Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

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)

Unidentified dinosaur fossils in Japan Dino Expos

There are many free photos on Flickr of the various Dino Expos in Japan which have become popular in recent years, but often the photos are unlabelled, or even show unnamed taxa. I've uploaded many such images and identified them, sometimes years later as they were named, but here are a bunch from 2017 I can't figure out what are, so maybe folks here can help. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/39551911544/in/album-72157714091543872/ Sauropod skull?

This is the holotype skull of a Mamenchisaurus species, perhaps M. jingyangensis if my memory serves. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks more like M. youngi to me, M. jingyangensis doesn't have such a large antorbital fenestra and is missing some of the bones that the skull preserves, it seems. The quarry map in the former's description also seems to feature a disarticulated premaxillary region. I can't rule out M. hochuanensis, though it does seem less likely. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked with the M. youngi osteology and I can confirm it is not that species. I've seen this exact skull before I just can't find where, so I'll check with the papers now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I suspected, this is not a Mamenchisaurus. It is Omeisaurus junghsiensis: [2] The fossils look identical but the bit at the front has been prepped off in this photo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Paleofile it may actually be Omeisaurus maoianus: [3] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

From the O. maoianus paper, it is the left side of the holotype skull. The right side is still complete the left always lacked the anterior region. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the mandible of O. maoianus in the paper could be identical to the one in the O. junghsiensis photo, it's quite elongated in both. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, so I already uploaded a photo of it before without remembering? I guess we go with O. maoianus then? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess so, judging by the elongated mandible in both the paper and photo, we can probably say it's the same. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/40262934711/in/album-72157714091543872/Troodont skeleton?

I reverse-searched the image and identified it as Sinornithoides: [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice, but what does reverse-search mean? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

At least on the Chrome browser, you can right click on an image and search for similar images on Google. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, cool, easier than drag dropping as I used to... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/26390380648/in/album-72157714091543872/ Tyrannosaur vertebrae with... Something?

Another photo shows that these are vertebrae from Wyrex with preserved skin impressions; the background is a foot of Wyrex: [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/26390910498/in/album-72157714091543872/ Fossils of... Something?

Judging by the looks of the fossils further back, they kinda looks like incomplete neck verterbrae of some kind of sauropod, though I'm not so sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The "fossils of something" seem have an ornithopod-like pointy sigmoidal ilium. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely an iguanodont ilium, presumably the same taxon for the sacrum above and caudals and chevrons behind. The "femur" looks too big to be the same taxon but the rest of the material doesn't. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The bone labelled "中足骨" is a metatarsal. Wondering if this combines material from individuals of multiple ages... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a sign reflected in the top right corner. I don't know if it's relevant, but I flipped it and deciphered the text. The Japanese name reads ...rinto..., the source country is Thailand, and it's the "most complete" something from Southeast Asia. If the sign matches, since it's probably an iguanodont then the only reasonable option is Sirindhorna. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sirindhorna is cranial remains only. Back to square one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The only other described taxa it could be if it originates from Thailand are Siamodon and Ratchasimasaurus. Siamodon can be excluded due to the same reasons as Sirindhorna. I can't find a lot of info on Ratchasimasaurus, but it seems like it's also known exclusively from cranial elements? This may be undescribed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's only a dentary. Definitely not it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk, that website you dug up is really useful... apparently it really is Sirindhorna??? [6] Are there undescribed fossils we don't know about? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see there was another page! So that means there's a lot of undescribed material of Sirindhorna lying around. It's probably fine to upload it and show it in the article, since it was publicly displayed and identified as such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a sign that seems to show those elements on a Sirindhorna skeletal:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/40218938392/in/album-72157714091543872/ Same as above.

This may be a Japanese taxon, since the surrounding taxa are also Japanese (Fukuiraptor at left and Fukuisaurus at right). The bones are a radius, femur, and humerus. Sauropod? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To nobody's surprise, this might be Fukuititan. The breakage on the femur looks exactly the same: [8] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in this ID. Here's a different mount of the femur, the striations look the same: [9] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iguanodontian_from_Laos.jpg Iguanodont from Laos, has it been named in the meantime?

