Talk:Mosasaur

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Mosasaur →  – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: pinging pre-request commenters  Macrophyseter | talk 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Well, first off, not every clade needs an article. I can see the case for seperate Mosasauria and and Mosasauridae, but I'd prefer that Mosasauroidea be redirected to Mosasauria, and no independent "Mosasaur" (either redirect or disambiguate). Merging Pythonomorpha into Mosasauria is also a good idea. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input! I'm curious about what problems you envision for an independent Mosasauroidea article that steers towards a preference for redirecting to Mosasauria. I agree that not every clade needs an article, but there comes a point when groups are different enough to warrant it, unless that's not the case for the situation for aigialosaurs? Macrophyseter | talk 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's been any updates since Madzia and Cau (2017) formally defined where the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split should be (everything more related to A. dalmaticus than dolichosaurs or mosasaurs), but whenever upheld as valid in phylogenetic analyses, that definition only includes Aigialosaurus and Opetiosaurus to the exclusion of every other aigialosaur taxa. Besides Komensaurus, the rest aren't tested in recent literature anymore because of a lack of reliable skull material, but both past studies and Mekarski (2017)'s PhD thesis got them nestled within the Mosasauridae so it's kind of a maybe? So the question for replacing "Mosasaur" with Mosasauridae would be how mosasaurid aigialosaurs should be represented when those aigialosaurs are morphologically/ecologically more similar to aigialosaurids than mosasaurs (In other words, whether a GA/FA version of Mosasauridae and Mosasauroidea would have to rigorously describe aigialosaurs twice). Perhaps we could make aigialosaur information in Mosasauridae skim in practice and redirect most descriptions to Mosasauroidea. Thoughts? Macrophyseter | talk 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Marine life has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 February 2024 

message: Right now the mosasaur article conflates several higher taxa, which may not be necessarily reflective of how "mosasaur" is used in academia. Unfortunately, there isn't really a consensus on what the word should mean exactly. There's even arguments (i.e. Caldwell (2012)) that "mosasaur" might as well be an informal term. From I understand of the taxonomic situation, the three main Mosasauridae subgroups (Mosasaurinae, Halisaurinae, and Russellosaurina) either have or are implied to have at their phylogenetic bases terrestrial-limbed taxa we would normally call aigialosaurs. "Aigialosaur" itself seems to either be used as an evolutionary grade (i.e. Makadi et al. 2012  Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons License.) or avoided altogether in favor of terms like "basal mosasauroid." So if we were to make "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauridae, there would be the awkward situation of aigialosaurs that aren't that different from each other being split between Aigialosauridae, Mosasauridae, or neither. I don't think congruency with Mosasauroidea would make much sense either, since scientists almost never use "mosasaur" that way (and only informally when so) and instead just use "aigialosaur" or "basal mosasauroid." Making "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauria would also be problematic for similar reasons (plus the ophidiomorph hypothesis would make snakes = mosasaurs).
A possible way to stabilize the Mosasaur article would be to split it up into the following:
* Mosasauria: Contains Dolichosauridae and Mosasauroidea. Maybe also merge Pythonomorpha into this as a more neutral article name, given that the former clade neither conflicts with the latter nor the snake terrestrial-origin hypothesis.
* Mosasauroidea: Would be a "super article" that covers both aigialosaurs, Aigialosauridae, and Mosasauridae with the latter two not having independent articles (similar to Physeteridae with Physeteroidea). This allows a neutral space for conflicting viewpoints and definitions to coexist.
* Mosasaur: Independent article in a similar format as River dolphin that strictly includes only taxa fitting the "traditional" definition of paddle-bearing mosasauroids (i.e. Caldwell (2012)). From a descriptive standpoint this also makes sense as the biologys of derived mosasaurs are similar to each other but different from aigialosaurs.
Or we can do away with "mosasaur" entirely, like we did with Ichthyosaur.
Opinions? Macrophyseter | talk 23:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first off, not every clade needs an article. I can see the case for seperate Mosasauria and and Mosasauridae, but I'd prefer that Mosasauroidea be redirected to Mosasauria, and no independent "Mosasaur" (either redirect or disambiguate). Merging Pythonomorpha into Mosasauria is also a good idea. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input! I'm curious about what problems you envision for an independent Mosasauroidea article that steers towards a preference for redirecting to Mosasauria. I agree that not every clade needs an article, but there comes a point when groups are different enough to warrant it, unless that's not the case for the situation for aigialosaurs? Macrophyseter | talk 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's been any updates since Madzia and Cau (2017) formally defined where the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split should be (everything more related to A. dalmaticus than dolichosaurs or mosasaurs), but whenever upheld as valid in phylogenetic analyses, that definition only includes Aigialosaurus and Opetiosaurus to the exclusion of every other aigialosaur taxa. Besides Komensaurus, the rest aren't tested in recent literature anymore because of a lack of reliable skull material, but both past studies and Mekarski (2017)'s PhD thesis got them nestled within the Mosasauridae so it's kind of a maybe? So the question for replacing "Mosasaur" with Mosasauridae would be how mosasaurid aigialosaurs should be represented when those aigialosaurs are morphologically/ecologically more similar to aigialosaurids than mosasaurs (In other words, whether a GA/FA version of Mosasauridae and Mosasauroidea would have to rigorously describe aigialosaurs twice). Perhaps we could make aigialosaur information in Mosasauridae skim in practice and redirect most descriptions to Mosasauroidea. Thoughts? Macrophyseter | talk 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Marine life has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing discussion: Mosasaur vs. Mosasauridae vs. Mosasauroidea vs. Mosasauria: proposed article splits