Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anzu wyliei#Requested move 20 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Anzu wyliei#Requested move 20 February 2024]] 

message: Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Cultural depictions of dinosaurs]] 

message: I've added a merge proposal to Talk:Caenagnathoidea to merge it with Oviraptorosauria for the following reasons:
#The vast majority of constituent taxa are shared by both clades.
#The taxa excluded from the smaller clade are ambiguous due to conflicting taxonomies.
#Any new information added to caenagnathoidea would need to also be added to oviraptorosauria for that reason.
#Portions of text from both pages are copy/pasted onto one another.
#Similar merges occurred recently for Tyrannoraptora and Maniraptoromorpha for reasons that apply equally to this merge.
Thank you for your time. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal for [[Caenagnathoidea]] into [[Oviraptorosauria]] 

message: Sauropodomorpha (incl. Bagualosauria, Plateosauria, Massopoda, Anchisauria, Sauropodiformes)
:Thecodontosauridae
:Unaysauridae
:Plateosauridae
:Massospondylidae
:Melanorosauridae
:Sauropoda (incl. Gravisauria, Eusaropoda, Neosauropoda, Vulcanodontidae)
::Lessemsauridae
::Cetiosauridae
::Mamenchisauridae
::Turiasauria
::Diplodocoidea (incl. Flagellicaudata)
:::Rebbachisauridae (incl. Kebbashia)
:::Dicraeosauridae
:::Diplodocidae
::::Diplodocinae
::::Apatosaurinae
::Macronaria (incl. Camarasauridae, Somphospondyli, Laurasiformes)
:::Brachiosauridae
:::Euhelopodidae
:::Titanosauria
::::New article:  Titanosaur classification (to circumvent making articles for all these uncertain clades)
::::Diamantinasauria
::::Colossosauria (incl. Lognkosauria, Rinconsauria)
::::Saltasauroidea (incl. Saltasauridae, Saltasaurinae, Opisthocoelocaudiinae, Saltasaurini)
This one is only very preliminary.  Refining the titanosaur clade structure is a whole mess on its own that I wasn't prepared to fully propose right now. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reflexively ready to reject merging all the way to Neosauropoda, but when I think about it that really is just a node article with some extra bells and whistles. My general understanding of the science behind sauropods doesn't really change anywhere in that entire span. Other than I'm pretty amicable to everything here (good catch on me missing Flagellicaudata), and I'd even go a step further to suggest that Diplodocinae could probably be ditched too, there's not really as much uniting history and biology as there is with apatosaurs. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree on merging Diplodocinae into Diplodocidae. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I made the decision to leave the Diplodocid split the way it is in my proposal because the asymmetry between the length of the articles (Apatosaurinae and Diplodocinae).  If one was the parent taxon of the other, I would suggest a merge, but since they are sister taxa, I think Diplodocinae needs an overhaul before considering a merge. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough I support some separations here that aren't given. Eusauropoda is a great place to divide the "not-quite sauropods" from the true sauropods, since its pivoted on Shunosaurus and it and mamenchisaurs all have good material to draw from. The diplodocid subfamilies are a bit hesitant for me, Apatosaurinae at least is relevant as they were all at one point Apatosaurus, but that could be reason to merge it. Vulcanodontidae can probably go, it hasn't found much support in a while. As far as Macronaria goes, I think I have three things: Brachiosauridae, Euhelopodidae, Titanosauria are all solid enough to include, especially as Euhelopodidae may move into Mamenchisauridae and thats something of relevance. Within Titanosauria I started writing the classification section without much internal clade referencing, I would not really go beyond Colossosauria and Saltasauridae maybe? IJReid  16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that, given the current state of the Diplodocidae article, Diplodocinae would have less priority of updating, which might leave it in a sorry state for quite a while longer. In this case, it would make sense to merge it into Diplodocidae, at least for now. (It's on my list of things to overhaul at some point, but I can't give any promises for reworking any time soon.) The Morrison Man (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Since Mamenchisauridae already has its own article, I don't think there's enough to really justify Eusauropoda or Neosauropoda getting their own articles.  The daughter taxa are few enough that the infobox wouldn't be too long, and the general anatomy is more or less consistent, with the possible exception of the Lessemsaurids (which would have their own article anyways).  As for Vulcanodontidae, I have no strong opinions on the matter, so I'll remove it at your suggestion. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Lithostrotia may not even be a natural clade, its unclear. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: No Melanorosauridae was deliberate.  It's a daughter taxon of Anchisauria, which would be subsumed into Massopoda, so that was delibertae.  But I did accidentally omit Massospondylidae, so I've added it back into the outline. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Subproposal, Sauropodomorph taxonomy

message: I've added this subheader just to keep track of which merge proposals have been formally opened so we can make sure all the supporting/opposing views are being counted.  This subproposal is not for discussion and is purely for archival and organizational purposes.
*Alvarezsauridae into Alvarezsauroidea - discuss here, draft of merged article is here No consensus, merge aborted
*Caenagnathoidea into Oviraptorosauria - discuss here, no draft necessary, one article just has text copy/pasted from the other Done
*Coelophysidae into Coelophysoidea — discuss here, draft of merged article is here Done
*Maniraptoriformes into Coelurosauria - discuss here Done
*Pennaraptora into Maniraptora Done
*Averostra and Neotheropoda into Theropoda - discuss Talk:Theropoda#Merge Proposals for Neotheropoda and Averostra Done
*Avetheropoda and Orionides into Tetanurae - discuss here Done
*Khebbashia and Rebbachisaurinae into Rebbachisauridae - discuss here Done
*Cerapoda into Neornithischia Done
*Flagellicaudata into Diplodocoidea - discuss here Done
*Eutyrannosauria into Tyrannosauroidea - discuss here Done
*Gravisauria into Sauropoda Done
:It is kinda sad for me seeing these clade article go away, such as with the recently deceased Cerapoda. :( Personally, I like the clade articles, even if they tend to be shorter articles, as I enjoy navigating up and down different evolutionary trees, clicking the different wikilinks and seeing where they go. But I guess I am in the minority here. Oh well. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They're generally quite short and most of the ones proposed for merging here have no unique content that wouldn't be covered on the page of the parent clade. Frankly, it makes it easier to expand them without feeling like the added information is redundant. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still do that.  The clades that have been merged still feature in the infoboxes, there will just be fewer of them now.  This is just for consistency, article cleanliness, ease of navigation, and to more easily account for changes in the literature. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just feel that the Cerapoda article was fine, even though it was short. And now it just seems a bit weird and unwieldy having two paragraphs about Cerapoda dumped into the Neornithischia article. Oh well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Cougroyalty (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Subproposal, Merges Ready to Execute

message: Is there any reason to continue to display any of the articles being merged in taxoboxes of subordinate taxa? Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the taxa are still valid, so they should be present.  The consensus was simply that they aren't notable enough on their own to warrant an article.  All of these clades still exist and are acknowledged by the scientific literature, and so a complete treatment of these groups should at least mention them.  Infoboxes are the most convenient place to do this because that infrastructure is already in place for WP:PAL. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxoboxes