the following way:

• In Paleobiota of [X] lists, treat dubious taxa as [clade] indet. For instance, for the Arundel Formation, we could list Titanosauriformes indet. as present, and state in the notes column that this includes the dubious taxa Astrodon and Pleurocoelus. Whether to mention [clade] indet. depends on whether it represents possible additional diversity: for instance, we don't need to list Sauropoda indet. for the Morrison Formation, unless a source specifically states that the material in question may represent a distinct species.
• If desired for historical reasons, we could have a separate list, somewhere, that states: "[X] formation is the type locality for the following taxa" and include all named taxa whose type specimens came from the formation, including both nomina dubina and junior synonyms. Perhaps something titled, e.g., Type specimens of the Hell Creek Formation, in cases where the list would be too long to include in the article for the formation.
• Disused combinations should not be used in paleobiota lists. For instance, Kimmeridge Clay lists both Omosaurus armatus and Dacentrurus armatus, despite the former being merely an incorrect old name for the latter. That kind of information should go in the notes column, not a separate entry on the list.
• I think ichnotaxa and ootaxa should either be treated similarly to nomina dubina (i.e. represented as [clade] indet. if they represent potential additional diversity, or not mentioned if they don't), or listed separately from biological taxa. I'm not a fan of listing them alongside biological taxa, as the concepts lack a one-to-one correspondence.

How does that sound? Ornithopsis (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I am indeed also not a fan of the way in which the oo- and ichnotaxa are included in with the biological and morphotaxa, and agree with points 1-3 in their entirety. I do think treating the oo- and ichnotaxa as ([clade] indet) in with the biological taxa would be a smart idea, though I do think oo- and ichnotaxa should at least be mentioned somewhere. Perhaps in the small bit of text above the tables of the group they belong to? (i.e. include Brontopodus in the text above the sauropod section of the List of Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation.) TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right that mentioning ichno- and ootaxa somewhere is appropriate. I wouldn't object to listing the ichnotaxa and ootaxa in the prose, as you suggest. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, "uncontroversial junior synonyms" is a rather vague definition. For example, the Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation page lists the genera Nanotyrannus, Dracorex, and Stygimoloch. Although until relatively recently the validity of these taxa was the subject of intense scientific debate, these debates now seem to have come to an end (not in favor of splitters, as we all know). In the English Wikipedia, Nanotyrannus redirects to Tyrannosaurus, while Dracorex and Stygimoloch redirect to Pachycephalosaurus. Are these genera, then, "undisputed junior synonyms"? (In my mind yeah) HFoxii (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you ask me, if it's uncontroversial enough that we've merged the pages, it's uncontroversial enough that we shouldn't list it separately on paleobiota pages. A mention in the notes column may be merited in some cases—e.g. we could say for Tyrannosaurus "includes Nanotyrannus, which has been regarded as a separate taxon by a minority of researchers." In cases where there's a clear ongoing controversy in the literature (e.g. Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus), it would be better to list the taxa separately with appropriate comments in the notes column; borderline cases will probably need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Seperate to this, I also wanted to adress the splitting problem (I think it's a problem) i've seen with the Morrison Formation, specifically in List of dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation and Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation. I think this split exists mostly because the group that was split off is a relatively large grouping of dinosaurs, and don't think they should be getting a different treatment from other fauna. However, I don't know of the history of this article, and it might not even have been a split in the first place. Curious to hear more about that as i look further into my overhauls. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know if I entirely support the content fork separating the paleobiota from the main article, which isn't a very long article and cuts half the relevant content, leaving only the geology/stratigraphy. I would support recombining all the content into the one article, or alternatively two if others think adding the taxa to the main would make it too long. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an overhaul of the paleobiota page, which will probably make the list 2-3 times as large. I think that would overly clog up the main article at that point, especially if I add the dinosaurs to the other paleobiota TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

One article that might benefit from being partially merged into the main Morrison Formation article (or at least have more information related to it included) is the Bone Wars article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with merging the Bone Wars into the Morrison Formation outright; Cope and Marsh did plenty of digging outside the Morrison. I presume you're suggesting something more along the lines of discussing the role of the Morrison in the Bone Wars in the Morrison article, not actually merging the pages, though, which I would be in favor of. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed more what I was gunning for, because there is currently only a few sentences (and no seperate section) about the history of the morrison to the present day and its significance in the bones wars. I'll probably tackle the main article after I've finished the paleobiota article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether they're included as full listings, their own section, notes, or however else, I think there is value in disused, dubious, and synonymous names being included in these articles, in addition to taxa whose assignments from the formation in question have been overturned. Having a comprehensive record of the history of such referrals from a given locality is, in my opinion, very useful, and not exactly the easiest thing to find anywhere else. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there's historical value in listing everything, but I don't think that mixing them in with valid taxa is a good idea. If we're going to list them at all, I think it should be as a separate table at the end of the article. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think just one table of dubious taxa at the end of every section (i.e. corresponding to a high-level group) makes sense. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Below every section with a heading or sub-heading then? That could work, though I'm still not opposed to the idea of leaving them out of the paleobiota lists and doing something seperate with them. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the list of historically/incorrectly-reported taxa should be in a separate section at the end of the article. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That mind help with decluttering the articles, which can become quite lengthy if they are "complete". I will second your proposal. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll make sure to get the points that were made here converted into something of a general policy somewhere in the next few days. After I've compiled them I'll run them by you all, hopefully we can establish something practical and useful. In any case, thanks for your cooperation. Cheers, - TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve put together a small referendum to finalise the universal approach for paleobiota pages, which we discussed here a little while back. I hope i’ve included all the major points that were presented in the discussion, feel free to cast a supporting or opposing vote.

• Keep all paleobiota from a formation on the same page if possible.

Attempting to keep the view of the paleobiota as complete as possible, try to keep all of it on one page. Only split things up into seperate lists if the main list gets too large, parameters for this need to be discussed.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Tentative support (parameters should be discussed, though I have no strong feelings on this question of aesthetics) - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis

• Reduce the presence of the color key to once per heading.

Reducing the presence of the Paleobiota color key will make the articles feel less cluttered. They would only be included after each heading in the article per this proposal.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Support - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis

• Only include junior synonyms when there is debate on their synonymity, otherwise include them in the notes section.

Only including junior synomyms whose synonymity is debated would be of significant aid to declutter the articles. A useful criterium for this would be if it has a seperate page on the encyclopedia. If so, include it. If not, mention it in the notes section of the genus/species it's been sunk into.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Tentative support (no strong opinion, though be wary that the separate page criteria may be influenced by old data for some obscure taxa) - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis

• Use life restorations unless they are unavailable.

Life restorations help illustrate the ecosystem we are trying to describe in these lists. They are a massive help and should always be included if possible.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Support with caveats (I generally dislike the use of a specific life restoration for indeterminate taxa or close relatives) - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis

• Include images of fossil material.

Fossil material could be added to a table if life restorations for specific taxa are missing.

Tentative support -TimTheDragonRider

Support - Fanboyphilosopher

No opinion - Ornithopsis

• Include nomina dubia only on higher levels, i.e. Pterosauria indet. instead of Comodactylus, Dermodactylus, Laopteryx & Utahdactylus, and mention the individual species in the notes section.

Including nomina dubia on higher taxonomic levels would, again, help to declutter the page and leave the focus on the valid genera and species, without removing the possible diversity the nomina dubia add to an environment.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Support Clarification needed: what qualifies as a higher taxonomic level? - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis (the higher taxonomic level should be the lowest named level at which the taxon is determinate, e.g. if there is a formation with a nondiagnostic chasmosaurine and a nondiagnostic centrosaurine, list both Chasmosaurinae indet. and Centrosaurinae indet., not Ceratopsidae indet.)

• Leave ichno- and ootaxa out of the main tables, either including them seperately below each heading or only mentioning them in-text.

Including ichno- and ootaxa in either a seperate table under each heading or writing them into the prose would help keep the focus on the valid genera and species.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Tentative support - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis (however, if an ichnotaxon clearly indicates the presence of a clade not recorded from body fossils, I would suggest listing [clade] indet. in the main table, noting that its presence is inferred from ichnofossils).

• Leave disused combinations out of the lists.

Leaving disused combinations out of paleobiota lists would be less confusing to the layman, and would (again) help to tone down the size these pages can attain.

Support -TimTheDragonRider

Support - Fanboyphilosopher

Support - Ornithopsis

A lot of these points are to do with decluttering the current type of list, which can get pretty messy sometimes, especially in larger lists. Please cast your vote, let me know of any extra proposals and thoughts and we'll see what comes out of this! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add another, potentially more controversial proposal:

• If a given clade is already known to be present based on valid species, there should not be a separate "clade indet." entry on the list unless there is reason to believe it represents a distinct taxon (nomina dubina can be listed in the text rather than the table in this case)

Adding clade indet. when the clade is already known to be present lengthens the list without enhancing the reader's understanding of the diversity of the ecosystem

Support - Ornithopsis

Tentative support (in many cases, indeterminate specimens are known to be different from named taxa even if they are not diagnostic themselves) - Fanboyphilosopher

Added my votes and another proposal. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura images deleted due to copyright confusion

A heads up, Commons admins keep getting confused by Nobu Tamura having uploaded images under the name Arthur Weasley in the beginning and listing different licences for the same images on his blog, and they are therefore nominated for deletion from time to time, and usually they are safed, but now a bunch of them were deleted. I have brought the issue up here at Commons[7], perhaps a creator template needs to be made for him on Commons like the one for Dmitry Bogdanov[8] which lists all their usernames... FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Any idea how many of his reconstructions were taken away? -- TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I got a few of them saved because I noticed the DRs of those on my watchlist, but can't say how many have been deleted without me being aware of it... The last DR got a few images deleted, but I think some of them were versions of the same image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Status of Latromirus

Latromirus is the name given to an Cheloniellid arthropod from the waukesha biota. However this creature was not named correctly and is technically a naked name. However now apparently this creature is conspecific with Parioscorpio, a enigmatic arthropod from the biota, however in Braddy & Dunlop 2021 it says "the cheloniellid holotype, regarded as a separate taxon by Anderson et al. 2021" since the holotype this is referring to (UWGM 2349) is the one for latromirus does this mean it is actually distinct from P. venator.?--Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Adasaurus or Velociraptor in the Prehistoric Planet trailer?

As you guys probably know, the new Prehistoric Planet trailer dropped and in it we see a white colored Velociraptorinae dromaeosaur in a desert. Currently the Wikipedia page says its Velociraptor, however as far as I know the series is focusing on the Maastrichtian stage, and Velociraptor is mostly known from the Campanian stage. I propose that it could be Adasaurus as the timing fits better. Or should the page say something like; Undetermined Velociraptorine Dromaeosaur. What do you guys think we should do.--Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Undetermined Velociraptorine would fit best i think. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't really say anything specific until we have sources backing it up. Anything else is just WP:original research. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't say anything that isn't supported by a source. Calling it an "undetermined velociraptorine" is OR, because the source cited says Velociraptor. Moreover, one of the consultants, Darren Naish, has explicitly called it a Velociraptor [9]. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Very honestly, calling any non explicitly named animal by a precise name before a proper release or confirmation by officials or journalists published in true and reliable media (and not by a consultant on Twitter, regardless of his value as a researcher) is by definition OR. Larrayal (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I know this is standard practice among dinodoc pages, but there really is no reason to have a fauna list right this second, because it's fancruft that doesn't add anything. It should be removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

As been said by everyone else already, this kind of stuff really shouldn't be included at all unless a solid source is given and the idea that you can correctly determine a featured species on context clues alone is dangerous to say the least. After all even the best dinosaur documentaries aren't exactly known for their strict adherance to specific animal's ranges. This entire attitude of trying to declare featured animals to be specific taxa based on nothing but a hunch genuinely needs to stop, hell it's become quite infamous in online circles for how unreliable and farfetched they get. Armin Reindl (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reptile taxonomy is a confusing mess

The articles about the major macro reptile clades Reptilia, Eureptilia, Sauropsida, Diapsid, Romeriida and Neodiapsida, don't all coherently link to each other in a logical way. Part of the problem is that recent papers that discuss early reptile taxonomy don't specifically mention all of these clades in the same paper. In particular, Romeriida seems rarely used. Would it be worth merging some of these articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The existence of a Sauropsida article distinct from the Reptilia one has always baffled me, given they're literally different terms for essentially the same clade. It's a nice little excuse to write a more palaeo-focused article away from the eyes of neontology-focused editors but I think they'd be far better both discussed in tandem at the reptile article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask, Reptilia is either equivalent to the total group (Sauropsida), to Parareptilia+Eureptilia, or to the crown group (Sauria). Ornithopsis (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that Sauropsida should be separate from Reptile as long as Avialae is separate from bird. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Romeriida can probably be merged with Eureptilia, as it hardly sees any use—I'd need to look carefully, but at a glance it looks like there's probably only around a dozen papers that use it as a valid clade name, if that. Reptilia is best kept separate from the others from now, due to the ambiguity whether Reptilia is a total group, crown group, or something else. Sauropsida, Eureptilia, Diapsida, and Neodiapsida should all be kept, and for the moment I think it's most prudent to focus on improving Sauropsida and Neodiapsida, as both of them have stable concepts that won't be affected by the problems with the positions of Araeoscelidia and Parareptilia. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Issues about redirection of placoderm articles

Apparently, a massive edit by User:Galactikapedia in 2017 made to redirect some taxa without articles to Antiarchi and Arthrodira articles. Among them, Arthrodira had a particular problem, since this redirects to the article from the scientific name including the species name. For example, even though there is an article of "Kujdanowiaspis", "Kujdanowiaspis buczacziensis" redirected to Arthrodira. I've fixed the ones that already have articles with genus names, but not for taxa with no article about genus, so it's possible that species of that genus will redirect to their higher taxa, even if there are articles that explain the genus in the same way in the future. There may be several articles other than placoderm that have such problems. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirects can be checked under "what links here" (then hide links and transclusions) if you want to look through higher level articles to see if there are unfortunate redirects. But yeah, all genera should have articles, there was a similar issue with eurypterids once where one editor redirected all stubs to Eurypteridae... Luckily we've come a long way since with those. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirects can also be an issue with genus-level taxa that gets unsynonymized, species that get split up and former monotypic clades that get another taxa. It would probably be best if we had a place on the wikiproject where to ask the deletion of such redirects easily. Larrayal (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for Preoccupied Names (Leptopterygius)