I don't think so. Buffetaut appears to have first identified the fossils as iguanodontian in 1991, but the paper is in a Schweizerbart journal and I cannot access it: [10]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/38452709660/in/album-72157714091543872/ Mounted small theropod with pronated hands.

The theropod in the photo looks an early type, similar to Coelophysis? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears as part of an exhibit on herbivorous theropods, so that may not be it: [11] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The other photos of the exhibition vary between many sauropods and ornithopods, and also many theropods varying between ornithomimosaurs and even an Avimimus: [12], but if you check the previous photos at the left, it seems like there are many carnivores as well [13][14], so I think it's not only a herbivorous theropod exhibit. The dinosaur in the photo is probably some kind of small carnivore. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

By "exhibit" I mean the area that is shown in that particular photo, I know the rest of the venue is not focused on this theme. I conclude that this exhibit focuses on herbivorous theropods based on this photo: [15] The sign "肉食から植物食..." means "carnivore to herbivore..." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So it's some kind of herbivorous theropod then? It has to be one that's swift judging by those hindlimbs, the tail seems to be very long as well, so better note that too if we were to find out more about this animal. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My intuition was that it's a noasaurid. The skull doesn't really work, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also too long fingers, no? I have the feeling I've seen the mount before... And cool you read Japanese, didn't know! I found the archived website of that expo, not sure if it has any useful info: https://web.archive.org/web/20170910085331/http://giga2017.com/highlight.html FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese is close enough to Chinese that it's not too much of a stretch... Not much pertaining to this specimen on that page, but the exhibition seems to have had Beibeilong and Fukuivenator fossils. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I also thought it was a strange looking noasaurid at first, but since you stated the "herbivorous theropod exhibit", I then got a bit confused. Though we can probably say it's a carnivorous or omnivorous theropod by looking at the teeth, right? Same as with FunkMonk, I think I've also seen this mount before in a random picture in the web. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that the skull looked like Shuvuuia and because of that my reaction was that Haplocheirus because of the hands and pelvis, the latter of which I feel is the most distinct part of the body. But this is just my impression. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought of alvarezsaurs too, the skull is just very different from Haplocheirus:[16] Could be something undescribed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like our ideas are very similar, at first glance, we stated that it could either be noasaurids or alvarezsaurs (both small carnivorous dinos) 'cause of the appearance of its front and mid-sections, but what I've really wondered was its tail, which is oddly long. The skull could be from an undescribed genus as you said, but I'll investigate more on the topic. I would also suggest the first option is taking a look at the noasaurid and alvarezsaur genera, since those are the most similar to it. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I found these papers of undescribed noasaurids found in this year [17][18], no, I'm not talking about Huinculsaurus, these ones were discovered in Australia, they may not be related to the Japanese museum fossils, but they could still be useful as references, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Took me a long time, but I managed to find another photo[19] of the mount with a caption that Google translates as just "A type of Compsognathus, late Jurassic". Whether this means it is some kind of unnamed compsognathid or supposed to be Compsognathus itself, I don't know... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In the exhibition "の一種" usually refers to e.g. Compsognathus sp. A bit surprising, honestly, I think the skull threw me off... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly doens't look like other Compsognathus reconstructions, maybe it's an attempt at C. corallestris? On the other hand, they also seem to have had "Gallimimus" mongoliensis[20] at the exhibit, so there were at least a few unnamed taxa... FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's the same sculpt at this[21], so maybe it's just an alternate Compsognathus longipes reconstruction by this company? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The tail does look similar to Compsognathus, but I'm not quite sure about the skull of the animal, it looks a bit to elongated? But if we really were to go with Compsognathus, then I'd note it as a bit inaccurate. And if it's suppose to be another kind of compsognathid, I think I'd go with Huaxiagnathus (the longer skull), but then again the tail isn't nearly as long... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cool, guys, that was fast! I'll upload and strike out the identified ones soon. Perhaps also take a second round with other unidentified dinosaurs on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's also this "Oviraptor sp."[22] with a really ugly reconstructed skull I've seen on Commons before[23] too, but it seems some of the postcranium may be real? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Greg Funston would probably know. Just don't know if there's a good way to get in touch with him... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually sent him an email once to confirm the id of this skeleton[24] as Nemegtomaia, as I had seen part of it on his website, and he concurred, so that could be a possibility. Though it's probably best if such ids have been published somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on Funston's diagnoses, if I had to make a guess I would say that it is Rinchenia mongoliensis based on the ventral "hook" of the ilial preacetabular process. I really can't be sure though, this skeleton is very wonky. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To my surprise... Greg Funston does in fact have a Twitter account! [25] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nodosaurid subfamilies

