# Talk:Abelisauridae

Any particular reason that this article is getting loads of edits at the moment? It's great, of course, but just wondering if I'd missed some big collaboration drive or something. Or maybe it's just my imagination. Soo 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I updated Abelisaurus and then decided to update Abelisauridae too. Since then people have been copyediting it... no organized thing or anything though. Any suggestions? Sheep81 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, someone could make this a GA if they wanted to, without too much difficulty. J. Spencer 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just nominated it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has passed Sections 3), 4), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on Sections 1) and 2).
Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.
1) Style
Anatomy section

When a word has been wiki-linked, like, synapomorphies, there is no need to provide a "translation" by putting alternate words in brackets. Remove (defining features).
Remove (eye socket)
Remove (hand)
Remove (wrist)
Remove (upper ankle bones)
Taxonomy and systematics

Wiki-link "taxon"
2) Accuracy
Classification sub-section

Provide a reference for the claim "some scientists,,,,,"
Jorge Calvo is a non-existent link
References

All books, quoted as references, must have ISBN numbers.
3) Coverage - Article is broad in coverage and remains focused on the topic.
4) Neutrality - Article is writtem without bias.
5) Stability - Article is stable, without major edit wars.
6) Images - Two free, public domain images, and one copyright image, are used. No Fair Use images. Good use of images.
Corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.
Tovojolo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Tovojolo. I really appreciate your comments and suggestions. I made several changes to the article. I hope they are what you were looking for.
I provided ISBNs for both of the books, and added two references for the Xenotarsosaurus claim. I removed the bit about Compsosuchus, as I couldn't find a good peer-reviewed source for it.
I didn't want to remove the explanatory terms for things like synapomorphies: if the document is printed, the reader will be completely unable to tell what the term means. Similarly, dinosaur articles often appear on the Wikipedia CDs, which contain only a limited number of articles, and are unlikely to ever contain an article on synapomorphies (the CD editors just remove the wikilinks which will be red on the CD, meaning the person using the CD won't have a satisfactory explanation for any of the technical terms used in the article). What I ended up doing is using the explanatory term, wikilinking to the technical term. Does this seem reasonable? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Novas 2004, already cited in the article, would be your source for Compsosuchus. I can send you the PDF if you want. Sheep81 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, your strategy on the wikilinks works on most except "astragalus and calcaneum (upper ankle bones)", because both of those are upper ankle bones, not just calcaneum like it says right now. Sheep81 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that the the corrections that were required, have been carried, and I note too, the reasons for not carrying out some of the corrections. I do not regard those required corrections as being material. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.
Congratulations,
Tovojolo (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the timeline at the end of the article supposed to be like the one on the Tyrannosauridae page, where it displays the time period in which each fossil genus existed, or is it supposed to be a timeline of when each fossil genus was first discovered/named? The former seems to me more useful, and would follow the precedent set in Tyrannosauridae. Perhaps someone with some more familiarity with the material can add a sentence or two of introduction to the timeline to clear this up. Reade (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

...the Greek suffix -ιδαι/-idai, which indicates a plural noun.
Yeah, like the word horsemen indicates a plural noun.  The ai is a nominative plural ending, but the id has a meaning independent of number, probably ‘descendant’. —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

. . .  comes from The Winter (Neuquen, Argentina) rocks of Bajo de la Carpa Formation. The excellent preservation and meaningful information were provided ... to advance knowledge of this group of theropods, the abelisaurs. Viavenator ( "hunter's way") exxoni.  Looks like a little over 4 meters. Unfortunately, the skull was not preserved.68.19.8.105 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Ceratosauridae as a possible subtaxon within Abelisauridae, but have reverted that change as premature as I see that there is a reference to go with it. The fellow who added that information listed a reference for [1] in the edit comment. I wasn't able to add this reference to the page where it belongs, but hope that someone else can. 209.136.39.130 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Was this (large) species from N. Africa ever formally described and named?  It would be a good addition for the article if there are sources. 50.111.57.100 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

see -->  https://scitechdaily.com/the-one-who-causes-fear-extremely-powerful-new-meat-eating-predator-discovered/  <-- it should be listed somewhere - also, is there any firm data on its size at this point? 104.169.24.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's already listed at Furileusauria, a subgroup within the Carnotaurinae. As for size, I'm not really very aware of the genus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)