Leptopterygius currently links to the ichthyosaur Leptonectes, though the former name had to be changed to the latter due to preoccupation. Some sleuthing using FishBase and Google Scholar would seem to suggest that the original Leptopterygius is a junior synonym of Gouania, though I'm not especially confident about this as there's very little in the literature I can access regarding this synonymy. Can anyone know who knows more about fish confirm/deny this? If so, then where should the redirect lead to? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Leptopterygius Troschel, 1860 does seem to be accepted as Gouania. My inclination would be to turn Leptopterygius into a disambiguation page (with {{Genus disambiguation}}). An alternative would be to redirect it to Gouania with a hatnote there for the ichthyosaur. I don't think it is good practice to treat an junior homonym as a de facto primary topic over a senior homonym, as is currently the situation with Leptopterygius. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A disambiguation page seems the most appropriate in this context, as neither Leptopterygius Troschel, 1860 nor Leptopterygius Huene, 1929 is unequivocally the primary topic. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and converted the redirect to a disambiguation; thanks for the input! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Are radiodonts stem-group arthropods or total group arthropods

hi, someone edited the main cladogram on the arthropod page and it now includes radiodonts and all members of Dinocaridida (Opabiniiads and gilled lobopodians) as total group arthropods. As far as I know these creatures are considered stem group arthropods (meaning they split off from the last common ancestor of arthropods). Can someone fact check this to make sure it is correct.Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

But all members of the stem group are members of the total group? Do you mean crown group? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

oh I thought that this edit contradicted the fact they were stem arthropods, thanks for clearing that up @Lythronaxargestes Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In looking into the new arthropod cladogram, I am also growing skeptical as well. First of all, the new cladogram cites two sources (a red flag) - the 2016 Ortega-Hernandez study (not free access), and the 2019 Lozano-Fernandez et al. study (free access). I couldn't access the 2016 Ortega-Hernandez study, so I couldn't verify, but the new cladogram did NOT match the 2019 Lozano-Fernandez et al. study (which is primarily focused on Pancrustacea). I did some further research and found this 2019 paper: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)30486-5.pdf which provided another cladogram. It stated that extant Arthropoda consists of Chelicerata and Mandibulata, and that Arthropda is also sometimes called Euarthropoda. (Perhaps one is meant to be the crown group? Cladistic definitions would be nice.) Based on this, it appears that the placement of Euarthropoda in the new cladogram may be correct if read as crown-group arthropoda. But yeah, also having Arthropoda at the start of the cladogram is throwing me off. So I'm gonna ping the creator of the cladogram - @Snoteleks: can you provide some clarification on the new cladogram? I can't verify by reading the 2016 Ortega-Hernandez study. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I appears to glue together the extinct taxon placements from Figure 2 of the 2016 citation with living taxon placements and nomenclature from the 2019 paper, with modifications. The two grades at the very base of the tree use seemingly OR names for groupings of genera based on table 4 of the 2016 paper. The use of Dinocaridida as a grade is seemingly based on nothing except the text, and the inclusion of "gilled lobopodians" in it does not appear sourceable to the only mention, which just says the group was used for a clade of Obabinida and Radiodonta. The inclusion and placement of Artiopoda and Tantulocarida do not follow either paper. The internal contents of Chelicerata, Myriapoda, and Oligostraca do not appear in either paper, just the placements of the three clades themselves. The placement of Euarthropoda and Deuteropoda follows the 2016 paper, and that of Arthropoda seems compatible with it? If I'm reading it right they put that term as Euarthropoda + Onychophora, which makes it an awkward call as the latter clade isn't here at all.

tl;dr the tree is a Frankenstein'd OR-influenced mess and needs to go, perhaps in favor of a tree from each paper, or two others if the 2016 one is not up to current consensus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think @Junnn11: can help for this? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person that added the tree and of course I will provide some clarification! The 2016 Ortega-hernandez study (which is also an important source in the wiki articles Lobopodia and Radiodonta) is basically a review on the separation between Onychophora, Tardigrada and total-group Arthropoda. In summary, this is the current state of affairs:

• Onychophora + Tardigrada + total-group Arthropoda = Panarthropoda or Aiolopoda. Every lobopodian that's more related to crown-group Arthropoda than to any of the first two is included in total-group Arthropoda.
• The most basal or lower stem-arthropods (extinct) are divided into three groups:
  • The most basal grade represented by Jianshanopodia, Siberion and Megadictyon, generally described as "siberiid lobopodians" in other wiki articles so I described them as such to avoid confusion.
  • The next basal grade represented by Opabinia and Pambdelurion, generally recognized as "gilled lobopodians" in other related papers I've read on this topic and also in other wiki articles.
  • The group represented by Opabinia, which is why I refer to it as Opabiniids.
  • And finally the group known as Radiodonts, which according to recent studies included in the review could've been monophyletic.
• The Deuteropoda nov. is a clade that unites the rest of arthropods: the upper stem-group and the crown-group. The union is due to certain apomorphies revised in the review, such as the appearance of a first limb pair structurally differentiated and in the same segment as the deutocerebrum.
  • The upper stem-group (extinct) consists of Fuxianhuiida, Megacheira and the bivalved forms (i.e. Bradoriida).
  • The crow-group consists of Chelicerata, Mandibulata and Artiopoda (trilobites, extinct). The article refers to it as Euarthropoda, but Euarthropoda has other interpretations. So far I've seen that Euarthropoda referring to living arthropods + trilobites is the most common one, though.

I hope this explanation was of some help! If there's something else I've left out please do tell me.

Now, I admit this IS a "frankenstein tree" in the sense that I united a tree that explains the transition between stem-group and crown-group AND a tree that explains the internal relationships inside the crown-group. But I didn't know it would be troublesome, I thought it was allowed.

I am fully in support of dividing the tree into two: one for stem-group and crown-group relationships, and a second one for the living classes of arthropods. It would also be less of an eyesore, I think.

Are we in agreement?

Snoteleks (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh two things I forgot:

1) I placed Dinocaridida in the tree because it's a taxon containing Pambdelurion, Kerygmachela, Opabiniids and Radiodonts.

2) I don't know if there's any way to legally provide access to the original paper for you to verify it, but if there is I'd like to do it. Snoteleks (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

3) (sorry, I'm forgetful) I didn't edit the main cladogram of Arthropoda because there was no such thing as a main cladogram beforehand. I made that cladogram entirely from scratch and placed it in a new subsection ("Internal relationships" etc) that I added myself, it didn't previously exist. I wanted to avoid that confusion. Snoteleks (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the division, perhaps even under different subsections since each focus on quite different contents (stem-group and relationship between extant taxa, respectively). For the cladogram with focus on stem-group, it is more suitable to label the "Arthropoda" node as "total-group Arthropda/Euarthropoda". It is also worth to note that the position of many supposed "upper stem groups" are more uncertain in the last few years:

• Megacheira might closer to Chelicerata (a famous hypothesis around 2000 and early 2010s, but also recovered by some recent analysis [10][11][12])
• Based on the discovery of mandibulate mouthparts, some "bivalved froms" (especially members of Hymenocarina) are more widely-accepted as mandibulates in recent analysis [13][14][15].
• Similarly, Fuxianhuiida might also be mandibulates. More recently, Aria et al. 2021 even suggest the SPA (widely-accepted as tritocerebral limbs in middle-late 2010s) might be mandibles.

A more generalized review on arthropod phylogeny can be found at Giribet & Edgecombe 2019 and Edgecombe 2020.--Junnn11 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! Following your reply I started working on dividing the section in two, adding most of the bibliography you provided and modifying the stem cladogram accordingly. It is now updated, please let me know what you think! I also added other extinct groups such as Isoxyids, Artiopoda, Euthycarcinoidea and Hymenocarina, I could use some help with that but I think it's a pretty big step in the right direction. Snoteleks (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates! It's more much better than the previous version. I made some modifications to see it could be better (e.g. isoxyids, when considered to be basal, are nested within Deuteropoda as part of "bivalved froms" of "upper stem groups").--Junnn11 (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Some unnamed mammal taxa by User:Ucucha

This user have created some articles of unnamed fossil mammaliaforms for GA in 2010. As I have seen, UA 8699, LACM 149371 and ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus are. In addition TNM 02067 is done by this user too, but when it got the genus Galulatherium in 2019, they didn't work for redirect by themselves. Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar, made by the user at the same time, have also been abandoned, and despite the fact that Adalatherium was quite popular when described, it still has no description. What are your thoughts on these articles? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd generally be against the creation of such, but seems the train has left for these. Should also be added that I think Ucucha is a researcher, so probably had better access to sources and such. They don't seem to be active writers anymore, though. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, yeah. Well, it's more than 10 years ago, so it can't be helped... Are there any other articles for unnamed taxa that should be mentioned? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In any cases, the good article status of Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar and the featured topic associated are to be reconsidered, since Adalatherium is a stub and is never mentionned in the article that should have mentioned it. Larrayal (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, article of Adalatherium itself is also in a terrible state. Most of the articles are news content, not original description, and for some reason it is written as lived until the Paleocene. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I may have gone a bit overboard with these, though I do think individual fossils can be notable enough to deserve an article (e.g. Lucy (Australopithecus)). Also, ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus is not an "unnamed" taxon; it merely has an uncertainty marker in the name. I still check in on Wikipedia occasionally but I haven't gotten around to keeping these topics up to date. Hopefully somebody else can expand on the newly named taxa. I am not a professional researcher, though I have done some paleontological research. In any case, that doesn't give me access to more sources, as Wikipedia is meant to be based only on published sources anyway. Ucucha (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, the unnamed taxa is a pretty tricky subject. An example of a recent article is Waukesha butterfly animal, but I think it's important to see how important that unnamed taxa is in paleontology. There should be numerous other unnamed mammals mentioned so far. These articles created appear to be relatively important in paleontology at first glance, but they are also the only ones included in the navigational box. I don't know there are more important one that is important than them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy edits by User:Social Credit Generator

Notice to the project - Social Credit Generator has been adding edits to a wide range of pages without consensus, with many of these edits involving the rewriting of statements to present hypotheses with unclear support as settled conclusions [16] [17] and sometimes blatantly incorrect information [18]. Based on attempts to engage at their talk page [19] by Fanboyphilosopher, this user seems to be intentionally disruptive. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

why do i feel like i suck bro fuck (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

this is the american wild west era mate fuck (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

like do i even have a bounty fuck (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Several of us editors have discussed this off-site and not seen any change in your behavior, SCG. We're leaning closer to a block each day. If you feel like you just don't know how to be productive on this site, then we recommend taking a break. I should clarify to Lythronaxargestes that a monophyletic Protorosauria is not necessarily blatantly incorrect (a recent peerj paper has supported this hypothesis), though it's still less common than paraphyly. What I see in SCG is someone who is either an intentional vandal or someone who is very attached to certain open access resources (like fossilworks and whichever recent OA papers they can find on a google search) to the exclusion of any other sources. The former possibility is worthy of an instant ban while the latter is worthy of a strong warning or maybe something like a three-strike system. SCG, if you care to explain your edits more, it wouldn't have come to this. You can use talk pages to discuss different classification hypotheses, but it's irresponsible to simply remove references and info to pretend that hypotheses you disagree with do not exist. If you're willing to be a responsible editor, you have to demonstrate that to the rest of us. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Although what they are using is not real username, but shouldn't be reported in Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a mild argument for WP:DISRUPTNAME but I don't think it is strong. If you're talking about the signature, that's manual HTML styling and irrelevant to usernames. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

ayo fight me bro fuck (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

i have drip fuck (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You can't think of a single better response than that? This is a one-way ticket to a report. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

btw what does it even feel like to get banned huh

am gangsta fuck (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

i know we dont watch the same youtubers man fuck (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

im still waiting for that prehistoric planet thingy on apple tv sooooo fuck (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah I meant about signature. Sorry for confuse. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition IPs and users

While SCG has thankfully been blocked, there seems to be a suspiciously large number of users engaging in mass taxonomic edits recently, namely:

• 45.73.93.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 70.35.208.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• RaghavIyer2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both IP's geolocate closely in Montreal and appear to be the same person, and they may be the same as SCG prior to the creation of their account. SCG might return using these IP addresess, so vigilance is needed. RaghavIyer2006 appears to be a different person, but their unexplained taxonomic changes also deserve scruitiny. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Didn't we have a "Pranav Iyer" here at some point? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're thinking of Bubblesorg (the name he put on his userpage was something like that, but it was oversighted). but I don't think it's them. Iyer is a quite common Indian surname, and I don't think Bubblesorg was born in 2006, from what I remember of his userpage. (god the fact that people born in 2006 are now nearly adults makes me feel old). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement of Dinosaur Zoo

I posted about paleoarts by User:Dotname2469 (contributions) in both dinosaur image review and paloeart review, but I noticed that user themselves is problematic. As @Atlantis536: noticed, whole article Dinosaur Zoo and most of contributions by Dotname2469 is likely to be an advertisement of that game. Developer of Dinosaur Zoo is called as "Dotnamestudios" which is similar to user name, and previous version of article[20] looks clearly advertisement. They had edited other articles as well, most of them adding images from Dinosaur Zoo. For example, their edit in article of Argentinosaurus[21] changed image to Dinosaur Zoo one, and putting description about Dinosaur Zoo in "In popular culture". And unfortunately, some articles, such as Metoposaurus, still use perhaps inaccurate images by that user. I feel that this is a serious problem in the first place. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very long ago, and they're not active anymore, so shouldn't be difficult to deal with. But uploading images tied to commercial products shouldn't be a problem, as long as they're free to use, and within our scope. Like I pointed out elsewhere, we got a lot of nice skeletal mount photos from a commercial cast dealer:[22] FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It is true, and if it is easily fixable, it is possible to make reconstructions more accurate and use for articles. (Things like Megalodon and Metoposaurus looks hard to fix than others so probably better to replace or delete from articles though.) Article Dinosaur Zoo doesn't currently contain ads, but should that article itself be kept alive? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's probably a WP:notability issue, not related to the user in question. FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For notability, as I see, there are various IOS app named "Dinosaur Zoo", and original link[23] looks like not accessible for now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'll post them on WP:UAA. WP:COIN won't bother to deal with a decade-old account anyway, even if their behavior screams "conflict of interest". Atlantis536 (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Page nominated for deletion. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirects from species to genus

Hey all, I was wondering recently about redirects from species to genus, since we typically only do articles at the genus level.