I was reading up on the various proposed subfamilies of Nodosauridae, and I noticed that none of them have seen particularly widespread use in modern times. This includes Struthiosaurinae, which was proposed but has since seen little use and been doubted on multiple occasions, and Nodosaurinae which pops up once in a blue moon but again has mostly fallen out of use. At the very least the lists of taxa present on these two articles do not at all reflect natural groups according to modern nodosaur phylogenetic sensibilities. I propose that the articles for both Nodosaurinae and Struthiosaurinae be retired and all genera be put into the Nodosauridae taxobox without any subheaders therein. Asking first since Struthiosaurinae is a GA (albeit one based almost exclusively on one source). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with merging Nodosaurinae, less sure about Struthiosaurinae. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a bit premature? I'd assume some of these names would be kept but with a different configuration once there is better resolution? FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Struthiosaurinae was erected based on pure anatomy without any phylogenetic analysis to support it. Since then one study pointed out the claimed synapomorphies were basically all baseless, and the Borelopelta paper found the supposed group non-monophyletic and commented as such (and this wasn't the first time it's been non-monophyletic). While a group approximating Struthiosaurinae has been recovered a couple times in phylogenetic analyses since it was coined, none of these used or even mentioned the name. Additionally, these found the group to contain some additional, North American taxa, like Pawpawsaurus and Stegopelta. Which creates an issue, since to list the original contents here on Wikipedia is to use a grouping that has never been found together in a phylogenetic analysis, but to include the other taxa would be to apply the name Struthiosaurinae to a group which it has never been used for, i.e. original research. Is it possible it will receive more widespread use in the future? Possibly, but as is now it does seem at all to me that it is currently used in any capacity in nodosaur phylogenetics. Its only scant uses since its erection are off-mentions in papers not on the subject of phylogeny. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point, and considering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we would prefer a more accurate statement, even if it means surrendering a GA, like what happened to Othnielosaurus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I must also point out it probably doesn't deserve its GA status: it is overwhelmingly based on a single paper, the 2013 Europelta description, other than the four paragraph section based on a single 2000 paper. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I have no opposition to Struthiosaurinae being redirected, I think it was a quickpass for GA and probably doesn't deserve its status. But some other supfamilies like Panoplosaurinae or Edmontoniinae etc probably deserve discussion as well whether in their own article format or within Nodosauridae. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No other subfamilies see any sort of modern use at all. A section in the Nodosaurinae article could be used to discuss the history of nodosaurid subfamilies. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

So a merge would be in order then? Seeing the Struthiosaurinae article now, all genera but Struthiosaurus is accompanied by an interrogation mark, even Europelta, which contradicts the definition of the subfamily: "the most inclusive clade containing Europelta". This, along with the single-based paper would most likely just sink it to Nodosauridae, so I support the merge of both subfamilies. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Avimimus sp. from Alberta?

