Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 37

Problematic ichnotaxa classification

After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile[1]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.

I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Jens Lallensack knows most about tracks here. But yeah, we should only follow published schemes. FunkMonk (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
My interest is solely because of the impact of the existence of the separate ichno-classification for fossil traces on the automated taxobox system. Most ichno taxonomy templates seem to have been created by Abyssal and then tidied by Bob the Wikipedian, and are indeed referenced to Paleofile. See e.g. the hierarchy at Template:Taxonomy/Theropodipedia. The issues go well beyond dinosaurs, of course. There are three questions that I've never been clear about:
  • Should ichnotaxa only have ichnotaxa as parents in the classification system? (I think not.)
  • If not, can they have a parent at the same but non-ichno rank? If it's discovered that tracks assigned to the ichnogenus Igenus were made by organisms in genus Ogenus, can the classification run Igenus – Ogenus – Ofamily – ...? It matters because the automated taxobox system tries to check that ranks are not inconsistent.
  • The article Ichnotaxon contains the statement "In 1961, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled that most trace fossil taxa named after 1930 would be no longer available" referenced to a book I don't have access to. If this statement is correct, are any more recent ichnotaxon names validly published? (Dyanega may be the best editor to ask about this as he's involved with the ICZN.)
If that's the quote in the article, it appears to be slightly misleading. The Code prohibits (in Arts. 1.3.6 and 13.6.2) the recognition of names proposed after 1930 for "works of extant animals", which is not usually what people refer to as ichnofossils. This would include things like birds' nests, wasps' nests, casts of burrows, etc. if the animals that are responsible are presumed (or known) to still be extant. Dyanega (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(Precisely the same questions arise for the separate oo-classification for fossil eggs.)
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I have never quite understood the ichno-/oo-/normal classification relations but it does seem reasonable that if a taxon is known to be ankylosaur footprints its parent taxon in classification would be ankylosaurs. The problem of all ichnogenera being invalid however raises the question of why exactly would an entity for zoological nomenclature impact trace taxonomy. I don't know enough about it but I would think that because stuff like ooclassification doesn't actually line up with typical nomenclature the ICZN doesn't exactly apply? I'm not sure this stuff is new to me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ichnotaxon classification is definitely the "oddball cousin" to traditional classification, and there are those among the Commissioners who question the utility of trying to squeeze those provisions into the Code to govern these names. That being said, if this is something of genuine interest to you, we have an ichnotaxon expert on the Commission presently, Markus Bertling, and I expect that he would likely be responsive to inquiries about how best to edit the articles involving ichnofossils. Dyanega (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your question @Peter coxhead: Whether ichnotaxa can only have ichnotaxa as parents or not, there is precedent in publications to explicitly assign ichnotaxa to 'normal' parents, at least for vertebrate ichnofossils. Recent examples include the ichnogenus Bellatoripes, which was assigned to the ichnofamily Tyrannosauripodidae, itself to Tyrannosauridae, Tyrannosauroidea, and so on (McCrea et al. 2014), and the ichnogenus and ichnofamily Rhamphichnus and Rhamphichnidae assigned to Pterosauria (Mazin & Pouech 2020). Bellatoripes also applies to your second question regarding equivalent rankings, as the ichnofamily it belongs to was assigned to the non-ichno family Tyrannosauridae. In lieu of systematically assigning ichnotaxa to 'normal' classifications, other studies simply do not go further than the level of ichnofamily for systematic classifications, but will refer to probable trackmakers elsewhere in the text.
As far as I can tell, the scheme proposed by Vialov (that adopted and expanded on Paleofile) to parallel 'normal' taxonomy has not fallen into common usage and seems to have been largely ignored, and it has certainly not been updated to accommodate the broader range of tetrapod ichnotaxa identified today. With that in mind, I believe it may be worth removing Vialov's classifications from the taxobox system altogether, not only the original names from Paleofile.
In the specific example of tetrapod footprint trace fossils that applies here, ichnotaxa are more readily correlated with taxa known from body fossils than other ichnotaxa such as feeding traces or burrows, so I would be in support of such ichnotaxa being included under the normal classification schemes where applicable. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: thanks for your answer. As I explained at the start, my interest is solely in the automated taxobox system. It would certainly make my life easier if it was agreed to remove all the taxonomy templates with ichno classifications from Paleofile! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cleaned up"? You have been running around destroying existing structures, that doesn't classify as "clean-up". "Non necessary" is unacceptable POV and the literature defines, not what some wiki editor thinks is a misidentified ichnotaxon or not. I suggest you solve the mess you created. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
"Unnecessary" is defined by the fact that the taxonomy is based on a source that is not even part of, or acknowledged, by the literature. That is a problem, whether you like it or not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the above, the "unnecessary" POV is an explicit part in the maintenance of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. To quote an extensive discussion thread on the category, "Blanking (and ideally then deleting) taxonomy templates is part of the necessary maintenance of this taxonomic database", and by all measures given in the discussion, the former ichnotaxonomic classification used in the taxobox system was "unnecessary". The 'existing structure' in place was almost entirely composed of WP:OR (as outlined in the discussion above), and even where certain names can be shown to exist within literature their taxonomic composition and hierarchies were still OR. For that matter, I did not claim that any of the ichnotaxa were "misidentified", nor did I make changes based on any of my own personal opinions for how existing ichnotaxa should be classified. Furthermore, I did not perform my edits haphazardly, where possible I assigned ichnotaxa to a 'normal'-taxon parent (a system with precedent in published literature, as outlined above) based on the most explicit attributions provided by the literature. Indeed, a decent number of the taxoboxes for ichnogenera I edited contain references that were the basis for the 'normal'-taxon parents I moved them to. I will maintain that the "mess I created" conforms to a more neutral, literature-based POV than the former, OR-based structure did. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic ichnotaxa classification