• So, my first question: How important are redirect categories? Should we be using redirect categories for these? There is Template:R to monotypic taxon, but that only works for the monospecific genera. (For example, see Melitosaurus champsoides.) It looks like for Template:R animal with possibilities exists for redirects from a species to a genus. Is this what we should be using? It seems to imply that a future article should eventually be created for the unique species, which isn't quite correct... In theory, I suppose there should be a separate category just for redirects to the genus without any implication for creating a future article. Should that be created? Or maybe this "Redirect from an animal with possibilities" could be renamed to somethine like "redirect to genus" - but that would be a bit of a hassle for the 2,218 redirect pages currently using it. But then, how important are these redirect categories anyways? Is it worth the effort to categorize these redirects?
• So then on to my second question: should we include Wikidata identifiers in these species redirects? Since the Wikidata numbers are different for the species versus the genus, there might be some benefit to having it all linked up, but this is well outside of of my area of expertise, so I really don't know. For an example, see the redirect Triceratops horridus. If you go to edit the page, you see a wikidata number in there. I am not sure why it is hidden, though. (And notably, it also has two redirect categories: "From a subtopic" and "From an animal with possibilities") But then if you go to the actual Triceratops genus page, down at the bottom for the Wikidata under "Taxon identifiers", it shows the Wikidata for the Triceratops genus, as well as for the two species. (So that's pretty cool - I just realized that this is possible.) Would this be a better way to do it, instead of putting the Wikidata number in the redirect? Or maybe do both?

So yeah, any thoughts on these redirects? Thanks Cougroyalty (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There's {{R from species to genus}} (it's currently a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}, but is being used enough now that it should probably be un-redirected). I use that for cases where a future article should NOT be necessarily created (i.e., paleontological species). I created {{R plant with possibilities}} which was the first "with possibilities" redirect template for organisms. I intended it to be used for cases where a future article should be eventually created (I learned about "R from species to genus" several years later, but I now include it along with a "with possibilities" template in cases where an article should be created). I suppose species redirects to a monotypic genus should have both {{R to monotypic taxon}} and {{R from species to genus}}, but I haven't been in the habit of adding the "species to genus" template in these cases, from what I've seen there really isn't anybody who is doing so.

I don't see any point in adding a hidden Taxonbar to a redirect. I'm not certain, but I don't think there's any prohibition against adding visible Taxonbars to redirects. However, it's certainly more useful to multiple Wikidata identifiers to a Taxonbar in an article. I do make an effort to add Wikidata identifiers to Taxonbar for the species in a monotypic genus (and additional identifiers if family and higher ranks are also monotypic). In the case of Triceratops, adding Wikidata identifiers for all the species in a paleontological genus with 2-3 species seems useful, but I'm not sure about doing that for a genus with a dozen or more species.

How important is any of this? Well, there's a lot of not very important details on Wikipedia that some editors feel like making an effort to address. I don't feel like adding short descriptions (independent from Wikidata) is important enough to be interested in adding short descriptions myself. Redirect categorization may not be very important, but it is something I'm willing to work on. I do think redirect categorization is somewhat important in order to highlight redirects that are problematic. Organism redirects "with possibilities" are problematic; these should either be turned into articles or deleted. {{R from scientific abbreviation}} is another redirect category I actively use to flag problems; while T. rex is a useful redirect of an abbreviated scientific name, however abbreviated scientific names are often ambiguous and should not be redirects. T. rex (disambiguation) lists 9 species; in this case, I think the dinosaur is clearly the primary topic, but most abbreviated scientific names should either be disambiguation pages or just deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I like the idea of using {{R from species to genus}}. I didn't know it existed. I'm willing to get into the habit of using it from now on. I agree in thinking that it should no longer be a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}. Do you know how to do that?

I'll also move forward with adding the wikidata number for both the genus and species to the genus pages. That seems like a useful addition. I'm also going to test adding the species wikidata to a few species redirects to see what it does to the wikidata pages themselves, since those pages then include a link to the associated wikipedia page. So what would happen if I include the species-level wikidata # to both the genus page AND the species redirect page? That's what I want to see. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and made an attempt to un-redirect {{R from species to genus}}. Hopefully I did it right! Cougroyalty (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Help editing/completing an automatic taxobox

I'm drafting an article for the first time (trying to make an article about the glyptodont Palaehoplophorus, even if it's a stub) and I'm having trouble figuring out how to use the automatic taxobox. Here's a link to the draft of Palaehoplophorus I'm working on. My issues (listed below) pertain to formatting within the taxobox template:

1) In the taxobox, the Genus "Palaehoplophorus" shouldn't be hyperlinked, because this is the page for that genus.

2) Under the "Type species," the text isn't bold like it is when I see this template used elsewhere on Wikipedia.

3) Also under the "Type species" heading, the obelus symbol (†), denoting an extinct taxa, is not showing up.

4) Lastly, the species list should be automatically italicized, but that isn't working either.

I'm sure there is obvious stuff I'm overlooking that would fix these, so I sincerely appreciate any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoman747 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

1 will automatically correct once the draft is finalized and published as the real article. Right now, the real article doesn't actually exist yet. #'s 2-4 you gotta do manually yourself. I did it for you in your draft. Cougroyalty (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Re 2&3: bold text is used when the name of the type species redirects to a genus article. With palaeontological species, species names are typically redirects to a genus articles. But that is not usually the case for neontological species. Automatic taxoboxes don't automatically put type species in bold text, because the type species name isn't necessarily going to be a redirect; the bold text markup needs to be applied only when it is appropriate. Re 4: contents of |subdivision= can vary quite a bit; to start with, if taxonomic authorities are given, they would not be italicized. Again, automatic taxoboxes can't blanketly italicize species lists; italic text markup needs to be added only where appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanation!

I figured out why I couldn't get the species list italicized - when making this draft, I went into edit mode for other random taxoboxes to see their formatting. I tried replicating that in my taxobox, but it wasn't putting the species names in quotes (unless I used the "< i > < /i >" formatting). Now that I'm looking more closely, I see that it's two apostrophes, and not quote marks. Doh! Dinoman747 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Misspellings and redirects

While working on a cladogram for Toretocnemus, I came across "Quasianosteosaurus vikinghoegda" in the supplementary info of Sander et al. (2021). As it was a redlink, I created a redirect for it, only to discover afterwards that this omitted the "i" from the end of the specific name. A redirect already exists for the proper spelling, so this new one can't be moved. I'm inclined to nominate this misspelled redirect for deletion, but since it has appeared in a published article (in fact, more than one: [24]), I'm wondering if it should actually be kept. Do we have a standard procedure for this sort of thing? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE indicates that likely misspellings should be created as redirects. There's no harm in keeping it (see the arguments made in WP:Redirects are cheap), and given that the spelling error occurs in multiple papers, keeping the redirect is probably a good idea. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Such misspellings are often included in lists of names as lapsus, so they could potentially be terms people might use to search, and therefore valid as redirects. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Good to know; I'll keep the misspelled redirect around then. I can think of many more misspellings ("Pangjiangsaurus" for Panjiangsaurus=Guizhouichthyosaurus ([25]), "Guanlingichthyosaurus" for Guanlingsaurus ([26]), "Excalibursaurus" for Excalibosaurus ([27]), etc.) all of which probably warrant redirects too (although "Excalibursaurus" I've only ever seen once). On the topic of redirects and ichthyosaurs, what do we do for controversial taxa like Callawayia wolonggangense, which is variably classified within Callawayia and Guizhouichthyosaurus but there's no consensus as to which and not a lot seems to have been done to resolve things? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think either we leave it a redlink or redirect it to the taxon it has been mostly allied with? FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that that would be Guizhouichthyosaurus in this case (I wrote the wrong thing above, its variably classified within or outside Guizhouichthyosaurus, I don't think a single phylogenetic analysis succeeded in actually getting it as the sister of Callawayia neoscapularis). For the moment, I think I'll redirect it to Guizhouichthyosaurus#Callawayia wolonggangense, but I do almost wonder if it could actually warrant its own article, due to its largely separate history with G. tangae (though I lack sufficient resources to write it). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the sources on the prehistoric planet article are not good

Some of the sources on the article are quotes from twitter. As far as I’m aware, isn’t there a rule stating that these kind of websites are not good sources?. I do know however that they are quotes by Darren naish so could they still be good. Also there seems to be a minor conflict about the inclusion of the “scientific speculations” part of the article with some people labeling it fancruft. We might need to sort some stuff out. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It is incredibly fancrufty right now. Best to wait until the series finishes, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Should I make a Pterosauromorpha page?

This is because since Maehary was discovered and Lagerpetidae was finally placed within this clade, a page about it would be really cool. And we would no longer make Pterosauromorpha redirect us to Pterosauria everytime we click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Wraith Terror (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Golden Wraith Terror: Sounds like a good idea. There should be enough papers about this topic by now to allow for a decent article, so please go ahead and create it if you want. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man. Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be sure to work on it once I'll have enough time. Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I started working on it, but it's very messy. I've never made any pages before so can you help if you have enough time?

Btw here's the progress: Pterosauromorpha Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Finished Pterosauromorpha

It doesn't have a picture yet, but here's the progress: Pterosauromorpha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Wraith Terror (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that using of news sources is undesirable. There are enough scientific papers to write an article. HFoxii (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Human and non-human osteology

I think that there should be separate articles on bones in vertebrate anatomy in general and in humans specifically. The current article structure, where most articles on bones present in humans are primarily about the bone in human anatomy, with only brief mention of the bone in other vertebrates, is not conducive to a reader interested in the bone for nonmedical reasons getting a full understanding of the bone. However, restructuring the articles to be about the bone in general may cause problems for the reader who is interested in reading about the bone for medical reasons. I think the solution is to have two articles for each bone, one about the bone in vertebrate anatomy in general, and the other about the bone in humans specifically. I'm not sure which article should be considered the primary topic, though: should it be, for example, "Maxilla in non-human vertebrates" and "Maxilla", or should it be "Maxilla" and "Maxilla in human anatomy"? I'm also putting this discussion up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Anatomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think either just adding more to the sections on animal equivalents or having dedicated lists about the bones (and other anatomical features, as we have for dinosaurs and birds) in specific groups would be better for a broad encyclopaedia like this. I'm not sure an article about a specific bone with animals as the scope would be more focused anyway, as they are wildly different in shape and function. Many animals would have bone shape and function more similar to that of humans than to some very specialised animals, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we could rename the section "In other animals" to "Evolution". If that section becomes long enough, we can apply summary style and have Evolution of the maxilla. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that I don't feel it's appropriate to have the coverage of (e.g.) the maxilla in general be a section on an article that's largely about the specific case of the maxilla in humans. I think the ideal lede of an article covering the maxilla in vertebrates in general would be very different from one covering it in humans specifically. To me, the ideal would be to have Maxilla be about the bone in vertebrates in general, and something like Human maxilla or Maxilla in human anatomy for humans specifically, but I feel that med students might object to that. "Evolution of the maxilla" seems a bit too specific to me, and doing it that way still essentially treats the maxilla of vertebrates in general as a subtopic of the human maxilla. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any better idea, though. I agree that Human maxilla or similar is not in the cards; if you enter "maxilla" in Google Scholar, its all human anatomy … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

How does Vertebrate maxilla sound? I maintain that it's preferable to have them as two separate pages; the vertebrate maxilla in general is not a subtopic of the human maxilla, and it appears that Maxilla should focus on the human maxilla. It wouldn't be a POV fork, because they'd be focusing on different topics without taking a biased viewpoint. In any case, the current setup, of having any bone present in humans have a page that's an awkward compromise between being human-specific and about vertebrates in general that ends up being mostly human-focused but not enough to actually properly focus on human anatomy, is not effective for anybody's needs. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think having another place for discussion of bones in text is too much content splitting. We already have the human, or non-human if not applicable there, and we have the glossary of dinosaur anatomy pages, with its own template for convenient links. Adding a third new and freestanding article seems like overkill where a bone could have a full section in both the glossary and on the general article page. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The dinosaur glossary article isn't particularly relevant here, as it gives only a brief summary of each bone with a specific focus on dinosaurs, rather than vertebrates in general. I still feel that it would be better to have separate articles on each bone in humans and each bone in vertebrates, as keeping the focus on humans inhibits our ability to cover the bone in vertebrates generally effectively, and changing the focus to be on vertebrates in general would probably be unacceptable to a majority of readers who would expect the articles to focus on human anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think that about the vertebrate maxilla there is a lot to write, and that the section in the maxilla article would soon get too long, which would force us to have a sub-article like Maxilla in vertebrates or Maxilla (vertebrates) at some point. But to get there it needs to be expanded first. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of separate articles but the title Maxilla (vertebrates) makes me want to look for Maxilla (invertebrates) - which obviously does't work - so perhaps it should just say Maxilla (animal) or Maxilla in animals ? EdwardLane (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a different structure called the maxilla in most arthropods: Maxilla (arthropod mouthpart). That's why specifying vertebrate is necessary. "Maxilla (animal)" also sounds like it means a type of animal called a maxilla. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes I missed the arthropods having a different mouthpart with the same name - I guess they would be invertebrates . so Maxilla (invertibrates) could redirect to the link you gave (or a disambiguation page if there are other maxillae I'm unaware of) and that removes any objection/confusion in my head space. Seems like a good idea. EdwardLane (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Aptian extinction