According to the Paleobiology Database (and Fossilworks), Avimimus sp. fossils have been found in Dinosaur Park Formation. How relevant is this information? HFoxii (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In the article Dinosaur Park Formation said that in formation was discovered possible indeterminate avimimid remains. I think we need a source to confirm that is not Avimimus sp. HFoxii (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no difference. Avimimidae is monotypic (at the genus level). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, in modern research avimimids are not considered a valid taxon, since they include only Avimimus. Anyway, if Avimimus fossils were actually found in the Dinosaur Park Formation, we should mention it in the article about this dinosaur. HFoxii (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Neither of these group names is used frequently by paleontologists as they include only a single species". This is an odd statement, that was first introduced to the article by Dinoguy2 in August 2006 but has never been cited. I think clarification of that statement needs to be made, given the cladogram later in the article contradicts the Elmisaurinae placement.--Kevmin § 21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sauropod Encyclopedia

I've seen Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Sauropods and Other Sauropodomorphs cited in many different articles by many different users, but according to the publisher's website, it won't come out until halfway through September! How exactly are these citations possible? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the authors of the book is yewtharaptor, though you'd have to check the diffs to see if it is actually him who is adding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not author, collaborator (With the Rubén Molina Branch, sizes and Footprints)...and i only add 1 cite to the book, on Ohmdenosaurus. Also, if you look on Google Books, you can see there is a retail version where you can read some of the pages (That change every weekend). Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, is the book already out in some territories? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already seen pages of it, I believe preview pages are out that cover some of the more significant taxa (Maraapuni for example). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked and Paleo17 usually adds them. Browsing through his contributions, I also noticed he's added an awful lot of size estimates from the Theropods book as well. I think he has some deep connections with the series, but I can't be too certain. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who adds size estimations from the Theropod book, and i don't know why is that a problem since most Dino pages are full of estimations from Paul's book. As for the sauropods book i just saw some pages from the preview on the internet and i thought i could add them, that's all. I'm soory if i caused any problems. Paleo17 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. We're just concerned because, as stated above, the book isn't out yet, and Wikipedia doesn't really like getting information from unpublished sources. But yeah, maybe citing popular books a lot may not exactly be the best idea (see below). Atlantis536 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a consensus on how we treat popular paleo books as sources in general.

• see also the older discussion on the same topic.
• In principle, such sources, including the "Facts and Figures" series mentioned above, can be regarded a reliable source.
• However, this does not mean we can use them without restriction. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Accordingly, we can (or even have to) decide when to use such popular books as sources, and when not. Especially, original interpretations/speculation proposed in such sources are dangerous, and I will point out why.
• Popular books are aimed at the general public, especially children. Novel speculation, whether plausible or implausible, is often presented to meet the expectations of this readership, who is especially interested in who was the largest, tallest, fastest, most dangerous. An example from one of the facts books mentioned in the older thread linked above: "Speed estimates have suggested 28 km per hour, making this [Silesaurus] the fastest dinosauriform known from the fossil record". Any scientific foundation is lacking here. I argue that such statements are objectively unreliable and do not meet the requirements of WP:RS by any means.
• Popular books, including those of well-known authorities, tend to lack scientific rigour (compared to papers), and tend to propose speculation that never would have made it through a peer-review.
• Even worse, we present such original research of popular books together with serious claims made in the scientific literature, and the reader barely notices the difference. We just cannot mix information from children's books with that from peer-reviewed papers.
• Furthermore, popular books like the "Facts" series are unlikely to be cited in scientific literature, they are simply irrelevant (though there are popular books that are cited, such as The Dinosaur Heresies). Which means that those novel claims will never be commented on, supported, or disproved, in contrast to claims published in the scientific literature, which cannot be ignored. For this reason alone we cannot include them in my opinion.
• If those claims made in popular books are irrelevant for the scientific community, they are significantly less relevant for us. They are not relevant because they do not contribute to science.