After getting involved with the Tyrannosauropus debacle above, it's come to my attention that a decent chunk of the dinosaur footprint ichnotaxonomy used here on Wikipedia—in the ichnoboxes specifically—is derived almost entirely from those listed on Paleofile[2]. While some of these names are valid taxa that exist in published literature and classifications, a number of them are not. For example, Tyrannosauripus is listed as a member of the ichnoorder Maniraptorformipida and the ichnocohort(?) Theropodipedia, which are listed as "nova" i.e. "new" and are as far as I can tell entirely original names proposed by Tracy Ford on that page. As useful as a resource Paleofile is or has been for Wikipedia, the majority of the ichnotaxonomic classifications used on it are entirely novel and have never been used elsewhere besides Wikipedia and adjacent websites, let alone in any published, peer-reviewed literature, and I suspect the ichnotaxonomy scheme there has been lifted here uncritically.

I know ichnotaxa aren't a particularly hot subject here (to say nothing of the messiness found even in the literature), but displaying taxonomy boxes on Wikipedia with names and hierarchies that aren't used elsewhere and arguably aren't valid at all seems like a pretty big problem to me, regardless. Replacing these would be no small task and would involve a pretty major overhaul, including deleting all the invalid taxonomy templates, making sure that the valid taxon templates still function, and finding suitable replacement classifications to fix the templates for every affected ichnotaxon. In lieu of going to great lengths to delete those templates, researching for new ones and correcting them all, the alternative would be to remove ichnoboxes or manually alter them for most, if not all the dinosaur ichnotaxa, a task and a half in of itself. Given the general attitude around ichnotaxa, this isn't an immediately pressing problem, but I feel it should still be addressed in some way. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Jens Lallensack knows most about tracks here. But yeah, we should only follow published schemes. FunkMonk (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
My interest is solely because of the impact of the existence of the separate ichno-classification for fossil traces on the automated taxobox system. Most ichno taxonomy templates seem to have been created by Abyssal and then tidied by Bob the Wikipedian, and are indeed referenced to Paleofile. See e.g. the hierarchy at Template:Taxonomy/Theropodipedia. The issues go well beyond dinosaurs, of course. There are three questions that I've never been clear about:
  • Should ichnotaxa only have ichnotaxa as parents in the classification system? (I think not.)
  • If not, can they have a parent at the same but non-ichno rank? If it's discovered that tracks assigned to the ichnogenus Igenus were made by organisms in genus Ogenus, can the classification run Igenus – Ogenus – Ofamily – ...? It matters because the automated taxobox system tries to check that ranks are not inconsistent.
  • The article Ichnotaxon contains the statement "In 1961, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled that most trace fossil taxa named after 1930 would be no longer available" referenced to a book I don't have access to. If this statement is correct, are any more recent ichnotaxon names validly published? (Dyanega may be the best editor to ask about this as he's involved with the ICZN.)
If that's the quote in the article, it appears to be slightly misleading. The Code prohibits (in Arts. 1.3.6 and 13.6.2) the recognition of names proposed after 1930 for "works of extant animals", which is not usually what people refer to as ichnofossils. This would include things like birds' nests, wasps' nests, casts of burrows, etc. if the animals that are responsible are presumed (or known) to still be extant. Dyanega (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(Precisely the same questions arise for the separate oo-classification for fossil eggs.)
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I have never quite understood the ichno-/oo-/normal classification relations but it does seem reasonable that if a taxon is known to be ankylosaur footprints its parent taxon in classification would be ankylosaurs. The problem of all ichnogenera being invalid however raises the question of why exactly would an entity for zoological nomenclature impact trace taxonomy. I don't know enough about it but I would think that because stuff like ooclassification doesn't actually line up with typical nomenclature the ICZN doesn't exactly apply? I'm not sure this stuff is new to me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ichnotaxon classification is definitely the "oddball cousin" to traditional classification, and there are those among the Commissioners who question the utility of trying to squeeze those provisions into the Code to govern these names. That being said, if this is something of genuine interest to you, we have an ichnotaxon expert on the Commission presently, Markus Bertling, and I expect that he would likely be responsive to inquiries about how best to edit the articles involving ichnofossils. Dyanega (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your question @Peter coxhead: Whether ichnotaxa can only have ichnotaxa as parents or not, there is precedent in publications to explicitly assign ichnotaxa to 'normal' parents, at least for vertebrate ichnofossils. Recent examples include the ichnogenus Bellatoripes, which was assigned to the ichnofamily Tyrannosauripodidae, itself to Tyrannosauridae, Tyrannosauroidea, and so on (McCrea et al. 2014), and the ichnogenus and ichnofamily Rhamphichnus and Rhamphichnidae assigned to Pterosauria (Mazin & Pouech 2020). Bellatoripes also applies to your second question regarding equivalent rankings, as the ichnofamily it belongs to was assigned to the non-ichno family Tyrannosauridae. In lieu of systematically assigning ichnotaxa to 'normal' classifications, other studies simply do not go further than the level of ichnofamily for systematic classifications, but will refer to probable trackmakers elsewhere in the text.