I recently came across the Aptian extinction article. Is this actually a thing? The article is extremely vague, and I don't recall reading about any Aptian extinction event in the literature, and looking on scholar doesn't bring any clear answers, which seems to refer to multiple extinction events, including OAE1a, and a later extinction at the Aptian-Albian boundary. Thoughts? Should I take this to AFD? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I find https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0011133 which calls it one of the many mass extinction events of the Mesozoic associated with oceanic anoxic events, "The onset of the C/T Boundary event seems to have been very rapid and nearly synchronous at all localities (Kauffman, 1986, 1988; Arthur et al., 1987). During the Aptian to Middle Albian, by contrast, widespread conditions of oxygen depletion occurred intermittently over a total period of about 15 million years, producing rhythmically bedded sequences of black shales and carbonates, which show Milankovitch periodicities (Herbert & Fischer, 1986)" and "Rampino and Stothers (1988) have recently compiled data on flood basalt eruptions, and have shown a good correlation between flood basalts and mass extinction events during the last 250 million years. For example, during the Mesozoic, the Aptian extinctions may coincide with the Rajmahal Traps of India..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Odd Citation

In my efforts to expand the Toretocnemus article, I've found a thesis ([28]) which has a chapter on fossils of this genus from the Norian of Alaska, providing important anatomical and paleobiogeographical information. However, while it is technically part of a thesis, two other people coauthored it and it is stated to be planned for submission to Palaeontologia Electronica (though apparently it has not been published yet). I'm not exactly sure how to cite this chapter, does anyone know what the recommended format is here? Thanks, --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think cite thesis would be the one to go until it is finally published? I used it some places in Kosmoceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops... I totally missed that cite thesis allowed for multiple authors... that was my main concern using cite thesis; so I guess I'll go ahead and use it, sorry for the confusion. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I was surprised they accepted them for FAC, but they did (see discussion in case), so you should be safe to use them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Origin of modern amphibians

In the last decade, much research has been done on the origins of modern amphibians. At this point, I think that the Lepospondyl hypothesis is almost entirely abandoned, only being supported by Marjanović and colleagues, with an emerging consensus towards the origin within amphibamid temnospondyls. The amphibian article should be updated accordingly. It also presents some very controversial hypothesis as established fact, such as the hypothesis that Caecillians are more closely related to Stereospondyls, which needs to be corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a good recent review on this subject? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really unfortunately, but Atkins, Reisz & Maddin, 2019 [29] states that: ...there has been a growing consensus that lissamphibians are a monophyletic assemblage derived from within Temnospondyli, and more specifically from within the amphibamid dissorophoids. Most current papers just take the temnospondyl relationship as a given. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

What is "Dolicorhamphus"?

I was just reading Andres' 2021 paper on the phylogeny of pterosaurs and found a taxon not named anywhere online: Dolicorhamphus. It contains two species, D. depressirostris and D. bucklandi, found to be the sister taxon of Klobiodon in Rhamphorhynchidae. It's only in the figure 1 of the paper and the name is not mentioned in the text, and is only mentioned in brief in the description of Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni and Wellnhopterus. Apparently the Pachagnathus paper also mentions it, but I'm not sure if they make further comments about it, as I only heard about the inclusion on Twitter and have no access to the full paper. Does anyone else know anything about it? Miracusaurs (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Both "D." depressirostris and "D." bucklandi were previously assigned to Rhamphocephalus (now a thalattosuchian), the article of which mentioning that Sullivan and Martill considered them to Rhamphorhynchinae and Scaphognathinae indet. respectively. So that's probably a good place to start a deep dive with. Armin Reindl (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible misspelling of Dolichorhamphus Seeley?--Macrochelys (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Most likely, what was the type species of Dolichorhamphus? Maybe that genus will be resurrected for the actual pterosaurian species within Rhamphocephalus? FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The most detailed secondary source I know of only mentions that it was part of the Stones­­field Slate pterosaur assemblage, there was no description or referred specimens, and that it was treated as a synonym of Rhamphocephalus by later authors. The source claims that it was named here, but I can't find it there and the exact page wasn't provided.--Macrochelys (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC) EDIT - my mistake, seems to be wrong volume of Phillips's Geology; the name - actually spelled as Dolicorhamphus - is indeed mentioned on page 518 of volume I.--Macrochelys (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Should Wenlock Series Lagerstätte and Coalbrookdale Formation merged?

I found article Wenlock Series Lagerstätte when editing page Sollasina, and it looks like almost not edited around 5 years, and most of contents are well written in page Coalbrookdale Formation. I think they are same and good to merge into Coalbrookdale Formation but I want opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I should ping @Chhandama: about that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Messel Pit Paleobiota

It has been brought to my attention that the page Messel Pit does not contain a complete list of the fauna known from there (something acknowledged by the article itself) and, additionally, presents it in a rather simple list format. I've mostly stuck to making pages for taxa before with only a few formation articles (either entirely new or based on stubs), so I'm here to ask if is justified to create a dedicated article just for the localitie's paleofauna, akin to Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation or if it should simply be expanded upon in the article itself. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

With the significant biodiversity of the Messel, I feel like a separate page is warranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Lythronaxargestes:, a Paleobiota of the Messel Formation article is warranted, though keep in mind, with the level of diversity present, we are likely looking at a Paleoflora of the Messel Formation and Paleofauna of the Messel Formation need. notably if someone has access to this monograph on the Messel Angiosperms which lists circa 140 genera alone.--Kevmin § 22:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit- the monograph is on researchgate and has a good paragraph on other detailed sources for descriptions of other groups like the algae.--Kevmin § 22:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with a paleobiota article, on the model of Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation. If necessary, we can always discuss the use of two separated articles later ; separating paleobiota articles is not always a good thing to do (see List of dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation for instance). Larrayal (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have started work on it in my sandbox, so whether or not the article expands beyond what is convenient for a shared page should become clear as I begin my work on it. Unless something should come up on my end, I'll begin setting things up and make another notice of things with a work in progress should things get excessively long. Once its easier to predict the size of the article it should be easier to reach a consensus.Armin Reindl (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I can already tell that splitting fauna and flora is gonna be for the best. List is getting quite long already and I haven't even moved past the genera already mentioned in the main article. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started to plug in insects from the YEAR in paleontology lists, if thats okay. I suspect (due to page length restrictions, that the Arthropods will need to be split out as well). Also as a note, The Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation list is (from a non-vertebrate paleo worker perspective) not a great template list to work from. Its distinctly large vertebrate-centric in the table structuring (notably the "material" column), and I would suggest looking at the Paleobiota of Burmese amber lists, the Klondike Mountain Formation list, and the Paleoflora of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands - Paleofauna of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands drafts for other table options.--Kevmin § 14:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I was a little confused by that at first, but overall I do not mind. Thanks for the heads up in that regard, I do think I will just scrap the material collumn and replace it with the authority for the taxon in question. Armin Reindl (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On closer inspection family is actually also helpful, so I'll include those when continuing work. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok all that being said I would appreciate if you could limit editing in my sandbox to a minimum for the time being, as it is now being INCREDIBLY distracting and confusing. I appreciated the start, but at this point it is getting more obstructive to me than helpful. Armin Reindl (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Armin Reindl Understood, I will stop editing in your sandbox space, per your request, and will make a start on the paleoflora in sandbox space here.--Kevmin § 13:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I still appreciate the help and enthusiasm, it's just not something that works with my own editing style. Best of luck with the paleoflora, I am admittedly happy that I don't have to take care of that. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Unidentified pliosaurid mandible

The mandible in question

A new pliosaurid, Eardasaurus, was just named from the Oxford Clay, and it turns out that we already had photos of it labeled as Peloneustes (the ones currently in the latter article's Classification section). The upper jaw, forelimb, trunk, and tail all clearly are that of Eardasaurus, so I'll go ahead and re-label those on Commons. This mandible, however, doesn't seem to be the greatest match for the mandible of Eardasaurus; the anteriormost pairs of alveoli don't seem to quite match and the posterior end of one ramus is missing, while the mandible of Eardasaurus is complete and doesn't seem to be broken cleanly in the right place for the ramus end to be removed. Does anyone know what this mandible is? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Good catch with identifying those other images, don't know about this one, though. And if you then need replacement photos at Peloneustes, there are still interesting ones left at the NHM site[30], including skull material. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The anterior rosette seems to match GPIT uncatalogued 2 (Figure 13I) in this paper, where it is attributed to P. philarchus var. spathyrhynchus. But that would be inconsistent with the Commons caption identifying it as an OUMNH specimen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New page idea (READ THIS QUICK)

Ok so hear me out, people have been discovering dinosaur fossils for centuries. However, they thought that they were the remains of dragons or giant humains. So I had the idea to create a page called <<Dinosaurs in religions>>. And even better, there's this news article about how dinosaurs existed on the same day as Adam and Eve, but they were called "Dragons", "Leviathans" or "Behemoths". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Wraith Terror (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Its here btw

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-27-me-dinosaurs27-story.html Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The association between dinosaurs and mythology is dubious at best, as Mark Witton has pointed out.[31][32][33] FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Reading the first comment again, it seems to be Creationism rather than association with fossils. So no, we certainly don't need an article about that, we already have young earth Creationism. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides this, there is no explicit way to link dinosaurs to religious texts without squinting your eyes really hard at some of the monsters that are described by one sentence in the bible as "giant lizards". TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't want to belabor this, but I don't think the word "lizard" actually appears in the King James Translation. Or at least a text search failed to turn it up.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thus theres even less reason to make the connection TimTheDragonRider (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoo, this looks pretty much like trolling, y'all should probably stop feeding him the attention he craves. Larrayal (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

i need a break

bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Wraith Terror (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Golden Wraith Terror

I've been noticing Golden Wraith Terror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing in the topic area recently, and I have some concerns. Their userpage reference to Roblox, and this nonsense edit to the Chicxulub crater talkpage makes me suspect that they are a child or a young teenager. Anyway, like Social Credit Generator and the Korean Dinosaur IP before them, they have fallen into the pitfall of taking a single taxonomic opinion of the when there is no scientific consensus, and then changing all of the Wikipedia pages to fit this opinion, as they have been recently doing for Gualicho. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the pattern of removing uncertainty is very problematic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And that they keep changing the temporal range dates on articles. Patachonica (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect rampant sock puppetry. Another possible sock is Xiangcha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has the same pattern of modifying temporal ranges on geologic time unit articles without explanation or source. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence doesn't line up in terms of the use of edit summaries. I'm more inclined to think that these are separate users. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Lythronaxargestes here. Fiddling with taxoboxes is low-effort editing that seems to be attractive to new users, we've had issues with lots of new users over this going back ages, so there's no reason to suspect a sock. That said, there has been a general uptick recently, perhaps due to new Dinosaur related media coming out. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious about that. If you look at this and this edit, it seems that they both tried to remove the redirect from the Bolosauria page. Patachonica (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I promise i won't abuse Gualicho's status ever again

Btw, cool name for a theropod :) Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Golden Wraith Terror, just to clarify so you know going forward... this is not just about Gualicho. The basic deal is that, especially when classifications are controversial, they cannot be changed based simply on what the latest paper says about the topic. Instead, we need to roughly approximate the balance of what researchers currently think about the classification. That might mean putting the most neutral alternative in the taxobox and outlining specific possibilities in the text of the article. (For more, see the policy page WP:NPOV.) So if you see a generic classification, please don't change it, or at the very least bring it up for discussion on the talk page if you want to. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, im gonna need more reasearch next time i guess Golden Wraith Terror (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

And you shouldn't edit war your preferred version if other editors revert you, just as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Scipionyx. This honestly reeks of Magnatyrannus, but I doubt GWT is them since the latter is a more civil and vocal commenter. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok ; at the discord (full transparency), we've been discussing this situation for a few hours, and have been dissecting his contributions ; here's a probably incomplete list of all the issues he has been causing ;

- editions on the taxonboxes of usually large groups of extinct genera, resulting in a single, generally controversial opinion that was specifically avoided to be portrayed as the potential truth ; a critic already made about his edits on Gualicho the 20 of June, that he acknowledged the 23, but still fell in the same issues the 24 by making Scipionyx a carcharodontosaurid - whatever you think of Cau, this is the exact definition of a disputed statement ;

- wrongly warning an IP user (95.249.125.137) for "vandalising" Avemetatarsalia - a definitely false statement, as far as I know, and not signing his comment ;

- Creating two taxonomy templates for entirely made-up clades of... predatory deers I guess ?, probably linked to what he is doing in his sandbox ("Elaphuriformes" and "Megaelaphuroidea") ;

- Probably starting seriously trolling from the 14 of June onwards, on the Talk pages of Brown bear, Chimpanzee, Chicxulub crater as well as here, and, more egregiously, on the Niger article, which they disambiguated to exactly the word you think they disambiguated it to ;

- Uploaded several, definitely copyrighted images as if he was their original creator (he most probably isn't, see below for details, a deletion process must be started).

