Talk:Protoceratops

message: I have a personal record of other species, P. gigas. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More species? 

message: The article cites a book to give protoceratops a mass of 180kg (~400 pounds), but this value seems too large based on the appearance of the reconstructions pictured in the article. In particular, the famous "died in combat" fossil shows a protoceratops approximately the same size as a tiny velociraptor. I understand that these could be juvenile specimens, but if someone has access to the cited book, it's probably worth a double-check. --129.81.195.197 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick scan of Google scholar for published papers, and a weight of around 180kg looks to be correct. 
one thing to note is that Velociraptor was overall smaller in dimensions, and much much smaller in mass than adult Protoceratops, due to its much lighter, bird-like body construction including hollow bones which ceratopsians lacked. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass/Weight

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Protoceratops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060219082923/http://www.dallasdino.org:80/exhibits/dinoworld/Protoceratops.asp to http://dallasdino.org/exhibits/dinoworld/Protoceratops.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Earlier I changed the godawful 400 pound (180 kg) estimate (which AFAIK comes from 1962) to a much more recent (2014) weight estimate (can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protoceratops&type=revision&diff=798702053&oldid=795471615), which got reverted just because I made some mistakes earlier and because I was a sock puppet. First, I have read that we can have a sockpuppet if we have if we have it with good intention, second, we are not allowed to make mistakes? All of the edits I've made were made to improve the articles, and maybe I made mistakes at times, but that means others should revert even useful edits like changing a 55 year-old estimate to a 3 yer-old one just because I made some mistakes earlier? Gigafan0731 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit, so that's all there is to it. You may be allowed to edit if you behave, but you are unwilling to cooperate, so you will get little sympathy. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Calling people delusional does you no favours. Your edit-warring and refusal to communicate on the dromaeosaur pages strongly suggests that you are not here to be constructive. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Behave first, then people may listen to you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: That's not what behaving looks like. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Holtz 2008 is a terrible reference to use when there are others. Tom literally gives enormous ranges because he just estimates masses quickly. Otherwise he'd be swamped getting all thousands of taxa with sizes. IJReid  22:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the statistic concerned here is about time, not size, but I think the same applies. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New weight estimate for Protoceratops + delusional people 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Protoceratops. 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/20071117132451/http://vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/15-576-591.cfm to http://vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/15-576-591.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621140840/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fightingdinos/videos.html to http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fightingdinos/videos.html
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) 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a controversy about the origin of the Griffin Myth among academics in the field, or is it just one guy making a blog post claiming to debunk the established orthodoxy?  I glanced at the blog post, but as I am neither a paleontologist nor a mythographer, I can't really comment on it.  I think leaving the current bit in might be lending undue weight to the counter theory. Rockphed (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one guy, but calling the existing theory "established orthodoxy" is giving it undue weight. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Griffin Myth Origin Controversy? 

message: Recently noticed the overlooked taxon Bainoceratops while perusing the literature on protoceratopsids. It was named by Alifanov (known for naming three Bagaceratops synonyms) and Tereschenko, who have continued to use the name as valid through to the modern day (most recently in 2018). The only mention it seems to have gotten from any other published work is expressions of skepticism as to its validity relative to Protoceratops. Despite this, no explicit study has evaluated it in detail as happened with the synonyms of Bagaceratops. There is a whole paragraph in the Yamaceratops description paper which talks about all its claimed diagnostic traits falling within Protoceratops variation, citing personal communication of one of the authors, implying some degree of genuine comparison was undertaken. The Cerasinops description paper cites this study in saying unambiguously that Bainoceratops has been shown to be individual variation of another taxon. So this leaves it in a bit of awkward position. The authors naming it continue its use, but no other study has ever accepted it as likely to be a valid taxon (listing it as problematic but that evaluation is beyond the scope of the given study), and two studies have explicitly denounced it as a Protoceratops synonym. The general opinion here seems pretty clear, but we lack of a smoking gun study like with Alifanov's other protoceratopsids and the original authors continue to use the name. I'm not personally sure whether it's better to merge it or leave it as a distinct article discussing the debated validity, and so I am opening this discussion not explicitly to push for a merge but to seek other opinions on the two options (merge or not). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems like it’s a little too soon to merge, from all the research you have done.  Clearly the debate you outline should be in at least the Bainoceratops article.  --awkwafaba (📥) 13:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. Bainoceratops at this point is not a synonym of Protoceratops, its an indeterminate taxon that isnt diagnostic. I would oppose a merge, for now. I should add that Tereshenkov 2018 (On Polymorphism of Protoceratops andrewsi Granger et Gregory, 1923 (Protoceratopidae, Neoceratopsia) actually has Bainoceratops as a distinct taxon, in Leptoceratopsidae. IJReid  00:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everybody that it is too early for a merge, but I think that these studies should be addressed on the Bainoceratops article for the time being. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given that the consensus that this is too soon. Klbrain (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Bainoceratops?