As far as I can tell, the scheme proposed by Vialov (that adopted and expanded on Paleofile) to parallel 'normal' taxonomy has not fallen into common usage and seems to have been largely ignored, and it has certainly not been updated to accommodate the broader range of tetrapod ichnotaxa identified today. With that in mind, I believe it may be worth removing Vialov's classifications from the taxobox system altogether, not only the original names from Paleofile.
In the specific example of tetrapod footprint trace fossils that applies here, ichnotaxa are more readily correlated with taxa known from body fossils than other ichnotaxa such as feeding traces or burrows, so I would be in support of such ichnotaxa being included under the normal classification schemes where applicable. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: thanks for your answer. As I explained at the start, my interest is solely in the automated taxobox system. It would certainly make my life easier if it was agreed to remove all the taxonomy templates with ichno classifications from Paleofile! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: as of now, if you set the parent of an ichnotaxon to a non-ichnotaxon at the same rank in a taxonomy template, as at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae, an error is flagged (shown by the text shaded red) and the template gets put into an error-tracking category. I will fix this a.s.a.p. if no-one else does, given the discussion above. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  Done it is not now regarded as an error if an ichno- or ootaxon has a normal parent at the same rank, as e.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauripodidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another note: It took some time, but I've finally cleaned up all the dinosaur footprint taxoboxes and marked all the taxonomy templates using Ford's classification for deletion under Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates! There are still more footprints using his classification, but those go beyond the scope of this project so as far as the WikiProject Dinosaurs is concerned it's a job done. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cleaned up"? You have been running around destroying existing structures, that doesn't classify as "clean-up". "Non necessary" is unacceptable POV and the literature defines, not what some wiki editor thinks is a misidentified ichnotaxon or not. I suggest you solve the mess you created. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
"Unnecessary" is defined by the fact that the taxonomy is based on a source that is not even part of, or acknowledged, by the literature. That is a problem, whether you like it or not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the above, the "unnecessary" POV is an explicit part in the maintenance of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. To quote an extensive discussion thread on the category, "Blanking (and ideally then deleting) taxonomy templates is part of the necessary maintenance of this taxonomic database", and by all measures given in the discussion, the former ichnotaxonomic classification used in the taxobox system was "unnecessary". The 'existing structure' in place was almost entirely composed of WP:OR (as outlined in the discussion above), and even where certain names can be shown to exist within literature their taxonomic composition and hierarchies were still OR. For that matter, I did not claim that any of the ichnotaxa were "misidentified", nor did I make changes based on any of my own personal opinions for how existing ichnotaxa should be classified. Furthermore, I did not perform my edits haphazardly, where possible I assigned ichnotaxa to a 'normal'-taxon parent (a system with precedent in published literature, as outlined above) based on the most explicit attributions provided by the literature. Indeed, a decent number of the taxoboxes for ichnogenera I edited contain references that were the basis for the 'normal'-taxon parents I moved them to. I will maintain that the "mess I created" conforms to a more neutral, literature-based POV than the former, OR-based structure did. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology Peer review

Just to spread the word – we have just started the WikiProject Palaeontology Peer review, a great way to get quick feedback on your articles regardless of their length and quality. We hope that this review will improve communication within the WikiProject and motivate for writing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Acrocanthosaurus article ripped off by Baidu Baike