• Technosaurus smalli by Jack Wood, for A Dinosaur A Day
  Technosaurus smalli by Jack Wood, for A Dinosaur A Day
• Soumyasaurus aenigmaticus by Gabriel L. Lio, probably from a Youtube miniature
  Soumyasaurus aenigmaticus by Gabriel L. Lio, probably from a Youtube miniature
• Wakinosaurus satoi by u/AngstyBreadstyx on Reddit, probably not him either since the reddit user uses she/her (EDIT : just contacted the original artist to be sure, effectively, it isn't his own work)
  Wakinosaurus satoi by u/AngstyBreadstyx on Reddit, probably not him either since the reddit user uses she/her (EDIT : just contacted the original artist to be sure, effectively, it isn't his own work)
• Lacertulus bipes by our good old friend David Peters
  Lacertulus bipes by our good old friend David Peters
• The so-called "Golden Wraith Terror", an official skin from a Roblox game that is most probably protected in the US at least
  The so-called "Golden Wraith Terror", an official skin from a Roblox game that is most probably protected in the US at least

Additionally, as Patachonica suggested earlier, the fact that both him and Social Credit Generator tried to separate Bolosauria from Procolophonomorpha in less than two weeks, as well as the similar pattern of mass editing dates and classifications, seems very suspicious. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that, but it would explain several things. Larrayal (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I was also going to point out those copyvios. This is an incredibly disruptive editor, and the only thing that could excuse their behaviour would be young age, otherwise I think there needs to be consequences. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Im fairly convinced now that they are indeed a sock of SCG. The correct place to deal with socks is WP:SPI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that also worthy of note for problematic behavior is the creation of a section below with "(READ THIS QUICK)" in its title, with the section being a proposal to create an article on a rather fringe-centric topic that's already been created and redirected some years ago. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, now @1234qwer1234qwer4: nominated all their images for deletion. By the way I hope you can also report Red Natters' copyvio images by Peters as well? [34][35][36] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrglahl LCD söz (talk · contribs) also appears to have competency issues. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that he's the same user? Patachonica (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

They clearly can't speak English property so they can't function on Wikipedia as an editor, as such I have opened up an ANI thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wrglahl LCD söz Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sabertooth cat/Sabre toothed cat related redirects

Sabertooth cat was recently retargeted from Saber-toothed predator to Machairodontinae, as were 8 other redirects of similar form. Sabre toothed cat and 11 other forms continue to redirect to Saber-toothed predator. Presumably all the variants should target the same article. Plantdrew (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I redirected the redirect, since previous consensus seems to accept the redirect to Saber-toothed predator Larrayal (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Machairodonts are almost always referred to as "saber-toothed cats", so I think it should be redirected to Machairodontinae. Patachonica (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also the Nimravidae and Barbourofelidae which are also sometimes called saber-toothed cats, but are not cats. I say that the various saber-toothed redirects all point to Saber-toothed predator. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Barbourofelids might just be a subgroup of nimravids though, and btw they're only colloquially referred to as "false saber-toothed cats". Patachonica (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We had this discussion on the saber-toothed predator talk page that resulted it being renamed from "Saber-toothed cat" to the current title we have as it was inaccurate. In those same discussions it was suggested multiple times to have sabre-toothed cat redirect to either machairodontinae & Smilodon. Meanwhile, both nimravids & barbourofelids ([37]) are both indeed called "false sabre-toothed cats" in the scientific literature. Monsieur X (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

But like I said above, barbourofelids might just be nimravids though. Patachonica (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not barbourofelids & nimravids are part of the same family, doesn't take away from the fact that the common name of both families is "false saber-toothed cats". With that, I say we follow the discussions had on the "Saber-toothed predator" page & have "Sabre-toothed cat" redirect to machairodontinae & have "false saber-toothed cats" redirect to a disambiguation page. Monsieur X (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Double-check edit

Is this edit reasonable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Rosa_Formation,_New_Mexico&curid=25157327&diff=1095851821&oldid=1093504045 Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's cf. Ischigualastia according to the source that is cited. This has apparently been questioned by later papers though, and Fröbisch (2009) treats it as an indeterminate kannemeyeriiform. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Shorter range for the Geological range template

WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 15 Temporal range: Ypresian
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Arthropoda
Class:	Insecta
Order:	Hymenoptera
Family:	Formicidae
Genus:	†Klondikia
Species:	†K. whiteae
Binomial name
†Klondikia whiteae Dlussky & Rasnitsyn, 2002

Hello all. I was looking at the Opossum article and was initially confused about the purpose of the Geological range template in the infobox. It took me a while to notice that the little green box indicated a range. I think it's hard to read and easy for general readers (like myself) to miss at first glance. So I'd like to suggest that we add templates for zoomed-in range charts for the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras. Perhaps showing epochs instead of just periods. I believe this would help readability. We could keep the current template (for a bird's eye view) and add the zoomed-in template below it.

This is an idea that has been brought up on the template's talk page in 2017 and 2021, but I don't think anything came from it. Note that Jcwf has already created the kind of templates I'm talking about on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Their comment from 2017 links examples of what I mean (see af:Necrolestes and af:Ornithischia).

What do you all think? Would this be a desirable addition to the infoboxes? Are there downsides I'm not thinking of? I'm not an expert in wiki templates or in paleontology so I don't think I should try to do this myself. Thanks. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 01:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

While I'm sure there are valid arguments against it, I think it would be rather welcome. Arguably it works fine as is for the longer eras like the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic, but specifically in regards to the Cenozoic the range area becomes so small that having the timeline there is almost pointless, as you can't see where it is. So personally I think it would be a nice addition or alternative.Armin Reindl (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see the geology range zoomed to the epoch/s that are relevant at the very least. When you are dealing with taxa only found in say the Ypresian, Its almost impossible to actually SEE the bar on the timeline. If the timeline automatically zoomed to the Cenozoic, with more detailed breakdown of the epoch, it would be much easier to understand for people reading.--Kevmin § 14:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Things become even more frustrating for the Neogene and especially the Quarternary. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This would be a fantastic change. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a more precise template is a good idea for Cenozoic articles and taxa, though I don't think it's necessary for older time periods. Generally speaking, fine-scale evolutionary trends and events become less resolved the older one goes. In any case, the tiny arrow is very inconspicuous and probably deserves a broader line width to help with its visibility. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I also think this would be a nice feature, especially for taxa with short temporal ranges. I also have to agree about arrow, was it always that small? I could have sworn it used to be bigger. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I like it. I'd recommend templates for Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Neogene to present, and possibly Quaternary to present. Of course, that's doing to be a little bit of work. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Armin here, it seems like a good change. It will provide us with a heap of work, but that's the only downside that I can think of. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Abiogenesis

A requested move of Abiogenesis to Origin of life is under discussion. Project members are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Problematic ages

While working on an expansion to Chacaicosaurus, I realized that the age range given in the article does not actually appear in the publication it was cited to, which simply lists it as coming from the "Early Bajocian". I am unsure what to do here; as I cannot find an age range for the Early Bajocian. I could give the age range of the Bajocian given by the ICS, but that wouldn't really be reflective of things, as Chacaicosaurus only lived in part of the Bajocian, not all of it. I also could just drop numerical dates from the article entirely, though I'm not sure how the fossilrange template would handle that, and I generally find that this information is requested by reviewers. Does anyone have any recommendations about what to do in this case? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bajocian is an extremely short stage by geologic standards, only lasting about 2 million years. I think it's ok just to use Bajocian. You could also use the beginning of the Bajocian to the midpoint age of the Bajocian as the "Early Bajocian". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The fossil and geologicalrange templates can work with just age names, so inputting Bajocian rather than numbers is workable. Since they don't like splitting stages into "early"/"late"/etc, in similar circumstances I usually just add the "Early"/"Late"/whatever in front of the curly brackets, which appears seamless on the published page. Granted, the template still marks the whole stage on the timescale, but for brief stages like the Bajocian where the marker on the template is already a thin line I don't think it's an issue. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; the solution I decided on was to use Bajocian for fossilrange, add "Early" in front of it, and give the age range of the entire stage in the article text w/ a disclaimer. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with page on yorkicystis

Hello, it’s been a while since I’ve made a Wikipedia page so I am asking for some help with a new page I am working on. It is in Yorkicystis, a Cambrian edrioaesteroid from Pennsylvania. All I need help with is possibly expanding the article with more information as well as fixing the taxobox. Some help would be greatly appreciated

Sources can be found here https://phys.org/news/2022-05-yorkicystis-million-year-old-relative-starfish-lost.amp

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10145241/1/Gibson_Zamora-et-al_Manuscript_R4.pdf Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using news sources since everything on there comes from peer reviewed studies. You should cut out the middleman and just use the study Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The yorkicystis page is in need of a cladogram

Hey, me again, the page on Yorkicystis is coming along well. Thank you to the users who have helped me with it. Currently the classification section is almost done, however I feel a cladogram is needed. Normally I would do it but I have not made a cladogram in a while, so if someone with more expertise could help that would be great.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10145241/1/Gibson_Zamora-et-al_Manuscript_R4.pdf

This is the link. The cladogram is on page 26. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do, directly on the page. Don't edit conflict me, tho, please. Larrayal (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

And done ; now it's up to you to word that correctly and to add the citations. EDIT : Wait, there already was a cladogram on the page? Larrayal (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Larrayal Yeah I added a cladogram based on my experience I was seeing if it could be improved on. Thanks for your cladograms I can work on those tonight. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, such requests should be directed to WP:TREEREQ. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Tianchiasaurus spelling

Back in 2020, I moved the page Tianchisaurus to Tianchiasaurus on the grounds that Dong (1993) spells it Tianchiasaurus when named as a new genus in the systematic paleontology. In the bilingual parts of the paper, it's called "Tianchiasaurus nedegoapeferima gen. et sp. nov" in English but "Tianchisaurus nedegoapeferima gen. et sp. nov" in Chinese. It's marking "gen. et sp. nov" for two different spellings for the same taxon. Most works (e.g. Frauenfelder et al. 2022) also spell it without an extra "a", but Dong's systematic paleontology uses the "a". So how should the page be spelled? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

According to Arbour and Currie (2016), Dong (1994) published an erratum specifying that Tianchisaurus is the correct spelling. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

All instances of "Tianchiasaurus" corrected. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals

A few months ago, I asked here for some feedback on the vital animal articles list, which also includes extinct taxa, with little interest. Today, at @FunkMonk request, it's time for round two. For the sake of simplicity, I will list only extinct taxa, and explanations on why they were chosen over others will be given at demand. Keep in mind that this list is now closed. Some space may be liberated later on, but for now let's focus on discussing what is already there. Any discussions on non-extinct taxa will go on the WikiProject Vital Articles talk page instead. Keep in mind that this page has not been reexaminated since we finished filling it last year, but it always was meant to be a work in progress. And yes, not all taxa can be represented, so we had to make choices. Feel free to give your opinions and criticism on this selection.

-- Larrayal (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Vital article Lvl5 discussion

Definitely difficult to determine which prehistoric crocs warrant being vital articles besides "the big three" (Purussaurus, Deinosuchus, Sarcosuchus), but Kaprosuchus much as I love it strikes me as arguably one of the least important ones currently listed. When you get down to it there is only a single publication that deals with the taxon directly, which neither has an especially important history or much material to discuss. Scientifically speaking, its not that important of a taxon, its mostly held up by media hype. Tho of course there is the question IF there is a more vital taxon to replace it.Armin Reindl (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Something similar honestly could be argued for Stomatosuchidae. Again a fascinating group no doubt, but one that from an encyclopedic POV doesn't have much to offer. Laganosuchus is primarily restricted to the inittial description and Stomatosuchus to the early publications by Stromer. Interesting but I feel like there is an argument to be made that other taxa have a greater bulk of research and historical importance more deserving of the vital status. Armin Reindl (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I feel like the list in general is biased in a few places more towards significance in the public consciousness than importance to scholarship (which is the intended criterion per WP:VAFAQ). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#contribs) 12:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would add Sinosauropteryx (first non-avian dinosaur found to preserve feathers) and remove Leaellynasaura as it is very fragmentary and has an unstable phylogenetic position. Definitely add Lesothosaurus, very important basal ornithischian. Switching out Kelenken or Titanis with Psilopterus because Psilopterus is known from many species, has its own subfamily, last surviving phorusrhacid, and all of the phorusrhacids on the list currently are large Phorusrhacines. Llallawavis is also a good addition as it’s the best-known genus of phorusrhacid. I would switch Dinofelis for Machairodus or Homotherium. I don’t think that the American Cheetah should be that high priority. Augustios_Paleo (talk &#contribs) 8:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Kelenken and Titanis are both more famous and of more general importance, because one is the largest member of the group, the other the latest surviving (or one of), and the only one from North America. Having many species isn't really saying much. Anyhow, nice initiative with bringing it up here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Some puzzling choices I think could be replaced with more important taxa: Balaur bondoc, Asteriornis, Anchiornis, Incisivosaurus. Then Saber-toothed predator is under Carnivora, even though it's not a taxon, and why are there no Hominids? Agree Leaellynasaura could be replaced, and I think Euoplocephalus could be replaced by a nodosaur, since Ankylosaurus is already there. Why Hatzegopteryx and not a smaller but more complete azh when we already have Quetz? Istiodactylus is probably more important than Pterodaustro. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll limit myself to dinosaurs here as to not get too long with it. Yinlong should go, but Leaellynasaura should stay. Camptosaurus deserves to be added, Euoplocephalus should probably stay, and Sauropelta might be added. Huayangosaurus is probably notable enough, and Lesothosaurus should be added. I would add Massospondylus, remove Masiakasaurus and Caenagnathidae, add Caudipteryx and Gigantoraptor, remove Halzkaraptor and Inscisivosaurus, replace Unenlagiinae with Austroraptor, and add Segnosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Why Euoplocephalus, though? It has recently been split into atoms to the point that what we used to think of as Euoplocephalus before doesn't even belong in that genus anymore, and it will be difficult to even write a coherent article, as much of the literature about it now instead covers multiple genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Euoplocephalus is by far the most famous ankylosaur after Ankylosaurus itself, and the fact it's included so much historically makes it very notable scientifically, even if as a taxonomic unit today it's not especially standout. I think it's a logical inclsusion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Euoplocephalus is reduced to a bunch of skulls now, it hardly says anything about ankylosaur biology etc. Using the space for a well-known nodosaur would also make the list more balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There should be more higher taxa and fewer genera here, in my opinion. My impression is that the overall goal of the vital articles project is to have articles that are of most vital importance to understanding the subject overall, not just the first thing an average layperson is likely to be familiar with.

