Talk:Styxosaurus

A fact from Styxosaurus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,025 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first Styxosaurus fossil to be discovered had about 250 stones in its stomach that it probably swallowed for ballast?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Styxosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations

The citations to websites should really be converted using the {{cite web}} tempate, so that there can be an accessdate in case the website gets taken down. As well, the last paragraph describing the species has some awkward sentences. Murderbike (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've fixed the citations, but i may noy get around to looking at the last paragraph until later today.Ryan shell (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this. Good, valid reference material should be independent of a particular website and found by direct query. Access date strikes me as no more relevant than the day a book is checked out of the local library. The date of the material of course is. Keep things simple. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what you men by "independent of a particular website". The need for access date is due to the propensity for websites to change and update information on pages, a problem that is not found in print resources as they will have a different ISBN for each printing. Thus it is very important to have the access date so the correct version of the page can be located if the site changes or goes down. --Kev min § 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Taxoboxes

Do automatic taxoboxes add anything of substance, other than an extra, and superfluous layer of information that's an extra step to modify, should that be necessary. Simple and direct seem usually better. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the automatic taxoboxes do add information. For a full discussion see the automatic taxobox talk page Template talk:Automatic taxobox. --Kev min § 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]