For those unfamiliar, Baidu Baike is essentially the equivalent to Wikipedia in mainland China, unlike Wikipedia, it is a commerical entity and the license for the text is reserved by Baidu. Apparently Baidu Baike has an entire section of its website dedicated to dinosaurs. I was looking at the Baidu Baike article for Acrocanthosaurus which is regarded with a rating equivalent to a "Featured Article" on Wikipedia, the structure (and presumably the text) looks to be directly translated from the Acrocanthosaurus article, without credit, violating the license. Of course this isn't a new issue, and there's little we can do about it, but I thought it was worth noting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@J. Spencer:, who was one of the writers of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I've skimmed the text and, wow, that is egregious. But there are also some novel sections in there, which are distinctly more non-encyclopedic (e.g. "Acrocanthosaurus' enemies"). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That's probably just something messed up by translation. They literally just copy/pasted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly wrong that they don't republish the text freely (as stated by the license), but Wikipedia text does have a commercial license, so in that sense they can use it for that purpose... FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia text is licensed under CC BY SA, so there are two violations, one that the text is not credited to wikipedia which violates the BY (attribution), the other is that the text rights of Baidu Baike are reserved to Baidu, which violates SA part of the license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Makes me wonder with these CC licenses, could someone even sue over breaching them? And wouldn't it be individual users rather than Wikipedia (since Wikipedia doesn't own the text)? FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The least we can do is add it to the list Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Baidu Baike#Examples of plagiarized articles from English Wikipedia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Creative Commons licences have been confirmed by court multiple times, similar with open source licences as the GPL. But "The Wikimedia Foundation decided not to pursue any legal action" according to the Baidu Baike article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
For those interested, according to the edit history, the plagiarism took place almost exactly 7 years ago in June 2013 by the user "Professional investment and financing lawyer" according to google translate, the article was almost completely translated in the first edit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Takatika Grit theropod

This article was created not too long ago, but shouldn't it be merged into List of informally named dinosaurs? Is it even referred to by this name in any of the sources? All search results seem to be from Wikipedia: [3][4]. What should be done if the name is not in usage? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably a deletion discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some of the sources use another informal name we could use instead if it's moved to the list? FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
According to the 2006 paper, the remains do not belong to a single individual, and most likely are from different groups of theropods. The paper does not make the claim that there is a new taxon present. The article needs to be deleted according to WP:OR. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have opened up a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takatika Grit theropod. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Are the taxa S. Brevicolius and S. Aegypticus? I have proposed merging on both pages, and would like this clarified. A transclusion from S. Brevicolius' talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigilmassasaurus

Hi, see this section above:[5] There are bascially two competing camps when it comes to this issue, so there is no scientific consensus, and we can't do anything about it other than explain it in the respective articles. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Second merger proposal

Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are of the same taxa. If I am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself.

Please get this clarified

Thanks,

PNSMurthy (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda

An anonymous IP has posted an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Theropoda asking for the rank of "clade" to be changed to "suborder". I responded that there would need to be a discussion here first, since such a change would affect many taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Vectaerovenator inopinatus

The article at Vectaerovenator inopinatus has a bad taxobox because the taxonomy template has not been created. Google Scholar finds nothing for "Vectaerovenator", so has the name been published? Could someone please look at this article? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The citation would be to Barker et al, A highly pneumatic ‘mid Cretaceous’ theropod from the British Lower Greensand, Papers in Palaeontology (2020), but it doesn't seen have been published yet, not even in "Early View". I guess it will turn up in a few days.
Vectaerovenator strikes me as using a rather odd combining form for Vectis - is it my Latin/English that is wrong, or theirs?
I guess until the paper is published the best you can do in Therapoda incertae sedis. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
There's just been an edit war on the List of informally named dinosaurs article between Admin JzG and Zigongosaurus1138 over the inclusion of the taxon. There's now a RfD discussion please participate if you have an interest in doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I can recall where the press release coverage came out significantly ahead of the paper's publication, I've seen it happen significantly afterwards but never before like this. The Dryad Data entry provides the paper's abstract:

A series of axial elements from the Aptian Ferruginous Sandstone Formation [Aka the Ferruginous Sands ] of the Lower Greensand Group, discovered on the foreshore near Knock Cliff on the Isle of Wight, United Kingdom (UK) are – bar some isolated teeth – the youngest non-avian theropod remains reported from the British Mesozoic. These specimens have the potential to shed light on a poorly known section of the European dinosaur record. A consistency in size, appearance and adhering matrix indicate that the vertebrae belong to the same individual. This was a mid-sized tetanuran, the presence of several diagnostic characters indicating that it should be recognised as a new taxon, herein named Vectaerovenator inopinatus. The cervical and dorsal vertebrae are camerate and highly pneumatic. Tetanuran affinities include opisthocoelous cervicals and pneumatic foramina located within fossae, however assigning this specimen to a specific clade is problematic. Within Tetanurae, Vectaerovenatorpossesses axial structures and homoplastic features seen in megalosauroids, carcharodontosaurians and certain coelurosaurs. Not only is Vectaerovenatorone of the UK’s youngest non-bird dinosaurs, and one of few valid British Greensand taxa, it is also the first diagnosable theropod taxon to be named from Aptian deposits of Europe.