Within my areas of expertise (sauropodomorphs and stem-mammals), I would tentatively consider the following taxa to be most vital:

• • Synapsida
  • Caseasauria
  • Varanopidae
  • Ophiacodontidae
  • Edaphosaurus
  • Sphenacodontidae
  • Dimetrodon
  • Therapsida
  • Dinocephalia
  • Anomodontia
  • Dicynodontia
  • Lystrosaurus
  • Gorgonopsia
  • Therocephalia
  • Cynodontia
  • Thrinaxodon
  • Cynognathia
  • Tritylodontidae
  • Mammaliaformes
  • Morganucodon
  • Docodonta

• • Sauropodomorpha
  • Plateosaurus
  • Mussaurus
  • Sauropoda
  • Cetiosaurus
  • Mamenchisaurus
  • Diplodocoidea
  • Rebbachisauridae
  • Dicraeosauridae
  • Diplodocidae
  • Apatosaurus
  • Diplodocus
  • Macronaria
  • Camarasaurus
  • Brachiosauridae
  • Titanosauria

I would argue that, of the current lists of stem-mammals and sauropodomorphs, at least the following taxa should be removed:

• Burnetia: Why is this even here?
• Placerias: other than some moderate fame for appearing in Walking with Dinosaurs and being once thought to be the last dicynodont, Placerias doesn't have anything especially remarkable about it.
• Castorocauda: It's interesting, but it's only one of several ecologically unusual Yanliao mammaliaforms.
• Gorgonops and Inostrancevia: No genus of Gorgonopsia stands out as especially well-known or historically notable compared to any other (Lycaenops, at least, is surely on par with those two), and the group as a whole is poorly-studied. It is best to represent Gorgonopsia with a single article on the group overall.
• Brontosaurus: Better to just have Apatosaurus, which everyone agrees is valid.

Ornithopsis (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more thoughts, on non-dinosaur reptiles this time:

• Sharovipteryx should be removed.
• Longisquama can probably be removed.
• Petrolacosaurus should be added.
• Shringasaurus should be replaced with Allokotosauria.
• Scutosaurus can probably be removed.
• Procolophonidae should be added.
• Scleromochlus can probably be removed.
• Stomatosuchidae and Kaprosuchus can probably be removed.
• Pseudosuchia and Crocodylomorpha or Crocodyliformes should be added.
• Eunotosaurus might be worth adding.

Ornithopsis (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Local ornithischian enthusiast here just to weigh in on them (other than a vote that Brontosaurus absolutely shouldn't be removed). I think it's a mostly good list, but a few things standout. The most questionably inclusion is Corythosaurus - hadrosaurids get four representatives when any other family has one or two, and it's an easy fourth place for fame compared to the other three. I'm also very unsure it's more famous than others major hadrosaurid taxa, and it's outstripped in scientific relevance by Maiasaura quite easily. I'd probably take it, and add in Lesothosaurus instead - it's a very important look into early ornithischian evolution, very widely published on, and connected to the historically important Fabrosaurus. Another talking point is Leaellynasaura; it's pretty well known and representative of Elasmaria, but it's a step below most of these and I wonder if Kulindadromeus or one of Dryosaurus/Dysalotosaurus might be a better inclusion. Quite torn, it's a close race between all of them. Also have to wonder if Ankylosauridae might be worth including over Ankylosauria? Since Nodosauridae is already there separately. Hard call. Lastly, Ceratopsidae being missing feels a bit weird since we have Hadrosauridae. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

My reasoning for Brontosaurus is that it is very similar to Apatosaurus, which is already included; the argument for its validity is still principally based on a single study; and, anecdotally, I can attest that several sauropod researchers I've spoken to are skeptical of Tschopp et al.'s findings. I believe it is likely that Brontosaurus will be sunk back into Apatosaurus within a few years, and I don't think it's the best use of one of our limited slots, regardless of the familiarity of the name. Most people just think "brontosaur" means "sauropod" anyway. However, I admit that, as somebody who has done research on sauropods, I might be too close to this issue. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I would think this list is not about the most substantial taxa, but instead those that have the most impression on the general reader. Unfortunately, that means shows like WWD, are going to be very important for deciding what should stay and what should be on the chopping block. We have to ask what of the taxa we are considering would be more well-known outside of our group. Leaellynasaura is far more popular than Kulindadromeus and other stem-ornithopods, perhaps equivalent to Thescelosaurus and Hypsilophodon. Brontosaurus is probably still above Apato in popular impressions, though the recent JW movies might sway that a bit. As far as clades and families go, I would really only support the "orders" having their articles listed, in addition to the big three clades and Sauropoda. Ankylosauria, Stegosauria, Ceratopsia, Pachycephalosauria, Iguanodontia, Carnosauria, Coelurosauria, Deinonychosauria, Titanosauria. Maybe some significant families among theropods as well, like Tyrannosauridae, Dromaeosauridae, Hadrosauridae, Diplodocidae, as I think the main focus should be the names that get most recognition. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The vital articles page is frustratingly unclear about what criteria make something a vital article, but my general impression is that it's like, "if you were stranded on a desert island, which 50,000 Wikipedia articles would you want to bring with you?" The vital article page describes them as being "about broad and important topics". It seems to me that the goal is to choose the articles most foundational to providing a general understanding of the topic, not just the articles that are most likely to be of passing familiarity to a lay audience. Page count viewers can easily measure which articles have the most traffic, so it seems to me that the purpose of adding articles to this list should be something other than mere public interest. South Polar region of the Cretaceous and Elasmaria are both more foundational topics than Leaellynasaura, for instance. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me the favorable middle ground here is balancing both criteria. Ergo that Leallynasaura being more well known should be considered, but it's not an automatic trump over the scientifically vital Kulindadromeus or Dysalotosaurus. Which balances both halves of the equation effectively is hard to say, but I think looking for that answer in each case would lead to the best list. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

None of Leaellynasaura, Kulindadromeus, or Dysalotosaurus strike me as vital articles. There isn't much to say about Kulindadromeus other than that it shows some ornithischians were feathered, which is already mentioned at Ornithischia and Feathered dinosaur. Leaellynasaura is simply the least obscure of several poorly-known Australian hypsilophodont-grade things, and we don't even know whether most of the material that has been assigned to it belongs to it. The fact that most entry-level dinosaur geeks will have heard the name doesn't really add many points in its favor. I don't see any good reason to choose either Dryosaurus or Dysalotosaurus over the other, so it would make more sense to me to have a Dryosauridae article than either genus on its own. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think taxon known from single finger and mostly not restudied is not suitable for vital article... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I also think we have to keep a look on the balance across articles. Why do some clades get more representatives etc. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion is way too messy to go anywhere substantial, the only clear consensus is that Brontoscorpio = bad, which ain't very new, and we're all probably too deep within this field to differentiate between a thing that we think is important and a thing popular opinion on dinosaur find important. So, I've said it, I'll resay it, genera are prioritary over clades because genera articles gets more attention than clades, the fact you don't like a specific animal due to poor fossil remains does not mean it isn't important in popular culture - try naming an extinct scorpion more popular than Brontoscorpio, or a notosuchian more popular than Kaprosuchus, the question of if the fossil remains sucks is of little importance there. The popular article list can give lead, but it isn't a clear indicator on what needs to be vital or not, unless we want a list composed at 50% of dinosaurs. Extinct hominiids are located at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology by default. Maybe there's a case to move fossil genera to this list ? There's probably a lot of stuff to put here instead, tho. So, if you want to do anything profiteable, try summarizing the history of life on Earth in between 400 and 500 articles (it's probably the best that I can liberate on a page, whether the zoology page or the biology page), only taking into account, please, taxonomic levels and not formations, paleoenvironments or list of fossils from a country. And pretty please, stop trashtalking this list, it would probably be a list of random cool dinosaurs, animal actors, prized cows and inbred pets if I had noticed it only a week later, the project was getting some attention and I wanted it filled asap with what I thought at the time were generally the most logical choices ; also, we were heavily focusing on extant taxa, only adding extinct ones as a treat. So please, try getting your own list done in a week or two, while I try to get some more space free at the Vital wikiproject. Hoping I didn't upset anyone here. So basically, you're crashing on an island, you can only take 400-450 prehistoric animals and clades with you, what do you do ? Larrayal (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

But you asked for criticism? I think the main issue here remains what exactly a "vital" article is, as others have alluded to. If I was a member of the general public, your hypothetical island scenario would look very different than if I was a researcher. Indeed charismatic genera with presences in popular culture are important to the general public, but higher-level clades and taxa with significant taxonomic/evolutionary significance would be much more important to a researcher. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to trash the list. I do wonder why Saber-toothed predator is included, and why Dinofelis and Miracinonyx (American cheetah). Personally, for cats, I'd go with Smilodon (popularity), Proailurus (first cat), Panthera spelaeus (popularity), and Machairodontinae (overview). Also add Amphicyonidae, the bear-dogs, in place of a felid or Saber-toothed predator. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If I have to select fossil scorpion important than Brontoscorpio, I'd like to choose Pulmonoscorpius. It is known from whole body fossil and morphology is well studied, especially evidence of book lung picked up on Nature[38] before description of genus. Of course size is large, and it is from Carboniferous that is famous for other large land arthropods. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of Vital Articles, there's an expansion drive for those below 30 kb is anyone is interested in the paleo side of things:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

False information of prehistoric fish added by User:Tnophelia

I found User:Tnophelia (Contributions) who was active in 2014 added many false or unsourced information about some taxon of prehistoric fish. For example size estimations, 7 m long for Protopsephurus (about 80 cm TL according to this paper[40]), 3 m for Acrolepis (125 cm TL according to this paper[41]), 1.8 m for Occithrissops (9 cm according to the supplementary information of this paper[42]), tooth length 22 cm and total length 6.1 m for Barameda (which I couldn't find any in reference they added, 3-4 m according to this paper[43]). Most of these information are remain in these page, and possibly there are false information in other contents added by this user, for example they added information about cannibalism of Parahelicoprion which is deleted. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Now I have fixed there size information, but still there may be false about sentences they added. I hope fish experts review articles they edited and which information is false among these. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Morphological v molecular phylogenies

I have been having a discussion with Patachonica at User_talk:Hemiauchenia#Megalocnidae over the relative merits of morphological vs molecular phylogenies. In my opinion, when the data is equivalent between the two, the molecular data is more likely to be closer to the true relationship (with DNA being more likely to be closer to the ground truth than collagen) than morphological phylogenies due to a lack of homoplasy, and when morphological and molecular phylogenies contradict the latter should be preferred. That said I am very suspicious of molecular clock estimates in papers, which often lack adequate calibration and can grossly over/underestimate divergence times if the relative substitution rate is off. A recent example of this is this paper in IScience, a journal published by the well-known publisher Elsevier, that posits that the flowering plant family Rhamnaceae originated during the mid-Permian around 260 million years ago, which is based off nothing other than the molecular clock, and is 160 million years earlier than credible estimates. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Molecular clock is different from molecular analysis AFAIK.Patachonica (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

They're often presented together as part of a time calibrated cladogram, though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Molecular phylogenies are generally more reliable than morphological phylogenies, although due weight should be taken into account as always. Bear in mind, though, that there are limitations to molecular phylogeny (e.g. saturation, long branch attraction) that are lesser concerns with morphological data, and one of the main weaknesses of morphological data is simply that it's harder to build a dataset of comparable size and quality. I'm inclined to agree regarding molecular clock estimates. As far as I'm concerned, molecular clock estimates don't make any reliable claims more specific than "this group is older than the oldest fossils of this group", which is trivial. Cases where molecular clocks come up with implausible estimates are common, and the whole concept is essentially unfalsifiable. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about long branch attraction. There's still no real consensus for the higher relationships of most modern arachnid groups for instance, even with extensive genome sequencing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library reminder

Just thought I would remind everyone, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, whos entry requirements mean every regular here can use it, allow unfettered access to many major journal publishers entire catalogues, notably for paleontology including Wiley, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press and JSTOR. The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology is directly accessible via JSTOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Chicxulub crater

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting to Review Featured Articles

The Triceratops body mass estimate of 6.1~12 tonnes based on Alexander (1985) actually turned out to be completely false. The study never even mentioned that Triceratops could reach 12 tonnes. What he said was that Colbert (1962a) estimated the mass of this dinosaur up to 9.4 tonnes which is wrong, so he adjusted it to 6.1 tonnes. The "12 t estimate" (which never even was a thing) has remained in the article for a very long time and can be found in so many places in the internet due to this misinformation. Given that a featured article had such a huge misinformation, I think other featured articles require reviews in case there are any significant errors. Junsik1223 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I tracked down the old edits to see when this information was added. What I found is, mass estimate section in Triceratops previously had one more reference other than Alexander (1985), and that is this website[44]. Probably someone deleted this reference as unreliable, but remained mass estimate as it is. See this version[45]. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So I tracked when that other source was exactly deleted. [46]07:27, 29 May 2008 But something that still bothers me is that for the last 14 years, no one even bothered to check whether the information given was correct? Junsik1223 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. There was a case where somebody made up a hoax about a ficitious person who supposedly invented the electric toaster, and the article and the link to it from the toaster article lasted for over 9 years until last month. Over the course of that time it was viewed at least 60,000 times. That's way worse in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Most old paleo-related Featured Articles are currently already under scrutiny to assess if they are still worthy of their status, and to correct them in case of the contrary. If you notice any issue about a Featured Article, do not hesitate to correct it and signal it if the issues are multiple. Larrayal (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Therrien and Henderson (2007)