I therefore propose the following:

• Uncontroversial information (e.g., on the history of discovery of a taxon) provided by a popular source is acceptable.
• Any novel interpretation/speculation of a popular book is only relevant for inclusion if the book has been cited, and at least some of its novel claims discussed, in the scientific literature (i.e., we only include what is considered relevant by the scientific community). Not sure if we can make an exception with size estimates; if at all, I think we should only do this exceptionally when recent estimates published in the scientific literature do not exist.
• Whenever original research from a popular book is presented, including size estimates, we need to make that very clear directly in the text (e.g., "In 2020, paleontologist X stated in a popular book that"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jens here, and this is maybe worth linking to the reliable sources noticeboard. Paul's books are taken as an authority here yet they were not subject to the rigours of peer review. While I respect Paul's work during the dinosaur renaissance, the fact that he didn't actually examine the specimens of Iguanodon that he was describing as new species and genera (per David Norman), which turned out to be junior synonyms makes me question how reliable those estimates are actually going to be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul's popular books are cited in the scientific literature though, and the rough size estimates he has published therein have been recognised, and are sometimes even used for research. This is why I think we cannot exclude the size estimates from those particular books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they are widely used and therefore shouldn't be discounted entirely. However they should always be directly attributed to Paul, which I don't think is necessary for estimates published in papers examining the material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, as I have proposed above, we should always declare that they are from a popular book, and not simply put them in a list together with estimates from peer-reviewed literature. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• In my experience, there're 3 kinds of books: the ones that are basically a long series of journal articles (like [26] or [27]), the ones that are encyclopedia-style quick summaries of academic thought (like [28]), and the ones that are 25% encyclopedia and 75% biography. Encyclopedia style generally does no original work and will cite someone else. For the Sauropod Encyclopedia, I would assume it's an encyclopedia and any height estimate will come from some pre-existing journal articles (the danger being the author reported the highest estimate they could find regardless of how well accepted it is), so I'd also recommend trying to find the original source if we're questioning its validity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The first type you mention is called an edited volume; those are generally peer-reviewed and there is no difference to a journal article. I agree with review-style summaries of published research, if these are written by an authority; in these cases popular books are certainly reliable sources (this kind of source is rare in dinosaur research though). Above I was referring to original research made in popular books, i.e. claims/interpretation/speculation that have not been published anywhere else, and here I see the big problem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a blog with extra steps and probably shouldn't be included here (despite coming from "the experts") if better material exists elsewhere. That'd be like putting "Paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant postulated in The New York Times that the sickle-shaped claw of Velociraptor was potentially non-functional and used for display" or "Dr. Alan Grant speculated that the famous sickle-shaped claw of Velociraptor was actually just a normal-shaped claw warped by fossilization.<ref>https://alangrant.com/velociraptors-arent-real</ref>" If we reported the speculation of popular books, then we'd have to add All Yesterdays interpretation of Brachiosaurus having an inflatable throat sack or Protoceratops climbing trees   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, this generated quite an interesting discussion! One issue I have about an estimate in particular is that of Asiatosaurus. Is producing a 31-meter sauropod really a good idea? Tooth scaling's already pretty contentious in theropods, and considering how smaller (proportionately) sauropod teeth are, would that not make such problems even worse? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this one up. It is, of course, not possible to do a size estimate for a sauropod based on a tooth. This is close to inventing size estimates out of nothing, entirely unreliable, and including these "facts" in our articles won't help anybody. Seems we need to ban these "facts" books as sources for size estimates entirely, or to be clear: we need to ban them in order to comply with WP:RS in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversial cladogram?

The cladogram in Dinosauriformes and Dracohors contradicts the ones (or examples like cladograms) in other articles here, such as Dinosaur, Evolution of dinosaurs, Dinosaur classification and Theropoda. I'm in no way knowledgeable to change it, but does it need to be mentioned the cladogram given is controversial and/or not agreed by all palaeontologists, and the debate is ongoing? 194.28.127.52 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The one in Dinosauriformes is problematic because it seems to be WP:original synthesis of two different sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 26 June 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: [29][30]. 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:[31] 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)

• Oppose it would be inconsistent with the ranks given to most dinosaur taxa, and the avoidance of formal ranks in dinosaur phylogeny is clear in the literature. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not Linnaean anymore, let's not make it Linnaean. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 09:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)