So it looks like it's not referrable beyond Tetanurae indet regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Siamosaurus urgently needs a FAC review

Just a heads up that PaleoGeekSquared's FAC nomination Siamosaurus is getting dangerously low on the FAC list, but with two supports it only needs one to prevent it from being archived. It's a nice article, so have a look! FAC has become very slow lately, I guess due to the combination of the pandemic and summer vacation. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda

I reverted a change to Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda. As this would affect many articles, I believe it needs discussion here first. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. As the one who had made the change (and also made the same change back in 2018, which stood for a couple of months), I feel it is clear that the inclusion of Theropoda within Saurischia is no longer consensus. I believe it is therefore most accurate to either include the parent clade as Dinosauria, which is the most exclusive clade that Theropoda uncontroversially resides in, or to change the parent clade to 'Saurischia?', making a point to identify that there is controversy regarding the traditional position. I saw the use of a question mark on another taxonomy template before and it looked good, but unfortunately I can't remember where. I would still prefer the former option over it however, as I would prefer not to favour one of the two competing hypotheses, neither of which seems particularly more likely at the moment. For a long time now, other places have refrained from favouring one hypothesis over another; for example, the 'Major groups' listed in the taxobox on the Dinosaur article list Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha and Ornithischia each separately, with no reference to Saurischia or Ornithoscelida. The same is currently true in the Archosauromorpha navbox, although someone recently tried to change it to favour the Ornithoscelida hypothesis, which I reverted. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not consider the Ornithoscelida hypothesis to be well-supported, but admittedly it has been mentioned in many recent basal dinosaur studies and the biggest published criticism (Langer et al. 2017) has itself been criticized. Consensus is hard to quantify, but I would still say the consensus is in favor of Saurischia being a real clade. If you want a compromise, you can always use the Questionable Assignments system. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if even that would be too strong? To say that Saurischia is questionable? Leaving out both would make us completely neutral, but of course, that would indicate both hypotheses are equally spupported, which is probably not the case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the important question is what is consensus? It appears to me that a large number, perhaps a marginal majority, of analyses of basal dinosaur relationships have found support for Ornithoscelida since Baron et al. in 2017. I therefore think it's hard to say that the validity of Saurischia is still the clear "consensus" of opinion among researchers of basal dinosaur relationships. Perhaps it would be good for me to link some of these studies if that would be helpful? It would also be good to find articles that do find support the hypothesis. Even if, by some forms of logic, Saurischia can still be considered the consensus hypothesis, it is now clearly a less than unanimous one, which to me would warrant the use of the Questionable Assignments system, as you say. At the very least, considering the current apparent inconsistency of Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda with Template:Archosauromorpha and the taxobox at Dinosaur, I feel something needs changing here for the purposes of self-concordancy within Wikipedia. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think time has a lot to say when determining if there is consensus, and three years simply isn't much in the wider scheme of things. Personally, I would not be against leaving it open ended by not listing either name, but I think it needs wider consensus among editors first. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've never actually used Ornithoscelida for the classification of theropods, I've always used Saurischia for it. I agree that the two concepts aren't equally supported, and personally, I think I'd still go for Saurischia. But then again, we should probably keep it neutral. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
While I personally lean more towards Saurischia, I also think that the situation's too far from resolved for us to pick one or the other as Theropoda's supertaxon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Also considering this new study[6], a lot of unexpected things can still happen. Here it recovers traditional Sausichia, while also making silesaurs basal ornithischians. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: While on that topic, should we consider silesaurids to be basal dinosaurs now? The Silesauridae page already cites four papers showing them to be ornithischians, so it's not just a one-off hypothesis. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
As long as there are different opinions, we should not take sides. But it would make Dracohors a synonym of Dinosauria, so we should perhaps only list silesaurs under Dinosauriformes in taxoboxes to be completely neutral? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hm, I'd say we should keep it as Dracohors, since that clade also includes Dinosauria, it would perhaps be understandable. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
But if silesaurs are ornithischians, that would make Dracohors a junior synonym of Dinosauria, and therefore wouldn't be part of the hierarchy? FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot that Dracohors was coined to only include dinosaurs and silesaurs. Putting Dinosauriformes as its parent in taxoboxes would be quite broad, but then again, yes, we should always keep it neutral, so I agree. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Dracohors would be a junior synonym of Dinosauria if silesaurids were ornithischians. However, since Dracohors is a commonly-found clade and has its own article, I think it would be fine to keep it in the taxoboxes. After all, silesaurids and dinosaurs are "dracohorsians" by definition, even if the name itself may possibly turn out to be synonymous with Dinosauria. And another thing: Dinosauromorpha and Dinosauriformes can have slightly different definitions, but they would also turn out to be basically synonymous if lagerpetids are pterosauromorphs. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Vectaerovenator formally published

