Talk:Tylosaurus

message: The article contains the following quote: "Marsh named a more complete specimen as a new genus, Rhinosaurus ("nose lizard"), but this name soon proved to be preoccupied."  What does that even mean?  Does the author wish to indicate that the name was already in use for another species?  If so, what species, and why does the redirect for Rhinosaurus come here?  We could definitely use some rephrasing here to use something more appropriate than "preoccupied." Carychan (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, preoccupied means the name had already been used for something else. I'll clarify and try to find out what actually holds that name. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preoccupied? 

message: Saltwater or freshwater? It doesn't say. 91.186.72.51 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first paragraph the article says "was a mosasaur, a large, predatory marine lizard closely related to modern monitor lizards and to snakes." Also mention that it lived in the Western Interior Seaway. By the way, the only confirmated mosasaur from freshwater is Pannoniasaurus.--Rextron (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saltwater or freshwater? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Tylosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "KC11":
From Plioplatecarpinae: 
From Latoplatecarpus: 
From List of mosasaur genera: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Tylosaurus]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tylosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053322/http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings to http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: tylosaurus lived up to 66 or to some countries 65 MYA acording to fossilworks.Here the source
:It's 66 mya: sources that continue to use 65 mya are outdated.  We've told you this before.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Temporal 

message: Since there is a paper dated 2016 that considers Hainosaurus a synonym of Tylosaurus should we merge the Hainosaurus article with this article? -User:1morey June 6, 2020 3:18 AM (EST)
:A quich search on Google Scholar reveals several post-2016 papers that still use Hainosaurus; it shouldn't be merged on the basis of a single paper but we can discuss the prospect of synonymization in both articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hainosaurus 

message: I've proposed a merger for Hainosaurus and Tylosaurus, as it seems that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for that? I don't seem to see that a synonymy has been widely accepted. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the fact that a handful of authors have continued to use the name Hainosaurus in literature published after the lump was proposed in 2015, T. bernardi has been consistently recovered as nesting deep within the genus Tylosaurus in recent mosasaur phylogenies (meaning that not including "Hainosaurus" within Tylosaurus would make the latter genus paraphyletic, the same reason that Wikipedia now recognizes the species formerly referred to Carcharocles as Otodus), such as  Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018, Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell 2019, Madzia and Cau 2017, Otero et al. 2017, Simões et al. 2017, and Strong et al. 2020, and most mosasaur researchers now accept it as a species of Tylosaurus. Accordingly there is ample cause to merge the Hainosaurus article into Tylosaurus. Pryftan213 (User talk:Pryftan213) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. If the taxonomy fits, then I see no problem with a merge. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: A new species Hainosaurus boubker (=Tylosaurus boubker) was described earlier today. The publisher is the predatory journal Scientific Research Publishing, so I caution against using the source out of reliability and ethical concerns unless there's an agreement that an exception is okay here. Macrophyseter | talk 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution with new species 

message: Hi. I'm not sure who user: Hainosaurus_Boubker is, but please don't curse at people.  THRempert (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angry Edits 

message: Hello everyone, I am posting this recommendation because I have a real problem with the introduction of this article. I know, this article isn't featured yet, but to see the introduction of such a well-known prehistoric animal as Tylosaurus reduced to two lines, I find it particularly ridiculous, especially compared to everything the article details. So, while waiting for the finalized version of the article, I hope that someone (notably ) can solve this problem. Without wanting to brag, even I try to expand introductions on articles about lesser known prehistoric animals, such as Nochnitsa, Inostrancevia or Taniwhasaurus. Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's introduction problem