Talk:Camarasaurus lewisi

message: As far as I am aware, more or less all published literature on C. lewisi in recent years has regarded it as a species of Camarasaurus. The one claim to the contrary is an unpublished study from the 2013 SVP meeting, the abstract of which is the basis provided in the article for treating the genus as valid. However, one of the authors of the abstract has apparently abandoned the idea, as reflected in some of the citations I recently added to the article. Furthermore, what appears to be a poster on the research by the authors of that abstract concludes that Cathetosaurus is synonymous with Camarasaurus: . Frustratingly, there's a lack of recent published research to explicitly weigh in on the debate, despite the clear lack of support for the idea of Cathetosaurus as a valid taxon. I think this page should probably be merged with Camarasaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't there some indication that even more species will be split off from Camarasaurus at some point? I think I've read such a sentiment being expressed informally. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of sentiments have been expressed informally. Doesn't mean we have to cover them yet. As is, the latest word on Tschopp's specimen-level Camarasaurus phylogeny (the poster from SVP 2014) is that C. lewisi belongs to Camarasaurus, and pretty much all published papers in the last couple of decades treat it as a species of Camarasaurus. Now, personally, I'm an inclusionist, so I see nothing wrong with having a separate page for Camarasaurus lewisi, but at the very least our coverage should treat it as a species of Camarasaurus, as seems to be the clear scientific consensus at the moment. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymy with ''Camarasaurus'' 

message: , in your most recent article you've decided to start the article with the name Camarasaurus lewisi. However, as the article's name is still Cathetosaurus, would it not make more sense to keep Cathetosaurus as the first mentioned name? (I made this post instead of simply reverting your edit, no reason we can't discuss it right?) --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained in my edit summary, and justified in detail above, it is giving undue weight to a single non-peer-reviewed study (that's been presented twice) to present Cathetosaurus lewisi as a preferable name to Camarasaurus lewisi in the body of the text. Some of the arguments for keeping the title Cathetosaurus made above were about which name was more practical as the title per se, regardless of which name was deemed scientifically valid, particularly the arguments made by MWAK. Those particular arguments, though perhaps pertinent to what the title should be, have little bearing on how to phrase the text. The first name highlighted in the lede does not necessarily need to be the title of the article proper: see 50 Cent or Jay-Z, for instance. As long as the article title shows up reasonably early, it doesn't strictly need to be the beginning of the first sentence. While I ultimately maintain that the article title should also be changed to reflect the scientific consensus, I acknowledge that concerns over which title is more practical and recognizable have merit when it comes to the title itself. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Lead states: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. The syntactical subject, that is.--MWAK (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that a first sentence that violates due weight is not encompassed within what is meant by "if possible". Ornithopsis (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of a moot point now the article has been moved. But ideally, those changes shouldn't have been done while the discussion was in progress. Vpab15 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my reasoning for why I felt the lead sentence was appropriate regardless of what was chosen as the title, but as you said, it's a moot point now. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mentioned name