See [7] the paper is open access. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

An IP user has gone ahead and made the article, see Vectaerovenator, improvement would be welcomed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the edit war at List of informally named dinosaurs is no more... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I've added the basic stuff. Still have a few others I want to work on first... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Name Change

This is Lusotitan; I've just changed my username and thought I'd let you guys know it's me since I'm a pretty active contributor to WP:DINO. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice to know, I thought it was some kind of vandal act first! FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hm, seems like a better name... :) JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Diplodocid Skull

This skull was recently added to Diplodocidae, where it's labeled as Seismosaurus, which, weirdly doesn't preserve any skull material at all (not to mention that it's a junior synonym of Diplodocus). The older, uncropped image states that this skull has been restored after Diplodocus, despite no skulls being known from any other Diplodocus specimens either. I'm wondering if it may actually be based on one of the many indeterminate diplodocine skulls from the Morrison, or even Galeamopus. Does anyone know? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know anything about that skull, other than I was the one who transferred the image to Commons, but I think we should use a picture of a skull of clearer provenance instead, such as this one:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we have separate articles for Avemetatarsalia and Ornithodira ?

Wikipedia seems to have a fairly strong SOP of making separate articles for separate clades.

E.g.: Saurischia - Sauropodomorpha - Sauropoda - Eusauropoda - Neosauropoda - Macronaria - Somphospondyli - Titanosauria - Lithostrotia - Saltasauridae ...

On the other hand, Ornithodira currently redirects to Avemetatarsalia.

Article says:

Avemetatarsalia (meaning "bird metatarsals") is a clade name established by British palaeontologist Michael Benton in 1999 for all crown group archosaurs that are closer to birds than to crocodilians.[1]
An alternate name is Pan-Aves, or "all birds", in reference to its definition containing all animals, living or extinct, which are more closely related to birds than to crocodilians.
Almost all avemetatarsalians are members of a similarly defined subgroup, Ornithodira.
Ornithodira is defined as the last common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs, and all of its descendants.[2]

Cladogram shows Aphanosauria in Avemetatarsalia but not in Ornithodira.

We apparently have some dozens of articles that use the term Ornithodira. (And a few that mention "ornithodire" or "ornithodires".)

Should we have separate articles for Avemetatarsalia and Ornithodira ?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:E475:7391:5CA4:42AF (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, I'd argue that it's hit-and-miss! We don't have separate articles for Sphenacomorpha and Weddellonectia and Anhangueria, which are arguably much more important than separating two clades that are nearly interchangeable. I don't think this is a priority but WP:BOLD applies. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, remember it's not Wikipedia which has made these articles, but individual editors. We don't have any guidelines for when an article about a clade should be created or not, so it is completely random what's there. I'm not sure why an obscure invalid group like Phytodinosauria should have an article, while something once widely used like Prosauropoda is just a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Avemetatarsalia and Ornithodira are equally well-established terms which most paleontologists use interchangeably, even though their cladistic definitions are different. Aphanosaurs are (currently) the only known non-ornithodiran avemetatarsalians, and they were only recognized as such three years ago. We can certainly talk about the differences between the two clade definitions and their applications, but I feel like splitting the article in half is not worth the effort. Since many studies have not bothered to distinguish Avemetatarsalia from Ornithodira, we would not be able to properly delegate sources and info into different pages if the current page was split. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ornithoscelida