Titled "My theropod is bigger than yours... or Not: Estimating Body Size from Skull Length in Theropods," this study uses skull length estimates to measure the maximum body length and body mass of theropod dinosaurs. I've seen some articles using this study, but I don't consider this study reliable enough. For one thing, even a skull length difference of a few cm (less than 10 cm) would result in a very huge body mass difference. For instance, Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus skull lengths (only 7 cm difference) result in a 800 kg difference (3.2 tonne and 4 tonne each), while Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus skull lengths (only 4 cm difference) result in a 1.3 tonne difference (13.8 tonne and 15.1 tonne each). The body mass estimates themselves are very questionable, especially for carcharodontosaurids. Every estimates for Carcharodontosaurus before and after this study resulted in 12 m and 6 tonne (or just a bit more), even by Henderson himself in his 2015 study with Robert Nicholls (2015), where they moderated the 2007 estimate. The same goes for Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus, where no estimates ever topped beyond 3 tonne. For Giganotosaurus, at least the situation is more understandable, since its size was and still is a subject of debate, but given how all estimates after this study result in 6-7 tonnes for the holotype (using different methods), I don't think the 2007 estimate can ever be considered reliable (even the authors themselves noted to take caution regarding their estimate). Another study from 2021 which collected various body mass estimates of many dinosaurs (although the mass estimates are not really the focus of the study) showed that theropod mass will not be able to top 10 tonnes. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/11/jeb217463/269062 Now I'm not saying recent = accurate/precise, but all estimates after almost came to the similar conclusion, which makes me question that estimate a lot. Also, seriously, how plausible is it that a bipedal animal could weigh over 10 tonnes and even reach 13-15 tonnes? Now of course, this is my opinion with a reason, so if anyone has an opinion regarding this study, please say so. Junsik1223 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Look... regardless of whether or not one considers the study plausible, it is in the published literature and its results must be reported on neutrally unless the literature says otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I know, but this just seems too extreme even for an average person like me who probably don't have the slightest idea of how the scientists got those results. How do you personally conceive the study though? (I'm not arguing, just asking.) Junsik1223 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Plus the 2021 study, scaling with the body-size proposed by Therrien and Henderson (2007), moderated the body mass of the holotype at 7.2 tonnes (approximately). This study reconstructed digital 3D models of theropods based on skull length and body length relationship proposed by Therrien and Henderson (2007) to estimate body mass distribution and volume. Given how applying the information from the 2007 study resulted in a much lighter mass in the 2021 study, I consider the body mass estimates by Therrien and Henderson (2007) exaggerated. Link Junsik1223 (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

All we can and should do is report what the published literature (from reliable outlets) says. Judgment on the accuracy of individual studies is up to other researchers, not us. If no researchers have published rebuttals specifically to this paper, we can't say they have reacted specifically to it and thereby call it "inaccurate" in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If the study is quite recent, is at odds with previous work, and has not yet attracted much (published) attention (either way), mentioning it at all may be WP:UNDUE. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the FAC criteria is representing a comprehensive survey of the literature. Giganotosaurus has very few devoted articles to its name in general, so discriminating on that basis is almost meaningless. The article in question has been cited by others and is relevant to the historical debate about the animal's size, leaving it out because an editor doesn't like its results is not an option, nor is calling it "wrong" if no sources do so. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

All size estimates other than volumetric ones are likely to be flawed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cite them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is another bad example of this[47], yet again, if there is a debate in the literature, state it, dont just remove sources entirely. There is no "truth", and we need to reflect the literature. This is getting really tiresome, use the talk page so your suggestions can be evaluated, instead of tonnes of drive-by edits. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have to agree that while a simple range looks cleaner, it is more informative to list the estimates individually when the methodology and basis varies, as it does in the case of Kentrosaurus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Absence of information regarding flora in articles about geological formations

Many articles about geological formations I could find don't contain information about the type of flora discovered. Even in the Morrison formation article, where Foster (2003) noted different types of flora, doesn't contain a single information about them (the article itself has, but the Paleobiota of Morrison Formation doesn't). Is this because paleobotany is lesser known among paleontologists and not getting the spotlight or just users not interested and didn't search about it? Junsik1223 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost nobody on Wikipedia cares about paleobotany. The only real exceptions are me, Kevmin (but generally only for the Paleogene of western North America, where he has expertise), and a handful of infrequently active subject-matter experts like PalaeoPhytologist and Retallack. Paleobotany has generally a lot less popular interest than fossil animals. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

For the Morrison Formation, @TimTheDragonRider has been working for the last few months on a comprehensive palaeobiota list, visible on his sandbox. Larrayal (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have indeed been working on a comprehensive paleobiota list in a style more reminiscent of the Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale article. However, finding good references for flora is tedious work, which is why its taking me a while. As for people who work on paleobotany, Tom Parker has recently picked up wikipedia editing and is working to improve some of the coverage on the subject. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiMania

As most of you probably know, WikiMania is right around the corner. I thought that we could hold a communal activity together for the event and have tossed around some ideas in the WP:Paleo discord. We've settled on the following idea:

An editing marathon (or edit-a-thon), beginning August 11th and ending August 14th. The idea is to work on a specific set of articles, here ones related to the Early Jurassic, and give the entire topic a boost in article quality.

You are free to participate if you wish, and can discuss it here or head over and join the discord (https://discord.gg/pwYAyK4HNF) to talk about it there.

TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Lingyuanopterus article

Recently Sauriazoicillus has been bolding the measurements for Lingyuanopterus, in which he claims accessibility as the main reason. When the other user pointed out that bolded measurements are not used in Wikipedia, Sauriazoicillus pointed out that "IPA-style pronunciations are also not present on many articles, I don't see people removing them." How do you guys think of this? Does bolding the measurements really increase accessibility? Or is there a rule about this? Junsik1223 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is strange/nonstandard and not covered in Wikipedia:BOLDING at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I wouldn't go straight and say strange, since he does have some point (at least that is what I think). Based on his argument, he might not be good at reading. Also this is one of his statements in another article. "that's not how accessibility works, remember, the people who make Wikipedia articles are likely the people who don't have trouble reading and picking out information, so they won't think to put that in, hence why we don't see that in other articles. You need to put yourself into someone elses shoes, especially since again, the goal of writing these articles in the first place is to help the uneducated public understand these topics" Junsik1223 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how bolding measurement helps with accessibility, though. Numbers tend to be pretty distinct all on their own, and bolding, IMO, is something to be used sparingly. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all I'm not a dude. Second of all, I agree that it is not part of the rules, but we also need to acknowledge that the people making these rules likely aren't the people that struggle with these issues, and again we as editors need to think about what laymen would want to read and most of the time that is measurements. To people like me, and others that have it worse, all text like this is just a wall of words. The only reason why I can somewhat bare it is because I've conditioned myself to pick out keywords through years of having a dinosaur hyperfixiation, what's noticeable to you can be, and is, invisible to others. And regardless even for people without reading and comprehension impairments it's been proven that bolding words in text helps anybody read, check bionic reading is a good example of bolding words helps reading. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If you strongly believe this, then you need to open up a discussion on WT:ACCESSIBILITY and get consensus from the Wikipedia community as a whole, rather than only implimenting it in one Wikipedia article against the precedent in other articles. I also fail to see how bolding the measurements helps with accessibility. A much better way to help with accessibility would be to always have both metric and imperial measurements for every measurement, which is lacking in some articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, that would make sense if this was a personal website, but this is Wikipedia, which has a set of guidelines, and they discourage this. But yeah, we can't assume everyone is male here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages bolding measurements?Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for assuming you a dude. I usually try to avoid this, but I made a mistake. Second, I'm not exactly sure about whether it discourages its use, but it certainly doesn't encourage it either. Junsik1223 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Look at any featured article on animals, like Elk, or Orangutan]. None of the measurements are bolded. These are articles that are carefully scrutinised to follow the manual of style. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I do acknowledge there's no ruling on it, but I'm curious about how there's a rule not to bold words. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines for the use of bolding:[48] While it does not specifically mentioned measurements, it can be deducted from "Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but is considered appropriate only for certain usages", and the fact that measurements are then not mentioned among the appropriate usages. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Would measurements not be counted under "Mathematical objects"? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it gives exact examples of what that would be:[49] FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally, in Paleo article, you'll only see bolding used for :

- first mentions of the species name in the header and the text ;

- first mentions of the genus name in the header and the text, if it's different from the species name ;

- first mention of the common name in the header ;

- first mention of the holotype/neotype of the genus.

Also, as a side note, since you have a lot of questions about policies and basal functioning of the wikiproject, I encourage you to visit the Discord, linked in the earlier WikiMania post, where it will probably be easier to answer your questions without overclocking a bit this talk page, @Junsik1223. Larrayal (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also thank you for clearing that up Larrayal, I still feel as if this is solely because the people who made the rules don't experience reading issues. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You have to be very sparing in using bolds or italics, otherwise you end up muddling the entire text and it becomes difficult to read. If you bolded every number and italicized every vocab word, underlined glosses and highlighted everything important, how could you parse through anything? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally find it easier to read stuff like that, as do others. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you have a different experience from the rest of us, but I don't see this as a reason to proactively implement changes before there is community consensus that they are necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, makes no sense to only do it in specific articles. That's why there's a WP:manual of style, to give a consistent look across articles. As for breaking up articles that could seem like a wall of text, the blue wikilinks already do that, and that's what paragraphs are for. I don't see why bolding measurements specifically should make an entire text easier to read, where numbers are probably used sporadically. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Strophomenida Extinction date

The Wikipedia page says the Strophomenida brachiopods died out in the Carboniferous. Everywhere else I look however says they died out in the lower Jurassic, explanation?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the article. The statements that the Strophomenida went extinct in the Carboniferous appears to be unsourced. If you have a reliable source for the lower Jurassic, do please change this in the article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, they went extinct due to the Permian extinction. The Lower Jurassic record now belongs to a different order Athyridida. 1 I'll add source materials to that page. Junsik1223 (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the Carboniferous date and removed the Jurassic date. I was basing much of the article text on Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology Part H Volume 2 (2007), which is one of the more recent comprehensive texts regarding which genera lie within the order and which have been reclassified. The Jurassic species have been reclassified, as said previously, but I'm not sure about the Permian ones. I can't access the book right now, but if you ask again in a month I may be able to elaborate once I'm back near a library which stocks it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've also realized that Carlson (2016)'s big review of brachiopod anatomy and evolution ([50]) also has a mid-Carboniferous extinction date. Part of the issue may be related to how some older texts place now-separate strophomenate orders (like the Productida and Orthotetida, which died out at the end-Permian) as strophomenid suborders. It's unfortunate that the Treatise volumes are so inaccessible for online editors considering how crucial they are for understanding major trends in invertebrate paleontology. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've searched more about them, and this paper also cites them as being extinct in Carboniferous based on Cocks and Rong (2000). [51] And yes, one source I've cited has classified Orthotetida under Strophomenida, which is now inaccurate. Also, the 1996 book was cowritten by Cocks, who later changed his statement in 2000 as cited in the paper I've put here. The 2013 study classified Davidsonicea under Strophomenida. How accurate is this? If this turns about to be wrong, then we can confidently say that they certainly went extinct in Carboniferous. Junsik1223 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2013 Iranian paper seems to be using an older classification scheme, google scholar says it's the only citation for "Davidsonicea", and you can also see that it refers to productids as "Suborder Productidina". With more investigation, "Davidsonicea" is probably a typo of Davidsoniacea, an older subfamily which seems to be subsummed under Orthotetida. The genus the 2013 paper reports as a strophomenid is Orthotetina, which is an orthotetid. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then I think it's better to cite it as a possible record, given that this is the only instance where the classification of Davidsonicea has been noted. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait sorry I misread it. If that's the case, then I'll delete that. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Princeton Field Guide to Mesozoic Sea Reptiles

Junsik1223 has recently been adding information cited to The Princeton Field Guide to Mesozoic Sea Reptiles by Greg Paul. I'm finding this to be problematic for a couple of reasons; first, and most importantly, the book hasn't been published yet according to the publisher ([52]) and apparently won't be until October. There is a preview on the publisher's website, but it doesn't look like the information cited for Cymbospondylus, among others, is present in that preview. Furthermore with regards to Cymbospondylus, Paul is cited for taxonomic information as well as size. As we typically do not use Paul as a source for taxonomy in dinosaur articles, I find it even more problematic to cite him for an area outside that which he typically publishes on (does he really argue that the shoulder girdles of C. youngorum and C. buchseri are basically identical? If so, does he explain why Sander et al. (2021) got it so wrong?). What are others' thoughts on citing this book?

Additionally, on the topic of citing popular books in articles (I've seen debates about the Facts & Figures series resurfacing again in various places), perhaps we need to establish a firmer set of criteria for citability? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No you got it a bit wrong there. Regarding C. buchseri, he said, "nearly identical shoulder girdles indicate is close relative of above unnamed genus and species," which refers to C. youngorum. He's saying that they are separate but related species, not within the genus Cymbospondylus (they just need to be in a single separate genus, accordingly). Plus I first found Paul's argument puzzling, but after researching that Cymbospondylus taxonomy is actually considered problematic in many studies, and the fact that C. buchseri validity has recently been disputed, I considered it is worth mentioning this argument. Junsik1223 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also for Sander PM, he doesn't explain why. But the thing is, Sander PM is already known for incorrectly stating T. burgundiae as valid, when the majority of the consensus said that it belonged to T. trigonodon (even the people who first assigned T. burgundiae), so it is not surprising that he made an error in this classification. Also he is the one who argued that C. buchseri belongs to Cymbospondylus in 1989, which now has been questioned for its validity (even before Paul). Junsik1223 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Some parts are available in Google Books, and info not present within the preview can be found by searching words in the search tab. Junsik1223 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As of now, I've edited the classification part to make the article more concise, not messy. Also, since the argument against C. youngorum is currently only in Paul's book, I'll just put it as a brief mention. Junsik1223 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I think there is a hierarchy for different portions of an article when it comes to citability. IMO:

• Information on diagnoses, taxonomy, and classification should be restricted to the peer-reviewed literature.
• Information on general anatomy, size, and palaeoecology can use other, non-peer-reviewed, neutral academic sources.
• Information on discovery & naming and popular culture can use non-academic sources like news articles or auction pamphlets. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Junsik1223 needs to be more patient with their edits instead of drive-by editing left and right (with formatting and grammar errors all over the place), use the talk page so the proposed edits can be evaluated. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. While the enthusiasm is appreciated, I'd further like to add that the fact that most edits are just small changes in a quick succession makes it incredibly inconvenient to actually follow along with what has been changed without having to go through 60 edits individually. That and the fact that with all due respect, Paul has built quite the reputation which is not at all favorable to simply using a random book of his at face value over the works of researchers specialised in ichthyosaurs specifically.Armin Reindl (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, and meaning no disrespect, I'll notify a friend of mine of the discussion who is more well versed in ichthyosaurs (and has been the driving force in my own initial edits of Cymbospondylus)Armin Reindl (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, with all due respect. A large part of the 60+ edits seem to be contradicting eachother, which could have easily been solved by publishing them in larger edits. That itself accomplishable by the fact that quite a bit of the edits change only a few words. -- TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• With regards to Cymbospondylus in particular, the validity of C. buchseri as a species is not in dispute; rather, it is occasionally recovered outside the genus Cymbospondylus. In fact, Klein et al. (2020) (of which Sander is a coauthor) do not necessarily exclude C. buchseri from the genus; rather, they state that further study is needed to determine whether it belongs as it fell outside the Nevadan Cymbospondylus clade in an unresolved position in their phylogenetic analysis. In the analysis in Sander et al. (2021), C. buchseri is resolved as the sister taxon of the Nevadan clade. I also don't know where the claim that C. buchseri has a different form of shoulder than C. petrinus girdle comes from, either; Fröbisch et al. (2006) state "The coracoids are almost identical in all three Cymbospondylus species" (only 3 valid ones were known at the time) and Klein et al. (2020) list multiple similarities between the scapulae of C. buscheri and C. petrinus on page 19. I also have no clue how Paul considers the shoulder girdles of C. youngorum and C. buchseri "nearly identical"; in the supplementary info of Sander et al. (2021) (downloadable PDF here), notes that it differs from all other ichthyosaurs, and shows a comparison between it and that of C. buchseri (Fig. S6 A & D). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Did we ever reach a consensus about this? I know that we've had discussions about it on Talk:Plotosaurus as well as the Discord server, though I'm not sure if we ever came to a clear conclusion how citeable this book is. What are our thoughts on it? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given that:

  • A) Paul is not an expert on marine reptiles
  • B) Even in his nominal field of expertise (dinosaurs), Paul's credibility seems rather questionable these days
  • C) Paul is notoriously unorthodox with taxonomy
  • D) Paul's work for the Princeton Field Guide series has generally been rather slipshod (e.g. in Dinosaurs Second Edition, he often does skeletals that look like rigorous skeletals but do not accurately represent which bones are preserved, e.g. his Atlasaurus imelakei and Haplocanthosaurus delfsi skeletals; some of his skeletals clearly fail to take into account distortion or incompleteness, with his Regaliceratops skull perhaps the worst offender)
  • E) Most of the information for which these books could be used could be easily obtained elsewhere, except for the size estimates, and
  • F) For all we know, he pulled most of the size estimates out of his ass;

  I think it's best to deprecate Paul's Princeton Field Guides as reliable sources. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Considering the marine reptiles field guide apparently isn't even published, I concur that it should not be used as a source. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  The book isn't published yet, in the sense that you can't physically own a copy for another couple of months, but a preview is already out, and we'd just have to have this conversation again in a couple of months anyway. And this discussion is pertinent to Paul's other Princeton Field Guides, which are out. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I must admit it would be tempting to add his size estimate of Acamptonectes if he includes one, because there aren't any other sources that have one. What would people think about that? Is it better to have no size estimate than one that is from this source? On the other hand, his estimates shouldn't trump more reliably published ones. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I said before, it's not clear that the reported size estimates represent anything more than his best guess, which may or may not be based on evidence other than a hunch. In terms of depicting the size of taxa for which no numerical size estimate is available, I think just showing it visually with a size chart scaled to known elements is our best bet. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be OR though, by Wikipedia standards, following a published estimate is better than making up our own. Even when we make size diagrams by scaling from bones, we would usually follow an overall length estimate for a given animal. In this case, without a complete vertebral column etc., there would be a lot of guesswork for the creator. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying to use that to give a numerical size estimate, just that a skeletal with a scale reference would give the reader a visual impression of the size of the animal. It would not be any more OR to do so than user-created skeletals are to begin with. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally think that no estimate is better than a shakily sourced estimate that would be rejected elsewhere if better estimates existed. The only instance where I think size charts (excluding skeletals) can exist without published estimates is if there are published skeletals with scale bars (i.e. Meraxes). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

He didn't really give any size estimate for Acamptonectes as far as I can find. Let's wait for the official publication. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Excluding estimates

This is about a Bagaceratops article. Is it possible to exclude an estimate written in a particular study one has sourced, because the author already provided estimates with "better" approach? For instance, the author provides a length range, but he/she has also provided length estimates based on specimens; the maximum length for the length range is much higher than the length estimates of specimens. In this case, should we exclude the larger length and only include the specimen-based length (since it might be misleading)? Junsik1223 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Why can't you just specify that it's an alternate estimate? Exclusion is not the only solution when sentence restructuring is perfectly possible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've explained this to Junsik multiple times now. There is no "truth", and we certainly don't determine what studies are "better" or not, if they're both from reliable venues. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not my idea, but PaleoNeolitic's. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not my idea though. There’s an other user who tries this. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Then we should simply revert them and explain the different possibilities in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Problems on articles like Largest prehistoric animals

Honestly, Largest prehistoric animals is one of the most messy page about paleontology. This page has 55 "citation needed". Moreover, even when there is a reference, it is conspicuous that it is an outdated measurement or a mere blog post that seems to be unreliable at present. This page even have 18 m-long estimation of Pliosaurus. More recently, User:DinosaursKing (contributions) causes edit warring about size of megalodon, in Talk page, they claim their opinions by picking up references such as Prehistoric Wildlife or Britannica, which is known for its featherless Velociraptor, which are obviously not credible, and provoke people talked with them by calling them "kid". I think pages like this should be overhauled as a whole. I think DinosaursKing needs some treatment. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Size-related wankery has been a long running problem involving many different users. It attracts the worst kinds of editors, who have no interest in the animals themselves but only how big they are. I think DinosaursKing should be taken to WP:ANI for disrespectful conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

People who call others "kid" are usually 15 years old max. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, can someone do this please? Actually they were once sent on ANI on here, however his provocative behavior on talk page is after that. I don't think this user is inactive, since they did edit 5-6 months after incident in December, as soon as they notice the edit is reverted, I am afraid that they will be active and will cause edit warring again. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok as I expected, this user become active again and added information with large-average sized Megalodon again. Now I reported in here. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the right approach to Largest prehistoric animals is WP:BURNWITHFIRE, and skipping the "start it over" part. But that's Evil Kent speaking. It's a topic that clearly has popular interest, and we probably have no choice but to try to do it right. If we can define what "right" is. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a topic with too much popular interest to justify getting rid of the article altogether. I think a good start to improving the article would be including an introductory section that details the methods and challenges of size estimation of prehistoric taxa, to provide appropriate context and qualification for subsequent size estimates. If we can get the article into shape, we should try requesting some kind of page protection to decrease the frequency of problematic edits. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Both sound excellent. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Dinosaur size article also fits into this problem and I think it's approach of trying to make ordered lists is far more based in fancruft-ey dick measuring than anything that can actually be defended through proper sources and evidence. I likewise think it needs to be completely blown up and restarted with a focus on how dinosaur size is estimated and unranked estimates integrated through traditional paragraph structure. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the WP:BURNWITHFIRE, but not with its conclusion. This article is warranted, it is just utterly bad in its current state and should probably be moved to draft for a complete rework. Should also be protected from IP edits. I honestly fail to see the point in excluding extant taxa from this list, tho, doing so would be, as said earlier, just a fossil dick measuring contest. Larrayal (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there are no meaning to exclude modern taxa, as this page already have recently extinct taxa alongside with fossil taxa. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

BLPs and standards for notability

It's about time for us to re-evaluate some stances and articles we have on WP:Biographies of Living Persons. It seems like an abundance of articles created about the most rule-sensitive topic on wiki lack general references and notability to justify their existence. and house the articles for the people of interest here, though I cannot comment on all the articles within them. Some, like Julio Lacerda and Davide Bonadonna, lack secondary references by third parties, which highlights the issues with notability that we see often among these articles. To justify existing as an article, BLPs should have verifiable primary and secondary sources that discuss the individuals, not just citing their works. A cursory list of articles I think fail notability is below:

• Emily Willoughby (currently in AFD)
• Julio Lacerda
• Davide Bonadonna
• Karen Carr
• Brian Cooley
• Sergey Krasovskiy
• Velizar Simeonovski
• Jan Sovák
• Michael Trcic

There are of course the chance that there are sources for these articles that haven't been identified, but either way some effort has to be taken to either demonstrate notability and neutrality, or the articles should be deleted. Guidelines for these articles include WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:PROF (for some). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Has Carr not had a significant career in museum murals and the like, or am I confusing her with Ely Kish? Regardless, I am very surprised that Lacerda, Bonadonna, and Krasovskiy have articles to begin with given how recent their bodies of work are. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like a lot needs to be done to bring things in line with broader Wikipedia policy in this regard. In addition to the articles on paleoartists, there are also numerous articles on paleontologists whose adherence to WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR is tenuous at best. Though I suspect that the vast majority of BLPs on paleontologists fail to adequately establish notability, to start with, here are a few that appear to fail notability guidelines at a glance:

• Thomas R. Holtz Jr.
• Thomas Carr (paleontologist)
• John Foster (paleontologist)
• Kristina Curry Rogers
• Matt Wedel
• Christian Sidor

If we're going to keep any of these articles, we're going to need to do a better job of sourcing them; many of them read like glorified CVs, as they contain little information beyond listing papers they've written and institutions they're affiliated with. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Holtz would be the easiest to save, he's probably one of the palaeontologists most often featured in the media these days. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there are good cases for Carr and Wedel too given their relatively strong involvement in publicity. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter if there's a "good case" for anyone if there aren't reliable sources backing that up. As is, the sources for Wedel's article comprise three incidental mentions, three self-published autobiographic sources (CV, PeerJ profile, About SV-POW!), and two works by Wedel. That is to say, there are no reliable sources independent of the subject that provide significant coverage. Even Holtz's article has only one source that might qualify (an interview), and I would consider that tenuous. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I am saying that I see the potential for improvement (per WP:NEXIST). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This issue extends to the paleoentomologists as well with David Grimaldi (entomologist), Sam W. Heads, Michael S. Engel, and a few paleobotanists eg Gregory Retallack and Patricia Vickers-Rich.--Kevmin § 22:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This issue is not unique to paleontologists, but common to all academics essentially. Even modern highly cited academics relative to their field have relatively few sources about them. This is why WP:PROF focuses so heavily on relative citation metrics, rather than sources about them. Grimaldi and Engel are undoubtedly some of the most notable modern paleoentomologists, and I think they would be kept if taken to AfD. I'm not sure about the others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not versed enough to comment on anyone outside of dinosaur paleo but I think regardless of the individuals, its clear to see that the current breadth of articles on people does not match with the notability and BLP rules and we need to get rid of the overabundance. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that Retallack's page was most likely written by himself. Also, he is famous for his articles showing Ediacaran biota are lichens, and since his theory may come up high in searches, the need to leave a page to show criticism, possibly. Do scholars whose thesis has been sufficiently criticized by other authors, such as C.G. Diedrich (who argued that placodonts are algaevorous like sea cows), and Kukalová-Peck (over examination of fossil insects, such as Bojophlebia, Gerarus) need pages to warn their studies? In particular, Diedrich tends to appear in the top search results and image searches, and people may think his researchs reasonable. That is shown that most of citations in page of Cyamodus is from his paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What about Nobu Tamura? Of course he is so contributed for reconstructions in Wikipedia, but other than that he is just paleoartist I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The article for Nobu Tamura already has some more promising links in the references than the other pages discusses, but its definitely possible that he doesn't meet the notability criteria. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Pohlsepia image issue

File:Pohlsepia mazonensis.jpg

Originally, article of Carboniferous animal Pohlsepia had a fair use image of fossil specimen[53]. However, recently that image is replaced into illustration by A. C. Tatarinov (Commons profile). Original image in Wikipedia is disappeared, and probably it is hard to reupload. Still, it may not cause any harm if the image itself is fine, but unfortunately it is not. This image reconstructed Pohlsepia as cephalopod, especially octopus as originally interpretated[54]. However this interpretation is highly unlikely according to later studies[55][56], even treated as non-mollusk. In addition, this image is clearly a trace of the work by User:Franzanth, which was not uploaded in commons.[57] I wonder if that can be copyvio, and file itself should be removed? I tagged inaccurate paleoart on that image, also it is good to be removed from other language of Wikipedia. Currently its identify is ambiguous, however new paper about interpretation of Pohlsepia is comming[58], so after that someone can make reconstruction with better interpretation. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm this is trace of my work. I also agree that this reconstruction is outdated and best removed. Franzanth (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If the original is not freely licenced, the derivative needs to be nominated deletion. We have noted other similar issues with uploads by A. C. Tatarinov, and I will try to make an overview of it soonish here. This ping should notify them of the discussion, otherwise I will notify them on their talkpage. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I should've confirmed my original artwork wasn't freely licensed. Franzanth (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Mass deletion request of Tatarinov's traces, feel free to add:[59] FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Titus (dinosaur) merger discussion reopened

A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)