The Swedish Wikipedia uncritically accepted Ornithoscelida as the new consensus and invented its own Linnaean taxonomy with Saurischia and Ornithoscelida as orders. The former includes Herrerasauridae even though Baron & Williams (2018) placed it outisde Dinosauria, not to mention they also presented a more 'traditional' cladogram with Saurischia (including Theropoda) and Ornithischia. Other sources (the Gnathovorax description; the Saltriovenator description, etc.) still support the placement of Theropoda within Saurischia so Ornithoscelida should not appear in any taxobox unless it becomes better accepted in the future. Also, we should get rid of Linnaean dinosaur taxonomy in all versions of Wikipedia to better represent current classification and the fact that birds are theropods. By the way, it has also been pointed out that the SwW's "Saurischia" is actually just Sauropodomorpha (Holtz, 2017). Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What goes on on the Swedish wikipedia is of no concern here. All language wikis are separate projects with different userbases, administators and staff. The Swedish wikipedia article for Dinosaur only gets 235 vpd as opposed to 4800 for the English Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It'd be better to bring this issue up on the Swedish Wikipedia than on here (or fix it yourself) even if you don't speak Swedish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's exactly being proposed here, but as is, there isn't really scientific consensus for Ornithoscelida. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly because of that, the taxoboxes shouldn't have Ornithoscelida or Saurischia, and definitely shouldn't present a classification that doesn't exist in published literature ("Order Ornithoscelida"). I don't think there is a Swedish version of WikiProject Dinosaurs, so I thought this was the most fitting place. This problem seems to apply to all theropod pages (except those about birds due to the Linnaean classification used), which is why none of them seemed a good place to say this. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, well, do you have a link to where the discussion took place that implemented the change? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't discussed in any of the relevant pages (Dinosaurier, Ornithoscelida, Theropoder, Fågelhöftade dinosaurier). This version[9] implemented the change. Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess we should ping Ichthyovenator for comment, then? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks like I've been busted. Yeah, I did the change but it probably shouldn't have been made. It was three years ago and I was less familiar with the concept of academic consensus and overcome with Ornithoscelida hype. I haven't been actively editing on Swedish Wikipedia for some time, surprised I wasn't caught out sooner. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, you wouldn't be the first, I was pretty reckless when I started out here (and so were many others), hehe... Should be an easy solution to just make those pages more neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a draft for Stygimoloch

An IP user has started a not so well made draft for Stygimoloch, which, if I’m not wrong, is a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus due to consensus in many studies. I truly think it’s unnecessary, first of all, because of the consensus of Stygimoloch being a synonym of Pachycephalosaurus, and second, I think the draft isn’t very well written. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Draft talk:Stygimoloch   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why a draft would even be necessary, all we'd have to do if we wanted the article back is to revert the redirection. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Time range of Yutyrannus

It seems in the article about Yutyrannus, there is no source for data on the time range. HFoxii (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The latest paper on the topic of the age of the Yixian Formation is "New chronostratigraphic constraints on the Yixian Formation with implications for the Jehol Biota." published in 2017, which indicates that the unit was deposited around the Barremian-Aptian boundary. The stratigraphy of the Yutyrannus locality is not properly known so a precise age should not be given. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
What age estimates does the article refer to ("Age estimates point towards Yutyrannus originating from the Lujiatun or the Jianshangou beds of the Yixian")? HFoxii (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox

{{Ichnobox}} and {{Oobox}} have been updated. They should now handle automatic italicization of page titles and taxobox names in the same way as other automated taxboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 4#Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox templates for more information. I have tested the changes, but if you notice any issues, please report them there. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Change to colour of Ichnoboxes

I'd like to make a small change to the colour of Ichnoboxes; comments please at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Colour of Ichnoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaur FA status

Hello to our many talented Dinosaur-topic editors. There is a new Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 list where users are checking old FAs for compliance. As one of our oldest FAs (from 2005!) Dinosaur needs to be looked over be some folks with more knowledge on the topic. Check out the Instructions on the page. Best - Aza24 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, here we go, seems almost all pre-2016 dinosaur articles are on that list, see chronological list of dinosaur FACs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Achievements... Seems only Psittacosaurus is missing, perhaps because it already underwent FAR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the main dinosaur article holds up decently but I could do without the timeline of notable descriptions. Seems really arbitrary. Also I think there could be a better treatment of the instability at the base of Dinosauria (e.g., Ornithoscelida) in the classification section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
With ongoing work on dinosaur, we should be able to save it from demotion. And I have marked some other relatively recent dinosaur FAs I already reviewed at the time as "satisfactory" (Carnotaurus, Opisthocoelicaudia, Apatosaurus), so they should be in the safe-zone. But I'm concerned about most of the even older FAs, from before my time as reviewer, and before the FAC criteria were tightened. Some of them have been worked on and expanded since they became FAs (such as Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus), but many others I feel would not pass FAC today (such as Styracosaurus, which could need expansion and updates). So maybe we should do a run-through of the other old FAs here and see which of them that can be quickly salvaged and marked "satisfactory, and which that might be more problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Now that Acamptonectes seems to be winding down in the lead up to FAC, I wonder if we should get started on collaboratively improving one of these FAs? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was also thinking that our main focus should be maintaining old FACs, because it will be much easier to save them now than if they get demoted and have to start all over with GAN/FAC. I'm currently fixing up some of my pre-2016 FAs (including dinosaurs) that may need some overhauls, then they at least can be struck from the list. But then we need to figure out how to tackle all the older, really deficient articles, and how to divide it between us. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we can use WP:paleopeerreview for this? By listing one article first, and then we can all comment on it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
That is worth a try for sure – what is the most urgent article right now that should be listed first? I started to do some rework on Compsognathus, but that will occupy me for a while I guess. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It would seem dinosaur is the most urgent because it was tagged here, but since there is already a talk page section about it, further reviews should maybe just be kept there? But yeah, we could just start with Compsognathus, since you already did some tweaks, and because it's one of the shortest of the old FAs, therefore easier to get an overview of.... FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I think, though, that there is not much to discuss for Compsognathus. It simply needs expansion, especially in the Paleobiology section. Maybe we should choose another one where the issues are not as apparent. And maybe it is better to do dinosaur first to focus our energies? We could, maybe, "conclude" the discussion from the dinosaur talk page into the peer review, to draw additional attention? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think since dinosaur has already been brought to attention to the wider Wikipedia community, we should focus on that first, because it's in the most "danger" now. So should we fix the issues brought up on the talk page first, then take it to our own peer review? Or somehow do both? FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
When I'm done fixing up my old FACs and current FAC reviews, I'll read through dinosaur too to see if it's up to snuff, and see if I can fix any of the raised issues... FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I find the Classification section lacking. Many older FAs may have similar issues... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi everyone, I’m kind of new here and was wondering if we have something like a discord server to make collaborating on articles easier. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia, and our project! Not sure if I understood your question, but are you interested in writing articles together with others (collaborative writing)? We have collaboration projects going on here and here. Or do you just want to know how to propose changes to articles and solve potential disagreements? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am indeed interested in collaborative writing. My question was if there is a place where we can talk about that outside of talk pages. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that currently exists. The Wikipedia platform itself works well for collaboration, I find. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As an alternative, we also have the Peer Review. You can just list the article you are working on there, and we can guide you in the writing process if you wish, and provide support where needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Great! Just list your article in the "Fact checks" section, and let us know how we can help you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ubirajara paper withdrawn

The Ubirajara has been temporarily withdrawn according to the page on ScienceDirect. If the paper is permanently withdrawn, would this mean that the content would have to be moved to List of informally named dinosaurs? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the same deal as the Oculudentavis debacle, is it not? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oculudentavis was formally published, while Ubirajara was "in press" Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaur evolution during the Jurassic

Hi, I've decided to switch gears and work on the Jurassic article until everyone feels like collaborating on the Cretaceous article. I've done some work on the evolution of other animal groups like arthropods, turtles, amphibians and lepidosaurs, but giving a concise summary (~ 500 - 1000 words, a-la the sections in Paleocene#Fauna) of dinosaur evolution in the Jurassic is a daunting task, does anyone want to help workshop the text here? Here is my thinking about main talking points:

  • Dinosaur reaction to T-J extinction
  • Poor and regionally variable fossil record of dinosaurs, especially in the Early and Middle Jurassic
  • Sauropodomorph persistance into Early Jurassic, rise of Neosauropoda and other major groups, Lingwulong
  • Diverisification of theropods, including important branches like Ceratosauria, Megalosauria, Carnosauria and Coelurosauria
  • Dinosaur integument, Kulindadromeus
  • First appearance of birds
  • Ornithischia diversification, first appearance of Thyreophorans in the Early Jurassic and Ankylopollexians and Ceratopsians in Late Jurassic

Thanks for the help. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added this section to the article, any thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I somehow missed this section, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: any feedback? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, a few things that could be discussed below. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "far in excess of other known sauropodomorphs" add "at the time"?
  • "becoming the largest organisms to have ever lived on land up to that point" Shouldn't that be ever, period? Now it reads like there were other, larger organisms later...
  • You should specify that the Bipedal sauropodomorphs you mention were basal members of the group.
  • "The earliest avialans, which include birds and their ancestors, appear during the Middle-Late Jurassic" you should state they are theropods too.
  • I find it a bit odd that you write a lot of it in present tense, such as "appear" instead of "appeared". But I realise it's a valid phrasing, since they do appear in the fossil record, present tense. But they appeared alive in the past tense, and I'd personally prefer the latter.
  • "with the earliest member of Ceratosauria being Saltriovenator from the Sinemurian of Italy" You should specify "known from", there were doubtlessly other members elsewhere that just haven't been found.
  • Why don't you group the sentence about Limusaurus with the other one about ceratosaurs? Now you cover the other groups in between.
  • Why only mention dromaeosaurs under birds?
  • The "larger, later" organisms are Cretaceous sauropods, some of the Titanosaurs like logknosaurs I think are larger by mass than the largest known Jurassic sauropods, but I agree that it could be better phrased.
  • Afaik Dromaeosaurs are not known until the Cretaceous. Teeth from the Middle Jurassic onwards have been attributed to them but we both know how tenuous dinosaur tooth classification is, the report of dromaeosaur teeth from the Upper Jurassic of Germany was not supported by a subsequent 2018 study.
  • Fixed other issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_33&oldid=1137386932"